Search

Restoration monitoring is generally perceived as costly and time consuming, given the assumptions of successfully restoring ecological functions and services of a particular ecosystem or habitat. Opportunities exist for remote sensing to bolster the restoration science associated with a wide variety of injured resources, including resources affected by fire, hydropower operations, chemical releases, and oil spills, among others. In the last decade, the role of remote sensing to support restoration monitoring has increased, in part due to the advent of high-resolution satellite sensors as well as other sensor technology, such as lidar. Restoration practitioners in federal agencies require monitoring standards to assess restoration performance of injured resources. This review attempts to address a technical need and provides an introductory overview of spatial data and restoration metric considerations, as well as an in-depth review of optical (e.g., spaceborne, airborne, unmanned aerial vehicles) and active (e.g., radar, lidar) sensors and examples of restoration metrics that can be measured with remotely sensed data (e.g., land cover, species or habitat type, change detection, quality, degradation, diversity, and pressures or threats). To that end, the present article helps restoration practitioners assemble information not only about essential restoration metrics but also about the evolving technological approaches that can be used to best assess them. Given the need for monitoring standards to assess restoration success of injured resources, a universal monitoring framework should include a range of remote sensing options with which to measure common restoration metrics. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:614-630. Published 2016. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Supreme Court cases have questioned if jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act extends to water bodies such as streams without year-round flow. Headwater streams are central to this issue because many periodically dry, and because little is known about their influence on navigable waters. An accurate account of the extent and flow permanence of headwater streams is critical to estimating downstream contributions. We compared the extent and permanence of headwater streams from two field surveys with values from databases and maps. The first used data from 29 headwater streams in nine U.S. forests, whereas the second had data from 178 headwater streams in Oregon. Synthetic networks developed from the nine-forest survey indicated that 33 to 93% of the channel lacked year-round flow. Seven of the nine forests were predicted to have >200% more channel length than portrayed in the high-resolution National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). The NHD and topographic map classifications of permanence agreed with ~50% of the field determinations across ~300 headwater sites. Classification agreement with the field determinations generally increased with increasing resolution. However, the flow classification on soil maps only agreed with ~30% of the field determination despite depicting greater channel extent than other maps. Maps that include streams regardless of permanence and size will aid regulatory decisions and are fundamental to improving water quality monitoring and models.