Stream Systems Technology Center

Although artificial stream restoration for improved fisheries habitat has been in vogue for at least a century, these endeavors have been insufficiently studied, and failures and successes inadequately demonstrated (Hall and Baker 1982, Platts and Nelson 1985, Platts and Rinne 1985, Beschta and Platts 1986, Elmore and Kauffman 1994). The lack of data has occurred at a time when native fish populations are declining and political pressures (e.g., Endangered Species Act, Pacific Northwest salmon issues) are increasing to provide additional amounts of money for restoring damaged streams and preventing the extirpation of species. Although the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), the US Forest Service (USFS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Pacific Northwest States are spending millions of dollars annually for the improvement of salmonid habitat, this financial effort may not be providing the desired benefits. Credible scientific, economic, and social evaluation of the various types of stream alteration projects are critically needed to guide future decisions. However, major information gaps exist because the scientific community has not evaluated the ecological effects of various types of restoration projects. In addition, economic evaluations of the benefits resulting from project costs are of critical importance yet have received little attention (Reeves and Roelofs 1982). Although the research necessary to implement successful rehabilitation of riparian-stream environments is in its infancy, Everest et al. (1991) have alerted the fisheries profession and other natural resources managers that estimates of cost-effectiveness and total biological benefits are needed to help set priorities for future habitat alteration projects. Furthermore, it is possible that many previous “restoration” or “enhancement” projects have actually resulted in further degradation of the ecological functions of streams (e.g., Beschta et al. 1992, Kauffman et al. 1993).