Next week we will have our first in-class discussion on criteria and standards for judging the success of stream restoration. Please post your reading summaries as comments to this blog entry before Wednesday as that will help facilitate selecting questions for discussion.
Keep in mind as you read the recent literature that some of these activities have been going on for a very long time -- the first stream improvement projects in Michigan date back to 1927. And the ideas of monitoring and adaptive management are also not very new.
What is new is the increase in level of stream restoration activities, the diversity of organizations funding or overseeing activities, and the vast range of scales from to a few hundred meters to restorations of Colorado River (Grand Canyon), Trinity River (CA), and the Kissimmee River (FL). As of July 2004, 37,099 restoration projects were identified and logged in the National River Restoration Science Synthesis project database Bernhardt et al. 2005 Synthesizing US River Restoration Efforts, Science 308:636-637) and they estimated that least $14 to $15 billion has been spent on stream restoration costs in the continential US. from 1990-2004.
So, naturally the question emerges "How do we define success?" We'll talk about this Wednesday.
As an aside remember the problem solving model includes many steps before we get to the 'evaluation' step. Don't underestimate just how much work goes into the planning. developing partnerships, justifying priority activities, and securing project funding. Take a look at the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture as a good example of a comprehensive strategy to improve habitat.
One of the interesting personal stories in this arena is the emergence of a former US Forest Service Hydrologist as the "River Doctor" who pioneered an approach to 'natural channel design.' His story is highlighted in Science.
Let's hear about what you are reading... Please post for all to see and learn.
9 comments:
Naiman and Latterell suggest that managing fish habitat in discrete patches is insufficient, and that managers should focus on ecosystems as a whole. They suggest eight principles that should be integrated into modern habitat management.
1. Habitat can be created by keystone species and interactions among species
2. The productivity of aquatic and riparian habitat is interlinked by reciprocal
Exchanges of material
3. The riparian zone is fish habitat
4. Fishless headwater streams are inseparable from fish-bearing rivers downstream
5. Habitats can be coupled in rivers, lakes, estuaries and oceans, and in time
6. Habitats change over hours to centuries
7. Fish production is dynamic due to biocomplexity, in species and in habitats
8. Management and conservation strategies must evolve rapidly in response to present
conditions, but especially the anticipated future
The authors believe that the importance of terrestrial impacts, the dynamic and interconnected nature of in-stream habitats, and interspecific interactions/biodiversity must all be considered to ensure proper habitat management. They also conclude that management strategies should be adaptive and incorporate natural habitat variability.
In “River Restoration: seeking ecological standards,” Giller looks at the restoration of a river or stream from an ecological perspective. Restoration has been the attraction of major financial investments recently, but there seems to be little consensus about what should constitute a ‘successful’ ecological restoration. Methods and measurements are in place that determine a successful physical restoration of a river or stream, but how can we devise a uniform method of determining the ecological success?
“The criteria proposed in the Forum paper include the establishment of a dynamic ecological endpoint to the restoration, providing for a ‘guiding image’ of a healthier river, and an improvement in the river’s ecological condition, that ideally leads to a more self-sustaining and resilient system.” It is imperative that a restoration not be conducted and then ignored. Considerations such as downstream effect need to be taken into consideration. The restoration must improve the river’s ecological condition, and lead to a more self-sustaining and resilient system. No lasting harm should be inflicted on the system during the restoration construction phase. Continued monitoring of the restoration project needs to be conducted.
As the population continues to grow, so does the stress of streams and rivers. The restoration of these waterways to their natural form is still relatively new and is a mechanism of ever-growing importance as we attempt to redress the problems that have arisen from our use and misuse of freshwater habitats and resources
The objective of the paper and the initiative is to eventually gain the approval of these standards by the funding agencies of restoration, by the practitioner community that carries out the restoration, and by the scientific research community.
Loucks (2003) begins by providing an overview of the different ways United States rivers are managed. He describes the current approach to stream management as localized and fragmented, with managers taking little consideration of downstream and upstream factors influencing and being influenced by current projects. The recent trend in stream management has been a shift from engineer-controled management to multi-disciplinary teams. The interstate and multiple use nature of many of our larger river systems requires federal oversight into their management. Louks outlines four models of who is in control of stream management currently in effect:
1. Non-government organization oversight: collaboration of multiple non-government organizations, currently occurring in the Potomac River
2. River basin commissions: collaboration of multiple agencies in planning and implementation, occurring in the Delaware River
3. Legal approach: Lawsuits to decide how to manage a water resource, Southeast United States
4. Special interests: government and non-government groups, Columbia River
Louks then suggests some legislation can be passed to provide guidance and bring about cohesion for all of the entities currently involved in managing our waterways. He believes the creation of a centralized agency, or a consortium of agencies, to officially oversee stream management would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our management efforts. He also suggests the formation of basin-wide teams and processes to include non-government agencies and stakeholders to better our success in stream management.
In the article “Stating mechanisms and refining criteria for ecologically successful river restoration: a comment on Palmer et al. (2005)”, Jansson et al. critique the five criteria outlined by Palmer et al. and propose their own sixth criteria for declaring a river restoration project an ecological success. Jansson et al. propose an all-encompassing sixth criteria that would consist of outlining the mechanisms by which the restoration project will achieve its goal. The authors maintain that their comments consist of only small refinements and that they adamantly support Palmer et al. for their desire to develop a set of guidelines for identifying ecologically successful river restoration. The main purpose of this article is to constructively criticize Palmer et al.’s guidelines and hopefully advance the process of creating consistency in monitoring river restoration activities.
Jansson, R., H. Backx, A. J. Boulton, M. Dixon, D. Dudgeon, F. M. R. Hughes, K. Nakamura, E. H. Stanley, and K. Tockner. 2005. Stating mechanisms and refining criteria for ecologically successful river restoration: a comment on Palmer et al. (2005). Journal of Applied Ecology. 42: 218-222
In “Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration Efforts,” E.S. Bernhardt and others addressed the importance of recording and ultimately databasing information on stream habitat restoration and management practices. The authors started by stating that small restorations efforts currently dominate the restoration scene; these are usually variably planned, and their results poorly recorded and monitored. As expected, higher dollar projects get much more attention in planning, assessment of results, and monitoring after restoration. Thus, the National River Restoration Science Synthesis (NRRSS) database was created to better bring together smaller, fragmented databases and encourage new information input from projects of all sizes. The database takes into account amounts awarded to different facets of stream restoration, restoration efforts in seven different regions, and goal parameters. Currently, databased projects have far from desirable (only 58%) known project costs, which are often underestimated. Stream restoration is a multi-billion dollar business, with the majority of the recent restoration money being spent 1990-2003 totaling at least $14-$15 billion dollars.
Bernhardt, E.S., M.A. Palmer, J.D. Allan, G. Alexander, K. Barnas, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, C. Dahm, J. Follstad-Shah, D. Galat, S. Gloss, P. Goodwin, D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, S. Katz, G.M. Kondolf, P.S. lake, R. lave, J.L. Meyer, T.K. O’Donnell, L. Pagano, B. Powell, E. Sudduth. 2005. Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration Efforts. Policy Forum: Ecology. Science 308: 636-637.
Margaret A. Palmer and Emily S. Bernhardt, in their research paper, ‘hydrolecology and river restoration: ripe for research and synthesis’, are emphatic about the fact that river restoration encompasses critical research questions that can not be addressed without integration of hydrology, ecology, geomorphology, and engineering. They support this assertion by tracing the history of river restoration; from an era where river restoration was viewed purely from an engineering perspective, where the primary aim was creating efficient channels basically for flood control, without any regard for the living components of these streams, to the present day, where there has a been a lot of awareness on the need to incorporate restoration of biodiversity and ecosystem services into river restoration projects. Palmer and Bernardt assert that restoration will be most effective when watershed inhabitants, scientists, planners and designers understand the views, values and cognitive models each has toward rivers and the place of rivers in the lives of people. The writers, in this paper, aim to set in motion efforts toward cooperation among the different disciplines toward more effective and efficient restoration projects.
Citation: Palmer, M. A., and E. S. Bernhardt (2006), Hydroecology and river restoration: Ripe for research and synthesis, Water
Resour. Res., 42, W03S07, doi:10.1029/2005WR004354
In an opinion article titled simply titled “River Restoration,” Wohl et al. state that although much money, time and effort are being directed at restoration activities, the restoration is often practiced without regard to the science of watersheds as dynamic, though somewhat unpredictable, systems, and that science and scientists need to take a more active role in formulating river restoration goals and practices. The authors discuss their opinion that restoration should be viewed from a scientific experiment viewpoint, as a whole watershed manipulation with planning, hypotheses, and monitoring that accompanies peer-reviewed science and with this strategy, science can be used to make future restoration more successful. The authors are generally trying to convince their audience, river scientists, to be more engaged in the planning, the outreach and the reporting that will further the cause of restoring streams and the ways their believe scientists can and should be involved. The author’s main purpose is to outline the areas in which river restoration knowledge is shallow, to encourage the application of known models of watershed and ecosystem behavior to restoration activities, and to encourage the scientific community to focus on filling the scientific knowledge gaps to make restoration more effective.
Wohl, E., P.L. Angermeier, B. Bledsie, G.M. Kondolf, L. MacDonnell, D.M. Merritt, M.A. Palmer, N.L. Poff, and D. Tarboton. 2005. River Restoration. Water Resources Research 41, W10301.
In “Standards for ecologically successful river restoration,” M.A. Palmer and others (2005) outline 5 ways to assess the quality of a lotic restoration. Assessing restorations is very important because they can tell how to properly conduct restorations in the future. The 5 assessment points are:
1. Guiding Image – the presence of a leitbild, or ideal condition for the stream after restoration to use as a template for restoration efforts. The guiding image should expect variation in physical, chemical, and biological factors influencing the restoration area, including human impact. The guiding image needs to be flexible, to the point that it may change, but keeps the best interest of the restoration in mind.
2. Ecosystem Improvement – indicators show significant improvement of in-stream and riparian conditions based on the amount of impairment that was / still is present. The amount of improvement present could be an assessment of a reference area or amount of shift away from previous degraded conditions.
3. Increased Resilience – the ability of the lotic system to recover and maintain itself (with as little human intervention as possible) when faced with disturbances, natural and human.
4. No Lasting Harm – restoration should be just that, a restoration; the implementation of structures in a stream should improve conditions in and around streams, not cause harm to the system during and after installation.
5. Completed Ecological Assessment – After the restoration, goals of the restoration need to be examined and compared to pre-restoration conditions to determine the effect of the restoration. Assessment can be very simple pre and post comparisons with analysis or complex, long-term monitoring.
Citation:
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, J.D. Allan, P.S. Lake, G. Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, C.N. Dahm, J. Follstad Shah, D.L. Galat, S.G. Loss, P. Goodwin, D.D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, G.M. Kondolf, R. Lave, J.L. Meyer, T.K. O’Donnell, L. Pagano, and E. Sudduth. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 208-217.
Post a Comment