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

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

Advertisement
Download Presentation
Comments
lyre
From:
|  
(438) |   (0) |   (0)
Views: 61 | Added: 26-01-2013
Rate Presentation: 1 0
Description:
Why We Love Streams.... . . Goals. Evaluate the impacts altered stream systems have on instream biota-Impact on human interestsDetermine restoration focuses that will increase instream biota-Minimize impact on other human needs. Objectives. -Identify causes of stream alteration-Identify the i
The Effects of River Alteration and Restoration on Instream ...

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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -




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

2. Why We Love Streams... KayleeKaylee

3. KayleeKaylee

4. KayleeKaylee

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 Kaylee BE SURE TO NOTE: Our goal is not to return a stream to its completely natural state; impractical if not impossible; how can we get natural processes back though without hurting existing human needs?Kaylee BE SURE TO NOTE: Our goal is not to return a stream to its completely natural state; impractical if not impossible; how can we get natural processes back though without hurting existing human needs?

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 KayleeKaylee

7. What is our Endpoint? Ashley Mention for this slide that although we are applying this model to stream restoration, it can be applied to almost any system. Ashley Mention for this slide that although we are applying this model to stream restoration, it can be applied to almost any system.

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? ashleyashley

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 ashleyashley

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 ashleyashley

11. Causes of Stream Alteration Prior land use Channelization Riparian land use http://www.mikehudak.com/PhotoEssays/Smithsfork2001/010918_11.8_17V2.jpg KayleeKaylee

12. Prior Land Use and Land Use History http://lynn.boston-baden.com/lvb/tc-pix/float.gif KayleeKaylee

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 KayleeKaylee

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

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 ZacZac

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 ZackZack

17. Natural Stream Morphology...Why restore it? - Sinuosity Dynamic Equilibrium - Higher Retention - Increased Habitat For both fish and macro-invertebrates - Increased Aesthetics - Undisturbed complexity zackzack

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? ZacZac

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 LeeLee

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 LeeLee

21. Intrinsic Benefits Social -Aesthetic values -Cultural values LeeLee

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 LeeLee

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 LeeLee

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 KayleeKaylee

25. Focus on Restoring Stream Dynamics KayleeKaylee

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? AshleyAshley

27. Focus on Best Meeting Human Needs AshleyAshley

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 ZackZack

29. ZackZack

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 ColeCole

31. Focus on Restoring Instream Biota ColeCole

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 ColeCole

33. Assessing Instream Biota Cole Vermont DEC Water quality standards for aquatic life -assess fish and macroinverCole Vermont DEC Water quality standards for aquatic life -assess fish and macroinver

34. Why Biological Monitoring? In-stream biota reflects... -Ecological integrity -Synergistic impacts -Dynamic changes over time -Non-point source stressors ColeCole

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.

36. 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. Literature Cited

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.

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.

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.


Other Related Presentations

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