title: Coordinating ecological restoration options analysis and risk assessment to improve environmental outcomes.
abstract: Ecological risk assessment as currently practiced has hindered consideration of ecosystem services endpoints and restoration goals in the environmental management process. Practitioners have created barriers between procedures to clean up contaminated areas and efforts to restore ecosystem functions. In this article, we examine linkages between contaminant risk assessment approaches and restoration efforts with the aim of identifying ways to improve environmental outcomes. We advocate that project managers and other stakeholders use an ecological planning framework, with restoration options included upfront in the risk assessment. We also considered the opportunities to incorporate ecosystem services as potential assessment endpoints in the Problem Formulation stages of a risk assessment. Indeed, diverse perspectives of stakeholders are central to understand the relevance of social, cultural, economic, and regional ecology as influences on future use options for the landscape being restored. The measurement endpoints used to characterize the existing ecological conditions for selected ecosystem services can also be used to evaluate restoration success. A regional, landscape, or seascape focus is needed throughout the risk assessment process, so that restoration efforts play a more prominent role in enhancing ecosystem services. In short, we suggest that practitioners begin with the question of "how can the ecological risk assessment inform the decision on how best to restore the ecosystem?"
authors.affiliation: LK Consultancy, Turner Valley, Alberta, Canada.
authors.forename: Lawrence A
authors.initials: LA
authors.lastname: Kapustka
authors.affiliation: Biohabitats, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
authors.forename: Keith
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Bowers
authors.affiliation: Department of the Interior, Denver, Colorado, USA.
authors.forename: John
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Isanhart
authors.affiliation: Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico.
authors.forename: Cristina
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Martinez-Garza
authors.affiliation: USGS Columbia Environmental Research Center, Columbia, Missouri.
authors.forename: Susan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Finger
authors.affiliation: EI du Pont de Nemours, Wilmington, Delaware, USA.
authors.forename: Ralph G
authors.initials: RG
authors.lastname: Stahl
authors.affiliation: CSIRO Land and Water, Sydney, Australia.
authors.forename: Jenny
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Stauber
mesh_terms: D003247:Conservation of Natural Resources; D017753:Ecosystem; D004784:Environmental Monitoring / Q000379:methods*; D052918:Environmental Restoration and Remediation / Q000379:methods*; D018570:Risk Assessment / Q000379:methods
keywords: Ecological planning framework; Ecosystem services; Landscape perspective; Valued ecological resources