Environmental Management

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 245–255 | Cite as

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

Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Adaptive management In-stream habitat Riparian River Water quality Watershed 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study work was part of the NRRSS, a working group supported by the National Science Foundation’s National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis. We thank Margaret Palmer, Emily Bernhardt, and other members of the working group for their input, and we thank the C.S. Mott Foundation and the University of Michigan for providing funding for the Upper Midwest portion of NRRSS. We especially thank all of the interview subjects for their willing participation in this study.

References

  1. Alexander GG, Allan JD (2006) Stream restoration in the upper Midwest, United States. Restoration Ecology 14:595–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander GG (2005) The state of stream restoration in the upper Midwest, United States. Masters thesis, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  3. Bash JS, Ryan CM (2002) Stream restoration and enhancement projects: IS anyone monitoring? Environmental Management 29:877–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Alexander G, Barnas K, Brooks S, et al. (2005) Restoration of United States rivers—a national synthesis. Science 308:636–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boon PJ (1998) River restoration in five dimensions. Aquatic Conservation—Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8:257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Champoux O, Biron PM, Roy AG (2003) The long-term effectiveness of fish habitat restoration practices: Lawrence Creek, Wisconsin. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93:42–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Downs PW, Kondolf GM (2002) Postproject appraisals in adaptive management of river channel restoration. Environmental Management 29:477–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ehrenfeld JG, Toth LA (1997) Restoration ecology and the ecosystem perspective. Restoration Ecology 5:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Giller PS (2005) River restoration: seeking ecological standards. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:201–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harrison SSC, Pretty JL, Shepherd D, Hildrew AG, Smith C, Hey RD (2004) The effect of instream rehabilitation structures on macroinvertebrates in lowland rivers. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:1140–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heppner PP, Kivlighan JDM, Wampold BE (1992) Research design in counseling. Brooks Cole, Pacific Grove, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. Jannson R, Backx H, Boulton AJ, et al. (2005) Stating mechanisms and refining criteria for ecologically successful river restoration: a comment on Palmer et al. 2005 Journal of Applied Ecology 42:218–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jungwirth M, Muhar S, Schmutz S (1995) The effects of recreated instream and ecotone structures on the fish fauna of an eppipotamal river. Hydrobiologia 303:195–206Google Scholar
  14. Jungwirth M, Muhar S, Schmutz S (2002) Re-establishing and assessing ecological integrity in riverine landscapes. Freshwater Biology 47:867–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kondolf GM (1998) Lessons learned from river restoration projects in California. Aquatic Conservation—Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8:39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kondolf GM, Micheli ER (1995) Evaluating stream restoration projects. Environmental Management 19:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kondolf GM, Smeltzer MW, Railsback SF (2001) Design and performance of a channel reconstruction project in a coastal California gravel-bed stream. Environmental Management 28:761–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lake PS (2001) On the maturing restoration: linking ecological research and restoration. Ecological Management and Restoration 2:110–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leong FTL, Austin JT (eds) (1996) The psychology research handbook. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  20. Malakoff D (2004) Profile—Dave Rosgen: the river doctor. Science 305:937–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moerke AH, Gerard KJ, Latimore JA, Hellenthal RA, Lamberti GA (2004) Restoration of an Indiana, United States, stream: bridging the gap between basic and applied lotic ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23:647–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moerke AH, Lamberti GA (2004) Restoring stream ecosystems: lessons from a midwestern state. Restoration Ecology 12:327–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moerke AH, Lamberti GA (2003) Responses in fish community structure to restoration of two Indiana streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23:748–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Muotka T, Laasonen P (2002) Ecosystem recovery in restored headwater streams: the role of enhanced leaf retention. Journal of applied Ecology 39:145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nienhuis PH, Bakker JP, Grootjans AP, Gulati RD, de Jonge VN (2002) The state of the art of aquatic and semi-aquatic ecological restoration projects in the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 478:219–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Allan JD, Alexander G, Brooks S, Carr J, et al. (2005) Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:208–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parkyn SM, Davies-Colley RJ, Halliday NJ, Costley KJ, Croker GF (2003) Planted riparian buffer zones in New Zealand: do they live up to expectations? Restoration Ecology 11:436–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pretty JL, Harrison SSC, Shepherd DJ, Smith C, Hildrew AG, Hey RD (2003) River rehabilitation and fish populations: assessing the benefit of instream structures. Journal of Applied Ecology 40:251–265Google Scholar
  29. Roper BB, Dose JJ, Williams JE (1997) Stream restoration: is fisheries biology enough? Fisheries 22:6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schiemer F, Baumgartner C, Tockner K (1999) Restoration of floodplain rivers: the “Danube restoration project.” Regulated Rivers—Research and Management 15:231–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shields FD, Cooper CM, Knight SS, Moore MT (2003) Stream corridor restoration research: a long and winding road. Ecological Engineering 20:441–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shields FD, Knight SS, Cooper CM (1995) Rehabilitation of watersheds with incising channels. Water Resources Bulletin 31:971–982Google Scholar
  33. Thompson DM (2002) Long-term effect of instream habitat-improvement structures on channel morphology along the Blackledge and Salmon rivers, Connecticut, United States. Environmental Management 29:250–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental ConservationVermont Agency of Natural ResourcesWaterburyUSA
  2. 2.School of Natural Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations