Comparing Stream Geomorphology and Channel Habitat along a Stream Restoration Gradient

Sam Stewart

Colorado College

Mentor: Linda Deegan, Ecosystems Center, MBL

Advisor: Richard McHorney, Ecosystems Center, MBL

Contributors: Andrew Miano, Connecticut College

Audrey Seiz, Clark University

Lena Weiss, Brown University

Abstract

Stream restoration is a growing science due to the realization that the human industry and

agriculture have had severe negative effects of stream habitat. In the Cape Cod area this is due

to cranberry farms homogenizing the coastal streams into unbearable habitat for once prominent

organisms. The restoration technique of woody debris installation has been used to help reclaim

these streams and bring diversity back to these habitats. The study of woody debris can be taken

a step further into a whole reach study. This involved selecting four stream sites that would

create a stream restoration gradient that will provide a basis of how certain degrees of stream

restoration will create new habitat. In this experiment it was apparent that all forms of woody

debris cause a variety in velocity, depth and substrates which in turn create new surfaces for

species to live. When taken to the next level the streams with higher restoration levels showed a

much more dynamic ecosystem compared to the lower intensity level. These higher intensity

streams though did not completely relate to the reference stream. This was due to the fact that

some physical factors of the stream cannot be fixed in a quick period of time. These

geomorphologic processes are the basis of stream dynamics and determine how they were

composed. These stream restoration intensities do not take a degraded stream and change it back

to its original state but create a better version of the stream that is healthier and more suitable to

habitat.

Key Phrases and Key Words- geomorphology, stream restoration gradient, large woody debris

(LWD), channel habitat

Introduction

In stream sciences there are many questions involving stream restoration. Now looking

back it would have been beneficial to have prepared for the effects on the human activity on

streams (Elliot et al, 2007). Now the need for habitat restoration is more important than ever in

coastal areas where agriculture, urbanization and tourism have created much ecological

degradation. Some of the investments in stream restoration over the past few decades have failed

to stop the declines in habitat quality and ecosystem function (Beechie et al, 2010). But there is

still room to make improvements.

Stream and river systems provide many services for humankind such as water for

domestic, industrial and agricultural purposes, also hydroelectric power, waste disposal,

navigation and also recreational activities (Gao et al, 2009). These services unfortunately have

degraded streams from their natural habitats to altered and degraded ecosystems. The depletion

on these streams changes the surrounding ecosystems but they also create new problems for the

human development. Problems such as flooding and erosion control are some of the rising issues

that have been of great concern.

The main issue in an ecological sense with the human alterations on streams is the

homogenization of physical characteristics (Poff et al, 2007). The geomorphology and channel

habitat of a stream is the basis of the stream’s function and ecosystem. The diversity within a

stream is what makes it able to support the vast majority of species within the system.

Destroying the diversity in these streams degrade the ability of that ecosystem to support the

right amount of species.

Specifically in the Cape Cod area the cranberry industry has degraded many streams.

The cranberry farms destroy the stream habitat because they cut down all of the surrounding

vegetation to make way for cranberry plants. The farms also straighten the streams in order to

create an available water source for the farms. The farms also dam the streams in order to flood

the fields during the harvest. These patterns happen to many streams all over the Cape Cod area.

This experiment will take a look into the restored streams at altering stages and intensities

in their recovery. The first part of this experiment analyzes the method of adding large woody

debris (LWD) into streams to restore them. This process will take an in depth look at how

different kinds of woody debris change the composition of the stream channel in the adjacent

area of the woody debris. The second part of the project was taking this small scale process and

examining it along a stream restoration gradient. This involved three streams that vary in

restoration intensity and a stream with no alterations on it to that served as the reference stream.

This big scale look at stream restoration will provide a look into how differing methods of stream

restoration create biodiversity and to what degree can achieve a habitat that is most similar to the

habitat of an unaltered stream.

Methods

Stream Descriptions

For this experiment there were four field sites. These sites constructed the stream

restoration gradient. The reference stream was the Mashpee River. The Mashpee River was the

most pristine stream out of the gradient (Mashpee River Restoration). This stream has had little

to no human alterations performed in its existence.

Continuing on the gradient the low intensity stream chosen for this experiment was the

Coonamessett River. The Coonamessett River was altered by the operation of a cranberry farm.

This stream was straightened and dammed. In terms of restoration there has been very little done

on the stream. The only restoration performed on the stream was the termination of the

cranberry farm, which was in 2005. Since then the River has been unchanged and has been

recovery on its own.

The medium intensity stream that was chosen for this experiment was Red Brook. This

stream like the Coonamessett was degraded by cranberry farms. The cranberry farm was closed

20-30 years ago (The Trustees, 2005) and only recently in the past 5 years has there been any

restoration performed on the stream. The restoration efforts made on this stream was the

installation of LWD and also the transplanting of trees in the surrounding area.

The last stream that was used for this experiment was Eel River. Eel River has had the

most restoration performed on it. The restoration performed on this stream was the actual

construction of the channel. This process was done by heavy machinery (Town of Plymouth,

2010). In addition to the channel construction they also planted several trees within the old

cranberry field in order to create more overhanging vegetation. A fence was built around

specific areas in order to keep out herbivores so that the surrounding vegetation can grow.

Within the stream they added LWD and rocks.

These streams put together created a gradient that was able to show how the difference in

the restoration intensities affect the channel geomorphology and channel habitat.

Field Work

Stream Restoration Gradient Measurements

In the field there were many measurement taken at each stream. The stream was first

sectioned off into a 150 meter (m) reach. This distance was to insure that all of the stream’s

attributes would be accounted for. Within this 150 m section there was a cross section or

transect performed every 15 m so there were a total of 11 transects (Gordon, 1992). At each

point of the cross section there were three measurements taken the depth, velocity and the

substrate. The depth was taken by a top-setting wading rod in centimeters (cm) that had a flow

meter attached to it. Using a Flo-Mate Model 2000 portable flow meter and the wading rod the

velocity was taken in meters per second (m s-1

) and was measured at a depth 4/5 of the original

depth. The substrate was the measure of the composition of the stream bed at that point so for

instance sand or gravel would be an appropriate substrate. At each transect there were also two

bank class measurements made so there would be a classification of the bank complexity.

In addition to these transects there was a simplified longitudinal profile done of each

stream. This longitudinal profile was made by using a Top Con AT-G2 Auto Level and a

measuring rod. The typical surveying methods stated by Mark B. Bain use a height

measurement at each end of the reach or the greatest distance possible to calculate a slope.

In addition to the slope measurement there was overhanging vegetation measurement.

This measurement was taken by an LAI 2000 and this instrument determined the amount of

cover in the surrounding area of each stream.

A Top Con Agent 20 GPS unit was used to measure the sinuosity. The sinuosity is the

measurement of the stream length divided by the valley length (Rosgen, 1994). In general the

sinuosity is the measurement of how much a stream meanders. GPS way points were logged

going up and down the stream channel.

The field measurement taken at each stream was for the organic matter stock calculations.

This was done by collecting three soil samples in five types of areas. The five areas consisted of

(1) leaf pack, (2) sand from a run without vegetation, (3) gravel from a run without vegetation,

(4) submerged aquatic vegetation from a run and (5) algae from a run. In the field the soil

samples were made by using a modified bulk density core borer that was used to take a soil

sample 3 cm deep from the stream. These soil samples were taken back to the lab and processed

there.

Woody Debris plots

All of the woody debris plots measurements were taken within Red Brook. Red Brook

was a preferable site because it contained many different types of woody debris that allowed for

five different plots. The five types of woody debris chosen for this part of the experiment were

(1) a piece of large woody debris the stretched across the whole stream and was submerged, (2)

two pieces of small woody debris, (3) one piece of large woody debris, (4) a woody debris

island, and (5) a plot with no woody debris. This last plot was selected so that there would be a

reference plot to compare measurements along all of the plots.

To set up the plots rebar posts were positioned in a square shape. These squares had side

measurements of 4 m. Within each 4 m by 4 m plot a point was taken every half meter going

across and down in a grid pattern. There were a total of 81 points within each plot. At each

point depth, longitudinal velocity, transverse velocity and substrate were taken. The longitudinal

velocity was the velocity going down the stream and the transverse velocity was the velocity

going across the stream. All of the measurements were taken in the same manner as the stream

transect measurements were taken in the other part of the experiment.

Lab Work and Calculations

Substrates and Bank Type

After field data was collected all of the substrate measurements were taken and

processed. The first thing to find was the total number of points taken in each stream. After this

the total number of each substrate was totaled and this number was divided by the total number

of points. This value showed the percentage of each substrate within each stream. This process

was the same with woody debris plots as well.

The same calculations were made to find the bank type percentages.

Sinuosity

Sinuosity was calculated by taking the way points taken from the field and putting them

into Google Earth. These points were plotted on a map and then by using the ruler tool the

distance between each point was found. Using this tool the stream length and the valley length

were determined. By taking the ratio of stream length to valley length the sinuosity was

calculated.

Depth and Velocity Frequencies

For each stream and woody debris plots the depths and velocities were counted and the

frequency of each depth and velocity was determined. These depth and velocity counts were

then grouped into even intervals. The depths were grouped by five cm intervals and the

velocities were grouped by 0.05 m s-1

intervals.

Slope

Slope was calculated by using the measurements taken from the longitudinal profile. By

using the height measurements the overall change in height can be calculated. The height from

the upstream measurement was subtracted by the downstream height measurement in order to

find the overall height change. The overall change in height was divided by the distance

between the two points and the slope was found.

Discharge

The discharge was determined by using the cross section measurements taken at each

stream. The depth, width and velocity measurements were used to calculate the discharge of the

cross section. This was done by dividing each cross section into trapezoids. The width and

depth were used to calculate the area of each trapezoid and the velocity measurement taken by

the flow meter was multiplied by the area so that discharge was calculated for each trapezoid.

The summation of the discharges of all the trapezoids equaled the overall discharge. This

calculation was done for each stream.

Soil Samples

All of the soil samples that were taken from the streams were brought back to the lab and

dried. The soil samples were placed in Fisher Scientific Isotemp Oven which was set at 60°C

and left in the oven for 3 days. After each sample was dried the sample was placed in a ceramic

crucible and weighed. After weighing, the sample was taken to a Fisher Scientific Isotemp

Programmable Muffler Furnace which burned the samples at 450°C. These samples were left in

the muffler furnace for 8 hours. After the soil samples were burned they were brought back to

the lab for weighing. With the dried weight before burning and the dried weight after burning

the amount organic matter can be found.

With these organic matter measurements we were able to determine the amount of

organic matter in the stream. The organic matter concentration of each sample was then

multiplied by the amount of area for the corresponding substrate type. These values were totaled

and then divided by the total area of the stream. With this the organic matter concentration of

each stream was calculated.

Results

Woody Debris Plots

For the woody debris plots there were three sets of histograms made to show the

frequencies of the longitudinal velocities, transverse velocities and depths (Figure 1-3). In these

graphs it was apparent that each plot had a different range of velocities and depths compared to

one another, especially when compared to the plot with no woody debris, which had a very

concentrated range of velocities and depths. This pattern was also supported by Table 1, which

shows the average, standard deviation, maximum and coefficient of variation were calculated for

the longitudinal velocity, transverse velocity and depth for each plot. The plot with no woody

debris had the lowest coefficient variations for each of the measurements while the across whole

stream, small woody debris (SWD) and LWD plots contained the higher values. A pie graphs

were made to show the substrate composition of each plot (Figure 4). These graphs show the

percentages of each substrate within each plot as well. The island plot contained the most types

of substrates while the no woody debris plot contained the lowest. With these figures and tables

it was apparent that there were significant differences between all of the plots.

Stream Restoration Gradient

The graphs made for the stream restoration gradient part of the experiment were similar

to the woody debris plots. For the velocity and depth histograms were made to show the

frequency of each measurement in each stream (Figure 5-6). Visually it was evident that the

reference stream had a vast range of velocities and depths compared to the other streams. Table

2 corresponds with these figures by showing the average, standard deviation, maximum and

coefficient of variation for the velocity and depth for each stream. This table shows that the high

intensity stream actually had the highest coefficient of variation compared to all of the other

streams. Similar to the woody debris plots the substrate composition was graphed for each

stream reach (Figure 7). The high intensity stream had the most types of substrates while the

reference stream had the lowest. In addition to the substrate composition the bank types were

graphed on pie charts (Figure 8). Each stream had the percentages of each bank type shown on

the graph. The high intensity had a completely uniform bank type while all of the other streams

have three different bank types.

Along with these graphs there were also more figures that show different characteristics

of each stream. The organic matter concentrations for each stream were displayed in Figure 9

and it was apparent that the medium intensity had the highest while the low intensity had the

lowest organic matter concentrations. The overhanging vegetation shows that the reference

stream had the highest LAI while the both the low and high intensity streams had no LAI (Figure

10). The sinuosity was a measurement to take note of in Figure 11 which shows that the

reference stream had the highest sinuosity while the low intensity stream had the smallest

sinuosity. The high intensity stream had the lowest discharge while the reference stream had the

highest discharge among all the streams (Figure 12). In the next table the average width of each

stream was shown (Table 3). The low intensity stream was the widest stream on average while

the high intensity stream was the smallest. The slope of the reference stream was also the

highest among the streams and the low intensity had the lowest. The medium intensity stream

had no slope data because there was a complication when taking the measurement in the field.

This was due to the tidal change while the measurement was being taken so the slope

measurement taken is invalid.

These tables and figures show the patterns among all of the streams and woody debris

plots and from this a better idea of restoration can be made.

Discussion

Woody Debris Plots

Across Whole Stream Plot

In this plot there it was clearly shown that there was much variation within the

longitudinal velocity with a coefficient of variation of (1.28). Overall both longitudinal (0.19 m

s-1

) and transverse (.06 m s-1

) velocity were a lot slower compared to the others. The depth

average was the deepest out of all the other plots at 37 cm. This coefficient of variation showed

that there the plot was more than just a deep pool because it had the second highest variation of

0.39.

The substrates show the effect of the slow velocities and deep depths. There was more

sand accumulation because of the slow speeds but there was also a high accumulation of wood,

detritus and rock. These other types combine for almost a quarter of the total plot. This high

accumulation of other substrates could supply a new habitat for organisms.

SWD Plot

In this plot the velocities were rather fast compared to the other plots. The maximum

velocity for the longitudinal velocity (0.505 m s-1

) was the second highest out of the plots while

the maximum transverse velocity (0.29 m s-1

) was the highest. Even with the high velocities

there was still a great deal of variation in the plot. The coefficient of variation for the

longitudinal velocity (0.71) and transverse velocity (0.99) was the third highest and highest,

respectively. Even with the great variation in velocity the overall average was still very high this

was why the average depth (25 cm) was not very deep.

The overall fast speeds and shallow depths showed that there was less sand and increase

in gravel reflected this as well. But still there was more wood and detritus in the plot this was

due to the variety in the velocities. The gravel was very important in channel habitat because it

allows more habitats for organisms that cannot live in the sandy environment.

LWD Plot

Very similar to the SWD plot there were very high velocities but also a great range of

them as well. The depths were fairly deep as well as and the coefficient of variation (0.29) was

the 2nd

lowest.

The similar depth and velocity frequencies lead to very similar substrate patterns. There

was a very high accumulation of gravel. There was also the same percentage of detritus and sand

within the plot as the SWD plot. The SWD plot and LWD plot had the same patterns in channel

habitat.

Island

The longitudinal velocity (0.16 m s-1

) for the island plot was very low and has the 2nd

lowest coefficient of variation (0.59). The average transverse velocities (0.07 m s-1

) were

relatively high but still have the 2nd

lowest coefficient of variation (0.78) out of all the plots. The

average depth (29 cm) was in the middle but there also has the highest coefficient of variation

(0.45)

The concentration of slow velocities allows for the highest amount of substrates types out

of all the plots. This was also attributed to the variation of depths as well. These slow velocities

also allow for a new type of substrate which is marsh or emergent vegetation. The potential for

species diversity was directly related to the diversity in the substrates.

No Woody Debris Plot

This plot was the control out of all the five plots. This plot showed the least variation in

all of the measurement taken. This was evident in the coefficient of variation for each

measurement which for the longitudinal velocity (0.35), transverse velocity (0.71) and the depth

(0.28) was the least out of all the sites. The averages for each measurement were also the highest

for the longitudinal (0.29 m s-1

) and transverse velocity (.08 m s-1

) as the least for the depth (23

cm).

These tendencies showed why the substrate data was most uniform out of all the plots.

With the lack of variety in velocity and depth there was no room for any change in the substrate.

Usually high velocities do not show high abundance of sand but in this case the plot was mainly

sand. This was because the maximum velocity of this plot was not the highest out of the five

plots. The velocity of this plot still did allow sand to accumulate but no other substrate type to

really gather and accumulate.

Summary

When taking a step back it was easier to see how woody debris changes the composition

of a stream. There are some characteristics that were very prominent in determining the

substrate types. In this case the changes in velocity were the key attribute that starts a chain

reaction. The velocity determined the depth within the plot because velocity and depth are

positively correlated. The faster the stream was the deeper it was as well. A vast range of

speeds meant that there was going to be a greater range of depths.

Both the velocity and depth altered the substrate types. The slower speeds allowed more

detritus and other woody materials to collect and stay put within the area. The deeper pools also

allowed detritus and other materials to collect as well. Fast speeds on the other hand tended to

create more space for gravel to collect and decreased the chances of sand accumulation. In this

case getting rid of the sand was beneficial to the area because there was already a high

abundance of sand to begin with.

This restoration technique shows that by installing woody debris there was an increase

variety and therefore an increase in the diversity within the stream. Greater diversity allowed for

a greater opportunity for more species to thrive within the stream.

Stream Restoration Gradient

Low Intensity Stream

In this stream the tendencies of the woody debris plots were very evident. This stream

would be closely related to the plot with no woody debris. The velocity (0.23 m s-1

) was the 2nd

highest out of the streams and had the smallest coefficient of variation (0.53). Even though the

velocity was relatively high compared to the other streams the average depth (17 cm) was the

lowest out all the streams. Not only were depth measurements small but had no variety this was

supported by a coefficient of variation measurement of 0.35, which was the lowest out of all the

streams.

This concentration of velocities and depths lead to a very uniform substrate composition

in the stream reach. The low intensity stream was a very sandy stream there was little evidence

of other substrates. The detritus, algae and submerged aquatic vegetation were present due to the

slow velocity and the emergent vegetation was present due to the shallow depths located at the

banks of the stream.

The bank composition was another characteristic of the stream to take into account. The

low intensity stream had a very uniform bank composition being mostly composed of marshy

banks. There were some overhanging shrubs and trees but it was not very dense.

The bank composition and organic matter stocks for the low intensity were correlated

due to the fact that most of the organic matter located within a stream was from the banks of the

streams. In this case the low intensity stream had the lowest organic matter content because

there was less overhanging vegetation. This was also supported by the LAI measurement taken

at the stream, which was zero.

This measurement then leads into the sinuosity of the stream. The sinuosity for the low

intensity stream was 1.07, which means that the stream was very straight. The reason why this

stream was so straight was because of the lack of trees along the banks. The roots of trees

provide bank stabilization, which in turn divert water to new areas and create bends throughout

the stream. So the lack of trees showed that there was no sinuosity in the stream.

Going back to the velocities which were relatively high also accounts for why the stream

had a high discharge. The low intensity had the 2nd

highest discharge out of the streams which

was 0.31 m3 s

-1. Not only do the high speeds accounted for this high discharge but also the width

as well which for this stream the average width was 7.15 m. Another factor of discharge was the

slope or stream gradient of the stream. In this case the slope was not major factor of the stream

discharge because the slope was the very small. In actuality the slopes for all the streams were

very small and they were all the same.

Medium Intensity

The velocity and depth for this stream was much different than the low intensity stream.

The average velocity (0.15 m s-1

) was the 2nd

lowest out of all the streams but had the 2nd

highest

coefficient of variation (0.88). So not only was the stream relatively slow but it also had a very

vast range of speeds and actually had the 2nd

highest maximum (0.48 m s-1

) out of all the streams.

These velocities reflect the depths because the medium intensity stream had the deepest average

depth at 33 cm. But the stream also had a wide variety of depths because the coefficient of

variation was 0.47, which was the 2nd

highest out of all the streams.

These wide varieties of velocities and depths show a very mixed composition of

substrates. The most dominant substrate was sand but there was still a lot of gravel within the

stream as well. Since there was so much woody debris installation in the stream there was a lot

of wood substrate within the stream and this causes a lot of detritus formation. These woody

debris structures also cause slow enough pools where mud was able to settle as well.

The bank composition was very important in this stream because there was a lot of

overhanging vegetation. This overhanging vegetation causes a serious input of organic matter

which this stream had the highest organic matter concentration out of all the streams. Even

though the overhanging bank composition (42%) was still the 2nd

highest out of all the streams.

The surrounding bank was still marshy compared to the reference stream but the higher

percentage of overhanging vegetation was still a great contributor to organic matter. The

overhanging cover was also measured in LAI (0.69), which supported the organic matter

concentration (755 g m-2

) because it was the 2nd

highest among all the streams. Like before the

overhanging cover accounted for bank stabilization which affected the sinuosity, which out of all

the streams was the third highest.

The discharge of the stream was another important characteristic for the stream. The

stream had the 3rd

highest discharge of 0.7 m3

s-1

. This discharge accounted for the low velocity

but the stream was relatively narrow compared to the low intensity stream with an average width

of 5.14 m. Also it was too hard to determine whether the slope made any difference in the

discharge because there was no slope measurement from the field.

High Intensity

The velocities and depths were very different compared to the other streams. The

average velocity (0.07 m s-1

) was the lowest out of all the streams, but had the highest coefficient

of variation (1.08). This high variation in the velocity also reflected the coefficient of variation

(0.56) of the depth which was the highest as well. The average depth was 26 cm which was the

2nd

deepest out of all the streams. The great range of the depths and velocities reflected the many

types of substrates that were measured within the stream. The slow velocities allowed for the

submerged aquatic vegetation (42%) to become the most abundant substrate within the reach.

The same reason why there were so much mud and detritus accumulations as well. It was

surprising that there was any gravel that made up the stream due to the low velocities but there

was still some areas of very fast speeds so gravel was abundant in that space.

Due to the recent construction of the stream there had been less time for the banks to

accumulate any overhanging vegetation and that was why the bank composition was all marsh.

This marshy area was also a reason why organic matter stock was so much less than the medium

intensity stream. The organic matter (228 g m-2

) in the stream was higher than the low intensity

because there was still the input of LWD in the stream and the slow velocities probably allow

organic matter to accumulate easily. There was still less organic matter because there was no

overhanging vegetation in the area. Unlike the past streams the high intensity stream has the 2nd

highest sinuosity (1.5). This was due to the construction of the channel bed and not the

surrounding vegetation. In this case the surrounding marsh vegetation would be able to alter the

sinuosity of the stream because the banks were not stabilized.

The discharge (0.07 m3

s-1

) was the least out of all the streams. This was due to the slow

speeds of the stream and also the size of the stream in general. The stream has an average width

of 2.92 m which means it was the smallest stream out of sampling streams. The small slope as

well did not attribute to the small discharge.

Reference Stream

The velocities of this stream have the highest average (0.30 m s-1

) and the third highest

coefficient of variation (0.80). But this stream also has the highest standard deviation of 0.24 m

s-1

. There was a vast range of velocities that means that there was a large range of depths as

well. The coefficient of variation for the depth was the 2nd

highest at 0.47. The average depth

(19 cm) though is the 2nd

lowest out of all the streams. The fast velocities are the reasons why

the substrate composition was mostly gravel. But the wide variety still allowed for the other

substrates like sand, detritus and submerged aquatic vegetation to accumulate as well.

The bank composition unlike all of the other streams was majority overhanging

vegetation. This shows why the organic matter was relatively high as well. Not only does the

bank composition prove this but also the LAI measurement on cover which was 1.4. Unlike the

high intensity stream the reference stream has a high sinuosity because of the amount of

overhanging vegetation that has accumulated around the banks.

The discharge (0.38 m3

s-1

) was a product of the high velocities in the stream. It also has

the second highest average width (6.41 m), which was also a major component of discharge.

The slope was not the main contributing factor to the discharge as well.

Summary

To start, each stream (excluding the reference) on the restoration gradient had varying

characteristics. The low intensity gradient was very similar to the no woody debris plot in that

there was no variety and it was very uniform in velocity, depth and substrate. This was very

different for the medium and high intensity streams which had a wide variety of these

measurements.

The organic matter concentrations were great indicators of the surrounding vegetation or

the overhanging vegetation. This was apparent because the medium intensity had the most

organic matter but also a lot of overhanging vegetation and bank cover. The low and high

intensity streams had the least amount of organic matter and also had the least amount of

overhanging cover.

The overhanging cover was also a good indicator or the sinuosity as well. The low

intensity had the lowest sinuosity that corresponded with a low overhanging cover measurement.

The high intensity stream even though it had no overhanging vegetation had a high sinuosity but

that was because of the high intensity restoration. The medium intensity stream had a lot of

overhanging vegetation, which correlated with a higher sinuosity.

The velocity and average width were the main indicators of the discharge measurements

for the streams. The high intensity stream had a very low discharge due to the size and pace of

the stream. The low and medium intensity streams had higher discharges because the overall

size and speed was much higher than the high intensity stream.

At each stream a large woody debris count was made for each reach. LWD was

characterized as any piece of wood in the stream with a diameter greater than 25 cm (Miano,

2011). These numbers should correspond with the overall variety and diversity that was evident

at each stream. The total number of LWD taken in the low intensity stream was 2 compared to

the medium and high intensity streams accounting for 45 and 27 pieces of LWD respectively.

These counts corresponded with the overall diversity of each stream especially in the low

intensity stream. The high intensity stream had the most variety in the substrates this was

because the size of the stream was so much smaller that each piece of LWD accounted for more

area in the stream. The medium intensity stream had a lot of variety as well as LWD.

The reference stream was the control stream. Essentially the goal was to change all of

the degraded streams into this reference stream. From the measurements taken this was not the

case. The reference stream did not have the greatest variety in the all of the measurements. The

only measurements that the streams do not match with the reference stream are the discharge and

sinuosity. This was purely just because this stream had not been altered and these processes take

the longest to reclaim. The act of carving a new stream path and channel were the

geomorphologic processes that take long periods of time for streams to create.

Conclusion

In the overall summary of things it was apparent that LWD can relieve the homogeneity

in the degraded streams. This homogeneity was overcome by creating a vast range of velocities

and depths that can change the substrate composition of each stream. The composition within

the stream was not the only factor but the surrounding environment and the overhanging

vegetation was very important as well. The overhanging vegetation creates the organic matter

inputs needed for the habitat and also creates the physical characteristics of each stream like the

sinuosity and discharge. The sinuosity and discharge are the hardest characteristics to restore

because of the amount of time needed to do it. Even if there was high intensity stream

restoration the geomorphologic processes still are not going to be fulfilled in the stream so there

will still be time needed to restore the stream.

Stream restoration does not necessarily restore a stream back to its original form, but it

changes it so that it is a healthier system compared to the degraded stream it was before.

Acknowledgements

I would like to that Dr Linda Deegan for helping me create this experiment and providing me

with the materials to complete it. I have great thanks and appreciation to give to Rich McHorney

as well because I would not have been able to complete my field data if I did not have his help. I

would also like to thank Carrie Harris, Andrew Miano, Audrey Seiz, and Lena Weiss for helping

me complete my field work.

Literature Cited

Bain, Mark B., and Nathalie J. Stevenson. 1999. Stream Reach Surveys and Measurements.

Aquatic Habitat Assessment: Common Methods. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries

Society, 1999. 47-56.

Beechie, Timothy J., David A. Sear, Julian D. Olden, George R. Pess, John M. Buffington,

Hamish Moir, Philip Roni, and Michael M. Pollock. 2010. Process-based Principles for

Restoring River Ecosystems. Bioscience 60.3: 209-22.

Elliot, Michael, Daryl Burdon, Krystal L. Hemingway, and Sabine E. Apitz. 2007. Estuarine,

Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Restoration: Confusing Management and Science- a

Revision of Concepts. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 74: 349-66.

Gao, Yongxuan, Richard M. Vogel, Charles N. Kroll, N. Leroy Poff, and Julian D. Olden. 2009.

Development of Representative Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration. Journal of

Hydrology 374: 136-47.

Gordon, Nancy D., Thomas A. McMahon, and Brian Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: an

Introduction for Ecologists. Chichester: Wiley,. 145-48.

"Mashpee River Reservation | Cape Cod | Mashpee, MA | The Trustees of Reservations." The

Trustees of Reservations: Protecting Landscapes and Landmarks across Massachusetts.

19 Dec. 2011. <http://www.thetrustees.org/places-to-visit/cape-cod-islands/mashpee-

river.html>.

Miano, Andrew. 2011. How Do Fish Communities Differ Across Restoration Intensities. SES

2011.

Poff, N. Leroy, Julian D. Olden, David M. Merritt, and David M. Pepin. 2007. Homogenization

of Regional River Dynamics by Dams and Global Biodiversity Implications. PNAS

104.14 :5732-737.

Rosgen, David L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.

The Trustees of Reservations. “Theodore Lyman Reserve Management Plan.” 2005.

Town of Plymouth. “ Eel River Headwaters Restoration Project.” 2010.

Appendix A.

Figure 1. This graph shows the frequency of the longitudinal velocities taken in the 5 different

woody debris plots. SWD means small woody debris and LWD means large woody debris.

Velocity is measured in m s-1

.

Figure 2. This graphs shows the frequency of the transverse velocities in the 5 different woody

debris plots. SWD means small woody debris and LWD means large woody debris. Velocity is

measured in m s-1

.

Figure 3. This graph shows the frequencies of depths taken in the 5 woody debris plots. SWD

means small woody debris and LWD means large woody debris. Depth is measured in cm.

Longitudinal Velocity

Across Whole

Stream SWD LWD Island No WD

Average 0.19 0.22 0.20 0.16 0.29

Standard

Deviation 0.24 0.16 0.20 0.10 0.10

Maximum 0.395 0.505 0.56 0.37 0.46

Coefficient of

Variation 1.28 0.71 0.98 0.59 0.35

Transverse Velocity

Across Whole

Stream SWD LWD Island No WD

Average 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08

Standard

Deviation 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.06

Maximum 0.195 0.29 0.26 0.22 0.2

Coefficient of

Variation 0.83 0.99 0.85 0.78 0.71

Depth

Across Whole

Stream SWD LWD Island No WD

Average 37 25 30 29 23

Standard

Deviation 14 8 9 13 6

Maximum 76 36 42 52 37

Coefficient of

Variation 0.39 0.31 0.29 0.45 0.28

Table 1. Shows the average, standard deviation, max and coefficient of variation for longitudinal

velocity, transverse velocity and depth of the 5 woody debris plots. SWD means small woody

debris and LWD means large woody debris.

Figure 4. This graph shows the substrate composition of the 5 woody debris plots. SWD means

small woody debris and LWD means large woody debris.

Figure 5. This graphs shows the frequencies of the velocities taken at each stream. Velocity is

measured in m s-1

.

Figure 6. This graph shows the frequencies of the depths taken at each stream. Depth is measured

in cm.

Velocity

Reference

Low

Intensity

Medium

Intensity

High

Intensity

Average (m/s) 0.30 0.23 0.15 0.07

Standard

Deviation (m/s) 0.24 0.12 0.13 0.08

Maximum (m/s) 0.76 0.40 0.48 0.36

Coefficient of

Variation 0.80 0.53 0.88 1.08

Depth

Reference

Low

Intensity

Medium

Intensity

High

Intensity

Average (cm) 19 17 33 26

Standard

Deviation 9 6 16 15

Maximum 50 30 60 56

Coefficient of

Variation 0.47 0.35 0.47 0.56

Table 2. This table shows the average, standard deviation, maximum, and coefficient of variation

for the velocity and depth for each stream.

Figure 7. Shows the substrate composition of each stream.

Figure 8. This shows the bank composition of each stream.

Figure 9. Shows the organic matter concentration for all the streams measured in g m-2

.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Reference Low Intensity Medium Intensity High Intensity

Org

anic

Mat

ter

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

g/m

^2)

Organic Matter Concentrations for all Streams

Figure 10. Shows the Overhanging cover for all the streams measured in LAI

0 00

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Reference Low Intensity Medium Intensity High Intensity

LAI

Overhanging Cover of All Streams

Figure 11. This shows the sinuosity of all the streams measured in m/m.

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

Reference Low Intensity Medium Intensity High Intensity

Sin

uo

sity

(m

/m)

Sinuosity of All Streams

Figure 12. This shows the discharge of all the streams measured in m3

s-1

.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Reference Low Intensity Medium Intensity High Intensity

Dis

char

ge (

m^3

/s)

Discharge of All Streams

Reference Low Intensity

Medium

Intensity

High

Intensity

Average Width

(m) 6.41 7.15 5.14 2.92

Table 3. Shows the average width of each stream in meters.

Figure 13. Shows the slope for all the streams measured in cm/100m.

No Data0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Reference Low Intensity Medium Intensity High Intensity

Slo

pe

(cm

/10

0m

)Stream Gradient of All Streams