Under current recommendations for ecological restoration by the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER- b, 2004), the critical elements of post construction monitoring and management are all but eliminated. This study addresses the question: Can monitoring inform management actions in to support of restoration viability, using existing resources?
“Comprehensive criteria for biodiversity evaluation in conservation planning“ (Regan et al, 2007), shows that restoration landscapes are not valued highly or rated as ecologically viable landscapes, as most restorations do not achieve full biological diversity. Another factor is the degradation which often continues, limiting the ability to achieve fully restored biological function. Monitoring and Management (M & M) were integral parts of restoration process until 2002; however, monitoring and management are no longer supported as part of scope of services included in implementation of restoration designs. M & M services are expected to be provided by the owner agency without any plan for the ongoing monitoring and management necessary to support the full restoration of the ecosystem (Higgs, 2003).
Goebel (2011) claims that restored ecosystems should be capable of being self-maintaining and should be self-sustaining. Until such a condition exists, restorations need monitoring and management to continue mitigation of the degradation forces that damaged the original ecosystem. This investigation applies the standards for monitoring and management to a case study of the existing Phase 1 riparian restoration at Clover Groff Ditch, Columbus, Ohio completed in 2010 by City of Columbus Recreation and Parks funded by an OEPA grant. The restored area is constructed using vegetative and structural restoration treatments; however, there is no active monitoring or management plan in place to assess and mitigate continuing degradation forces.
This study provides guides and methods for monitoring by volunteers to inform the owner of needed management (Higgs, 2003). The forms and methods derive from site monitoring and analysis during late February through April of 2012. The analysis of the restoration identifies locations degrading in habitat diversity, invasive species and land miss-use. Due to the time limitations of the study, prescriptive management actions related to specific monitoring results and refinements to forms and methods are not included in this study, but are recommended as a future outgrowth of this work. In critical review by the owner and experts, the value and potential of these forms and process is a viable means to inform management actions and to facilitate public education.