Search USGS⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 1000822

Restoration ecology: longterm evaluation as an essential feature of rehabilitation

John E. Gannon
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In its brief existence as a recognized scientific discipline, restoration ecology has focused almost exclusively on terrestrial and wetland habitat. As a consequence, aquatic restoration and rehabilitation, an important component of restoration ecology is a relatively new discipline. This article examines the ecosystem approach to rehabilitation of the Great Lakes Basin and proposes that waterfront redevlopment and terrestrial and wetland habitat restoration should be accompanied by aquatic habitat restoration. Furthermore, aquatic habitat restoration must include rehabilitation of hard-bottom substrates and structures as well as pollution cleanup and management of soft sediments. Lastly, the article suggests that longterm evaluation is indispensable for aquatic habitat restoration and rehabiliation to be truly successful in the Great Lakes region. Only through longterm evaluation can we determine whether habitat restoration goals have been met at specific sites and transfer successful lessons learned at other locations.

Explore related subjects

Buffalo Environmental Law JournalArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

John E. Gannon. 1993. Restoration ecology: longterm evaluation as an essential feature of rehabilitation. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/1000822

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2025

One hundred ninety-nine dead birds: Review of the scientific basis of ecological incident reporting requirements for pesticide registrants under Fifra § 6(A)(2)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates pesticide use in the United States. The EPA is charged by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) with ensuring that a pesticide will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. Incident reports (documentation of exposure and injury from pesticide applications) can serve as a reality check on the pesticide registration decisions made by the EPA scientists and risk managers. The EPA collects incident reports on human, domestic animal, and ecological injury. The FIFRA section 6(a)(2) rule requires the pesticide registrant (generally, the company or other entity that wishes to market the pesticide, hereafter registrant) to submit such data to the EPA. The EPA’s ecological incident category includes injuries to aquatic (fish), terrestrial (wildlife), other non-target organisms (ONT, e.g., invertebrates) and plants. Our document focuses on the fish and wildlife ecological incidents that are submitted by registrants. We critique the application of the FIFRA section 6(a)(2) rule that controls the quality and quantity of ecological incident data that the EPA receives from registrants. We conclude that the section 6(a)(2) provisions can impede the transfer of ecological incident data from registrant to the EPA. Consequently, detailed data for many fish and wildlife incidents may never reach the EPA, and policies and decisions may be formulated in the absence of these data.

Buffalo Environmental Law Journal↗