The effects of river alteration and restoration on instream biota and human needs
1 / 39

The Effects of River Alteration and Restoration on Instream Biota and Human Needs - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

The Effects of River Alteration and Restoration on Instream Biota and Human Needs. By Ashley Koetsier, Kaylee Pollander, Lee Simard, Cole Talbot, and Zack Theberge. Why We Love Streams. Goals. Evaluate the impacts altered stream systems have on instream biota

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

The Effects of River Alteration and Restoration on Instream Biota and Human Needs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

The Effects of River Alteration and Restoration on

Instream Biota and Human Needs

By Ashley Koetsier, Kaylee Pollander,

Lee Simard, Cole Talbot, and Zack Theberge

Why We Love Streams...


Evaluate the impacts altered stream systems have on instream biota

-Impact on human interests

Determine restoration focuses that will increase instream biota

-Minimize impact on other human needs


-Identify causes of stream alteration

-Identify the impacts different types of stream alteration has on instream biota

-Identify what impacts the loss of instream biota have on humans

-Identify possible focuses of restoration that will benefit instream biota without negatively affecting human needs


What is our Endpoint?




Social Needs

Must follow laws:

  • Water quality discharge

  • Fisheries habitat

  • Flooding fluvial erosion

  • Stream dynamic equilibrium

    Balance with Sustainability Model

  • Does it hit the target?

Social Agenda

People hear what they want to hear

  • Cause and effect:

    • Get people to hear what you have to say

      Intellectual Quotient vs. Emotional Quotient

  • Must account for people's emotions

Social and Economic Interaction

People work to pay the mortgage

  • connected to house, property

    Less expensive to not repair


  • More funding than Insurance companies

    Few cases of abandonment

  • roads

  • relocations

  • buyouts

Causes of Stream Alteration

  • Prior land use

  • Channelization

  • Riparian land use

Prior Land Use and Land Use History

Riparian Land Use


This is what happens when you channelize a stream and a thousand year flood happens...

Let the kid represent biota and detritus...

Impact on Fish Populations

Impacts of altered streams:


-Increased sedimentation

-Faster currents

-Changes in water temperature

-Loss of physical

structure and habitat

-Loss of food sources

Natural Stream Morphology...Why restore it?

- Sinuosity

Dynamic Equilibrium

- Higher Retention

- Increased Habitat

For both fish and macro-invertebrates

- Increased Aesthetics

- Undisturbed complexity

Image from Brown, Inc. 2010

Human Benefits of

Instream Biota Restoration

-Median cost $45,000/project

-Over $1 billion spent annually on stream restoration

(Bernhardt et al. 2005)

-Is it worth it?

Restore Macroinvertebrates


-Allochthonous inputs main nutrient source in most small temperate forested streams

-Little algal or macrophyte growth

-Essential for breaking down inputs and releasing nutrients and energy downstream

-Restoring streams increases downstream productivity

Improve Fish Populations

Benefits of Restoration:

Economic, Social, Environmental:

-License sales, tackle,

bait, gas, food,

lodging, etc.

-Commercial Fisheries

-Pacific salmon

-Return marine nutrients inland

Moyle et al. 2011 (

Intrinsic Benefits


-Aesthetic values

-Cultural values

Focuses of Restoration

-Specific restoration objectives vary by situation

-A manager can choose from several different overarching focuses for restoration, each with their own pros and cons

-Evaluate each to decide which focus best meets our endpoint

Leave System as Is

-Results dependent on system

-Minimally degraded system could result in natural recovery

-Less likely to recover in a highly degraded system

-Is the stressor removed?

-Eg. Removal of woody debris to accelerate drainage from an agricultural field

Focus Restoration on Stream Dynamics


-Addresses all environmental needs

-Surrounding landscape would be restored as well

-Some social and economic needs met


-Extremely expensive

-Very complicated

-Unrealistic in most cases to remove all human influences

-May cause loss to infrastructure


Focus on Restoring Stream Dynamics



Focus on Best Meeting Human Needs


-Social circle addressed

-Economic circle possibly addressed

-Protect infrastructure, human investments


-Fails to address environmental circle

-Natural processes not enhanced

-Potentially cost more in the long run?


Focus on Best Meeting Human Needs



Focus on Instream Habitat Restoration


-Provides foundation for natural processes to begin occurring around

-Can be designed to meet human needs, both social and economic


-More costly to undertake

-May not include all necessary factors for processes to begin

-Eg. Allochthonous inputs, water temperature and quality


Focus on Instream Habitat Restoration



Focus on Restoring Instream Biota


-Would ensure overall ecological integrity

-Stressors would be removed from system

-Can be designed to meet human needs, both social and economical


-More costly to undertake

-Have to have understanding of stream processes

-May sacrifice some natural conditions to meet human needs


Focus on Restoring Instream Biota



Recommended Focus...

Focus on restoration of instream biota

-Ensures ecological integrity

-Can be easily adapted to meet human needs

-Can be assessed quantitatively

-Balances all three circles

Assessing Instream Biota

Why Biological Monitoring?

In-stream biota reflects...

-Ecological integrity

-Synergistic impacts

-Dynamic changes over time

-Non-point source stressors


We would like to thank Dr. William Bowden for his inspiring wisdom and beautiful mustache. Also, we would like to show our gratitude to Philip Halteman, who motivated us with his kind words and chic corduroys. We thank Todd Menees for the interview that helped to further our knowledge on stream restoration around the state of Vermont.

Literature Cited

Bernhardt, E.S., M.A. Palmer, J.D. Allan, G. Alexander, K. Barnas, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, C. Dahm, J. Follstad-Shah, D. Galat, S. Gloss, P. Goodwin, D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, S. Katz, G.M. Kondolf, P.S. Lave, J.L. Meyer, T.K. O’Donnell, L. Pagano, B. Powell, and E. Sudduth. 2005. Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration Efforts. Science 308:636-637.

Beugly, J. and M. Pyron. 2010. Variation in Fish and Macroinvertebrate Assemblages Among Seasonal and Perennial Headwater Streams. American Midland Naturalist. 163:2-13

Brooker, M.P. 1985. The Impact of River Channelization: IV The Ecological Effects of Channelization. The Geographic Journal. 151:63-69.

Browne Inc., F. X. 2010. Stream restoration. Retrieved from Restoration.htm

Carline, R.F. and S.P. Klosiewski. 1985. Responses of fish populations to mitigation structures in two small channelized streams in Ohio. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5:1-11.

Culp, J., S. Walde, and R. Daviel. 1983. Relative importance of substrate particle size and detritus to stream benthic macroinvertebrate microdistribution. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40:10: 1568-1574.

EPA. 2005. Stream Channelization. 3/28/2012.

Gergel, S.E., M.D. Dixon, and M.G. Turner. 2002. Consequences of human-altered floods: Levees, floods, and floodplain forests along the Wisconsin River. Ecological Applications 12:1755-1770.

Gortz, P. 1998. Effects of stream restoration on the macroinvertebrate community in the River Esrom, Denmark. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 8:115-130.

Greenwood, M.J., J.S. Harding, D.K. Niyogi, and A.R. McIntosh. 2012. Improving the effectiveness of riparian management for aquatic invertebrates in a degraded agricultural landscape: stream size and land-use legacies. Journal of Applied Ecology 49:213-222.

Hermans, C., J. Erickson, T. Noordewier, A. Sheldon, and M. Kline. 2007. Collaborative environmental planning in river management: An application of multicriteria decision analysis in the White River Watershed in Vermont. Journal of Environmental Management 84: 4: 534-546.

Jullian, J., S. Seegert, and S. Powers. 2011. Light as a first-order control on ecosystem structure in a temperate stream. Ecohydrology 4:3:422-432.

Literature Cited (con't)

Kline, M. and B. Cahoon. 2006. Managing toward stream equilibrium conditions. River Management Publications. VT DEC-Watershed Management Division.

Laasonen, P., T. Muotka, and I. Kivijarvi. 1998. Recovery of macroinvertebrate communities from stream habitat restoration. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8:101-113.

Lau, J.K., T.E. Lauer, and M.L. Weinman. 2006. Impacts of channelization on stream habitats and associated fish assemblages in East Central Indiana. American Midland Naturalist 156:319-330.

Lehane, B.M., P.S. Giller, J. O’halloran, C. Smith, and J. Murphy. 2002. Experimental provision of large woody debris in streams as a trout management technique. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 12:289-311.

Lenat, D.R., and J.K. Crawford. 1994. Effects of land use on water quality and aquatic biota of three North Carolina Piedmont streams. Hydrobiologia 294: 185-199.

Lepori, F., D. Palm, and B. Malmqvist. 2005. Effects of stream restoration on ecosystem functioning: detritus retentiveness and decomposition. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:228-238.

Louhi, P., M. Ovaska, A. Maki-Petays, J. Erkinaro, and T. Muotka. 2011. Does fine sediment constrain salmonid alevin development and survival? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68:1819-1826.

Lukas, J.A. and D.J. Orth. 1995. Factors affecting nesting success of smallmouth bass in a regulated Virginia stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124:726-735.

Meyer, J.L. 1997. Stream health: incorporating the human dimension to advance stream ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16:439-447.

Muotka, T. and P. Laasonen. 2002. Ecosystem recovery in restored headwater streams: the role of enhanced leaf retention. Journal of Applied Ecology 39:145-156.

Muotka, T., R. Paavola, A. Haapala, M. Novikmec, and P. Laasonen. 2002. Long-term recovery of stream habitat structure and benthic invertebrate communities from in-stream restoration. Biological Conservation 105:243-253.

Naiman, R.J., R.E. Bilby, D.E. Schindler, and J.M. Helfield. 2002. Pacific salmon, nutrients, and the dynamics of freshwater and riparian ecosystems. Ecosystems 5:399-417.

Literature Cited (con't)

Negishi, J., and J. Richardson. 2003. Responses of organic matter and macroinvertebrates to placements of boulder clusters in a small stream of southwestern British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Sciences 60: 247-258.

Nerbonne, B.A. and B. Vondracek. 2001. Effects of local land use on physical habitat, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish in the Whitewater River, Minnesota, USA. Environmental Management 28:87-99.

Osborne, L.L., P.B. Bayley, L.W.G. Higler, B. Statzner, F. Triska, and T.M. Iversen. 1993. Restoration of lowland streams: an introduction. Freshwater Biology 29:187-194.

Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, J.D. Allan, P.S. Lake, G. Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, C.N. Dahm, J. Follstad Shah, D.L. Galat, S.G. Loss, P. Goodwin, D.D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, G.M. Kondolf, R. Lave, J.L. Meyer, T.K. O’Donnell, L. Pagano, E. Sudduth. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 208-217.

Petersen, R.C., B.L. Madsen, M.A. Wilzbach, C.H.D. Magadza, A. Paarlberg, A. Kullberg, and K.W. Cummins. 1987. Stream management: emerging global similarities. Ambio 16:166-179.

Quinn, T.P. 2005. The behavior and ecology of pacific salmon and trout. UBC Press: Vancouver, B.C.

Roth, N.E., J.D. Allan, and D.L. Erickson. 1996. Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecology 11: 141-156.

Sovell, A.A., B. Vondracek, J.A. Frost, K.G. Mumford. 2000. Impacts of rotational grazing and riparian buffers on physicochemical and biological characteristics of southeastern Minnesota, USA, streams. Environmental Management 26: 629-641.

Sharma, S. and D.A. Jackson. 2007. Fish assemblages and environmental conditions in the lower reaches of northeastern Lake Erie tributaries. Journal of Great Lakes Research 33:15-27.

Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E Cushing. 1980. River continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:130-137.

VTDEC. 2004. Biocriteria for fish and Macroinvertebrate Assemblages in Vermont, Wadeable Streams and Rivers. 3/28/2012.

VTDEC. 2012. Biomonitoring and Aquatic Studies. 3/28/2012.

Literature Cited (con't again...)

Wang, L., J. Lyons, P. Kanehl, and R. Bannerman. 2001. Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and fish across multiple spatial scales. Environmental Management 28: 255-266.

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams. Sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph.

Whiles, M.R., B.L. Brock, A.C. Franzen, and S.C. Dinsmore. 2000. Stream invertebrate communities, water quality, and land-use patterns in an agricultural drainage basin of northeastern Nebraska, USA. Journal of Environmental Management 26:563-576.

Wyzga, B. 2001. A geomorphologist’s criticism of the engineering approach to channelization of gravel-bed rivers: case study of the Raba River, Polish Carpathians. Environmental Management 28: 341-358.

  • Login