Long‐Term Monitoring and Evaluation of the Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project, Idaho, U.S.A.

Although public and financial support for stream restoration projects is increasing, long-term monitoring and reporting of project successes and failures are limited. We present the initial results of a long-term monitoring program for the Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project in north-central Idaho, U.S.A. We evaluate a natural channel design’s effectiveness in shifting a degraded stream ecosystem onto a path of ecological recovery. Field monitoring and hydrodynamic modeling are used to quantify post-restoration changes in 17 physical and biological performance indicators. Statistical and ecological significance are evaluated within a framework of clear objectives, expected responses (ecological hypotheses), and performance criteria (reference conditions) to assess post-restoration changes away from pre-restoration conditions. Compared to pre-restoration conditions, we observed ecosystem improvements in channel sinuosity, slope, depth, and water surface elevation; quantity, quality, and diversity of in-stream habitat and spawning substrate; and bird population numbers and diversity. Modeling documented the potential for enhanced river–floodplain connectivity. Failure to detect either statistically or ecologically significant change in groundwater depth, stream temperature, native riparian cover, and salmonid density is due to a combination of small sample sizes, high interannual variability, external influences, and the early stages of recovery. Unexpected decreases in native riparian cover led to implementation of adaptive management strategies. Challenges included those common to most project-level monitoring—isolating restoration effects in complex ecosystems, securing long-term funding, and implementing scientifically rigorous experimental designs. Continued monitoring and adaptive management that support the establishment of mature and dense riparian shrub communities are crucial to overall success of the project.

[1]  P. Giller.  River restoration: seeking ecological standards. Editor's introduction , 2005 .

[2]  P. S. Lake,et al.  Perturbation, Restoration and Seeking Ecological Sustainability in Australian Flowing Waters , 2005, Hydrobiologia.

[3]  Paul L. Angermeier,et al.  Estimating number of species and relative abundances in stream-fish communities: effects of sampling effort and discontinuous spatial distributions , 1995 .

[4]  L. B. Leopold,et al.  River channel patterns: Braided, meandering, and straight , 1957 .

[5]  R. Hays,et al.  Estimating wildlife habitat variables , 1981 .

[6]  David G. Hankin,et al.  Estimating Total Fish Abundance and Total Habitat Area in Small Streams Based on Visual Estimation Methods , 1988 .

[7]  G. Mathias Kondolf,et al.  Five Elements for Effective Evaluation of Stream Restoration , 1995 .

[8]  Howard Wainer,et al.  On the Past and Future of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing , 2002 .

[9]  R. Thurow.  Underwater methods for study of salmonids in the Intermountain West , 1994 .

[10]  Klement Tockner,et al.  Understanding natural patterns and processes in river corridors as the basis for effective river restoration , 2001 .

[11]  F. Swanson,et al.  An Ecosystem Perspective of Riparian ZonesFocus on links between land and water , 1991 .

[12]  D. Montgomery,et al.  Channel Processes, Classification, and Response , 2000 .

[13]  R. Hey,et al.  River rehabilitation and fish populations: assessing the benefit of instream structures , 2003 .

[14]  Douglas H. Johnson.  The Insignificance of Statistical Significance Testing , 1999 .

[15]  Philip A. Stephens,et al.  Information theory and hypothesis testing: a call for pluralism , 2005 .

[16]  B. Shipley.  Cause and correlation in biology , 2000 .

[17]  Claude Amoros,et al.  Restoration ecology of riverine wetlands: A 5-year post-operation survey on the Rhône River, France , 2002 .

[18]  Charles C. Coutant,et al.  Return to the River: Scientific Issues in the Restoration of Salmonid Fishes in the Columbia River , 1999 .

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

[20]  R. Beschta,et al.  Restoration and management of riparian ecosystems: a catchment perspective , 1998 .

[21]  R. Naiman,et al.  The Ecology of Interfaces: Riparian Zones , 1997 .

[22]  Wendy Miller,et al.  Setting Goals and Measuring Success: Linking Patterns and Processes in Stream Restoration , 2005, Hydrobiologia.

[23]  T. C. Bjornn.  Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams , 1991 .

[24]  M. Wolman.  A method of sampling coarse river‐bed material , 1954 .

[25]  K. Boyd,et al.  Challenges in developing and implementing ecological standards for geomorphic river restoration projects: a practitioner's response to Palmer et al. (2005) , 2005 .

[26]  Klement Tockner,et al.  Stating mechanisms and refining criteria for ecologically successful river restoration: A comment on Palmer et al. (2005) , 2005 .

[27]  D. Knighton.  Fluvial Forms and Processes: A New Perspective , 1998 .

[28]  PETER W. DOWNS,et al.  Post-Project Appraisals in Adaptive Management of River Channel Restoration , 2002, Environmental management.

[29]  Nick Otting,et al.  An Ecological Perspective of Riparian and Stream Restoration in the Western United States , 1997 .

[30]  G. Kondolf,et al.  Assessing Salmonid Spawning Gravel Quality , 2000 .

[31]  Gary A. Lamberti,et al.  Restoring Stream Ecosystems: Lessons from a Midwestern State , 2004 .

[32]  A. Allen.  Habitat Suitability Index Models: Mink , 1983 .

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

[34]  C. Ryan,et al.  Stream Restoration and Enhancement Projects: Is Anyone Monitoring? , 2002, Environmental management.

[35]  G. Mathias Kondolf,et al.  Evaluating stream restoration projects , 1995 .

[36]  Marcia Barinaga,et al.  A Recipe for River Recovery? , 1996 .