Project leaders must then make a determination of whether or not soft engineering is appropriate. If it is not, resource managers continue with ongoing preservation and conservation efforts. There may also be an opportunity to incorporate habitat in the form of rock rubble at the toe of the hard structure. If soft engineering is appropriate, an inclusive multidisciplinary process will be required to reap the desired benefits. A multidisciplinary team should be formed to reach agreement on goals and multiple objectives for the waterfront and its shoreline. For the design process to be successful, it must identify opportunities and establish partnerships early in the process which achieve integrated ecological, economic, and societal objectives.

Once agreement on goals and multiple objectives has been reached, the multidisciplinary team must set quantitative targets to measure progress. The team next evaluates management alternatives and sets priorities. The preferred management practices are then implemented. Following the implementation of these actions, monitoring is performed to evaluate effectiveness. If objectives are met, project success and its benefits are communicated and management agencies continue with preservation and conservation efforts. If objectives and targets are not met, the team evaluates further management alternatives, sets priorities, and takes additional actions in a continuous improvement fashion until objectives and targets are met. Other frameworks may also be as useful to achieve the multiple benefits that soft engineering of shorelines can provide.

Another way of furthering the use of soft engineering practices along shorelines is to make sure that a number of key elements are addressed in the shoreline design and implementation process. Table 2 presents a checklist of key elements to consider in the decision-making process and selected references (i.e., case studies, web sites, literature) for further information. This checklist is designed to help developers, municipal planners, consultants, resource mangers, and others to consider using soft engineering practices in shoreline development projects.

Table 2. A checklist of key elements to consider in evaluating soft engineering practices for shorelines and related references for further information.

Concluding Remarks

Urban infrastructure is generally understood to mean the substructure (i.e., roads, sewers) and underlying foundation that provides essential community services. For example, communities need basic services provided by roads and sewers. Recently, the concept of "green infrastructure" has been used to communicate importance of the natural resource foundation that provides essential ecological services and related social and economic benefits. Parks, conservation areas, ecological corridors, linked greenways, and open spaces under best management practices all provide essential ecological services and related social and economic benefits.

There are numerous examples around North America that demonstrate that putting money into "green infrastructure" and watershed rehabilitation, enhancement, and protection is not merely a matter of paying for past mistakes, but a sound investment that pays immediate and long-term returns. For example, through the work of the Toronto Waterfront Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and the Toronto Waterfront Regeneration Trust, full costs and benefits of restoration projects in the Lower Don River Valley have been estimated. Capital expenditure on watershed restoration is estimated to be about $964 million (Canadian), along with $1.4 million (Canadian) in annual operating costs. This will lead to capital savings of approximately $42 million (Canadian), annual user benefits of approximately $55 million (Canadian), and annual savings of approximately $11 million (Canadian). In addition, the direct economic development benefits include province-wide increases in income of about $3.6 billion (Canadian) associated with capital investment and $5 billion (Canadian) per year associated with expanded economic activity. Such estimates of full costs and benefits help to provide compelling rationale for watershed management actions.

Further, there is growing recognition of the importance of "green infrastructure" in sustaining our communities, environments, and economies. Healthy communities and economies require healthy environments and "green infrastructure." "Green infrastructure" is a key element for:

• achieving community renewal;
• increasing community awareness, participation, and pride; and
• sustaining communities and economies.

It is the intent of the Greater Detroit American Heritage River Initiative that the advantages of soft engineering practices be recognized and incorporated into many shoreline projects along the Detroit River as a standard for future development. Clearly, greater emphasis must be placed on project evaluation and communication of lessons learned in order to expand the use of soft engineering practices. Participants at the November 23rd conference identified many places where soft engineering practices might be used, including:

• Belle Isle;
• Windsor's Goose Bay on its east waterfront;
• Henderson Park and the promenade in Detroit;
• Hennepin Marsh on Grosse Ile;
• Wayne County's Elizabeth Park and Black Lagoon in Trenton;
• the Gateway Project along the Rouge River within the Automobile National Heritage Area (Figure 3);
• land owned by National Steel Corporation; and
• other projects.

The time is right to incorporate soft engineering practices into our efforts to redevelop and improve our shorelines. In addition, soft engineering practices should be incorporated in municipal operating manuals and day-to-day operations that affect shoreline use and management. Soft engineering projects also lend themselves to volunteer participation. Let's work together to showcase the use of multiple-objective soft engineering practices along the Detroit River shoreline and proudly display our region's new front door.

Figure 3. The concrete channel of the lower Rouge River as it exists today (top) and a graphic depiction of what this portion of the lower Rouge River might look like in the future (bottom). The vision for this area includes greenways, parks, soft engineering of the shoreline, and mixed use redevelopment (Photo credit: Wayne County Department of Environment; Design credit: Hamilton Anderson Associates).

References

Canada Centre for Inland Waters. 2000. National Water Research Institute. Burlington, Ontario, Canada. http://www.cciw.ca/

Canada-Ontario Agriculture Green Plan. 1996. Best Management Practices-Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management.

Environment Canada. 1996. Planting the Seed, A Guide to Establishing Aquatic Plants. http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/glimr/data/planting-seed/intro.html

Environment Canada. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Ministry of Environment. 1998. A Framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Canada-Ontario Remedial Action Plan Steering Committee.

Environment Canada. 1999a. Soil Bioengineering-An Alternative to Concrete.

Environment Canada. 1999b. The Watershed Report Card. A volunteer-based monitoring program developed in partnership with Environment Canada.

Environment Canada. 2000. Cornwall: Cleaning up our Waterfront Makes Good $ense; Restoring Great Lakes Watersheds-Adding Up the Economic Benefits; Rising Property Values on Hamilton's West Harbourfront; Thunder Bay: What's the $ense in Cleaning up our Watershed? Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. Government Printing Office Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A 57.6/2:EN 3/PT.653. ISBN-0-934213-59-3.

Fuller, D.R. 1997. Understanding, Living With, and Controlling Shoreline Erosion. A Guidebook for Shoreline Property Owners. 2nd ed. Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, Conway, Michigan.

Grillmayer, R.G. 1995. Soil Bioengineering Technical Report: Black Ash Creek Rehabilitation Project, 1992-1994. Collingwood Harbour Remedial Action Plan. Report #ISBN 0-7778-4080-4, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan Writing Team. 1992. Remedial Action Plan for Hamilton Harbour. Goals, options, and recommendations. Vol. 2, Main Report. Stage II RAP. Burlington, Ontario, Canada.

Hartig, J.H., M.A. Zarull, T.B. Reynoldson, G. Mikol, V.A. Harris, R.G. Randall, and V.W. Cairns. 1997. Quantifying Targets for Rehabilitating Degraded Areas of the Great Lakes. Environmental Management. 21 (5): 713-723.

Henderson, C.L., C.J. Dindorf, and F.J. Rozumalski. 1999. Lakescaping for Wildlife and Water Quality. Minnesota's Bookstore, Saint Paul, Minnesota.

Jones, C. 1999. Stream Restoration Monitoring Framework. Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, Ontario, Canada.

Kelso, J.R.M. and J.H. Hartig. 1995. Methods of modifying habitat to benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem. Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information. Occasional Paper 1. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Land and Water, Inc. 2000. The Magazine of Natural Resource Management and Restoration. Fort Dodge, Iowa. http://www.landandwater.com

Leonard, L. 2000. The Watershed Report Card. Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.

North Shore of Lake Superior Remedial Action Plans and Scollen and Company, Inc. 1998. Achieving Integrated Habitat Enhancement Objectives - A Technical Manual. Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.

Ontario Streams. 1999. Ontario's Stream Rehabilitation Manual. Belfountain, Ontario, Canada.

Reid, R., K. Rodriguez, and A. Mysz. 1999. State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1998: Biodiversity Investment Areas - Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems. http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/solec/pdf/ntbia.pdf

Schacht, B. 1995. Urban stream stabilization efforts which increase instream habitat while controlling bank erosion, p. 149-153. In J.R.M. Kelso and J.H. Hartig [editors]. Methods of modifying habitat to benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem. CISTI (Can. Inst. Sci. Tech. Inf.) Occasional Paper. No. 1.

Schueler, T.R. 1992. Design of stormwater wetland systems: guidelines for creating diverse and effective stormwater wetlands in the mid-Atlantic Region. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, District of Columbia.

Smokorowski, K.E., M.G. Stoneman, V.W. Cairns, C.K. Minns, R.G. Randall, and B. Valere. 1998. Trends in the Nearshore Fish Community of Hamilton Harbour, 1988 to 1997, as Measured Using and Index of Biotic Integrity. Can. Tech. Rept. Fish. Aquat. SCI No. 2230, Burlington, Ottawa, Ontario.

Society for Ecological Restoration. 2000. Internet Resources Site. Tucson, Arizona. http://www.ser.org

Society for Ecological Restoration-Ontario Chapter. 2000. Environmental and Resource Studies Program, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. http://www.trentu.ca/ser

Tulen, L.A., J.H. Hartig, D.M. Dolan, and J.J.H. Ciborowski (eds.). 1998. Rehabilitating and Conserving Detroit River Habitats. Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research Occasional Publication No. 1. Windsor, Ontario, Canada.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1984. Shore Protection Manual, USCOE Waterways Exp. Sta., Vicksburg, Mississippi.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Bioengineering for Streambank Erosion Control. Technical Report EL-97-8, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 1999. Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, Mississippi. http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil

US Army Corps of Engineers. 2000 (in review). Coastal Engineering Manual, Part VI. Department of the Army, Washington, District of Columbia.

Waldron, G.E. 1997. The Tree Book: Tree Species and Restoration Guide for the Windsor-Essex Region. Project Green, Inc., Windsor, Ontario, Canada.