Landscape and Ecological Engineering

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 235–245

Landscape scale assessment of stream channel and riparian habitat restoration needs

Original Paper


Human modifications of streams and rivers have caused extensive stream channel and riparian degradation. Cost-effective, rapid assessment tools can be used to better manage such areas by identifying the status of habitats for restoration planning and protection. We used a spatially explicit, reach-scale geographic information system modeling strategy to examine stream channel and riparian condition and prioritize restoration actions. The stream channel condition index uses information on land use, road and railroad density, and sinuosity. The riparian condition index uses calculations of percent forest, patch density, and convexity based on land cover in the floodplain. Reaches were classified into restoration categories based on stream channel and riparian condition model results, land ownership, slope, position in the subwatershed, and adjacency to high-quality habitat. We compared modeled restoration priority rankings with those in the management plan for the East Credit subwatershed in Ontario, Canada. Predicted stream channel restoration priority rankings matched field-based classifications for 86% of the reaches in the East Credit subwatershed. Predicted riparian restoration priority rankings matched field-based classifications for 81% of the reaches. Our methods replicate with fairly good accuracy the results obtained using intensive field surveys and stakeholder input. Managers can use these cost-effective strategy development tools to identify candidate reaches for further study and prioritize stream channel and riparian restoration actions over large regions.


Rapid assessment Spatial analysis Reach scale Anthropogenic disturbance Geographic information systems Degradation 


  1. Allan JD (2004) Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:257–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan JD, Flecker AS (1993) Biodiversity conservation in running waters. Bioscience 43:32–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allan JD, Erickson DL, Fay J (1997) The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshw Biol 37:149–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson J, Hardy E, Roach J, Witmer R (1976) A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 964. USGS, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Arner EH, Robinette HR, Frasier JE, Gray MH (1976) Effects of channelization of the Luxapalila River on fish, aquatic invertebrates, water quality and fur bearers. FWS/OBS-76-08, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Baldigo BP, Warren DR, Ernst AG, Mulvihill CI (2008) Response of fish populations to natural channel design restoration in streams of the Catskill Mountains, New York. N Am J Fish Manag 28:954–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barling RD, Moore ID (1994) Role of buffer strips in management of waterway pollution—a review. Environ Manag 18:543–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beechie T, Pess G, Roni P (2008) Setting river restoration priorities: a review of approaches and a general protocol for identifying and prioritizing actions. N Am J Fish Manag 28:891–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benke AC (1990) A perspective on America vanishing streams. J N Am Benthol Soc 9:77–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brazner JC, Tanner DK, Detenbeck NE, Batterman SL, Stark SL, Jagger LA, Snarski VM (2005) Regional, watershed, and site-specific environmental influences on fish assemblage structure and function in western Lake Superior tributaries. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:1254–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Credit Valley Conservation (1998) Credit watershed natural heritage project detailed methodology: identifying, mapping and collecting field data at watershed and subwatershed scales, version 3. Credit Valley Conservation, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  12. Credit Valley Conservation (2007a) East Credit subwatershed study: phase I report subwatershed characterization. Credit Valley Conservation, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  13. Credit Valley Conservation (2007b) East Credit subwatershed study: phase III report management plan and implementation. Credit Valley Conservation, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  14. Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata ZI, Knowler DJ, Leveque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard AH, Soto D, Stiassny MLJ, Sullivan CA (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev 81:163–182CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Forman RTT (2000) Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United States. Conserv Biol 14:31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Galli J (1996) Rapid stream assessment technique, field methods. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilvear DJ (1999) Fluvial geomorphology and river engineering: future roles utilizing a fluvial hydrosystems framework. Geomorphology 31:229–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goetz SJ, Wright RK, Smith AJ, Zinecker E, Schaub E (2003) IKONOS imagery for resource management: tree cover, impervious surfaces, and riparian buffer analyses in the mid-Atlantic region. Remote Sens Environ 88:195–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodwin CN, Hawkins CP, Kershner JL (1997) Riparian restoration in the western United States: overview and perspective. Restor Ecol 5:4–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hardy TB (1998) The future of habitat modeling and instream flow assessment techniques. Regul Rivers Res Manag 14:405–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hayes JC, Dillaha TA (1992) Vegetative filter strips: I. Site suitability and design. Paper No. 92-2102. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. JosephGoogle Scholar
  22. Hunter JC, Willett KB, McCoy MC, Quinn JF, Keller KE (1999) Prospects for preservation and restoration of riparian forests in the Sacramento Valley, California, USA. Environ Manag 24:65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones KB, Neale AC, Nash MS, Van Remortel RD, Wickham JD, Riitters KH, O’Neill RV (2001) Predicting nutrient and sediment loadings to streams from landscape metrics: a multiple watershed study from the United States mid-Atlantic region. Landsc Ecol 16:301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karr JR, Schlosser IJ (1978) Water-resources and land-water interface. Science 201:229–234CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Karwan DL, Allan JD, Bergen KM (2001) Changing near-stream land use and river channel morphology in the Venezuelan Andes. J Am Water Resour Assoc 37:1579–1587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee JT, Thompson S (2005) Targeting sites for habitat creation: an investigation into alternative scenarios. Landsc Urban Plan 71:17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Legleiter CJ (2003) Spectrally driven classification of high spatial resolution, hyperspectral imagery: a tool for mapping in-stream habitat. Environ Manag 32:399–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Legleiter CJ, Goodchild MF (2005) Alternative representations of in-stream habitat: classification using remote sensing, hydraulic modeling, and fuzzy logic. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 19:29–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Legleiter CJ, Roberts DA (2005) Effects of channel morphology and sensor spatial resolution on image-derived depth estimates. Remote Sens Environ 95:231–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lin CY, Chou WC, Lin WT (2002) Modeling the width and placement of riparian vegetated buffer strips: a case study on the Chi-Jia-Wang Stream, Taiwan. J Environ Manag 66:269–280Google Scholar
  31. Mattson KM, Angermeier PL (2007) Integrating human impacts and ecological integrity into a risk-based protocol for conservation planning. Environ Manag 39:125–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McBride M, Booth DB (2005) Urban impacts on physical stream condition: Effects of spatial scale, connectivity, and longitudinal trends. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41:565–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meador MR, Goldstein RM (2003) Assessing water quality at large geographic scales: relations among land use, water physicochemistry, riparian condition, and fish community structure. Environ Manag 31:504–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meixler MS, Bain MB, Walter MT (2009) Predicting barrier passage and habitat suitability for migratory fish species. Ecol Model 220:2782–2791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. Mollot LA, Bilby RE (2008) The use of geographic information systems, remote sensing, and suitability modeling to identify conifer restoration sites with high biological potential for anadromous fish at the Cedar River Municipal Watershed in western Washington, USA. Restor Ecol 16:336–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Muller E (1997) Mapping riparian vegetation along rivers: old concepts and new methods. Aquat Bot 58:411–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Muotka T, Paavola R, Haapala A, Novikmec M, Laasonen P (2002) Long-term recovery of stream habitat structure and benthic invertebrate communities from in-stream restoration. Biol Conserv 105:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Narumalani S, Zhou YC, Jensen JR (1997) Application of remote sensing and geographic information systems to the delineation and analysis of riparian buffer zones. Aquat Bot 58:393–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. National Research Council (2002) Riparian areas: functions and strategies for management. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  41. Ontario Ministry of Environment (1999) Water management: policies, guidelines and provincial water quality objectives. Ontario Ministry of Environment, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  42. Osborne LL, Kovacic DA (1993) Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream management. Freshw Biol 29:243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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? Restor Ecol 11:436–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Petersen RC (1992) The RCE—a riparian, channel, and environmental inventory for small streams in the agricultural landscape. Freshw Biol 27:295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC (1997) The natural flow regime. Bioscience 47:769–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Revenga C, Campbell I, Abell R, de Villiers P, Bryer M (2005) Prospects for monitoring freshwater ecosystems towards the 2010 targets. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 360:397–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Richardson JS, Danehy RJ (2007) A synthesis of the ecology of headwater streams and their riparian zones in temperate forests. For Sci 53:131–147Google Scholar
  48. Roni P, Beechie TJ, Bilby RE, Leonetti FE, Pollock MM, Pess GR (2002) A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific northwest watersheds. N Am J Fish Manag 22:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roni P, Hanson K, Beechie T (2008) Global review of the physical and biological effectiveness of stream habitat rehabilitation techniques. N Am J Fish Manag 28:856–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roth NE, Allan JD, Erickson DL (1996) Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landsc Ecol 11:141–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shandas V (2007) An empirical study of streamside landowners’ interest in riparian conservation. J Am Plan Assoc 73:173–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Snyder MN, Goetz SJ, Wright RK (2005) Stream health rankings predicted by satellite derived land cover metrics. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41:659–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stein JL, Stein JA, Nix HA (2002) Spatial analysis of anthropogenic river disturbance at regional and continental scales: identifying the wild rivers of Australia. Landsc Urban Plan 60:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Switalski TA, Bissonette JA, DeLuca TH, Luce CH, Madej MA (2004) Benefits and impacts of road removal. Front Ecol Environ 2:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tiner RW (2004) Remotely-sensed indicators for monitoring the general condition of “natural habitat” in watersheds: an application for Delaware’s Nanticoke River watershed. Ecol Indic 4:227–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Trani MK, Giles RH (1999) An analysis of deforestation: metrics used to describe pattern change. For Ecol Manag 114:459–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wang L, Lyons J, Kanehl P (1998) Development and evaluation of a habitat rating system for low-gradient Wisconsin streams. N Am J Fish Manag 18:775–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wang LZ, Lyons J, Kanehl P (2001) Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and fish across multiple spatial scales. Environ Manag 28:255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wenger S (1999) A review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer width, extent and vegetation. Office of Public Service and Outreach, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, AthensGoogle Scholar
  60. Wheeler AP, Angermeier PL, Rosenberger AE (2005) Impacts of new highways and subsequent landscape urbanization on stream habitat and biota. Rev Fish Sci 13:141–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Xiang WN (1993) Application of a GIS-based stream buffer generation model to environmental-policy evaluation. Environ Manag 17:817–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhu ZL, Yang LM, Stehman SV, Czaplewski RL (2000) Accuracy assessment for the US Geological Survey Regional Land-Cover Mapping Program: New York and New Jersey region. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 66:1425–1435Google Scholar
  63. Zika U, Peter A (2002) The introduction of woody debris into a channelized stream: effect on trout populations and habitat. River Res Appl 18:355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Consortium of Landscape and Ecological Engineering and Springer 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Natural ResourcesCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations