Landscape_Perspectives

= =

Landscape Perspectives

//by J. Samson//
 Watershed restoration is incredibly complex because it requires a systems understanding of every land use at the elementary levels of function and process. A watershed is defined as a large land area that may encompass many political jurisdictions while containing a mix of land uses (forest, agricultural, riparian, wetlands, urban), that drains surface and groundwater to a downstream water body, such as a river, lake, or estuary (Schueler, 2005). One view of a watershed is that it is composed of sub-sheds thought of as landforms, and these landforms are closely related in the same way that the health of a stream channel is closely related to the health of its floodplain, terraces and associated flora and fauna communities (Petersen, 1999). Therefore, the restoration of streams and rivers should not be expected to alleviate problems generated throughout a catchment, given that the problems that lead to stream degradation typically are catchment-scale problems (e.g. large amounts of impervious cover or land in agriculture) (Berhardt, 2011). Unfortunately, traditional restoration efforts are not coordinated at whole watershed scales to maximize environmental benefits, which often results in a patchwork attempt to restore a tattered system (Palmer, 2009). Successful watershed management is dependent upon bringing communities of people together, working at the landscape to create a common vision for productive and sustainable riparian-wetland conditions (RCN, 2002).

Watershed managers and others engaging in science and restoration activities are increasingly looking at restoration from a systems perspective. This paradigm shift is an outcome of years of research and practice that has informed the restoration community on what does and does not work. Certainly this can be viewed as a positive result of the billions of dollars spent so far on restoration projects. Palmer et al. (2005) define three forms of restoration success: 1) learning from past efforts, 2) meeting stakeholder needs, and 3) ecological improvements. It is well known that success from a stakeholder’s perspective is relative to each individual. However, watershed planning and restoration is driven by the goals of those that care for the watershed, and so it is critical to align the efforts and resources of stakeholders towards common goals (Cappiella et al., 2006). This form of success is becoming more apparent as community and conservation groups are increasingly taking an active role in the management of their watersheds.

The third type of the restoration success listed above (//ecological improvements//) is the area in most need of research. Nevertheless this area is receiving a lot of attention while gaining momentum as our society begins to assert a systems framework to problem solving at many levels. Palmer (2009) describes five ways in which ecological knowledge should be influencing restoration to a far greater extent than at present, including a need to: 1) shift the focus to restoration of process and identification of the limiting factors instead of structures and single species, 2) add ecological insurance to all projects, 3) identify a probabilistic range of possible outcomes instead of a reference condition, 4) expand the spatial scale of efforts, and 5) apply hierarchical approaches to prioritization. These five areas represent the foundation of the paradigm shift that is currently taking hold in restoration practice and research at all levels.

 Understanding watershed restoration as a function of land use on a catchment scale has the potential to transform the approach to restoration. Traditionally, restoration projects are conducted on a piecemeal basis with little thought or attention going to the watershed as a whole. Although this approach is not very effective from a restoration perspective, it is useful when it comes to determining the types of restoration projects that may be applied to a watershed. Especially since watershed restoration projects will typically be implemented on the sub-watershed scale given the impossible feat of restoring an entire watershed in a single swoop/effort. The purpose of this paper is to address the different forms of watershed restoration projects as a function of land use. The land uses that will be discussed further are: forest, riparian, wetland, agriculture, stream, and urban.

**__ Forest __**  Forest restoration has been receiving an increase in attention throughout the U.S. due to the mismanagement of forests as evidenced by the number and severity of devastating fires. Forest restoration activities are relative to each particular forest and need to be implemented correctly based upon research and a solid understanding of how a successful restoration project will be assessed. No matter what kind of forest, the outcome of restoration will result in a forest that functions through natural processes with a health that can be maintained naturally, without a continuing human intervention (Savage et al., 2007).

The main reason why forests are in a state of hazard is due to recent human activities that have resulted in the near elimination of natural fires. Aside from the attempt to eradicate forest fires, over-logging of old growth trees along with overgrazing by cattle have deteriorated the health and functionality of these systems. The most striking impact of this management in Southwest U.S. forests is the large increase in numbers of trees, as well as the high densities of small trees which fuel hot crown fires in forests that did not experience these types of fires in the past (Savage et al., 2007). Therefore, one of the main restoration methods implemented is forest thinning which seeks to decrease the number of trees per acre to a historical state while also reducing fuel loads at the surface level that have collected during the absence of fire.

Thinning a forest without a more holistic view of the problem is insufficient if the goal is to return the system to a steady state which can function properly with minimal intrusion from people. “(Physical) restoration also involves changing the structure of the forest, to include an appropriate size and age structure, groupings of trees, decomposing wood on the ground, small or large scattered meadows… and fostering a healthy grass and forb cover, caring for soils and waterways, recovering native species, and protecting wildlife.” (Savage et al., 2007). Once accomplished the return of safe “cool” fires may return without threat of the catastrophic fires witnessed during the summer of 2011, specifically in Arizona (Wallow Fire), New Mexico (Las Conchas Fire), and Texas.

A second and equally important aspect of forest restoration is the socioeconomic component. Through the management efforts described above there is an opportunity to enlist local community members in the process. The New Mexico Collaborative Forest Restoration Program (CFRP) has begun to implement this often missed opportunity into all of their restoration projects, as they view physical and socioeconomic restoration as being interdependent. They are in the preliminary stages of identifying the long term benefits of such programs. Currently they are focused on providing local employment and skills training, while creating new markets for small wood and educating the community about forest health (Estrada et al., 2009). The education component is extremely valuable because it has the potential to be passed across and down through generations, thus resulting in a sustainable societal intelligence and valuation of forest lands.

The Ecological Restoration Institute out of Northern Arizona University has completed an abundance of research on the impacts of forest restoration. One outcome of their work is a cost analysis of five scenarios with varying levels of restoration activities for a ponderosa forest, ranging from full restoration to the “do-nothing” approach. These results show dramatic economic benefits for a restored forest with a steep increase in the monies associated with harvested wood and water as well as a giant savings associated with the costs of fighting severe wildfires (Friederici, 2006). The increase in harvested water is due to the decreased consumption by trees, which results in greater groundwater storage and an increased contribution to base flows.

Riparia  Riparian zones represent the interface between land and streams. They are classified as being comprised of the area that is in direct contact with the stream through groundwater. Riparian areas represent a small percentage of total land cover for most watersheds, but their productivity and biotic diversity is unrivaled in the Southwest U.S.. Riparian lands are sensitive to anthropogenic disturbances, because they act as drains for the watershed and therefore experience the impact of upland impairments. These zones are typically among the first landscape features to reflect damage from improper management or natural events; however they are also resilient due to the presence of water, which allows for restoration opportunities (RCN, 2002).

A healthy riparian zone provides a plethora of ecosystem services. Aside from the buffering of surface pollutants, riparian areas are vital to the stability and functionality of the system as a whole (Peterson, 1999). Below the surface the roots of riparian plants bind the soil together and protect stream banks from erosion, whereas the above-ground portion of the plants absorb energy, slow flow velocity, and filter the flood waters during overbank events (Peterson, 1999). Riparian soils also act as a reservoir for streams as a result of their connectivity through the alluvial sediments, and therefore they play an important role in sustaining base flows during dry periods. There are a variety of restoration projects that have been implemented in riparian areas. California’s Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) details several examples of projects which they have funded on their website. These include: 1) bank stabilization and re-vegetation to control excessive erosion and establish a functional riparian corridor, 2) restoration of riparian vegetation on flood-prone land, 3) installation of fencing along the riparian corridor to control and/or manage livestock or wildlife, 4) modification of the existing land form to allow a stream to regain its historic connection with its floodplain (for example, move a levee back away from the stream or remove it), and 5) removal of nonnative invasive plant species and restoration (active or passive) of native riparian vegetation (http://www.wcb.ca.gov/Riparian/). Of course each strategy is associated with its own pros and cons. Determining when bank stabilization is necessary for restoration and not just to confine a river to its path is an important decision that should be given attention. Restoring riparian vegetation can be beneficial for floodwave attenuation and other ecosystem services, but if the proper environment is not available to support the vegetation (ample soil moisture or herbivores livestock) then resources may just be wasted. In summary, no matter what the project, an assessment should be conducted that aims to determine if restoration is actually restoration, and whether or not the necessary parameters are present for success.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">**__ Agricultural __** <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> Agriculture is a large component of local economies. Farm lands exist in nearly every watershed in a variety of ecosystems/biomes. The current state of practice for the majority of farms in the developed world is to utilize a range of chemicals and pesticides to maximize yield; often at the cost of the natural environment. “Modern, high-intensity agricultural practices generally exclude natural communities and can degrade adjacent areas by altering hydrology, increasing nutrient and chemical inputs, and providing sources of invasive species” (Perry, 1998). These methods have a noticeable impact on the health of the lands, especially when they are implemented near a stream. Clear-cutting of riparian vegetation decreases an important source of habitat while also negating the ecosystem services described above. Due to these historical methods, agricultural lands have become prime sites for restoration activities.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> Agricultural restoration can take many forms, and can occur in a range of settings. However, restoration of marginal lands currently in production would contribute substantially to natural diversity in agricultural landscapes (Lefroy et al., 1993). Perry (1998) discusses three approaches to agricultural restoration, and emphasizes that a successful project will implement a balance of these as needed. These approaches are: 1) remove land from production and restore natural ecosystems, 2) alter current agricultural practices to reduce the negative impacts of agriculture on the surrounding landscape, and 3) improve the sustainability of agricultural systems to maintain agricultural productivity. Implementing restoration through a process that is guided by these approaches has the potential to improve the natural systems and their associated functions while maintaining agricultural productivity.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> The WCB details a series of restoration projects for agricultural lands that seek to mitigate the undesired conditions. These are: 1) habitat restoration and enhancement of water corridors, streams, ditches, canals, tail water and return basins and ponds, 2) construction of vegetated filter strips, hedgerows and other wildlife buffers, 3) development of wetland areas, 4) riparian and floodplain restoration, 5) fencing to protect and enhance native habitats, 6) restoration and enhancement of native grasslands, 7) agricultural habitat management activities that provide significant environmental co-benefits including water quality improvements, greenhouse gas reduction, etc. ([]). A theme that is infused through each of these methods is a focus on the restoration of the native flora. A considerable amount of the degradation that has occurred in the environment in all landscapes is a result of changing the composition of plant communities. Thus returning these communities and the conditions they require is a positive step towards restoring agricultural lands.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">**__ Wetlands __** <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> Wetlands own the nickname of '//the kidneys of the earth//' for their capacity to clean and replenish the water that runs through them. Healthy wetlands are a critical component of a properly functioning watershed. Based upon the regulating document, the Clean Water Act, wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas.” (Clean Water Act). The EPA acknowledges that “wetlands are some of the most biologically productive natural ecosystems in the world, comparable to tropical rain forests and coral reefs in their productivity and the diversity of species they support” (EPA website, 2012).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> There are a variety of functions associated with wetlands relative to their location in the watershed as well as the location of the watershed itself. These include flood attenuation, erosion control, storm protection (many wetlands, especially mangroves, act as windbreaks during storms, protecting coastal habitat and property), groundwater recharge (wetlands retain water within a watershed enabling groundwater recharge), water quality improvement, climate (wetlands can influence local climatic conditions), carbon storage, biomass export, habitat for wildlife (Benstead 2001, Capiella 2006). The EPA recognizes that important functions associated with wetlands include water quality improvement, floodwater storage, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, and biological productivity (EPA website). It is well known that wetlands act as a sink for nutrients, and Meyer et al. (2003) found that wetlands associated with the smallest streams provide the most nutrient removal.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> Loss of wetlands has typically been associated with the drainage of lands for agriculture or for housing development. Capiella (2007) described three main processes associated with land development that significantly alter the hydrology of streams and wetlands. These are 1) native vegetation that once intercepted rainfall is removed and soils are compacted, 2) impervious cover is created when roads, rooftops, and parking lots are constructed and 3) efficient storm drainage systems are installed to quickly convey runoff to downstream waters. In the case of the Gila, there has been minimal land development and the major issues pertaining to wetlands is connectivity and water availability.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> Wetlands restoration projects can take place for many reasons. In any case, the ultimate goal is to retrieve the functions and processes described above which are associated with a properly functioning wetland. Capiella (2006) describes wetland restoration as involving changing the hydrology, elevation, soils or plant community of a currently degraded wetland or a former wetland. When restoration is applied to a currently degraded wetland, only its function is restored, while when restoration is applied to a former wetland, both the wetland area and function are restored (Capiella, 2006). Whatever the scenario, it is widely recognized that hydrological conditions provide the basic control of wetland structure and functioning (NRC 1996, Benstead 2000). Therefore, restoring the necessary flow regime required for a healthy wetland is an important step in the restoration process.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Zedler (2000) details a series of restoration activities that seek to restore particular wetland functions along with potential actions that may return these functions. These are listed below in **Table 1**. Zedler emphasizes that the specific hydrological regime is crucial to the restoration of each of the functions listed below.

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px;">Table 1: Desirable wetland functions (services) and methods of facilitating their development in restoration sites (Zedler, 2000).
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">** Desired Function ** || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">** Potential Action ** ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Nutrient removal || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Position wetland appropriately, adjust water residence time, and for wastewater treatment wetlands, harvest plants to remove nutrients ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Sediment removal || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Slow water flow, and provide a basin to trap heavy sediments and allow clean-out ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Shoreline-erosion control || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Plant vegetation to anchor substrate ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Flood-peak reduction || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Position wetlands appropriately ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Groundwater recharge || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Provide sandy substrate and slow water flow ||

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> Restoring wetland functions requires a holistic view with attention paid to the cause of the damage and not the associated symptoms. It is a complicated process that is often not achieved due to poor planning or an incomplete understanding of some aspect of the system. For example out of 40 south Florida wetland restoration/creation projects reviewed, of the 60% which were deemed failures, the majority of these were attributed to improper hydrological conditions (Mitsch, 1998). However, if successful, the creation and restoration of ecosystems in general, and of wetlands in particular, provide important opportunities for enhancing the ecosystem services to humans, which in 1998 were estimated to provide the equivalent of $33 trillion dollars per year worldwide (Mitsh, 1998). Wetlands restoration should not occur through an isolated lens, but rather should be seen as a vital component of an integrated water management plan (Benstead, 2001).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Urban <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> For the purpose of watershed restoration, urban land areas are typically classified as areas containing at least 10% impervious cover (Schueler, 2005). The intensive process of urbanization has a profound impact on the hydrology, morphology, water quality, and ecology of surface waters (Horner et al.//,// 1996). Research has shown that stream conditions are directly related to the amount of impervious cover in the watershed and as a result there has been a lot of attention paid to the impact impervious cover has on streams (CWP, 2003). As urbanization increases, streams handle increasing amounts of runoff which degrades headwaters streams as well as major tributaries (CWP, 1998). These impairments result in streams that are severely degraded, sometimes to the point where they cannot support the assemblages which once called the stream home.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> As a result of the degradation of our nation’s streams, particularly in the urban setting, there has been an upwelling of support for the creation of watershed protection groups. The number, sophistication, and expectations of urban watershed groups have all increased sharply in recent years, and these groups can exert considerable pressure to get communities to do a better job in restoring their urban watersheds; therefore becoming effective advocates for restoration (Schueler, 2005). The Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) has developed an “Integrated Framework to Restore Small Urban Watersheds”, and in this document they detail eight major alterations to the landscape as a result of urbanization that are significant from the standpoint of restoration. These are: 1) conversion to impervious cover, 2) construction of sewer, water, and storm water infrastructure, 3) intensive management of pervious areas, 4) fragmentation of natural area remnants, 5) interruption of the stream corridor, 6) encroachment and expansion in the floodplain, 7) increased population density, and 8) increased density of storm water hotspots (Schueler, 2005). For further details refer to the CWP report mentioned above.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> Urban restoration projects may be focused on a variety of individual goals. **Table 2** details a summary of some of the more common restoration goals.

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px;">Table 2: General Classification of Watershed Restoration Goals (Schueler, 2005) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Prevent illegal discharges/spills <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">-Meet water quality standards <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Reduce sediment contamination <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Allow water contact recreation <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Protect drinking water supply || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Restore aquatic diversity <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Restore wetlands/natural areas <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Expand forest cover <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Restore/reintroduce species (e.g. salmon) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Improve fish passage <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Enhance wildlife habitat <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Remove invasive species <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Keep shellfish beds open <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">-Enhance riparian areas || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Increase groundwater recharge <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Reduce channel erosion <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Reclaim stream network <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Reduce flood damage <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Reconnect floodplain <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Restore physical habitat <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Protect municipal infrastructure || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Eliminate trash/debris <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Create greenways/ waterfront access/open space <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Revitalize neighborhoods <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Improve aesthetics/ beautification <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Increase citizen awareness <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Improve recreation opportunities <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Increase fishing opportunities ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Water quality || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">** Biological ** || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">** Physical/hydrological ** || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">** Community ** ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">- Reduce pollutants of concern

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> For each restoration goal listed in table 2 there are numerous techniques that may be used to accomplish the outcome. Upon a review of watershed restoration projects the CWP found at least 130 urban restoration practices that have been used which they grouped into seven main categories of restoration practices (Schueler, 2005). The seven groups are: 1) stormwater retrofit practices, 2) stream repair practices, 3) riparian management practices, 4) discharge prevention practices, 5) watershed forestry practices, 6) pollution source-control practices, and 7) municipal practices and programs (Schueler, 2005).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">**__ Stream __** <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">The apparent physical degradation, poor water quality, along with the decreased productivity of fisheries, has led the majority of watershed restoration projects to be focused on rivers. Due to the increased awareness of watershed degradation, river restoration is now acknowledged as an essential accompaniment to natural resource management (Wohl, 2005). However, to date there are no standards to guide restoration or to judge ecological success, which has resulted in a lack of progress in the science and application of river restoration (Palmer, 2005). The practice of river restoration has been completed on a piecemeal basis, which is the diametrically opposite view to the scientific state of knowledge (Wohl, 2005).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Palmer et al. (2005) suggest five criteria for determining the success of river restoration efforts (Table 3). These criteria emphasize the idea that projects should be focused on a self-sustaining river that is not confined to a rigid state, and should include assessments to determine and monitor success. "Focusing on the restoration of natural processes avoids the misapplication of restoration techniques by enabling the natural array of habitat types to form in all parts of a stream network" (Roni, 2002). It is well known that rivers constantly respond to fluxes in the watershed, and therefore a successful project will allow room and time for response (Wohl, 2005).

Table 3: 5 criteria for determining the ecological success of river restoration efforts
 * || **<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Criteria ** ||
 * **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">1 ** || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Restoration project should be based on a specific guiding image of a dynamic, healthy river that could exist at the site ||
 * **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">2 ** || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">The river’s ecological condition must be measurably improved ||
 * **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">3 ** || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">River must be self-sustaining and resilient to external perturbations so that minimal follow-up maintenance is required ||
 * **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">4 ** || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">No lasting harm should be inflicted on the system during the restoration process ||
 * **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">5 ** || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Pre- and post-assessments must be completed and data made publicly available ||

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Often times river restoration projects attempt to improve hydrologic, geomorphic, and ecological processes/conditions (Roni, 2002), through the breaching of dikes, removal of fill, and planting emergent and submergent plants (Wohl, 2005). Improving these methods while weighing important ecological benefits of stream restoration approaches requires a national level reporting system (Palmer et al., 2005). Criterion for success need to be relative to each individual system/restoration project, and requires a strong understanding of the scientific processes that mold the system through time. The lack of scientific knowledge to guide restoration is a roadblock but it has the potential to be a springboard; by viewing each project as an experiment affords a platform for engaging scientific involvement and thus strengthening the field of river restoration (Wohl, 2005).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">**__ Conclusion __** <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Watershed restoration is an evolving field of practice composed of professionals that continue to learn from past efforts in order to improve our watersheds through future work. "Given that river restoration is increasingly viewed as a litmus test for the hydrologic and ecological sciences, we believe that scientists must work vigorously to enhance the state and perception of restoration science" (Wohl, 2005). The integration of a diverse stakeholder group in the restoration process is critical to success, but can pose serious obstacles that may be too great to hurdle. “Politics and social agendas will always influence the desired endpoints of a restoration effort, but the process by which restoration is done should be science driven” (Palmer, 2009). Currently, the science states that nature's functions and subsequent services are best provided when natural processes (hydrologic, geologic, and ecologic) are mostly in control and are given room to operate (Mitshe, 1998), and therefore watershed restoration should focus on processes rather than interventions reliant on structural solutions (Roni et al., 2002).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Restoring watersheds requires both an intimate connection to the land and a labor force. As described above the economic contribution of restoration may result in a long-term sustainable workforce depending upon the scale of the work. “Whether removing a road, upgrading a culvert, or stabilizing a stream bank, restoration activities are labor-intensive. These jobs contribute to the socioeconomic conditions of the communities in which the restoration occurs, and this linkage of job creation to environmental conservation can powerfully motivate people to support restoration activities” (Hurd, 2009). However, one of the primary challenges facing river scientists is the role of a societal educator that can provide scientific information which also acting as a catalyst for changing societal values (Wohl, 2005). Community involvement in watershed restoration is important if the restoration is to be a success. The overall benefits provided by restoration are shared throughout the community. “Healthy watersheds and riparian-wetland areas are critical to providing communities with the economic, ecological, and social benefits that come from the reliable availability of adequate supplies of clean water” (RCN, 2002).

=<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Works Cited =

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Benstead, P. and Jose, P. (2001). Wetlands restoration. //Encyclopedia of Biodiversity//, 805-822. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Bernhardt, E. S. and Palmer, M. E. (2011). River restoration: the fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation. //Ecological Applications//, 1926-1931. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Cappiela, K. and Fraley-McNeal, L. (2007). //The importance of protecting vulnerable streams and wetlands at the local level.// Ellicot City: Center for Watershed Protection. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Cappiella, K. Kitchell A, and Schueler, T. (2006). //Using local watershed plans to protect wetlands.// Ellicot City: Center for Watershed Protection. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Center for Watershed Protection, EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (1998). //Rapid watershed planning handbook: a comprehensive guide for managing urbanizing watersheds.// Ellicot City: Center for Watershed Protection. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Center for Watershed Protection (2003). //The impacts of impervious cover on aquatic systems: watershed protection research monograph No. 1.// Ellicot City: Center for Watershed Protection. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">EPA. (2001, January). //Functions and values of wetlands//. Retrieved January 3, 2012, from EPA wetlands program: http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/outreach/upload/fun_val.pdf <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Estrada et al. (2009). //Assessing the socioeconomic benefits of New Mexico's collaborative forest restoration program: issues, indicators and recommendations.// Las Vegas: New Mexico Forest and Watershed Restoration Institute. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Friederici, P. G. (2006). Fact Sheet: How Much Is Forest Restoration Worth? An Example from Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests. Ecological Restoration Institute. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Horner et al. (1996). Watershed determinates of ecosystem functioning. In L. A. Roesner, //Effects of watershed development and management on aquatic ecosystems.// Snowbird Utah: Engineering Foundation. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Hurd, J. (2009). //Economic benefits of watershed restoration.// Missoula, MT: Wildlands CPR. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Lefroy, E. C., Salerian, J., and Hobbs, R. J. (1993). Integrating ecological and economic considerations: a theoretical framework. In R. J. Saunders, //Reintegrating Fragmented Landscapes: Towards sustainable production and nature conservation// (p. 332). New York: Springer-Verlag. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Meyer et al. (1998). Creating and restoring wetlands. //BioScience//, 1019-1027+1029-1030. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Mitsch et al. (2003). //Where rivers are born: The scientific imperative for defending small streams and wetlands.// Washington D.C.: American Rivers and the Sierra Club. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Palmer, M. A. (2009). Reforming watershed restoration: science in need of application and applications in need of science. //Estuaries and Coasts//, 1-17. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Palmer et al. (2005). Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. //Journal of Applied Ecology//, 208-217. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Perry, L. (1998). Resoration and reclamation in agricultural landscapes. //Restoration and reclamation review//, 1-5. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Petersen, M. M. (1999). A natural approach to watershed planning, restoration and management. //Wat//. //Sci. Tech.//, 347-352. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Riparian Coordination Network (RCN) (2002). //Creeks and Communties: A continuing strategy for accelerating cooperative riparian restoration and management.// Denver: Bureau of Land Management. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Roni et al. (2002). A review of stream restoration techniques and a. //Pacific Northwest Watersheds North American Journal of Fisheries Manage//, 1-20. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Savage et al. (2007). //Short guide for developing collaborative forest restoration projects.// Las Vegas: New Mexico Forest and Watershed Restoration Institute. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Schueler, T. (2005). //An integrated framework to restore small urban watersheds.// Ellicot City: Center for Watershed Protection. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Wohl et al. (2005). River restoration. //Water Resources Research//, Vol. 41, 1-12. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Zedler, J. B. (2000). Progress in wetland restoration ecology. //Trends in ecology and evolution//, 402-407.