5.a developing restoration goals and objectives5.a developing restoration goals and objectives 5.b...

55.A Developing Restoration Goals and Objectives

• How are restoration goals and objectives defined?• How do you describe desired future conditions for the stream corridor and surrounding

natural systems? • What is the appropriate spatial scale for the stream corridor restoration?• What institutional or legal issues are likely to be encountered during a restoration?• What are the means to alter or remove the anthropogenic changes that caused the need for

the restoration (i.e., passive restoration)?

5.B Alternative Selection and Design• How does a restoration effort target solutions to treat causes of impairment and not

just symptoms?• What are important factors to consider when selecting among various restoration

alternatives?• What role does spatial scale, economics, and risk play in helping to select the best

restoration alternative?• Who makes the decisions?• When is active restoration needed?• When are passive restoration methods appropriate?Chapter 6: Implement, Monitor, Evaluate,

and Adapt

55.A Developing Restoration Goals and

Objectives

5.B Alternative Selection and Design

nce the basic organizational stepshave been completed and the prob-

lems/opportunities associated with thestream corridor have been identified, thenext two stages of the restoration plandevelopment process can be initiated.These two stages, the development ofrestoration goals and objectives and alter-native selection and design, require inputfrom all partners. The advisory groupshould work in collaboration with the de-cision maker(s) and technical teams.

During the objective development, alter-native selection, and design stages, it isimportant that continuity be maintainedamong the fundamental steps of the

restoration process. In other words, plan-ners must work to ensure a logical flowand relationship between problem andopportunity statements, restoration goalsand objectives, and design.

Remember that the restoration planningprocess can be as complex as the streamcorridor to be restored. A project mightinvolve a large number of landowners anddecision makers. It might also be fairlysimple, allowing planning through astreamlined process. In either case, properplanning will lead to success.

Proper planning in the beginning of therestoration process will save time andmoney for the life of the project. This is

5–2 Chapter 5: Developing Goals, Objectives, and Restoration Alternatives

often accomplished by managingthe causes rather than the symptoms.

This chapter is divided into two sec-tions that describe the basic stepsof defining goals and objectives, se-lecting alternatives, and designingrestoration measures.

Section 5.A: DevelopingRestoration Goals and Objectives

Restoration objectives are essentialfor guiding the development andimplementation of restoration ef-forts and for establishing a meansto measure progress and evaluatesuccess. This section outlines someof the major considerations thatneed to be taken into account indeveloping restoration goals andobjectives for a restoration plan.

Although active restorations thatinclude the installation of designedmeasures are common, the “noaction” or passive alternative mightbe more ecologically desirable,depending on the specific goalsand time frame of the plan.

Section 5.B: Alternative Selectionand Design

The selection of restoration alterna-tives is a complex process that isintended to address the identifiedproblems/opportunities and accom-plish restoration goals and objec-tives. Some of the importantfactors to consider in designingrestoration measures, as well assome of the supporting analysisthat facilitates alternative selection,are discussed.

Developing Restoration Goals and Objectives 5–3

Developing goals and objectives for a stream corridor restoration effort follows problem/opportunity identifica-tion and analysis. The goals develop-ment process should mark theintegration of the results of the assess-ment of existing and desired stream corridor structure and functions withimportant political, economic, social,and cultural values. This sectionpresents and explains some of the fun-damental components of the goal andobjective development process.

Defining Desired FutureStream Corridor Conditions

The development of goals and objec-tives should begin with a rough outline,as discussed in Chapter 4, and with thedefinition of the desired future conditionof the stream corridor and surroundinglandscape (Figure 5.1). The desired fu-ture condition should represent thecommon vision of all participants. Thisclear, conceptual picture is necessary toserve both as a foundation for morespecific goals and objectives and as atarget toward which implementationstrategies can be directed.

The vision statement should be consis-tent with the overall ecological goal ofrestoring stream corridor structure andfunctions and bringing the system asclose to a state of dynamic equilibriumor proper functioning condition as possible.

The development of this vision state-ment should be seen as an opportunityfor participants to articulate an ambi-tious ecological vision. This vision willultimately be integrated with importantsocial, political, economic, and culturalvalues.

Identifying ScaleConsiderations

In developing stream corridor restora-tion goals and objectives it is importantto consider and address the issue ofscale. The scale of stream corridorrestoration efforts can vary greatly, fromworking on a short reach to managing alarge river basin corridor. As discussed

5.A Developing Restoration Goals andObjectives

Figure 5.1: Example of future conditions. Thedesired future condition should represent thecommon vision of all participants.

Define the desired future condition.

Identify scale considerations.

Identify restoration constraints and issues.

Define goals and objectives.

Chesapeake Bay Program

A unique partnership that spanned across allscales of the Chesapeake Bay watershed was

formed in 1983. The Chesapeake Bay Agreementwas signed that year by the District of Columbia,the state of Maryland, the Commonwealths ofPennsylvania and Virginia, the Chesapeake BayCommission (a tri-state legislative body), andthe federal government represented by theEnvironmental Protection Agency to coordinateand direct the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay.Recognizing that local cooperation would bevital in implementing any efforts, the ExecutiveCommittee created the Local Government AdvisoryCommittee (LGAC) in 1987. The LGAC acts as aconduit to communicate current efforts in theProgram to the local level, as well as a platform forlocal governments to voice their perceptions, ideas,and concerns. The Land Growth and StewardshipSubcommittee was formed in 1994 to encourageactions that reduce the impacts of growth on theBay and address other issues related to populationgrowth and expansion in the region.

The Chesapeake Bay was the first estuary targetedfor restoration in the 1970s. Based on the scientificdata collected during that time, the agreement tar-geted 40 percent reductions in nutrients, nitrogen,and phosphorus by the year 2000. The committeehas been instrumental in moving up the tributariesof the bay and improving agricultural practices,removing nutrients, and educating the millions ofresidents about their role in improving the qualityof the bay. Success has been marked by reductionin nutrients and an increase in populations ofstriped bass and other species (Figure 5.2). Recentfish kills in the watershed rivers, however, arereminders that maintaining the health of theChesapeake Bay is a continuing challenge.

Success at the local level is key to the success ofthe overall program. Chesapeake BayCommunities’ Making the Connection catalogssome of the local initiatives to restore local envi-ronments and improve the condition of the bay. InLancaster County, Pennsylvania, for example, aStream Team was formed to preserve and restorethe local streams. Its primary role is to coordinaterestoration efforts involving local landowners, vol-unteers, and available programs. In one case, theStream Team was able to arrange materials for alocal fishing group and a farmer to fence a pasturestream and plant trees. With continuous effortssuch as this, the Chesapeake Bay will becomecleaner one tributary at a time.


Figure 5.2: Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay is aunique estuarine ecosystem protected through intera-gency cooperation.Source: C. Zabawa.


previously, it is important to recognize,however, that the functions of a specificstreambank or reach ecosystem are notperformed in isolation and are linkedto associated ecosystems in the sur-rounding landscape. As a result, goalsand objectives should recognize thestream corridor and its surroundinglandscape.

The Landscape Scale

Technical considerations in stream cor-ridor restoration usually encompass thelandscape scale as well as the streamcorridor scale. These considerationsmay include political, economic, historical, and/or cultural values; nat-ural resource management concerns;and biodiversity (Landin 1995). Thefollowing are some important issuesrelevant to the landscape scale.

Regional Economic and NaturalResource Management Considerations

Regional economic priorities and nat-ural resource objectives should be iden-tified and evaluated with respect totheir likely influence on the restorationeffort. It is important that restorationgoals and objectives reflect a clear un-derstanding of the concerns of the peo-ple living in the region and theimmediate area, as well as the prioritiesof resource agencies responsible formanaging lands within the restorationtarget area and providing support forthe initiative (Figure 5.3).

In many highly developed areas,restoration may be driven largely by ageneral recognition that stream corri-dors provide the most satisfactory op-portunities to repair and preservenatural environments in the midst ofincreasingly dense human occupation.In wildland areas, stream corridorrestoration might be pursued as part of an overall ecosystem management

program or to address the requirementsof a particular endangered species.

Land Use Considerations

As discussed in Chapter 2, many of thecharacteristics and functions of thestream corridor are controlled by hydro-logic and geomorphic conditions in thewatershed, particularly as they influencestreamflow regime, sediment move-ment, and inputs of nutrients and pol-lutants (Brinson et al. 1995).

As introduced in Chapter 3, changes inland use and increases in developmentare a concern, particularly because theycan cause rapid changes in the deliveryof storm water to the stream system,thereby changing the basic hydrologicpatterns that determine stream configu-ration and plant community distribu-tion (Figure 5.4). In addition, futuredevelopment can influence what thestream corridor will be expected to ac-complish in terms of processing or stor-ing floodwaters or nutrients, or withrespect to providing wildlife habitat orrecreation opportunities.

Figure 5.3: Western stream—landscape scale.Developing goals and objectives requires theconsideration of important social, economic,ecological, and natural resource factors at thelandscape scale.

REVERSE

Review Chap-ters 2 and 3.

Landscape concerns pertinent to devel-oping goals and objectives for streamcorridor restoration should also includean assessment of land use and projecteddevelopment trends in the watershed.By making an effort to accommodatepredictable future land use and devel-opment patterns, degradation of streamcorridor conditions can be prevented orreduced.

Biodiversity Considerations

The continuity that corridors provideamong different areas and ecosystemtypes has often been cited as a majortool for maintaining regional biodiver-sity because it facilitates animal move-ment (particularly for large mammals)and prevents isolation of plant and ani-mal populations. However, there hasbeen some dispute over the effective-ness of corridors to accomplish theseobjectives and over the creation of inap-propriate corridors having adverse con-sequences (Knopf 1986, Noss 1987,Simberloff and Cox 1987, Mann andPlummer 1995).

Where corridor restoration is intendedto result in establishing connectivity ona landscape scale, management objec-tives and options should reflect naturalpatterns of plant community distribu-tion and should be built to provide asmuch biodiversity as possible. In manyinstances, however, the driving force be-hind restoration is the protection of cer-tain threatened, endangered, game, orother specially targeted species. In thesecases a balance must be struck. A por-tion of the overall restoration plan canbe directed toward the life requirementsof the targeted species, but on thewhole the goal should be a diversecommunity (Figure 5.5).

The Stream Corridor Scale

Each stream corridor targeted forrestoration is unique. A project goal ofrestoring multiple ecological functionsmight encompass the channel systems,the active floodplain, and possibly adja-cent hill slopes or other buffer areasthat have the potential to directly andindirectly influence the stream or pro-tect it from surrounding land uses(Sedell et al. 1990). A wide corridor is


Figure 5.5: Animal population dynamics.Restoration plans may target species, but biodi-versity should be the basic goal of restoration.

Figure 5.4: Urban stream corridor. Populationgrowth and land use trends, such as urbaniza-tion, should be considered when developingrestoration goals and objectives.


most likely to include a range of bioticcommunity types and to perform manyof the stream functions (floodwater andsediment storage, nutrient processing,fish and wildlife habitat, and others)that the restoration effort is intended torestore. In many cases, however, it willnot be possible to reestablish the origi-nal corridor width, and restoration willbe focused on a narrower strip of landdirectly adjacent to the channel.

Where narrow corridors are establishedthrough urban or agricultural land-scapes, certain functions might be re-stored (e.g., stream shading), whileothers might not (e.g., wildlife move-ment). In particular, very narrow corri-dors, such as western riparian areas,may function largely as edge habitatand will favor unique and sometimesopportunistic plant and animalspecies. In some situations, creating alarge amount of edge habitat might bedetrimental to species that requirelarge forested habitat or are highly vul-nerable to predation or nest parasitismand disturbances.

The corridor configuration and restora-tion options depend to a large extenton the pattern of land ownership anduse at the stream corridor scale. Corri-dors that traverse agricultural land mayinvolve the interests of many individuallandowners with varying levels of com-mitment to or interest in the restorationinitiative.

Often, landowners will not be inclinedto remove acreage from production oralter land use practices without incen-tive. In urban settings, citizen groupsmay have a strong voice in the objec-tives and layout of the corridor. Onlarge public land holdings, manage-ment agencies might be able to committo the establishment and managementof stream corridors and their water-sheds, but the incorporation of compet-

ing interests (timber, grazing, mining,recreation) that are not always consis-tent with the objectives of the restora-tion plan can be difficult. In most cases,the final configuration of the corridorshould balance multiple and often con-flicting objectives, including optimizingecological structure and function andaccommodating the diverse needs oflandowners and other participants.

The Reach Scale

A reach is the fundamental unit for de-sign and management of the streamcorridor. In establishing goals and ob-jectives, each reach must be evaluatedwith regard to its landscape and indi-vidual characteristics, as well as their in-fluence on stream corridor function andintegrity. For example, steep slopes adja-cent to a channel reach must be consid-ered where they contribute potentiallysignificant amounts of runoff, subsur-face flow, sediment, woody debris, orother inputs. Another reach might beparticularly active with respect to chan-nel migration and might warrant ex-panding the corridor relative to otherreaches to accommodate local streamdynamics.

Identifying RestorationConstraints and Issues

Once participants have reached consen-sus on the desired future condition andexamined scale considerations, atten-tion should be given to identifyingrestoration constraints and issues. Thisprocess is important in that it helpsidentify limitations associated with es-tablishing specific restoration goals andobjectives. Moreover, it provides the in-formation that will be needed when in-tegrating ecological, social, political,and economic values.

Due to the innumerable potential chal-lenges involved in identifying all of theconstraints and issues, it is often help-

FASTFORWARD

Preview Chap-ter 6’s AdaptiveManagementsection.


ful to rely on the services of the inter-disciplinary technical teams. Teammembers support one another and pro-vide critical expertise and the experiencenecessary to investigate potential con-straints. The following are some of therestoration constraints and issues, bothtechnical and nontechnical, that shouldbe considered in defining restorationgoals and objectives.

Technical Constraints

Technical constraints include the avail-ability of data and restoration technolo-gies. In terms of data availability, it isimportant that the technical team beginby compiling and analyzing data avail-able on stream corridor structure andfunctions. Analyzing these data will en-able the identification of informationgaps and should allow the restorationeffort to proceed, even though all of theinformation might not be at hand. Itshould be noted that there is usually awealth of technical information avail-able either in published sources or inpublic agency offices as unpublishedsource material.

In addition to data availability, a sec-ond technical constraint might involvethe tools or techniques used to analyzeor collect stream corridor data. Somerestoration techniques and methodolo-gies are not complete and might not besufficient to conduct the restoration ef-fort. It is also generally known thattechnology transfer and disseminationassociated with available techniques arefar behind the existing informationbase, and field personnel might notreadily have access to needed informa-tion. It is important that the technicalteams are up-to-date with restorationtechnology and are prepared to modifyimplemented plans through adaptivemanagement as necessary.

Quality Assurance, QualityControl

The success of a stream corridor restora-tion plan depends on the following:

■ Efficient and accurate use of existingdata and information.

■ Reliable collection of new data thatare needed, recognizing the requiredlevel of precision and accuracy(Figure 5.6).

■ Interpretation of the meaning of thedata, including translating the datainto information that can be used tomake planning decisions.

■ A locally led, voluntary approach.

The concept of quality assurance orquality control is not new. When time,materials, or money are to be ex-pended, results should be as reliableand efficiently derived as possible. Pro-visions for quality control or quality as-surance can be built into the restorationplan, especially if a large number of

Figure 5.6: Field sampling. Collecting the rightkinds of data with the proper quality controland translating that data into information use-ful for making decisions is a challenge.


contractors, volunteers, and other peo-ple not directly under the control of theplanners are involved (Averett andSchroder 1993).

Many standards, conventions, and pro-tocols exist to ensure the quality or reli-ability of information used for planninga restoration (Knott et al. 1992), in-cluding the following:

■ Sampling

■ Field analytical equipment

■ Laboratory testing equipment

■ Standard procedures

■ Training

■ Calibrations

■ Documentation

■ Reviews

■ Delegations of authority

■ Inspections

The quality of work and the restorationactions can be ensured through the fol-lowing (Shampine et al. 1992, Stanleyet al. 1992, Knott et al. 1993):

■ Training to ensure that all personsfully understand what is expected ofthem.

■ Products that are produced on timeand that meet the plan’s goals andobjectives.

■ Established procedures for remedialactions or adaptive management,which means being able to makeadjustments as monitoring results areanalyzed.

Nontechnical Constraints

Nontechnical constraints consist of fi-nancial, political, institutional, legaland regulatory, social, and cultural con-straints, as well as current and futureland and water use conflicts. Any one ofthese has the potential to alter, post-

pone, or even stop a restoration initia-tive. As a result, it is important that theadvisory group and decision maker con-sider appointing a technical team to in-vestigate these issues prior to definingrestoration goals and objectives.

Contained below is a brief discussion ofsome of the nontechnical issues thatcan play a role in restoration initiatives.Although many general examples andcase studies offer experience on address-ing nontechnical constraints, the nu-ances of each issue can vary byinitiative.

Land and Water Use Conflicts

Land and water use conflicts are fre-quently a problem, especially in thewestern United States. The historical,social, and cultural aspects of grazing,mining, logging, water resources devel-opment and use, and unrestricted useof public land are emotional issues thatrequire coordination and education sothat local and regional citizens under-stand what is being proposed in therestoration initiative and what will beaccomplished.

Financial Issues

Planning, design, implementation, andother aspects of the restoration initia-tive must stay within a budget. Sincemost restoration efforts involve publicagencies, the institutional, legal, andregulatory protocols and bureaucraciescan delay restoration and increase costs.It is extremely important to recognizethese problems early to keep the initia-tive on schedule and preclude or atleast minimize cost overruns.

In some cases, funds might be insuffi-cient to accomplish restoration. Themeans to undertake the initiative canoften be obtained by seeking out andworking with a broad variety of cost-and work-sharing partners; seeking outand working with volunteers to perform


various levels of field work, as well as toserve as knowledgeable experts for theeffort; costing the initiative in phasesthat are affordable; and other creativeapproaches (Figure 5.7). Logistical sup-port by a local sponsor or communityin the form of labor, boats, and otherequipment should not be overlooked.

Not all restorations are complex orcostly. Some might be as simple as aslight change in the way that resourcesare managed in and along the streamcorridor, involving only minor costs.Other restorations, however, may re-quire substantial funds because of thecomplexity and extent of measuresneeded to achieve the planned restora-tion goals.Figure 5.7: Field volunteers. Volunteers assist-

ing in the restoration effort can be an effectiveway to combat financial constraints.Source: C . Zabawa.

Federal, state, or local permits might be requiredfor some types of stream restoration activities.Some states, such as California, require permits forany activity in a streambed. Placement of dredgedor fill material in waters of the United Statesrequires a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 per-mit from the US Army Corps of Engineers or, whenthe program has been delegated, from the state.The CWA requires the application of the Section404(b)(1) guidelines issued by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency in determining whether dis-charge should be allowed. A permit issued underSection 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899might also be required for activities that change thecourse, condition, location, or capacity of navigablewaters.

Activities that could trigger the need for a CWASection 404 permit include, but are not limited to,re-creation of gravel beds, sand bars, and riffle and

pool habitats; wetland restoration; placement oftree root masses; and placement of revetment onchannel banks. CWA Section 404 requires that astate or tribe (one or both as appropriate) certifythat an activity requiring a Section 404 permit isconsistent with the state’s or tribe’s water qualitystandards. Given the variety of actions covered bythe CWA, as well as jurisdiction issues, it is vital tocontact the Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branchand appropriate state officials early in the planningprocess to determine the conditions triggering theneed for permits as well as how to best integratepermit compliance needs into the planning anddesign of the restoration initiative. Chances are thata well-thought-out planning and design process willaddress most, if not all, the information needs forevaluation or certification of permit applications.Federal issuance of a permit triggers the need forcompliance with the National Environmental PolicyAct (see National Environmental Policy ActConsiderations).


The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of1969 established the nation’s policy to protect andrestore the environment and the federal responsi-bility to use “all practicable means and measures ...to create and maintain conditions under whichman and nature can exist in productive harmony,and fulfill the social and economic and otherrequirements of present and future generations ofAmericans.” NEPA focuses on major federal actionswith the potential to significantly affect the humanenvironment. The Council on EnvironmentalQuality’s regulations implementing NEPA requirethe federal agency taking action to develop alter-natives to a proposed action, to analyze and com-pare the impacts of each alternative and the pro-posed action, and to keep the public informed andinvolved throughout the project planning andimplementation. Although NEPA does not mandateenvironmentally sound decisions, it has establisheda decision-making process that ultimately encour-ages better, wiser, and fully informed decisions.

When considering restoration of a stream corridor,it is important to determine early on whether afederal action will occur. Federal actions that mightbe associated with a stream corridor restoration

initiative include, but are by no means limited to, adecision to provide federal funds for a restorationinitiative, a decision to significantly alter operationand maintenance of federal facilities on a river sys-tem, or the need for a federal permit (e.g., a CleanWater Act Section 404 permit for placement ofdredged or fill material in waters of the UnitedStates).

In addition, many states have environmentalimpact analysis statutes patterned along the samelines as NEPA. Consultation with state and localagencies should occur early and often throughoutthe process of developing a stream corridorrestoration initiative. Jointly prepared federal andstate environmental documentation is routine insome states and is encouraged.

The federal requirement to comply with NEPAshould be integrated with the planning approachfor developing a restoration plan. When multiplefederal actions are required to fully implement arestoration initiative, the identity of the lead feder-al agency(s) and cooperating agencies should beestablished. This will facilitate agency adoption of the NEPA document for subsequent decisionmaking.

Institutional and Legal Issues

Each restoration effort has its ownunique set of regulatory requirements,which can range from almost no re-quirements to a full range of local,county, state, and federal permits. Properly planned restoration effortsshould meet or exceed the intent ofboth federal and non-federal require-ments. Restoration planners shouldcontact the appropriate local, state, andfederal agencies and involve them earlyin the process to avoid conflicts withthese legal requirements.

Typical institutional and legal require-ments cover a wide range of issues. Lo-cally, restoration planners must beconcerned with zoning permits andstate and county water quality permits.Most federally sponsored and/orfunded initiatives require compliancewith the National Environmental PolicyAct and the Endangered Species Act. Ini-tiatives that receive federal supportmust comply with the National HistoricPreservation Act and the Wild andScenic Rivers Act. Permits might also berequired from the US Army Corps of


Engineers under Section 404 of theClean Water Act and Section 10 of theRivers and Harbors Act of 1899.

Defining Restoration Goals

Restoration goals should be defined bythe decision maker(s) with the consen-sus of the advisory group and inputfrom the interdisciplinary technicalteam(s) and other participants. Asnoted earlier, these goals should be anintegration of two important groups offactors:

■ Desired future condition (ecologicalreference condition).

■ Social, political, and economic values.

Considering Desired FutureCondition

As discussed earlier, the desired eco-logical future condition of the streamcorridor is frequently based on pre-development conditions or some com-monly accepted idea of how the naturalstream corridors looked and functioned.Consequently, it represents the ideal sit-uation for restoration, whether or notthis reference condition is attainable.This ideal situation has been given theterm “potential,” and it may be de-scribed as the highest ecological statusan area can attain, given no political,social, or economic constraints(Prichard et al. 1993). When applied tothe initiative, however, this statementmight require modification to providerealistic and more specific goals forrestoration.

Factoring In Constraints andIssues

In addition to the desired future ecolog-ical condition, definition of restorationgoals must also include other considera-tions. These other factors include theimportant political, social, and eco-nomic values as well as issues of scale.When these considerations are factoredinto the analysis, realistic project goalscan be identified. The goals provide theoverall purpose for the restoration effortand are based on a stream corridor’s ca-pability or its ideal ecological condition.

Defining Primary and SecondaryRestoration Goals

The identification of realistic goals is akey ingredient for restoration successsince it sets the framework for adaptivemanagement within a realistic set of ex-pectations. Unrealistic restoration goalscreate unrealistic expectations and po-tential disenchantment among stake-

The following is an excerpt from of a restoration planused for restoration of Wheaton Branch, a severelydegraded urban stream in Maryland. The goal of theproject was to control storm water flows and improvewater quality.

OBJECTIVES ALTERNATIVES

(1) Remove urban Upstream pond retrofitpollutants

(2) Stabilize channel Install a double-wingbundles deflector, imbricated riprap,

and brush

(3) Control hydrologic Upstream storm waterregime retrofit management pond

(4) Recolonize stream Fish reintroductioncommunity

Adapted from Center for Watershed Protection 1995.


holders when those expectations areunfulfilled.

In defining realistic restoration goals, itmight be helpful to divide these goalsinto two separate, yet connected, cate-gories—primary and secondary.

Primary Restoration Goals

Primary goals should follow from theproblem/opportunity identification andanalysis, incorporate the participants’vision of the desired future condition,and reflect a recognition of project con-straints and issues such as spatial scale,needs found in baseline data collection,practical aspects of budget and humanresources requirements, and special re-quirements for certain target or endan-gered species. Primary goals are usuallythe ones that initiated the project, andthey may focus on issues such as bankstabilization, sediment management,upland soil and water conservation,flood control, improved aquatic andterrestrial habitat, and aesthetics.

Secondary Restoration Goals

Secondary goals should be developedto either directly or indirectly supportthe primary goals of the restoration ef-fort. For example, hiring displacedforestry workers to install conservationpractices in a forested watershed or re-gion could serve the secondary goal ofrevitalizing a locally depressed econ-omy, while also contributing to the pri-mary goal of improving biodiversity inthe restoration area.

Defining RestorationObjectives

Objectives give direction to the generalapproach, design, and implementationof the restoration effort. Restoration ob-jectives should support the goals andalso flow directly from problem/oppor-tunity identification and analysis.

Restoration objectives should be de-fined in terms of the same conditionsidentified in the problem analysis andshould specifically state which impairedstream corridor condition(s) will bemoved toward which particular refer-ence level or desired condition(s). Thereference conditions provide a gaugeagainst which to measure the success ofthe restoration effort; restoration objec-tives should therefore identify both im-paired stream corridor conditions and aquantitative measure of what consti-tutes unimpaired (restored) conditions.Restoration objectives expressed interms of measurable stream corridorconditions provide the basis for moni-toring the success of the project inmeeting condition objectives for thestream corridor.

Value: Social/economic values associated with achange from one set of conditions to another.Often, these values are not economic values, butrather amenity values such as improved waterquality, improved habitat for native aquatic orriparian species, or improved recreational experi-ences. Because stream corridor restoration oftenrequires a monetary investment, the benefits ofrestoration need to be considered not only interms of restoration costs, but also in terms of val-ues gained or enhanced.

Tolerance: Acceptable levels of change in condi-tions in the corridor. Two levels of tolerance aresuggested:

(1) Variable “management” tolerance that isresponsive to social concerns for selected areas.

(2) Absolute “resource” tolerance or minimalacceptable permanent resource damage.

Stream corridors in need of restoration usually (butnot always) exceed these tolerances.

Vulnerability: How susceptible a stream’s presentcondition is to further deterioration if no newrestoration actions are implemented. It can be con-ceptualized as the ease with which the systemmight move away from dynamic equilibrium. Forexample, an alpine stream threatened by a head-cut induced by a poorly placed culvert might beextremely vulnerable to subsequent incision.

Conversely, a forested stream that has sluiced tobedrock because large woody debris was lost fromthe system might be much less vulnerable to fur-ther deterioration.

Responsiveness: How readily or efficientlyrestoration actions will achieve improved streamcorridor conditions. It can be conceptualized as theease with which the system can be moved towarddynamic equilibrium. For example, a rangelandstream that has become excessively wide and shal-low might respond very rapidly to grazing man-agement by establishing a more natural cross sec-tion that is substantially narrower and deeper. Onthe other hand, an agricultural stream that hasdeeply incised following channelization might notreadily reestablish grade or channel pattern inresponse to improved watershed or riparian vege-tation conditions.

Self-Sustainability: The degree to which therestored stream can be expected to continue tomaintain its restored (but dynamic) condition. Thecreation or establishment of dynamic equilibriumshould always be a goal. However, it might be thatintensive short-term maintenance is necessary toensure weeds and exotic vegetation do not get afoothold. The short-term and longer-term goalsand objectives to ensure sustainability need to becarefully considered relative to funding, proximityof the site to population concentrations, and care-takers.



Restoration of the Elwha River Ecosystem

The construction of numerous hydropower pro-jects fueled the economic growth of the

Pacific Northwest during the early 1900s. With theseemingly inexhaustible supply of anadromoussalmonids, little care was taken to reduce or miti-gate the consequent impacts to these fish(Hoffman and Winter 1996). Two hydropowerdams built on the Elwha River, on Washington’sOlympic Peninsula, were no exception.

The 108 ft. high Elwha Dam (Figure 5.8) was builtfrom 1910–13 about five miles from the rivermouth. Although state law required a fishway, onewas not built. As a result, salmon and steelheadpopulations immediately declined, some to extinc-tion, and remaining populations have been con-fined to the lower five miles ever since. The 210 ft.high Glines Canyon Dam (Figure 5.9) was builtfrom 1925–27 about eight miles upstream of thefirst dam, also without fish passage facilities. Glineswas licensed for a period of 50 years in 1925 whilethe Elwha Dam has never been licensed.

In 1968, the project owner filed a license applica-tion for Elwha Dam and filed a relicense applica-tion for the Glines Canyon Dam in 1973. TheFederal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) didnot actively pursue the licensing of these two proj-ects until the early 1980s when federal and stateagencies, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe (Tribe),and environmental groups filed petitions with FERCto intervene in the licensing proceeding. Theoption of dam removal to restore the decimatedfish runs was raised in most of these petitions, andFERC addressed dam removal in a draft environ-mental impact statement (EIS). Nonetheless, it wasapparent that disagreements remained overnumerous issues, and that litigation could take adecade or more.

Congressional representatives offered to broker asolution. In October 1992, President George Bushsigned Public Law 102-495 (the Elwha RiverEcosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act; the ElwhaAct), which is a negotiated settlement involving allparties to the FERC proceeding. The Elwha Act voids

FERC’s authority to issue long-term licenses foreither dam, and it confers upon the Secretary of theInterior the authority to remove both dams if thataction is needed to fully restore the Elwha Riverecosystem and native anadromous fisheries. In areport to the Congress (DOI et al. 1994), theSecretary concluded that dam removal was neces-sary to meet the goal of the Elwha Act. Subse-quently, Interior completed the EIS process FERC hadbegun but using the new standard of full ecosystemrestoration rather than “balancing” competing usesas FERC is required to do (NPS 1995).

Interior analyzed various ways to remove the damsand manage the 18 million cubic yards (mcy) ofsediments that have accumulated in the two reser-voirs since dam construction. The preferred alter-native for the Glines Canyon Dam is to spill thereservoir water over successive notches construct-ed in the concrete gravity-arch section, allowinglayers of the dam to be removed with a craneunder dry conditions (NPS 1996). Standard dia-mond wire-saw cutting and blasting techniquesare planned. Much of the dam, including the leftand right side concrete abutments and spillway,will be retained to allow for the interpretation ofthis historic structure.

The foundation of the Elwha Dam failed duringreservoir filling in 1912, flooding downstreamareas such as the Tribe’s reservation at the mouthof the river. A combination of blasted rock, fir

Figure 5.8: Elwha Dam. Fish passages were not construct-ed when the dam was built in 1910–1913.


mattresses, and other fill was used to plug the leak(NPS 1996). To avoid a similar failure duringremoval, the reservoir will be partially drained andthe river diverted into a channel constructedthrough the bedrock footing of the left abutment.This will allow the fill material and original damstructure to be removed under dry conditions.Following removal of this material, the river will bediverted back to its historic location and thebedrock channel refilled. Since the Elwha Dam wasbuilt in an area that is religiously and culturallyimportant to the Tribe, all structures will beremoved.

The 18 mcy of accumulated sediment consists ofabout 9.2 mcy of silt and clay (<0.075 mm), 6.2mcy of sand (0.075-<5 mm), 2.0 mcy of gravel (5-<75 mm), and .25 mcy of cobbles (75-<300mm). The coarse material (i.e., sand and larger) isconsidered a resource that is lacking in the riverbelow the dams, the release of which will helprestore the size and function of a more naturaland dynamic river channel, estuary, and nearshoremarine areas. The silt- and clay-sized particles arealso reduced in the lower river, but resuspension ofthis material may cause the loss of aquatic life andadversely affect water users downstream for theapproximately two to three years this process isexpected to last (NPS 1996). Nevertheless, the pre-ferred alternative incorporates the natural erosiveand transport capacity of the river to move thismaterial downstream, although roughly half of thefine and coarse materials will remain in the newlydewatered reservoir areas. Water quality and fish-eries mitigation actions are planned to reduce theimpacts of sediment releases during and followingdam removal. Revegetation actions will be imple-mented on the previously logged slopes for stabi-lization purposes and to accelerate the achieve-ment of old-growth characteristics. The old reser-voir bottoms will be allowed to revegetate natural-ly; “greenup” should occur within three to fiveyears.

Following the removal of both dams, the salmonand steelhead runs are expected to total about390,000 fish, compared to about 12,000 to20,000 (primarily hatchery) fish. These fish willprovide over 800,000 pounds of carcass biomass(NPS 1995). About 13,000 pounds of this biomassis marine-derived nitrogen and phosphorous, thebenefits of which will cascade throughout theaquatic and terrestrial ecosystem. The vast majorityof wildlife species are expected to benefit from therestoration of this food resource and the recoveryof over 700 acres of important lowland habitat.Restoration of the fish runs will also support thefederal government’s trust responsibility to theTribe for its treaty-reserved harvest rights. Morewetlands will be recovered than will be lost fromdraining the reservoirs.

Figure 5.9: Glines Canyon Dam. (a) Before removal and(b) simulation after removal.

(b)

(a)

As in the case of restoration goals, it isimperative that restoration objectives berealistic for the restoration area and bemeasurable. Objectives must thereforebe based on the site’s expected capabil-ity and not necessarily on its unalterednatural potential. It is much more use-ful to have realistic objectives reflectingstream corridor conditions that areboth achievable and measurable thanto have vague, idealistic objectives re-flecting conditions that are neither.

For example, an overall restoration goalmight be to improve fish habitat. Sev-eral supporting objectives might in-clude the following:

■ Improve water temperature by pro-viding shade plants.

■ Construct an instream structure toprovide a pool as a sediment trap.

■ Work with local landowners toencourage near-stream conservationefforts.

If these objectives were to be used assuccess criteria, however, they would re-quire more specific, measurable word-ing. For example, the first objectivecould be written to state that button-bush planted along streambanks exhibita 50 percent survival rate after threegrowing seasons and are not less than5 feet in height. This vegetative coverresults in a net reduction in water tem-perature within the stream. It should benoted that this issue of success or evalu-ation criteria is critical to stream corri-dor restoration. This is explored inmore detail in Chapters 6 and 9.

The selection of technically feasible al-ternatives and subsequent design are in-tended to solve the identified problems,realize restoration opportunities, andaccomplish restoration goals and objec-tives. Alternatives range from makingminor modifications and letting naturework to total reconstruction of thephysical setting. An efficient approach isto conceptualize, evaluate, and selectgeneral solutions or overall strategiesbefore developing specific alternatives.

This section focuses on some of thegeneral issues and considerations thatshould be taken into account in the se-lection and design of stream corridorrestoration alternatives. It sets the stagefor the more detailed presentation ofrestoration design in Chapter 8 of thisdocument.

Important Factors to Considerin Designing RestorationAlternatives

The design of restoration alternatives isa challenging process. In developing al-ternatives, special consideration shouldbe given to managing causes as op-posed to treating symptoms, tailoringrestoration design to the appropriatescale (landscape/corridor/stream/reach), and other scale-related issues.

Managing Causes vs. TreatingSymptoms

When developing restoration alterna-tives, three questions regarding the fac-tors that influence conditions in thestream corridor must be addressed.These are critical questions in determin-ing whether a passive, nonstructural al-ternative is appropriate or whether amore active restoration alternative isneeded.

5.B Alternative Selection and Design

FASTFORWARD

Preview Chapter 8’srestoration design section

Alternative Selection and Design 5–17


1. What have been the implications ofpast management activities in thestream corridor (a cause-effectsanalysis)?

2. What are the realistic opportunitiesfor eliminating, modifying, mitigat-ing, or managing these activities?

3. What would be the response ofimpaired conditions in the corridor ifthese activities could be eliminated,modified, mitigated, or managed?

If the causes of impairment can realisti-cally be eliminated, complete ecosystemrestoration to a natural or unalteredcondition might be a feasible objectiveand the focus of the restoration activitywill be clear. If the causes of impair-ment cannot realistically be eliminated,it is critical to identify what optionsexist to manage either the causes orsymptoms of altered conditions andwhat effect, if any, those managementoptions might have on the subject conditions.

If it is not feasible to manage thecause(s) of impaired conditions, thenmitigating the impacts of disturbance(s)is an alternative method of implement-ing sustainable stream corridor restora-tion. By choosing mitigation, the focusof the restoration effort might then beon addressing only the symptoms ofimpaired conditions.

When disturbance cannot be fully elim-inated, a logical planning process mustbe used to develop alternative manage-ment options. For example, in analyz-ing bank erosion, one conclusion mightbe that accelerated watershed sedimentdelivery has produced lateral instabilityin the stream system, but modificationof land-use patterns causing the prob-lem is not a feasible management op-

Figure 5.10: Streambank erosion. In designingalternatives for bank erosion it is important toassess the feasibility of addressing the cause ofthe problem (e.g., modify land uses) or treat-ing the symptom (e.g., install bank-erosioncontrol structures).

Supporting Analyses for Selecting Alternatives

Feasibility study

Cost-effectiveness analysis

Risk assessment

Environmental impact analysis

Factors to Consider in Alternative Design

Managing causes vs. treating symptoms

Landscape/Watershed vs. corridor reach

Other spatial and temporal considerations


tion at this time (Figure 5.10). It mighttherefore still be possible to develop achannel erosion condition objectiveand to identify treatments such as engi-neered or soil-bioengineered bank ero-sion control structures, but it will notbe possible to return the stream corri-dor to its predisturbance condition.Other resource implications of in-creased watershed sediment deliverywill persist (e.g., altered substrate con-ditions, modified riffle-pool structure,and impaired water quality).

It is important to note that in treatingcauses, a danger always remains that intreating one symptom of impairment,another unwanted change in streamcorridor conditions will be triggered.To continue with the erosion example,bank hardening in one location mightinterfere with sedimentation processescritical to floodplain and riparian habi-tats, or it might simply transfer lateralinstabilities from one location in astream reach to some other location.

Landscape/Watershed vs.Corridor/Reach

The design and selection of alternativesshould address the following relation-ships:

■ Reach to stream

■ Stream to corridor

■ Corridor to landscape

■ Landscape to region

Characterizing those relationships re-quires a good inventory and analysis ofconditions and functions on all levelsincluding stream structure (both verticaland horizontal) and human activitieswithin the watershed.

The restoration design should includeinnovative solutions to prevent or miti-gate, to the extent possible, negative im-pacts on the stream corridor from

upstream land uses. Land use activitieswithin a watershed may vary widelywithin generalized descriptions ofurban, agricultural, recreation, etc. Forexample, urban residential land usecould comprise neighborhoods of man-icured lawns, exotic plants, and roofrunoff directed to nearby storm sewers.Or residential use might be composedof neighborhoods with native covertypes, overhead canopy, and roof runoffflowing to wetland gardens. Restoration

At a minimum, alternatives should contain a manage-ment summary of proposed activities, including anoverview of the following elements:

Detailed site description containing relevant discussionof all variables having a bearing on that alternative.

Identification and quantification of existing streamcorridor conditions.

Analysis of the various causes of impairment and theeffect of management activities on these impairedconditions and causes in the past.

Statement of specific restoration objectives, expressedin terms of measurable stream corridor conditions andranked in priority order.

Preliminary design alternatives and feasibility analysis.

Cost-effectiveness analysis for each treatment or alternative.

Assessment of project risks.

Appropriate cultural and environmental clearances.

Monitoring plan linked to stream corridor conditions.

Anticipated maintenance needs and schedule.

Alternative schedule and budget.

Provision to make adjustments per adaptive management.


design should address the storm waterflows, pollutants, and sediment load-ings from these different land uses thatcould impact the stream corridor.

Since it is usually not possible to re-move the human activities that disturbstream corridors, where seemingly detri-mental activities like gravel mining,damming, and road crossings are pres-ent in the watershed or in the streamcorridor itself, restoration design shouldprovide the best possible solutions formaintaining optimum stream corridorfunctions while meeting economic andsocial objectives (Figure 5.11).

Other Time and SpaceConsiderations

Restoration design flexibility is critical tolong-term success and achievement ofdynamic equilibrium. Beyond thestream corridor is an entire landscapethat functions in much the same way asthe corridor. When designing and

choosing alternatives, it is important toconsider the effect of the restoration onthe entire landscape. A wide, connected,and diverse stream corridor will en-hance the functions of the landscape aswell as those of the corridor. Connectiv-ity and width also increase the resiliencyof the stream corridor to landscape per-turbations and stress, whether inducednaturally or by humans.

Alternatives should also be relativelyelastic, although time and physicalboundaries might not be so flexible. Asdiscussed in Chapter 1, dynamic equi-librium requires that the restorationdesign be allowed an opportunity tomold itself to the changing conditionsof the corridor over time and to thedisturbances that are a part of the nat-ural environment. Alternatives shouldbe weighed against one another byconsidering how they might react to in-creasing land pressures, climatechanges, and natural perturbations.Structure should be planned to providenecessary functions at each phase ofthe corridor’s development.

A possible restoration design conceptis Forman and Godron’s (1986) “stringof lights.” Over time, the variationsamong landscape elements mean thatsome provide more opportunities fordesired functions than others. A streamcorridor connection provides a path-way through the landscape matrix suchthat it can be thought of as a string oflights in which some turn on and burnbrightly for a time, while others fadeaway for a short time (Figure 5.14). Asthe string between these lights, thestream corridor is critical to the long-term stability of landscape functions.Alternatives could therefore fit themetaphor of a string of lights to sus-tain the corridor through time.

Figure 5.11: Stream buffers in agriculturalareas. It is not possible to remove human activity from the corridor. Design alternativesshould provide the best possible way of achiev-ing the desired goals without negating theactivity.

REVERSE

Review Chap-ter 1’s Dynamic Equilibriumsection.


Supporting Analyses forSelecting RestorationAlternatives

Once the restoration alternatives havebeen defined, the next step is to evalu-ate all the feasible alternatives andmanagement options. In conductingthis evaluation it is important to applyseveral different screening criteria thatallow the consideration of a diversenumber of factors. In general, the appli-cation of the following supporting ana-lytical approaches ensures the selectionof the best alternative or group of alter-natives for the restoration initiative:

■ Cost-effectiveness and incrementalcost analysis

■ Evaluation of benefits

■ Risk assessment

■ Environmental impact analysis

Cost-Effectiveness andIncremental Cost Analyses

In its National Strategy for the Restora-tion of Aquatic Ecosystems, the Na-tional Research Council (NRC) statesthat, in lieu of benefit-cost analysis, theevaluation and ranking of restorationalternatives should be based on aframework of incremental cost analysis:“Continually questioning the value ofadditional elements of a restoration byasking whether the actions are ‘worth’their added cost is the most practicalway to decide how much restoration isenough” (NRC 1992). As an example,the Council cites the approach where “a justifiable level [of output] is chosenin recognition of the incremental costsof increasing [output] levels and as partof a negotiation process with affectedinterests and other federal agencies”(NRC 1992).

As described below, cost-effectivenessanalysis is performed to identify theleast-cost solution for each possible

level of nonmonetary output underconsideration. Subsequent incrementalcost analysis reveals the increases incost that accompany increases in thelevel of output, asking the question “As we increase the scale of this project,is each subsequent level of additionaloutput worth its additional cost?”

Data Requirements: Solutions, Costs,and Outputs

Cost-effectiveness and incremental costanalyses may be used for any scale ofplanning problem, ranging from local,site-specific problems to problems atthe more extensive watershed andecosystem scales. Regardless of theproblem-solving scale, three types ofdata must be obtained before conduct-ing the analyses: a list of solutions and,for each solution, estimates of its eco-system or other nonmonetary effects(outputs) and estimates of its economiceffects (costs).

The term “solutions” is used here torefer generally to techniques for

Figure 5.14: “String of lights.” Patches alongthe stream corridor provide habitat in an agri-cultural setting. Source: C. Zabawa.


Meander Reconstruction on theJ. Bar S. Winter Feeding Area

January 1, 1997, was an eventful time forAsotin Creek, Washington, residents. In a peri-

od of less than a year, two large flood eventsoccurred, causing extreme damage at numeroussites throughout the watershed.

The ordinary high flow (often referred to as chan-nel forming or bankfull flow) is the natural sizechannel a river will seek, over time. Asotin Creek’sflows exceeded the ordinary high flow 10 times atAsotin and Headgate parks.

One impacted site is on the South Fork of AsotinCreek. This site, referred to as the J. Bar S. winterfeeding site (Figure 5.12) and owned by Jake andDan Schlee, received floods more than 10 timesthe ordinary high flow. Previous to January 1, thestream was located over a hundred feet awayfrom the haysheds and feeding area. When largeamounts of rock, cobble, and gravel collapsedinto the right side of the stream corridor, theentire channel was directed toward the winterfeeding area and hayshed. This redirection offlood flows undermined and eroded away thou-sands of tons of valuable topsoil and property,threatening the loss of the hayshed and corral.Fences and alternative water sources weredestroyed. The challenges for stream restorationat this site were numerous because of the poten-tial bridge constriction at the bottom, excessivedowncutting, and limited area within which towork (Figure 5.13).

The Asotin County Conservation District put aninterdisciplinary team together in the spring of1997 to develop a plan and alternative for the J.Bar S. site. An innovative approach referred to asmeander reconstruction was proposed by theinterdisciplinary team to correct the problem andrestore some natural capabilities of the stream. Itwas accepted by the landowners and AsotinCounty Conservation District. Some natural capa-bilities are the dissipation of flood energy overfloodplains and maintenance of a stable ordinaryhigh flow channel.

Additional benefits to the approach would be toreestablish proper alignment with the bridge andrestore fish habitat. This alternative was installedwithin the last 2 weeks of September 1997. Carewas used to move young steelhead out of the oldchannel while the new meandering channel wasbuilt. Other practices on site such as alternativewater sources and fencing are soon to follow.

The meander reconstruction was designed toaddress both the landowners’ concerns andstream processes. Although on-site streamrestoration cannot resolve problems higher up inthe watershed, it can address immediate concernsregarding fish habitat and streambank stability.Numerous pools with woody debris were intro-duced to enhance salmon rearing and restinghabitat. The pools were designed and set to ascour pattern unique to this stream type. Thismeander reconstruction is the first of its kind inthe state of Washington.

Figure 5.12: The J. Bar S. winter feeding area. This areareceived floods more than 10 times the ordinary highflow.


The principal funding for this project was provid-ed by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)(Table 5.1). The BPA funds are used to helpimplement the Asotin Creek Model WatershedPlan, which is part of the Northwest PowerPlanning Council’s “Strategy for Salmon.” Themoneys for funding by BPA are generated from

power rate payers in the Northwest. The purposefor funding is to improve the fish habitat compo-nent of the “Strategy for Salmon,” which is oneof the four elements referred to as the four H’s—harvest management, hatcheries and their prac-tices, survival at hydroelectric dams, and fish habi-tat improvement.

Table 5.1: Project costs for J. Bar S. winter feeding area meander reconstruction and upstream revetments.

Figure 5.13: South Fork of Asotin Creek restoration site. (a) Before reconstruction and (b) after reconstruction.

Projects Costs

Reconstruction meanders $10,200

Upstream revetments $2,800

Fencing $400

Riparian/streambank plantings and potential operation and maintenance $3,500(to be completed)

Note: Original estimate in April 1997 was $26,600


formulatealternatives

feasible?

totalhabitatmodel

institutionalanalysismodel

start

strategydesign

networkhabitatmodel

stop

needmore work

now?

micro-habitatmodel

macro-habitatmodel

technicalscoping

yesyes

no

no

Figure 5.15: Overview of theinstream flow incrementalmethodology. IFIM describesthe spatial and temporal habi-tat features of a given river.

The Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM)is designed for river system management. IFIM iscomposed of models linked to describe the spatialand temporal habitat features of a given river(Figure 5.15). It uses hydrologic analyses todescribe, evaluate, and compare water usethroughout a river system to understand the limitsof water supply. Its organizational framework isuseful for evaluating and formulating alternativewater management options. Ultimately, the goal ofany IFIM application is to ensure the preservationor enhancement of fish and wildlife resources.Emphasis is placed on displaying data from severalyears to understand variability in both water supplyand habitat.

IFIM is meant to be implemented in five sequentialphases—problem identification, study planning,study implementation, alternatives analysis, andproblem resolution. Each phase must precede theremaining phases, though iteration is necessary forcomplex projects.

The first phase has two parts—a legal-institutionalanalysis and a physical analysis. The legal-institu-tional analysis identifies all affected or interestedparties, their concerns, information needs, relativeinfluence or power, and the potential decisionprocess (e.g., brokered or arbitrated). The physicalanalysis determines the physical location and geo-graphic extent of probable physical and chemicalchanges to the system and the aquatic resources

Figure 5.15: Overview of theinstream flow incrementalmethodology. IFIM describesthe spatial and temporal habi-tat features of a given river.


of greatest concern, along with their respectivemanagement objectives.

The study planning phase identifies informationneeded to address project concerns, informationalready available, information that must beobtained, and data and information collectionmethods. Study planning should result in a con-cise, written plan that documents all aspects ofproject execution and costs. It should also identifypertinent temporal and spatial scales of evaluation.

Hydrologic information chosen to represent thebaseline or reference condition should be reexam-ined in detail during this phase to ensure that bio-logical reference conditions are adequate to evalu-ate critical life history phases of fish populations.

The third phase consists of several sequential activ-ities—data collection, model calibration, predictivesimulation, and synthesis of results. Data are col-lected for physical and chemical water quality,habitat suitability, population analysis, and hydro-logic analysis. IFIM relies heavily on modelsbecause they can be used to evaluate new projectsor new operations of existing projects. Model cali-bration and quality assurance are key during thisphase to obtain reliable estimates of the total habi-tat available for each life stage of each speciesover time.

The alternatives analysis phase compares all alter-natives, including a preferred alternative and otheralternatives, with the baseline condition and canlead to new alternatives that meet the multipleobjectives of the involved parties. Alternatives areexamined for:

■ Effectiveness: Are objectives sustainable?■ Physical feasibility: Are water supply limits

exceeded?

Risk: How often does the biological system collapse?

Economics: What are the costs and benefits?

This final phase includes selection of the preferredalternative, appropriate mitigation measures, and amonitoring plan. Because biological and economicvalues differ, data and models are incomplete orimperfect, opinions differ, and the future is uncer-tain, IFIM relies heavily on professional judgmentby interdisciplinary teams to reach a negotiatedsolution with some balance among conflictingsocial values.

A monitoring plan is necessary to ensure compli-ance with the agreed-upon flow managementrules and mitigation measures. Post-project moni-toring and evaluation should be considered whenappropriate and should be mandatory when chan-nel form will respond strongly to the selected newflow and sediment transport conditions.

The earliest and best documented application ofIFIM involved a large hydroelectric project on theTerror River in Alaska (Lamb 1984, Olive and Lamb1984). Another application involved a Section 404permit on the James River, Missouri (Cavendish andDuncan 1986). Nehring and Anderson (1993) dis-cuss the habitat bottleneck hypothesis. Stalnakeret al. (1996) discuss the temporal aspects ofinstream habitats and the identification of poten-tial physical habitat bottlenecks. Relations betweenhabitat variability and population dynamics aredescribed by Bovee et al. (1994). Thomas andBovee (1993) discuss habitat suitability criteria.IFIM has been used widely by state and federalagencies (Reiser et al. 1989, Armour and Taylor1991). Additional references and information onavailable training can currently be obtained fromthe Internet at http://www.mesc.nbs.gov/rsm/IFIM.html.


accomplishing planning objectives. Forexample, if faced with a planning objec-tive to “Increase waterfowl habitat inthe Blue River Watershed,” a solutionmight be to “Construct and install 50nesting boxes in the Blue River riparianzone.” Solutions may be individualmanagement measures (for example,clear a channel, plant vegetation, con-struct a levee, or install nesting boxes),plans (various combinations of man-agement measures), or programs (vari-ous combinations of plans, perhaps atthe landscape scale).

Cost estimates for a solution should in-clude both financial implementationcosts and economic opportunity costs.Implementation costs are direct finan-cial outlays, such as costs for design,real estate acquisition, construction, operation and maintenance, and moni-toring. The opportunity costs of a solu-tion are any current benefits availablewith the existing state of the watershedthat would be foregone if the solutionwere implemented. For example, restor-ation of a river ecosystem might requirethat some navigation benefits derivedfrom an existing river channel be givenup to achieve the desired restoration. Itis important that the opportunity costsof foregone benefits be accounted forand brought to the table to inform thedecision-making process.

The level to which a solution accom-plishes a planning objective is mea-sured by the solution’s output estimate.Historically, environmental outputshave been expressed as changes in pop-ulations (waterfowl and fish counts, forexample) and in physical dimensions(acres of wetlands, for example). In re-cent years, output estimates have beenderived through a variety of environ-mental models such as the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service’s Habitat Evalua-tion Procedures (HEP), which summa-rize habitat quality and quantity for

specific species in units called “habitatunits.” Models for ecological communi-ties and ecosystems are in the earlystages of development and applicationand might be more useful at the water-shed scale.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

In cost-effectiveness analysis, solutionsthat are not rational (from a productionperspective) are identified and can bescreened out from inclusion in subse-quent incremental cost analysis.

Cost-effectiveness screening is fairlystraightforward when monetary valuesare easily assigned. The “output” ornonmonetary benefits of restoration ac-tions are more difficult to evaluate.These benefits may include changes inintangible values of habitat, aesthetics,nongame species populations, and oth-ers. The ultimate goal, however, is to beable to weigh objectively all of the ben-efits of the restoration against its costs.

There are two rules for cost-effectivenessscreening. These rules state that solu-tions should be identified as inefficientin production, and thus not cost-effec-tive, if (1) the same level of outputcould be produced by another solutionat less cost or (2) a greater level of out-put could be produced by another solu-tion at the same or less cost.

For example, look at the range of solu-tions in Figure 5.16. Applying Rule 1,Solution C is identified as inefficient inproduction: why spend $3,600 for 100units of output when 100 units can beobtained for $2,600 with Solution B, asavings of $1,000? In this example, So-lution C could also be screened out bythe application of Rule 2: why settle for100 units of output with Solution Cwhen 20 additional units can be pro-vided by Solution E at the same cost?Also by applying Rule 2, Solution D isscreened out: why spend $4,500 for 110


units when 10 more units could be pro-duced by E for $900 less cost?

Figure 5.16 shows the “cost-effective-ness frontier” for the solutions listed inthe table. This graph, which plots thesolutions’ total cost (vertical axis)against their output levels (horizontalaxis), graphically depicts the twoscreening rules. The cost-effective solu-tions delineate the cost-effectivenessfrontier. Any solutions lying inside thefrontier (above and to the left), such asC and D, are not cost-effective andshould not be included in subsequentincremental cost analysis.

Incremental Cost Analysis

Incremental cost analysis is intended toprovide additional information to sup-port a decision about the desired levelof investment. The analysis is an inves-

tigation of how the costs of extra unitsof output increase as the output levelincreases. Whereas total cost and totaloutput information for each solution isneeded for cost-effectiveness analysis,incremental cost analysis requires datashowing the difference in cost (incre-mental cost) and the difference in out-put (incremental output) between eachsolution and the next-larger solution.

Continuing with the previous example,the incremental cost and incrementaloutput associated with each solutionare shown in Figure 5.17. Solution Awould provide 80 units of output at acost of $2,000, or $25 per unit. Solu-tion B would provide an additional 20units of output (100 – 80) at an addi-tional cost of $600 ($2,600 – $2,000).The incremental cost per unit (incre-mental cost divided by incremental out-put) for the additional 20 units Bprovides over A is, therefore, $30. Simi-lar computations can be made for solu-tions E and F. Solutions C and D havebeen deleted from the analysis becausethey were previously identified as ineffi-cient in production.

As shown in Figure 5.17, the incremen-tal cost per unit is measured on the ver-tical axis; both total output andincremental output can be measured onthe horizontal axis. The distance fromthe origin to the end of each bar indi-cates total output provided by the corre-sponding solution. The width of the barassociated with each solution identifiesthe incremental amount of output thatwould be provided over the previous,smaller-scaled solution; for example,Solution E provides 20 more units ofoutput than Solution B . The height ofthe bar illustrates the cost per unit ofthat additional output; for example,those 20 additional units obtainablethrough Solution E cost $50 each.

Solution

No action

Units of Output

0

Total Cost ($)

0

A 80 2,000

B 100 2,600

C 100 3,600

D 110 4,500

E 120 3,600

F 140 7,000

Tota

l Co

st (

$)

800 100 120 140Units of Output

2000

0

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

cost effectivenessfrontier

AB

CD

E

F

Figure 5.16: Cost effectiveness frontier. Thisgraph plots the solutions’ total cost (verticalaxis) against their output levels (horizontal axis).


Decision Making—”Is It Worth It?”

The table in Figure 5.17 presents costand output information for the range ofcost-effective solutions under considera-tion in a format that facilitates the in-vestment decision of which (if any)solution should be implemented. Thisdecision process begins with the deci-sion of whether it is “worth it” to im-plement Solution A.

Figure 5.17 shows Solution A provides80 units of output at a cost of $25 each.If it is decided that these units of out-put are worth $25 each, the questionbecomes “Should the level of output beincreased?” To answer this question,look at Solution B, which provides 20more units than Solution A. These 20additional units cost $30 each. “Arethey worth it?” If “yes,” look to the nextlarger solution, E, which provides 20more units than B at $50 each, againasking “Are they worth it?” If it is de-

cided that E’s additional output isworth its additional cost, look to F,which provides 20 more units than E ata cost of $170 each.

Cost-effectiveness and incremental costanalyses will not result in the identifica-tion of an “optimal” solution as is thecase with cost-benefit analysis. How-ever, they do provide information thatdecision makers can use to facilitateand support the selection of a single so-lution. Selection may also be guided bydecision guidelines such as output “tar-gets” (legislative requirements or regu-latory standards, for example),minimum and maximum outputthresholds, maximum cost thresholds,sharp breakpoints in the cost-effective-ness or incremental cost curves, and lev-els of uncertainty associated with thedata.

In addition, the analyses are not in-tended to eliminate potential solutions

No action

TotalOutput

0

IncrementalOutput

0

A 80 80

B 100 20

E 120 20

F 140 20

TotalCost

0

2,000

2,600

3,600

7,000

IncrementalCost

0

2,000

600

1,000

3,400

Incremental CostIncremental Output

Solution Level of Output Cost ($)

0

25

30

50

170

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

per

Un

it

20

A B

E

F

60 100 140Units of Output

20

0

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 40 80 120

Figure 5.17: Incremental cost and output display. This graph plots the cost per unit (vertical axis)against the total output and incremental output (horizontal axis).


from consideration, but rather to pre-sent the available information on costsand outputs in a format to facilitateplan selection and communicate the decision process. A solution identifiedas “inefficient in production” in cost-effectiveness analysis might still be de-sirable; the analysis is intended to makethe other options and the associatedtrade-offs explicit. Reasons for selecting“off the cost-effectiveness curve” mightinclude considerations that were notcaptured in the output model beingused, or uncertainty present in cost andoutput estimates. Where such issuesexist, it is important that they be explic-itly introduced to the decision process.After all, the purpose of conductingcost-effectiveness and incremental costanalyses is to provide more, and hope-fully better, information to support de-cisions about investments inenvironmental (or other nonmonetary)resources.

Evaluation of Benefits

Cost-effectiveness and incremental cost analyses are but one approach forevaluating restoration projects. Morebroadly defined approaches, sometimesreferred to as benefit maximization, fallinto three categories (USEPA 1995a):

1. Prioritized benefits are ranked bypreference or priority, such as best,next best, and worst. Available infor-mation might be limited to qualita-tive descriptions of benefits, butmight be sufficient.

2. Quantifiable benefits can be countedbut not priced. If benefits are quan-tifiable on some common scale (e.g., percent removal of fine sedi-ment as an index of spawning sub-strate improvement), a cost per unitof benefits that identifies the mostefficient producer of benefits can bedevised (similar to the previously

described cost effectiveness andincremental cost analyses).

3. Nonmonetary benefits can bedescribed in monetary terms. Forexample, when restoration providesbetter fish habitat than point sourcecontrols would provide, the monetaryvalue of improved fish habitat (e.g.,economic benefits of better fishing)needs to be described. Assigning amonetary value to game or commer-cial species might be relatively easy;other benefits of improved habitatquality (e.g., improved aesthetics) arenot as easily determined, and some(e.g., improved biodiversity) cannotbe quantified monetarily. Each bene-fit must, therefore, be analyzed differently.

Key considerations in evaluating bene-fits include timing, scale, and value. Theshort-term and long-term benefits ofeach project must be measured. In addi-tion, potential benefits and costs mustbe considered with respect to results ona local level versus a watershed level. Fi-nally, there are several ways to value theenvironment based on human use andappreciation. Commercial fish valuescan be calculated, recreational or sport-fishing values can be estimated by eval-uating the costs of travel andexpenditures, some aesthetic and im-proved flood control values can be esti-mated through changes in real estatevalue, and social values (such aswildlife, aesthetics, and biodiversity)can be estimated by surveying people todetermine their willingness to pay.

Risk Assessment

Stream-corridor restoration involves acertain amount of risk that, regardlessof the treatment chosen, restoration ef-forts will fail. To the extent possible, anidentification of these risks for each al-ternative under consideration is a useful


tool for analysis by the decision maker.A thorough risk assessment is particu-larly important for those large-scalerestoration efforts which involve signifi-cant outlays of labor and money orwhere a significant risk to human life orproperty would occur downstreamshould the restoration fail.

A primary source of risk is the uncer-tainty associated with the quality ofdata used in problem analysis orrestoration design. Data uncertainty re-sults from errors in data collection andanalysis, external influences on resourcevariables, and random error associatedwith certain statistical procedures (e.g.,regression analysis). Data uncertainty isusually handled by application of statis-tical procedures to select confidence in-tervals that estimate the quality of thedata used for analysis and design.

The first source of risk is the possibilitythat design conditions will be exceededby natural variability before the projectis established. For example, if a channelis designed to pass a 50-year flood onthe active floodplain, but it takes 5years to establish riparian vegetation onthat floodplain, there is a certain riskthat the 50-year flood will be exceededduring the 5 years it takes to establishnatural riparian conditions on thefloodplain. A similar situation wouldexist where a revegetation treatment re-quires a certain amount of moisture forvegetation establishment and assumesthe worst drought of record does notoccur during the establishment period.This kind of risk is readily amenable tostatistical analysis using the binomial

distribution and is presented in severalexisting reports on hydrologic risk (e.g.,Van Haveren 1986).

Environmental Impact Analysis

The fact that the impetus behind anystream corridor restoration initiative is recovery or rehabilitation does notnecessarily mean that the proposal iswithout adverse effects or public con-troversy. Short-term and long-term ad-verse impacts might result. For example,implementation activity such as earth-work involving heavy equipment mighttemporarily increase sedimentation orsoil compaction. Furthermore, restora-tion of one habitat type is probably atthe expense of another habitat type; forexample, recreating habitat to benefitfish might come at the expense of habi-tat used by birds.

Some alternatives, such as total exclu-sion to an area, might be well definedscientifically but have little social ac-ceptability. Notwithstanding the envi-ronmental impacts and trade-offs, bothfish and birds have active constituenciesthat must be involved and whose con-cerns must be acknowledged. Therefore,careful environmental impact analysisconsiders the potential short- and long-term direct, indirect, and cumulativeimpacts, together with full public in-volvement and disclosure of both theimpacts and possible mitigating mea-sures. This is no less important for aninitiative to restore a stream corridorthan for any other type of related activity.

5.a developing restoration goals and objectives5.a developing restoration goals and objectives 5.b...

Documents