Despite the widespread use of stream restoration structures to improve fish habitat, few quantitative studies have evaluated their effectiveness. This study uses a meta-analysis approach to test the effectiveness of five types of in-stream restoration structures (weirs, deflectors, cover structures, boulder placement, and large woody debris) on both salmonid abundance and physical habitat characteristics. Compilation of data from 211 stream restoration projects showed a significant increase in pool area, average depth, large woody debris, and percent cover, as well as a decrease in riffle area, following the installation of in-stream structures. There was also a significant increase in salmonid density (mean effect size of 0.51, or 167%) and biomass (mean effect size of 0.48, or 162%) following the installation of structures. Large differences were observed between species, with rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) showing the largest increases in density and biomass. This compilation highlights the potential of in-stream structures to create better habitat for and increase the abundance of salmonids, but the scarcity of long-term monitoring of the effectiveness of in-stream structures is problematic.

Compensatory mitigation of impacted streams and wetlands has increased over the past two decades, with the associated industry spending over US$2.9 billion in aquatic restoration annually. Despite these expenditures, evaluations by the National Research Council and U.S. Government Accountability Office have provided evidence that compensatory mitigation practices are failing to protect aquatic resource functions and services, and vague federal policy and inadequate evaluation of compensatory mitigation projects are to blame. To address these weaknesses, an update to federal regulations on compensatory mitigation was released in 2008. Additionally, the 2012 Reissuance of Nationwide Permits, some of which affects compensatory stream mitigation, was recently published. Current policy, as reflected in these documents, still uses nonspecific language to direct compensatory stream mitigation leaving most implementation decisions to the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers district. The majority of federal mitigation policy has focused on wetland compensation, with other aquatic resources receiving less attention (e.g., streams). In this article, weaknesses of current policy are discussed, as are suggested policy changes to minimize the loss of stream ecosystem functions and services. Compensatory mitigation policy should clearly define key terms, incorporate adaptive management procedures, and provide guidelines for determining mitigation costs and compensation ratio requirements.

No abstract