the ecological impacts of stream restoration: providing structures …€¦ · the ecological...

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


GroundwaterRecharge

DecreasedStreamP



ReconnectFloodplain


and concealment

Dissipated Flows

IncreasedSinuosity

DecreasedGradient

High Flow Refugia

SinuosityRiparian

Vegetation

Shading

More Pools


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


GroundwaterRecharge

DecreasedStreamP



ReconnectFloodplain


and concealment

Dissipated Flows

IncreasedSinuosity

DecreasedGradient

High Flow Refugia

SinuosityRiparian

Vegetation

Shading

More Pools


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


GroundwaterRecharge

DecreasedStreamP



ReconnectFloodplain


and concealment

Dissipated Flows

IncreasedSinuosity

DecreasedGradient

High Flow Refugia

SinuosityRiparian

Vegetation

Shading

More Pools


Allothonous inputs

STARTER DAM OCCUPIED…

Inset floodplain frequently inundated

Beaver dams

RaisedWater

BeaverRecruitment

LevelsVariable

WaterVelocity

Groundwater

Pools,Area

Decreased Dam

Failure

ForagingResting

Locations


GroundwaterRecharge

DecreasedStreamP



ReconnectFloodplain


and concealment

Dissipated Flows

IncreasedSinuosity

DecreasedGradient

High Flow Refugia

SinuosityRiparian

Vegetation

Shading

More Pools


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


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)


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


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)


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!

the ecological impacts of stream restoration: providing structures …€¦ · the ecological...

Documents