The Stream Restoration Puzzle

Stroud Water Research Center supports the whole-watershed approach to restoring streams and rivers. By looking at the whole landscape and involving all landowners in a watershed, we can better protect and restore these dynamic systems.

Recommended Research Publications

One large and one small brook trout in a stream.

Ensign, S.H., D.B. Arscott, M. Daniels, C. Dow, J.K. Jackson, D. Oviedo-Vargas, and M. Peipoch. 2024. To achieve the Clean Water Act’s goals, prioritize upstream ecology. Water Resources IMPACT 26(3): 19–21. (Open access)
Sinclair, Mademann, Haubrock, Haase. 2023. Primarily neutral effects of river restoration on macroinvertebrates, macrophytes, and fishes after a decade of monitoring. Restoration Ecology 31(3): e13840.
Stowe, Petersen, Rao, Walther, Freeman, Wenger. 2023. Stream restoration produces transitory, not permanent, changes to fish assemblages at compensatory mitigation sites. Restoration Ecology 31(5): e13903. (Open access)
Hildebrand, R.H., J. Acord, T.J. Nuttle and R. Ewing. 2020. Quantifying the ecological uplift and effectiveness of differing stream restoration approaches in Maryland. Final Report – Chesapeake Bay Trust for Grant #13141. (Open access)
Smith, Neideigh, Rittle, Wallace. 2020. Assessing macroinvertebrate community response to restoration of Big Spring Run: Expanded analysis of before‐after‐control‐impact sampling designs. River Research and Applications 36: 79–90.
Bernhardt, E.S., and M.A. Palmer. 2011. River restoration: the fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation. Ecological Society of America 21: 1926–1931.
*Horwitz, R.J., T.E. Johnson, P.F. Overbeck, T.K. O’Donnell, W.C. Hession, and B.W. Sweeney. 2008. Effects of riparian vegetation and watershed urbanization on fishes in streams of the mid-Atlantic Piedmont (USA). Journal of the American Water Resources Association 44(3): 1–18.
*Sweeney, B.W., T.L. Bott, J.K. Jackson, L.A. Kaplan, J.D. Newbold, L.J. Standley, W.C. Hession, and R.J. Horwitz. 2004. Riparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and loss of stream ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101(30): 14132–14137.
*Sweeney, B.W. 1993. Effects of streamside vegetation on macroinvertebrate communities of White Clay Creek in eastern North America. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 144: 291–340.
*Sweeney, B.W. 1992. Streamside forests and the physical, chemical, and trophic characteristics of Piedmont streams in Eastern North America. Water Science and Technology 26: 2653–2673.

*To request a copy of this publication, click the link in the citation and scroll down to open the request form.

Why Investment Projects Often Fail to Meet Water Quality Standards

A young oak tree pushing through the bird net at the top of a tree shelter.

“Among the scientifically studied restoration approaches that do not significantly improve stream health is one that’s particularly expensive, lucrative, and popular — stream channel and floodplain reconstruction. These reengineering projects target historical, manmade changes to a stream and its floodplain without considering the impact of increases in temperature, polluted runoff from urban and agricultural areas, and other environmental stressors.”
The Stream Restoration Puzzle