River Restoration Science Research Articles

The stream evolution triangle: Integrating geology, hydrology, and biology

AbstractThe foundations of river restoration science rest comfortably in the fields of geology, hydrology, and engineering, and yet, the impetus for many, if not most, stream restoration projects is biological recovery. Although Lane's stream balance equation from the mid‐1950s captured the dynamic equilibrium between the amount of stream flow, the slope of the channel, and the amount and calibre of sediment, it completely ignored biology. Similarly, most of the stream classification systems used in river restoration design today do not explicitly include biology as a primary driver of stream form and process. To address this omission, we cast biology as an equal partner with geology and hydrology, forming a triumvirate that governs stream morphology and evolution. To represent this, we have created the stream evolution triangle, a conceptual model that explicitly accounts for the influences of geology, hydrology, and biology. Recognition of biology as a driver leads to improved understanding of reach‐scale morphology and the dynamic response mechanisms responsible for stream evolution and adjustment following natural or anthropogenic disturbance, including stream restoration. Our aim in creating the stream evolution triangle is not to exclude or supersede existing stream classifications and evolutionary models but to provide a broader “thinking space” within which they can be framed and reconsidered, thus facilitating thought outside of the alluvial box.

Fracturing dams, fractured data: Empirical trends and characteristics of existing and removed dams in the United States

AbstractDam removals in the United States continue to accelerate in pace and scope, but no national analyses have examined how removed dams compare with existing dam stock. Here, we review and analyse the best available national data on dams from the National Inventory of Dams (NID), dam removals from American Rivers, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the National River Restoration Science Synthesis databases to compare trends and characteristics of removed versus existing dams in the United States. If historical trends continue, by 2050 the United States can expect between 4,000 and 36,000 total removals, including 2,000–10,000 removals of NID dams. Best‐fit regression models estimate total costs between $50.5 million and $25.1 billion (mean $10.5 billion, median $416.5 million) for all removals and $29.6 million to $18.9 billion (mean $7.2 billion, median $285 million) for NID removals, a significant cost savings over present stated dam rehabilitation needs. Structural characteristics and ages of documented removals are not representative of existing dams, with privately owned hydroelectric dams subject to public oversight and water supply dams the most disproportionately removed. We conclude that dam removal science would benefit from the creation of an interdisciplinary framework for studying dams as environmental, social, and technological interventions, facilitated by transparent datasets around dams and removals and reflexive research approaches that combine statistical approaches with place‐based analyses.

Macrophytes respond to reach‐scale river restorations

Summary1. In recent years, river restoration science has been searching for biological indicators of improvement in the physical habitats of streams. To date, research has mainly focused on the use of fish and macroinvertebrates as indicators. Despite their importance in aquatic ecosystems, the response of macrophytes to habitat restoration has been rarely studied.2. We investigated the macrophyte communities of 40 restored river reaches in the lowland and lower mountainous areas of Germany. Each restored reach was compared to an upstream, unrestored reach using a space‐for‐time‐substitution approach. At each reach, a 100 m stretch was surveyed for submerged and emergent macrophytes, recording the quantity, abundance and growth form of each species. Additionally, microhabitat patterns (substrate, depth, current velocity) and channel parameters (mean and bankfull width, number of channel elements) were recorded.3. Restored reaches had a significantly higher macrophyte cover, richness, diversity and number of growth forms. Macrophyte diversity and richness were both positively correlated with depth, current and substrate.4. The analysis of growth forms showed that Lemnids, Helodids, Parvopotamids, Elodids, Peplids and Juncids are all significant indicators of restoration. These species all responded directly to the restoration measures either by highly increasing in abundance or by being present in the restored reaches and absent in the unrestored reaches. While the restored reaches of the lowland rivers were characterized by a high abundance of Peplids and Parvopotamids, the restored reaches of the mountain rivers showed a significantly higher presence and abundance of Lemnids and Helodids.5. Three macrophyte species (Lemna minor, Persicaria hydropiper, Potamogeton crispus) were regarded as significant indicators of restoration. No species were found to be indicators of unrestored reaches.6. Synthesis and applications. Macrophyte communities benefit from river restoration by showing increased cover, abundance and diversity. The main drivers of this enhancement are more natural and diverse substrates and an increased floodplain area in the restored reaches, as well as a greater variability of current and depth patterns. Monitoring of macrophytes could thus be an easy and cost‐effective means to gauge the success of river restoration measures.

Guidelines for restoring connectivity around water mills: a population genetic approach to the management of riverine fish

Summary While freshwater systems provide important goods and services for society, they are threatened by human activity. Fragmentation is one of the most serious ecological concerns in the riverine environment. Historical and cultural values may conflict with nature restoration. Here we use the Zwalm sub‐basin (Scheldt basin, Belgium) as a case study for reconciling the restoration of the native fish fauna with the preservation of historical water mills (320–1000 years old). We assessed the genetic structure of a barrier‐sensitive species, the three‐spined stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus, to estimate the impact of fragmentation on a local to catchment scale. We show how population genetic approaches may be used to generate guidelines for restoration and management, and advance the science of river restoration. Dispersal was lower in above‐ than in below‐mill populations, and water mills provoked an average loss of almost 4% of the genetic variation. This loss accumulated to 40% over the entire system (~23 km, 13 barriers). The impact of individual mills strongly increased with upstream distance and water mill height. One mill provoked significant genetic differentiation, despite the presence of a fish passage. This detailed picture of the genetic connectivity in stickleback is indicative for the basin's depauperate fauna. Many species share the same migratory pathways and barriers to dispersal. The physical properties of the water mills are likely to have similar effects on species with a similar genetic structure to stickleback. Synthesis and applications. Population genetic studies may be particularly useful during the planning of river restoration and associated ecological studies. In the case of the Zwalm sub‐basin, we propose a number of management actions, such as building new fish passages and translocating individuals to above‐mill populations. These will counter the negative impact of the water mills on the genetic variation in aquatic fauna, whilst retaining their cultural–economical value and limiting the restoration costs. Simulations suggest that reassessment of stickleback genetic structure after a decade should reveal whether or not restoration actions have been effective.

River and Riparian Restoration in the Southwest: Results of the National River Restoration Science Synthesis Project

Abstract Restoration activity has exponentially increased across the Southwest since 1990. Over 37,000 records were compiled into the National River Restoration Science Synthesis (NRRSS) database to summarize restoration trends and assess project effectiveness. We analyzed data from 576 restoration projects in the Southwest (NRRSS‐SW). More than 50% of projects were less than or equal to 3 km in length. The most common restoration project intent categories were riparian management, water quality management, in‐stream habitat improvement, and flow modification. Common project activities were well matched to goals. Conservative estimates of total restoration costs exceeded $500 million. Most restoration dollars have been allocated to flow modification and water quality management. Monitoring was linked to 28% of projects across the Southwest, as opposed to just 10% nationwide. Mean costs were statistically similar whether or not projects were monitored. Results from 48 telephone interviews provided validation of NRRSS‐SW database analyses but showed that project costs are often underreported within existing datasets. The majority of interviewees considered their projects to be successful, most often based upon observed improvements to biota or positive public reaction rather than evaluation of field data. The efficacy of restoration is difficult to ascertain given the dearth of information contained within most datasets. There is a great need for regional entities that not only track information on project implementation but also maintain and analyze monitoring data associated with restoration. Agencies that fund or regulate restoration should reward projects that emphasize monitoring and evaluation as much as project implementation.

River Restoration in the Twenty‐First Century: Data and Experiential Knowledge to Inform Future Efforts

Abstract Despite some highly visible projects that have resulted in environmental benefits, recent efforts to quantify the number and distribution of river restoration projects revealed a paucity of written records documenting restoration outcomes. Improving restoration designs and setting watershed priorities rely on collecting and making accessible this critical information. Information within the unpublished notes of restoration project managers is useful but rarely documents ecological improvements. This special section of Restoration Ecology is devoted to the current state of knowledge on river restoration. We provide an overview of the section’s articles, reflecting on lessons learned, which have implications for the implementation, legal, and financing frameworks for restoration. Our reflections are informed by two databases developed under the auspices of the National River Restoration Science Synthesis project and by extensive interactions with those who fund, implement, and permit restoration. Requiring measurable ecological success criteria, comprehensive watershed plans, and tracking of when and where restoration projects are implemented are critical to improving the health of U.S. waters. Documenting that a project was put in the ground and stayed intact cannot be equated with ecological improvements. However, because significant ecological improvements can come with well‐designed and ‐implemented stream and river restorations, a small investment in documenting the factors contributing to success will lead to very large returns in the health of our nation’s waterways. Even projects that may appear to be failures initially can be turned into success stories by applying the knowledge gained from monitoring the project in an adaptive restoration approach.

Stream Restoration Practices in the Southeastern United States

Abstract We collected information on 860 stream restoration projects in four states in the southeastern United States—Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, and South Carolina—to gain a better understanding of the practice of stream restoration in this area of high aquatic biodiversity and rapid metropolitan expansion. This was completed as a part of the National River Restoration Science Synthesis, with the larger goal of understanding the state of the science of stream restoration. Stream restoration project density, goals, and monitoring rates varied by state, although southeastern monitoring rates were higher than in other parts of the country. North Carolina had the most projects in the Southeast, of which 36% were monitored. In‐depth phone interviews with project managers from a random subsample of projects provided insights into the process of stream restoration. Land availability was the most common basis for site prioritization, and 49% of projects involved mitigation. Although 51% of projects were associated with a watershed assessment, only 30% of projects were done as part of a larger plan for the watershed. Projects were monitored using physical (77% of monitored projects), chemical (36%), and biological (86%) variables, although many projects were planned and ultimately evaluated based on public opinion. Our results suggest that stream restoration in the southeastern United States is at an exciting point where better incorporation of a watershed perspective into planning and establishment and evaluation of stated, measurable success criteria for every project could lead to more effective projects.

Two Decades of River Restoration in California: What Can We Learn?

Abstract As part of the National River Restoration Science Synthesis (NRRSS), we developed a summary database of 4,023 stream restoration projects built in California since 1980, from which we randomly selected 44 records for in‐depth interviews with project managers. Despite substantial difficulties in gathering the data, we were able to draw conclusions about current design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation practices used in California projects and compare them with national trends. Although more than half of the projects for which we conducted interviews were located in watersheds for which a management or assessment plan had been prepared, these plans had a limited impact on site selection. We also found that the state lacks a consistent framework for design, monitoring, and reporting restoration projects, and that although monitoring is far more widespread than the information in the NRRSS summary database would suggest, there are still problems with the type, duration, and reporting of monitoring. The general lack of systematic, objective assessment of completed projects hinders the advance of restoration science.

Evaluating Stream Restoration in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed through Practitioner Interviews

Abstract River restoration is an integral part of restoring the Chesapeake Bay. As part of the National River Restoration Science Synthesis (NRRSS), we conducted 47 independent interviews with stream restoration project managers randomly selected from a database of 4,700 projects in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Here we present results from those interviews and characterize patterns in project goals, design, and expenditures, trends in project evaluation, and characterize project success as reported by interviewees. Interviewed practitioners reported that the majority of their projects were designed by private consultants. One‐third of projects were part of a watershed management plan and 70% were linked to other projects within the same watershed. Most interviewees considered their projects to be successful, and 76% of projects had conducted some form of project‐associated monitoring. Although most interviewees based their evaluation of success on observations or monitoring data, respondents indicated that very few projects had explicitly stated quantifiable project objectives within their design plans. Many interviewed practitioners specifically commented at the end of the surveys on the important role of stakeholder involvement and the need for initiatives to fund project monitoring.

Ecological Success in Stream Restoration: Case Studies from the Midwestern United States

Despite rapid growth in river restoration, few projects receive the necessary evaluation and reporting to determine their success or failure and to learn from experience. As part of the National River Restoration Science Synthesis, we interviewed 39 project contacts from a database of 1,345 restoration projects in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio to (1) verify project information; (2) gather data on project design, implementation, and coordination; (3) assess the extent of monitoring; and (4) evaluate success and the factors that may influence it. Projects were selected randomly within the four most common project goals from a national database: in-stream habitat improvement, channel reconfiguration, riparian management, and water-quality improvement. Roughly half of the projects were implemented as part of a watershed management plan and had some advisory group. Monitoring occurred in 79% of projects but often was minimal and seldom documented biological improvements. Baseline data for evaluation often relied on previous data obtained under regional monitoring programs using state protocols. Although 89% of project contacts reported success, only 11% of the projects were considered successful because of the response of a specific ecological indicator, and monitoring data were underused in project assessment. Estimates of ecological success, using three criteria from Palmer and others (2005), indicated that half or fewer of the projects were ecologically successful, markedly below the success level that project contacts self-reported, and sent a strong signal of the need for well-designed evaluation programs that can document ecological success.

Restoring freshwater ecosystems in riverine landscapes: the roles of connectivity and recovery processes

Summary1. This paper introduces key messages from a number of papers emanating from the Second International Symposium on Riverine Landscapes held in August 2004 in Sweden, focusing on river restoration. Together these papers provide an overview of the science of river restoration, and point out future research needs.2. Restoration tests the feasibility of recreating complex ecosystems from more simple and degraded states, thereby presenting a major challenge to ecological science. Therefore, close cooperation between practitioners and scientists would be beneficial, but most river restoration projects are currently performed with little or no scientific involvement.3. Key messages emanating from this series of papers are: The scope, i.e. the maximum and minimum spatial extent and temporal duration of habitat use, of species targeted for restoration should be acknowledged, so that all relevant stages in their life cycles are considered. Species that have been lost from a stream cannot be assumed to recolonise spontaneously, calling for strategies to ensure the return of target species to be integrated into projects. Possible effects of invasive exotic species also need to be incorporated into project plans, either to minimise the impact of exotics, or to modify the expected outcome of restoration in cases where extirpation of exotics is impractical.4. Restoration of important ecological processes often implies improving connectivity of the stream. For example, longitudinal and lateral connectivity can be enhanced by restoring fluvial dynamics on flood‐suppressed rivers and by increasing water availability in rivers subject to water diversion or withdrawal, thereby increasing habitat and species diversity. Restoring links between surface and ground water flow enhances vertical connectivity and communities associated with the hyporheic zone.5. Future restoration schemes should consider where in the catchment to locate projects to make restoration most effective, consider the cumulative effects of many small projects, and evaluate the potential to restore ecosystem processes under highly constrained conditions such as in urban areas. Moreover, restoration projects should be properly monitored to assess whether restoration has been successful, thus enabling adaptive management and learning for the future from both successful and unsuccessful restorations.

Stream Restoration Databases and Case Studies: A Guide to Information Resources and Their Utility in Advancing the Science and Practice of Restoration

Abstract The successful application of adaptive management to the science and practice of restoration ecology requires specific knowledge about the outcomes of past restoration efforts. Ideally, project results would be readily available to scientists or other project managers with similar goals or in analogous ecosystems. Recently, there has been a proliferation of Internet‐accessible databases, lists, and case studies of stream and river restoration projects. These resources include a wide range of information that could be accessed to aid natural resource and conservation professionals in restoration. In the U.S. Pacific Northwest, the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center and, on a national scale, the National River Restoration Science Synthesis are combining existing national and regional databases, along with the individual project descriptions, to create comprehensive, web‐based databases of stream restoration projects. In this process, more data sources were discovered than fit the scope of either of these projects. Ten international, 19 U.S. national, and 42 U.S. regional web‐accessible sources of restoration project databases and case studies are listed in this study. However, to easily use information that is currently scattered in multiple files and Web sites, databases would optimally use a common, standardized format. We provide a recommended list of information to be included in restoration databases. These efforts may provide a blueprint for development of compatible international databases of stream restoration projects.

River restoration

River restoration is at the forefront of applied hydrologic science. However, many river restoration projects are conducted with minimal scientific context. We propose two themes around which a research agenda to advance the scientific basis for river restoration can be built. First, because natural variability is an inherent feature of all river systems, we hypothesize that restoration of process is more likely to succeed than restoration aimed at a fixed end point. Second, because physical, chemical, and biological processes are interconnected in complex ways across watersheds and across timescales, we hypothesize that restoration projects are more likely to be successful in achieving goals if undertaken in the context of entire watersheds. To achieve restoration objectives, the science of river restoration must include (1) an explicit recognition of the known complexities and uncertainties, (2) continued development of a theoretical framework that enables us to identify generalities among river systems and to ask relevant questions, (3) enhancing the science and use of restoration monitoring by measuring the most effective set of variables at the correct scales of measurement, (4) linking science and implementation, and (5) developing methods of restoration that are effective within existing constraints. Key limitations to river restoration include a lack of scientific knowledge of watershed‐scale process dynamics, institutional structures that are poorly suited to large‐scale adaptive management, and a lack of political support to reestablish delivery of the ecosystem amenities lost through river degradation. This paper outlines an approach for addressing these shortcomings.

A golden age of river restoration science?

A golden age of river restoration science?

Triage: Appropriate for prioritizing community funded river restoration projects, but not for advancing the science of river restoration

Ecological Management & RestorationVolume 5, Issue 1 p. 73-75 Triage: Appropriate for prioritizing community funded river restoration projects, but not for advancing the science of river restoration Robyn J. Watts, Robyn J. WattsSearch for more papers by this authorAndrea L. Wilson, Andrea L. WilsonSearch for more papers by this author Robyn J. Watts, Robyn J. WattsSearch for more papers by this authorAndrea L. Wilson, Andrea L. WilsonSearch for more papers by this author First published: 22 April 2005 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2004.180-4.xCitations: 4Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume5, Issue1April 2004Pages 73-75 RelatedInformation