Monitoring, Restoration, and Source Water Protection: Canadian Community-Based Environmental Organizations’ Efforts towards Improving Aquatic Ecosystem Health
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Community-Based Water Monitoring in Canada
1.2. Water Monitoring and Restoration
1.3. Case Context
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Recruitment, Data Collection, and Data Analysis
2.2. Data Collection and Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Project Approval Process
“What we have to do is submit notification just in case they [the regulatory agency] have any concerns a couple weeks in advance of doing the work. So we submit the geographic location, the description of the work that we’re going to do, [and] the dates that we intend to do the work…”(P-08)
“So we have a permit… you can’t get into the streams until the first of June and that takes us all the way until the first of December that we can do in-stream work.”(P-07)
“After that we would have to get, basically, an amendment to our blanket permit if we were to extend it to going in after December. Additionally, if we have a major obstruction, like a beaver dam, we would have to get additional permission from the province to go and remove that depending on the scale.”(P-06)
3.2. Project Planning, Conducting, and Follow-Up
“Well the planning of this was to develop a training session with the Guardians so they have some awareness, knowledge, of digger logs; what they are used for, how they’re implemented, how to put them in. So this is an exercise to get them [the guardians] awareness of that, to actually apply it in real situations.”(P-05)
“A lot of the funding we get for this type of project specifies that it’s for action; it’s for environmental action, environmental improvement, but there is nothing provided to measure that improvement. So we very seldom have that opportunity, the funds, the capacity, to do before and after [monitoring] to actually evaluate the impacts of our projects.”(P-08)
“They [the regulatory agencies] probably never come out to the site, I think they relied on the pictures that I sent them. But one of them, one individual from those two groups, may have come out to the site to look at it, but I think for the most part, given the site and given our experience, they trust us to do it.”(P-02)
“The science, what we’re observing and marking in our notes, you can physically see the changes that are happening in the streams, and we think that site photos are an integral part of any project so that you can track your success or failure, essentially.”(P-06)
3.3. Habitat Connectivity and Fragmentation
“In this case, we knew that there was pretty much a complete blockage to fish passage. And of course that depends on flows as well, but there was a blockage of fish passage. And that was the only issue, and that was so apparent that there wasn’t really much need to do flow data or anything like that, so there really wasn’t much in the way of monitoring in advance to the project.”(P-02)
“Also, there’s unexpected side benefits. There have been several surveys carried out at the fishway on gaspereau, on eels. People actually see that [the fishway] as a place to do scientific work…. We have now become a focal point in some cases for some types of research. And because we go there every day, counting the salmon and other species, it’s also good for us to do water quality monitoring.”(P-01)
Case 1–Dam Removal
3.4. Sediment Control and Riparian Zone Restoration
“We were monitoring the streams after rain events. We did three samplings on every site; it had to be before a major rain event, during a major rain event, and after a major rain event.”(P-06)
“What we were looking at is we were actually tracking the movement of the silt to find out…. So what we were trying to do is actually track it back to see where the source was, to find it.”(P-07)
3.4.1. Case 2–Sediment Control
“In my opinion we didn’t do any proper measurements but [there is a] huge reduction in the amount of silt leaving the site; huge amount, major reduction. And we may have saved the river from re-channelizing itself for about a kilometer or more, which would have meant huge amounts of environmental damage.”(P-01)
3.4.2. Case 3–Riparian Zone Restoration
“…it went from a big exposed sand bank to a well vegetated bank and now the willow sills that we planted are almost unrecognizable, they’re just massive clumps of willow shrub and they’re really helping the slope stabilize and other vegetation to establish itself on the soils.”(P-08)
“Observationally, the willow staking definitely retained a lot of soil on the location and allowed establishment of a lot more vegetation at the site; so I mean it’s observable, I guess; it’s not anything measurable.”(P-08)
“It would be nice to have funding in future years, have like three-year continuous funding where we could do more evaluation of the work we are doing. That would help develop projects in the future, but most of it is observational, unfortunately, with this.”(P-08)
3.5. In-Stream Enhancement
“Going from 1988 to 2014, we’re finding that slowly the garbage content is changing. We’re getting less and less car parts, less and less fences, less and less what I call original garbage; people who built a house and threw it [the garbage] in the river. Times are changing.”(P-01)
3.6. Out of Stream Enhancement
“The whole point of the program was not to have kids collect data for data sake. The kids actually go out, they analyze the stream together and as a group they come up with what they think is the health ratio of the stream and then they come up with an idea of what is affecting it and how to enhance it.”(P-07)
4. Discussion
4.1. Project Goals and Objectives
4.2. Collection of Baseline Data
4.3. Project Reporting
4.4. Prioritizing Restoration Activities
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Richter, B.D.; Braun, D.P.; Mendelson, M.A.; Master, L.L. Threats to imperiled freshwater fauna. Conserv. Biol. 1997, 11, 1081–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malmqvist, B.; Rundle, S. Threats to the running water ecosystems of the world. Environ. Conserv. 2002, 29, 134–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dudgeon, D.; Arthington, A.H.; Gessner, M.O.; Kawabata, Z.I.; Knowler, D.J.; Lévêque, C.; Naiman, R.J.; Prieur-Richard, A.H.; Soto, D.; Stiassny, M.L.; et al. Freshwater biodiversity: Importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol. Rev. 2006, 81, 163–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chapman, J.M.; Proulx, C.L.; Veilleux, M.A.; Levert, C.; Bliss, S.; André, M.E.; Lapointe, N.W.; Cooke, S.J. Clear as mud: A meta-analysis on the effects of sedimentation on freshwater fish and the effectiveness of sediment-control measures. Water Res. 2014, 56, 190–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Karr, J.R.; Toth, L.A.; Dudley, D.R. Fish communities of Midwestern rivers: A history of degradation. Bioscience 1985, 35, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harper, D.; Ebrahimnezhad, M.; Climent, I.C.F. Artificial riffles in river rehabilitation: Setting the goals and measuring the successes. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 1998, 8, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bond, N.; Lake, P. Local habitat restoration in streams: Constraints on the effectiveness of restoration for stream biota. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 2003, 4, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Litvan, M.E.; Stewart, T.W.; Pierce, C.L.; Larson, C.J. Effects of grade control structures on the macroinvertebrate assemblage of an agriculturally impacted stream. River Res. Appl. 2008, 24, 218–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, S.; Budy, P.; Schmidt, J. Quantifying macroinvertebrate responses to in-stream habitat restoration: Applications of meta-analysis to river restoration. Restor. Ecol. 2010, 18, 8–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dudgeon, D. Threats to freshwater biodiversity in a changing world. In Global Environmental Change; Freedman, B., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands; Heidelberg, Germany; New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 243–253. [Google Scholar]
- Pander, J.; Geist, J. Ecological indicators for stream restoration success. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 30, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bliss, J.; Aplet, G.; Hartzell, C.; Harwood, P.; Jahnige, P.; Kittredge, D.; Lewandowski, S.; Soscia, M.L. Community-based ecosystem monitoring. J. Sustain. For. 2001, 12, 143–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaughan, H.; Whitelaw, G.; Craig, B.; Stewart, C. Linking ecological science to decision-making: Delivering environmental monitoring information as societal feedback. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2003, 88, 399–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pollock, R.; Whitelaw, G. Community-based monitoring in support of local sustainability. Local Environ. 2005, 10, 211–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharpe, A.; Conrad, C. Community based ecological monitoring in Nova Scotia: Challenges and opportunities. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2006, 113, 395–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kebo, S.; Bunch, M. Canadian ENGOs in governance of water resources: Information needs and monitoring practices. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2013, 185, 9451–9460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Conrad, C.; Daoust, T. Community-based monitoring frameworks: Increasing the effectiveness of environmental stewardship. Environ. Manag. 2008, 41, 358–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Whitelaw, G.; Vaughan, H.; Craig, B.; Atkinson, D. Establishing the Canadian community monitoring network. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2003, 88, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tulloch, A.; Possingham, H.; Joseph, L.; Szabo, J.; Martin, T. Realising the full potential of citizen science monitoring programs. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 165, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, M.F.; Hannah, C.; Acton, L.; Popovici, R.; Karanth, K.K.; Weinthal, E. Network environmentalism: Citizen scientists as agents for environmental advocacy. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 29, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carr, A.J.L. Why do we all need community science? Soc. Natl. Resour. 2004, 17, 841–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darwall, W.R.T.; Dulvy, N.K. An evaluation of the suitability of non-specialist volunteer researchers for coral reef fish surveys. Mafia Island, Tanzania—A case study. Biol. Conserv. 1996, 78, 223–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monk, J.; Ierodiaconou, D.; Bellgrove, A.; Laurenson, L. Using community-based monitoring with GIS to create habitat maps for a marine protected area in Australia. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 2008, 88, 865–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fore, L.; Paulsen, K.; O’Laughlin, K. Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams. Freshw. Biol. 2001, 46, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engel, S.R.; Voshell, J.J.R. Research-volunteer biological monitoring: Can it accurately assess the ecological condition of streams? Am. Entomol. 2002, 48, 164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicholson, E.; Ryan, J.; Hodgkin, D. Community data-where does the value lie? Assessing confidence limits of community collected water quality data. Water Sci. Technol. 2002, 45, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Foster-Smith, J.; Evans, S.M. The value of marine ecological data collected by volunteers. Biol. Conserv. 2003, 113, 199–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conrad, C.; Hilchey, C. A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: Issues and opportunities. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2011, 176, 273–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Khalil, B.; Ouarda, T.B.M.J.; St-Hilaire, A.; Chebana, F. A statistical approach for the rationalization of water quality indicators in surface water quality monitoring networks. J. Hydrol. 2010, 386, 173–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osborne, L.; Bayley, P.; Higler, L.; Statzner, B.; Triska, F.; Iversen, T. Restoration of lowland streams: An introduction. Freshw. Biol. 1993, 29, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobbs, R.; Norton, D. Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. Restor. Ecol. 1996, 4, 93–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ehrenfeld, J. Defining the limits of restoration: The need for realistic goals. Restor. Ecol. 2000, 8, 2–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lake, P. On the maturing of restoration: Linking ecological research and restoration. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 2001, 2, 110–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmer, M.A.; Bernhardt, E.S.; Allan, J.D.; Lake, P.S.; Alexander, G.; Brooks, S.; Carr, J.; Clayton, S.; Dahm, C.N.; Shah, J.F.; et al. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. J. Appl. Ecol. 2005, 42, 208–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feld, C.K.; Birk, S.; Bradley, D.C.; Hering, D.; Kail, J.; Marzin, A.; Melcher, A.; Nemitz, D.; Pedersen, M.L.; Pletterbauer, F.; et al. From natural to degraded rivers and back again: A test of restoration ecology theory and practice. Adv. Ecol. Res. 2011, 44, 119–209. [Google Scholar]
- Alexander, G.G.; Allan, J.D. Ecological success in stream restoration: Case studies from the Midwestern United States. Environ. Manag. 2007, 40, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chapman, M.G.; Underwood, A.J. The need for a practical scientific protocol to measure successful restoration. Wetlands 2000, 19, 28–48. [Google Scholar]
- Keenleyside, K.A.; Dudley, N.; Cairns, S.; Hall, C.M.; Stolton, S. Ecological Restoration for Protected Areas: Principles, Guidelines and Best Practices; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Parks Canada. Canadian Parks and Protected Areas: Helping Canada Weather Climate Change. Available online: http://www.parks-parcs.ca/english/CPC%20Climate%20Change%20Report%20FINAL%20engLR.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2016).
- Kondolf, G. Five elements for effective evaluation of stream restoration. Restor. Ecol. 1995, 3, 133–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graf, W.L. Damage control: Restoring the physical integrity of America’s rivers. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2001, 91, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pess, G.R.; Beechie, T.J.; Williams, J.E.; Whitall, D.R.; Lange, J.L.; Klochak, J.R. Watershed assessment techniques and the success of aquatic restoration activities. In Strategies for Restoring River Ecosystems: Sources of Variability and Uncertainty in Natural and Managed Systems; Wissmar, R., Bisson, P., Eds.; American Fisheries Society: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2003; pp. 185–201. [Google Scholar]
- Wohl, E.; Angermeier, P.; Bledsoe, B.; Kondolf, G.; MacDonnell, L.; Merritt, D.; Palmer, M.A.; Poff, N.L.; Tarboton, D. River restoration. Water Resour. Res. 2005, 41, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hilderbrand, R.H.; Watts, A.C.; Randle, A.M. The myths of restoration ecology. Ecol. Soc. 2005, 10, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roni, P.; Beechie, T.; Bilby, R.; Leonetti, F.; Pollock, M.; Pess, G. A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest watersheds. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2002, 22, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shields, F.D.; Cooper, C.M.; Knight, S.S.; Moore, M.T. Stream corridor restoration research: A long and winding road. Ecol. Eng. 2003, 20, 441–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lake, P.; Bond, N.; Reich, P. Linking ecological theory with stream restoration. Freshw. Biol. 2007, 52, 597–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jungwirth, M.; Muhar, S.; Schmutz, S. The effects of recreated instream and ecotone structures on the fish fauna of an epipotamal river. Hydrobiologia 1995, 303, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kondolf, G.; Micheli, M. Evaluating stream restoration projects. Environ. Manag. 1995, 19, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schiemer, F.; Baumgartner, C.; Tockner, K. Restoration of floodplain rivers: The ‘Danube restoration project’. Regul. Rivers Res. Manag. 1999, 15, 231–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nienhuis, P.; Bakker, J.; Grootjans, A.; Gulati, R.; De Jonge, V. The state of the art of aquatic and semi-aquatic ecological restoration projects in the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 2002, 478, 219–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geist, J. Seven steps towards improving freshwater conservation. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2015, 25, 447–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kauffman, J.B.; Beschta, R.L.; Otting, N.; Lytjen, D. An ecological perspective of riparian and stream restoration in the western United States. Fisheries 1997, 22, 12–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jähnig, S.; Brabec, K.; Buffagni, A.; Erba, S.; Lorenz, A.; Ofenböck, T.; Verdonschot, F.M.; Hering, D. A comparative analysis of restoration measures and their effects on hydromorphology and benthic invertebrates in 26 central and southern European rivers. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010, 47, 671–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruwanza, S.; Gaertner, M.; Esler, K.J.; Richardson, D.M. The effectiveness of active and passive restoration on recovery of indigenous vegetation in riparian zones in Western Cape, South Africa: A preliminary assessment. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2013, 88, 132–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beechie, T.; Pess, G.; Roni, P.; Giannico, G. Setting river restoration priorities: A review of approaches and a general protocol for identifying and prioritizing actions. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2008, 28, 891–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geist, J.; Hawkins, S. Habitat recovery and restoration in aquatic ecosystems: Current progress and future challenges. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2016, 26, 942–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bohn, B.A.; Kershner, J.L. Establishing aquatic restoration priorities using a watershed approach. J. Environ. Manag. 2002, 64, 355–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dahm, C.; Cummins, K.; Valett, H.; Coleman, R. An Ecosystem view of the restoration of the Kissimmee River. Restor. Ecol. 1995, 3, 225–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernhardt, E.; Palmer, M. River restoration: The fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation. Ecol. Appl. 2011, 21, 1926–1931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- McKenna, S.A.; Iwasaki, P.G.; Main, D.S. Key informants and community members in community-based participatory research: One is not like the other. Prog. Community Health Partnersh. Res. Educ. Act. 2011, 5, 387–397. [Google Scholar]
- Mueller, M.; Geist, J. Conceptual guidelines for the implementation of the ecosystem approach in biodiversity monitoring. Ecosphere 2016, 7, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mueller, M.; Pander, J.; Geist, J. Taxonomic sufficiency in freshwater ecosystems: Effects of taxonomic resolution, functional traits, and data transformation. Freshw. Sci. 2013, 32, 762–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leach, W.; Pelkey, N.; Sabatier, P. Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 2002, 21, 645–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whiting, L.S. Semi-structured interviews: Guidance for novice researchers. Nurs. Stand. 2008, 22, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stewart, C.J.; Cash, W.B. Interviewing: Principles and Practices; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Gibson, W.J.; Brown, A. Working with Qualitative Data; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Willig, C. Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology; McGraw-Hill Education: Maidenhead, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Crabtree, B.; Miller, W.L. Doing Qualitative Research, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Tracy, S. Qualitative Research Methods Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Harper, D. Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Vis. Stud. 2002, 17, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aronson, J. A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. Qual. Rep. 1994, 2, 1–3. [Google Scholar]
- Parker, M.A. Fish Passage–Culvert Inspection Procedures. Available online: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cariboo/env_stewardship/wrp/manuals/culv2000.pdf (accessed on 8 March 2017).
- Coté, D.; Kehler, D.G.; Bourne, C.; Wiersma, Y.F. A new measure of longitudinal connectivity for stream networks. Landsc. Ecol. 2009, 24, 101–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Clarkin, K.; Connor, A.; Furniss, M.J.; Gubernick, B.; Love, M.; Moynan, K.; Wilson-Musser, S. National Inventory and Assessment Procedure–for Identifying Barriers to Aquatic Organism Passage at Road-Stream Crossings. Available online: https://www.fs.fed.us/biology/nsaec/fishxing/publications/PDFs/NIAP.pdf (accessed on 8 March 2017).
- Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). Practitioners Guide to Fish Passage for DFO Habitat Management Staff, Version 1.1. Available online: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/343445.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2016).
- Environment Canada. Performance indicators. Available online: http://www.ec.gc.ca/ecoaction/default.asp?lang=En&n=93C81A93-1 (accessed on 28 November 2016).
- Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines; Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment: Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Fay, L.; Akin, M.; Shi, X. Cost-Effective and Sustainable Road Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control; Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report. Report No. EPA-841-R-02-001. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/2000_national_water_quality_inventory_report_to_congress.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2016).
- Benoy, G.A.; Sutherland, A.B.; Culp, J.M.; Brua, R.B. Physical and ecological thresholds for deposited sediments in streams in agricultural landscapes. J. Environ. Qual. 2002, 41, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fausch, K.; Torgersen, C.; Baxter, C.; Li, H. Landscapes to riverscapes: Bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes. BioScience 2002, 52, 483–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fahrig, L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evolut. Syst. 2003, 34, 487–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Letcher, B.; Nislow, K.; Coombs, J.; O’Donnell, M.; Dubreuil, T.; Svensson, E. Population response to habitat fragmentation in a stream-dwelling brook trout population (habitat fragmentation effects). PLoS ONE 2007, 2, E1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gardner, C.; Coghlan, S.; Zydlewski, J.; Saunders, R. Distribution and abundance of stream fishes in relation to barriers: Implication for monitoring stream recovery after barrier removal. River Res. Appl. 2013, 29, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Branco, P.; Segurado, P.; Santos, J.; Ferreira, M. Prioritizing barrier removal to improve functional connectivity of rivers. J. Appl. Ecol. 2014, 51, 1197–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osborne, L.; Kovacic, D. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water quality restoration and stream management. Freshw. Biol. 1993, 29, 243–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Floyd, T.; MacInnis, C.; Taylor, B. Effects of artificial woody structures on Atlantic salmon habitat and populations in a Nova Scotia stream. River Res. Appl. 2009, 25, 272–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Participant Code | Organization | Province | Organization Established (Years) |
---|---|---|---|
P-01 | CBWM #1 | Nova Scotia | ~27 |
P-02 | |||
P-03 | CBWM #2 | New Brunswick | ~21 |
P-04 | CBWM #3 | Nova Scotia | ~11 |
P-05 | |||
P-06 | CBWM #4 | Prince Edward Island | ~21 |
P-07 | |||
P-08 | CBWM #5 | Nova Scotia | ~25 |
Project Type | Number of Projects Assessed | Anthropogenic * | Naturally Occurring ** | Regulatory Approval Required (# of Projects) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Habitat connectivity and fragmentation | 6 | 5 | 1 | 6 |
Sediment control and riparian zone enhancement | 4 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
In stream enhancement | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
Out of stream enhancement | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Garda, C.; Castleden, H.; Conrad, C. Monitoring, Restoration, and Source Water Protection: Canadian Community-Based Environmental Organizations’ Efforts towards Improving Aquatic Ecosystem Health. Water 2017, 9, 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9030212
Garda C, Castleden H, Conrad C. Monitoring, Restoration, and Source Water Protection: Canadian Community-Based Environmental Organizations’ Efforts towards Improving Aquatic Ecosystem Health. Water. 2017; 9(3):212. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9030212
Chicago/Turabian StyleGarda, Chris, Heather Castleden, and Cathy Conrad. 2017. "Monitoring, Restoration, and Source Water Protection: Canadian Community-Based Environmental Organizations’ Efforts towards Improving Aquatic Ecosystem Health" Water 9, no. 3: 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9030212