Comparing Stream Restoration Project Effectiveness Using a Programmatic Evaluation of Salmonid Habitat and Fish Response

O’Neal, Jennifer S.; Roni, Philip; Crawford, Bruce; Ritchie, Anna; Shelly, Alice A.

doi:10.1080/02755947.2016.1165773

Cited by 22 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is therefore possible that many of the traditional methods for monitoring floodplain habitats and fishes, which were largely based on techniques for wadable streams and suitable for examining short stream reaches, may not be the most efficient or best available methods for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of floodplain projects. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program approach, and other similar wadable stream monitoring methods, have been used for many years in Washington State to evaluate floodplain and other restoration projects with limited success as those monitoring frameworks are not well suited for floodplains with multithread channel networks (Kaufmann, Levine, Robison, Seeliger, & Peck, ; O'Neal, Roni, Crawford, Ritchie, & Shelly, ; Roni, Jordan, & Pess, ). Moreover, a recent focus on optimal monitoring techniques and metrics for floodplain restoration projects in Europe, which has a longer history of floodplain restoration than in North America, has produced new metrics and approaches for monitoring and measuring biota (Friberg et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring the effectiveness of floodplain habitat restoration: A review of methods and recommendations for future monitoring

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Floodplains are some of the most ecologically important and human-impacted habitats throughout the world. Large efforts are underway in North America, Europe, Australia, and elsewhere to restore floodplain habitats, not only to increase fish and aquatic biota but to restore ecological diversity. As the scale, number, and complexity of floodplain restoration projects has increased, so has the need for rigorous monitoring and evaluation to demonstrate effectiveness and guide future floodplain restoration efforts. Moreover, technological advances in remote sensing, genetics, and fish marking have been evolving rapidly and there is need to update guidance on the best methods for monitoring physical and biological response to floodplain restoration. A comprehensive review of the restoration literature located 180 papers that specifically examined the effectiveness of various floodplain restoration techniques. The various methods that were historically and currently used to evaluate the physical (channel and floodplain morphology, sediment, flow, water quality [temperature and nutrients]) and biological (fish, invertebrates, and aquatic and riparian plants) effectiveness of floodplain restoration were reviewed and used to provide recommendations for future monitoring. For each major physical and biological monitoring method, we discuss their importance, how they have historically been used to evaluate floodplain restoration, newer methodologies, and limitations or advantages of different methodologies and approaches. We then discuss monitoring the effectiveness of small (<2 km in main channel length) and large (>2 km of main channel length) floodplain projects, with recommendations for various study designs, parameters, and monitoring methodologies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring the effectiveness of floodplain habitat restoration: A review of methods and recommendations for future monitoring

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; O'Neal et al. ). In the Pacific Northwest region, for example, managers have thus far implemented restoration projects in several hundred kilometers of stream habitat to improve rearing conditions for salmonid fishes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Redistribution: In‐Stream Habitat Restoration Increases Capacity for Young‐of‐the‐Year Chinook Salmon and Steelhead in the Entiat River, Washington

Polivka

Claeson

2020

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted snorkel surveys for juvenile salmonids in reaches of the Entiat River, Washington, treated with engineered logjams and in reaches without treatments to determine if observations at a habitat unit scale can identify whether restoration has increased the habitat capacity of a reach. The conceptual basis and field methodology emphasize fish density data (fish/habitat area in m 2 ) from unrestored habitat within a reach treated with engineered logjams compared with surveys in (1) unrestored habitat in untreated reaches and (2) restored habitat in treated reaches. A Bayesian generalized linear model enabled us to quantify density differences among habitat types using advanced computational statistics. Modal density of young-of-the-year Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha and steelhead O. mykiss was at least 3.1-fold and 2.7-fold greater, respectively, in restored habitat compared with unrestored habitat for all treated reaches examined. To distinguish the density differences in those reaches as capacity increases rather than redistribution from poor habitat to good habitat, we compared density in unrestored habitat in both treated and untreated reaches. Here we found no differences for either species, confirming that the increased density in restored habitat units did not come from depletion of unrestored habitat in the same reach. We thus concluded that restoration increased the habitat capacity of the reach at the scale of pools created by engineered logjams.

show abstract

“…The Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) used the mBACI approach to evaluate a large program for restoring salmon habitat across the states of Washington and Oregon (Figure ; O'Neal et al. ). A subset of each project type was selected for monitoring in the first 2 years of the program and then was monitored for up to 10 years postrestoration.…”

Section: Review Of Programmatic Monitoring and Evaluation Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are currently few examples of successfully implemented national or regional programmatic monitoring and evaluation for river restoration, and there is a need for guidance on how best to evaluate projects across a region (O'Neal et al. ). To address this need, we review the different programmatic monitoring and evaluation approaches for evaluating the effectiveness of river restoration projects implemented across a region.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Approaches for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Regional River Habitat Restoration Programs

Roni

Åberg

Weber

2018

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large regional programs to restore riverine habitat for fish and aquatic organisms have become common throughout North America, Europe, and elsewhere. Evaluating the effectiveness of projects implemented under these programs—sometimes called programmatic monitoring and evaluation—has proven challenging, and little guidance exists on programmatic monitoring and evaluation approaches and their effectiveness. In this paper, we review different approaches for evaluating the effectiveness of river restoration projects implemented across a region. These programmatic monitoring and evaluation approaches include case studies, meta‐analyses, multiple before–after control–impact (mBACI), extensive posttreatment (EPT), intensively monitored watersheds (IMWs), and hybrid programmatic approaches that use a combination of different experimental designs. For each approach, we discuss the pros and cons as well as provide examples. The most appropriate approach depends in part on the questions that the programmatic monitoring and evaluation strives to address, the spatial and temporal scale at which detection of a response is expected, and the scale of inference. Case studies and mBACI approaches can answer questions about individual projects but have several limitations in terms of cost, timely results, and feasibility. A meta‐analysis, which can provide broadly applicable results, is dependent upon a large number of case studies being completed. The EPT approach can provide relatively quick and easy‐to‐interpret results, but it requires a large population of completed projects and careful selection of controls. The IMW approach has been broadly applied in western North America but has had limited success and appears to be tractable only in small catchments where restoration and monitoring can be well controlled. Based on results from recent efforts in the USA and Europe, the most feasible programmatic monitoring and evaluation approach in terms of cost, implementability, and production of timely results appears to be a hybrid approach that uses a combination of the EPT and mBACI approaches.

show abstract

Comparing Stream Restoration Project Effectiveness Using a Programmatic Evaluation of Salmonid Habitat and Fish Response

Cited by 22 publications

References 35 publications

Monitoring the effectiveness of floodplain habitat restoration: A review of methods and recommendations for future monitoring

Monitoring the effectiveness of floodplain habitat restoration: A review of methods and recommendations for future monitoring

Beyond Redistribution: In‐Stream Habitat Restoration Increases Capacity for Young‐of‐the‐Year Chinook Salmon and Steelhead in the Entiat River, Washington

A Review of Approaches for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Regional River Habitat Restoration Programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About