Setting+restoration+goals+and+objectives

=Setting Restoration Goals and Objectives=

//by P. Ryan Swazo-Hinds//
**Objective:** This paper will discuss the purpose of creating goals and objectives for river restoration. Identifying the problems, the stakeholders and what solutions can be taken to address the issues. Goals can be set for short-term and long-term periods. Objectives must be specific, realistic, achievable and measurable.

Stream restoration is a unique and complex issue for today’s land managers, urban developers and political decision makers to solve. Each stream/river has unique challenges that can be site specific; these issues must be addressed before assigning a goal or objective to the design. Restoration efforts need to identify the problems and develop solutions to solve those problems. Restoration has many disciplines involved and gathers different people with different ideas and solutions. Creating clear objectives and accomplishing goals makes restoration successful. There is also the possibility of failing and knowing that, identifying alternatives and risk has to be also considered. The following is definitions of restoration and rehabilitation, each having similar goals and actions.
 * Introduction **

Restoration: (1) Reestablishment of predisturbance riparian or stream functions and related biological, chemical, and physical processes in an ecosystem. (2) Actions taken to return a habitat, an ecosystem, or a community to its original condition after damage resulting from a natural disturbance or an anthropogenic perturbation. (3) Sometimes used to describe reestablishment of fish stocks or populations that were eliminated or reduced from anthropogenic actions (Armantrout, 1998).

Rehabilitation: (1) Action taken to return landform, vegetation, or water body to as near its original condition as practical. (2) Term implies making land and water resources useful again (primarily for humans) after natural or anthropogenic disturbances. This term differs from restoration that implies a return to predisturbance conditions and functions in natural or terrestrial systems (Armtrout, 1998).

In stream restoration, problems are identified as certain functions that are not being provided or the stream has been altered in some way (USDA NRCS, 2007). Streams are dynamic in nature, they have seasonal changes, respond to change, and have the ability to recover (USDA NRCS, 2007). Problems in stream restoration affect humans, vegetation, or animal species in some way of manner or form. Some problems may affect only a certain stretch of a river. It must be clear what the problems are and which ones are of most importance. Simple scoring techniques are commonly used by groups to rank restoration projects, using a form that addresses common evaluation criteria for stream and watershed restoration projects (e.g., number of species benefited, project cost, and educational value) (Beechie, 2008). Once the problems have been prioritized, there has to be a solution to fixing the problem in a manner that is achievable. Billions of dollars are spent on restoring streams/rivers, yet there are not agreed upon standards to what constitutes ecologically beneficial stream/river restoration (Palmer, 2005).
 * Identify Problems **

Most restoration projects focus on a single, isolated reach of river, where the watershed is typically the most appropriate spatial unit to use for most river restoration (Wohl et al., 2005). Watershed restoration looks at the whole system rather than certain parts of the river.

In the, the [|US EPA Watershed Academy] Top Ten Watershed Lessons Learned states, the best plan has clear visions, goals and action items. Clear visions help watershed groups understand, relate to, and support protection and restoration efforts. Visions can also help the general public, elected officials, business, the press, and community leaders understand (US EPA, 2012).

Vision: general statements of where the effort wants to go and what it will accomplish over a given time span (5-10+ years). Visions should be comprehensive enough to capture the thrust of the effort’s overall mission (US EPA, 2012).

Stakeholders are crucial in any stream restoration project. Everyone needs to know what problems have been identified and the strategies to solve those issues. Stakeholders range from concerned citizens, scientists, government employees (local, state and federal levels), corporate sponsors and nonprofit groups (US EPA, 2012). A consensus of the problem and solution is needed by the stakeholders to work together to accomplish restoration efforts. If stakeholders are against each other, restoration can come to a halt and not get accomplished. Stakeholder success can be viewed as accomplishing aesthetics, economic benefits, recreation, and education.
 * Identify Stakeholders **

Examples of working groups and policy initiatives devoted to this topic within the federal government is/are the [|United States Geological Survey (USGS)] interagency River Science Network, nongovernmental organizations include [|The Nature Conservancy], [|American Rivers] and local watershed groups, and academia the [|National River Restoration Science Synthesis Project]and [|National Center for Earth Surface Dynamics] (Wohl et al., 2005). Another group trying to save rivers in the U.S. is [|River Source]. They are a grassroots organization with the primary mission of saving our most precicious resource - water.

Federal, state and local governments have the power to bring about change to policies or rules about restoration efforts. The [|Clean Water Act] is the backbone to surface water quality standards, which are to protect our lakes, rivers, wetlands, estuaries and streams in the United States. The [|Endangered Species Act]helps protect threatened and endangered species. The legal mandates drive the continuing focus of restoration plans on single species or water quality attributes (Beechie, 2008).

Goal: less general than visions, describe what is needed to obtain vision, refer to components of overall effort, sometimes quantifiable (US EPA, 2012).
 * Goals **

The goal of a stream restoration project is to create a plan with achievable outcomes that can be measured. Each goal has to be specific and what steps will be taken to achieve that goal. Goals should identify which stakeholders are involved and what role each stakeholder provides. Goals should focus on the desired characteristics for the system in the future, rather than in relation to what characteristics were in the past (Hobbs & Harris, 2001). A distinction between river restoration and other management actions is the intent to reestablish natural rates of certain ecological and chemophysical processes and/or to replace damaged or missing biotic elements (Wohl et al., 2005). A well-crafted restoration goal identifies the biological objective of restoration, addresses causes of habitat change, and recognizes the social, economic, and land use objectives that may constrain restoration options.

A study done by //Bernhard et al.// in 2005, of restoration projects in the United States, the common goals are to: (1) enhance water quality (2) manage riparian zones, (3) improve in-stream habitat (4) fish passage, and (5) bank stabilization (Wohl et al., 2005).

Objective: elaboration of goals, describe types of management or activities are quantifiable where possible (US EPA, 2012).
 * Objectives **

Objectives should be clearly stated and based on an understanding of geomorphological and ecological processes, rather than an imitation of channel forms believed to be suitable or prescribed to a classification scheme (Kondolf, 1998). Historical information such as aerial photographs, maps, ground photography, land and biological survey records can be used to establish prior conditions (Palmer, 2005).

Action Items: explain who is going to do what, where, and when; they generally articulate how to implement the objectives and should be developed for action items (US EPA, 2012).

Monitoring and evaluation of conditions needs to occur before and after restoration. Post-project performance evaluation is needed to avoid repeating mistakes and to develop an understanding of how rivers respond to restoration actions (Kondolf, 1998). It is often assumed that restoration projects are beneficial, but many well-intentioned projects are actually ineffective or detrimental. River geomorphology and ecology are complex, and we cannot predict precisely how the river will respond to a given treatment. Restoration efforts are experiments, from which we can learn lessons to improve future project designs. Post-project evaluation can entail repeat ground and/or aerial photography, cross-section surveys, bed material size sampling, vegetation surveys, and sampling of invertebrate, bird and fish populations (Kondolf, 1998).
 * Monitoring **

River or Watershed Restoration takes time, understanding, money and effort. The approach has to be thought out rather than implementing a project. The following figure is the restoration process and restoration steps. Figure 1. Diagram of the river restoration process and four steps for identifying and prioritizing river restoration actions that are nested with this broader process (Beechie et al, 2008).
 * Successful Restoration Projects **

The United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water established the [|Online Wateshed training] in 1994. The information gathered and shared is information from local, state, federal agencies, and universities throughout the years to provide training and educational materials to the public. The following is a list of top ten items learned in watershed restoration.
 * 1) The best plans have clear visions, goals, and action items.
 * 2) Good leaders are committed and empower others.
 * 3) Having a coordinator at the watershed level is desirable.
 * 4) Environmental, Economic, and Social Values are compatible.
 * 5) Plans only succeed if implemented.
 * 6) Partnerships equal power.
 * 7) Good tools are available.
 * 8) Measure, communicate, and account for progress
 * 9) Education and Involvement drive action.
 * 10) Build on small success.

Standards for ecologically successful river restoration by Palmer et al, identify that river restoration satisfies the stakeholders, lessons are learned and ecological success is gained. The following are five criteria for measuring ecological success:
 * 1) A guided image exists: a dynamic ecological endpoint is identified a priori and used to guide the restoration.
 * 2) Ecosystems are improved: the ecological conditions of the river are measurably enhanced.
 * 3) Resilience is increased: the river ecosystem is more self-sustaining that prior to the restoration.
 * 4) No lasting harm is done: implementing the restoration does not inflict irreparable harm.
 * 5) Ecological assessment is completed: some level of both pre and post project assessment is conducted and the information made available.

Figure 2. This figure shows that the most effective river restoration projects lie at the intersection of the three primary axes of success. Stakeholder success reflects human satisfaction, learning successes reflect advances in scientific knowledge and management practices that will benefit future restoration action (Palmer, 2005).

Clear objectives, consistent with geomorphological and ecological processes, are a prerequisite to effective restoration, and to avoid constructing projects that are ineffective or harmful to aquatic and riparian resources. Each restoration project is potentially an opportunity to learn more about the behavior of the river and the effect of various treatments upon them (Kondolf, 1998). Improved communication and trust between scientists, restoration practitioners, and river stakeholders can only help both rivers and the people who live among them (Wohl et al., 2005). River Restoration is a process of understanding the current process of a system and planning for future uses. Utilizing information from the past may guide in providing wanted services. Restoration has to include all possibilities with the intent to do create positive outcomes for all that are involved, especially the river or watershed.
 * Conclusion **

Armantrout, N. E., compiler. 1998. Glossary of Aquatic Habitat Inventory Terminology. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, Maryland. Beechie, T. et al. 2008. Setting River Restoration Priorities: A Review of Approaches and a General Protocol for Identifying and Prioritizing Actions. N. Amer. Journal of Fisheries Management. 28: 891-205. Doi: 10.1577/M06-174.1. Downs, P.W. & Kondolf, G. M. 2002. Post-Project Appraisals in Adaptive Management of River Channel Restoration. Environmental Management. 29(4): 477-496. DOI: 10.1—7/s00267-001-0035-X. Hobbs, R.J. & Harris, J.A. 2001. Restoration Ecology: Repairing the Earth’s Ecosystems in the New Millennium. Restoration Ecology. 9(2): 239-246. Kershner, J. L. 1997. Setting Riparian/Aquatic Restoration Objectives within a Watershed Context. Society for Ecological Restoration. Restoration Ecology. 5(4S): 15-24. Kondolf, G. M. 1998. Lessons learned from river restoration projects in California. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyt. 8: 39-52. Miller, J. R. & Hobbs, R. J. 2007. Habitat Restoration – Do We Know What We’re Doing? Society of Ecological Restoration Intl. Restoration Ecology. 15(3): 382-390. Palmer, M. A. et al. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. British Ecological Society. Journal of Applied Ecology. 42: 208-217. Parker, V.T. 1997. The Scale of Successional Models of Restoration Objectives. Society of Ecological Restoration. Restoration Ecology. 5(4): 301-306. Wohl, E. et al. 2005. River Restoration. Water Resources Research. 41: 1-12. W10301. Doi: 10.1029/2005WR003985. Part 654 Stream Restoration Design. Chapter 2 Goals, Objectives, and Risk. National Engineering Handbook. USDA. NRCS. 2007. [] Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. General Technical Report RM-245. USDA. USFS. 1994. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Watershed Academy Web. Distance Learning Modules on Watershed Management. Top Ten Watershed Lessons Learned. []
 * References **

= =