Download

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






Advertisement
/ 39 []
Download Presentation
Comments
lyre
From:
|  
(1185) |   (0) |   (0)
Views: 73 | Added: 26-01-2013
Rate Presentation: 1 0
Description:
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. Adirondackexplorer.org. Why We Love Streams. Goals. Evaluate the impacts altered stream systems have on instream biota
The Effects of River Alteration and Restoration on Instream Biota and Human Needs

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

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only and may not be sold or licensed nor shared on other sites. SlideServe reserves the right to change this policy at anytime. 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -




Slide 1

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

Adirondackexplorer.org

Slide 2

Why We Love Streams...

Slide 5

Goals

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

Slide 6

Objectives

-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

Slide 7

Social

What is our Endpoint?

Economic

Environmental

Sustainability

Slide 8

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?

Slide 9

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

Slide 10

Social and Economic Interaction

People work to pay the mortgage

  • connected to house, property

    Less expensive to not repair

    FEMA

  • More funding than Insurance companies

    Few cases of abandonment

  • roads

  • relocations

  • buyouts

Slide 11

Causes of Stream Alteration

  • Prior land use

  • Channelization

  • Riparian land use

    http://www.mikehudak.com/PhotoEssays/Smithsfork2001/010918_11.8_17V2.jpg

Slide 12

Prior Land Use and Land Use History

http://lynn.boston-baden.com/lvb/tc-pix/float.gif

Slide 13

Riparian Land Use

http://www.usernetsite.com/photography/creative-photography-by-navid-baraty/house-near-river-by-navid-baraty.jpg

http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/2x2505577/Cows_Standing_by_a_River_INGSEYFS0524.jpg

Slide 14

Channelization

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Los_Angeles_River_channelized.jpg/640px-Los_Angeles_River_channelized.jpg

Slide 15

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

Let the kid represent biota and detritus...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAD0MAMZjgg

Slide 16

Impact on Fish Populations

Impacts of altered streams:

Environmental

-Increased sedimentation

-Faster currents

-Changes in water temperature

-Loss of physical

structure and habitat

-Loss of food sources

Adirondackexplorer.org

Slide 17

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

Slide 18

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?

www.nrcs.usda.gov

Slide 19

Restore Macroinvertebrates

Environmental:

-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

woodswander.com

Slide 20

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 (EPA.gov)

Slide 21

Intrinsic Benefits

Social

-Aesthetic values

-Cultural values

kjpermaculture.blogspot.com

Slide 22

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

Slide 23

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

Slide 24

Focus Restoration on Stream Dynamics

Pros:

-Addresses all environmental needs

-Surrounding landscape would be restored as well

-Some social and economic needs met

Cons:

-Extremely expensive

-Very complicated

-Unrealistic in most cases to remove all human influences

-May cause loss to infrastructure

Slide 25

Social

Focus on Restoring Stream Dynamics

Economic

Environmental

Slide 26

Focus on Best Meeting Human Needs

Pro:

-Social circle addressed

-Economic circle possibly addressed

-Protect infrastructure, human investments

Cons:

-Fails to address environmental circle

-Natural processes not enhanced

-Potentially cost more in the long run?

Slide 27

Social

Focus on Best Meeting Human Needs

Economic

Environmental

Slide 28

Focus on Instream Habitat Restoration

Pros:

-Provides foundation for natural processes to begin occurring around

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

Cons:

-More costly to undertake

-May not include all necessary factors for processes to begin

-Eg. Allochthonous inputs, water temperature and quality

Slide 29

Social

Focus on Instream Habitat Restoration

Economic

Environmental

Slide 30

Focus on Restoring Instream Biota

Pros:

-Would ensure overall ecological integrity

-Stressors would be removed from system

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

Cons:

-More costly to undertake

-Have to have understanding of stream processes

-May sacrifice some natural conditions to meet human needs

Slide 31

Social

Focus on Restoring Instream Biota

Economic

Environmental

Slide 32

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

Slide 33

Assessing Instream Biota

Slide 34

Why Biological Monitoring?

In-stream biota reflects...

-Ecological integrity

-Synergistic impacts

-Dynamic changes over time

-Non-point source stressors

Slide 35

Acknowledgements

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.

Slide 36

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 http://www.fxbrowne.com/html/Services/Updates/Stream 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. EPA.gov. 3/28/2012. http://www.epa.gov/region07/wetlands/pdf/ChannelizationFS04-Final.pdf

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.

Slide 37

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.

Slide 38

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. Vtwaterquality.org. 3/28/2012. http://www.vtwaterquality.org/bass/docs/bs_wadeablestream2.pdf

VTDEC. 2012. Biomonitoring and Aquatic Studies. Vtwaterquality.org. 3/28/2012. http://www.vtwaterquality.org/bass/htm/bs_biomon.htm.

Slide 39

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.


Copyright © 2014 SlideServe. All rights reserved | Powered By DigitalOfficePro