Transcript Slide 1

Action Effectiveness Monitoring in the
Upper Columbia
(Chapter 4)
Karl M. Polivka, Pacific Northwest Research
Station, USDA Forest Service
Key Management Questions for
Effectiveness Monitoring
1. Which actions could be suggested as most important to
managers and funding entities?
2. Which projects (if any) affected the environmental parameters
(physical/chemical (water quality))?
3. What is the scale (reach/population) of the effect on
environmental and biological parameters?
4. Are biological parameters affected at the population scale by
single or multiple action types?
Dr. Phil Roni, NWFSC: Global review of effectiveness
monitoring studies of various habitat restoration
techniques.
1. Road Improvements
2. Riparian Rehabilitation
3. Floodplain connectivity
4. In-stream habitat structures
5. Nutrient addition
Dr. Phil Roni, NWFSC: Global review of effectiveness
monitoring studies of various habitat restoration
techniques: General results
Riparian Rehabilitation: Livestock exclusion has shown
the most promising results
Floodplain Connectivity: Dam removal has shown
promise for improving habitat diversity
In-stream habitat restoration: Show success at
increasing local fish abundance, but results are highly
variable among species, life stages and structure types
Protect High Quality Habitats
Functioning habitats
Natural areas
Refuge areas
Water Quality and Quantity
Improve quality
Provide adequate flow
Habitat Connectivity
Restore Watershed Processes
Sediment and hydrology
Riparian and floodplain
Improve Instream Habitat
Instream structures
Nutrient enhancement
Tricia Gross and Jennifer O’Neal – Effectiveness
monitoring in the Upper Columbia, meta-analysis
1. Survey of 10 projects in 6 different monitoring categories for
changes in metrics (fish abundance, physical habitat condition)
Riparian Rehabilitation: “Livestock exclusion has shown
the most promising results” – Roni
Gross and O’Neal (different sites across WA and OR):
80
Net Percent Change in Bank Erosion
(Impact - Control)
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Project Year
02-1498
206095
04-1655LE
04-1698LE
05-1447
05-1547
205-060bottle
205-060nfclark
206072greys
206283johnson
206283noble
206-357
“Livestock exclusion projects significantly
decreased bank erosion.”
Other general conclusions from regional meta-analysis
of effectiveness monitoring
• Fish passage projects effective when population densities
below barriers-to-be-removed are relatively high.
• In-stream habitat projects increased pool area, no other
significant effects detected.
• No significant effects of riparian planting projects; possible
bank erosion detected, however.
• Removal of levees has increased off-channel habitat
• Other connectivity projects had mixed results
Patrick Connolly et. al. – Effectiveness of dam removal
an replacement with vortex weirs in Beaver Cr.
/
Beaver Creek
South Fork
UBC
Frazer Creek
BE
UBS
OTT
500-m population index reaches
Large PIT-tag reader
Small PIT-tag reader
Water diversion
Fish weir
0
1
2
4
Kilometers
Questions:
1. Increased fish movement rate?
2. More individuals upstream?
3. Change in age/size structure of individuals upstream?
Floodplain Connectivity: “Dam removal has shown
promise for improving habitat diversity” – Roni
Connolly et al.:
• Increased rate of movement of adult steelhead through
weirs
• Juvenile steelhead/rainbow: Increased number of
individuals following successful upstream passage, but
slower overall rate relative to control weirs
• Relative density of different age class varied in different
parts of the stream despite showing overall increased
movement.
• Downstream movement of steelhead/rainbow also
facilitated, but smolts of steelhead move primarily from
lower river
Polivka: In-stream Habitat Structures: Entiat River
Project Background:
Lower Entiat River (RM ~ 3.5)
Bureau of Reclamation designed several microhabitat
scale structures to enhance rearing habitat
Engineered Log Jams (N = 4, our study)
Rock “barbs” (N = 5, our study)
In-stream habitat restoration: “…the placement of
structures appears to be successful at increasing local
fish abundance, but results are highly variable among
species, life stages and structure types” – Roni
Research Questions:
1)Are the restoration efforts resulting in increased
abundance, performance, and population persistence of
aquatic species?
2)What conceptual and/or field tools are available to
evaluate the species’ response in terms of these metrics
Chinook density through the season
2
Effect
Reach
Month
RXM
1.8
1.6
Fish/m2
1.4
F
25.63
66.45
12.74
df error
18
36
36
p
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
1.2
1
Treatment
0.8
Control
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
JULY
AUGUST
SEPT
MONTH
Chinook density was higher in the treated reach and decreased over
time in both reaches
Steelhead density through the season
Effect
Reach
Month
RXM
1.2
1
F
3.64
22.42
4.162
df error
18
36
36
p
0.073
<0.001
0.024
Fish/m2
0.8
0.6
Treatment
Control
0.4
0.2
0
JULY
AUGUST
MONTH
SEPT
Steelhead density marginally higher in control reach; decline with time
consistent with previous results; interaction with time particularly for increase
in August.
Species Differences in Short-Term Habitat Affinity
Recapture frequency
0.6
0.8
Chinook
Steelhead
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
Treated
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
July
August
Month
0
July
Aug
• Chinook had higher affinity for instream structures (treated reach only) in July
compared with August
• Steelhead had higher affinity for pools created by instream structures compared
with pools in the treated reach in July. In August, overall habitat affinity was high
and instream structures did not affect this behavior.
Summary: effectiveness monitoring of instream
structures, Entiat River
• Species differences in abundance: Chinook and
steelhead densities respond differently to structures
• Species differences in pool residence/affinity
depending on structures
• Short-term, small scale studies can identify the
effectiveness of these studies, but further observations
are needed to determine whether population
responses are long-term and observable in other
reaches.
Key Management Questions for
Effectiveness Monitoring
1. Which actions could be suggested as most important to
managers and funding entities?
2. Which projects (if any) affected the environmental parameters
(physical/chemical (water quality))?
3. What is the scale (reach/population) of the effect on
environmental and biological parameters?
4. Are biological parameters affected at the population scale by
single or multiple action types?
Key Management Questions for
Effectiveness Monitoring
1. Which actions could be suggested as most important to
managers and funding entities?
2. Which projects (if any) affected the environmental parameters
(physical/chemical (water quality))?
3. What is the scale (reach/population) of the effect on
environmental and biological parameters?
4. Are biological parameters affected at the population scale by
single or multiple action types?
Key Management Questions for
Effectiveness Monitoring
1. Which actions could be suggested as most important to
managers and funding entities?
RTT Deliberations/Recommendations:
1) Small-scale structures appear to have some benefit, but issues with
short-duration of monitoring studies and replication need to be addressed
2) Small-scale structures recommended if properly sited and used in a
complementary fashion with larger, channel spanning structures.
3) Dam removal in Beaver Cr. shows increased overall fish passage
to/from upper reaches.
Key Management Questions for
Effectiveness Monitoring
4. Are biological parameters affected at the population scale by
single or multiple action types?
Whole Beaver Cr. population shows demographic shifts in
response to dam removal.
Larger population scale (whole sub-basin, e.g.) effects might
require population modeling after models can be
parameterized based on biological responses observed at
smaller scales
Dr. Phil Roni, NWFSC: Global review of effectiveness
monitoring studies…limitations
Generally:
1) There is little post-treatment monitoring to begin with
2) Studies do not cover a sufficient spatial/temporal
scale
3) Metrics (response measurements) need to be
consistent
Limitations from Effectiveness Monitoring in Upper
Columbia
2.
Which projects (if any) affected the environmental parameters
(physical/chemical (water quality)?
Gross & O’Neal showed decreased bank erosion as a result of livestock
exclusion, but this was not specific to the Upper Columbia
3. What is the scale of the effect on environmental and biological parameters?
From the survey of Upper Columbia projects (Gross & O’Neal) it is difficult to
determine successful projects due to many non-significant results and small
effects
Limitations from Effectiveness Monitoring in Upper
Columbia
Whole-basin BACI monitoring of physical parameters in
streams (Jordan et. al):
Increased variation in thalweg depth (at deepest point across the stream) is expected to
benefit fish. BACI monitoring shows that increase in variation following treatment is not
distinguishable from pre-treatment conditions.
Observation of variation in thalweg depth through time confirms
that only one treated site differed from controls.
UCRTT Advisory Notes:
• Actions that have a short life span and that do not
restore ecosystem processes, likely less effective in
long term
e.g., instream structures possibly ineffective in
some locations due to flow patterns which affect
erosion/damage over time
• Need for “process-based” actions, rather than actions
that address symptoms rather than causes of
degradation
UCRTT Management Recommendations
UCRTT concludes that
managers should follow a
sequence of actions similar to
those outlined by Roni
There is little evidence from the
Upper Columbia that water
quality is a limiting factor,
whereas water quantity is being
addressed in some locations
Connectivity projects have
shown some success (e.g.,
Beaver Cr./Methow)
Instream structures: In Lower E
UCRTT recommends properly
sited structures and longer term
study of effects on fish
populations and stability of
smaller structures.
Protect High Quality Habitats
Functioning habitats
Natural areas
Refuge areas
Water Quality and Quantity
Improve quality
Provide adequate flow
Habitat Connectivity
Restore Watershed Processes
Sediment and hydrology
Riparian and floodplain
Improve Instream Habitat
Instream structures
Nutrient enhancement