ECOLOGY OF PLACE STEPS
To demonstrate a positive contribution to the site ecology through the restoration or enhancement of ecological performance, project teams must complete the following steps (which are broken down in further detail in the following pages):
- Identify the project’s Reference Habitat.
- Assess the site’s baseline (i.e., pre-project development) ecological condition using the Society for Ecological Restoration’s International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration (SER Standards) Five-Star Method (see table 1-1).
- Generate an Adaptive Plan based on the project site’s baseline ecological condition and appropriate to the project’s Transect. The minimum target levels of improvement by Transect and Attribute are shown in Figure 1-2 Minimum Attributes by Transect. The Adaptive Plan should establish the vision, goals, restoration measures, and quantitative evaluation metrics, as well as the monitoring and maintenance strategies, to be applied to the project.
- Install, evaluate, and report on improvements to the project site ecology at the end of the 12-month performance period. Based on what was learned from monitoring, describe progress towards meeting metrics and goals, and identify any corrective measures. Incorporate the Recovery Wheel to show graphically, both baseline pre-project conditions, and ecological improvement (see figure 1-1 Recovery Wheel Template, and figure 1-3 Recovery Wheel Example).
STEP ONE – IDENTIFY REFERENCE HABITAT
The Reference Habitat for the project is typically the ecosystem that would have naturally occurred on the site, prior to fundamental alterations by humans. The intent of establishing a Reference Habitat is to provide a basis for understanding the ecology of the place and what may be possible to restore over time on the site. There may be instances in which prior irreversible impacts have already fundamentally altered the natural landscape of the site, for example where shoreline development in previous decades has permanently changed elevations. In addition, in some areas, effects of climate change may already be apparent, making it impossible to return to the predevelopment Reference Habitat. Where such altered conditions exist, and are beyond the control of the project team to correct, the Reference Habitat may need to be adjusted from the one that naturally occurred on that site prior to human alteration to a Reference Habitat that would thrive on that site under current ecological conditions.
The Reference Habitat must be as specific as possible to the project site, addressing not just the larger ecoregion but the specific traits and characteristics of that micro-climate and area. For example, the broader reference ecoregion for a site might be prairie, but the localized topography might include a depression that has formed into a pond or wetland, or a site may exist at the edge of two ecoregions creating unique characteristics.
One way to gather information about the Reference Habitat is to survey local and indigenous communities who have had a long history in the area. Often such communities contain Traditional Ecological Knowledge which is defined as knowledge and practice passed on from generation to generation and informed by strong cultural memories, sensitivity to change, and values that include reciprocity.
Also see Reference Habitat Tools under the Resources Section for tools to guide identification of the Reference Habitat.
STEP TWO – ASSESS BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITION
The baseline ecological condition refers to the current ecological health of the site. It is a description of current biotic and abiotic elements of the site prior to any work being completed for the project, including its structural, functional, and compositional attributes and current conditions. It describes the degree to which the site possesses the elements and functions one would expect to see in an intact example of the Reference Habitat. Conditions resulting from changes immediately prior to the project in order to prepare it for development, such as land clearing, should not be considered part of the site’s baseline condition. In addition, the potential for the presence of hazardous substances or contaminants should be assessed, and if present, remediated. See Brownfields under General Clarifications of this Imperative.
Project teams are encouraged to be as comprehensive as possible in their investigation of site conditions relative to the Transect and the particular site. For example, a site in Transect L2 with more ecological complexity will permit a deeper level of analysis than would a site in Transect L6, where little ecosystem function may be evident due to the effects of existing development.
The assessment of the baseline ecological conditions of the site must include an evaluation of existing conditions using the SER Standard’s five-star methodology characterizing six key ecosystem attributes: absence of threats, physical conditions, species composition, structural diversity, ecosystem functionality, and external exchanges (see table 1-1). The assessment should also identify any special physical features or rare species or communities on the site that need protection. In addition to a narrative description, the baseline conditions should be summarized using the Recovery Wheel, as shown in Figure 1-1, and described later in this clarification.
The assessment of baseline ecological condition should be based on direct observations and analysis of the site and surroundings, and where possible, comparisons to any local examples of the identified Reference Habitat. It should also characterize the potential for linkages to similar local Reference Habitats, including the efforts to create external exchanges as described in the SER Standards.
Table 1-1 Society for Ecological Restoration’s (SER) Five Star Method
Adapted with permission from Gann GD, McDonald T, Walder B, Aronson J, Nelson CR, Jonson J, Hallett JG, Eisenberg C, Guariguata MR, Liu J, Hua F, Echeverría C, Gonzales E, Shaw N, Decleer K, Dixon KW (2019), International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration. Second edition. Restoration Ecology DOI:10.1111/rec.13035
NOTES ON TABLE 1-1 – SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION’S (SER) FIVE STAR METHOD
The order in which the six key attributes are listed in Table 1-1 and Figure 1-2 represents a rough hierarchy of function, with the exception of the last one, External Exchanges. What this means is that in order to effectively improve the level of function for a particular attribute, the level of function for the attribute above it in the list will often need to be addressed first. For example, a site will generally need to be at a two-star level in Absence of Threat and Physical Condition to be able to sustain a two-star level of Species Composition. Efforts should be designed to follow a progression, starting with the removal of threats and advancing to the subsequent attributes in the list after conditions characterizing preceding attributes are established.
Note that while the level of ecosystem function is generally dependent on the degree to which threats are absent and physical conditions can support diverse species composition and structure, some level of ecosystem function may be present when components are not yet established to their full extent. For example, an urban yard in which fallen leaves are allowed to compost on the ground and add nutrients to the soil, instead of being raked up and sent to the landfill, is exhibiting some degree of nutrient cycling, which is one component of a two-star level of Ecosystem Functionality. Teams are encouraged to explore where their site may be contributing or improving functions across all attributes beyond what might otherwise be expected.
The sixth attribute, External Exchanges, is an exception to this hierarchy/dependency. All sites, regardless of Transect, must explore the potential for creating or enhancing connectivity with off-site sources of, or efforts to increase, biodiversity and broader ecological health and function. The intent is to explore the assets, opportunities, and efforts that are present in the surrounding context so that the design of the project can connect to or with them as much as possible. For example, a project in an urban area where a community group is actively working to expand corridors containing monarch butterfly host plants to aid in their migration and survival could choose to work with this group and include plantings within the project site that help build this corridor. The specific approach to enhancing external exchanges will vary depending on the particulars of the site and the context of the surrounding community. In some circumstances, the approaches may be more focused on or include more process than design, such as educating owners of adjacent properties about the goals of the on-site habitat work, advocating to a regional authority to foster protection and enhancement of biodiverse elements in the region, or initiating other community collaborations.
RECOVERY WHEEL
The Recovery Wheel creates a graphic representation of detailed information that will also be presented in narrative and technical documents. As illustrated at the end of this clarification, it will be used to show baseline and 12-month conditions, as well as the level of function envisioned over the long term. The three items listed under each attribute (e.g., Pollution within Absence of Threats) are representative sub-attributes, which may or may not apply to a given site. The appropriate sub-attributes for the project should be determined based on the Reference Habitat, assessment of baseline conditions, and surrounding context.
The Recovery Wheel contains the attributes with sub-attributes, as well as the star levels (as indicated by numbered circles radiating outward) described in Table 1-1 SER Five-Star Method.
Adapted with permission from Gann GD, McDonald T, Walder B, Aronson J, Nelson CR, Jonson J, Hallett JG, Eisenberg C, Guariguata MR, Liu J, Hua F, Echeverría C, Gonzales E, Shaw N, Decleer K, Dixon KW (2019), International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration. Second edition. Restoration Ecology DOI:10.1111/rec.13035
STEP THREE – GENERATE AN ADAPTIVE PLAN
To ensure that projects contribute positively to the ecology of their place, project teams must prepare and begin implementation of an Adaptive Plan for maintaining and improving the site’s ecological function. The Adaptive Plan must describe:
- The Reference Habitat down to the site level, including special elements that need protection (see Step One – Identify the Reference Habitat).
- The baseline conditions of the site, including information on the surrounding context (see Step Two – Assess Baseline Ecological Condition).
- A vision for achieving the highest ecological function possible at the site, given the project needs and site context. This vision should identify the timeline needed to reach this level of function.
- Goals for ecological improvement consistent with at least the minimum level of ecosystem function identified for the project’s Transect in Figure 1-2. Key milestones within a timeline should be identified for each goal. The intent is to understand what the desired outcome is when the vision is realized, how long it will take to achieve that, the key steps and milestones along the way when progress will be assessed. One of the milestones must be the end of the 12-month performance period.
- Quantifiable objectives and specific restoration measures. Objectives should be tied to performance towards each goal and milestone and include an expectation of outcomes to be achieved by the end of the 12-month performance period. Specific restoration measures should be devised to attain the objectives.
- A monitoring and maintenance plan that includes a data collection plan to enable an evaluation of the project’s progress at the end of the 12-month performance period and incorporates adaptive management.
The focus of the Adaptive Plan is the ecosystem function of the project site and its immediate surroundings, and how actions within the Project Area can protect and improve that function. While the project team may not have direct control over the immediate surroundings, it is asked to consider the relationship between the Project Area and its context, and specifically how actions within the Project Area can both avoid detrimental impacts on, and improve the condition of, the broader ecological setting (see SER Standards listed under Resources for more background on adaptive planning).
Project teams may use other tools and methodologies in addition to the SER Standard, but the Adaptive Plan must include an articulation of baseline condition, vision, and goals using the SER Five-Star method and Recovery Wheel.
THE VISION
Project teams should envision and document the highest ecological potential of the site and consider what is possible in terms of ecological restoration over time. The vision should include an overall timeline and identification of major milestones in the trajectory from the existing condition to the target level of performance in order to provide incremental checkpoints for those monitoring the site.
By starting the process with an expansive perspective, project teams should end up with a broad and more holistic view of what is feasible. Though they may not be able to implement the complete vision in the first year, understanding the potential of the site will allow project teams to design and construct the project in a way that lays the foundation for evolution toward the vision. For example, the vision may result in a different placement or orientation of the building to foster development of target hydrological functions or continuity of plant communities that might otherwise have been precluded.
GOALS FOR ECOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENT
Once the vision portion of the Adaptive Plan has been established, project teams must set clear and specific goals related to each Attribute and sub-attribute being addressed. Project teams are encouraged to target the highest level of performance feasible, given the project program, Transect, and the specific natural and human history of the site and immediate surroundings. Project teams should consider how both the building and the site can serve to support the improvement in ecological function. The goals and adaptive plan should contemplate all of the onsite landscape and articulate how all areas affect the site ecology.
While the specific goals for each project will vary, the goals for all projects should include:
- Methods for eliminating any on-site threats and mitigating any off-site threats to achieving the targeted level of ecosystem function for each Attribute.
- Strategies for protecting special features, rare species, or communities on the project site.
- Methods for ensuring that project activity on the site does not cause ecological degradation off site.
- Specific goals related to each Attribute and sub-attribute being pursued. See Figure 1-2 for minimum targets.
- Strategies for fostering external exchanges between the project site and surrounding sites.
NOTES ON FIGURE 1-2 – MINIMUM ECOSYSTEM ATTRIBUTES BY TRANSECT
Along its horizontal axis, the chart in Figure 1-2 references the Key Ecosystem Attributes identified in Table 1-1. The horizontal axis indicates, by Transect, an estimate of the highest level or ecological function (i.e., number of stars) possible for each applicable attribute. The stars relate to the degree of complexity, function, performance, and ability of the site to self-sustain over time, with more stars representing a higher level of performance and function.
This figure illustrates the highest level of ecological function that is estimated to be possible within each Transect, with higher levels required in areas with lower development density. The specifics of a particular site and context will determine precisely what level of ecological function is achievable over time. However, the Adaptive Plan for all projects should aim to achieve at least the minimum level of ecological function indicated for the project’s Transect.
For example, in Transect L4, given the assumed level of development in the surrounding context, projects are expected to target, at minimum, a three- or four-star level of function in Attributes 1 through 4. Where the project team determines a higher potential is possible, it is encouraged to pursue that higher level. Where a lower potential is identified, project teams must justify the lower target by referencing data from the site and surrounding area. Projects in all Transects must also target at least one improvement in Attribute 6, External Exchanges.
QUANTIFIABLE OBJECTIVES AND SPECIFIC RESTORATION MEASURES
Objectives for the Adaptive Plan are specific interim outcomes that indicate progress toward identified goals. They should be measurable, achievable, and correspond to the descriptions and estimated time frames and milestones of each of the goals for the site. Metrics for assessing the objectives should be included.
The Adaptive Plan should also identify specific on-site measures to assist recovery of the site and, as feasible, the site’s immediate surroundings, toward the objectives and goals identified for the project. This should include specific measures to protect any special features, species, or communities present on the site, and, where they could be negatively affected by construction or occupancy activities, on adjacent sites.
The description of these measures should identify how they advance site objectives. These measures, as well as the objectives to be achieved at the end of the performance period, should be clearly identified in the plan. When defining these initial restoration measures, teams are encouraged to be as ambitious as possible, given the project’s program, scope, and budget.
MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
The monitoring and maintenance part is a key component of an adaptive plan. Even with clear goals and objectives, things don’t always go as planned when working with natural systems, and progress can involve trial and error. Routine quantitative and qualitative observations enable an assessment of successes, failures, and the potential for improvement. This information and any lessons learned form a basis for the next round of improvements.
The monitoring and maintenance plan should be designed to provide information at a level and frequency to allow evaluation of progress toward objectives and timely interventions if needed. For example, in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, summer and fall tends to be relatively dry whereas winter is usually wet. Scheduling plant monitoring at the end of the summer both gauges survival after the period of greatest stress and provides an opportune time to replant at the beginning of a mild and wet period that fosters root development.
The monitoring plan must specify a method for assessing conditions and progress toward planned objectives at the end of the 12-month performance period, as well as for later milestones.
STEP FOUR – INSTALL, EVALUATE, AND REPORT ON IMPROVEMENTS
The improvement measures identified for the initial phase of restoration must be installed. Once they are installed, the performance period can begin.
A qualified member of the team must evaluate and document the condition of the site at the end of the performance period relative to the vision, goals, and objectives articulated in the Adaptive Plan. The report should incorporate a filled in Recovery Wheel reflecting conditions at the end of the performance period.
If the site does not exhibit the anticipated outcomes, prior to submitting for certification, the project team must attempt to identify why improvement measures fell short, identify and, to the extent feasible, implement corrective steps.
These are examples of what Recovery Wheels might look like, representing the baseline conditions of the site before the project, the conditions after the 12-month performance period, and the projected conditions upon completion of the Adaptive Plan, when the full vision for the project is realized. The circle segments should be shaded according to the condition of the site at particular point in time. By comparing Recovery Wheels over time, project teams can see progress toward the project vision.
Adapted with permission from Gann GD, McDonald T, Walder B, Aronson J, Nelson CR, Jonson J, Hallett JG, Eisenberg C, Guariguata MR, Liu J, Hua F, Echeverría C, Gonzales E, Shaw N, Decleer K, Dixon KW (2019), International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration. Second edition. Restoration Ecology DOI:10.1111/rec.13035
