Setting River Restoration Priorities: A Review of Approaches and a General Protocol for Identifying and Prioritizing Actions

Abstract

Implicit in the question, “How should I prioritize restoration actions?” is often the unstated question, “What should I restore?” Distinguishing between these questions helps clarify the restoration planning process, which has four distinct steps: (1) identify the restoration goal, (2) select a project prioritization approach that is consistent with the goal, (3) use watershed assessments to identify restoration actions, and (4) prioritize the list of actions. A well‐crafted restoration goal identifies the biological objective of restoration, addresses underlying causes of habitat change, and recognizes that social, economic, and land use objectives may constrain restoration options. Once restoration goals are identified, one of six general approaches can be selected for prioritizing restoration actions: project type, refugia, decision support systems, single‐species analysis, multispecies analysis, and cost effectiveness. Prioritizing by project type, refugia, or a decision support system requires the least quantitative information, and each approach is relatively easy to use. Single‐species, multispecies, and cost effectiveness approaches require more information and effort but often most directly address legal requirements. Watershed assessments provide most of the information used to identify and prioritize actions and should be explicitly and carefully designed to support the goals and prioritization scheme. Watershed assessments identify causes of habitat degradation, habitat losses with the greatest effect on biota and ecosystems, and local land and water uses that may limit restoration opportunities. Results of assessments are translated into suites of restoration options, and analysis of land use and economic constraints helps to evaluate the feasibility of various options. Finally, actions are prioritized based on assessment results and the selected prioritization scheme. In general, we recommend the use of simple decision support systems for cases in which watershed assessments provide incomplete information; the cost effectiveness approach is recommended for cases in which watershed assessments identify (1) restoration actions needed to restore riverine habitats, (2) biological benefits associated with each action, and (3) costs of restoration actions.

Land Use

“…The previous example of RAFs well illustrates that restoration actions are expected to be most effective when they follow process-based principles by addressing causes of degradation in line with physical and biological potential at the appropriate scale (Beechie et al 2008(Beechie et al , 2010. Still, they do not solve root causes of the detrimental effects, because surface runoff and erosion from arable or pasture land still occur and the features need maintenance following floods regularly.…”

A geomorphic assessment to inform strategic stream restoration planning in the Middle Fork John Day Watershed, Oregon, USA

“…Moreover, many restoration efforts have the best of intentions, but fail to produce physically realistic goals for the streams they are intended to improve. Restoration efforts can benefit greatly from geomorphic assessments that recognize the importance of the watershed-scale context when evaluating individual stream reach conditions (Beechie et al, 2010;Beechie, Pess, Roni, & Giannico, 2008;Demarchi, Bizzi, & Piégay, 2016). The resulting network-scale maps (i.e.…”

Monitoring, Restoration, and Source Water Protection: Canadian Community-Based Environmental Organizations’ Efforts towards Improving Aquatic Ecosystem Health

“…Another important aspect of restoration is strategically targeting known impacts that affect aquatic ecosystem biodiversity, habitat, and water quality; the mitigation of these impacts will prevent further degradation to the ecosystem and allow for natural restoration to take place [53][54][55][56][57]. Beechie et al (2008) [56] propose a hierarchical approach to restoration based on the probability of success, response time within the aquatic ecosystem, and longevity of the restoration method implemented.…”

“…Beechie et al (2008) [56] propose a hierarchical approach to restoration based on the probability of success, response time within the aquatic ecosystem, and longevity of the restoration method implemented. First, this approach should focus on the protection of source waters that serve as high-quality habitats, as this provides the greatest benefit to the aquatic ecosystem [45,52,56]; second, restoration actions should target the reconnection of fragmented habitat [56,58]; and third, processes that maintain and create habitat should be restored (e.g., flow regime, water quality, riparian habitat) [45,56,59,60]. Where applicable, these strategies should be paired with the removal or reduction of current impacts within the aquatic ecosystem, using undisturbed reference sites as templates [57].…”

“…Restoration activities should be strategically targeted to prioritize the preservation of high-quality habitat, reconnection of habitat, and restoring processes that maintain and create habitat [45,53,56,58]. The recent review by Geist and Hawkins (2016) [57] on habitat recovery and restoration as well as Mueller and Geist (2016) [63] and Mueller et al (2013) [64] in terms of which monitoring efforts are necessary are useful additional sources to turn to; but the core message we want to convey here is that determining restoration success often does not necessarily require a deep taxonomic resolution for most stakeholders.…”