Stream restoration has become a multi-billion-dollar industry and a diversity of techniques have been developed and practiced. Various perceptions exist as to what is meant by the term “restoration.” Wohl et al. (2005) emphasized that these perceptions reflect the wide range of stakeholder interests, scientific knowledge, scales of interest, and system constraints encountered in practice.  Bernhardt et al. (2005) conducted a review of more than 38,000 projects identified as restoration projects in the United States.  They concluded that the majority of projects had one or more of the following objectives: (1) enhance water quality, (2) manage riparian zones, (3) improve instream habitat, (4) create fish passage, and (5) stabilize stream banks.  In recent years, river managers and scientists have proposed the term “restoration” be used only for projects with the objective of assisting in the establishment of improved hydrologic, geomorphic, and ecological processes in a degraded watershed system and replacing lost, damaged, or compromised elements of the natural system (Wohl et al. 2005; Kauffman 1997; Palmer 2005; and Roni et al. 2002).  Recently, Palmer et al. (2005) proposed standards for measuring and guiding restoration success, with emphasis on a watershed-scale, ecological approach. These standards were endorsed by an international group of river scientists (Jansson et al., 2005) and practitioners (Gillilan et al., 2005).