Presentation on theme: "ENV 794 Lindsay Chiquoine Henderson Bird Preserve Spring 2010 And implications to restoration planning."— Presentation transcript:
ENV 794 Lindsay Chiquoine Henderson Bird Preserve Spring 2010 And implications to restoration planning
Principles for the Ecological Restoration of Aquatic Resources Preserve and protect aquatic resources Restore ecological integrity Restore natural structure Restore natural function Work within the watershed/landscape context Understand the potential of the watershed Address ongoing causes of degradation Develop clear, achievable and measurable goals USEPA, Principles for the Ecological Restoration of Aquatic Resources. EPA841-F Office of Water (4501F), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 4 pp.. Focus on feasibility Use reference sites Anticipate future changes Involve a multi-disciplinary team Design for self-sustainability Use passive restoration, when appropriate Restore native species, avoid non-native species Use natural fixes and bioengineering Monitor and adapt where changes are necessary
Reference sites Areas that are comparable in structure and function to the proposed restoration site before it was degraded 1 used as models for restoration projects, and used for measuring the progress of the project 1 Reference Wetlands: Sites within a specified geographic region chosen for purpose of functional assessment and encompass known variation of a group or class of wetlands 2 Role of reference wetlands: Reference standards: represent conditions exhibited by subset of reference wetlands that correspond to highest level of functioning of the ecosystem across multiple functions Brinson & Rheinhardt The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecological Applications, 6(1):69-76.
Reference Wetlands 1 Ideas to remember - Unique qualities No two aquatic systems are truly identical Historical conditions may be unknown or sites may be altered compared to their historical condition Important to tailor project to the given situation and account for any differences between the reference site and the area being restored Assist in establishing goals for restoration 1
Standards for analysis of wetland function Framework – baseline to measure decline or recovery of functions Creates baseline for assessment of gains and loses of functions in system Representation of inherently highly functioning sites that share similar geomorphic settings Provides templates to which restored and created wetlands can be designed Make explicit the goals Advantages to a reference wetland approach 1 1 Brinson & Rheinhardt The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecological Applications, 6(1):69-76.
Issues with using reference wetlands Using reference conditions that are from degraded sites Setting reference condition standards higher than can be sustained by the wetland system Giving primary to individual functions at the expense of other functions or wetland ecosystems Henderson Bird Preserve, Henderson, NV
Method for selecting reference conditions vary depending on project goals, level of accuracy desired, the number of potential sites available, and the level of funding allocated to monitoring Use of appropriate reference conditions for comparison to be able to evaluate, analyze, and interpret data collected from a restored area Wetland functions 1 - a process or series of processes that take place within a wetland Include storage of water, transformation of nutrients, growth of living matter, and diversity of wetland plants Value for wetland itself, for surrounding ecosystems, and for people Choosing methods/tools 1
Ecological Assessment Methods Database Several methods can be useful tools for evaluating wetlands - focusing on functional assessment to use for reference wetlands 1 - vs. focus on a particular function or species - utilizing assessment databases (National Wetlands Inventory) point classification system to correlate similar wetlands or use statistical tools, such as cluster analysis, to identify wetland systems that are similar 2 1 Brinson & Rheinhardt The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecological Applications, 6(1): Harris, Richard Defining reference conditions for restoration of riparian plant communities: examples from California, USA. Environmental Management, 24(1): George Manson University with funding assistance from National Park Service provides a list of assessment methods and the ability to compare and contrast the different methods (NBII)NBII
Four General Types of Approaches for Wetlands Assessment Inventory and classification Objective- describe areal extent and/or types of wetlands Ex: National Wetland Inventory maps, watershed-based GIS data, remote sensing Rapid assessment protocols Subjective –tending, qualitative Focus on single systems or small populations of wetlands Data-driven assessment methods Model-based to produce predictive values Ex: Hydrogeomorphic method (HGM) Bio-indicator/indices of biotic integrity Selection of set variables to measure across wetland types Not necessarily reliable for assessment of functional capacity Ex: Indices of Biological Integrity (Birds, Plants, fish, invertebrates); Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index; Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP)
Functions and Functional Assessment 1 Assessment methods determine levels of functioning absolute measurements (rates of nutrient cycling) or measurements relative to some reference standard (75% of expected species richness) Four general categories have been used for wetlands: Hydrologic Biogeochemical Plant communities Animal communities Other functions – site water balance, energy flow, nutrient cycling, species diversity can also be used for assessment Influence on wetland functions include geographic locations, climate conditions, quantity and quality of water entering the wetland, and disturbances or alterations of systems 1
Examples of methods Widely used method: Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET)- developed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Federal Highway Administration, assigns values to specific functions of individual wetlands Environmental Monitoring Assessment Program—Wetlands (EMAP- Wetlands) – developed by the Environmental Protection Agency The Hydrogeomorphic Method (HGM) for Wetland Assessment – developed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for the U. S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) Purpose 1 – provide a technique that assesses most of the recognized wetland functions and values, is applicable to a wide variety of wetland types, is standardized and rapid, and is well-documented with scientific literature. Functions include physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of a wetland 11 functions and values measured on a nominal scale 2 Ground water recharge and discharge Flood flow alteration Sediment stabilization, sediment/toxicant retention Nutrient removal/transformation Production export Wildlife diversity/abundance Aquatic diversity/abundance Recreation Uniqueness/heritage Evaluates functions in terms of effectiveness, opportunity, social significance, and habitat suitability (overlap of objective and subjective) 1 2
Environmental Monitoring Assessment Program - Wetlands Aimed at developing tools to monitor and assess the status and trends of national ecological resources Quantitative classifications based on three different areas of focus Physical habitat characterization (#organism present, stream flow) Water chemistry characterization (chemical analysis) Aquatic vertebrate characterization (species richness) Repeatable measurements Can be used to assist in classification of wetlands and provide reference pre-disturbance, however, method may only provide relative comparison (site to site) for application in reference conditions
The Hydrogeomorphic Method for Wetland Assessment Used to provide a tool for measuring changes in the functions of wetland ecosystems due to impacts by proposed projects, and restoration, creation, and/or enhancement Placed emphasis on geomorphic and hydrologic attributes, rather than biotic characteristics- abundance of water, inputs and outputs of water Description and ordinal scale Concentration: Geomorphic setting – topographic location within surrounding landscape Water source and its transport – precipitation, surface/near surface flow, and groundwater discharge Hydrodynamics – direction and strength of flow
Preparation and planning for restoration Planning a restoration of a riparian corridor requires information 1 1. Evaluate composition and structure of riparian communities existing within the corridor using quantitative descriptions (inventories) 2. Descriptions of environmental conditions affecting community composition and structure that is a departure from natural conditions 3. Identify spatial associations between environmental conditions and communities to be restored 4. Choose reference states (restoration targets) for community composition and structure for each environmental condition and each community to be restored 1
Elwha River Restoration- an example of river corridor and wetland restoration preparation 1
History: the Elwha & Glines Canyon Dams were built on the Elwha River to provide hydroelectric power to a mill in Port Angeles, WA, north- central Olympic Peninsula Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act of 1992 created funding and government support for mitigation of the dams on the Elwha Olympic Peninsula 2 Washington State 3
Issues 1 : Glines Dam -leak under the dam structure Little power output from either dam Interrupted wildlife corridors and aquatic species movement (dams, water temps, lack of habitat) Has negatively affected local Elwha Klallam Tribe Dams cut off the salmon runs to the largest watershed on the Olympic Peninsula Major runs for Coho, pink, chum, sockeye and Chinook salmon Greatly reduced sediment/organic matter flow down stream 2 Delta to Lake Mills Glines Canyon Dam 1 2
Hydrogeological and Geomorphologic Assessment River corridor and riparian area mapping (GIS, field assessment & proofing) Estimate changes in hydrogeology and river flow (env engineers) Lake Mills drawdown experiment (Childers and others, 2000) - learn about the erodibility of reservoir sediments 1 Pre-dam removal activities 1 Depiction of the Lake Mills area before and after the removal of Glines Canyon Dam and draining of the reservoir 1
Pre-dam removal activities Vegetation surveys park-wide used to evaluate native composition Used to decide which species should be used for seeding and outplanting post-lake draw down 1 Nursery establishing for increasing seed and establishing plants for outplanting Geomorphic and vegetative characteristics of channel and flood plain Predicting Floodplain Vegetation Response to Dam Removal on the Elwha River 1
Pre-dam removal activities Wildlife inventories (Park-wide, Elwha and Quinault River Corridors) Wildlife (three year baseline-establishment of conditions of different wildlife populations on Elwha) Wildlife inventory and isotope analysis for marine- driven nutrients Surveys –birds, fish (native & non-native), amphibians (frogs & salamanders), small- mammals, river otters, mid-sized carnivores (skunks, raccoons, weasels), large herbivores (Elk & deer populations), bears Northwestern salamander Ambystoma gracile Pacific tree frog, Pseudacris regilla Olympic torrent salamander Rhyacotriton olympicus Pacific tree frog, Pseudacris regilla Black bear Ursus americanus Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus
Those involved EPA, DOI- NPS, USGS, BOR, USFWS, Washington State, NOAA, Elwha Klallam Tribe, local advocacy groups, recreational groups, Western Washington University, Oregon State University, City of Port Angeles and local businesses
Adamus, P.R., Clairain, E.J., Jr., Smith, R.D., and Young, R.E., 1987, Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET), v. 2 of Methodology: Vicksburg, Miss., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Operational Draft Technical Report, 206 p. + appendixes. Adamus, P.R., and Stockwell, L.T., 1983, Critical review and evaluation concepts, v. 1 of Method for wetland functional assessment: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Report no. FHWA-IP , 176 p. Childers, D.; Kresch, D.L.; Gustafson, A.S.; Randle, T.J.; Melena, J.T.; Cluer, B., September 2000, Hydrologic Data Collected During the 1994 Lake Mills Drawdown Experiment, Elwha River, Washington, Water-Resources Investigations Report , U.S. Geological Survey, Tacoma, Washington, 115 pages. restoration USEPA, Principles for the Ecological Restoration of Aquatic Resources. EPA841-F Office of Water (4501F), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 4 pp.. Additional Resources
ENV 794 Jennifer Johnson molly.jpg Habitat Restoration as a Means to Controlling Non-Native Fish Species
Content Introduction Non-native vs Native Fish Species Traditional Removal Techniques Rotenone Physical Removal Ash Meadows and Kings Pool Springs Lower Putah Creek Conclusions
Introduction Non-native species often cause rapid population declines and extinction of native species Many non-native species are successful because they are released from natural controls (e.g., competitors, predators, parasites) that regulate population growth within their native range Our ability to minimize the effects on native species relies on our ability to understand underlying mechanisms. Non-native species tend to be superior competitors, high reproductive rates and predation strategies absent during native fish evolution
Non-Native vs Native Fish Species Non-natives have been shown to cause native fish decline Once established, control or elimination is problematic Non-native fish colonization greatest in anthropogenically altered habitats Restoring habitat to predisturbance conditions may offer a viable means of non-native fish control.
Non-Native vs Native Fish Species Physical changes in aquatic ecosystems can change fish community structure, population demographics, and relative abundance of species. Native fish have a great chance of resisting non-native invasion in an undisturbed habitat because they have evolved in this ecosystem and has contributed to their survival.
Traditional Removal Techniques Chemical treatment Physical Removal
Rotenone Most common piscicide used to kill fish. Interferes with the cellular use of oxygen Affects all gill-breathing animals (fish/amphibians/insects). At normal application rates, does not affect mammals, birds or reptiles.
Physical Removal Gill nets Fish swim forward through openings in net, can’t move forward and gills tangle when trying to move backward. Able to be designed to reduce by-catch of non-target species Might be a viable alternative to rotenone in Sierra Nevada (for 15-20% of lakes). Suggested method of choice when sensitive native species are present. Time and cost intensive.
Different technique Need innovate technique to address the problem Rotenone-kill all fish in the lake. Physical removal may not work depending on size of fish (some fish are only a few inches long). What other option? Restoration of impacted ecosystems Native fish have evolutionary edge in ecosystems May be able to use restoration so environmental conditions favor natives over non-natives
Goals of wetland/riparian restoration or recovery efforts: Return to ecosystem conditions that resemble those before human alteration had taken place. Issues: predisturbance conditions not well documented Recovery of ecosystem function and structure does not guarantee the same species and community will be present in the post-restoration wetland/riparian area.
Reference Conditions Pre-disturbance records (not well documented in many cases). Similar ecosystem in close physical proximity to site in question
Restoration – Ash Meadows & Kings Pool Spring Ash Meadows has springs which favor natives over non-natives Kings Pool Spring (warm water spring). Prior to restoration, non-native species dominate. Springs within Ash Meadows used as a reference condition for nearby Kings Pool Spring (major warm water spring system.)
Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Mojave Desert Oasis-largest number of endemic species for its area in North America Primary water sources: 24 thermal springs within a 7- km radius Highly mineralized water and dissolved oxygen well below saturation m above mean sea level Massive landscape alterations Mined for peat, surrounding areas cleared for agricultural use
Ash Meadows Several springheads fitted with pumps, eliminating surface flow Water diverted Loss of natural channel and native riparian corridors Non-native vegetation established along new or altered stream courses Mosquitofish established in 1930’s Sailfin molly established in 1960’s. Ash Meadows native fish are all federally listed as endangered, and recovery predicated on habitat restoration and removal of non-native species.
Native Fish Amargosa pupfish Ash Meadows speckled dace Ash Meadows poolfish (extinct) Warm Springs pupfish, Devils hole pupfish (higher elevation, physiographically isolated) Warm water and spring pool habitat Able to inhabit significantly faster mean water column velocities and greater total depth in both warm and cool water habitats compared to non- natives.
Ash Meadows Ash Meadows has few non-native species, making it easier to determine which ecosystems favor natives over non-native species.
Kings Pool Spring Modification of outflow from marsh to warm water stream. In 1997 Kings Pool Spring Marsh was drained and water routed through an excavated channel configured to simulate the historic outflow stream. Mean water column velocities, total depth, and temperature altered to favor native fish
Kings Pool Spring Changed fish composition from non-native Sailfin molly and Mosquitofish to predominantly Ash Meadows pupfish. Restoring spring systems to a semblance of pre- disturbance conditions may encourage recolonization of native fish species and discourage non-native invasion and proliferation May be able to apply over all of the Ash Meadows spring systems.
Restoration and Altered Flow Regimes Many streams have highly altered flow regimes Changes in: channel structure, sediment transporation, and thermal regime Recommend flow regimes that favor natural fish assemblages Recommend “natural” flow regimes How to develop a natural flow regime when much of the annual flow is diverted?
Lower Putah Creek r005.jpg Regulated stream in Central California.
Lower Putah Creek Distinct differences between assemblages of native and non-native fish Natives: cluster in areas with colder water, less pool habitat, faster stream flow, and more shaded areas. Non-natives: Less stream flow Direct relationship to drastically altered stream ecosystem from Lake Berryessa and Monticello Dam due to significant reduction in water. Restoration of natural flow regimes along with other restoration would be suggested to stop decline of native fish species in the area.
Conclusion Non-natives can outcompete natives in their natural ecosystems Once established, non-natives are hard to eradicate from an ecosystem. Our current eradication methods have inherent flaws. Restoration as an eradication method may be a possibility. Still contains inherent issues but certainly a technique to consider Try to create pre-disturbance conditions which favor natives over non-natives
References Baltz, Donald M. Moyle, Peter B Invasion Resistance to Introduced Species by a Native Assemblage of California Stream Fishes. Ecological Applications 3(2) pp Marchetti, Michael P. Moyle, Peter B Effects of Flow Regime on Fish Assemblages in a Regulated California Stream. Ecological Applications 11(2), pp Mills, Michael D. Rader, Russell B. Belk, Mark. C Complex interactions between native and invasive fish: the simultaneous effects of multiple negative interactions. Community Ecology. Scoppettone, G. Gary. Rissler, Peter H. Gourley, Chad. Martinez, Cynthia Habitat Restoration as a Means of Controlling Non- Native Fish in a Mojave Desert Oasis. Restoration Ecology Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 247–256.
Johnny Jones ENV784 Restoration Ecology Spring 2011
Tamarix species Saltcedar, tamarisk T. ramosissima (T. pentandra) T. chinensis Athel T. aphylla 5 other species introduced in U.S. + Hybrids (Gaskin and Shafroth, 2005) Native to S. Europe, N. Africa, Asia Planted for shade, erosion control, windbreak
T amarisk, saltcedar, athel Introduced mid 1800’s, naturalized by 1877 Invasive, well-established in riparian/wetland areas throughout western U.S. and Mexico Fast-growing, mostly deciduous, shrubby tree Athel is evergreen tree, up to 60’ tall Drought tolerant, but uses water when available Seeds dispersed by water flow as well as wind Also reproduces vegetatively (cuttings, roots)
Nelson’s Landing Photo – US Fish & Wildlife Service Lower Colorado River Photo – Patrick Shafroth Saltcedar in the West
Ecological impacts of tamarisk High water use = reduced availability to other species ▫ Not significantly different (Shafroth et al. 2005) Spread of plants into stream channel can impede flow Leaf drop concentrates salts in soil ▫ Inhibits germination/growth of native plants ▫ Alters water quality, affects aquatic species, including fish Alters plant community composition ▫ Competition reduces native plant population ▫ Changes in stand structure (overstory/understory) ▫ Reduced biodiversity; monoculture in some cases Alters fire regime ▫ Higher frequency, more intensity
Tamarisk management/control Prescribed burning Regenerates rapidly, by seeds and re-sprouting Fire risks to native plants and aquatic species Mechanical control Re-sprouts from stumps, roots or cuttings Chemical control Concerns for water quality, aquatic species Biological control Tamarisk leaf beetle, also non-native Combination
Burning, follow-up with herbicide Photo – National Park Service
Cutting with herbicide treatment Photo – National Park Service
Tamarisk Leaf Beetle Larvae and adults feed only on tamarisk leaves Diorhabda elongata 5 subspecies released in U.S. Photos: James Tracy – USDA-ARS, Temple Texas, Bob Richard – USDA-APHIS- PPQ, Dan Bean – CDA Palisade Insectary, Tim Carlson – Tamarisk Coalition
Southwestern willow flycatcher “SWIFL” Empidonax traillii extimus Nests in riparian habitat Prefers specific stand structure Dense brush thickets (willows) Tall overstory (cottonwood, ash) Wide stand, with edge effect Standing or slow-flowing water nearby Commonly nests in tamarisk With or without native willows/cottonwoods Photo – Suzanne Langley
Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service
SWIFL Habitats Virgin River Photo - Pam Wheeler, UT Div. of Wildlife Resources Pahranagat NWR Photo – US Fish & Wildlife Service Photo – US Geological Survey
Management recommendations Plans and actions based on science (Stromberg et al. 2009) Avoid bias against exotics Conduct thorough, critical literature review Consider levels of certainty and relativity to local environment Address water management practices (flow/quality) e.g. restore periodic flooding (Marshall and Stoleson, 2000) Consider positive and negative effects of tamarisk control
Management considerations (cont.) Plan restoration actions around SWFL breeding season Intersperse with native plants (Nagler et al. 2008) Replant with similar vegetational/structural diversity Provide for alternative habitat during/after restoration Monitor effectiveness of restoration, impact to SWIFL
Replanting with natives Photo – National Park Service
Literature Everitt, Ben Water use by tamarisk in Utah. Utah Division of Water Resources memorandum, August 31,2004. Finch, Deborah M.; Stoleson, Scott H., eds Status, ecology, and conservation of the southwestern willow flycatcher. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-60. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 131 p. Friedman, Jonathan M.; Auble, Gregor T.; Shafroth, Patrick B.; Scott, Michael L.; Merigliano, Michael F.; Freehling, Michael D.; Griffin, Eleanor R Dominance of non-native riparian trees in western USA. Biological Invasions, 7: Gaskin, John F. and Shafroth, Patrick B Hybridization of Tamarix ramossissima and T. chinensis (saltcedars) with T. aphylla (athel)(Tamaricaceae) in the southwestern USA determined from DNA sequence data. Madrono, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp Nagler, Pamela L.; Glenn, Edward P.; Didan, Kamel; Osterberg, John; Jordan, Fiona; Cunningham, Jack Wide-area estimates of stand structure and water use of Tamarix spp. on the lower Colorado River: Implications for restoration and water management projects. Restoration Ecology, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp Nevada Cooperative Extension, University of Nevada, Reno Wanted - Dead, not alive: Saltcedar. Nevada Project Weeds, Fact Sheet Shafroth, Patrick B.; Beauchamp, Vanessa B.; Briggs, Mark K.; Lair, Kenneth; Scott, Michael L.; Scher, Anna A Planning riparian restoration in the context of Tamarix control in western North America. Restoration Ecology, Vol. 16, No.1, pp
Literature (continued) Shafoth, Patrick B.; Cleverly, James R.; Dudley, Tom L.; Taylor, John P.; Van Riper, Charles III; Weeks, Edwin P.; Stuart, James N Control of Tamarix in the western United States: Implications for water salvage, wildlife use, and riparian restoration. Environmental Management, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp Shafroth, Patrick B.; Friedman, Jonathan M.; Ischinger, Lee S Effects of salinity on establishment of Populus fremontii (cottonwood) and Tamarix ramossissima (saltcedar) in southwestern United States. Great Basin Naturalist, 55(1), pp Sogge, Mark K.; Sferra, Susan J.; Paxton, Eben H Tamarix as habitat for birds: Implications for riparian restoration in the southwestern United States. Restoration Ecology, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp Sogge, Mark K.; Paxton, E. H.; Tudor, April A.; Saltcedar and southwestern willow flycatchers: Lessons from long-term Studies in central Arizona. USDA Forest Service Proceedings, RMRS-P- 42CD, pp Stromberg, Juliet C.; Chew, Matthew K.; Nagler, Pamela L.; Glenn, Edward P Changing perceptions of change: The role of scientists in Tamarix and river management. Restoration Ecology, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp Stromberg, Juliet C.; Lite, Sharon, J.; Marler, Roy; Paradzick, Charles; Shafroth, Patrick B.; Shorrock, Donna; White, Jacqueline M.; White, Margaret S Altered stream-flow regimes and invasive plant species: The Tamarix case. Global Ecology and Biogeography, Vol. 16, pp