does stream restoration work? by: stephanie hall, mohammad asadian, sara seyed sagha

Does Stream Restoration Work?BY: STEPHANIE HALL, MOHAMMAD ASADIAN, SARA SEYED SAGHA

Outline Introduction

Background Information

Stream Restoration Techniques

Physical Effects

Effects on Salmonids

Monitoring Programs

Analysis

Critique

Conclusion

Management and Conservation

Other Studies

Questions

Class Discussion

Introduction

Stream restoration - the process of restoring a degraded ecosystems to a stable, healthy condition.

Goal - restore and improve stream conditions for aquatic life.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation 2014

Introduction

Many streams have been degraded over time due to human impacts.

Cathedral Grove 2006

The City Fix 2013 Wolf Notes 2009

Giannico and Healey 1998

Introduction

Stream degradation has lead to an increase in the number of

stream restoration projects since the 1980s. $1 billion is spent

annually on stream restoration in the United States.

Used for road improvement, riparian rehabilitation, floodplain

connectivity and rehabilitation, instream habitat improvement,

and nutrient enrichment.

Roni et al. 2008

Background

➢ The study by Whiteway et al. (2010) was done in order to

address the amount of uncertainty around stream restoration

and monitoring, as well as the effects on the organisms and

ecosystem as a whole.

➢ They conducted a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of 5

instream restoration structures looking at a number of case

studies to test their impact on salmonid abundance and their

habitat.

Whiteway et al. 2010

Methods

Conducted a literature search and looked at projects with 1 or more of the 5 structures.

They recorded information on project, monitoring, species, age classes, physical habitat.

Recorded density and biomass for each species and size class.

Found data in 211 studies with information on 8 species.

Whiteway et al. 2010

Stream Restoration Techniques

There are 5 different structures used within this study:

Weirs

Deflectors

Cover structures

Boulders

Large wood (LWD)

Whiteway et al. 2010

http://www.pmcl.com/mmdl/MM_Description.asp?ID=46

Weirs

Nanozine

wkvauge

Deflectors

PMCL

Cover Structures

NY DEC

http://www.pmcl.com/mmdl/MM_Description.asp?ID=40

Boulders

NY DEC

Large Wood

Sitka Wild

Physical Effects

The study found that structures led to

- increases in pool habitat

- decreases in riffle habitat

- increases in LW

- increases in channel depth

- increases in percent cover

Whiteway et al. 2010

Structure effects on various physical stream attributes. Darker bars represent projects that used 1 structure. Lighter bars represents projects with 2+ structures..

Effects on Salmonids

Density and biomass increased.

Some showed a decrease.

All species except steelhead trout and

brook trout responded positively.

Size classes responded differently.Effect of structure type on salmonid density and biomass. Darker bars represent projects that used 1 structure. Lighter bars represents projects with 2+ structures.

Whiteway et al. 2010

Effects on Salmonids

Within this study different species had different responses to the structures that were placed.

Species affected: resident and anadromous

- fish that complete their entire life cycle in freshwater are resident

- fish that would spawn in freshwater and spend a portion of lives in

the ocean are anadromous

In stream structures were found to be more beneficial to larger resident fish rather than anadromous fish Whiteway et al. 2010

Effects on Salmonids

Whiteway et al. 2010

The effect of in-stream structures on the mean density effect size of different species of salmon. Similar letters indicate that the mean does not differ significantly between species.

Monitoring Programs

Monitoring is sampling to detect or evaluate the change in stream habitat and changes in salmonids

Citizen Scientists 2010

Monitoring

86 projects were monitored 1 year after restoration.

Less than 5 were monitored 10 years after.

None were monitored for more 20 years after.

45 percent were only monitored once.

Whiteway et al. 2010

Analysis

73 % of the projects saw increase in salmonids densities

87 % of the projects saw increase in salmonids biomass

Some projects showed decrease in density and biomass due to:

Poor study design

Unexpected physical changes

Unexpected events

Structural failure

Whiteway et al. 2010

Analysis

Stream structures significantly changed physical stream habitats.

Overall, they saw an increase in pool area, volume, and frequency.

All stream structures caused increase in pool area.

Whiteway et al. 2010

Analysis

Cover structures ,weirs, and deflectors increased cover for salmonids .

All instream structures, except weirs, increased the depth of pools.

The type of structures placed for restoration depends on the stream and the type of problem being assessed.

Therefore, multiple issues in streams may need multiple structures placed.

Whiteway et al. 2010

Analysis of Monitoring

More long term monitoring is needed to see the effects of the instream structures.

It may take up to 5 years to see the full effect of the structures placed.

They cited a paper by Kondolf and Micheli (1995) which recommended at least 10 years of post restoration monitoring to assess physical changes of the stream.

Whiteway et al. 2010

Trout unlimited 2014

Conclusion

It is recommended that the installation of instream structures

be used primarily as a temporary tool while larger scale

watershed changes are made. For example, reforesting

riparian zones to provide natural large wood. The success of

these structures remains an important consideration.

Whiteway et al. 2010

Critique

Monitoring was found to be very weak.

More successful projects are often recorded and reported rather than failures within primary literature.

Difficult to tell if the increased fish abundance was from increased recruitment, survival, or growth rather than redistribution in streams.

Whiteway et al. 2010

Critique

Structural failures - Lack of effective design and/or implementation.

Structural design problems (restoration project inadequate to endure local physical conditions).

Lack of adequate knowledge on components and functions of ecosystems, scale of ecological processes, and the complexity of human impacts.

Whiteway et al. 2010

Critique of Management

Lack of coordination and communication among management agencies (actions planned and carried out with no comprehensive, large scale watershed management plan).

Limited public participation and awareness.

Lack of long-term plans and prioritization strategies.

Giannico

Management and Conservation

Hinch

Basic Science Restoration and adding structures is changing physiology of

the stream.

By changing the physiology of the stream it is altering the behaviour of fish by adding new habitats.

Changes ecosystem ecology by altering the stream itself as well as providing shelter and habitats for species of interest.

Altering and restoring effects the life cycles and habitats of the species within the streams that are being restored.

Applied Science

As for applied science, restoring streams can increase and aid some species increasing their life spans and creating new areas in which they can utilize.

As for the human dimension, we are the one that caused degradation to the environment and are trying to restore the ecosystem to previous state.

Conservation

By restoring streams, we are protecting and restoring populations by increasing habitat availability and quality.

Conserving the habitats we have and reducing the human impacts.

Management

By monitoring and revisiting the restored sites.

Assessing the species of interest and their habitats.

Assessing site problems.

We are managing for the species, in this case salmonids.

Other Studies

Restoration Plans

Findings

Structures

Monitoring

Restoration Planning

Steps in Developing a Restoration Plan

Watershed Assessment

List of potential problems

List of potential actions

Prioritization of restoration actions

Giannico

Passive vs Active Restoration Active Restoration

- entails some kind of watershed or habitat manipulation. Example:

Planting trees or shrubs / Placement of in-stream structures

Passive Restoration

- implies halting activities that affect watershed components and processes

Example:

Riparian vegetation may respond well to passive restoration because it is adapted to recover after natural disturbances

Giannico

Findings

Some techniques, such as placement of instream habitat improvement and reconnection of isolated habitats, have demonstrated benefits to fishes.

Reconnection of isolated habitats, floodplain rehabilitation, and instream habitat improvement have, proven effective for improving habitat and increasing local fish abundance under many circumstances.

Roni et al. 2008

Findings

Restoration using weirs was seen to increase pool habitat and

overall heterogeneity in streams. (Shields et al. 1995)

Deflectors were used reduce hydraulic erosion as well as form

backwater pools. (Zhou and Endreny 2012)

The placement of boulders helped to modify stream flow and

create pools. (Stewart et al. 2009)

Findings

The processes associated with large wood such as pool

formation and sediment storage have important effects on fish

living in streams, in that they create spawning and rearing

habitat, increase nutrient and organic matter retention, and

provide refuge from predators and cover during high winter

flows. (Cederholm et al. 1997)

Monitoring

Project monitoring can provide resource managers with valuable feedback, an opportunity for management adaptation based on the results and, ultimately, improve management of the resource. (Bash and Ryan 2002)

Recommended a standardized set of measures that may help managers to better compare project effectiveness across sites or between watersheds. (Bash and Ryan 2002)

Knowledge about the effectiveness of most techniques is incomplete and comprehensive research and monitoring are needed. (Roni et. al 2011)

Summary

➔ Stream structures have been seen to positively affect stream habitats.

➔ Increased habitat and cover for salmonids.

➔ Structures and approaches to restoration depended on the stream and goals for the area.

➔ Long term monitoring is extremely important for restoration to see the full effect of the structures placed.

Questions?

http://www.wherethepunis.com/tags/pun

http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/1729070/That/

http://becuo.com/shark-puns

Discussion questions

1) Does restoration work?

1) Does restoration work?

2) What are some ways we could improve monitoring for stream restoration?

Discussion questions

1) Does restoration work?

2) What are some ways we could improve monitoring for stream restoration?

3) What are some criteria that should be used in evaluating

stream restoration?

Discussion questions

1) Does restoration work?

2) What are some ways we could improve monitoring for stream restoration?

3) What are some criteria that should be used in evaluating

stream restoration?

4) What could be some reasons for a decrease in fish density and biomass following restoration?

Discussion questions

1) Does restoration work?

2) What are some ways we could improve monitoring for stream restoration?

3) What are some criteria that should be used in evaluating

stream restoration?

4) What could be some reasons for a decrease in fish density and biomass following restoration?

5) What is the most effective structure to use for restoration?

Discussion questions

References

Bash, J.S., and Ryan, C.M. 2002. Stream restoration and enhancement projects: is anyone monitoring? Environ. Manage. 29(6): 877–

885.

Cederholm, C.J., Bilby, R.E., Bisson, P.A., Bumstead, T.W., Fransen, B.R., Scarlett, W.J., and Ward, J.W. 1997. Response of juvenile coho salmon to placement of large woody debris in a coastal Washington stream. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 17(4): 947–963.

Giannico, R. and M. C. Healey. 1998. Integrated management plan for a suburban watershed: protected fisheries resources in the Salmon River, Langley, British Columbia. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.

Hey, R.D. 1996. Environmentally sensitive river engineering. In River restoration. Edited by G. Petts and P. Calow. Blackwell Science,

Oxford, UK. pp. 80–105.

Johnson, S.L., Rodgers, J.D., Solazzi, M.F., and Nickelson, T.E. 2005. Effects of an increase in large wood on abundance and survival of

juvenile salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.) in an Oregon coastal stream. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62(2): 412–424.

Kondolf, G.M., and Micheli, E.R. 1995. Evaluating stream restoration projects. Environ. Manage. 19(1): 1–15.

Lonzarich, D.G., and Quinn, T.P. 1995. Experimental evidence for the effect of depth and structure on the distribution, growth, and survival of stream fishes. Can. J. Zool. 73(12): 2223–2230.

Olsen, E.A., Linsay, R.B., and Smith, B.J. 1984. Evaluation of habitat improvements — John Day River. Annual Progress Report, Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

References

Roni, P., T. J. Beechie, R. E. Bilby, F. E. Leonetti, M. M. Pollock, and G. R. Pess. 2011. A review of stream restoration techniques and a

hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:

1-20.

Roni, P., Hanson, K., and Beechie, T. 2008. Global review of the physical and biological effectiveness of stream rehabilitation techniques.

N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 28(3): 856–890.

Roni, P., and Quinn, T.P. 2001. Density and size of juvenile salmonids in response to placement of large woody debris in western Oregon

and Washington streams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58(2): 282–292.

Roper, B.B., Dose, J.J., and Williams, J.E. 1997. Stream restoration: is fisheries biology enough? Fisheries, 22(5): 6–11.

Stewart, G.B., Bayliss, H.R., Showler, D.A., Sutherland, W.J., and Pullin, A.S. 2009. Effectiveness of engineered in-stream structure

mitigation measures to increase salmonid abundance: a systematic review. Ecol. Appl. 19(4): 931–941.

Thorn, W.C., and Anderson, C.S. 2001. Comparison of two methods of habitat rehabilitation for brown trout in a southeast Minnesota

stream. Investigational Report No. 488, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Section of Fisheries, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Wesche, T.A. 1985. Stream channel modifications and reclamation structures to enhance fish habitat. In The restoration of rivers and streams: theories and experience. Edited by J.A. Gore. Butterworth, Boston, Massachusetts. pp. 103–163.

Whiteway, S. L., P. M. Biron, A. Zimmermann, O. Venter, and J. W. A. Grant. 210. Do in-stream restoration structures enhance salmonid

abundance? a meta-analysis. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 67: 831-841.