ADVERTISEMENT

If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.

It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.

Wiley InterScience

Restoration Ecology

Restoration Ecology

Volume 15 Issue 3, Pages 573 - 583

Published Online: 26 Jul 2007

© 2010 Society for Ecological Restoration International



< Previous Abstract  |  Next Abstract >

Save Article to My Profile      Download Citation      Request Permissions

Abstract |  References  |  Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 282K)  | Related Articles | Citation Tracking

Stream Restoration Practices in the Southeastern United States
Elizabeth B. Sudduth, 1,2,3 Judy L. Meyer, 1 Emily S. Bernhardt 4,5
  1 Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, U.S.A.
  3 Present address: University Program in Ecology, Box 90329, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, U.S.A.
  4 Department of Entomology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, U.S.A.
  5 Present address: Department of Biology, Box 90338, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, U.S.A.
  2 Address correspondence to E. B. Sudduth, email esudduth@duke.edu
Copyright 2007 Society for Ecological Restoration International
KEYWORDS
channel reconfiguration • evaluation • in-stream habitat improvement • monitoring • riparian management • southeastern United States • stream restoration • water quality management

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionLITERATURE CITED

We collected information on 860 stream restoration projects in four states in the southeastern United States—Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, and South Carolina—to gain a better understanding of the practice of stream restoration in this area of high aquatic biodiversity and rapid metropolitan expansion. This was completed as a part of the National River Restoration Science Synthesis, with the larger goal of understanding the state of the science of stream restoration. Stream restoration project density, goals, and monitoring rates varied by state, although southeastern monitoring rates were higher than in other parts of the country. North Carolina had the most projects in the Southeast, of which 36% were monitored. In-depth phone interviews with project managers from a random subsample of projects provided insights into the process of stream restoration. Land availability was the most common basis for site prioritization, and 49% of projects involved mitigation. Although 51% of projects were associated with a watershed assessment, only 30% of projects were done as part of a larger plan for the watershed. Projects were monitored using physical (77% of monitored projects), chemical (36%), and biological (86%) variables, although many projects were planned and ultimately evaluated based on public opinion. Our results suggest that stream restoration in the southeastern United States is at an exciting point where better incorporation of a watershed perspective into planning and establishment and evaluation of stated, measurable success criteria for every project could lead to more effective projects.


Received: 25 May 2007; Accepted: 23 July 2007;
DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)
10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00252.x About DOI

Related Articles

  • Find other articles like this in Wiley InterScience
  • Find articles in Wiley InterScience written by any of the authors

Wiley InterScience is a member of CrossRef.

Cross Ref Member


REC
REC
Sign up here