Reimagining watershed restoration: a call for new investment and support structures for greater resiliency and long‐term impact

Abstract

Hundreds of locally based watershed initiatives have mobilized stakeholders to take voluntary action to restore the ecological conditions of North America's watersheds. Lead organizations rely on project‐based grant funding, alignment with government programs, and volunteerism to incrementally restore what is ultimately a vast and complex ecosystem. Structurally, the vision and goals of these initiatives often exceed available resources and capacity. In 1999, the Bonneville Environmental Foundation began to test ways by which a funder might increase the capacity of local watershed organizations to achieve long‐term watershed restoration goals through a 10‐year commitment of funding and technical support. We partnered with other funders, collectively seeking solutions to increase the impact of this work. Reflecting on 13 years experience across 21 watersheds in 7 western states (USA), we have concluded that the scale of ecological change desired requires a time frame for planning, implementation, and public engagement that is inconsistent with present‐day approaches. This has left us asking how can the capacity and impact of a watershed initiative be sustained over many decades—a time frame that exceeds the tenure of any individual leader, the proven life cycles of many nonprofit organizations, and the commitment of most funders? Clear themes have emerged: (1) engaging diverse stakeholders in planning, (2) orienting the work around broader goals, (3) emphasizing human well‐being, and (4) developing resilient partnerships. Reimagining watershed restoration in this context, we suggest a new agenda for action and research that emphasizes a multidecadal planning horizon integrating climate change projections and changing demographics and social values. WIREs Water 2017, 4:e1174. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1174 This article is categorized under: Water and Life > Conservation, Management, and Awareness Engineering Water > Planning Water Human Water > Water Governance

Ancestry and Adaptation of Rainbow Trout in Yosemite National Park

“…; Lackey ; Warren et al. ), particularly for migratory anadromous forms like steelhead (NMFS ). From an evolutionary genetics perspective, this study has several implications for the potential restoration of connectivity between the UTR and UMR populations and the California Central Valley steelhead DPS below the dams.…”

Dam removal: Listening in

“…Implicit in the notion of dam removal ''restoring'' rivers is that once dams are removed, the river will return to a baseline condition similar to its predammed state. This may not be the case, however, because local and watershed-scale changes in land and water use, water quality, and climate can influence physical and ecological recovery trajectories and the ultimate outcomes of dam removal (Figure 4) [Palmer et al, 2010;Feld et al, 2011;Webb-Sullivan and Evans, 2014;Magilligan et al, 2016;Warren et al, 2016]. Dam removals may not achieve complete ecosystem restoration until broader landscape-scale stressors are addressed.…”

Is a clean river fun for all? Recognizing social vulnerability in watershed planning

“…The framework for communication was flexible and allowed stakeholders to identify and act on shared values. The results of this and other work demonstrates the capacity of watershed planning to enhance policy learning and improve environmental protection [ 1 , 2 , 4 – 7 ]. This suggests that the collaboration and cooperation that emerges around watershed planning might offer a potential pathway toward greater local sustainability.…”

“…Even in watershed planning processes that feature best practices concerning citizen participation, empowered social groups tend to be overrepresented [ 17 ]. Thus, whether watershed approaches can become a tool for furthering social equity and social dimensions of sustainability remains open to question [ 7 ].…”