Stream Restoration and Enhancement Projects: Is Anyone Monitoring?

Abstract

Declines in salmon stocks and general watershed health in Washington State, USA, have led to an increase in stream restoration and enhancement projects initiated throughout the state. The increasing number of projects has also raised questions regarding the monitoring of these efforts. Project managers receiving hydraulic project approvals (HPAs) were surveyed to determine whether monitoring was taking place on their projects. About half the project managers surveyed reported the collection of baseline data and the use of biological, physical, chemical, or other water quality measures for their projects. Of those who reported collection of monitoring data, only 18% indicated that monitoring was required. Respondents were also asked to rank the importance of various project goals on a Likert scale. Project managers with projects focusing on "engineering" goals (e.g., roadbed stabilization) were less likely than other project managers to collect baseline monitoring data. Project managers with projects focusing on "restoration/ecological" or "fisheries" goals were more likely than other project managers to collect monitoring measures. Although monitoring appears to be taking place in slightly more than half of the projects surveyed, the nature of the data collected varies widely across projects, and in most cases the monitoring effort is voluntary. This suggests that project sponsors, funders, and managers must consider the issues involved in requiring appropriate monitoring, establishing standardized monitoring guidelines, the time frames in which to monitor, providing other incentives for conducting monitoring, and ensuring adequate funding for monitoring efforts.

Climate change, forests, fire, water, and fish: Building resilient landscapes, streams, and managers

“…The evidence for these actions improving resilience is derived primarily from mechanistic logic. The complexity of interactions from multiple influences, however, has left questions about even something as seemingly direct as habitat improvement (Bash and Ryan 2002;Palmer and others 2005).…”

Minimizing environmental impacts of hydropower development: transferring lessons from past projects to a proposed strategy for Chile

“…Despite some success, the effectiveness of these mitigation funds has been questioned, for example by Bash & Ryan (2002) and the GAO Review (2002). An overview of the effectiveness of river restoration in the US is detailed in Palmer et al (2005) and Bernhardt et al (2005).…”

When Local Solutions Aren't Enough: A Strategic Funding Partnership to Restore a Large River System

“…Unfortunately, there is a disincentive for grantees to critically evaluate and honestly report project outcomes because, traditionally, future funding has been tied to a track record of "successful" projects. is pressure to report only success contributes to a widespread lack of learning, as restoration results are infrequently documented, publicized, or effectively shared to improve restoration practice (Kondolf, 1995;Palmer, Allan, Meyer, & Bernhardt, 2007;Bash & Ryan, 2002).…”