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

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.     

Long-Term Monitoring and Evaluation of the Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project, Idaho, U.S.A.

Although public and financial support for stream restoration projects is increasing, long‐term monitoring and reporting of project successes and failures are limited. We present the initial results of a long‐term monitoring program for the Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project in north‐central Idaho, U.S.A. We evaluate a natural channel design’s effectiveness in shifting a degraded stream ecosystem onto a path of ecological recovery. Field monitoring and hydrodynamic modeling are used to quantify post‐restoration changes in 17 physical and biological performance indicators. Statistical and ecological significance are evaluated within a framework of clear objectives, expected responses (ecological hypotheses), and performance criteria (reference conditions) to assess post‐restoration changes away from pre‐restoration conditions. Compared to pre‐restoration conditions, we observed ecosystem improvements in channel sinuosity, slope, depth, and water surface elevation; quantity, quality, and diversity of in‐stream habitat and spawning substrate; and bird population numbers and diversity. Modeling documented the potential for enhanced river–floodplain connectivity. Failure to detect either statistically or ecologically significant change in groundwater depth, stream temperature, native riparian cover, and salmonid density is due to a combination of small sample sizes, high interannual variability, external influences, and the early stages of recovery. Unexpected decreases in native riparian cover led to implementation of adaptive management strategies. Challenges included those common to most project‐level monitoring—isolating restoration effects in complex ecosystems, securing long‐term funding, and implementing scientifically rigorous experimental designs. Continued monitoring and adaptive management that support the establishment of mature and dense riparian shrub communities are crucial to overall success of the project.     

Stream Restoration in the Upper Midwest, U.S.A.

Restoration activities intended to improve the condition of streams and rivers are widespread throughout the Upper Midwest, U.S.A. As with other regions, however, little information exists regarding types of activities and their effectiveness. We developed a database of 1,345 stream restoration projects implemented from the years 1970 to 2004 for the states of Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin in order to analyze regional trends in goals, presence of monitoring, spatial distribution, size, and cost of river restoration projects. We found that data on individual projects were fragmented across multiple federal, state, and county agencies, as well as nonprofit groups and consulting firms. The most common restoration goals reported for this region were in‐stream habitat improvement, bank stabilization, water‐quality management, and dam removal. The former two were most common in Michigan and Wisconsin, where salmonid fisheries enhancement appeared to be an important concern, whereas water‐quality management was most frequent in Ohio. The most common restoration activities were the use of sand traps and riprap, and other common activities were related to the improvement of fish habitat. The median cost was $12,957 for projects with cost data, and total expenditures since 1990 were estimated at $444 million. Over time, the cost of individual projects has increased, whereas the median size has decreased, suggesting that restoration resources are being spent on smaller, more localized, and more expensive projects. Only 11% of data records indicated that monitoring was performed, and more expensive projects were more likely to be monitored. Standardization of monitoring and record keeping and dissemination of findings are urgently needed to ensure that dollars are well spent and restoration effectiveness is maximized.     

Evaluating Stream Restoration in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed through Practitioner Interviews

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.     

Freshwater Habitat Restoration Actions in the Pacific Northwest: A Decade's Investment in Habitat Improvement

Across the Pacific Northwest (PNW), both public and private agents are working to improve riverine habitat for a variety of reasons, including improving conditions for threatened and endangered salmon. These projects are moving forward with little or no knowledge of specific linkages between restoration actions and the responses of target species. Targeted effectiveness monitoring of these actions is required to redress this lack of mechanistic understanding, but such monitoring depends on detailed restoration information—that is, implementation monitoring. This article describes the process of assembling a database of restoration projects intended to improve stream and river habitat throughout the PNW. We designed the database specifically to address the needs of regional monitoring programs that evaluate the effectiveness of restoration actions. The database currently contains spatially referenced, project‐level data on over 23,000 restoration actions initiated at over 35,000 locations in the last 15 years (98% of projects report start or end dates between 1991 and 2005) in the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. Data sources included federal, state, local, nongovernmental organization, and tribal contributors. The process of database production identified difficulties in the design of regional project tracking systems. The technical design issues range from low‐level information such as what defines a project or a location to high‐level issues that include data validation and legalities of interagency data sharing. The completed database will inform efficient monitoring design, effectiveness assessments, and restoration project planning.     

Restoring Rivers One Reach at a Time: Results from a Survey of U.S. River Restoration Practitioners

Despite expenditures of more than 1 billion dollars annually, there is little information available about project motivations, actions, and results for the vast majority of river restoration efforts. We performed confidential telephone interviews with 317 restoration project managers from across the United States with the goals of (1) assessing project motivations and the metrics of project evaluation and (2) estimating the proportion of projects that set and meet criteria for ecologically successful river restoration projects. According to project managers, ecological degradation typically motivated restoration projects, but post‐project appearance and positive public opinion were the most commonly used metrics of success. Less than half of all projects set measurable objectives for their projects, but nearly two‐thirds of all interviewees felt that their projects had been “completely successful.” Projects that we classified as highly effective were distinct from the full database in that most had significant community involvement and an advisory committee. Interviews revealed that many restoration practitioners are frustrated by the lack of funding for and emphasis on project monitoring. To remedy this, we recommend a national program of strategic monitoring focused on a subset of future projects. Our interviews also suggest that merely conducting and publishing more scientific studies will not lead to significant improvements in restoration practice; direct, collaborative involvement between scientists, managers, and practitioners is required for forward progress in the science and application of river restoration.     

Stream Restoration in the Pacific Northwest: Analysis of Interviews with Project Managers

Hundreds of millions of dollars per year are spent on river restoration in the Pacific Northwest (PNW), but little is known about the effectiveness of this effort. To help address this gap, we analyzed a database containing 23,000 projects at 35,000 locations in the region. We selected a subset of these projects for interviews using a survey instrument developed by a national team of scientists. In total, 47 project contacts in the PNW were interviewed to learn from the individuals directly involved in restoration. At least one‐third of the projects surveyed (34%) did not conduct sufficient monitoring to evaluate effectiveness. More than two‐thirds (70%) of all respondents reported their projects were successful, but 43% either have no success criteria or are unaware of any criteria for their project. Although almost two‐thirds (66%) of respondents anticipate a need for ongoing project maintenance, less than half (43%) have maintenance funds available. These findings suggest that establishing a connection between effectiveness monitoring and project implementation is not a usual component of project design. Consequently, we can only assess the benefits in a few isolated projects and cannot quantify the cumulative benefits of restoration on a larger scale. These findings highlight the need for (1) planning prior to implementation of restoration projects that accounts for monitoring design; (2) coordinated effectiveness monitoring to assess cumulative effects of restoration; and (3) management and maintenance of projects based on real measures of project performance.     

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

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.     

Do we know enough about controlling sediment to mitigate damage to stream ecosystems?

Stream and river ecosystems have suffered extensive degradation, and billions are expended annually on restoration efforts. However, few of these projects are monitored, and restoration effectiveness is often unknown. Consequently, there is a poor scientific foundation for restoration designs. Since many stream restoration efforts are at least partially targeted at controlling erosion of channel banks and beds, the effects of a large-scale, long-term stream erosion control effort in six Mississippi watersheds was assessed using 10–16 years of suspended sediment and water discharge records. Flow-adjusted suspended sediment concentrations showed no trends in five of the watersheds and a slight downward trend in one watershed, which was treated with small reservoirs as well as bed and bank erosion protection. Results indicate the inability of orthodox stream management structures (weirs and bank protection) to reduce watershed sediment yield and the need for a stronger scientific basis for stream restoration.     

Stream Restoration Practices in the Southeastern United States

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.     

Systematic Postproject Appraisals to Maximize Lessons Learned from River Restoration Projects: Case Study of Compound Channel Restoration Projects in Northern California

We conducted systematic postproject appraisals (PPAs) of seven compound channel restoration projects, supplementing available data with new field data and analyses to produce comparable datasets for all seven projects. We describe how systematic PPAs can be developed and illustrate a systematic PPA for compound channel projects organized around performance with respect to geomorphic, habitat, and conveyance objectives. We found that preexisting monitoring programs for a group of similar restoration projects can be supplemented with relatively low‐effort data collection and analyses to produce lessons on a “class” of restoration projects. Using this approach to assess a set of seven compound channel projects, we found that two fully achieved geomorphic objectives, three appear likely to achieve geomorphic objectives with additional time and/or minor interventions, and two did not achieve geomorphic objectives. Further, four projects achieved habitat objectives and three projects appeared likely to achieve objectives if given more time to develop and/or a minor intervention to mitigate limitations on critical ecological processes. Finally, four of the projects satisfied conveyance objectives, and the remaining three appeared likely to satisfy objectives with minor interventions to maintain design roughness and geometry conditions. Based on observations from our new systematic PPA approach applied to compound channels in Mediterranean climates, we suggest application of systematic PPAs for other classes of river restoration projects to evaluate scale and geomorphic setting issues in project design, to refine postproject monitoring guidelines, and to predict vegetation recruitment, growth, and succession patterns to avoid potential vegetation problems.     

The effect of river restoration on fish,macroinvertebrates and aquatic macrophytes: A meta-analysis

An increasing number of rivers have been restored over the past decades and several studies investigated the effect on biota. The published monitoring results have already been summarized in narrative reviews but there are few quantitative reviews and a comprehensive meta-analysis on different organism groups and factors influencing restoration effect is missing. We compiled monitoring results and information on catchment, river and project characteristics from peer-reviewed literature and unpublished databases to (i) quantify the effect of restoration measures on fish, macroinvertebrates and macrophytes, and (ii) identify predictors which influence restoration effect. Results indicated significant effects of restoration on all three organism groups, especially of widening projects on macrophyte richness/diversity, instream measures on fish and macroinvertebrates, and higher effects on abundance/biomass compared to richness/diversity. Restoration effect was most strongly affected by agricultural land use, river width and project age. Effects were smaller but restoration generally still increased richness/diversity and abundance/biomass in agricultural catchments. Since land use is a proxy for different pressures, the underlying causal relationships have to be investigated in more detail. Project age was the most important factor but had non-linear and even negative effects on restoration outcome, indicating that restoration effects may vanish over time. The meta-analysis indicated that river managers in general can expect an increase of richness/diversity and abundance/biomass of all three organism groups investigated, especially of macrophytes in widening projects and of fish and macroinvertebrates if instream measures are applied. However, variability was high, stressing the need for adaptive management approaches. Furthermore, the large but non-linear and different (even negative) effects of project age stressed the need for long-time monitoring to better understand the trajectories of change caused by restoration measures and to identify sustainable measures. The meta-analysis was restricted to metrics commonly reported in literature and future studies would greatly benefit from authorities and scientists reporting original monitoring data, which would allow to use functional metrics to investigate the effect of restoration measures and to infer causal relationships.     

A unique role for citizen science in ecological restoration: a case study in streams

Citizen science has the potential to generate valuable biologic data for use in restoration monitoring, while also providing a unique opportunity for public participation in local restoration projects. In this article, we describe and evaluate a citizen science program designed to monitor the effect of stream restoration construction disturbance on the macroinvertebrate community. We present the results of a 7‐year stream restoration study conducted by citizen scientists utilizing a Before‐After‐Control‐Impact (BACI) design. Trait‐based macroinvertebrate data showed a strong response to restoration construction disturbance and return to pre‐restoration conditions within 2 years. The findings of this study suggest that citizen science can generate meaningful BACI‐oriented data about ecological restoration; however, until more research is conducted, citizen data should only be used to augment professional data intended to demonstrate restoration success.     

Quantifying Macroinvertebrate Responses to In-Stream Habitat Restoration: Applications of Meta-Analysis to River Restoration

The assumption that restoring physical habitat heterogeneity will increase biodiversity underlies many river restoration projects, despite few tests of the hypothesis. With over 6,000 in-stream habitat enhancement projects implemented in the last decade at a cost exceeding $1 billion, there is a clear need to assess the consistency of responses, as well as factors explaining project performance. We adopted an alternative approach to individual case-studies by applying meta-analysis to quantify macroinvertebrate responses to in-stream habitat restoration. Meta-analysis of 24 separate studies showed that increasing habitat heterogeneity had significant, positive effects on macroinvertebrate richness, although density increases were negligible. Large woody debris additions produced the largest and most consistent responses, whereas responses to boulder additions and channel reconfigurations were positive, yet highly variable. Among all strategies, the strength and consistency of macroinvertebrate responses were related to land use or watershed-scale conditions, but appeared independent of project size, stream size, or recovery time. Overall, the low quality and quantity of pre- and post-project monitoring data reduced the robustness of our meta-analysis. Specifically, the scope and strength of conclusions regarding the ubiquity of macroinvertebrate responses to restoration, as well as the identification of variables controlling project performance was limited. More robust applications of meta-analysis to advance the science and practice of river restoration will require implementing rigorous study designs, including pre- and post-project monitoring replicated at both restored and control sites, collection of abiotic and biotic variables at relevant spatiotemporal scales, and increased reporting of monitoring results in peer-reviewed journals and/or regional databases.     

Assessing stream channel restoration: the phased recovery framework

Channel reconfiguration is one of the most common and costly stream restoration techniques, though its effectiveness is frequently questioned. Project monitoring often tracks changes in macroinvertebrate communities and other responses for a 5‐year period. However, channel reconfiguration is a documented disturbance to stream ecosystems, suggesting that this form of restoration initiates succession over longer time frames than monitoring typically captures. To address the role of succession in stream ecosystem recovery, we developed the Phased Recovery Framework (PRF) which proposes benchmarks represented by predictable habitat structure and community composition based on project age. The PRF was tested across nine stream restoration projects in western Montana, ranging in age from 1 to 18 years, each paired with an established reference system. We tested for differences in channel form, habitat character, and macroinvertebrate community composition. While restoration established desired channel form, most biotic variables had not recovered to reference condition even for the oldest projects. Across all sites, phases of the PRF were poor predictors of response. However, analyzing responses to reconfiguration independently for sites in watersheds with unimpaired water quality versus those experiencing excessive nutrient enrichment (i.e. impaired sites) indicated that biological variables converged on reference conditions at unimpaired sites, but diverged across impaired reaches. These large‐scale anthropogenic influences may play a stronger role in recovery than do changes to channel form and need to be incorporated into project design and success criteria. Assessment of the PRF suggests that short‐term monitoring is not likely to produce reliable indicators of effectiveness without incorporating locally appropriate change associated with watershed impairment and successional progression.     

北方风沙区生态修复的科学原理、工程实践和恢复效果

北方风沙区位于欧亚草原的东部,是我国生态环境最为脆弱的地区之一,其在北方生态安全屏障和丝绸之路经济带建设中具有十分重要的战略地位。在国家一系列生态保育工程的支持下,该地区的生态环境得到明显改善。但是,由于受人类活动和全球气候变化的影响,该地区仍然面临着严峻的环境压力。在中国科学院科技服务网络计划(STS计划)等项目支持下,开展了北方风沙区土地沙化成因及退化土地空间分布研究,集成了北方风沙区重点脆弱区生态恢复的理论和技术体系,以内蒙古中部的阴山北麓地区、内蒙古浑善达克沙地和蒙辽交界的科尔沁沙地为重点研究区域,进行了高效人工草地建植、天然草地恢复和管理、沙化草地治理等相关工程技术的示范,开展生态恢复模式的效果跟踪监测和生态效益评估,确定生态恢复技术和模式的技术参数和指标,明确不同集成技术与模式在北方风沙区的适用区域和范围,为技术模式的推广应用提供科学依据。通过上述研究,可以为中央和地方政府制定生态系统管理和退化生态系统恢复政策、建立我国北方生态安全屏障提供决策依据,为生态修复产业提供技术指南,为相关研究提供全面系统的基础数据支撑。     

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

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.     

Lessons from community-based payment for ecosystem service schemes: from forests to rangelands

Climate finance investments and international policy are driving new community-based projects incorporating payments for ecosystem services (PES) to simultaneously store carbon and generate livelihood benefits. Most community-based PES (CB-PES) research focuses on forest areas. Rangelands, which store globally significant quantities of carbon and support many of the world''s poor, have seen little CB-PES research attention, despite benefitting from several decades of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) projects. Lessons from CBNRM suggest institutional considerations are vital in underpinning the design and implementation of successful community projects. This study uses documentary analysis to explore the institutional characteristics of three African community-based forest projects that seek to deliver carbon-storage and poverty-reduction benefits. Strong existing local institutions, clear land tenure, community control over land management decision-making and up-front, flexible payment schemes are found to be vital. Additionally, we undertake a global review of rangeland CBNRM literature and identify that alongside the lessons learned from forest projects, rangeland CB-PES project design requires specific consideration of project boundaries, benefit distribution, capacity building for community monitoring of carbon storage together with awareness-raising using decision-support tools to display the benefits of carbon-friendly land management. We highlight that institutional analyses must be undertaken alongside improved scientific studies of the carbon cycle to enable links to payment schemes, and for them to contribute to poverty alleviation in rangelands.     

A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success

We discuss aspects of one of the most important issues in ecological restoration: how to evaluate restoration success. This first requires clearly stated and justified restoration goals and targets; this may seem “obvious” but in our experience, this step is often elided. Indicators or proxy variables are the typical vehicle for monitoring; these must be justified in the context of goals and targets and ultimately compared against those to allow for an evaluation of outcome (e.g. success or failure). The monitoring phase is critical in that a project must consider how the monitoring frequency and overall design will allow the postrestoration trajectories of indicators to be analyzed. This allows for real‐time management adjustments—adaptive management (sensu lato)—to be implemented if the trajectories are diverging from the targets. However, as there may be large variation in early postrestoration stages or complicated (nonlinear) trajectory, caution is needed before committing to management adjustments. Ideally, there is not only a goal and target but also a model of the expected trajectory—that only can occur if there are sufficient data and enough knowledge about the ecosystem or site being restored. With so many possible decision points, we focus readers' attention on one critical step—how to choose indicators. We distinguish generalizable and specific indicators which can be qualitative, semiquantitative, or quantitative. The generalizable indicators can be used for meta‐analyses. There are many options of indicators but making them more uniform would help mutual comparisons among restoration projects.