Integrated risk and recovery monitoring of ecosystem restorations on contaminated sites

Hooper, Michael J., Glomb, Stephen J., Harper, David D., Hoelzle, Timothy B., Mcintosh, Lisa M. and Mulligan, David R. (2016) Integrated risk and recovery monitoring of ecosystem restorations on contaminated sites. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 12 2: 284-295. doi:10.1002/ieam.1731

Author Hooper, Michael J.
Glomb, Stephen J.
Harper, David D.
Hoelzle, Timothy B.
Mcintosh, Lisa M.
Mulligan, David R.
Title Integrated risk and recovery monitoring of ecosystem restorations on contaminated sites
Journal name Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1551-3793
Publication date 2016-04-01
Year available 2016
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1002/ieam.1731
Open Access Status DOI
Volume 12
Issue 2
Start page 284
End page 295
Total pages 12
Place of publication Hoboken, NJ, United States
Publisher John Wiley & Sons
Language eng
Abstract Ecological restorations of contaminated sites balance the human and ecological risks of residual contamination with the benefits of ecological recovery and the return of lost ecological function and ecosystem services. Risk and recovery are interrelated dynamic conditions, changing as remediation and restoration activities progress through implementation into long-term management and ecosystem maturation. Monitoring restoration progress provides data critical to minimizing residual contaminant risk and uncertainty, while measuring ecological advancement toward recovery goals. Effective monitoring plans are designed concurrently with restoration plan development and implementation and are focused on assessing the effectiveness of activities performed in support of restoration goals for the site. Physical, chemical, and biotic measures characterize progress toward desired structural and functional ecosystem components of the goals. Structural metrics, linked to ecosystem functions and services, inform restoration practitioners of work plan modifications or more substantial adaptive management actions necessary to maintain desired recovery. Monitoring frequency, duration, and scale depend on specific attributes and goals of the restoration project. Often tied to restoration milestones, critical assessment of monitoring metrics ensures attainment of risk minimization and ecosystem recovery. Finally, interpretation and communication of monitoring findings inform and engage regulators, other stakeholders, the scientific community, and the public. Because restoration activities will likely cease before full ecosystem recovery, monitoring endpoints should demonstrate risk reduction and a successional trajectory toward the condition established in the restoration goals. A detailed assessment of the completed project's achievements, as well as unrealized objectives, attained through project monitoring, will determine if contaminant risk has been minimized, if injured resources have recovered, and if ecosystem services have been returned. Such retrospective analysis will allow better planning for future restoration goals and strengthen the evidence base for quantifying injuries and damages at other sites in the future.
Keyword Contaminated sites
Ecological restoration
Ecosystem service
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: HERDC Pre-Audit
Sustainable Minerals Institute Publications
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 8 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 11 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 23 Feb 2016, 11:10:41 EST by System User on behalf of Learning and Research Services (UQ Library)