Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The ecological impacts of stream restoration: providing structures to assist beavers to
aggrade an incised channel to benefit endangered steelhead
Nick Bouwes and Nick Weber - Eco Logical Research, Inc., Providence, UT Joe Wheaton Florie Consolati Watershed Sciences Utah State University Logan UTJoe Wheaton , Florie Consolati - Watershed Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT Chris Jordan, Michael Pollock, Jason Hall - NOAA Fisheries Service, Northwest Science Carol Volk- South Fork Research, Inc.
Made possible by BPA
Mean Annual Flood Height
Post Depth60–90 cm
Post Lines
Different Flavors of BDSS Restoration
Reinforced Dams Wicker Weaves
20 m
BDS St tBDS Structure
Beaver dam support structures
Will steelhead respond to this restoration?
Treatment 2009Control/Trt 2014Long Term Control
M d C kMurderers Creek
Beaver dams
RaisedWater
BeaverRecruitment
LevelsVariable
WaterVelocity
Groundwater
Pools,Area
Decreased Dam
Failure
ForagingResting
Locations
Sediment SortingAggradation
GroundwaterRecharge
DecreasedStreamP
Increased base flowsLocalized Upwelling
Gravels for Spawningand concealment
ReconnectFloodplain
Power Localized UpwellingTemperature Heterogeneity
and concealment
Dissipated Flows
IncreasedSinuosity
DecreasedGradient
High Flow Refugia
SinuosityRiparian
Vegetation
Shading
More Pools
ShadingUndercut Banks
Allothonous inputs
ExpectationsExpectations
More habitat (e.g. pools)More habitat (e.g. pools)More refugia (high flows, predators)More foodMore habitat complexityMore habitat complexity
Heterogeneity in: topographyvelocities temperaturesubstratesubstrate
Increase in steelhead abundance, survival, growth and productiongrowth and production
Beaver dams
RaisedWater
BeaverRecruitment
LevelsVariable
WaterVelocity
Groundwater
Pools,Area
Decreased Dam
Failure
ForagingResting
Locations
Sediment SortingAggradation
GroundwaterRecharge
DecreasedStreamP
Increased base flowsLocalized Upwelling
Gravels for Spawningand concealment
ReconnectFloodplain
Power Localized UpwellingTemperature Heterogeneity
and concealment
Dissipated Flows
IncreasedSinuosity
DecreasedGradient
High Flow Refugia
SinuosityRiparian
Vegetation
Shading
More Pools
ShadingUndercut Banks
Allothonous inputs
Change in PoolsBDSS installed
TreatmentControl
2007 2008 2009 2010 2007 2008 2009 2010Pre Post Pre Post
DEM of Difference
BDS StructureStructure
Beaver dams
RaisedWater
BeaverRecruitment
LevelsVariable
WaterVelocity
Groundwater
Pools,Area
Decreased Dam
Failure
ForagingResting
Locations
Sediment SortingAggradation
GroundwaterRecharge
DecreasedStreamP
Increased base flowsLocalized Upwelling
Gravels for Spawningand concealment
ReconnectFloodplain
Power Localized UpwellingTemperature Heterogeneity
and concealment
Dissipated Flows
IncreasedSinuosity
DecreasedGradient
High Flow Refugia
SinuosityRiparian
Vegetation
Shading
More Pools
ShadingUndercut Banks
Allothonous inputs
.5
).4
Higher water tables in treatmentsafter restoration
eren
ce (m
)
.3
vatio
n D
iffe
.2
Ele
v
.1
85N =
0.0
ControlTreatment
.6
C)
.4Increase in temperature
ffere
nce
(C .2
0.0
pera
ture
Dif
-.2
Tem
p
-.4
-.6
Decrease in temperature after restoration
85N =
ControlTreatment
-.8
ControlTreatment
Stream Temperature
12o C 23o C
BDS Structure
Beaver dams
RaisedWater
BeaverRecruitment
LevelsVariable
WaterVelocity
Groundwater
Pools,Area
Decreased Dam
Failure
ForagingResting
Locations
Sediment SortingAggradation
GroundwaterRecharge
DecreasedStreamP
Increased base flowsLocalized Upwelling
Gravels for Spawningand concealment
ReconnectFloodplain
Power Localized UpwellingTemperature Heterogeneity
and concealment
Dissipated Flows
IncreasedSinuosity
DecreasedGradient
High Flow Refugia
SinuosityRiparian
Vegetation
Shading
More Pools
ShadingUndercut Banks
Allothonous inputs
STARTER DAM OCCUPIED…
Inset floodplain frequently inundated
Beaver dams
RaisedWater
BeaverRecruitment
LevelsVariable
WaterVelocity
Groundwater
Pools,Area
Decreased Dam
Failure
ForagingResting
Locations
Sediment SortingAggradation
GroundwaterRecharge
DecreasedStreamP
Increased base flowsLocalized Upwelling
Gravels for Spawningand concealment
ReconnectFloodplain
Power Localized UpwellingTemperature Heterogeneity
and concealment
Dissipated Flows
IncreasedSinuosity
DecreasedGradient
High Flow Refugia
SinuosityRiparian
Vegetation
Shading
More Pools
ShadingUndercut Banks
Allothonous inputs
What About the Fish?
Catchment wide fish surveys
electroshocking
Passive Instream Antenna Mobile AntennaMobile Antenna
Pressure Transducer
Treatment 2009Control/Trt 2014Long Term Control
PIT tag antennasPIT tag antennas
Adult Weir
M d C kMurderers Creek
Juvenile Steelhead Habitat Preference
100
120
00 m
2 )Pre‐restoration Post‐restoration
Density of O. mykiss in Bridge and Murderers (trt and cntrl)
40
60
80
s den
sity (n
o./10
Bridge (trt) Murderers (cntrl)
0
20
40
O. m
ykiss
‐20
Winter
Sprin
g
Fall
Winter
Sprin
g
Fall
Winter
Sprin
g
Fall
Winter
Sprin
g
Fall
Winter
Sprin
g
Fall
Winter
Sprin
g
Fall
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 201230.00
40.00Difference of O. mykiss between Bridge and Murderers (trt ‐ cntrl)
Average Ḋ‐pre and Ḋ‐post restoration (p=0.007)P t ti P t t ti
10.00
20.00
ity (trt‐cntrl)
g p p (p )Pre‐restoration Post‐restoration
Ḋ‐post
20 00
‐10.00
0.00
O. m
ykissd
ensi
Ḋ‐pre
‐30.00
‐20.00
Winter
Sprin
g
Fall
Winter
Sprin
g
Fall
Winter
Sprin
g
Fall
Winter
Sprin
g
Fall
Winter
Sprin
g
Fall
Winter
Sprin
g
Fall
Differen
ce in
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1.00
1.20
Pre‐restoration Post‐restorationSurvival of O. mykiss in Bridge and Murderers (trt and cntrl)
0.60
0.80
urvival season
0.20
0.40
O. m
ykiss s
u
Bridge (trt) Murderers (cntrl)
0.00
Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1 20
1.40
1.60 Ratio of Survival O. mykiss in Bridge and Murderers (trt/cntrl)Geomean Ṙ‐pre and Ṙ‐post restoration (p<0.001)
Pre‐restoration Post‐restoration
0.80
1.00
1.20
ival (trt/cntrl)
Ṙ‐pre
Ṙ‐post
0.20
0.40
0.60
of O.m
ykisss
urvi Ṙ‐pre
0.00
Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
WinterRa
tio o
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
30
35
40) Bridge (trt) Murderers(cntrl)
Growth of O. mykiss in Bridge and Murderers (trt and cntrl)Pre‐restoration Post‐restoration
15
20
25
owth (g
/season Bridge (trt) Murderers(cntrl)
0
5
10
O. m
ykiss g
ro
‐5
Summer Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
Summer
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120 10
0.15
0.20
trl)
Difference in Growth of O. mykiss in Bridge and Murderers (trt ‐ cntrl)Average Ḋ‐pre and Ḋ‐post restoration (p=0.036)
Pre‐restoration Post‐restoration
0.00
0.05
0.10
s growth (trt‐cnt
Ḋ‐pre
Ḋ post
‐0.10
‐0.05
nce in O. m
ykiss Ḋ‐post
‐0.15
Summer Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
SummerDiffere
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
0.35
Murderers Creek
0.30
Bridge Creek i d h
0.25
0.30 Density Dependent Growth0.25
Density Dependent Growth
0.20
day)
0.20
g/da
y)
y = ‐0.0088x + 0.2464R² = 0.5140.10
0.15
Growth (g/d
y = ‐0.0031x + 0.1871R² = 0.4082
0.10
0.15
Growth (g
0.05
0.05
(0.05)
‐
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
‐‐ 10 20 30 40 50 60
‐ 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Density O. mykiss (no./100m2)
Density O. mykiss (no./100m2)
Production(growth*abundance*survival)(growth abundance survival)(Δbiomass/100m2/season)
GrowthSurvival
Summer Fall/Winter Winter/Spring
N
350
400
450
Bridge (trt) Murderers (cntrl)
Production of O. mykiss of Bridge and Murderers (trt and cntrl)Pre‐restoration Post‐restoration
200
250
300
/100m
2 /season
)
50
100
150
Prod
uctio
n (Δg/
‐50
0
Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
P
300
400
)
Difference in Production of Bridge and Murderers (trt ‐ cntrl)Average Ḋ‐pre and Ḋ‐post restoration (p=0.10)
Pre‐restoration Post‐restoration
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
100
200
uctio
n (trt‐cntrl)
Ḋ‐post
‐100
0
fference in Produ
Ḋ‐pre
‐200
Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
Summer Fall
Winter
Dif
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012
Conclusions• Increase in deeper pools• Increased ground water storage• Aggradation• Frequent inundation of the floodplain• Habitat complexity
– Topography– Velocity– Substrate – Temperatures
Conclusions• Increase in population abundance• Increase in survival (at multiple scales)Increase in survival (at multiple scales)• Decrease in growthI i t lh d d ti• Increase in steelhead production
• Continued fish passage
It’s working!