Hydrologic connectivity is critical to the structure, function, and dynamic process of river ecosystems. Dams, road crossings, and water diversions impact connectivity by altering flow regimes, behavioral cues, local geomorphology, and nutrient cycling. This longitudinal fragmentation of river ecosystems also increases genetic and reproductive isolation of aquatic biota such as migratory fishes. The cumulative effects on fish passage of many structures along a river are often substantial, even when individual barriers have negligible impact. Habitat connectivity can be improved through dam removal or other means of fish passage improvement (e.g., ladders, bypasses, culvert improvement). Environmental managers require techniques for comparing alternative fish passage restoration actions at alternative or multiple locations. Herein, we examined a graph‐theoretic algorithm for assessing upstream habitat connectivity to investigate both basic and applied fish passage connectivity problems. First, we used hypothetical watershed configurations to assess general alterations to upstream fish passage connectivity with changes in watershed network topology (e.g., linear vs. highly dendritic) and the quantity, location, and passability of each barrier. Our hypothetical network modeling indicates that locations of dams with limited passage efficiency near the watershed outlet create a strong fragmentation signal but are not individually sufficient to disconnect the system. Furthermore, there exists a threshold in the number of dams beyond which connectivity declines precipitously, regardless of watershed topology and dam configuration. Watersheds with highly branched configurations are shown to be less susceptible to disconnection as measured by this metric. Second, we applied the model to prioritize barrier improvement in the mainstem of the Truckee River, Nevada, USA. The Truckee River application demonstrates the ability of the algorithm to address conditions common in fish passage projects including incomplete data, parameter uncertainty, and rapid application. This study demonstrates the utility of a graph‐theoretic approach for assessing fish passage connectivity in dendritic river networks assuming full basin utilization for a given species, guild, or community of concern.

Understanding the effects of hydrology on fish populations is essential to managing for native fish conservation. However, despite decades of research illustrating streamflow influences on fish habitat, reproduction, and survival, biologists remain challenged when tasked with predicting how fish populations will respond to changes in flow regimes. This uncertainty stems from insufficient understanding of the context-dependent mechanisms underlying fish responses to, for example, periods of reduced flow or altered frequency of high-flow events. We aim to address this gap by drawing on previous research to hypothesize mechanisms by which low and high flows influence fish populations and communities, identifying challenges that stem from data limitations and ecological complexity, and outlining research directions that can advance an empirical basis for prediction. Focusing flow ecology research on testing and refining mechanistic hypotheses can help narrow management uncertainties and better support species conservation in changing flow regimes.

Dams, road crossings, and water withdrawals extensively fragment rivers, and watersheds often contain hundreds or thousands of barriers, some of which no longer meet societal purposes. Accordingly, both conservationists and infrastructure managers are faced with the challenge of prioritizing barriers for repair, replacement, or removal. Candidate projects have been prioritized with dozens of methods, which span a wide range of spatial scales, data and analytical requirements, mathematical complexity, and capacity to reconcile multiple perspectives and objectives. We briefly review barrier prioritization methods from the perspective of a policy maker or manager who must balance realities of stochastic opportunities, conflicting priorities, and risk of infrastructure failure. After outlining common motivations for barrier prioritization, we present a menu of techniques ranging from large‐scale, quantitative assessments to reactive, local response to failures. By clarifying the appropriate domain for each approach, this review informs the selection of prioritization methods for restoring riverine connectivity.

Civil infrastructure will be essential to face the interlinked existential threats of climate change and rising resource demands while ensuring a livable Anthropocene for all. However, conventional infrastructure planning largely neglects the contributions and maintenance of Earth’s ecological life support systems, which provide irreplaceable services supporting human well-being. The stability and performance of these services depend on biodiversity, but conventional infrastructure practices, narrowly focused on controlling natural capital, have inadvertently degraded biodiversity while perpetuating social inequities. Here, we envision a new infrastructure paradigm wherein biodiversity and ecosystem services are a central objective of civil engineering. In particular, we reimagine infrastructure practice such that 1) ecosystem integrity and species conservation are explicit objectives from the outset of project planning; 2) infrastructure practices integrate biodiversity into diverse project portfolios along a spectrum from conventional to nature-based solutions and natural habitats; 3) ecosystem functions reinforce and enhance the performance and lifespan of infrastructure assets; and 4) civil engineering promotes environmental justice by counteracting legacies of social inequity in infrastructure development and nature conservation. This vision calls for a fundamental rethinking of the standards, practices, and mission of infrastructure development agencies and a broadening of scope for conservation science. We critically examine the legal and professional precedents for this paradigm shift, as well as the moral and economic imperatives for manifesting equitable infrastructure planning that mainstreams biodiversity and nature’s benefits to people. Finally, we set an applied research agenda for supporting this vision and highlight financial, professional, and policy pathways for achieving it.