Stream Restoration - Revision history

Admin at 02:17, 28 April 2022

2022-04-28T02:17:27Z

Jhurley: /* Restoration Goals and Assessment of Efficacy: The Importance of Monitoring */

2019-10-17T15:16:30Z

‎Restoration Goals and Assessment of Efficacy: The Importance of Monitoring

Jhurley: /* Case Study: Assessment of In-Stream Restoration on DoD Land at Fort Benning Military Installation */

2019-10-17T15:11:29Z

‎Case Study: Assessment of In-Stream Restoration on DoD Land at Fort Benning Military Installation

Jhurley: /* Stream Restoration Techniques */

2019-10-17T14:51:39Z

‎Stream Restoration Techniques

Jhurley: /* Case Study: Assessment of In-Stream Restoration on DoD Land at Fort Benning Military Installation */

2019-10-14T20:52:36Z

‎Case Study: Assessment of In-Stream Restoration on DoD Land at Fort Benning Military Installation

Jhurley: /* Case Study: Assessment of In-Stream Restoration on DoD Land at Fort Benning Military Installation */

2019-10-14T20:39:24Z

‎Case Study: Assessment of In-Stream Restoration on DoD Land at Fort Benning Military Installation

Jhurley: /* Case Study: Assessment of In-Stream Restoration on DoD Land at Fort Benning Military Installation */

2019-10-14T20:35:49Z

‎Case Study: Assessment of In-Stream Restoration on DoD Land at Fort Benning Military Installation

Jhurley: /* Case Study: Assessment of In-Stream Restoration on DoD Land at Fort Benning Military Installation */

2019-10-14T20:33:14Z

‎Case Study: Assessment of In-Stream Restoration on DoD Land at Fort Benning Military Installation

Jhurley: /* Case Study: Assessment of In-Stream Restoration on DoD Land at Fort Benning Military Installation */

2019-10-14T20:26:35Z

‎Case Study: Assessment of In-Stream Restoration on DoD Land at Fort Benning Military Installation

Debra Tabron: /* Initial Effects of Restoration (2001-2006) */

2019-10-14T15:23:10Z

‎Initial Effects of Restoration (2001-2006)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:17, 28 April 2022
Line 5:		Line 5:


−	'''~~CONTRIBUTOR~~(S):''' [[Dr. Natalie Griffiths]], [[Dan Isenberg]], [[Sam Bickley]], [[Dr. Brian Helms]], and [[Dr. Jack Feminella]]	+	'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Natalie Griffiths]], [[Dan Isenberg]], [[Sam Bickley]], [[Dr. Brian Helms]], and [[Dr. Jack Feminella]]

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 ==Restoration Goals and Assessment of Efficacy: The Importance of Monitoring==
-Identification of a restoration project’s mission, goals, and objectives is necessary in order to evaluate the ecological success of that restoration<ref name = "NRC1992"/><ref name = "Palmer2005"/>. Central to this approach is the implementation of pre-restoration and post-restoration monitoring at appropriate spatial and temporal scales<ref name = "NRC1992"/><ref name = "Palmer2005"/>. Despite the large number of restorations that have taken place at a combined cost of >$1 billion per year in the United States<ref name= "Bernhardt2005"/>, effects of stream restorations are poorly documented because of extremely limited post-restoration monitoring<ref>Bilby, R.E. and Ward, J.W., 1991. Characteristics and function of large woody debris in streams draining old-growth, clear-cut, and second-growth forests in southwestern Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 48(12), pp.2499-2508. [https://doi.org/10.1139/f91-291 doi: 10.1139/f91-291]</ref><ref name= "Roni2008"/><ref name= "Bernhardt2011/>. It is estimated that only 10% of stream restorations are monitored or assessed after implementation<ref name= "Bernhardt2005"/>. An analysis of 345 stream restoration studies<ref name= "Roni2008"/> found that conclusions on the effectiveness of restoration could not be drawn because of limited data on physical, chemical, and biological criteria collected primarily over short post-restoration time periods. For example, studies suggest that in-stream habitat modification can improve salmonid fish habitat and abundance, although the lack of statistically rigorous design and high variability in responses with different in-stream restoration structures and different species make broad conclusions about efficacy difficult<ref name= "Roni2008"/>. It is not possible for many restoration studies to include monitoring in their projects due to funding limitations<ref name= "Sudduth2007"/>, but it is suggested those that can should adopt standard monitoring methods incorporating both stream structure and function responses, with measurements collected over long periods of time and across a wide range of environmental conditions (e.g., flood and drought years<ref name = "Palmer2005"/><ref name= "Bernhardt2005"/><ref name = "Wohl2005>Wohl, E., Angermeier, P.L., Bledsoe, B., Kondolf, G.M., MacDonnell, L., Merritt, D.M., Palmer, M.A., Poff, N.L. and Tarboton, D., 2005. River restoration. Water Resources Research, 41(10). [https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR003985 doi: 10.1029/2005WR003985]</ref><ref>Lake, P.S., Bond, N. and Reich, P., 2007. Linking ecological theory with stream restoration. Freshwater Biology, 52(4), pp.597-615. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01709.x doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01709.x]</ref>). Furthermore, measured environmental responses should be compared to multiple reference sites (minimally impacted systems of similar stream order and in the same ecoregion as the restored site) in order to fully assess restoration efficacy<ref name = "Palmer2005"/>.
+Identification of a restoration project’s mission, goals, and objectives is necessary in order to evaluate the ecological success of that restoration<ref name = "NRC1992"/><ref name = "Palmer2005"/>. Central to this approach is the implementation of pre-restoration and post-restoration monitoring at appropriate spatial and temporal scales<ref name = "NRC1992"/><ref name = "Palmer2005"/>. Despite the large number of restorations that have taken place at a combined cost of >$1 billion per year in the United States<ref name= "Bernhardt2005"/>, effects of stream restorations are poorly documented because of extremely limited post-restoration monitoring<ref>Bilby, R.E. and Ward, J.W., 1991. Characteristics and function of large woody debris in streams draining old-growth, clear-cut, and second-growth forests in southwestern Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 48(12), pp.2499-2508. [https://doi.org/10.1139/f91-291 doi: 10.1139/f91-291]</ref><ref name= "Roni2008"/><ref name= "Bernhardt2011/>. It is estimated that only 10% of stream restorations are monitored or assessed after implementation<ref name= "Bernhardt2005"/>. An analysis of 345 stream restoration studies<ref name= "Roni2008"/> found that conclusions on the effectiveness of restoration could not be drawn because of limited data on physical, chemical, and biological criteria collected primarily over short post-restoration time periods. For example, studies suggest that in-stream habitat modification can improve salmonid fish habitat and abundance, although the lack of statistically rigorous design and high variability in responses with different in-stream restoration structures and different species make broad conclusions about efficacy difficult<ref name= "Roni2008"/>. It is not possible for many restoration studies to include monitoring in their projects due to funding limitations<ref name= "Sudduth2007"/>, but it is suggested those that can should adopt standard monitoring methods incorporating both stream structure and function responses, with measurements collected over long periods of time and across a wide range of environmental conditions (e.g., flood and drought years)<ref name = "Palmer2005"/><ref name= "Bernhardt2005"/><ref name = "Wohl2005>Wohl, E., Angermeier, P.L., Bledsoe, B., Kondolf, G.M., MacDonnell, L., Merritt, D.M., Palmer, M.A., Poff, N.L. and Tarboton, D., 2005. River restoration. Water Resources Research, 41(10). [https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR003985 doi: 10.1029/2005WR003985]</ref><ref>Lake, P.S., Bond, N. and Reich, P., 2007. Linking ecological theory with stream restoration. Freshwater Biology, 52(4), pp.597-615. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01709.x doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01709.x]</ref>. Furthermore, measured environmental responses should be compared to multiple reference sites (minimally impacted systems of similar stream order and in the same ecoregion as the restored site) in order to fully assess restoration efficacy<ref name = "Palmer2005"/>.
 ==Stream Restoration Techniques==

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 [[File:Griffiths1w2 Fig1.png|thumb|left|Figure 1. CWD Additions Shortly After Installation in a Restored Stream (Photo taken in 2003)]]
 [[File:Griffiths1w2 Fig2.png|thumb|left|Figure 2. Burial of CWD Dams in a Restored Stream (Photo taken in March 2006)]]
-[[File:Griffiths1w2a Fig3.png|thumb|right|Figure 3. Collection of Macroinvertebrates in One of the Study Streams]]
+[[File:Griffiths1w2a Fig3.png|thumb|400 px |right|Figure 3. Collection of Macroinvertebrates in One of the Study Streams]]
 At Fort Benning Military Installation (FBMI), military training activities (i.e., dismounted infantry tactics, tracked vehicle maneuvers) on sandy upland soils have led to erosion and high sedimentation rates in streams<ref>Lockaby, B.G., Governo, R., Schilling, E., Cavalcanti, G. and Hartsfield, C., 2005. Effects of sedimentation on soil nutrient dynamics in riparian forests. Journal of Environmental Quality, 34(1), pp.390-396. [https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0390 doi:10.2134/jeq2005.0390]</ref><ref name= "Maloney2005"/><ref name= "Houser2005">Houser, J.N., Mulholland, P.J. and Maloney, K.O., 2005. Catchment disturbance and stream metabolism: patterns in ecosystem respiration and gross primary production along a gradient of upland soil and vegetation disturbance. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24(3), pp.538-552. [https://doi.org/10.1899/04-034.1 doi: 10.1899/04-034.1]</ref><ref>Houser, J.N., Mulholland, P.J. and Maloney, K.O., 2006. Upland disturbance affects headwater stream nutrients and suspended sediments during baseflow and stormflow. Journal of Environmental Quality, 35(1), pp.352-365. [https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0102 doi:10.2134/jeq2005.0102]</ref><ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>. Specifically, streams at FBMI with higher watershed disturbance (defined as the % of the watershed with bare ground on slopes >5%) were found to have impaired water quality and reduced ecosystem function<ref name= "Houser2005"/><ref>Mulholland, P.J., Houser, J.N. and Maloney, K.O., 2005. Stream diurnal dissolved oxygen profiles as indicators of in-stream metabolism and disturbance effects: Fort Benning as a case study. Ecological Indicators, 5(3), pp.243-252. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.03.004 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.03.004]</ref><ref name= "Roberts2007"/>. Therefore, an experimental restoration pilot project (i.e., CWD additions) was implemented in 2003 at FBMI to reduce the effects of military activities on stream ecosystem processes.
@@ Line 85: / Line 85: @@
 ===Initial Effects of Restoration (2001-2006)===
-In general, there were no short-term changes to water quality parameters (i.e., pH, specific conductivity, and total suspended sediment, dissolved organic carbon, ammonium, nitrate, and phosphate concentrations) in restored streams immediately after restoration<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>. However, ammonium uptake rate, a measure of the rate at which nutrients cycle in streams, increased in restored streams within 1 month after restoration<ref name= "Roberts2007"/>. Ecosystem respiration also increased in restored streams for the first two years after CWD additions (2004-2005). [[File:Griffiths1w2a Fig4.png|thumb|left|Figure 4. CWD Dams Immediately After Restoration. From Mulholland et al. 2007<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>.]][[File:Griffiths1w2a Fig5.png|thumb|right|Figure 5. CWD dams 14 years after restoration. These two images were not taken in the same location but rather are used to illustrate the condition of CWD additions immediately after and 14-years after restoration. Photo by Sam Bickley.]]Both the ammonium uptake and ecosystem respiration responses were likely due to increases in transient storage zone size, increased area for microbial colonization, and increased organic matter retention<ref name= "Roberts2007"/>. Gross primary production rates increased in 3 of the 4 restored streams from autumn 2004 through spring 2005, likely due to increased algal growth on CWD. However, by the end of the 3-year monitoring period, both GPP and ER rates in restored streams decreased to pre-restoration levels likely due to burial of the CWD<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>. Measurements of changes in streambed height over time revealed high among-stream variation and no overall effect of CWD additions on streambed stability<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>.
+In general, there were no short-term changes to water quality parameters (i.e., pH, specific conductivity, and total suspended sediment, dissolved organic carbon, ammonium, nitrate, and phosphate concentrations) in restored streams immediately after restoration<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>. However, ammonium uptake rate, a measure of the rate at which nutrients cycle in streams, increased in restored streams within 1 month after restoration<ref name= "Roberts2007"/>. Ecosystem respiration also increased in restored streams for the first two years after CWD additions (2004-2005). Both the ammonium uptake and ecosystem respiration responses were likely due to increases in transient storage zone size, increased area for microbial colonization, and increased organic matter retention<ref name= "Roberts2007"/>.[[File:Griffiths1w2a Fig4.png|thumb|400 px|left|Figure 4. CWD Dams Immediately After Restoration. From Mulholland et al. 2007<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>.]][[File:Griffiths1w2a Fig5.png|thumb|400 px|right|Figure 5. CWD dams 14 years after restoration. These two images were not taken in the same location but rather are used to illustrate the condition of CWD additions immediately after and 14-years after restoration. Photo by Sam Bickley.]] Gross primary production rates increased in 3 of the 4 restored streams from autumn 2004 through spring 2005, likely due to increased algal growth on CWD. However, by the end of the 3-year monitoring period, both GPP and ER rates in restored streams decreased to pre-restoration levels likely due to burial of the CWD<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>. Measurements of changes in streambed height over time revealed high among-stream variation and no overall effect of CWD additions on streambed stability<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>.
 Benthic macroinvertebrates are a diverse group of organisms, and several macroinvertebrate metrics are used to assess the health of stream ecosystems<ref>Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D. and Stribling, J.B., 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish (Vol. 339). Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA 841-B-99-02. [[media:1999-Barbour-Rapid_bioassessment_protocols_for_use_in_streams_and_wadeable_rivers.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref><ref>Maloney, K.O. and Feminella, J.W., 2006. Evaluation of single-and multi-metric benthic macroinvertebrate indicators of catchment disturbance over time at the Fort Benning Military Installation, Georgia, USA. Ecological Indicators, 6(3), pp.469-484. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.06.003 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.06.003]</ref> (Figure 3). Macroinvertebrate assemblage responses to CWD additions were variable, with the effects varying by season and invertebrate metric (e.g., diversity, EPT taxa). For example, EPT density, which is often used as an indicator of stream health, increased in restored streams post-restoration, but only in winter<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>. There were no clear effects of restoration on total macroinvertebrate density. For additional information on the initial effects of restoration, see Mulholland et al. (2007)<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>.

@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 There are many types of stream restoration techniques that have been applied, and the type of restoration(s) can depend on the size and extent of the stressor, predominant land use in the watershed, position of the stream within the watershed, and the goals and objectives of the stakeholders<ref name = "NRC1992"/><ref name= "Bernhardt2005"/><ref name = "Palmer2005"/>.  Stream restoration goals and techniques are too numerous to discuss succinctly here (see Table 1). As one example, the five most common restoration techniques to improve habitat for salmonid fishes include habitat reconnection, road improvement, riparian management, in-stream habitat improvement, and nutrient enrichment<ref name= "Roni2002"/>.
-One common restoration technique is the addition of coarse woody debris (CWD) to stream channels. CWD additions are a low-cost method to improve in-stream habitat<ref name= "Bernhardt2005"/>. In practice, nearby riparian trees are felled, cut, and staked in place within the stream channel. CWD additions can exert several positive effects on stream ecosystems including altering morphology and hydraulics of stream channels, creating habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, providing colonization surfaces for algae and other microorganisms, and increasing retention of sediment and organic matter, the latter of which is an important basal resource for many stream organisms<ref>Bilby, R.E. and Likens, G.E., 1980. Importance of organic debris dams in the structure and function of stream ecosystems. Ecology, 61(5), pp.1107-1113. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1936830 doi: 10.2307/1936830]</ref><ref>Smock, L.A., Metzler, G.M. and Gladden, J.E., 1989. Role of debris dams in the structure and functioning of low‐gradient headwater streams. Ecology, 70(3), pp.764-775. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1940226 doi: 10.2307/1940226]</ref><ref>Bilby, R.E. and Ward, J.W., 1991. Characteristics and function of large woody debris in streams draining old-growth, clear-cut, and second-growth forests in southwestern Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 48(12), pp.2499-2508. [https://doi.org/10.1139/f91-291 doi: 10.1139/f91-291]</ref><ref name= "Roberts2007">Roberts, B.J., Mulholland, P.J. and Houser, J.N., 2007. Effects of upland disturbance and instream restoration on hydrodynamics and ammonium uptake in headwater streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 26(1), pp.38-53. [https://doi.org/10.1899/0887-3593(2007)26[38:EOUDAI]2.0.CO;2 doi:10.1899/0887-3593(2007)26[38:EOUDAI]2.0.CO;2]</ref><ref>Roni, P., Beechie, T., Pess, G. and Hanson, K., 2014. Wood placement in river restoration: fact, fiction, and future direction. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 72(3), pp.466-478. [https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2014-0344 doi: 10.1139/cjfas-2014-0344]</ref>. Therefore, CWD additions have been used to improve in-stream habitat for aquatic organisms, primarily fish<ref name= "Roni2002"/>, and also, have been identified as a strategy to improve in-stream nitrogen retention<ref name= "Roberts2007"/><ref name= "Craig2008"/>. However, a lack of comprehensive monitoring data has limited the ability to thoroughly evaluate the efficacy of this technique<ref name = "Thompson2005"/>. For example, Roni et al. (2002)<ref name= "Roni2002"/> found that 41% of in-stream habitat improvement studies in the Pacific Northwest increased juvenile salmonid abundance; however, only about 20% of these studies quantified responses for >5 y, and responses varied across the restoration techniques examined<ref name= "Roni2002"/>.
+One common restoration technique is the addition of coarse woody debris (CWD) to stream channels. CWD additions are a low-cost method to improve in-stream habitat<ref name= "Bernhardt2005"/>. In practice, nearby riparian trees are felled, cut, and staked in place within the stream channel. CWD additions can exert several positive effects on stream ecosystems including altering morphology and hydraulics of stream channels, creating habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, providing colonization surfaces for algae and other microorganisms, and increasing retention of sediment and organic matter, the latter of which is an important basal resource for many stream organisms<ref>Bilby, R.E. and Likens, G.E., 1980. Importance of organic debris dams in the structure and function of stream ecosystems. Ecology, 61(5), pp.1107-1113. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1936830 doi: 10.2307/1936830]</ref><ref>Smock, L.A., Metzler, G.M. and Gladden, J.E., 1989. Role of debris dams in the structure and functioning of low‐gradient headwater streams. Ecology, 70(3), pp.764-775. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1940226 doi: 10.2307/1940226]</ref><ref>Bilby, R.E. and Ward, J.W., 1991. Characteristics and function of large woody debris in streams draining old-growth, clear-cut, and second-growth forests in southwestern Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 48(12), pp.2499-2508. [https://doi.org/10.1139/f91-291 doi: 10.1139/f91-291]</ref><ref name= "Roberts2007">Roberts, B.J., Mulholland, P.J. and Houser, J.N., 2007. Effects of upland disturbance and instream restoration on hydrodynamics and ammonium uptake in headwater streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 26(1), pp.38-53. [https://doi.org/10.1899/0887-3593(2007)26[38:EOUDAI]2.0.CO;2 doi:10.1899/0887-3593(2007)26[38:EOUDAI]2.0.CO;2]</ref><ref>Roni, P., Beechie, T., Pess, G. and Hanson, K., 2014. Wood placement in river restoration: fact, fiction, and future direction. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 72(3), pp.466-478. [https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2014-0344 doi: 10.1139/cjfas-2014-0344]</ref>. Therefore, CWD additions have been used to improve in-stream habitat for aquatic organisms, primarily fish<ref name= "Roni2002"/>, and also have been identified as a strategy to improve in-stream nitrogen retention<ref name= "Roberts2007"/><ref name= "Craig2008"/>. However, a lack of comprehensive monitoring data has limited the ability to thoroughly evaluate the efficacy of this technique<ref name = "Thompson2005"/>. For example, Roni et al. (2002)<ref name= "Roni2002"/> found that 41% of in-stream habitat improvement studies in the Pacific Northwest increased juvenile salmonid abundance; however, only about 20% of these studies quantified responses for >5 y, and responses varied across the restoration techniques examined<ref name= "Roni2002"/>.
 ==Case Study: Assessment of In-Stream Restoration on DoD Land at Fort Benning Military Installation==

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 [[File:Griffiths1w2 Fig1.png|thumb|left|Figure 1. CWD Additions Shortly After Installation in a Restored Stream (Photo taken in 2003)]]
 [[File:Griffiths1w2 Fig2.png|thumb|left|Figure 2. Burial of CWD Dams in a Restored Stream (Photo taken in March 2006)]]
-[[File:Griffiths1w2a Fig3.png|thumb|left|Figure 3. Collection of Macroinvertebrates in One of the Study Streams]]
+[[File:Griffiths1w2a Fig3.png|thumb|right|Figure 3. Collection of Macroinvertebrates in One of the Study Streams]]
 At Fort Benning Military Installation (FBMI), military training activities (i.e., dismounted infantry tactics, tracked vehicle maneuvers) on sandy upland soils have led to erosion and high sedimentation rates in streams<ref>Lockaby, B.G., Governo, R., Schilling, E., Cavalcanti, G. and Hartsfield, C., 2005. Effects of sedimentation on soil nutrient dynamics in riparian forests. Journal of Environmental Quality, 34(1), pp.390-396. [https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0390 doi:10.2134/jeq2005.0390]</ref><ref name= "Maloney2005"/><ref name= "Houser2005">Houser, J.N., Mulholland, P.J. and Maloney, K.O., 2005. Catchment disturbance and stream metabolism: patterns in ecosystem respiration and gross primary production along a gradient of upland soil and vegetation disturbance. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24(3), pp.538-552. [https://doi.org/10.1899/04-034.1 doi: 10.1899/04-034.1]</ref><ref>Houser, J.N., Mulholland, P.J. and Maloney, K.O., 2006. Upland disturbance affects headwater stream nutrients and suspended sediments during baseflow and stormflow. Journal of Environmental Quality, 35(1), pp.352-365. [https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0102 doi:10.2134/jeq2005.0102]</ref><ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>. Specifically, streams at FBMI with higher watershed disturbance (defined as the % of the watershed with bare ground on slopes >5%) were found to have impaired water quality and reduced ecosystem function<ref name= "Houser2005"/><ref>Mulholland, P.J., Houser, J.N. and Maloney, K.O., 2005. Stream diurnal dissolved oxygen profiles as indicators of in-stream metabolism and disturbance effects: Fort Benning as a case study. Ecological Indicators, 5(3), pp.243-252. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.03.004 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.03.004]</ref><ref name= "Roberts2007"/>. Therefore, an experimental restoration pilot project (i.e., CWD additions) was implemented in 2003 at FBMI to reduce the effects of military activities on stream ecosystem processes.
@@ Line 88: / Line 85: @@
 ===Initial Effects of Restoration (2001-2006)===
-In general, there were no short-term changes to water quality parameters (i.e., pH, specific conductivity, and total suspended sediment, dissolved organic carbon, ammonium, nitrate, and phosphate concentrations) in restored streams immediately after restoration<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>. However, ammonium uptake rate, a measure of the rate at which nutrients cycle in streams, increased in restored streams within 1 month after restoration<ref name= "Roberts2007"/>. Ecosystem respiration also increased in restored streams for the first two years after CWD additions (2004-2005). Both the ammonium uptake and ecosystem respiration responses were likely due to increases in transient storage zone size, increased area for microbial colonization, and increased organic matter retention<ref name= "Roberts2007"/>. Gross primary production rates increased in 3 of the 4 restored streams from autumn 2004 through spring 2005, likely due to increased algal growth on CWD. However, by the end of the 3-year monitoring period, both GPP and ER rates in restored streams decreased to pre-restoration levels likely due to burial of the CWD<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>. Measurements of changes in streambed height over time revealed high among-stream variation and no overall effect of CWD additions on streambed stability<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>.
+In general, there were no short-term changes to water quality parameters (i.e., pH, specific conductivity, and total suspended sediment, dissolved organic carbon, ammonium, nitrate, and phosphate concentrations) in restored streams immediately after restoration<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>. However, ammonium uptake rate, a measure of the rate at which nutrients cycle in streams, increased in restored streams within 1 month after restoration<ref name= "Roberts2007"/>. Ecosystem respiration also increased in restored streams for the first two years after CWD additions (2004-2005). [[File:Griffiths1w2a Fig4.png|thumb|left|Figure 4. CWD Dams Immediately After Restoration. From Mulholland et al. 2007<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>.]][[File:Griffiths1w2a Fig5.png|thumb|right|Figure 5. CWD dams 14 years after restoration. These two images were not taken in the same location but rather are used to illustrate the condition of CWD additions immediately after and 14-years after restoration. Photo by Sam Bickley.]]Both the ammonium uptake and ecosystem respiration responses were likely due to increases in transient storage zone size, increased area for microbial colonization, and increased organic matter retention<ref name= "Roberts2007"/>. Gross primary production rates increased in 3 of the 4 restored streams from autumn 2004 through spring 2005, likely due to increased algal growth on CWD. However, by the end of the 3-year monitoring period, both GPP and ER rates in restored streams decreased to pre-restoration levels likely due to burial of the CWD<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>. Measurements of changes in streambed height over time revealed high among-stream variation and no overall effect of CWD additions on streambed stability<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>.
 Benthic macroinvertebrates are a diverse group of organisms, and several macroinvertebrate metrics are used to assess the health of stream ecosystems<ref>Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D. and Stribling, J.B., 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish (Vol. 339). Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA 841-B-99-02. [[media:1999-Barbour-Rapid_bioassessment_protocols_for_use_in_streams_and_wadeable_rivers.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref><ref>Maloney, K.O. and Feminella, J.W., 2006. Evaluation of single-and multi-metric benthic macroinvertebrate indicators of catchment disturbance over time at the Fort Benning Military Installation, Georgia, USA. Ecological Indicators, 6(3), pp.469-484. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.06.003 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.06.003]</ref> (Figure 3). Macroinvertebrate assemblage responses to CWD additions were variable, with the effects varying by season and invertebrate metric (e.g., diversity, EPT taxa). For example, EPT density, which is often used as an indicator of stream health, increased in restored streams post-restoration, but only in winter<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>. There were no clear effects of restoration on total macroinvertebrate density. For additional information on the initial effects of restoration, see Mulholland et al. (2007)<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>.

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 [[File:Griffiths1w2 Fig1.png|thumb|left|Figure 1. CWD Additions Shortly After Installation in a Restored Stream (Photo taken in 2003)]]
 [[File:Griffiths1w2 Fig2.png|thumb|left|Figure 2. Burial of CWD Dams in a Restored Stream (Photo taken in March 2006)]]
 At Fort Benning Military Installation (FBMI), military training activities (i.e., dismounted infantry tactics, tracked vehicle maneuvers) on sandy upland soils have led to erosion and high sedimentation rates in streams<ref>Lockaby, B.G., Governo, R., Schilling, E., Cavalcanti, G. and Hartsfield, C., 2005. Effects of sedimentation on soil nutrient dynamics in riparian forests. Journal of Environmental Quality, 34(1), pp.390-396. [https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0390 doi:10.2134/jeq2005.0390]</ref><ref name= "Maloney2005"/><ref name= "Houser2005">Houser, J.N., Mulholland, P.J. and Maloney, K.O., 2005. Catchment disturbance and stream metabolism: patterns in ecosystem respiration and gross primary production along a gradient of upland soil and vegetation disturbance. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24(3), pp.538-552. [https://doi.org/10.1899/04-034.1 doi: 10.1899/04-034.1]</ref><ref>Houser, J.N., Mulholland, P.J. and Maloney, K.O., 2006. Upland disturbance affects headwater stream nutrients and suspended sediments during baseflow and stormflow. Journal of Environmental Quality, 35(1), pp.352-365. [https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0102 doi:10.2134/jeq2005.0102]</ref><ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>. Specifically, streams at FBMI with higher watershed disturbance (defined as the % of the watershed with bare ground on slopes >5%) were found to have impaired water quality and reduced ecosystem function<ref name= "Houser2005"/><ref>Mulholland, P.J., Houser, J.N. and Maloney, K.O., 2005. Stream diurnal dissolved oxygen profiles as indicators of in-stream metabolism and disturbance effects: Fort Benning as a case study. Ecological Indicators, 5(3), pp.243-252. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.03.004 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.03.004]</ref><ref name= "Roberts2007"/>. Therefore, an experimental restoration pilot project (i.e., CWD additions) was implemented in 2003 at FBMI to reduce the effects of military activities on stream ecosystem processes.
@@ Line 75: / Line 74: @@
 ===CWD Additions at FBMI===
 CWD additions were installed in four headwater streams within Ft. Benning’s boundaries as part of a previously funded SERDP project<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>. Riparian trees (blackgum [''Nyssa sylvatica''] or white oak [''Quercus alba'']) were used for the CWD additions. Trees were felled on-site in August 2003, cut to the desired length, and then left on land to dry for 2-3 months prior to installation in the stream. In October 2003, cut trees (~10-20 cm in diameter, 1-2 m in length) were added in a “Z” configuration along a 100-150 m section within each stream (Figure 1). Three cut tree sections were used to make the “Z” design, with 10 to 15 of these “Z”-shaped woody debris dams installed along each stream length (~10 m apart), anchored in place using rebar stakes driven into the stream bed. The “Z” configuration was used to increase retention of organic matter and slow water flow to promote a stable stream bed. CWD additions approximately doubled the amount of in-stream CWD in restored streams<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>.
@@ Line 81: / Line 85: @@
 ===Assessment of Restoration Efficacy===
 The first SERDP project used a before-after control-intervention (BACI) approach<ref>Stewart-Oaten, A., Murdoch, W.W. and Parker, K.R., 1986. Environmental impact assessment:" Pseudoreplication" in time?. Ecology, 67(4), pp.929-940. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1939815 doi: 10.2307/1939815]</ref> to assess the effects of CWD addition on stream ecosystem structure and function. From July 2001 through October 2003, pre-restoration measurements were made at 8 stream sites on a monthly and seasonal basis. In October 2003, CWD dams were installed at 4 of the 8 stream sites, leaving 4 stream sites to serve as unrestored controls. Study sites were typical of low-gradient, sandy-bottomed streams of the southeastern Coastal Plain, and were all located within a ~10 km radius. Preliminary assessment of channel stability at several sites indicated a roughly similar degree of absolute bed movement (~2-6 mm) over the 2003 winter stormflow period<ref name= "Maloney2005"/>. From October 2003 through November 2006, post-restoration measurements were made at all 8 stream sites on a monthly and seasonal basis, enabling pre-restoration and post-restoration periods to be compared using the BACI method. Pre-restoration and post-restoration measurements included stream hydrodynamic properties (flashiness), water quality, nutrient (ammonium) uptake rates, whole-stream metabolism rates (i.e., gross primary production and ecosystem respiration), stream habitat condition (i.e., CWD coverage, benthic particulate organic matter [BPOM] standing stocks, streambed height dynamics), periphyton characteristics (i.e., chlorophyll a, ash-free dry mass, diatom taxa), and benthic macroinvertebrate community structure indices (i.e., Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera [EPT] taxa, functional feeding groups, total density, total biomass, Florida Biotic Index).
 Beginning in May 2017, 14 years after the CWD additions, monthly and seasonal measurements resumed at 7 of the 8 stream sites (one unrestored site was not included in the reassessment because of high watershed disturbance after the initial project) to assess the long-term efficacy of CWD additions as a stream restoration technique. A subset of ecosystem structure and function measurements were collected from May 2017 through January 2019 and included measures of water quality, ammonium uptake rate, whole-stream metabolism, BPOM standing stocks, and macroinvertebrate richness and community structure.
 ===Initial Effects of Restoration (2001-2006)===
 In general, there were no short-term changes to water quality parameters (i.e., pH, specific conductivity, and total suspended sediment, dissolved organic carbon, ammonium, nitrate, and phosphate concentrations) in restored streams immediately after restoration<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>. However, ammonium uptake rate, a measure of the rate at which nutrients cycle in streams, increased in restored streams within 1 month after restoration<ref name= "Roberts2007"/>. Ecosystem respiration also increased in restored streams for the first two years after CWD additions (2004-2005). Both the ammonium uptake and ecosystem respiration responses were likely due to increases in transient storage zone size, increased area for microbial colonization, and increased organic matter retention<ref name= "Roberts2007"/>. Gross primary production rates increased in 3 of the 4 restored streams from autumn 2004 through spring 2005, likely due to increased algal growth on CWD. However, by the end of the 3-year monitoring period, both GPP and ER rates in restored streams decreased to pre-restoration levels likely due to burial of the CWD<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>. Measurements of changes in streambed height over time revealed high among-stream variation and no overall effect of CWD additions on streambed stability<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>.

@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 In general, there were no short-term changes to water quality parameters (i.e., pH, specific conductivity, and total suspended sediment, dissolved organic carbon, ammonium, nitrate, and phosphate concentrations) in restored streams immediately after restoration<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>. However, ammonium uptake rate, a measure of the rate at which nutrients cycle in streams, increased in restored streams within 1 month after restoration<ref name= "Roberts2007"/>. Ecosystem respiration also increased in restored streams for the first two years after CWD additions (2004-2005). Both the ammonium uptake and ecosystem respiration responses were likely due to increases in transient storage zone size, increased area for microbial colonization, and increased organic matter retention<ref name= "Roberts2007"/>. Gross primary production rates increased in 3 of the 4 restored streams from autumn 2004 through spring 2005, likely due to increased algal growth on CWD. However, by the end of the 3-year monitoring period, both GPP and ER rates in restored streams decreased to pre-restoration levels likely due to burial of the CWD<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>. Measurements of changes in streambed height over time revealed high among-stream variation and no overall effect of CWD additions on streambed stability<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>.
-Benthic macroinvertebrates are a diverse group of organisms, and several macroinvertebrate metrics are used to assess the health of stream ecosystems (Figure 3<ref>Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D. and Stribling, J.B., 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish (Vol. 339). Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA 841-B-99-02. [[media:1999-Barbour-Rapid_bioassessment_protocols_for_use_in_streams_and_wadeable_rivers.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref><ref>Maloney, K.O. and Feminella, J.W., 2006. Evaluation of single-and multi-metric benthic macroinvertebrate indicators of catchment disturbance over time at the Fort Benning Military Installation, Georgia, USA. Ecological Indicators, 6(3), pp.469-484. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.06.003 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.06.003]</ref>. Macroinvertebrate assemblage responses to CWD additions were variable, with the effects varying by season and invertebrate metric (e.g., diversity, EPT taxa). For example, EPT density, which is often used as an indicator of stream health, increased in restored streams post-restoration, but only in winter<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>. There were no clear effects of restoration on total macroinvertebrate density. For additional information on the initial effects of restoration, see Mulholland et al. (2007)<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>.
+Benthic macroinvertebrates are a diverse group of organisms, and several macroinvertebrate metrics are used to assess the health of stream ecosystems<ref>Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D. and Stribling, J.B., 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish (Vol. 339). Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA 841-B-99-02. [[media:1999-Barbour-Rapid_bioassessment_protocols_for_use_in_streams_and_wadeable_rivers.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref><ref>Maloney, K.O. and Feminella, J.W., 2006. Evaluation of single-and multi-metric benthic macroinvertebrate indicators of catchment disturbance over time at the Fort Benning Military Installation, Georgia, USA. Ecological Indicators, 6(3), pp.469-484. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.06.003 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.06.003]</ref> (Figure 3). Macroinvertebrate assemblage responses to CWD additions were variable, with the effects varying by season and invertebrate metric (e.g., diversity, EPT taxa). For example, EPT density, which is often used as an indicator of stream health, increased in restored streams post-restoration, but only in winter<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>. There were no clear effects of restoration on total macroinvertebrate density. For additional information on the initial effects of restoration, see Mulholland et al. (2007)<ref name= "Mulholland2007"/>.
 ===Long-Term Effects of Restoration (2017-2019)===