Atttendees at the February, 2005 NCED Stream Restoration Partners Group Workshop (see Summer 2005 edition of the Stream Restoration Networker for more info) identified the following urgent research needs:

1. Vegetation and channels
   1. The natural variability in channel movement.
   2. The morphometrics for erodability, with and without vegetation.
   3. Incorporating the “establish time” of new vegetation in the riparian zone into project plans.
   4. Bioengineering options, such as the use of vegetation to protect stream banks.
   5. The role of large woody debris on bank and channel erosion.

It was noted that as some work has been done on all these issues – and a lot of work has been done on some of them - it may be more fruitful to pull together these researchers to discuss next steps, rather than just continuing research.

2. Stream restoration monitoring and evaluation
   1. Application of the adaptive management approach through continuous evaluation of project and documenting lessons learned.
   2. Develop a suite of metrics for use before, during and after a project. Metrics would have to account for the project’s scale and include cost-benefit analyses.
   3. Expand current Limiting Factor Analyses for doing ecological evaluations.

It was noted that formal evaluations by scientists tend to take three years on average – many restoration projects (95%?) are much shorter in length. Although all projects would benefit from an academic review of approach and methods uses, it may only be practical to focus on the larger ones.

3. Stream restoration project information
   1. A data base of stream restoration projects that includes what methods were tried and how they worked is badly needed.

This is  perhaps more badly needed than additional basic research!

2. The existence of the NRRSS data base was noted and NCED will coordinate any data base activity of its own with them.
3. This data base should include such primary information as plans, physical data, and other bases for the project design.
4. The data base developer should look at whether to focus on in-depth reporting of representative projects rather than expending resources on including every single project; although the data base needs to be large enough so that individual projects don’t skew the overall statistics.
5. Consider holding regular meetings similar to the Adaptive Management Forums in California, which conduct forensic analyses of stream restoration projects.
3. Incorporating Ecology
   1. Need evaluation criteria to assess the impact of physical stream restoration on the surrounding ecosystems. In particular, improve “ecosystem trajectories” to predict how restoration will improve the ecosystem.
   2. Need to incorporate water quality into restoration design as part of the ecological component.