1. Charles Goebel School of Environment & Natural Resources The Ohio State University Prioritizing Restoration Efforts

2.  Managers must make decisions on complex problems every day  Having a credible scientific basis for decisions is critical  Restoration efforts need to be planned and implemented in cost-effective ways why prioritization is important

3.  Managers must make decisions on complex problems every day  Having a credible scientific basis for decisions is critical  Restoration efforts need to be planned and implemented in cost-effective ways  Holistic restoration frameworks are needed to help manage site-level restoration activities to account for landscape-context (or landscape-scale processes) why prioritization is important

4.  Within the restoration framework, a series of quantitative toolsets may be applied to prioritize restoration efforts to help ensure success  These toolsets could also be called “systematic planning” techniques & are typically characterized by: An optimization algorithm Some type of process-based or population-based ecological model(s) quantitative toolsets

5. Initial Restoration Planning Evaluate Ecological Model STOP End Yes Constraints Develop New Plan No general quantitative toolsets

6.  Need to define reference conditions as these are critical for evaluating potential success Help determine criteria for evaluating success and prioritizing efforts  Good conceptual understanding of the system and good ecological models important Systems that incorporate landscape hierarchies and functional attributes are useful Really must be spatially explicit  Some flexibility in approach to deal with changing constraints Considerations & needs

7. Ecological Classification System Current Land Cover % change from reference condition REFERENCE CRITERIA Palik et al. 2000. Ecological Applications, 10:189-202. GOAL: Identify areas at Ichauway that need of restoration developing basic prioritization models

8. developing more complex prioritization models

9. restoration priority model for riparian areas of CVNP Our approach… develop a riparian prioritization model for CVNP that includes not only ecological information so as to target those areas in need of restoration, but also has the flexibility to incorporate other important management needs

10. assessing riparian function Need a way to map functional riparian ecotone Holmes, K.L., and P.C. Goebel. 2011. A functional approach to riparian area delineation using geospatial methods. Journal of Forestry. 109:233-241.

11. Conceptual basis for delineating riparian areas Ilhardt et al. 2000

12. functional delineation of riparian areas Functional delineation based upon Verry et al. 2004 developed for on the ground delineation This approach is based upon stream valley geomorphology rather than the stream channel, making it possible to use digital data sources to delineate riparian areas.

13. delineating functional extent of riparian areas Type I Type II Procedures: Delineated riparian area on screen using ArcGIS 9.0 by subwatershed using contours and guidelines from Verry et al. 2004. All subwatersheds merged & 1 tree length (60 ft) added to buffer following Verry et al. (2004)

14. functional riparian areas of CVNP 53% of CVNP could be delineated as a functional riparian area (18,052 ac or 7,305 ha)

15. assessing riparian function Once delineated need to determine functional attributes

16. assessing riparian function

17. Percent change from benchmark state 0%100% UnalteredAltered All functions assessed in this fashion and ranked from unaltered (0) to altered (-10,000) for each cell represented in the GIS

18. Table 1. Rankings of Vegetative Cover Function RankNLCD Classes Unaltered 0Deciduous Forest,, Mixed ; Woody Wetlands -1250Shrub/Scrub -2500Emergent Wetlands -3750Grassland/Hay/Pasture -5000Barren -6250Developed-Open Space -7500Cultivated Crops -8750Developed-Low Intensity -10000Developed-Medium and High Intensity; Open Water Altered vegetative cover (stream function)

19. sediment delivery Table 3. Rankings of Sediment Delivery Riparian Function RankNLCD classes on soil erodibility rating Unaltered 0Natural States 1 -588 Developed-Open Space, Non-Highly Erodible (NHE); Grassland/Hay/Pasture, NHE -1176Developed-Low Intensity, NHE -1764Developed-Medium Intensity, NHE -2352Developed-High Intensity, NHE -2940 Developed-Open Space, Potentially Highly Erodible (PHE); Grassland/Hay/Pasture, PHE -3528Developed-Open Space, Highly Erodible (HE); Grassland/Hay/Pasture, HE -4116Barren, NHE -4704Developed-Low Intensity, PHE -5292Developed-Medium Intensity, PHE; Developed-Low Intensity, HE -5880Developed-Medium Intensity, HE -6468Developed-High Intensity, PHE -7056Developed-High Intensity, HE -7644Cultivated Land, NHE -8232Barren, PHE -8820Barren, HE -9408Cultivated Land, PHE -10000Cultivated Land, HE Altered 1 Open water, deciduous forest, evergreen forest, mixed forest, shrub/scrub, woody and emergent herbaceous wetlands on any soil erodibility rating.

20. riparian function index - criteria High Function (0 to -5,000) To be considered to have high riparian function, at a minimum only one function can be operating at 50% function (50% reduction in function). Moderate Function (-5,001 to -17,500) To be considered to have moderate riparian function, at a minimum all seven functions must be operating at 75% function (25% reduction in function), or, one function could operate at 0% function (100% reduction in function) and another function could operate at 25% function (75% reduction in function). Poor Function (-17,501 to -35,000) To be considered to have poor function, at a minimum three functions could operate at 0% function (100% reduction in function) and another function could operate at 50% function (50% reduction in function). Pixels with two functions operating at 0% function would also fall into this category. Very Poor Function (-35,001 to -70,000) All other cells not fitting into the above categories are considered to have very poor riparian function.

21. riparian restoration priority In terms of riparian function only, those areas in red are high priorities for restoration – no management filters Most headwater streams are in need of some restoration, especially outside the CVNP boundary, as are portions along the Cuyahoga River

22. management filter – land ownership layer

23. Haskell-Ritchie Run Subwatershed

24. more complex prioritization models Generate Initial Population of Plans Apply ‘repair’ function Obtain first plan in generation Amend SWAT input files per plan instructions; execute SWAT; record plan fitness Get next plan All plans in generation evaluated Generation limit reached? Apply search algorithm operators(selection, crossover & mutation) to create a new generation End Developing optimized wetland restoration plan

25. more complex prioritization models  Many of these optimized support toolsets that are automated often exhibit a tendency to ignore spatial and temporal variability in ecosystem processes considered ‘noise’ within modeling environment (Cushman 2010)  Clear research need for models that incorporate longitudinal and lateral connectivity (e.g., Turak et al. 2011) one reason I personally like the approach of using ‘on-the- ground’ delineations of functional processes, even if they are surrogates such as an ECS or other approach

26. how complex is too complex?  The more complex the model, the more expertise, data, and effort will be needed to develop and execute model  What is the goal?

27. how complex is too complex?  In general, I would argue for a more simple approach to identify “targets” or “hotspots” NO SUBSTITUTE FOR BEING ON THE GROUND AND FAMILIAR WITH YOUR SYSTEM Use of local knowledge in addition to a defensible approach Also need to consider an increased reliance on traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) when considering how to restore and where

28. Muirburning in Scottish Highlands

30. Some final considerations  Few current methods evaluate a post-restoration time lags come recent examples of stepwise approaches to model time- lag effects, threats from outside factors, and changing budget conditions complexity leads to increased expertise needed but when compared with static approaches these prioritization models do yield plans with different spatial patterns (Moilanen et al. 2009) each sequential optimization procedure is dependent upon the last, intermittently suboptimal sites are excluded from the search -- this means the stepwise approach presumes that restoring suboptimal sites during earlier time-steps will not reveal subsequent and more optimal restoration possibilities and thus superior restoration plans

31. Questions

32. potential native plant habitat Table 2. Rankings of Potential Plant Habitat Function RankNLCD Classes Unaltered 0Deciduous Forest,, Mixed ; Woody Wetlands -1429Shrub/Scrub -2858Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands -4287Barren -5716Open Water -7145Grassland/Hay/Pasture -8574Developed-Open Space -10000 Cultivated Crops; Developed-Low Intensity; Developed-Medium and High Intensity Altered

33. streamflow regulation Streamflow regulated areas (ponds and lakes) classified as -10,000 and unaltered areas classified as 0.

34. wetland quality Table 5. Three Components of Wetland Quality and Their Individual Weights ComponentWeight Hydrologic Source0.4 Water Quality0.3 Wetland Condition0.3

35. Example – Sleeping Bear Dunes Palik et al. 2000. Ecological Applications, 10:189-202. 1. Develop map of reference ecosystems Used GLO notes to map historical distribution of forest ecosystems 2. Determined current distribution of forest cover types 2. Used spatial data on current vegetation cover 3. GOAL – PRIORITIZE NPS 1) RESTORATION EFFORTS AND 2) PRESERVATION EFFORTS OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

36. Example – Restore or preserve? GOAL – PRIORITIZE NPS 1) RESTORATION EFFORTS AND 2) PRESERVATION EFFORTS OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPES Goebel et al. 2005. Journal of Forestry 103:351-356.

37. Example – Restore or preserve? GOAL – PRIORITIZE NPS 1) RESTORATION EFFORTS AND 2) PRESERVATION EFFORTS OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPES REFERENCE GLO Notes

38. Example – Restore or preserve? GOAL – PRIORITIZE NPS 1) RESTORATION EFFORTS AND 2) PRESERVATION EFFORTS OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPES REFERENCEFUTURE Huron-Manistee ECS

39. Example – Restore or preserve? GOAL – PRIORITIZE NPS 1) RESTORATION EFFORTS AND 2) PRESERVATION EFFORTS OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPES REFERENCEFUTURECURRENT NPS Data

40. Example – Restore or preserve? GOAL – PRIORITIZE NPS 1) RESTORATION EFFORTS AND 2) PRESERVATION EFFORTS OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPES REFERENCE Compared the current distribution of target habitat (openlands) with respect to the future development of forest ecosystems under contemporary mgmt & historical distribution. Prioritized restoration and preservation based on decision criteria established to maximize large, continuous blocks of openland area. FUTURECURRENT