prioritizing wetland restoration: a review and application

Prioritizing Wetland Restoration: A

Review and Application to the

Mississippi Coastal Improvements

Program (MsCIP)

Todd BenDor Daniel Widis

Department of City and Regional Planning University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Michael Deegan Institute for Water Resources

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

[ACES 2012 Conference] Contact: [email protected]

Overview

MsCIP Program Overview

Wetland Restoration and Prioritization

GIS techniques and literature

MsCIP Spatial Decision Support System

(SDSS)

Improvements for restoration prioritization

protocols?

2012 ACES Conference - Todd BenDor ([email protected])

Hurricane Katrina and the Mississippi

Coastal Improvements Program (MsCIP)

Coastal ecosystems in Mississippi form vital fish and

wildlife habitats

Hurricane Katrina brought massive destruction to the

region

Destruction and damage of coastal habitats, wetlands,

barrier islands from wind and storm surge


MsCIP as a solution to past and

future damage

Post-Katrina plan to create “a coastal Mississippi that is more resilient and less susceptible to risk from hurricane and storm surge.”

What is resiliency?

“The capacity of a system to undergo disturbance and maintain its existing functions and controls and its capacity to adapt to future change.”

The plan “aims to identify solutions to the hurricane storm damage, saltwater intrusion, fish and wildlife, coastal zone erosion, and other related water resource problems of coastal Mississippi.”


MsCIP Study Area

MsCIP Planning Process

2009 ACSP Conference - Todd BenDor ([email protected])

Deviation from typical Corps planning

process

Planning process congressionally authorized and mandated

“Mandate to assess all aspects of storm related risk reduction measures including storm damage reduction, erosion reduction, ecosystem restoration, and saltwater intrusion in coastal Mississippi.”

Plan “will recommend cost-effective projects….and the report shall not perform an incremental benefit-cost analysis…and shall not make project recommendations based on maximizing net national economic development benefits

Comprehensive plan made up of “pragmatic ecosystem restoration features, programmatic storm damage reduction features, and number of large and small scale recommended plans…”

Watershed approach!

MsCIP Ecosystem Restoration

The Practice of Ecological Restoration

One definition: “Ecological restoration is the process of repairing damage caused by humans to the diversity and dynamics of indigenous ecosystems (Jackson, Lopoukhine, and Hillyard 1995).”

Various other definitions includes naturally occurring ecological dynamics that endanger humans

Poorly functioning ecosystem improved ecosystem

Final product focus is on ecosystem (can include recreational purposes)


2009 ACSP Conference - Todd BenDor ([email protected])

Ecological Restoration Programs

Compensatory Mitigation (Clean Water Act Section

404 + state/local laws)

Large scale government efforts

MsCIP, Everglades

Local + state governments

NGO projects

E.g. TNC, local land conservancies/trusts


How do we select and prioritize

wetland restoration sites?

Site selection determines success

Landscape context and planned events are key to determining restoration success (NRC 2001; BenDor and Doyle 2010)

Local knowledge can falter over large spatial scales

Need to inform process with data infusion (‘watershed approach’)

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) approaches

Site suitability analysis

Spatial decisions support system (SDSS)

Review of Location and Prioritization

Studies

Extended literature on the topic ranging from 1994-2010

Initial work has assessed 14 studies

Do others exist?

What variables are considered?

How are they considered?

How are different factors weighted?

Evaluation of

1. Restoration goals driving prioritization

2. Variables considered (44 found so far)

3. Weighting strategies


Wetland Prioritization Assessments: Study

Goals

Prioritization Study Locating

Wetlands Wildlife Habitat

Water Quality

Water Storage

Provide greatest ecosystem services

Wetland Restorability

Brown & Strayner, 1994 X X X X

Lin & Kleiss, 2007 X X X X

Russell, Hawkins, O'Neill, 1997 X X X

Van Lonkhuyzen, et al., 2004 X

Moreno-Mateos, et al., 2012 X X X

Kramer & Carpenedo, 2009 X X

Strager, et al., 2010 X

Kelly B. Williams, 2002 X

Berman, et al, 2002 X

Cedfeldt, et al., 2000 X X X X

RC Gatti & MS Richardson, 1999 X X

Palmeri & Trepel, 2002 X

White & Fennessy, 2005 X X

McCauley & Jenkins, 2005 X

Study Hydric Soils

Classified Wetland

Wetland Size

(Area)

Core Wildlife Habitat

Proximity to Restoration

Sites Interior Habitat

Part of Contiguous

Enhancement Corrects Habitat Fragmentation

Wetland Order

Hydrologic connectivity

Brown & Strayner, 1994 X X X X X X X X X X

Lin & Kleiss, 2007 X X X Russell, Hawkins, O'Neill, 1997

Van Lonkhuyzen, et al., 2004 X X X

Moreno-Mateos, et al., 2012 X X

Kramer & Carpenedo, 2009 X

Strager, et al., 2010 X X

Kelly B. Williams, 2002 X X

Berman, et al, 2002 X X

Cedfeldt, et al., 2000 X X X

RC Gatti & MS Richardson, 1999 X X

Palmeri & Trepel , 2002

White & Fennessy, 2005 X X


Prioritization Assessments: Variables

Study Wetland

connectivity Soil

productivity Katrina Storm

damaged areas 100 year

floodplain

Soil Saturation/W

etness

Distance to seed source

Storm surge

capacity Depressions

Within Stream Buffer

Brown & Strayner, 1994 X X

Lin & Kleiss, 2007 X X X X X X X

Russell, Hawkins, O'Neill, 1997 X

Van Lonkhuyzen, et al., 2004 X X

Moreno-Mateos, et al., 2012

Kramer & Carpenedo, 2009 X

Strager, et al., 2010

Kelly B. Williams, 2002

Berman, et al, 2002 X

Cedfeldt, et al., 2000 X

RC Gatti & MS Richardson, 1999

Palmeri & Trepel, 2002

White & Fennessy, 2005 X


Prioritization Assessments: Variables

Study Weighting If Yes, Rationale?

Brown & Strayner, 1994

Binary: converted wetlands (Hydric soil, soil productivity, land cover) OR NWI wetland; Remaining are even

Conversation with expert

Lin & Kleiss, 2007 Binary: Storm damaged areas OR 100 year floodplain OR non-natural land cover - No rationale provided; Remaining are even None provided

Russell, Hawkins, O'Neill, 1997 Even (none) Van Lonkhuyzen, et al., 2004 Variable - Professional Judgment

Professional Judgement

Moreno-Mateos, et al., 2012 Variable - Rationale Unclear None Provided Kramer & Carpenedo, 2009 Binary: Hydric Soil AND restorable land cover - literature review; rest even

Based on literature

Strager, et al., 2010 Even (None) Kelly B. Williams, 2002 Binary: Hydric soils - no rationale provided; rest even None provided

Berman, et al, 2002 Binary: Land-use; rest even Professional Judgement

Cedfeldt, et al., 2000 Even (None) RC Gatti & MS Richardson, 1999 Binary: Hydric soil OR classified wetland - based on literature; rest even

Based on literature

Palmeri & Trepel, 2002 Variable - Professional Judgement

Professional Judgement

White & Fennessy, 2005 Binary: hydric soil AND land use - no rational provided; rest pair-wise comparison None provided McCauley & Jenkins, 2005 Binary: hydric soil; rest even None provided

Weighting Strategies

Literature +

Professional

Judgment

MsCIP SDSS

Composite

Ratings

Takeaways

Huge variety of different foci for finding and prioritizing wetland restoration sites using GIS

Different techniques for weighting – does not seem to be a standard set of best practices for weighting or validating

Interviews and analysis of the SDSS created for MsCIP suggest that the technique supported previous theories about best restoration sites

Local knowledge was key

Could this process be improved? How?


Discussion Questions

Are there any additional literature(s) or studies that

you know of that can contribute to this study?

Are there any ways to quantitatively validate these

GIS restoration prioritization models?

Should there be any overriding logic in prioritizing

and weighting these models?

Thank you! Questions/Comments/SPAM?

Todd BenDor ([email protected])


prioritizing wetland restoration: a review and application

Documents