Since the late 1800s, environmental degradation has taken a heavy toll on American natural resources. Water, land, and air have been polluted, human health threatened, wetlands lost, the lives of other species diminished, and the very life support system of our planet stressed. Beginning 35 years ago with the 1969 passage of the National Environmental Protection Act, major federal legislation has been enacted by Congress to direct federal powers and resources toward addressing these problems. While successes have been many, problems persist and new ones emerge. It is clear that the federal role must continue to evolve and environmental policy must continue to improve.

Significant in the last 20 years is a movement in environmental policy to construct and target federal environmental programs toward restoration of specific large ecosystems. Starting with the Chesapeake Bay Agreement in 1983, the movement now includes more than a half-dozen restorations-in-progress-spanning community, state, and even national boundaries. Large-scale restoration efforts have evolved in response to the awareness that the physical, biological and chemical integrity of such ecosystems are closely intertwined. The theory is that restoration will be achieved most efficiently if activities can be targeted to the specific requirements of particular places. In addition, the ubiquitous, persistent nature of some pollutants, the spread of increasingly mobile populations and economies, and an intensification of human activities such as land development and agriculture are causing conventional media-specific programs to lag far behind regional needs.

As subregions within the Northeast-Midwest region of the United States, including the Upper Mississippi River basin and the Great Lakes, rally scarce environmental resources to launch or step-up such large-scale initiatives, the question of whether such programs deliver results or are otherwise "worth the effort" becomes urgent. The reality is that the ultimate effectiveness of the large-scale ecosystem restoration approach remains unknown. Much is likely to depend upon the particulars of the subject ecosystems and programs.

The Northeast-Midwest Institute initiated this project to get a better understanding of what influences large-scale ecosystem restoration planning and action. Resources for these large-scale restorations are measured in dozens of organizations, hundreds of people, thousands of hours, and billions of dollars. Because of conflicting interests, ecological complexity, and high costs, restoration actions only come after lengthy, charged, exhausting negotiations among stakeholders. Yet even after agreements are reached, commitments made, and monies allocated, progress-or lack of progress-takes decades to assess. These facts underscore the critical importance of understanding what leads to successful restoration activities and what does not.

With funding from the National Sea Grant College Program and others, we chose seven large-scale ecosystem restoration initiatives in the United States with similar characteristics such as scale and complexity. Our goal was to inventory restoration initiatives, compare and contrast those initiatives, and evaluate them for lessons relevant to existing and emerging restorations across the country. In addition to this website, we have been presenting information from this study at various forums using a variety of methods. We believe that a better understanding of the dynamics and history of these large-scale restorations can help improve ongoing and inform new efforts.