River restoration is one of the most prominent areas of applied water-resources science. From an initial focus on enhancing fish habitat or river appearance, primarily through structural modification of channel form, restoration has expanded to incorporate a wide variety of management activities designed to enhance river process and form. Restoration is conducted on headwater streams, large lowland rivers, and entire river networks in urban, agricultural, and less intensively human-altered environments. We critically examine how contemporary practitioners approach river restoration and challenges for implementing restoration, which include clearly identified objectives, holistic understanding of rivers as ecosystems, and the role of restoration as a social process. We also examine challenges for scientific understanding in river restoration. These include: how physical complexity supports biogeochemical function, stream metabolism, and stream ecosystem productivity; characterizing response curves of different river components; understanding sediment dynamics; and increasing appreciation of the importance of incorporating climate change considerations and resiliency into restoration planning. Finally, we examine changes in river restoration within the past decade, such as increasing use of stream mitigation banking; development of new tools and technologies; different types of process-based restoration; growing recognition of the importance of biological-physical feedbacks in rivers; increasing expectations of water quality improvements from restoration; and more effective communication between practitioners and river scientists.

No abstract

No abstract

Low- and moderate-intensity aerobic-exercise programs were equally effective in improving physiological and psychological function in this population of cancer survivors. Aerobic exercise appears to be a valuable and well-tolerated component of the cancer-rehabilitation process.

Dam removal is widely used as an approach for river restoration in the United States. The increase in dam removals—particularly large dams—and associated dam‐removal studies over the last few decades motivated a working group at the USGS John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis to review and synthesize available studies of dam removals and their findings. Based on dam removals thus far, some general conclusions have emerged: (1) physical responses are typically fast, with the rate of sediment erosion largely dependent on sediment characteristics and dam‐removal strategy; (2) ecological responses to dam removal differ among the affected upstream, downstream, and reservoir reaches; (3) dam removal tends to quickly reestablish connectivity, restoring the movement of material and organisms between upstream and downstream river reaches; (4) geographic context, river history, and land use significantly influence river restoration trajectories and recovery potential because they control broader physical and ecological processes and conditions; and (5) quantitative modeling capability is improving, particularly for physical and broad‐scale ecological effects, and gives managers information needed to understand and predict long‐term effects of dam removal on riverine ecosystems. Although these studies collectively enhance our understanding of how riverine ecosystems respond to dam removal, knowledge gaps remain because most studies have been short (< 5 years) and do not adequately represent the diversity of dam types, watershed conditions, and dam‐removal methods in the U.S.

Condit Dam on the White Salmon River, Washington, a 38 m high dam impounding a large volume (1.8 million m 3 ) of fine-grained sediment (60% sand, 35% silt and clay, and 5% gravel), was rapidly breached in October 2011. This unique dam decommissioning produced dramatic upstream and downstream geomorphic responses in the hours and weeks following breaching. Blasting a 5 m wide hole into the base of the dam resulted in rapid reservoir drawdown, abruptly releasing~1.6 million m 3 of reservoir water, exposing reservoir sediment to erosion, and triggering mass failures of the thickly accumulated reservoir sediment. Within 90 min of breaching, the reservoir's water and~10% of its sediment had evacuated. At a gauging station 2.3 km downstream, flow increased briefly by 400 m 3 s À1 during passage of the initial pulse of released reservoir water, followed by a highly concentrated flow phase-up to 32% sediment by volume-as landslide-generated slurries from the reservoir moved downstream. This hyperconcentrated flow, analogous to those following volcanic eruptions or large landslides, draped the downstream river with predominantly fine sand. During the ensuing weeks, suspended-sediment concentration declined and sand and gravel bed load derived from continued reservoir erosion aggraded the channel by >1 m at the gauging station, after which the river incised back to near its initial elevation at this site. Within 15 weeks after breaching, over 1 million m 3 of suspended load is estimated to have passed the gauging station, consistent with estimates that >60% of the reservoir's sediment had eroded. This dam removal highlights the influence of interactions among reservoir erosion processes, sediment composition, and style of decommissioning on rate of reservoir erosion and consequent downstream behavior of released sediment.

Summary 1. Successful environmental flow prescriptions require an accurate understanding of the linkages among flow events, geomorphic processes and biotic responses. We describe models and results from experimental flow releases associated with an environmental flow program on the Bill Williams River (BWR), Arizona, in arid to semiarid western U.S.A. 2. Two general approaches for improving knowledge and predictions of ecological responses to environmental flows are: (1) coupling physical system models to ecological responses and (2) clarifying empirical relationships between flow and ecological responses through implementation and monitoring of experimental flow releases. 3. We modelled the BWR physical system using: (1) a reservoir operations model to simulate reservoir releases and reservoir water levels and estimate flow through the river system under a range of scenarios, (2) one‐ and two‐dimensional river hydraulics models to estimate stage–discharge relationships at the whole‐river and local scales, respectively, and (3) a groundwater model to estimate surface‐ and groundwater interactions in a large, alluvial valley on the BWR where surface flow is frequently absent. 4. An example of a coupled, hydrology‐ecology model is the Ecosystems Function Model, which we used to link a one‐dimensional hydraulic model with riparian tree seedling establishment requirements to produce spatially explicit predictions of seedling recruitment locations in a Geographic Information System. We also quantified the effects of small experimental floods on the differential mortality of native and exotic riparian trees, on beaver dam integrity and distribution, and on the dynamics of differentially flow‐adapted benthic macroinvertebrate groups. 5. Results of model applications and experimental flow releases are contributing to adaptive flow management on the BWR and to the development of regional environmental flow standards. General themes that emerged from our work include the importance of response thresholds, which are commonly driven by geomorphic thresholds or mediated by geomorphic processes, and the importance of spatial and temporal variation in the effects of flows on ecosystems, which can result from factors such as longitudinal complexity and ecohydrological feedbacks.

Scour and uprooting during flood events is a major disturbance agent that affects plant mortality rates and subsequent vegetation composition and density, setting the trajectory of physical‐biological interactions in rivers. During flood events, riparian plants may be uprooted if they are subjected to hydraulic drag forces greater than their resisting force. We measured the resisting force of woody seedlings established on river bars with in situ lateral pull tests that simulated flood flows with and without substrate scour. We quantified the influence of seedling size, species (Populus and Tamarix), water‐table depth, and scour depth on resisting force. Seedling size and resisting force were positively related with scour depth and water‐table depth—a proxy for root length—exerting strong and opposing controls on resisting force. Populus required less force to uproot than Tamarix, but displayed a greater increase in uprooting force with seedling size. Further, we found that calculated mean velocities required to uproot seedlings were greater than modeled flood velocities under most conditions. Only when plants were either shallowly rooted or subjected to substrate scour (≥0.3 m) did the calculated velocities required for uprooting decrease to within the range of modeled flood velocities, indicating that drag forces alone are unlikely to uproot seedlings in the absence of extreme events or bar‐scale sediment transport. Seedlings on river bars are most resilient to uprooting when they are large, deeply rooted, and unlikely to experience substrate scour, which has implications for ecogeomorphic evolution and river management.