River Restoration in the Twenty‐First Century: Data and Experiential Knowledge to Inform Future Efforts

Despite some highly visible projects that have resulted in environmental benefits, recent efforts to quantify the number and distribution of river restoration projects revealed a paucity of written records documenting restoration outcomes. Improving restoration designs and setting watershed priorities rely on collecting and making accessible this critical information. Information within the unpublished notes of restoration project managers is useful but rarely documents ecological improvements. This special section of Restoration Ecology is devoted to the current state of knowledge on river restoration. We provide an overview of the section’s articles, reflecting on lessons learned, which have implications for the implementation, legal, and financing frameworks for restoration. Our reflections are informed by two databases developed under the auspices of the National River Restoration Science Synthesis project and by extensive interactions with those who fund, implement, and permit restoration. Requiring measurable ecological success criteria, comprehensive watershed plans, and tracking of when and where restoration projects are implemented are critical to improving the health of U.S. waters. Documenting that a project was put in the ground and stayed intact cannot be equated with ecological improvements. However, because significant ecological improvements can come with well-designed and -implemented stream and river restorations, a small investment in documenting the factors contributing to success will lead to very large returns in the health of our nation’s waterways. Even projects that may appear to be failures initially can be turned into success stories by applying the knowledge gained from monitoring the project in an adaptive restoration approach.

[1]  Elena G. Irwin,et al.  Measuring the Amount and Pattern of Land Development in Nonurban Areas , 2007 .

[2]  M. Palmer,et al.  Restoring watersheds project by project: trends in Chesapeake Bay tributary restoration , 2005 .

[3]  Lester B. Lave,et al.  Import Ethanol, Not Oil , 2006 .

[4]  Mercedes Pascual,et al.  Ecology for a Crowded Planet , 2004, Science.

[5]  B. Doppelt Entering the watershed : a new approach to save America's river ecosystems , 1993 .

[6]  Anthony Ricciardi,et al.  Extinction Rates of North American Freshwater Fauna , 1999 .

[7]  Katie A. Barnas,et al.  Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration Efforts , 2005, Science.

[8]  Katie A. Barnas,et al.  Stream Restoration in the Pacific Northwest: Analysis of Interviews with Project Managers , 2007 .

[9]  Robin Abell,et al.  Freshwater ecoregions of North America : a conservation assessment , 1999 .

[10]  M. Palmer,et al.  Evaluating Stream Restoration in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed through Practitioner Interviews , 2007 .

[11]  Richard N. Palmer,et al.  Water Resources Implications of Global Warming: A U.S. Regional Perspective , 1999 .

[12]  N. LeRoy Poff,et al.  MEETING ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIETAL NEEDS FOR FRESHWATER , 2002 .

[13]  R. Naiman,et al.  Indicators and assessment methods for measuring the ecological integrity of semi-aquatic terrestrial environments , 2000, Hydrobiologia.

[14]  G. M. Kondolf,et al.  Two Decades of River Restoration in California: What Can We Learn? , 2007 .

[15]  J. Meyer,et al.  Restoring Rivers One Reach at a Time: Results from a Survey of U.S. River Restoration Practitioners , 2007 .

[16]  S. Postel,et al.  Rivers for Life: Managing Water For People And Nature , 2003 .

[17]  E. Bernhardt,et al.  River and Riparian Restoration in the Southwest: Results of the National River Restoration Science Synthesis Project , 2007 .

[18]  M. Palmer,et al.  Hydroecology and river restoration: Ripe for research and synthesis , 2006 .

[19]  Margaret A. Palmer,et al.  INVERTEBRATE BIODIVERSITY IN AGRICULTURAL AND URBAN HEADWATER STREAMS: IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT , 2005 .

[20]  P. S. Lake,et al.  River Restoration in Victoria, Australia: Change is in the Wind, and None too Soon , 2007 .

[21]  J. Allan Landscapes and Riverscapes: The Influence of Land Use on Stream Ecosystems , 2004 .

[22]  G. Kondolf,et al.  Systematic Postproject Appraisals to Maximize Lessons Learned from River Restoration Projects: Case Study of Compound Channel Restoration Projects in Northern California , 2007 .

[23]  William L. Graf,et al.  Damage Control: Restoring the Physical Integrity of America’s Rivers , 2001 .

[24]  Stephen L. Katz,et al.  Freshwater Habitat Restoration Actions in the Pacific Northwest: A Decade’s Investment in Habitat Improvement , 2007 .

[25]  Emily S. Bernhardt,et al.  Stream Restoration Practices in the Southeastern United States , 2007 .

[26]  J. Meyer,et al.  Standards for ecologically successful river restoration , 2005 .

[27]  M. Palmer,et al.  Frontiers inEcology and the Environment Climate change and the world ’ s river basins : anticipating management options , 2007 .

[28]  M. Flörke,et al.  Future long-term changes in global water resources driven by socio-economic and climatic changes , 2007 .

[29]  J. Allan,et al.  Stream Restoration in the Upper Midwest, U.S.A. , 2006 .

[30]  D. Galat,et al.  River Enhancement in the Upper Mississippi River Basin: Approaches Based on River Uses, Alterations, and Management Agencies , 2007 .