Abstract
Despite increasingly large investments, the potential ecological effects of river restoration programs are still small compared to the degree of human alterations to physical and ecological function. Thus, it is rarely possible to “restore” pre-disturbance conditions; rather restoration programs (even large, well-funded ones) will nearly always involve multiple small projects, each of which can make some modest change to selected ecosystem processes and habitats. At present, such projects are typically selected based on their attributes as individual projects (e.g., consistency with programmatic goals of the funders, scientific soundness, and acceptance by local communities), and ease of implementation. Projects are rarely prioritized (at least explicitly) based on how they will cumulatively affect ecosystem function over coming decades. Such projections require an understanding of the form of the restoration response curve, or at least that we assume some plausible relations and estimate cumulative effects based thereon. Drawing on our experience with the CALFED Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program in California, we consider potential cumulative system-wide benefits of a restoration activity extensively implemented in the region: isolating/filling abandoned floodplain gravel pits captured by rivers to reduce predation of outmigrating juvenile salmon by exotic warmwater species inhabiting the pits. We present a simple spreadsheet model to show how different assumptions about gravel pit bathymetry and predator behavior would affect the cumulative benefits of multiple pit-filling and isolation projects, and how these insights could help managers prioritize which pits to fill.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anand M, Desrochers RE (2004) Quantification of restoration success using complex systems concepts and models. Restoration Ecology 12(1):117–123
Baron JS, Poff NL, Angermeier PL, Dahm CN, Gleick PH, Hairston NG Jr, Jackson RB, Johnston CA, Richter BD, Steinman AD (2002) Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwater. Ecological Applications 12:1247–1260
Bay Institute (1998) From the Sierra to the sea: the ecological history of the San Francisco Bay-Delta watershed. The Bay Institute of San Francisco, San Rafael, California
Bay Institute (2003) The Bay Institute ecological scorecard, San Francisco Bay index. The Bay Institute of San Francisco, San Rafael, California
Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Alexander G, Barnes K, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm C, Follsted-Shah J, Galat D, Gloss S, Goodwin P, Hart D, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Katz S, Kondolf GM, Lake PS, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Powell B, Sudduth E (2005) Sythesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science 308:636–637
Bond NR, Lake PS (2003) Local habitat restoration in streams: constraints on the effectiveness of restoration for stream biota. Ecological Management and Restoration 4(3):193–198
Bond N, Lake PS (2005) Ecological restoration and large-scale ecological disturbances: effects of drought on a stream habitat restoration experiment. Restoration Ecology 13:39–48
CALFED Bay-Delta Program (2000) Strategic plan for ecosystem restoration. Sacramento
CALFED Bay-Delta Program (2005) Ecosystem restoration multi-year program plan (years 6–9) and annotated budget (year 5). DRAFT. June 16, 2005
California Department of Fish and Game (1987) The status of San Joaquin drainage Chinook salmon stocks, habitat conditions and natural production factors. Prepared for the State Water Resources Control Board Bay/Delta hearing process, exhibit 15
EA (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology) (1992) Fisheries studies report. In Report of the Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District pursuant to Article 39 of the license for the Don Pedro project (Project No. 2299) before the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (vol II)
Everest FH, Beschta RL, Scrivener JC, Koski KV, Sedell JR, Cederholm CJ (1987) Fine sediment and salmonid production: a paradox. In: Salo EO, Cundy TW (eds) Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Contribution No. 57. pp 98–142
Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1970) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheoretica 19:1–39
Grantham T, Christian-Smith J, Kondolf GM, Scheuer S (2008) A fresh perspective for managing water in California: insights from applying the European water framework directive to the Russian River. Available on line: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/WRCA/WRC/pubs_contri.html#208
Holling CS (1959) Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Canadian Entomologist 91:385–398
Kondolf GM (1998) Environmental effects of aggregate extraction from river channels and floodplains. In: Bobrowsky P (ed) Aggregate resources: a global perspective. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 113–129
Kondolf GM (2000) Assessing salmonid spawning gravels. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129:262–281
Kondolf GM, Larson M (1995) Historical channel analysis and its application to riparian and aquatic habitat restoration. Aquatic Conservation. 5:109–126
Kondolf GM, Boulton A, O’Daniel S, Poole G, Rahel F, Stanley E, Wohl E, Bang A, Carlstrom J, Cristoni C, Huber H, Koljonen S, Louhi P, Nakamura K (2006) Process-based ecological river restoration: visualising three-dimensional connectivity and dynamic vectors to recover lost linkages. Ecology and Society 11 (2):5. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art5/
Marzolf GR, Valdez RA, Schmidt JC, Webb RH (1998) Perspectives on river restoration in the Grand Canyon. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 1998:250–254
McBain, Trush (2000) Habitat restoration plan for the Lower Tuolumne River corridor. Final report to the Tuolumne River Technical Advisory Committee, McBain and Trush, Arcata, California
Moyle PB (2002) Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley
Moyle PB, Israel JA (2005) Untested assumptions: effectiveness of screening diversions for conservation of fish populations. Fisheries 30(5):20–28
NRC (National Research Council) (2005) Drawing Louisiana’s new map: addressing land loss in coastal Louisiana. National Academy Press, Washington
Sarr DA (2002) Riparian livestock exclosure research in the western United States: a critique and some recommendations. Environmental Management 30(4):516–526
Scheuer S (2005) EU environmental policy handbook—A critical analysis of EU environmental legislation, published by the European Environmental Bureau, September 2005. Available online at http://www.eeb.org/publication/policy_handbook.htm
Schmidt JC (2005) A general approach for establishing national priorities for river restoration, presentation to the American Geophysical Union Spring Meeting, May 2005, New Orleans
Stillwater Sciences (2002) Merced River corridor restoration plan. Stillwater Sciences, Berkeley, California
Acknowledgments
This article is based principally on work supported by the CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program, on whose Science Board most of the authors served. Scott McBain provided valuable background information on the Tuolumne River restoration projects, including Fig. 4. Peter Vorster, Jeff Haltiner, and Nadine Hitchcock provided data on historical/current tidal marsh extent and area of tidal marsh restored, and Ken Rose provided background on fish screens. The Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit is jointly sponsored by U.S. Geological Survey, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, and Wildlife Management Institute. Any use of trade, product, or firm names does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kondolf, G.M., Angermeier, P.L., Cummins, K. et al. Projecting Cumulative Benefits of Multiple River Restoration Projects: An Example from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River System in California. Environmental Management 42, 933–945 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9162-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9162-y