Introduction to Stream Restoration - Hydro-Environmental Analysis: Freshwater Environments - page 218

8.3 RESTORATION GOALS AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The irst step in a restoration project is establishing the goals for that project, and then recogniz-
ing that those goals may evolve and change over the course of the project. Restoration projects are
often complex and their impacts are uncertain, particularly since many of the conditions that we
attempt to restore a system “to” are not completely known, and are time consuming and expen-
sive. For example, the restoration projects for the Kissimmee River, discussed earlier, were many
times more expensive and took much longer than the original channelization project. As a result,
many restoration projects involve “learning while doing,” also commonly referred to as adaptive
management.
As indicated by Shields et al. (2003a,b, 2008; Figure 8.6), setting general goals includes estab-
lishing achievable end points that are measurable by project stakeholders (FISRWG 1998), and the
process should be iterative. Setting goals typically requires irst establishing the nature, cause, and
extent of the problem to be restored, such as using the habitat metrics described in previous chapters
and then deining the desired future condition (FISRWG 1998). Again, to be usable for design, the
desired future condition must be quantiiable, such as the use of hydraulic techniques to restore
channel stability (Shields et al. 2003b; Figure 8.6).
The FISRWG (1998) indicated that restoration goals should not only include the desired
future condition but also consider the political, social, and economic values and constraints.
The desired future condition may be represented by some undeveloped or reference condition
that may or may not be achievable. For example, if the scale of the impact is large, such as in
the watershed, it may be impossible to restore the watershed to predevelopment conditions. The
political, social, and economic values and constraints as promulgated in local, state, or federal
laws, or inancial constraints, or constraints due to human values or welfare, would also impact
restoration goals. For example, would an environmental impact assessment be required under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; which may impact the time and costs of a resto-
ration)? Also, if the restoration were to result in an impact such as increased looding that may
have occurred under the undeveloped condition, that plan may not be feasible. For example,
the original goal of the Kissimmee River channelization project was lood protection, which
was viewed at that time as necessary to promote and protect economic development. The 1992
Water Resources Development Act authorized the restoration of the Kissimmee River with the
established goal to “restore ecological integrity to a portion of the ecosystem.” The act further
indicated that the restoration must also be accomplished “while retaining existing levels of lood
protection to surrounding communities.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
(USEPA 2000) Ofice of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds has assembled a list of principles,
which are listed in Table 8.2 (and discussed in more detail in USEPA 2000), on which project
goals and designs can be based and which have contributed to the success of a wide range of
aquatic resource restoration projects. Some of the methods for restoration are discussed in the
following sections.
8.4 RESTORATION INTENT AND TECHNIQUES
A variety of methods and techniques are available for restoration. Guidance documents such as
“Stream corridor restoration: Principles, processes, and practices” (FISRWG 1998) and “Part 654,
National engineering handbook, stream restoration design” (NRCS 2007a) review the principles
and methodologies used in stream restoration design. This section is intended to review and provide
an introduction to some of the most commonly used restoration practices in the United States. The
selection of those practices to be included was based on the NRRSS. In that synthesis, based on a
representative sample of restoration projects from various regions within the United States, the top
ten activities for a series of project intents were identiied, as listed in Table 8.3. Each of these activi-
ties will be briely described in the following sections.