Regional Preferences and Accepted Practices in Urban Stream Restoration: An Overview of Case Studies

Carpenter, Donald D.; Slate, Louise O.; Schwartz, John S.; Sinha, Sanjiv; Brennan, Kelly; MacBroom, James G.

doi:10.1061/40695(2004)29

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite this significant investment, there have been limited national‐scale data collection efforts to catalogue projects or evaluate restoration effectiveness (US National Research Council, ; Bernhardt et al, ; Gilvear et al, ). Existing reviews of the practice are regional (Kondolf, ; Carpenter et al, ; King et al, ; Rios‐Touma et al, ), focused on a specific restoration strategy (Harrison et al, ; Thompson, ) or stream type (Carpenter et al, ), or are meta‐analyses of other studies (Craig et al, ; Roni et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite Florida's efforts in environmental conservation, land acquisitions, and water quality improvements, national and regional restoration data (Carpenter et al, ; Bernhardt et al, ; Sudduth et al, ) fail to sufficiently describe stream restoration efforts in the state. Studies generally either only discuss landmark projects, such as restoration of the Apalachicola River, Kissimmee River, and the Everglades, or exclude Florida from the discussion altogether.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Synthesis of Stream Restoration Efforts in Florida (USA)

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies summarizing stream restoration projects in the US are outdated and omit the majority of restoration projects in Florida. To address this gap, we compiled stream restoration data from diverse sources to create a Florida Stream Restoration Database (FSRD, available at http://www.watershedecology.org/databases.html) containing information on project type, location, completion date, and costs. The FSRD contains 178 projects categorized by restoration type, including riparian management (23%), stream reclamation (19%), flow modification (13%), bank stabilization (12%), channel reconfiguration (11%), in-stream habitat improvements (11%), floodplain reconnection (6%), invasive species removal (4%), and dam removal (1%). Projects were spatially clustered into three geographic regions, providing insight on the diversity of initiatives, needs, and funding sources of land management agencies and private landowners that motivated restoration efforts. Projects in the Florida panhandle emphasized in-stream habitat restoration, while peninsular projects were dominated by flow modification, and projects in the west central region focused on stream reclamation to mitigate surface mining practices and water quality and habitat improvements in tidal streams. Results suggest that Florida is spending much more on stream restoration than previously documented. Between 1979 and 2015, the mean and median stream restoration project costs in Florida were $15.4 million and $180 000, respectively, indicating a strongly skewed distribution because of the large Kissimmee River restoration project in central Florida. This work highlights the need for, and utility of, statewide and national restoration databases to improve restoration tracking. This need will become increasingly critical as more stringent water quality and habitat mitigation rules are implemented across the country.

show abstract