Development of Restoration Performance Curves for Streams in Southern California Using an Integrative Condition Index

Determining success of stream restoration projects is challenging, due to the disconnection between required monitoring periods and the actual time necessary to achieve ecological success. Performance curves could help address this challenge by illustrating likely developmental trajectories of restored streams. We applied the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM), an integrative index of stream condition, in a 10 year chronosequence to create performance curves that project the development of functional streams for 30 years following restoration. CRAM scores for high functioning sites between zero and 10 years were plotted against time since restoration. Best-fit curves were derived using either power functions or polynomial functions, depending on the CRAM metric. We tested the curves’ ability to predict conditions for other projects across a range of ages, flow conditions (ephemeral to perennial), and physiographic settings. The curves are able to predict the time required for projects to achieve reference-level scores for the CRAM index and Hydrology and Biotic Structure attributes, but underestimate the time required for projects to achieve reference-level scores for the Physical Structure attribute. Our research demonstrates the potential to use modeled restoration performance curves based on CRAM scores to guide expectations for restoration project performance.

[1]  D. Rizzo,et al.  Riparian reforestation and channel change: how long does it take? , 2010 .

[2]  Structural and functional vegetation development in created and restored wetland mitigation banks of different ages , 2012 .

[3]  Cristina Grosso,et al.  Validation of a wetland Rapid Assessment Method: Use of EPA’s level 1-2-3 framework for method testing and refinement , 2009, Wetlands.

[4]  C. Hupp,et al.  Riparian vegetation and fluvial geomorphic processes , 1996 .

[5]  E. Tabacchi,et al.  Reciprocal interactions and adjustments between fluvial landforms and vegetation dynamics in river corridors: A review of complementary approaches , 2007 .

[6]  Mary E. Kentula,et al.  An Approach to Improving Decision-Making in Wetland Restoration and Creation , 1992 .

[7]  Christina L. Tague,et al.  Characterizing post‐fire vegetation recovery of California chaparral using TM/ETM+ time‐series data , 2007 .

[8]  Dar A. Roberts,et al.  Post-fire recovery of leaf area index in California chaparral: A remote sensing-chronosequence approach , 2004 .

[9]  D. Lewis,et al.  Development of Vegetation and Aquatic Habitat in Restored Riparian Sites of California's North Coast Rangelands , 2011 .

[10]  Jeffrey W. Matthews,et al.  Convergence and divergence in plant community trajectories as a framework for monitoring wetland restoration progress , 2010 .

[11]  Joy B. Zedler,et al.  Tracking Wetland Restoration: Do Mitigation Sites Follow Desired Trajectories? , 1999 .

[12]  Eric D. Stein,et al.  A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A WETLAND ASSESSMENT METHOD: THE CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE 1 , 2006 .

[13]  M. Brinson.  A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands , 1993 .

[14]  Michael J. Osland,et al.  Ecosystem Development After Mangrove Wetland Creation: Plant–Soil Change Across a 20-Year Chronosequence , 2012, Ecosystems.

[15]  C. Craft,et al.  Fifteen Years of Vegetation and Soil Development after Brackish‐Water Marsh Creation , 2002 .

[16]  P. Stevens,et al.  The Chronosequence Concept and Soil Formation , 1970, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[17]  F. Short,et al.  Using Functional Trajectories to Track Constructed Salt Marsh Development in the Great Bay Estuary, Maine/New Hampshire, U.S.A. , 2002 .

[18]  K. Taylor,et al.  Restoration of vegetation communities of created depressional marshes in Ohio and Colorado (USA): The importance of initial effort for mitigation success , 2009 .

[19]  A. G. Endress,et al.  Trajectories of vegetation-based indicators used to assess wetland restoration progress. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[20]  David Tilman,et al.  DYNAMICS OF SOIL NITROGEN AND CARBON ACCUMULATION FOR 61 YEARS AFTER AGRICULTURAL ABANDONMENT , 2000 .

[21]  C. Craft,et al.  TWENTY‐FIVE YEARS OF ECOSYSTEM DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTRUCTED SPARTINA ALTERNIFLORA (LOISEL) MARSHES , 1999 .

[22]  J. Stevenson,et al.  THE PACE OF ECOSYSTEM DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTRUCTED SPARTINA ALTERNIFLORA MARSHES , 2003 .