|
| Fall 2002 Newsletter | Edited by Steve Windels | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In This Issue:
FROM THE CHAIR - Marcia H. Wolfe Fall is my favorite time of year! A cool edge on the air, the musty wet smell of valerian, gentian and false green hellebore tinged by frost in the mountains. The far away whistle of the bull Tule elk and the plaintiff call followed by faint "v"s high in the sky of the sandhill crane coming back to the valley to winter. Fall is a time of respite from the spring and summer busy-ness- or business. Fall is a slow down period (well, it used to be), a time of reflection… recuperation, cooling off (in Bakersfield!) and planning for what's next. As part of my work, I am technical co-chair of a team that oversees contracting the development of a plan to restore the San Joaquin River. In the course of that work, I research and read many papers and documents. I recently looked at one that had noted that an ecosystem approach to restoration was a new concept (new compared to the work of Pythagorus I suppose). Although the report went on to describe what was called an ecosystem approach to a plan, it was really species centric. "Whew", I thought "Ecosystem approach to restoration…new?" I wrote my first article on the use of an ecosystem approach for coal mining restoration in the late 1970's. That was almost 25 years ago!!! New concept?? Where has the time gone? Has everyone already forgotten Aldo Leopold?? Not to mention my memorable articles and plans (just kidding). What happened to the environmentally minded generation of the 1960's?? But it is clear, as restoration ecologists and wildlife biologists; we still have a big job ahead of us. We need restoration ecologists and biologist in law, in policy and in management. Those are the places where the guidelines, polices and regulations are developed that put things into motion- be it for better or worse. Those usually are the places where the decisions are made to build the budgets or legislation, provide the money- or not, and where the decisions are made as to whether or not a project is implemented. How many of the people in those positions actually have backgrounds in wildlife ecology, or any kind of environmental science, for that matter! So, we have another big job ahead of us! Based on the last 16 years of my experiences working with threatened and endangered (T&E) species, habitat loss has been the primary reason for pushing most T&E species in the San Joaquin Valley to the precipice of extinction. But, something else has sneaked up on us: the invasion and alteration of our ecosystems by exotic/alien species. And that, somehow, seems to set the stage for the establishment of more alien/exotic species. In California, for example, over 5000 exotic species of invertebrates have been documented. Many of the agricultural pests are in fact hosted mostly by exotic/alien vegetation. How do we enhance or restore habitats for wildlife when the base of the food web is eroding away and being changed? Then, as land and wildlife managers we purposefully introduce exotics to the top end of what remains of our "natural" systems for political and/or economic reasons. I call this the man-god concept, thinking we can make natural systems bigger and better by increasing productivity (be it plant or animal) without thinking of or even attempting to determine what the systematic ecological consequences could be. Trying to think of ways to deal with these changes, which are occurring more rapidly than species and systems can adjust and evolve, is mind-boggling. No doubt exists in my mind that alteration of our natural systems by exotics is the greatest threat to our remaining native species. Another big job! When Steve asked me for something for the newsletter, I couldn't seem to focus on any particular issue; my mind just flooded with the opportunities! I didn't even touch on the intricacies of technical on-the-ground restoration relative to species and system knowledge. Or on the role of man and technology in these issues. But I hope some of these ideas have created some food for thought as we plan our activities for this upcoming year. I look forward to working together, both as individuals and as a group, to put a dent, or at least a nick, in one or more of the great challenges facing us! Marcia Hamann Wolfe Chair, Restoration Working Group FEATURE ARTICLE: Brief Look At Restoration Efforts At Seney National Wildife Refuge, Michigan - R. Gregory Corace, III and Michael G. Tansy Background Throughout the National Wildlife Refuge System, ecological restoration efforts have increased in number and scope. A shift in management focus is in part due to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. This legislation directed the Secretary of the Interior to "ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans." To comply with the Act, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service enacted policies that make reference to restoring "lost or severely degraded elements of integrity, diversity, (and) environmental health at the refuge scale" and favoring "management that restores or mimics natural ecosystem processes of function to achieve refuge purposes." In total, policy identified "the highest measure of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health (as)...those intact and self-sustaining habitats and wildlife populations that existed during historic conditions." What then is ecological restoration? According to Wagner et al. (2000), "ecological restoration entails negotiating the best possible outcome for a specific site based on ecological knowledge and the diverse perspectives of interested stakeholders." Martinez (2002) quotes the official Society for Ecological Restoration's definition: "Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery and management of ecological integrity.....(including) a critical range of variability in biodiversity, ecological processes and structures, regional and historical context, and sustainable cultural practices." What links these two definitions is that ecological restoration activities go beyond a single commodity, species, or population, and deal with community or ecosystem-level patterns and processes. Located in the east-central portion of Michigan's Upper Peninsula equidistant from Lake Superior and Lake Michigan, Seney National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1935 for the protection and production of migratory birds and other wildlife by Executive Order under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. Before establishment as a Refuge, the forests and soils of the Great Manistique Swamp (the area now encompassed by the Refuge) were exploited beginning in the late 1800's. Early timber cutting focused on the best stands of white pine, followed by removal of red pine and northern hardwoods. As the sawtimber resource was depleted, efforts were shifted to cutting of poles, posts, ties and pulpwood. This gave way to slash fires fueled by logging debris, with most areas burned repeatedly. By 1912, drainage of the "Seney Swamp" was underway under the auspices of agricultural land development. However, imperfect drainage of peat soils, poor soil fertility, and a short growing season made the farming ventures a disaster. Most lands were tax-reverted to the State of Michigan by the early 1930's. The Refuge now encompasses 95,238 acres, 25,150 of which comprise the Seney Wilderness Area and the Strangmoor Bog National Natural Landmark. The mosaic of upland and wetland habitat types provides for a diversity of both migratory and non-migratory wildlife species (Fig. 1). Approximately 20 species of herptofauna, 48 species of mammals, 26 species of fish, and over 200 species of birds have been documented within the Refuge.
Riparian Restoration Recently, a large-scale riparian restoration project was initiated. The project's goal is to restore the hydrology and ecological integrity of the wetlands and streams that have been affected by the alterations of historic flows of three streams and the creation of the Walsh Ditch. Imbedded within this objective is a need to maintain the water levels in the C-3 Pool and thus provide habitat for Bald Eagles, Osprey, and numerous other wetland-dependent species. Created in 1915, the Walsh Ditch drains wetlands for a total of 16 linear miles, six of which are located within the Seney Wilderness Area. Negative impacts of the Ditch include lower groundwater levels, altered vegetation communities, oxidized peat soils, altered natural cycle of flooding, increased erosion, increased sedimentation of the Manistique River downstream, and reduced plant species richness, productivity, and diversity along the historic riparian zones (Fig. 2).
Restoration will return the historic flow of water to channels of the Driggs River, Marsh Creek, and Walsh Creek while reducing the effects of the Walsh Ditch. To effect this change, large-scale water control structures are being installed that will allow water to be re-diverted. Ditch plugs will then be placed in the Walsh Ditch. These plugs, as well as future beaver activity, will reduce the lateral flow of ground water into the Ditch and therefore retard the loss of groundwater and resulting erosion. Forest Restoration The goal of forest restoration is to reestablish structure and composition to forested ecosystems adversely affected by past logging operations. Historically, mixed upland conifer stands of red and white pine in the area were maintained by periodic fire. When these areas were subjected to high-grade logging, or to the removal of only the largest and healthiest trees, the composition and structure of the stands were altered. Slash produced by this extensive logging then burned and converted these areas to "pine stump fields." Now, many of these areas consist of pole to sawtimber-sized stumps interspersed by primarily jack pine. However, due to local effects considerable structural differences are found between sites; some are relatively well-stocked, while others are more savannah-like in appearance (Figure 3a,b). Overall, however, the jack pine component has displaced red and white pine, and mean stand diameter has been reduced.
Since forests growing on xeric soils in the region are quite dynamic, our restoration work acknowledges that a continuum naturally exists with respect to composition and structure. Proceeding from this standpoint, we propose to first map the sites, collect soil information, and then proceed with active management. In one scenario, restoration might begin by conducting timber harvests to remove larger jack pines, thereby "releasing" red and white pine seed trees and scarifying the soil. Prescribed fires to kill jack pine seedlings could then be used to further reduce the jack pine cover. If needed, understory planting of red and white pine could follow the prescribed fire. Overall, this work will promote the longer-lived red and white pine and reduce overall jack pine coverage, thereby restoring historic stand structure and composition. Work will produce mixed stands of red, white, and jack pine of varying density and size distribution and provide improved foraging for Red Crossbills, Bohemian Waxwings, Pine Grosbeaks, and other seed-eating winter migrants. Restoration and Research An important aspect of restoration is the development of a program to assess and monitor management actions (Egan 2002). Although a number of restoration-minded research programs exist in grassland-dominated regions, less work has been done in mostly forested ecosystems. Consequently, Refuge staff are attempting to coordinate activities with interested academic institutions. The hope is that monitoring programs are devised in such a way as to allow for the testing of hypotheses regarding the underlying mechanisms of restoration as well as the effect of that process upon wildlife and wildlife habitat. Literature Cited Egan, D. 2002. Standards for good ecological restoration. Ecological Restoration 20:159. Martinez, D. 2002. Putting ecology into restoration forestry. Distant Thunder 12:1. Wagner, M. R., W. M. Block, B. W. Geils, and K. F. Wenger. 2000. Restoration ecology: a new forest management paradigm or another merit badge for foresters? Journal of Forestry 98: 22-27. For more information, please contact R. Gregory Corace, III (Refuge Forester) or Michael G. Tansy (Refuge Biologist). Email: Greg_Corace@fws.gov, Mike_Tansy@fws.gov. Address: Seney National Wildlife Refuge, 1674 Refuge Entrance Rd., Seney, MI 49883. Telephone: 906.586.9851. OTHER ARTICLES High Hopes For Marsh Terraces As A Small-Scale Wetland Restoration Tool In Coastal Louisiana - John A. Nyman And Megan K. G. La Peyre There are 4,000,000 acres of coastal wetlands in Louisiana. Tidal, non-saline wetlands account for 3,000,000 acres and provide high quality habitat for a diversity of wildlife including the American alligator (Alligator mississipiensis), nutria (Myocastor coypus), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), waterfowl (e.g., Anser spp. Anas spp., Aythya spp., Mergus spp), river otter (Lutra canadensis) white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), mink (Mustela vison) and snapping turtle (Macroclemys temmincki) (Bellrose 1976, McNease and Joanen 1978, Palmisano 1972). The 1,000,000 acres of saline marsh support the largest fishery in the lower 48 states. Wetlands in coastal Louisiana are converting to shallow open water. Wetland loss rates increased geometrically from the 1930's through the 1960's, but declined in the most recent period of measurement (Table 1). Although marsh loss rates declined by almost 50% since the 1960's, on average coastal Louisiana still loses an acre of wetlands every 32 minutes. Table 1. Estimates of wetland loss rates in the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain.
For thousands of years, wetlands naturally converted to open water in coastal Louisiana. Never-theless, Louisiana continually gained coastal wetlands from the end of the last ice age until the first part of this century because natural wetland creation by the Mississippi River was always faster than natural wetland loss (Coleman 1988). Current management of the Mississippi River for flood control and navigation has virtually eliminated this natural process of wetland creation. At the same time, natural wetland loss continues and has been exacerbated by human-induced alterations to the distribution of fresh water and sediments. With wetland loss resulting from large scale activities, such as management of the Mississippi River, to small scale activities, such as marsh buggy or airboat traffic, restoration efforts are correspondingly diverse and span a range of scales (see www.lacoast.gov/cwppra/index.htm). Unlike most coastal areas where wetland loss generally occurs along shorelines (e.g., Phillips 1986, Morton and Paine 1990, Kearney and Stevenson 1991), shoreline loss accounts for a small portion of the total loss in Louisiana (Sasser et al. 1986, Turner and Rao 1990). Instead, the bulk of wetland loss occurs in the marsh interior via the conversion of emergent wetland areas to shallow pond areas (e.g., Sasser et al. 1986, Leibowitz and Hill 1987, Turner and Rao 1990). Such "hotspots" are estimated to account for 43% of all wetland loss (Leibowitz and Hill 1987). Recognition of this unique pattern of wetland loss has led to the development of an innovative restoration technique called marsh terracing. Terracing is a restoration technique used to replace marsh and encourage sediment accretion in surrounding open water areas (Figures 1&2). Terraces are built in open water areas of the estuary, where marsh previously existed and the distance between marsh edges has been slowly increasing (typical of "hotspots"). Dredged materials are piled to form a discontinuous linear ridge that is planted with a tolerant and fast-growing marsh plant such as Spartina alterniflora. Unlike spoil banks, which are continuous and rise above normal tides, terraces are discontinuous and flood at high tide. Multiple terraces can be built in a pattern to maximize marsh edge habitat and decrease wave energy across the open water.
Constructing terraces gained popularity as a restoration and mitigation technique following reports that terraces at Sabine National Wildlife Refuge reversed shoreline erosion and created almost 17 acres of salt marsh with an interface of almost 5,000 feet (Steyer 1993). Terraces may also increase the abundance of Submersed Aquatic Vegetation (SAV), and hence waterfowl, fish, and invertebrates, but supporting data are unavailable. Although relevant data are unavailable, the assumption that terraces promote SAV, and hence waterfowl, fish, and invertebrates, is the basis for management, restoration, and mitigation efforts by state, federal, and nongovernmental organizations. While marsh and SAV are often cited as critical habitats supporting secondary production, e.g. of waterfowl, fish and invertebrates, in estuarine environments (e.g., Martin and Uhler 1939, Boesch and Turner 1984, Zimmerman and Minello 1984, Rozas and Odum 1987), the benefits of marsh terraces and their ability to increase marsh and SAV areas have not been well studied (but see Rozas and Minello 2001). We recently began working with the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge to determine the effects of terraces on SAV, seed, and fish abundance. In order to test the hypothesis that terraces promote SAV, and hence waterfowl, fish and invertebrates, two graduate students are collecting data on SAV abundances, seed availability and fishery assemblages, where terraces were constructed in 1998. These studies, and many others will provide critical information to (1) actual impacts of terraces on wildlife and fishery habitat, and (2) optimize future construction and design of marsh terraces to most fully benefit wildlife and fisheries by increasing appropriate marsh and SAV habitat. Literature Cited Baltz, D.M., C.F. Rakocinski and J.W. Fleeger. 1993. Microhabitat use by marsh-edge fishes in a Louisiana estuary. Environmental Biology of Fishes 36:109-126. Bellrose, F. C. 1980. Ducks, geese, and swans of North America. Stackpole books. Harrisburg, PA. Boesch, D.F. and R.E. Turner. 1984. Dependence of fishery species on saltmarshes: the role of food and refuge. Estuaries 7:460-468. Coleman, J.M. (1988). Dynamic changes and processes in the Mississippi River delta. Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 100:999-1015. Kearney, M.S., Stevenson, J.C. 1991. Island land loss and marsh vertical accretion rate evidence for historical sea-level changes in Chesapeake Bay. J. Coastal Research. 7:403-415. Leibowitz, S.G., Hill, J.M. (1987). Spatial patterns of Louisiana coastal land loss. In: Turner, R.E., Cahoon, D.R. (eds.) Causes of wetland loss in the coastal central Gulf of Mexico. Volume II: Technical Narrative. Final report submitted to Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA. Contract No. 14-12-0001030252. OCS Study/MMS 87-0120. p. 331-355 Martin, A.C., and F.M. Uhler. 1939. Food of game ducks in the United States and Canada. U.D. Dept Agric Tech Bull No 634. McNease, L. & Joanen, T. 1978 Distribution and relative abundance of the alligator in Louisiana coastal marshes. , 182-186. Morton, R. A. & Paine, J. G. 1990 Coastal land loss in Texas- an overview. Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 40, 625-634. Palmisano, A. W. 1972 Habitat preference of waterfowl and fur animals in the northern Gulf Coast marshes. In Coastal marsh and estuary management symposium (ed. R. H. Chabreck), pp. 163-190. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Division of Continuing Education. Phillips, J.D. 1986. Coastal submergence and marsh fringe erosion. Journal of Coastal Research 2:427-436. Rozas, L.P. and T. J. Minello. 2001. Marsh terracing as a wetland restoration tool for creating fishery habitat. Wetlands 21(3):327-341. Rozas, L.P. and W.E. Odum. 1987. The role of submerged aquatic vegetation in influencing the abundance of nekton on contiguous tidal fresh-water marshes. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 114:289-300. Sasser, C.E., M.D. Dozier and J.G. Gosselink. 1986 Spatial and temporal changes in Louisiana's Barataria Basin marshes 1945-1980. Environmental Management 10(5):671-680. Steyer, G.D. 1993. Final report Sabine Terracing project. La. Dept. Nat. Resources, Coastal Restoration Div., Baton Rouge, La. 94pp. Turner, R.E. and Y.S. Rao. 1990. Relationships between wetland fragmentation and recent hydrological changes in a deltaic coast. Estuaries 13(3):272-281. Zimmerman, R.J. and T. Minello. 1984. Densities of Penaeus aztecus, Penaeus setiferus, and other natant macrofauana in a Texas salt marsh. Estuaries 7:421-433. John A. Nyman. Assistant Professor, School of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Louisiana State University Baton Rogue, LA 70803 Megan K. G. La Peyre. Fisheries Biologist--Assistant Leader, USGS Cooperative Research Unit School of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 Northern Forest Restoration: Just Add Conifers (only if it were that simple)! - James Meeker (Reprinted with permission from the Winter 2001 issue of Mazina'igan) Imagine the landscape in Northern Wisconsin some 10,000 years ago. The glaciers had just retreated north and out of the Lake Superior basin. In some places huge chunks of ice lay partially buried in rock debris, and as they melt they begin to create small kettle lakes. Other areas are flat outwash plains with sand and gravel deposits, indicating the spots where large rivers had been removing the glaciers' meltwater. Over much of the surface in what we now call the "northwoods" a glacial till has been deposited. (Till is unsorted debris deposited directly by the glaciers. It is either plastered down on the surface of the earth beneath the glaciers, or deposited from debris within or on top of the glaciers and laid down as the ice sheet melted. Digging through till, one can find a mix of clay, silt, sand and rock in a wide variety of sizes from small pebbles to giant boulders.) Everywhere one looks there are easily dispersing, early colonizing herbaceous plants. Forests also formed on this landscape, as the new landscape "aged." Most of the plants and animals that composed these new forests resettled into the area by traveling from places south of here, areas not covered by glacial ice. These "refuges", such as the Appalachians or the Ozarks, provided the species pool for the newly forming forests. The first forests to develop on this glaciated landscape were dominated by spruces and firs that either survived near the edges of the glaciers or were early in moving into the open landscape. After several thousand years, during a period of approximately 7,000 to 4,000 years ago, the climate began to get warmer and drier, better suited for pines and oaks. This change was especially felt inland, away from the influence of the Great Lakes. Finally, beginning about 3,000 years ago, the climate cooled slightly relative to the previous warm period, and "pre-settlement" forests, those forests that existed just at the beginning of European influence, formed. What did these pre-settlement forests look like? In any glaciated region the different substrate types (or soils "to be") left in the wake of the retreating ice sheets played a major role in determining the different forest types. Glaciers scoured debris from the north and deposited it in a number of landscape features, each with a different nutrient content and moisture holding capacity. In our region (perhaps defined by the northern tier of counties bordering Lake Superior) four main substrate types dictated what the pre-settlement vegetation looked like. In general, we had: 1) northern dry forests on the outwash, sandy soils, 2) northern swamp conifer forests on depressions and ancient lakes made by the glaciers, and 3) northern hemlock-hardwood forests (also called mesic forests) on the tills. One more vegetation type that occupied the larger Lake Superior clay plain has been called 4) the boreal forest, although it is quite different form the true boreal forests north of Lake Superior. The northern dry forests were dominated by the native pine species (red, white and jack pine) and periodic fires influenced their composition and structure. It has been estimated that on "average" the return time for stand clearing fires was about 50 to 100 years. The swamp conifer forests were dominated by black spruce and tamarack, and sometimes white cedar (white cedar was more common before the cutover). One notable feature of these northern wet forests is that they grew on highly organic, peaty soils. Northern hemlock-hardwood (mesic) forests occupied most of the land area in northern Wisconsin. These were the forests that grew on glacial till. (Tills have better moisture holding capacity and more available nutrients than the sandy outwash plains.) On till soils the dominant tree species included sugar maple, hemlock, yellow birch, and basswood. There were also scattered white pine and red oak in these forests. The classic disturbances of the northern hemlock-hardwood forests were quite different from that of the pine forests. The most common type of disturbance was a single tree (or small group of trees) falling down, creating a gap in the forest. Since the dominant tree species of this forest type are very shade tolerant (sugar maple and hemlock), these species would be the ones to prosper in these gaps, perpetuating a forest of similar species composition. This is the idea of a climax forest, and stand leveling disturbances were a rare event in these forests, occurring infrequently at intervals of 1,200 years. One of the most obvious contrasts between those pre-settlement forests and today's forests would have to be differences in the conifer component. Many of the forests in northern Wisconsin, and in the lowland clay plain of Lake Superior especially, have a reduced conifer component relative to the time prior to the heavy cutting of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Conifer trees in this region that are less abundant today include white cedar, eastern hemlock, white spruce and white pine. In addition, Canada yew, an evergreen shrub that was once found in great numbers throughout the region, is now relegated to steep ravines in deep snow country (Figure 1). Why has this occurred? There are many reasons including: 1) loss of a seed source after the devastating fires following the cutover, 2) impeded regeneration due to the increased browse levels inflicted by white-tailed deer, and 3) specific ground moisture requirements that may make their regeneration difficult.
Why is the lack of conifers a critical loss? In addition to increasing structural and species diversity, providing important habitat for assorted wildlife, and offering thermal cover for streams, these conifers provide watershed protection by retarding spring runoff and reducing the erosional capacity of the falling rain drops, thereby slowing the overall erosional rates. For example, the snow cover under conifers in the late winter is less than that under a nearby deciduous canopy, since a portion of the annual snowfall is captured by the evergreen foliage and sublimated into the atmosphere, never reaching the ground. Hence the amount of snow that will melt in the spring under conifers is less. Additionally, the rate at which the snow pack melts is also reduced under conifers, due to the permanent shade under conifers relative to the direct spring sun on the snowpack under deciduous trees prior to leaf out. Hence the flooding pulses are reduced both by volume and rate in conifer dominated systems, protecting overall ecosystem health by reducing the sediment loading in the streams, rivers, and coastal wetlands in these areas. For the above mentioned reasons I have worked throughout the local area (e.g. with the Bad River Tribe, the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, The Nature Conservancy and others, including my own land) to investigate the present status and regeneration capacity of these conifers. I mention white cedar and hemlock in this column and save Canada yew and white pine for another time. White cedar and hemlock were once particularly abundant in fire protected areas of the ravine county in western Iron County (e.g. Potato River areas on the Bad River Reservation, Vaughn Creek of Iron County). Remnants of these once dense conifer stands remain in a small portion of the area. Additionally, prior to settlement, both hemlock and white cedar dominated the slopes of a number of the rivers in this region, as evidenced by the abundance of remnant, charred stumps still present today. Our studies have shown that there are differences in the long term (1800 to present) recruitment of both hemlock and white cedar between lower elevation sites (clay plain) compared to the higher elevation sites. Of all our study areas, only sites at elevations greater than 1000 feet ASL (or about 400 feet above Lake Superior), have seen substantial recruitment of both cedar and hemlock in the 20th century. Overall, the known snowfall gradient from the Iron County border of the Bad River Reservation (Gurney mean snowfall = 137 inches per season) to that of the Bad River corridor (estimated at 57 inches per season at Ashland) appears to influence the present day vegetation by its effect on white tailed deer densities. In these higher elevations sites, with greater mean snow fall depths, deer have traditionally been absent after the first heavy snow falls of December. In addition, even in high snow country, white cedar regeneration is much more limited than hemlock due to its more exacting ground moisture requirements (white cedar only appears successful in seep areas, where ground water supply is more constant). So, until about the late 1970's, winter deer numbers were low in the deep snow areas, resulting in better conifer survival. Recently however, due to increased deer abundance, we have seen more browse activity on conifers in areas that hadn't, up until now, experienced it. Our studies also show no cedar regeneration since 1920, even in wetter areas both in high and low elevation sites. As for hemlock there was some regeneration at all elevations through the 1930's, and in the snow belt up through the 1970's. But now, even hemlock regeneration appears stagnant. Next time I will discuss the special case of Canada yew, an evergreen shrub highly favored by deer, and some preliminary results of deer exclosures that were established to monitor herbivory trends over time. Jim Meeker, Associate Professor of Natural Resources and Biology, Northland College, Ashland, Wisconsin USDA Funding Available For Wildlife Habitat Improvement Projects - Lisa Roberts The Farm Security and Reinvestment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill), passed in May of this year, increases conservation spending substantially over the previous Farm Bill. Congress and the Bush Administration have approved $700 million towards wildlife habitat projects through 2007. Funding is available through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, or WHIP, as it is commonly referred to. WHIP is designed to work with landowners to improve wildlife habitat. Any person who owns or controls land is eligible to participate in WHIP. Lessees must have the consent of the landowner to participate in the program, and do not have to be engaged in agricultural production. Federal land may be enrolled in WHIP if the primary benefit of the project would be on private or tribal land, and State and local governments can be enrolled on a limited basis. Funding for projects is provided on an annual competitive basis. Applications are received throughout the year and as funds are appropriated, projects are reviewed and rated by NRCS state offices for approval. WHIP agreements generally last from 5 to 10 years. A cost-share rate of up to 90 percent is available for contracts of 15 years or more. For contracts of 5-10 years, the cost share rate is up to 75 percent. Landowners can include donated labor, supplies, and equipment as part of their 10 or 25 percent contribution. Other partners in WHIP projects are encouraged. WHIP contracts require that the applicant develop a conservation plan using NRCS approved practice standards. Information on NRCS practice standards can be found on the Internet at: www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg.html Nationally, nearly 1.6 million acres of land has been enrolled in the WHIP program through 11,000 landowners. WHIP monies cannot be used for mitigation purposes or on land designated as converted wetland. The NRCS has offices in nearly every county of the United States. To find your nearest NRCS office surf the internet at: www.nrcs.usda.gov or look in the government section of your local phone book. Lisa Roberts, USDA/NRCS, Sonoma CA Aplomado Falcon Restoration - The Peregrine Fund (Reprinted with permission from The Peregrine Fund) The Northern Aplomado Falcon was once a conspicuous grassland resident of the American Southwest, but by the middle of the Twentieth Century this beautiful falcon was absent from much of its former range. Causes for its decline are still poorly understood but are most likely the result of several factors, including habitat change, human persecution, and ultimately, the widespread use of persistent pesticides. The Northern Aplomado Falcon was listed as an Endangered Species by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in 1986. However, as early as 1978, three private groups, the Chihuahuan Desert Research Institute, the Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group, and The Peregrine Fund, had already begun to develop a captive breeding and reintroduction program for this species because suitable habitat appeared still to exist and because the falcon's habitat requirements were consistent with current land use, notably cattle ranching. Between 1978 and 1988, 25 nestling Aplomado Falcons were collected from several populations in Mexico in an effort to form the foundation of a captive breeding program. Results The Aplomado Falcon has been difficult and labor intensive to breed in captivity, and it was not until the last five years that our propagation efforts produced young falcons in numbers large enough to effect a realistic species recovery. So successful has the propagation effort become that more than 800 captive-bred falcons have now been released into the wild, of which 574 have been released over the course of the last five years alone. This species restoration effort represents an incredible return on an initial investment of only 25 wild nestlings. Aplomado Falcons have been released at more than a dozen locations along the south Texas Gulf Coast from Rockport, Texas, south to the Mexican border and in west Texas. Releases have occurred on Laguna Atascosa, Aransas, and Matagorda Island National Wildlife Refuges, as well as on an increasing number of private properties. Access to private property for the recovery of this Endangered Species has been greatly facilitated through the use of an innovative agreement known as a "Safe Harbor." This conservation plan provides protection for the landowner from potential restrictions imposed by the Endangered Species Act while, at the same time, providing access to essential habitat for the recovery of the Aplomado Falcon. To date, some 2,600 square miles of habitat maintained by the private sector are currently enrolled in the Aplomado Falcon Safe Harbor program. More than 37 pairs of falcons now grace the grasslands of South Texas in habitats where the species had not been seen for more than 50 years. Moreover, established pairs are now breeding and have successfully fledged more than 88 young. Traditionally Aplomado Falcons had been known to nest in the abandoned nests of other birds of prey and ravens at the tops of tree yuccas and in low-lying mesquite. Although such nest sites are still being used by the falcons, the rate of predation by raccoons and Great-Horned Owls is high and the most successful pairs have been those nesting higher off the ground on manmade structures, particularly power poles. So successful has the recovery effort been in South Texas that suitable habitat for the release of additional falcons is becoming difficult to find. Although successful, the recovert of the Aplomado Falcon is not without challenges. Predation by Great-horned Owls remains a significant threat to young Aplomado Falcons during the release phase, while raccons represent the greatest source of nest failure once pairs become established and begin to breed. A manual describing propogation and release techniques for the Aplomado Falcon is in the process of being published and will be available to the public in the future. Future Plans The Peregrine Fund is now expanding this restoration program into other portions of the historical range of the Aplomado Falcon, to include West Texas, and has an interest in developing a future release program in the state of New Mexico. Southern New Mexico could represent significant habitat for the ultimate recovery of the Aplomado Falcon. We believe that the same restoration techniques proven to be successful in Texas could be used in New Mexico. The greatest challenge in New Mexico is not biological, but political. The "Safe Harbor" tool used so effectively in Texas only applies to non-federal lands, and New Mexico represents a matrix of both federal and non-federal lands. Naturally, these political distinctions mean nothing to an Aplomado Falcon, but they do to the agencies and individuals who manage and utilize these lands. For the Aplomado Falcon to gain access to these important grasslands will require adequate assurances that their introduction will not result in unrealistic demands and restrictions on land use and management to government and non-government users of public and private lands. We will continue to release Aplomado Falcons in Texas and develop new release sites under the Safe Harbor program. We will also be working to develop ways to reduce the rate of nest mortality by encouraging falcons to utilize artificial predator-proof nest structures and through experimentation with chemical repellents. As opportunities present themselves, blood samples and addled eggs will continue to be analyzed for contaminant levels. Staff Program direction, Peter Jenny; coordination, Bill Heinrich; reintroduction, Brian Mutch; propagation, Cal Sandfort; research, Grainger Hunt; field manager, Angel Montoya; science assistance, Lloyd Kiff; field assistants Jessica Brown, Janelle Cuddeford, Marta Curti, Erin Gott, Amy Nicholas, and Darren Wallis; and hack site attendants Georgeanna Banks, Melissa Farinha, Kate Krulia, Rebecca Kryder, Thomas Lord, Angela Nelson, Lisa Philhower, Allison Poussard, Michael Psinakis, Robert Rogers, Molly Severson, Swathi Sridharin, Kelly Torres, Jasen Swift, Adam Weber, and Angela Yuska. Cooperators We cooperate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Secretaria De Medio Ambiente Recursos Naturales Y Pesca (SEMARNAP), the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and receive support from many partners from the private sector. Working closely with Miguel Mora of the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, we continue to analyze levels of environmental contaminants found in the blood collected from released falcons and from their addled eggs. Providing essential financial support were the Lee and Ramona Bass Foundation, Houston Endowment, Inc., Ruth O. Mutch, The Robert J. and Helen C. Kleberg Foundation, ExxonMobil Foundation, Edward R. Rose III Family Fund of The Dallas Foundation, The Charles Engelhard Foundation, The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Turner Foundation, Inc., Geo-Marine, Inc., American Electric Power, The Tapeats Fund, Earl C. Sams Foundation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The Steele-Reese Foundation, Norcross Wildlife Foundation, Inc., Jane Smith Turner Foundation, Joan and Herb Kelleher Charitable Foundation, and the State of Texas, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. We give special thanks to Ruth Mutch and Norm Freeman for providing safe and efficient air transport for our Aplomado Falcons from Idaho to Texas. WORKING GROUP NEWS - Steve Windels 2002 Election results for RWG
Marcia Wolfe has taken over chairmanship of the working group from Rich Crawford. Many thanks to Rich for his efforts over the past year!! Tentative plans for 2003 TWS meeting in Burlington, Vermont During the annual business meeting of the Restoration Working Group, there was a consensus that our working group is lacking in "face time" with other TWS members doing restoration work. As a result, we are planning on organizing an afternoon/evening social event during the conference with an informal poster session during which current RWG members and potential new members can gather and talk about restoration. No further details have been planned at this point but we will keep you abreast of things as they develop. Please feel free to send along comments or suggestions about such an event to your nearest RWG officer. We also plan to maintain the practice of organizing half-day field trips to tour local restoration projects. As in Reno, 2 half-day trips will be planned to different locations so that folks can have the option of attending either the morning or afternoon trips or both. Again, more details are to follow. Request for newsletter/website submissions The Restoration Working Group is an organization formed to facilitate communication amongst its members. therefore, it is only as valuable as its members are willing to make it! please consider submitting an article or project update, book review, links to restoration related websites or newspaper articles, etc to future issues of the newsletter. Send submissions (or questions) to Steve Windels, newsletter editor, skwindel@mtu.edu; (906)249-4593; 243 Kawbawgam Rd., Marquette, MI 49855. RESTORATION RELATED PUBLICATIONS Svedarsky, W.D., M.A. Kuchenreuther, G.J. Cuomo, P. Buesseler, H. Moechnig, and A. Singh. 2002. A LANDOWNER'S GUIDE TO PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT IN MINNESOTA. Northwest Research and Outreach Center, University of Minnesota, Crookston, MN. 40p. Table of Contents: Introduction Fire Effects on Prairie Mowing and Haying Grazing and Prairie Vegetation Grazing Systems Interactions Between Fire and Grazing Grazing and Wildlife Planting Prairie and Warm-Season Grasses Integrated Uses and Management of Prairie _____________________________________________________________________ Morrison, M.L. 2002. WILDLIFE RESTORATION: TECHNIQUES FOR HABITAT ANALYSIS AND ANIMAL MONITORING. Island Press, NY. This book:  _____________________________________________________________________ THE SER PRIMER ON ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION A Publication of the Science & Policy Working Group ©2002 Society for Ecological Restoration International Available online at www.ser.org/Primer.pdf Table of Contents: 1. Overview 2. Definition of Ecological Restoration 3. Attributes of Restored Ecosystems 4. Explanations of Terms 5. Reference Ecosystems 6. Exotic Species 7. Monitoring and Evaluation 8. Restoration Planning 9. Relationship between Restoration Practice and Restoration Ecology 10. Relationship of Restoration to Other Activities 11. Integration of Ecological Restoration into Larger Programs _____________________________________________________________________ Clewell, A., J. Rieger, and J. Munro. 2000. GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING AND MANAGING ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS. An SER publication. Available online at http://www.ser.org/reading.php?pg=guidelines Table of Contents: Conceptual Planning Preliminary Tasks Installation Planning Installation Tasks Post-Installation Tasks Evaluation RESTORATION IN THE NEWS After Five-Year Campaign, Health of Chesapeake Bay Unchanged Restoration Work, Regional Pact Only A Start, Group Says By Darragh Johnson Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, October 16, 2002 The health of the Chesapeake Bay has remained virtually unchanged for the past five years, despite an extensive restoration effort and an unprecedented pact signed in 2000 by city, state and federal officials vowing to clean up the bay's polluted waters, according to a report issued yesterday. "The federal agencies and state governments are not putting their money where their mouths are," said William C. Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which released its fifth annual State of the Bay report. "They have signed the agreements, and they have to pay the piper." He paused. "Or let's be honest and say we can't clean up the bay." Visit http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32344-2002Oct15.html for the rest of the article. _____________________________________________________________________ Winchester Dam to Be Removed: Taking out small dam represents a big step in Ashuelot River restoration Issued by New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services July 16, 2002 Winchester, NH - A diminutive structure by human standards but an impassable obstacle to many fish, the Winchester Dam on the Ashuelot River will soon be removed. This is the second dam in as many years to be removed from the Ashuelot River. The project is scheduled to begin the week of July 22nd, pending weather and river conditions. Last July, a downstream section of the Ashuelot was restored when the McGoldrick Dam in Hinsdale was removed. Both dam removals are projects of the New Hampshire River Restoration Task Force, a collaborative public-private initiative with the goal of restoring rivers and eliminating safety hazards through selective dam removal. The N.H. Department of Environmental Services (DES) coordinates the work of the Task Force, only the second state agency in the country to create such a program. "Rivers like the Ashuelot have worked hard for our benefit throughout New Hampshire's history," observed DES Assistant Commissioner Dana Bisbee. "Now, we're returning the favor by restoring a significant stretch of this State-designated river to its natural state. By removing some dams that have simply outlived their usefulness, we're also eliminating public safety hazards as well." He said that DES's dam maintenance crew will do the work of removing the dam, which is paid for through a combination of public and private grants. The estimated cost of removing the dam is $33,000. The Winchester Dam removal will restore approximately 15 miles of the Ashuelot River to free-flowing for the first time in about a century. This project is a significant part of a river-wide restoration plan to help bring back thousands of American shad, blueback herring, and Atlantic salmon to the Ashuelot River. "The removal of the Winchester Dam moves us another step closer to restoring access to historic spawning habitat for migratory fish," noted Scott Decker, N.H. Fish and Game Department Fish Habitat Conservation Program Coordinator. "Removal of this small dam will help maintain the momentum generated last year with the removal of the McGoldrick Dam downstream in Hinsdale." The Ashuelot is one of New Hampshire's major tributary streams to the Connecticut River and an historically significant river for migratory fish. Increasing fish movement throughout the river will allow them to reach important spawning and nursery sites, resulting in healthier fish populations and improved opportunities for anglers. The 3-foot high, 105-foot-long timber crib dam is owned by the Town of Winchester. It has deteriorated greatly since it was built around 1900. It no longer serves a function and is considered to be a hazard to anglers and paddlers. The dam once provided water storage for the New England Box Company located in Winchester and for the Sheridan Woolen Mills in Ashuelot Village. As part of the dam removal project, two millstones will be retrieved from the Ashuelot River for display at the Winchester Town Hall and the Winchester Historical Society. "We have been involved in the discussions and planning for dam removals on the Ashuelot over the last few years, and look forward to the opening of the waterway in Winchester," said Barbara Skuly, Ashuelot River Local Advisory Committee member. "Many in the local community are in delighted anticipation of the removal of this hazard to boating and seeing the waters flow unobstructed once again." Anglers hope improvements in the river will improve recreational fishing on the Ashuelot, which could result in increased revenue to communities along the river. The N.H. Fish and Game Department has spearheaded efforts to restore anadromous fish to the Ashuelot, and it has been stocking about 200,000 Atlantic salmon fry each spring since 1995, 700 American shad each spring since 1998, and 80 river herring each spring since 1998. "The effort to restore the Ashuelot River is a model for how public-private partnerships can benefit the Connecticut River itself, and the communities located within its four-state watershed," said David Deen of the Connecticut River Watershed Council, which is funding a large portion of the project in partnership with the NOAA Fisheries Restoration Center. Additional parts of the plan to restore the Ashuelot River include the removal of the Homestead Woolen Mill Dam in West Swanzey and the installation of upstream fish passages on three hydropower dams located in the lower section of the river. The project is made possible through financial and technical assistance from a number of groups, including: NOAA Fisheries Restoration Center, Connecticut River Watershed Council, American Sportfishing Association - FishAmerica Foundation, Wildlife Forever, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, N.H. Fish and Game Department, N.H. Department of Environmental Services, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project has received valuable support from the Town of Winchester, Ashuelot River Local Advisory Committee, the N.H. Division of Historical Resources, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The River Restoration Task Force has diverse representation. State governmental partners include: N.H. Dept. of Environmental Services, N.H. Fish and Game Dept., N.H. Division of Historical Resources, and N.H. Office of Emergency Management. Federal governmental partners include: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA Fisheries Restoration Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Organizational partners include: Connecticut River Watershed Council, Trout Unlimited, NH Rivers Council, American Rivers, Conservation Law Foundation, American Whitewater, Merrimack Valley Paddlers, Coldwater Fisheries Coalition, and Ashuelot River Local Advisory Committee. ________________________________________________________________________ Butterfly Restoration Project Launches with Big Grant from BP From Spring 2002 issue of Chicago Wilderness Magazine On December 7, BP (formerly BP Amoco) awarded a $100,000 Leader Award to the Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum to help launch the innovative Butterfly Restoration Project. Led by Nature Museum biologist Doug Taron, the project is an extension of Chicago Wilderness's existing Butterfly Monitoring Network. Taron and colleagues will identify two butterfly species for reintroduction to appropriate natural sites. BP employees will join other volunteers participating in the program to gather field data. "One important result of the project," Taron explained, "will be the establishment of two new butterfly colonies accompanied by a comparative study of the molecular diversity of both donor and recipient populations. This is believed to be the very first instance in which a butterfly translocation will be coupled with molecular analysis of the population." Eventually, this process could lead to the restoration of hundreds of species of butterflies and other invertebrates into this region's prairies, woodlands, and wetlands. "We are proud that, through our financial contribution and employee involvement, we are able to help expand the reach of leading organizations such as the Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum," said Doris Salomón, BP director of community affairs. For more information about the Butterfly Monitoring Network, call the Chicago Wilderness Habitat Project at (847) 965-9239. UPCOMING MEETINGS 2002 November 3-4. Salvage of Plant Communities--a workshop conducted by John Munro--will be held at Niagara College in St. Catherine's, Ontario. Contact the Humboldt Field Research Institute, P.O. Box 9, Steuben, ME 04680, 207/546-2821, Fax 207/546-3042, admin@eaglehill.us for more information. November 3-5. Applied Habitat Restoration in Flood-adapted Ecosystems--a workshop conducted by James Dougan--will be held at Niagara College in St. Catherine's, Ontario. Contact the Humboldt Field Research Institute, P.O. Box 9, Steuben, ME 04680, 207/546-2821, Fax 207/546-3042, admin@eaglehill.us for more information. November 20-24. 6th International Conference on Shellfish Restoration will convene in Charleston, South Carolina. For information, contact Elaine Knight at 843/727-2078, Elaine.Knight@scseagrant.org. December 9-11. Invasive Plants and Restoration in the West: A Partnership Workshop will meet at the Little America Hotel in Salt Lake City, Utah. For information, contact Center for Invasive Plant Management, MSU Dept. LRES, P.O. Box 173120, Bozeman, MT 59717-3120, 406/994-683, www.weedcenter.org/help/registration.html. 2003 January 13-15. History and Forest Biodiversity Symposium will be held at Katholieke Universiteit in Leuven, Belgium. For information, send e-mail to forestbiodiv@agr.kuleuven.ac.be or visit http://www.agr.kuleuven.ac.be/lbh/lbnl/forestbiodiv. January 14-16. CALFED Bay-Delta Science Conference 2003 will meet at the Sacramento Convention Center, Sacramento, California. For information, contact Elise Holland at elise.holland@tpl.org or Larry Brown at lrbrown@usgs.gov. February 24-28. 34th Annual Conference and Expo of the International Erosion Control Association will be held in Los Vegas, Nevada. Contact Kate Nowak at 970/879-3010 ext. 15, kate@ieca.org, or check out details on the conference Web site at http://www.ieca.org/public/articles/details.cfm?id=452. March 24-28. Northwest Chapter of the Society for Ecological Restoration Conference in Portland, Oregon. March 26-30. The 68th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference will meet at Adam's Mark Winston Plaza in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. For information, contact James Woehr or Richard McCabe, 202/371-1808 or visit http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/. April 7-9. Symposium on Landscape Ecology and Wildlife Habitat Evaluation, sponsored by ASTM International, will meet in Kansas City, Missouri. For information, see http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/CUSTOM5/E47.htm. April 8-10. 4th National Integrated Pest Management Symposium will meet in Indianapolis, Indiana. For information, contact Elaine Wolff, 217/333-2881, ipmsymposium@ad.uiuc.edu or check out the Conference Web site at http://nautilus.outreach.uiuc.edu/conted/conference.asp?ID=244. April 13-16. Inaugural National Conference on Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Restoration, hosted by Restore America's Estuaries, will meet at the Hyatt Regency Inner Harbor Hotel in Baltimore, Maryland. Information is available at http://www.estuaries.org/ and from Heather Bradley at 703/524-0248, hbradley@estuaries.org. April 28-30. Second International Conference on River Basin Management, organized by the Wessex Institute of Technology, will be held in Las Palmas, Gran Canaria. Information is available at http://www.wessex.ac.uk/conferences/2003/riverbasin03/netscape6.html or by contacting wit@wessex.ac.uk. May 11-16. 27th Annual Conference of the Association of State Floodplain Managers will be held in St. Louis, Missouri. For details, contact Trisha Hoskins at 608/274-0123, asfpm@floods.org. June 8-13. 24th Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists will meet at the Hyatt Regency in New Orleans, Louisiana. For more information, see the conference Web site at http://www.sws.org/regional/southcentral/2003.htm. June 28-July 2. 17th Annual Meeting for the Society of Conservation Biology will meet in Duluth, Minnesota. For details, visit http://www.d.umn.edu/ce/conferences/scb2003/ or contact Teri Williams at 218/726-8835, twillia1@d.umn.edu. Nov. 12-15. 15th Annual Conference of Society for Ecological Restoration in Austin, Texas. 2004 SER 16th Annual Conference in Victoria, British Columbia, 2004 2005 SER 17th Annual Conference in Zaragoza, Spain, 2005 RESTORATION RESOURCES Join Society for Ecological Restoration's Restoration Network In the next month SER will begin sending out messages of interest to the restoration community regarding upcoming events, opportunities, SER news, etc. If you would like to join this listserv, send a message from the email you wish to subscribe to Majordomo@ser.org with the following command in the body of your email message: subscribe restoration-network The Wildlife Society's Restoration Working Group Newsletter is edited by Steve Windels. Send submissions, corrections, or comments to: skwindel@mtu.edu; ph: (906)249-4593; fax (906) 487-2915. PLEASE VISIT OUR WEBSITE AGAIN TO CHECK OUT THE NEXT EDITION OF OUR NEWSLETTER (WINTER 2003) DUE IN FEB. 2003!!!!!! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Web site created by Wildlifer.com.
© Copyright 2001.