Appalachia_MH_7.7

1
Appalachia Ecosystem Restoration
By: Mariah Harrod
3) Do a search for any proposals outthere on ecosystem restoration in Appalachia, including what it
would costto do a comprehensive initiative there comparable to the restoration efforts underway
on the Gulf Coast, Great Lakes, and Mississippi River. Does the latesteconomic development
planning by the Appalachian Regional Commission address ecosystem restoration in the region?
How aboutgroups like MACED, KFTC, and other local economic development/environmental
groups?
The Appalachian region ofthe eastern United States comprises a landscape ofrich culture and
biodiversity threatened by fossil fuel mining, fracking, and industrial development. Its richness transcends
emotional value as economists quantify—to some marginal degree—the financial worth of Appalachia’s
“ecosystem services.” These services include forestfiltration ofdrinking water, habitat for sportfish and
game, outdoor recreation and tourism, clean air, mitigation of climate change, and flood prevention, among
others.1 Mindful ofthe degradation of both the livelihoods ofresidents and of these valuable amenities,
organizations such as the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Kentuckians for the
Commonwealth (KFTC), Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), Central Appalachian Spruce
Restoration Initiative, and others work to restore human-impacted ecosystems within Appalachia. Due to
variation in ecosystems and size of regions, costcomparisons are difficultto accurately produce. Lending
to this lack ofinformation is the relatively new nature of these projects and poor communication amongst
government, grassroots organizers,and researchers. The bestone may do in the way of cost-effective
ecosystem restoration is evaluate the unique problems each region faces and the historical and future
projects enacted by established organizations,compare economic projections for ecosystem services, and
judge which projects mosteasily procure the intended consequences within a certain context.
1 “Key Ecosystem Benefits.” ALCC. http://applcc.org/ecosystems-risks-benefits/about/homepage/key-ecosystem-services

2
Within the pastdecade, projects aimed ataquatic habitat restoration and general water quality
improvementhave increased in popularity.2 The mostrecenttrend of these developments has been to
focus upon restoring ecosystem services provided to humans, yet post-project reports are scarce and
reveal varying degrees ofsuccess.3 One such projectwithin Appalachia attests to this discord between
restoration managers and audit researchers by demonstrating how a $2.6 million USACE proposal to repair
aquatic habitat in Boone, North Carolina uses limited funding without proving ecological restoration to fine-
tune future work.4 The projectentailed planting vegetation stabilize banks ofthe New River to prevent
sedimentpollution and thus promote better habitat and increase diversity and abundance ofaquatic
organisms.5 To this end, the Appalachian Landscape Conservation Cooperative has created a public
website using GIS to discover which banks mightneed restoration in the contextofclimate change heat
and disturbance.6 This recent joint operation—funded partially by USACE and partially by the town of
Boone—focused especially on expanding wetlands and restoring riparian zones, the latter mainly by
spraying invasive species.7 Yetthe researcher found that ecological benefits ofthis multimillion dollar
projectwere limited by continued human development(deforestation, agriculture, increase in impervious
surfaces contributing to runoff), though some financial paybacks can be said to have manifested through
this project’s protection ofathletic fields, water transportation, and lessened flood risk.8 Accordingly,
problems with restoration proposals are notlimited to ineffective or absentcommunication between project
2 Bobbie Swinson. “To Restore or Not to Restore?” UNCG. 2014.
http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Swinson,%20Bobbie%20Jo_2014_%20Thesis.pdf
6 “Riparian Restoration Decision Support Tool.” ALCC. http://applcc.org/plan-design/gis-planning/gis-tools-resources/riparian-
restoration-decision-support-tool-1/riparian-restoration-decision-support-tool

3
enactors and researchers to produce optimal outcomes; the services these projects provide should be
monetarily quantified as accurately as possible to avoid wasting limited funding.
A similar USACE projectalong the Mississippi River soughtto stabilize banks by shaping or filling
banks, filling in shallow offshore bottoms, and placing rock groins perpendicular to eroding shoreline.9 As
with the New River case, a funding limit was setat $2.5 million for the entirety of the proposal enactment,
and so projections for the restoration ofeach pool site were generated by USACE.10 The mostexpensive
site projects listed were also some ofthe smallestat ten and five acres, respectively,while the least
expensive covered 115 acres.11 Though other factors—such as ecosystem service financial benefits and
habitat needs—were considered, but as a general trend USACE rejected costlier projects were in favor of
restoring the greatestquantity of pools as possible with capped funding.12 This reveals a disparity in ease
of restoration across locations and demonstrates that priority should be given to those projects which are
cost-efficientand can be shown to confer the greatestecological need or value. Through the 1986 Water
Resources Act, federal funding administered through USACE to the upper Mississippi River basin is
authorized at about$34 million a year butis historically much lower.13 A more encompassing plan by
USACE estimates a $3 billion price tag for the restoration of57,000 acres ofwetlands and coasts around
the Gulf outlet.14
9 “Mississippi River Bank Stabilization Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project.” USACE. 1995.
http://www.mvr.usace.army.mil/Portals/48/docs/Environmental/EMP/HREP/MVP/BankStabilization/MissRvBankStab_D
PR.pdf
PR.pdf
PR.pdf
PR.pdf
13 “Ecosystem Restoration.” Upper Mississippi River Basin Association. http://www.umrba.org/ecosystem.htm
14 “Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.” USACE. http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Environmental/MRGO-Ecosystem-
Restoration/

4
Other governmental organizations, such as the Coastal Projectand Restoration Authority (CPRA)
in Louisiana, have allotted significantly more funds to bank stabilization, hydrologic restoration, and marsh
creation with a budgetof$50 billion to be spentin 50 years.15 Due to the 2010 BP spill, federal legislation
passed assuring that the majority of the nearly $6 billion paid in Clean Water Actfines must be spent
restoring Gulf Coast ecosystems.16 Additionally, BP agreed to compensate “natural resource damages” for
a conciliatory total nearing $15 million, eightallocated solely to Louisiana.17 Thus, 52 projectproposals are
currently being considered by CPRA for 2017, but the mostrecentdata for projects lists the leastcostly at
$1 million and mostexpensive at$2,927 million.18 Data is not listed in terms of costby area. A more
comprehensive plan—affecting five states—arose from the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council
proposing use of RESTORE Actfunds for ecosystem restoration alongside other economic development
projects, though no costwas estimated.19
Northward around the Great Lakes, the focus expands beyond sediment and nutrient pollution to
target prevalent invasive species. NOAA’s Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP)
and Great Lakes Area of Concern Land Acquisition Project use GreatLakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI)
funding to expand aquatic habitat protection while prioritizing areas of severe ecosystem damage and
service value.20 To date, CELCP protected 535 acres Great Lakes coast.21 GLRI funding—similarly to the
funds for the Gulf Coast—derives from the federal government. A recent presidential initiative resulted in a
$1.6 billion investment in the GRLI since 2010 with funding allocated to toxic substances and areas of
15 “Coastal Master Plan Project.” CPRA. http://coastal.la.gov/a-common-vision/2012-coastal-master-plan/2012-coastal-master-
plan-projects/
16 “Bipartisan Win Ensures Billions.” EDF https://www.edf.org/ecosystems/bipartisan-win-ensures-billions-delta-recovery
17 “Bipartisan Win Ensures Billions.” EDF https://www.edf.org/ecosystems/bipartisan-win-ensures-billions-delta-recovery
18 “Coastal Master Plan Project.” CPRA. http://coastal.la.gov/a-common-vision/2012-coastal-master-plan/2012-coastal-master-
plan-projects/
19 “The Path Forward to Restoring the Gulf Coast.” Restore the Gulf. 2013.
http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/The%20Path%20Forward%20to%20Restoring%20the%20Gulf%20Coa
st%20-%20Gulf%20Restoration%20Council%20FINAL.pdf
20 “Habitats and Species.” NOAA. http://www.regions.noaa.gov/great-lakes/index.php/great_lakes-restoration-initiative/habitats/
21 “Habitats and Species.” NOAA. http://www.regions.noaa.gov/great-lakes/index.php/great_lakes-restoration-initiative/habitats/

5
concern, nearshore health and nonpointsource pollution, education and outreach, habitat restoration, and
invasive species management.22 Accordingly, 16 governmental agencies—including USACE, NOAA, and
the EPA—work collaboratively alongside nonprofits to monitor and restore the largestfreshwater
ecosystem in the world.23 In May 2016, the EPA announced $12.5 million would be allocated to 28 GRLI
projects for an average ofabouthalf a million per proposal largely for invasive species and polluted
watershed management.24
Along this line of thought, some organizations have focused on wetlands for restoration projects.
Largely arising from the recentexpansion ofawareness regarding the economic boons ofwetland services,
the United States Department ofAgriculture (USDA) has spent$4.2 billion on restoring these hydrological
zones within the pasttwo decades.25 Yetsimilarly to the problems associated with governmental
stabilization of river and stream banks, little research is done for the sake ofmonitoring the actual
ecological and economic value of such restoration.26 One reportprovided by members ofthe USDA and
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) comparatively analyzes the economic costs and benefits
of wetland restoration projects across the nation along eightcategories: duck hunting, carbon
sequestration, flood protection, nitrogen removal, species protection, open space, sedimentremoval, and
groundwater recharge.27 Amongstall studied regions (Glaciated Interior Plains, Pacific Mountain, Prairie
Pothole Region, GulfAtlantic Coastal Flats, Appalachian Highlands, High Plains, Mississippi Alluvial Valley,
22 “Great Lakes Restoration.” NOAA. http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pubs/brochures/GLRI_all_2015.pdf
23 “Great Lakes Restoration.” NOAA. http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pubs/brochures/GLRI_all_2015.pdf
24 “U.S. EPA Announces 28 Great Lakes Restoration.” EPA. 2016. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/us-epa-announces-28-
great-lakes-restoration-initiative-grants-totaling-over-125-million
25 LeRoy Hansen et al. “Targeting Investments.” USDA. 2015.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272504605_Targeting_Investments_To_Cost_Effectively_Restore_and_Prot
ect_Wetland_Ecosystems_Some_Economic_Insights

6
Central Valley, Gulf Atlantic Rolling Plains, Central Plains), researchers found lowestcosts for wetland
restoration within western North Dakota and eastern Montana and highestwithin corn-producing areas as
well as western Washington and Oregon.28 Costs varied considerably within the Prairie Pothole region and
Appalachia.29 So far as wetland vertebrate species conservation goes,Southern California and Appalachia
should receive foremostattention.30 In terms ofcarbon sequestration, the Mississippi Alluvial Valley carries
greater financial benefits than Prairie Pothole Region with similar newly restored wetland.31 Additionally
researchers found that within eastern/central Illinois and southwestern Ohio, restoration was more cost-
effective in terms ofnitrogen removal than in areas surrounding the Great Lakes and within Appalachia.32

7
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272504605_Targeting_Investments_To_Cost_Effectively_Restore_and_Protect_Wetla
nd_Ecosystems_Some_Economic_Insights
In addition to this map, a table provided on pages 49-50 ofthe study depicts a linear regression model for
the costs and benefits associated with each region. This statistical analysis is over my head, butif you
would like to look further into it follow the link below the above picture.
In addition to the water pollution evidentwithin mostecoregions,Appalachia suffers from terrestrial
degradation. This arises as the result of mineral mining and timber harvesting, the former which removes
the entire top layers of mountains to retrieve deposits and the latter which cuts down older trees
sequestering superlative quantities ofcarbon and providing rare habitat for specialistorganisms. In 1977,
the loss ofAppalachian forestry contributed to the passage ofthe Surface Mining Control and Reclamation

8
Act (SMCRA). This law mandates that mining companies restore vegetation and original slope to a site
and—while largely beneficial in reducing erosion and sedimentpollution—produces hard-packed earth and
wiggle room for corporate compliance.33 The law does notcurrently specify that the vegetation be the same
as that which was removed or preventheavy machinery from compressing soil pores necessary for plant
roots to grow, and so invasive plants and weeds inhabitthese once bustling forests.34 However, a coalition
of governmentofficials, nonprofits, industries, and volunteers have worked to buy up and restore this land
by replanting American chestnut, elm, and other resilientspecies.35 Under the Appalachian Reforestation
Restoration Initiative, Green Forests Work, United States Department of Agriculture, and the Appalachian
Regional Commission (ARC) accumulated millions of dollars offunding for this project.36 Similar projects
are currently managed by the WestVirginia Division of Forestry in the contextof the red spruce, a tree
providing ideal habitatfor many threatened species. For this latter project, almost$4 million was raised for
the seeding of more than 4,000 acres.37 In likeminded fashion, nonprofitMountain Association for
Community Economic Development(MACED) historically offered the Appalachian Carbon Partnership
compensating forestlandowners $223,500 for 29,500 tons of carbon offsets across almost30,000 acres
until offset laws were altered.38 Additional funds for restoration can, ideally, be procured through the coal
severance fund designed to reallocate money into mining-impacted communities butcurrently provides
loopholes directing money into affluent regions for commercial purposes.
Kentuckians for the Commonwealth (KFTC) and the Kentucky Student Environmental Coalition
(KSEC) have similarly attempted to restore Appalachia with a focus on community developmentand
33 Black, Harvey. “Restoring Appalachian Forests Begins with Restoring Soil.” Soil Horizons. 56 (3): 2015.
37 “Central Appalachian Spruce Restoration Initiative.” RRS. 2011.
http://restoreredspruce.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49:central-appalachian-spruce-
restoration-initiative&catid=34:demo-category
38 “Appalachian Carbon Partnership.” MACED. http://www.maced.org/foi/carbon.htm

9
political lobbying. The POWER+ Plan (KFTC) and Just Transition Campaign (KSEC) both seek to direct
federal and state funds—such as the Kentucky coal severance tax—into Appalachia. Though both
organizations are nonprofits, these projects are supported by membership fees,donations, and fundraising.
Within its budget, ARC has equally acknowledged the importance ofprotecting and restoring natural assets
for the sake ofecosystems and humans residing within them, allocating $1.2 million to this project.39
Additionally, another ofthese more comprehensive restoration projects has been pioneered by USACE and
targets the Ohio River within seven states.40 The cost(in October 2000 dollars) was estimated at
$306,400,000 and includes 25,000 acres of bottomland hardwood forestry, 25,000 acres of wetlands, 1,250
acres of aquatic habitats, 40 islands, and 100 miles ofriparian land.41 Service restoration, in terms of
financial benefit, was projected to exceed restoration costs over time.42
While restoring degraded ecosystems is undoubtedly a noble and necessary accomplishment,
sufficient evidence exists pointing to superior service benefits from native lands.43 Accordingly, foremost
attention should be placed on protecting whathas yetto be demolished by human interests. Ecosystem
services, while tricky to quantify, can also guide funds to mostappropriate locations and projects most
conducive to carbon sequestration, water filtration, habitat restoration, etc. Currently, wetland mitigation
appears to be the mostfinancially profitable restoration.44 If past spending can be claimed a veritable,
honest indication of the value ofcertain proposals over another, Dr. Barry Gold ofthe Marine Conservation
39 “FY 2017 Performance Budget Justification.” ARC. 2016.
http://www.arc.gov/images/newsroom/publications/fy2017budget/FY2017PerformanceBudgetFeb2016.pdf
40 “Ohio River Ecosystem Restoration Program, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.” USACE.
2000. http://planning.usace.army.mil/toolbox/library/ChiefReports/ohioriv_erp.pdf
43 Walter Dodds et al. “Comparing Ecosystem Goods and Services.” 58 (9): 2008. 837.
44 Barry D. Gold. “Ecosystem Services and Ecosystem Restoration.” UF. 2011.
http://conference.ifas.ufl.edu/NCER2011/Presentations/Tuesday/Harborside%20C-
E/am/Plenary%20sessions/0830%20B%20Gold.Final.pdf (Accessed 4 July 2016)

10
of Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation has found that wetlands have earned primary focus.45 Further, with
about $558 million spenton Chesapeake Bay annually, $564 million on PugetSound, $475 million on Great
Lakes, $1.5 billion on Gulf Coast, $200 million on California Bay Delta, and $16 billion spentthrough the
Farm Bill for agricultural conservation, more research should be done to ensure that the money and labor
allocated to this work is overcompensated by the financial benefits ofecosystem services.46 Forestservices
themselves, while poorly quantified, have been projected to exceed the profitoftimber by a factor of3-10.47
Dodds etal. attempted to quantify the values ofcertain ecoservices in the contextofsix main ecoregions to
find that wetlands by far have the greatestreturn on restoration value:48

11
However, the Great Plains provided the greatestfinancial benefitamongst terrestrial landscapes.49
Additionally, these services were monetized:
Through this chart, ecosystem restoration mightbe bestaddressed by funneling funding only to the projects
which each region can superiorly provide financial returns. For Appalachia, this would likely be nutrient
cycling, commodities, and recreation.

12
Table of Acronyms
 ALCC: Appalachian Landscape Conservation Cooperative
 ARC: Appalachian Regional Commission
 CELCP: Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program
 CPRA: Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority
 GLRI: Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
 KFTC: Kentuckians for the Commonwealth
 KSEC: Kentucky Student Environmental Coalition
 NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
 SMCRA: Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
 USDA: United States Department of Agriculture
 USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Bibliography
“Appalachian Carbon Partnership.” Mountain Association for Community Economic Development.
http://www.maced.org/foi/carbon.htm (Accessed on 6 July 2016)
Bauman, Jenise M., Caleb Cochran, Julia Chapman, and Keith Gilland. “Plant Community Development
Following Restoration Treatments on a Legacy Reclaimed Mine Site.” Ecology Engineering. 83:
2015. 521-528.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julia_Chapman3/publication/281652486_Plant_community_d
evelopment_following_restoration_treatments_on_a_legacy_reclaimed_mine_site/links/561bd0fd0
8ae044edbb386dd.pdf
“Bipartisan Win Ensures Billions for Delta Recovery.” Environmental Defense Fund.
https://www.edf.org/ecosystems/bipartisan-win-ensures-billions-delta-recovery (Accessed on 1 July
2016)
Black, Harvey. “Restoring Appalachian Forests Begins with Restoring Soil.” Soil Horizons. 56 (3): 2015. 1-
4. https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/sh/articles/56/3/sh2015-56-3-f
“Central Appalachian Spruce Restoration Initiative.” Restore Red Spruce. 7 Jan. 2011.
http://restoreredspruce.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49:central-
appalachian-spruce-restoration-initiative&catid=34:demo-category (Accessed on 6 July 2016)
“Coastal Master Plan Projects.” Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. http://coastal.la.gov/a-
common-vision/2012-coastal-master-plan/2012-coastal-master-plan-projects/ (Accessed on 1 July
2016)
Dodds, Walter K., Kymberly C. Wilson, Ryan L. Rehmeier, G. Layne Knight, Shelly Wiggam, Jeffrey A.
Falke, Harmony J. Dalgleish, and Katie N. Bertrand. “Comparing Ecosystem Goods and Services
Provided by Native and Restored Lands.” 58 (9): 2008. 837-845. http://www.k-

13
state.edu/doddslab/journalarts/dodds%20et%20al%20biosci%202008.pdf(Accessed on 1 July
2016)
“Ecosystem Restoration.” Upper Mississippi River Basin Association. http://www.umrba.org/ecosystem.htm
(Accessed on 6 July 2016)
“FY 2017 Performance BudgetJustification.” Appalachian Regional Commission. Feb. 2016.
http://www.arc.gov/images/newsroom/publications/fy2017budget/FY2017PerformanceBudgetFeb2
016.pdf (Accessed on 23 June 2016)
Gold, Barry D. “Ecosystem Services and Ecosystem Restoration.” University of Florida. 2 Aug. 2011.
E/am/Plenary%20sessions/0830%20B%20Gold.Final.pdf(Accessed 4 July 2016)
“Great Lakes Restoration.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pubs/brochures/GLRI_all_2015.pdf (Accessed on 1 July 2016)
“Habitats and Species.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
http://www.regions.noaa.gov/great-lakes/index.php/great_lakes-restoration-initiative/habitats/
Hansen, LeRoy, Daniel Hellerstein, Marc Ribaudo, James Williamson, David Nulph, Charles Loesch, and
William Crumpton. “Targeting Investments to Cost Effectively Restore and ProtectWetland
Ecosystems:Some Economic Insights.” United States Department of Agriculture. Feb. 2015.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272504605_Targeting_Investments_To_Cost_Effectively
_Restore_and_Protect_Wetland_Ecosystems_Some_Economic_Insights (Accessed on 29 June
2016)
“Key Ecosystem Benefits.” Appalachian Landscape Conservation Cooperative.
http://applcc.org/ecosystem-risks-benefits/about/homepage/key-ecosystem-services (Accessed on
24 June 2016)
“Mississippi River Bank Stabilization Habitat Rehabilitation and EnhancementProject.” United States Army
Corps of Engineers. Aug. 1995.
http://www.mvr.usace.army.mil/Portals/48/docs/Environmental/EMP/HREP/MVP/BankStabilization/
MissRvBankStab_DPR.pdf(Accessed on 1 July 2016)
“Mississippi River GulfOutlet.” United States Army Corps of Engineers.
http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Environmental/MRGO-Ecosystem-Restoration/
“Ohio River Ecosystem Restoration Program, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia.” United States Army Corps of Engineers. 29 Dec. 2000.
http://planning.usace.army.mil/toolbox/library/ChiefReports/ohioriv_erp.pdf (Accessed on 6 July
2016)
“Riparian Restoration Decision SupportTool.” Appalachian Landscape Conservation Cooperative.
http://applcc.org/plan-design/gis-planning/gis-tools-resources/riparian-restoration-decision-support-
tool-1/riparian-restoration-decision-support-tool (Accessed on 29 June 2016)

14
Swinson, Bobbie. “To Restore or Notto Restore? Assessing Pre-ProjectConditions ofa Habitat
Restoration Projecton the New River, North Carolina.” University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
Aug. 2014. http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Swinson,%20Bobbie%20Jo_2014_%20Thesis.pdf
(Accessed on 25 June 2016)
“The Path Forward to Restoring the Gulf Coast: A Proposed Comprehensive Plan.” Restore the Gulf. 29
Jan. 2013.
http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/The%20Path%20Forward%20to%20Restoring%20t
he%20Gulf%20Coast%20-%20Gulf%20Restoration%20Council%20FINAL.pdf (Accessed on 7
July 2016)
“U.S. EPA Announces 28 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Grants Totaling Over $12.5 Million to Restore
Great Lakes.” Environmental Protection Agency. 4 May 2016.
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/us-epa-announces-28-great-lakes-restoration-initiative-grants-
totaling-over-125-million (Accessed on 1 July 2016)

Appalachia_MH_7.7

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Appalachia_MH_7.7

Similar to Appalachia_MH_7.7 (20)

More from Mariah Harrod

More from Mariah Harrod (19)

Appalachia_MH_7.7