Aging Infrastructure and Ecosystem Restoration

Doyle, Martin W.; Stanley, Emily H.; Havlick, David G.; Kaiser, Mark J.; Steinbach, George; Graf, William L.; Galloway, Gerald E.; Riggsbee, J. Adam

doi:10.1126/science.1149852

Cited by 107 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Likewise, structures that reduce the ability of the shore zone to produce or retain organic matter, including woody debris, may have undesirable consequences. In addition, as Doyle et al (2008) pointed out, replacement, repair, or removal of aging infrastructure in shore zones may offer promising opportunities to improve the ecological functioning of engineered shore zones.…”

Section: Climate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Ecology of freshwater shore zones

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Freshwater shore zones are among the most ecologically valuable parts of the planet, but have been heavily damaged by human activities. Because the management and rehabilitation of freshwater shore zones could be improved by better use of ecological knowledge, we summarize here what is known about their ecological functioning. Shore zones are complexes of habitats that support high biodiversity, which is enhanced by high physical complexity and connectivity. Shore zones dissipate large amounts of physical energy, can receive and process extraordinarily high inputs of autochthonous and allochthonous organic matter, and are sites of intensive nutrient cycling. Interactions between organic matter inputs (including wood), physical energy, and the biota are especially important. In general, the ecological character of shore zone ecosystems is set by inputs of physical energy, geologic (or anthropogenic) structure, the hydrologic regime, nutrient inputs, the biota, and climate. Humans have affected freshwater shore zones by laterally compressing and stabilizing the shore zone, changing hydrologic regimes, shortening and simplifying shorelines, hardening shorelines, tidying shore zones, increasing inputs of physical energy that impinge on shore zones, pollution, recreational activities, resource extraction, introducing alien species, changing climate, and intensive development in the shore zone. Systems to guide management and restoration by quantifying ecological services provided by shore zones and balancing multiple (and sometimes conflicting) values are relatively recent and imperfect. We close by identifying leading challenges for shore zone ecology and management.

show abstract

Section: Climate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Ecology of freshwater shore zones

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…is likely to influence nutrient export and the biogeochemical function of waterways. An improved understanding of the relationship between infrastructure type and biogeochemical functions is critical for minimizing unintended consequences of water quality management, especially as growing urban populations place greater burden on watershed infrastructure (Doyle et al, 2008;Foley et al, 2005;Strokal and Kroeze, 2014).…”

Section: Study Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of infrastructure on water quality and greenhouse gas dynamics in urban streams

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Streams and rivers are significant sources of nitrous oxide (N 2 O), carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), and methane (CH 4 ) globally, and watershed management can alter greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from streams. We hypothesized that urban infrastructure significantly alters downstream water quality and contributes to variability in GHG saturation and emissions. We measured gas saturation and estimated emission rates in headwaters of two urban stream networks (Red Run and Dead Run) of the Baltimore Ecosystem Study Long-Term Ecological Research project. We identified four combinations of stormwater and sanitary infrastructure present in these watersheds, including: (1) stream burial, (2) inline stormwater wetlands, (3) riparian/floodplain preservation, and (4) septic systems. We selected two firstorder catchments in each of these categories and measured GHG concentrations, emissions, and dissolved inorganic and organic carbon (DIC and DOC) and nutrient concentrations biweekly for 1 year. From a water quality perspective, the DOC : NO − 3 ratio of streamwater was significantly different across infrastructure categories. Multiple linear regressions including DOC : NO − 3 and other variables (dissolved oxygen, DO; total dissolved nitrogen, TDN; and temperature) explained much of the statistical variation in nitrous oxide (N 2 O, r 2 = 0.78), carbon dioxide (CO 2 , r 2 = 0.78), and methane (CH 4 , r 2 = 0.50) saturation in stream water. We measured N 2 O saturation ratios, which were among the highest reported in the literature for streams, ranging from 1.1 to 47 across all sites and dates. N 2 O saturation ratios were highest in streams draining watersheds with septic systems and strongly correlated with TDN. The CO 2 saturation ratio was highly correlated with the N 2 O saturation ratio across all sites and dates, and the CO 2 saturation ratio ranged from 1.1 to 73. CH 4 was always supersaturated, with saturation ratios ranging from 3.0 to 2157. Longitudinal surveys extending form headwaters to third-order outlets of Red Run and Dead Run took place in spring and fall. Linear regressions of these data yielded significant negative relationships between each gas with increasing watershed size as well as consistent relationships between solutes (TDN or DOC, and DOC : TDN ratio) and gas saturation. Despite a decline in gas saturation between the headwaters and stream outlet, streams remained saturated with GHGs throughout the drainage network, suggesting that urban streams are continuous sources of CO 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 O. Our results suggest that infrastructure decisions can have significant effects on downstream water quality and greenhouse gases, and watershed management strategies may need to consider coupled impacts on urban water and air quality.

show abstract

“…Overwater pier structures are also attributed to deterring fish from passing through, and instead swimming around the shaded areas into deeper waters, which presents a greater risk of predation (Nightengale & Simenstead, 2001;Anchor QEA, 2012) There is an urgency that must be met in addressing infrastructure improvements throughout the United States (Doyle, et al, 2008;Burchell, Crosby, & Russo, 2010). As agencies contemplate these projects, it is important that they consider the impact on the surrounding environment, and in turn consider the less tangible, but important benefits that incorporating habitat restoration can have for a project.…”

Section: Opportunities For Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitat restoration incentives for major infrastructure projects

Jensen

2017

Environmental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Major infrastructure projects are undertaken by an agency or organization to provide public services such as transportation, utilities, waste collection, recreation, or other amenities. These projects are typically funded by public agencies or organizations and are highly scrutinized for cost, schedule, and performance. Additionally, due to the magnitude of these projects, construction and operational impacts can be lengthy and diffuse, resulting in environmental impacts that must be addressed. Early consideration of habitat restoration measures as part of a project has the potential to offset environmental impacts caused by the project and provide other incentives for project proponents to consider, as explored in this study.Three case study projects in Washington State were used to explore the incentives for incorporating habitat restoration at the onset of a major infrastructure project. Washington was selected due to its unique regulatory environment and because it provided a consistent platform for detecting trends over a range of infrastructure projects types. The case study projects include the Elliott Bay Seawall Project, the State Route (SR) 520 Bridge Replacement and High-occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, and the Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan.This study utilized existing environmental documentation for the case study projects, interviews, and literature review. Interviews included 14 case study participants from different backgrounds using semi-structured interviews. These case study projects, and the supplemental literature review, showed that early consideration of habitat restoration measures as part of a project can help to increase public support, streamline regulatory review, save money, and provide opportunities for innovation.Public support is a critical component of major infrastructure projects due to their reliance on public funding for construction. However, this process can be lengthy and unpredictable. Early consideration of habitat restoration measures can increase agency and public acceptability of a project and potentially reduce costs that would result from opposition or delays. The Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan was a successful effort to garner public and stakeholder support for water management efforts in the Yakima River Basin. Early in the program, a work group was formed to prioritize public support, bringing in constituents that represented a range of public interests. The program provided a balanced approach to water management and habitat restoration that catered to needs of multiple parties and provided the necessary public acceptance to get the program approved and secure initial funding.The permitting process for major infrastructure projects can also be lengthy and unpredictable. Determining habitat restoration options early in the design process in coordination with regulatory agencies can help with agency and public acceptance and streamline the permitting process. For the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Prog...

show abstract

Aging Infrastructure and Ecosystem Restoration

Cited by 107 publications

References 8 publications

Ecology of freshwater shore zones

Ecology of freshwater shore zones

Influence of infrastructure on water quality and greenhouse gas dynamics in urban streams

Habitat restoration incentives for major infrastructure projects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About