Restoration Planning

We developed a conceptual framework for evaluating the process of ecological restoration and applied it to 10 examples of restoration projects in the northern hemisphere. We identified three major phases, planning, implementation, and monitoring, in the restoration process. We found that evaluation occurred both within and between the three phases, that it included both formal and informal components, and that it often had an impact on the performance of the projects. Most evaluations were short-term and only some parts of them were properly documented. Poor or short-term evaluation of the restoration process creates a risk that inefficient methods will continue to be used, which reduces the efficiency and effectiveness of restoration. To improve the restoration process and to transfer the knowledge to future projects, we argue for more formal, sustained evaluation procedures, involving all relevant stakeholders, and increased and improved documentation and dissemination of the results.

Contemporary land managers are beginning to understand that landscapes of the early 20th century exhibited complex patterns of compositional and structural conditions at several different scales, and that there was interplay between patterns and processes within and across scales. Further, they understand that restoring integrity of these conditions has broad implications for the future sustainability of native species, ecosystem services, and ecological processes. Many too are hungry for methods to restore more natural landscape patterns of habitats and more naturally functioning disturbance regimes; all in the context of a warming climate. Attention is turning to evaluating whole landscapes at local and regional scales, deciphering their changes and trajectories, and formulating scaleappropriate landscape prescriptions that will methodically restore ecological functionality and improve landscape resilience. Here, we review published landscape evaluation and planning applications designed in EMDS. We show the utility of EMDS for designing transparent local landscape evaluations, and we reveal approaches that have been used thus far. We begin by briefly reviewing six projects from a global sample, and then review in greater depth four projects we have developed with our collaborators. We discuss the goals and design of each project, its methods and utilities, what worked well, what could be improved and

Contemporary land managers are beginning to understand that landscapes of the early 20th century exhibited complex patterns of compositional and structural conditions at several different scales, and that there was interplay between patterns and processes within and across scales. Further, they understand that restoring integrity of these conditions has broad implications for the future sustainability of native species, ecosystem services, and ecological processes. Many too are hungry for methods to restore more natural landscape patterns of habitats and more naturally functioning disturbance regimes; all in the context of a warming climate. Attention is turning to evaluating whole landscapes at local and regional scales, deciphering their changes and trajectories, and formulating scaleappropriate landscape prescriptions that will methodically restore ecological functionality and improve landscape resilience. Here, we review published landscape evaluation and planning applications designed in EMDS. We show the utility of EMDS for designing transparent local landscape evaluations, and we reveal approaches that have been used thus far. We begin by briefly reviewing six projects from a global sample, and then review in greater depth four projects we have developed with our collaborators. We discuss the goals and design of each project, its methods and utilities, what worked well, what could be improved and

We developed a conceptual framework for evaluating the process of ecological restoration and applied it to 10 examples of restoration projects in the northern hemisphere. We identified three major phases, planning, implementation, and monitoring, in the restoration process. We found that evaluation occurred both within and between the three phases, that it included both formal and informal components, and that it often had an impact on the performance of the projects. Most evaluations were short-term and only some parts of them were properly documented. Poor or short-term evaluation of the restoration process creates a risk that inefficient methods will continue to be used, which reduces the efficiency and effectiveness of restoration. To improve the restoration process and to transfer the knowledge to future projects, we argue for more formal, sustained evaluation procedures, involving all relevant stakeholders, and increased and improved documentation and dissemination of the results.

We developed a conceptual framework for evaluating the process of ecological restoration and applied it to 10 examples of restoration projects in the northern hemisphere. We identified three major phases, planning, implementation, and monitoring, in the restoration process. We found that evaluation occurred both within and between the three phases, that it included both formal and informal components, and that it often had an impact on the performance of the projects. Most evaluations were short-term and only some parts of them were properly documented. Poor or short-term evaluation of the restoration process creates a risk that inefficient methods will continue to be used, which reduces the efficiency and effectiveness of restoration. To improve the restoration process and to transfer the knowledge to future projects, we argue for more formal, sustained evaluation procedures, involving all relevant stakeholders, and increased and improved documentation and dissemination of the results.

We developed a conceptual framework for evaluating the process of ecological restoration and applied it to 10 examples of restoration projects in the northern hemisphere. We identified three major phases, planning, implementation, and monitoring, in the restoration process. We found that evaluation occurred both within and between the three phases, that it included both formal and informal components, and that it often had an impact on the performance of the projects. Most evaluations were short-term and only some parts of them were properly documented. Poor or short-term evaluation of the restoration process creates a risk that inefficient methods will continue to be used, which reduces the efficiency and effectiveness of restoration. To improve the restoration process and to transfer the knowledge to future projects, we argue for more formal, sustained evaluation procedures, involving all relevant stakeholders, and increased and improved documentation and dissemination of the results.

Αναφορές στα εξής: Paris Agreement, Agenda 2030, European Green Deal, New EU Nature Restoration Plan, COP15, Permaculture, 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Nature Based Solutions, Blue Green Infrastructure, City ±15 minutes, European Urban Mobility Framework, Urban social gardening, School Street

Selecting sites for ecological restoration is an imperative, although challenging task. We developed a spatially explicit model to support site design and prioritization towards ecological restoration. We considered seven distinct and flexible templates, two based on legislation requirements and five on landscape spatial parameters, such as corridor design, enhancements in patch size and shape, and proximity to larger sources areas, thus, with different resilience capacities. We tested the approach on two different scales of analysis: applying the legislation based templates in the Atlantic Plateau of São Paulo, which is part of the Atlantic Forest biome, and the landscape based templates in one of its sub-watersheds (~150,000 ha), and then calculated landscape indexes to compare the current forest configuration to the resulted simulated restored ones. We showed that our protocol is flexible, transparent and repeatable, thus, could help in decision making towards conservation management.

We developed a conceptual framework for evaluating the process of ecological restoration and applied it to 10 examples of restoration projects in the northern hemisphere. We identified three major phases, planning, implementation, and monitoring, in the restoration process. We found that evaluation occurred both within and between the three phases, that it included both formal and informal components, and that it often had an impact on the performance of the projects. Most evaluations were short-term and only some parts of them were properly documented. Poor or short-term evaluation of the restoration process creates a risk that inefficient methods will continue to be used, which reduces the efficiency and effectiveness of restoration. To improve the restoration process and to transfer the knowledge to future projects, we argue for more formal, sustained evaluation procedures, involving all relevant stakeholders, and increased and improved documentation and dissemination of the results.

Prepared for: John Proctor, Forest Botanist, White River National Forest.Includes bibliographical references (page 10).In January 2011, Colorado State University and the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) contracted with the White River National Forest (WRNF) to complete wetland mapping and fen field surveys within the White River National Forest (WRNF). Since, 2008, CNHP has been working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Program and numerous funding partners to create a comprehensive digital map of wetlands for the state of Colorado by 2015. The digitizing and mapping of the wetlands within the WRNF is integral to CNHP's goal to determine the extent and location of wetlands across the state. In addition to the digitizing of the 124 NWI maps, a subset of mapped wetlands consisting of 39 (original number was 25) fens were field surveyed during 2011. The data collected from this project will be added to the CNHP database of critic...

Core design components of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support system were used to develop and implement the integrated restoration and protection strategy of the Northern Region of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Scenarios that spatially optimized hazardous fuel reduction, protected developed recreation values, and improved watershed conditions are presented to illustrate how the evaluation and decision modeling capabilities of the decision support system can be used sequentially in both strategic and tactical planning.

Norman, L. M., Lal, R., Wohl, E., Fairfax, E., Gellis, A. C., & Pollock, M. M. (2022). Natural infrastructure in dryland streams (NIDS) can establish regenerative wetland sinks that reverse desertification and strengthen climate resilience. Science of The Total Environment, 849, 157738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157738

Highlights
•Natural infrastructure in dryland streams (NIDS) store water, sediment, and carbon
•NIDS can be installed by both beaver or humans, using rock, wood, and mud.
•NIDS can create or restore riparian wetlands in degraded, incised watersheds.
•NIDS sustain processes and functions that boost fluvial ecosystem resilience.
•NIDS initiate positive feedback loops that mitigate climate change.

Prepared for: U.S. Department of Defense, Schriever Air Force Base.December 2018.Includes bibliographical references.Schriever Air Force Base (AFB) is located in El Paso County, Colorado, eight miles east of the Colorado Springs developed urban corridor. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) zoologists and botanists visited Schriever AFB between June 2017 and September 2018 to document the presence of rare animals, plants, and plant communities. Surveys focused on the undeveloped areas of Schriever AFB deemed the most likely to have potential habitat for the targeted rare species. No federally threatened or endangered animals or plants were found at Schriever AFB during the 2017‐2018 surveys. However, seven of the animal species observed during the 2017‐2018 surveys are either fully tracked or watch listed by CNHP and an additional ten are considered species of concern within Colorado by either federal agencies, the State of Colorado, or Partners in Flight (PIF)

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Natural Heritage Methodology…………………………………………….75 Appendix B. Lists of elements targeted for data collection and/or field survey…………89 Appendix C. Potential Conservation Area profiles……………………………………..107 Appendix D. Network of Conservation Area profiles………………………………….355 Appendix E. Element characterization abstracts……………………………………….366 changes since the current plans were established. For example, the growth boom of the 1990's filled much of the build-out plan in the county, there have been significant changes in air and water quality regulations at both the state and federal levels to incorporate, and the continued decline in agricultural operations-formerly a source of large tracts of land in open character-impacts development patterns in the county. Further, recreational use of City-and County-managed open space (approximately 89,000 acres; Boulder County Parks and Open Space 2008) has reached record intensity levels; City and County open space properties receive about 1.2 million visitors per year, a staggering impact that challenges land managers and stewards. Current data on biological resources are needed to inform a variety of land management decisions, to evaluate development proposals in a timely and ecologically sensitive manner, to make land management decisions that sustain open space properties, and to prioritize conservation areas for purchase or agreement. Previous Research Boulder County has a wide range of plants, animals, and natural plant communities that have attracted notable scientific research. The concept of ecological life zones, a fundamental classification of the landscape (that will be used in this report), was developed from research sites in Boulder County and along the Front Range (Marr 1967). Pioneering studies in high elevation mountain ecology led to the founding of the Mountain Research Institute in 1921 and subsequent establishment of the Niwot Ridge Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) site, one of 26 LTER sites around the country that form the basis of research on large-scale, long term ecological phenomena throughout different biomes (LTER Network 2008). Hallock and Jones (1999) chronicle the historical studies of birds in Boulder County beginning with Gale in 1883, followed by Henderson in 1907 and 1908, Betts in 1913, and Alexander in 1937. The collections at the University of Colorado form a record from which authoritative statewide scientific texts on mammals (Fitzgerald et. al. 1994), vascular plants (Weber and Wittmann 2001a, 2001b), and non-vascular plants (Weber and Wittman 2007) were based. This history of study has provided a patchwork of baseline data to inform the current picture of the abundance, distribution, and dynamics of biodiversity and its habitat in Boulder County. 8 9 split by bedrock geology and are represented only by crystalline types in the County; these mixed conifer forests cover around 37% of the land area. The irregular terrain of the Foothill Shrubland ecoregional subsection is restricted to the north-central portion of the County (Figure 4) and occurs on about four percent of the land surface. The other prominent subsection in Boulder County is the Front Range Fans, which largely support grasslands and encompass about 34% of the land area in the county. The Front Range Fans are limited to the northern Front Range in Colorado and are characterized by outwash terraces, benches, and alluvial fans that skirt the mountains. The fans transition to a high plains landscape on the far eastern side of Boulder County represented by the Flat to Rolling Plains subsection. Soils on the Plains become finer textured with more wind-blown loess and less outwash character with distance from the mountain front.