Posts
1.
Stream restoration is not new.
Stream habitat improvement was the pastime of the wealthy from 1892-1931
(Thompson and Stull 2002; Bennett et al. 2008). Government programs, such as the civilian
conservation corps, provided cheap labor and expanded stream modification
efforts from 1932 to 1941. Most work
done by a variety of entities from 1942 to 1967 had high failure rates, leading
a long period of stagnation. Some installed structures hae high failure rates,
while others persisted for long periods. For example, one log and rock dam constructed
along the Upper Beaverkill River, New York, in the 1890s persisted for over 100
years (Thompson
and Stull 2002). Recently, stream restoration projects have
increased in extent and number of projects, thereby creating a new industry (Bernhardt
et al. 2005). Though stream restoration techniques have a
long history, what is new is the development of a stream restoration industry attempting
to address more complex issues.
 |
| Ad in American Forests on use of dynamite for stream realignment. |
2. Most restoration projects manipulate the
stream channel in short reach. Many of these small projects are of
questionable value or un-evaluated. Bernhardt et al. (2007), from a survey of 317
individual river restoration projects in the U.S.A, reported that only 46% of
restoration projects even had success criteria.
Lack of criteria and the lack of monitoring undermines the credibility
of stream restoration efforts for achieving positive outcomes. Meta-analyses of macro-invertebrate and fish
responses to stream restoration are not demonstrably positive (Stewart et al.
2009; Miller et al. 2010; Smucker and Detenbeck 2014; Kail et al. 2015; Roni et
al. 2015; Rubin et al. 2017). While many
projects report a positive effect, one-third of projects had no or a negative
effects (Kail et al. 2015). The likelihood
of failure appears to be high. We cannot
continue to assume that current practices of stream restoration provide
“demonstrable physical, chemical, or biological functional improvements” (Doyle
and Shields 2012, p. 500). Part of the
explanation lies in the scale of improvement.
3. Place
matters! Streams vary a lot,
and basic physics of sediment supply and transport influence what and where treatments
will be appropriate. Streambeds are
mobile, however, some are more than others.
Geomorphologists distinguish between colluvial, alluvial, and bedrock
controlled channels as they develop their theories. Furthermore, the upstream human-modifications
of watershed and associated hydrologic and geomorphic changes may negate any
potential channel restoration benefits (Doyle and Shields 2012). Fish responses to stream restoration were
significantly reduced as agricultural land use increased in the watershed (Kail
et al. 2015). Most evaluations of fish
response to wood placement have shown positive responses for salmonids; those
that did not did not address watershed issues (Roni et al. 2015). Our scientific understanding of fish and macro-invertebrates,
and past management of their habitats is based on small spatial scales and
short time frames, whereas natural processes and human influences on large spatial
scales and long time frames interact to create and maintain suitable habitat
(Stoll et al. 2016). These studies and others support the need for improved
strategies for prioritizing restoration projects (Stoll et al. 2016).
 |
Log
and rock dam along the Upper Beaverkill
River was built in the 1890s. (Thompson and Stull 2002).
|
4. Water quality criteria do not protect
aquatic life. Early
guidelines for developing water quality criteria recognized the complexities of
multiple stressors and variable field data, but laboratory based studies
proceeded more rapidly. Consequently, the guidelines developed by experts
established laboratory experiments as the primary source of water quality
criteria (Buchwalter et al. 2017). One
model organism, Ceriodaphnia, is
highly sensitive to pollutants; however, the water quality criteria developed
from lab studies of Ceriodaphnia were
not protective of many faunal groups, such as mayflies, stoneflies, crayfish,
and mussels. There are many instances
where entire faunal groups were extirpated from an effluent that was deemed
safe based on lab-based criteria (Pond et al. 2014). Furthermore, we understand that the
mechanisms of exposure and speciation of toxicants is critically important and
cannot be ignored (Buchwalter et al. 2017).
Only a diverse body of scientific evidence can establish water quality
criteria based on a more realistic weight-of-evidence approach.
 |
|
Stroubles Creek is a highly modified urban
stream that drains Blacksburg, Virginia.
It displays all symptoms of the urban stream syndrome and much of the
stream channel is buried underground. Only short
segments within town limits are daylighted and available for adoption. Photo by
D.J. Orth. Inset illustration by Shannon L. White.
|
5. Natural
channel design is oversold.
This geomorphic, form-based method does not result in restoration of
native biodiversity in degraded streams (Pond et al. 2014). A process-based restoration approach that
considers multiple stressors with stakeholders has the best chance of success
(Beechie et al. 2010). Restoration is
also an oversold term. Very seldom are
we really involved in an “action of returning something to a former place or
condition.” Out-of-stream management
practices may improve ecological conditions; however, in urban streams these
practices will not return to reference conditions (Smucker and Detenbeck 2014).
Stream mitigation banks (SMB) have
necessitated the quantification of benefits created by projects so that credits
can be banked and traded. This “ growing
field of SMB has the potential to reinforce the shift away from a stream
restoration science, whose goals, standards of training, and legitimate content
are defined by public sector scientists” (Lave et al. 2010, p. 694). The private sector has provided incentives
to deliver flood alleviation and public opinion is in favor of quick fixes for
flood reduction (Langford and Shaw 2014).
"I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer,
to treat everything as if it were a nail."
Abraham Maslow 1966
 |
| Fries Dam on New River was completed in 1903 and still operates as hydroelectric generating facility. Photo taken September 21, 2015 by D.J. Orth. |
6. Recovery
times exceed study durations. Ecosystem processes take time to allow streams
to “self heal.” While most practitioners
recognize this and design to enhance these natural processes, the published studies
on stream restoration effects are usually too short. Scrimgour et al. (2014) and Marttila et al. (2016)
document the slow recovery in boreal streams after more than 14 years. Just as it may be difficult to find a “silver
bullet” for evaluating restoration success (Pander and Geist 2013), it is
equally difficult to know the appropriate study duration without more long-term
research on stream restoration.
7.
Dams and barriers change everything. Many dams and road-crossings have already had
dramatic effects on our waterscapes, and the influence is only now apparent. Legacy
effects are a dominant influence on present-day aquatic communities, and many
dams now exceed their design lifespan. Yet, stream restoration is based on the
assumption that all components of the aquatic and riparian communities (both
strong and weak dispersers) have opportunities to recolonize and re-establish
aquatic communities. In contrast, many
rare or sensitive fishes have not recolonized streams due to movement barriers
(Nislow et al. 2011; Quist and Schultz 2014).
Only recently have stream restoration efforts considered the need for
extensive inventories of barriers and dams (Januchowski-Hartley et al.
2013). Barrier mitigation should be a
much higher priority for stream restoration. Culverts have shorter design lifespans than
dams and ecological designs for culverts permit a longer life span, reduced
maintenance, and improved flood event resiliency (O’Shaughnesy et al. 2016). Future examination needs to be made for
prioritizing dam removal or renew or adapt dam operations to future climate
scenarios (Ho et al. 2017). It’s way
past time to evaluate the present value of our aging dam infrastructure and
plan for a decommissioning and removal of dams. It is time for large-scale reconnection of
flowing waters.
 |
| Pygmy snaketail dragonfly, Ophiogomphus howei, one of rare dragonflies in upper New River drainage. Photo by Denis Douceta |
8. Invertebrates
get no respect. While
biomonitoring of stream water quality with macro-invertebrates has a
long-standing history, invertebrates do not get the same level of attention in
stream restoration efforts. We live in
an ichthyocentric world, and some regions are simply salmocentric. However, many major groups of invertebrates,
including freshwater snails, mussels, crayfish, stoneflies, and dragonflies,
are at far greater risk than salmonids; furthermore, a small percent of species
have even been evaluated (Collier et al. 2016). It took a generation to convince people that
“fish need water too” and we need to begin efforts to understand, and then
communicate, the functional roles and ecological requirements of stream
invertebrates before it is too late. Developing
a conservation strategy for at-risk invertebrate species may be useful for
evaluating and prioritizing stream restoration projects (Smith et al. 2015).
 |
|
In Oregon's Bridge Creek Watershed,
researchers built a number of beaver dam analogs to encourage increased beaver
activity and restore healthy river habitat. Photo by Nick Weber.
|
9. Stream
restoration may require beaver restoration. Beavers dominated the waterscapes of North
America before European colonists arrived. Stream restoration practitioners are
using the beaver in many situations to restore riparian and wetland ecosystems
that support declining populations of Pacific salmon and trout (Pollock et al.
2015). Although there are many human and
beaver conflicts in our human-dominated landscapes, the use of beavers as partners along with human stakeholder involvement can provide numerous benefits
to the landowners.
10.
Multiple lines of evidence are needed in diagnosing stream problems. Available evidence suggests that current
stream restoration practice is not adequate (Doyle and Shields 2012). The only recent clear example that
demonstrates that restoration is a useful conservation tool for fishes was the
work on the Okaloosa Darter Etheostoma okaloosae on Elgin Air Force
Base (Reeves et al. 2016). “Modern
science teaches us that a single line of evidence is not adequate and that a
body of diverse work is the most effective way to establish convincing
principles that stand up to the test of time.” (Buchwalter et al. 2017, p 290).
Remediation of stream degradation is
very expensive. Before any proposed
remedy is implemented, a formal analysis of causes based on multiple lines of
evidence should be completed. Some case
studies exemplify this process that can lead to identifying causes and
appropriate remediation (Norton et al. 2009).
 |
| Fisheries Biologist Bill Tate conducts an underwater census for Okaloosa Darter Etheostoma okaloosae from a creek on Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. The Okaloosa Darter increased in abundance and distribution in response to stream restoration treatments Photo by Carlton Ward Jr., carltonward.com |
True restoration success depends on
prioritizing certain actions over others (Beechie et al. 2010; Roni et al.
2015; Stoll et al. 2016). First and
foremost, we should protect high quality habitats. This requires systematic conservation planning
to prioritize aquatic sites for protection and improve the overall regional
habitat quality. Next, we should improve
water quality and quantity, and restore watershed processes. The final step, only after the other actions,
is to work toward improving instream habitat. This means we often will need to say “no” to certain
unwarranted stream restoration projects.
Stream restoration is a rapidly evolving
science (Bennett et al. 2008) and the private sector is driving the science
(Lave et al. 2010). There is need for
support of the science of stream restoration in order to inform the
practice. Research with long study
durations and a priori power analysis
would be very instructive for future stream restoration (Vaudor et al. 2015 ).
The practice of stream restoration science
must be more holistic, as restoration strategies are based on multiple societal
values and beliefs (Wheaton et al. 2008). Furthermore, we need to address causes and restore
processes rather than patch symptoms in the channel (Vietz et al. 2015). Integration
of stream channel and riparian habitats into restoration is an integrated
effort (Turunen et al. 2017) that requires multiple indicators of restoration
success (Pander and Geist 2013). Doing
the restoration “thing right” will involve many scientific specialists;
however, deciding what the “right thing” to do will involve dealing with people
in the local social and cultural contexts. Involving more local citizens in river
restoration can serve to promote citizen awareness of both the need and value
of intact river ecosystems.
"Some problems are so complex that you have to be
highly intelligent and well informed just to be
undecided about them." Laurence J. Peter
Restoring degraded streams, especially in
highly urbanized watersheds, is often a ‘wicked problem.’ Rigorous evaluation is still needed to learn
from successes and failures, and reduce uncertainties (Wheaton et al. 2008;
Bouwes et al. 2016). Doyle and Shields
(2012) advocated for a greater emphasis on avoidance and minimization of
streams to account for high uncertainty in current stream restoration
practice.
References
Beechie, T.J.,
D.A. Sear, J.D. Olden, G.R. Pess, J.M. Buffington, H. Moir, P. Roni, and M.M.
Pollock. 2010. Process-based principles for restoring river
ecosystems. BioScience 60:209-222. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.3
Bennett, S.J., A.
Simon, J.M. Castro, J.F. Atkinson, C.E. Bronner, S.S. Blersch, and A.J.
Rabideau. 2011. The evolving science of stream restoration. Stream Restoration in Dynamic Fluvial
Systems: Scientific Approaches, Analyses, and Tools. Geophysical Monograph
Series 194:1-9.
Bernhardt, E.S.,
M.A. Palmer, J.D. Allan, G. Alexander, K. Barnas, et al. 2005. Synthesizing U.S. river restoration
efforts. Science 308:636-637.
Bernhardt, E.S.,
E.B.
Sudduth, M.A. Palmer, J.D. Allan, J.L. Meyer, G. Alexander, J. Follstad-Shah,
B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, R. Lave, J. McFall, L. Pagano 2007. Restoring
rivers one reach at a time: Results from a survey of U.S. river restoration
practitioners. Restoration Ecology 15(3):482-493.
Bennett, S.N.,
G.R. Pess, N. Bouwes, P. Roni, R.E. Bilby, S. Gallagher, J. Ruzychi, T.
Buehrens K. Krueger, W. Ehinger, J. Anderson, C. Jordan, B. Bowerox, and C.
Greene. 2016. Progress and challenges of testing the effectiveness of stream
restoration in the Pacific Northwest using intensively monitored watersheds. Fisheries 41(2):84-91
Buckwalter, D.B.,
W.H. Clements, and S.N. Luoma. 2017. Modernizing
water quality criteria in the United States: A need to expand the definition of
acceptable data. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 36:285-291.
Collier, K.J.,
P.K. Probert, and M. Jeffries. 2016. Conservation of aquatic invertebrates: concerns,
challenges and conundrums. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems 26:817-837. DOI:
10.1002/aqc.2710
Ho, M., U. Lall,
M. Allaire, N. Devineni, H.H. Kwon, I. Pal, D. Raff, and D. Wegner. 2017. The
future role of dams in the United States of America. Water
Resources Research 53:982-998. DOI: 10.1002/2016WR019905
Januchowski-Hartley,
S. R., P. B. McIntyre, M. Diebel, P. J. Doran, D.M. Infante, C. Joseph, and J.
D. Allan. 2013. Restoring aquatic ecosystem connectivity requires expanding
inventories of both dams and road crossings. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11:211–217.
Kail, J., Brabec,
K., M. Poppe, and K. Januschke. 2015. The effect of river restoration on fish,
macroinvertebrates and aquatic macrophytes: a meta-analysis. Ecological Indicators 58:311-321.
Langford, T.E.L.,
and P.J. Shaw. 2014. Socio-economic, commercial and political factors in river recovery
and restoration: has ecology taken a back seat?
Freshwater Reviews 7:121-138. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1608/FRJ-7.2.787
Lave, R., M.
Doyle, and M. Robertson. 2010. Privatizing stream restoration in the US. Social
Studies of Science 40(5):677-703.
Marttilla, M., P.
Louhi, A. Huusko, A.Mäki-Petäys,
T. Yrjänä, and T. Muotka. 2016. Long-term performance of in-stream
restoration measures in boreal streams. Ecohydrology
9:280-289. DOI: 10.1002/eco.1634
Miller, S.W., P.
Budy, and J.C. Schmidt. 2010.
Quantifying macroinvertebrate responses to in-stream habitat restoration:
Applications of meta-analysis to river restoration. Restoration Ecology 18:8-19.
Nislow, K.H., M.
Hudy, B.H. Letcher, and E.P. Smith. 2011.
Variation in local abundance and species richness of stream fishes in
relation to dispersal barriers: implications for management and
conservation. Freshwater Biology 56:2135-2144.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02634.x
Norton, S.B., S.M.
Cormier, G.W. Suter, K. Schofield, L.
Yuan, P. Shaw-Allen, and C.R. Ziegler. 2009.
CADDIS: The causal/diagnosis decision information system. Pages 351-374
in A. Marcomini, G.W. Suter, II, and A. Critto, Editors. Decision Support Systems for Risk-Based
Management of Contaminated Sites. Springer US.
O’Shaughnessey,
E., M. Landi, S. Januchowski-Hartley, and M. Diebel. 2016. Conservation leverage: ecological
design culverts also return fiscal benefits.
Fisheries 41(12):750-757.
Palmer, M.A., K.L.
Hondula, and B.J. Koch. 2014. Ecological restoration of streams and rivers:
Shifting strategies and shifting goals. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics
45:247-269. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091935
Pander, J., and J.
Geist. 2013. Ecological indicators for stream restoration success. Ecological Indicators 30:106-118.
Pollock, M.M., G.
Lewallen, K. Woodruff, C.E. Jordan, and J.M. Castro, Editors. 2015. The
Beaver Restoration Guidebook: Working with Beaver to Restore Streams, Wetlands,
and Floodplains. Version 1.02. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 189 pp. Online at:
http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/ToolsForLandowners/RiverScience/Beaver.asp.
Pond, G.J., M.E.
Passmore, N.D. Pointon, J.K. Felbinger, C.A. Walker, K.J.G. Drock, J.B. Fulton,
and W.L. Nash. 2014. Long-term impacts on macroinvertebrates downstream of
reclaimed mountaintop mining valley fills in central Appalachia. Environmental Management 54:919-933.
Quist, M.C., and
R.D. Schultz. 2014. Effects of management legacies on stream fish and aquatic
benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages. Environmental
Management 54:449-464. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-014-0309-8
Reeves, D.B., W.B.
Tate, H.L. Jelks, and F. Jordan. 2016. Response of imperiled Okaloosa Darters
to stream restoration. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 36:1375-1385.
Roni, P., T.
Beechie, G. Pess, and K. Hanson. 2015.
Wood placement in river restoration: fact, fiction, and future direction. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 72:466-478. Doi: 10.1139/cjfas-2014-0344
Rubin, Z. G. M.
Kondolf, and B. Rios-Touma. 2017.
Evaluating stream restoration projects: what do we learn from
monitoring. Water 9:174. doi:10.3390/w9030174
Scrimgeour, G.J.,
W.M. Tonn, and N.E. Jones. 2014. Quantifying effective restoration: reassessing
the productive capacity of a constructed stream 14 years after construction. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 71:589-601.
Smith, D.R., S.E. McRae, T. Augspurger, J.A. Ratcliffe, R.B. Nichols, C.B.
Eads, C.B. Savidge, and A.E. Bogan. 2015. Developing a conservation strategy to
maximize persistence of an endangered freshwater mussel species while
considering management effectiveness and cost. Freshwater Science 34:
1324–1339.
Smucker, N.J., and
N.E. Detenbeck. 2014. Meta-analysis of
lost ecosystem attributes in urban streams and the effectiveness of
out-of-channel management practices. Restoration Ecology 22:741-748.
Stewart G.B., H.R.
Bayliss, D.A. Showler, W.J. Sutherland, and A.S. Pullin. 2009. Effectiveness of
engineered in-stream structure mitigation measures to increase salmonid
abundance: a systematic review. Ecological
Applications 19(4): 931-94.
Stoll, S., P.
Breyer, J.D. Tonkin, D. Früh, and
P. Haase. 2016. Scale-dependent
effects of river habitat quality on benthic invertebrate communities –
implications for stream restoration apractice.
Science of the Total Environment
553:495-503.
Thompson, D.M.,
and G.N. Stull. 2002. The development and historic use of habitat
structures in channel restoration in the United States: The grand experiment in
fisheries management Geographie
physique et Quaternaire 56(1):45-60.
Turunen, J., J.
Aroviita, H. Marttila, P. Louhi, T. Laamenen, M. Tolkkinen, P-L. Luhta, B. Kløve,
and T. Muotka. 2017. Differential
responses by stream and riparian biodiversity to in-stream restoration of
forestry-impacted streams. Journal of Applied Ecology DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12897
Vaudor, L., N.
Lamouroux, J-M. Olivier, and M. Forcellini. 2015. How sampling influences the
statistical power to detect changes in abundance: an application to river
restoration. Freshwater Biology 60:1192-1207.
Vietz, G., I.D.
Rutherford, T.D. Fletcher, and C.J. Walsh. 2016. Thinking outside the channel: challenges
and opportunities for protection and restoration of stream morphology in
urbanizing catchments. Landscape and Urban Planning 145:34-44.
Wheaton, J.M.,
S.E. Darby, and D.A. Sear. 2008. The scope of uncertainties in river restoration.
Pages 21-39 in S. Darby and D. Sear, editors. River Restoration: Managing the
Uncertainty in Restoring Physical Habitat.
John Wiley, Chichester, U.K.
