Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
Good or Bad? Coarse particulate organic matter (e.g., tree parts) absent _____ Riparian vegetation abundant _____ Groundwater input negligible_____ Temperature fairly constant _____ Discharge variability high _____ Dissolved oxygen high _____ High suspended load _____ Depth fairly uniform _____ Low nutrient input _____
2
(Trout) stream restoration
What fish want Nature provides Humans taketh away (Trout) stream restoration
4
Many factors determine habitat quality
Water Chemistry Habitat Structure Energy Sources Flow Regime Biotic Interactions Temperature Dissolved O2 Turbidity pH Hardness Metals Nutrients Organics Substrate Channel Morphology Riparian vegetation Gradient In-stream cover Sinuosity Bank stability Canopy Channel width/depth Nutrient availability Sunlight Organic inputs Primary production Seasonal patterns Velocity Runoff Volume Ground water Precipitation Watershed characteristics Disease Reproduction Feeding Competition Predation Parasitism Exotics
5
Many factors determine habitat quality
(e.g., brook trout) White and Brynildson (1967)
6
Many factors determine habitat quality
(e.g., brook trout) Bjornn and Reiser (1991)
7
Many factors determine habitat quality
(e.g., brook trout) Outside bend Shore eddy Drop-off Undercut bank Confluence/seam Instream eddy Dam or waterfall Overhanging vegetation
8
Many factors determine habitat quality
(e.g., brook trout) Variable Adult Juvenile Larva Egg Ave thalweg depth % instream cover % pools Pool class % substrate size Ave water velocity Ave substrate size % riffle fines Ave max. temp. Ave min. DO pH Ave annual base flow Dominant subst. type Ave % veg. % streamside veg. % midday shade Raleigh (1982)
9
Many factors determine habitat quality
(e.g., brook trout) 1) Ave max. temp. Raleigh (1982)
10
Many factors determine habitat quality
(e.g., brook trout) 1 4 7 10 2 5 8 1) Ave max. temp. 2) Ave min. DO 3) Dominant subst. type 4) % pools 5) Ave % veg. 6) % streamside veg. 7) pH 8) Ave annual base flow 9) Pool class 10) % riffle fines 3 6 9 Raleigh (1982)
11
Many factors determine habitat quality
(e.g., brook trout) Adult suitability Juvenile suitability Larval suitability Egg suitability = lowest of ave max. temp., ave min. DO, or Raleigh (1982)
12
A little bit daunting… Impossible to measure/monitor all factors
Water Chemistry Habitat Structure Energy Sources Flow Regime Biotic Interactions Impossible to manage all factors Temperature Dissolved O2 Turbidity pH Hardness Metals Nutrients Organics Substrate Channel Morphology Riparian vegetation Gradient In-stream cover Sinuosity Bank stability Canopy Channel width/depth Nutrient availability Sunlight Organic inputs Primary production Seasonal patterns Velocity Runoff Volume Ground water Precipitation Watershed characteristics Disease Reproduction Feeding Competition Predation Parasitism Exotics “Quality” means different things for different species
13
(Trout) stream restoration
What fish want Nature provides Humans taketh away (Trout) stream restoration
14
Impossible to measure/monitor/manage all factors
BUT factors are correlated Glines Canyon dam, WA
15
Impossible to measure/monitor all factors
BUT fish and other organisms do it for us (integration) If a healthy population is present, then chances are very good that all relevant factors are within tolerable limits
16
Impossible to measure/monitor all factors
Can calculate Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) (score reference sites according to biological criteria)
17
“Habitat quality” varies with species BUT habitat is not uniform
Variation in velocity, depth, substrate
18
“Habitat quality” varies with species BUT habitat is not uniform
19
“Habitat quality” varies with species BUT habitat is not uniform
Fast current Shaded, high O2 Allochthonous production Cool water, fairly constant Coarse substrate and debris “Shredders” Slow current Exposed, low/variable O2 Autochthonous production Warm water, variable Fine substrate and debris “Collectors”
20
“Habitat quality” varies with species BUT habitat is not uniform
21
Habitat heterogeneity
(space and time) Water Chemistry Habitat Structure Energy Sources Flow Regime Biotic Interactions Temperature Dissolved O2 Turbidity pH Hardness Metals Nutrients Organics Substrate Channel Morphology Riparian vegetation Gradient In-stream cover Sinuosity Bank stability Canopy Channel width/depth Nutrient availability Sunlight Organic inputs Primary production Seasonal patterns Velocity Runoff Volume Ground water Precipitation Watershed characteristics Disease Reproduction Feeding Competition Predation Parasitism Exotics Is key. Chances are good that a given species can find a suitable combination of factors
22
Habitat heterogeneity
(space and time) Fast current Little cover Shallow water Coarse substrate Slow current High cover Shallow water Coarse substrate Fast current Little cover Deep water Fine substrate Slow current High cover Deep water Fine substrate Knight et al. (1991)
23
(Trout) stream restoration
What fish want Nature provides Humans taketh away (Trout) stream restoration
24
Habitat degradation Water Chemistry Habitat Structure Energy Sources
Flow Regime Biotic Interactions Nutrients Coarse particulate organic matter Temperature extremes Bank/substrate stability Suspended solids In-stream and riparian vegetation Flow extremes Variation in depth Algal production Groundwater inputs Stress and disease Habitat heterogeneity
25
Habitat degradation
27
Habitat degradation (trout are sensitive)
Bjornn and Reiser (1991), White and Brynildson (1967)
28
Many factors determine habitat quality
(e.g., brook trout) Outside bend Shore eddy Drop-off Undercut bank Confluence/seam Instream eddy Dam or waterfall Overhanging vegetation
29
Habitat degradation (trout are sensitive) 1 4 7 10 2 5 8 3 6 9
1) Ave max. temp. 2) Ave min. DO 3) Dominant subst. type 4) % pools 5) Ave % veg. 6) % streamside veg. 7) pH 8) Ave annual base flow 9) Pool class 10) % riffle fines 3 6 9 Raleigh (1982)
30
(Trout) stream restoration
What fish want Nature provides Humans taketh away (Trout) stream restoration
31
(restorative engineering)
Stream Restoration (restorative engineering) 1. Manage discharge 2. Stabilize bank(s) 3. Provide cover 4. Change channel Local Political cartoon?
32
Option 1: manage discharge
Discharge affects: Water temperature Wetted perimeter Stream depth and width Current velocity Water quality Habitat (type, avail.)
33
Option 1: manage discharge Hydraulic simulations
Suitability criteria Weighted usable area Temperature Substrate Velocity Depth etc. + = Herschy (1998)
34
Option 1: manage discharge
1996 1999 2001 2003 Lamouroux et al. (2006)
35
Option 1: manage discharge
Issues: Multiple life stages and species, timing Are suitability criteria additive, multiplicative, redundant? Model predictions need ground truthing Habitat may not translate into fish Conflicting water uses (agriculture, industry, residential, recreational, hydroelectric, navigation)
36
Option 2: stabilize banks Reduce erosion (sedimentation) due to:
Logging Road construction Loss of riparian vegetation (e.g., agriculture) Cattle grazing Floods Natural erosional processes Affects: Sediment (bed and suspended) Stream morphology Nutrients and production Oxygen
37
Option 2: stabilize banks a) Rip rap (armor for banks)
38
Option 2: stabilize banks
b) Willow posts
39
Option 3: provide cover c) Brush bundles
40
Option 2: stabilize banks
d) Remove cows
41
Option 3: provide cover Replace cover lost to:
Removal of riparian vegetation Loss of undercut banks Erosion/sedimentation Loss/removal of instream-structure (e.g., logs) Affects: Available cover Food Temperature and light
42
Option 3: provide cover a) Half logs
43
Option 3: provide cover b) Undercut bank
44
c) Root wads (and other woody debris)
Option 3: provide cover c) Root wads (and other woody debris)
45
Option 4: change channel
Alter: Channel shape Channel cross-section/profile Dissipation of flow energy Affects: Velocity and turbulence Erosion Sediment load and bed Depth Temperature Oxygen
46
Option 4: change channel
a) Deflectors
47
Option 4: change channel
b) Plunge pool dams
48
Use in combination Caution: Work with stream, not against “good” “bad”
49
(restorative engineering)
Stream Restoration (restorative engineering) , MN Bank stabilization, underbank cover Thorn (1988)
50
(restorative engineering)
Stream Restoration (restorative engineering) , MN Can improve habitat or simply exclude cattle Thorn (1988)
51
What fish want Nature provides Humans taketh away (Trout) stream restoration
52
Good or Bad? Coarse particulate organic matter (e.g., tree parts) absent _____ bad Riparian vegetation abundant _____ good Groundwater input negligible_____ bad Temperature fairly constant _____ good Discharge variability high _____ bad Dissolved oxygen high _____ good High suspended load _____ bad Depth fairly uniform _____ bad Low nutrient input _____ good
53
Literature Cited: Bjornn, T. C., and D. W. Reiser Habitat Requirements of Salmonids in Streams. Pages in W. R. Meehan (eds). Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, Bethesda, MD. Herschy, R.W Hydro-ecology: Phabsim. In R. W. Fairbridge and R. W. Herschy, eds, Encyclopedia of hydrology and lakes. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Knight, J. G., M. B. Bain, and K. J. Scheidegger A habitat framework for assessing the effects of streamflow regulation on fish. Completion Report # Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Auburn. 161 pp. Lamouroux, N., J. M. Olivier, H. Capra, M Zylberblat, A. Chandesris, and P. Roger Fish community changes after minimum flow increase: testing quantitative predictions in the Rhone River at Pierre-Benite, France. Freshwater Biology. 51: Raleigh, R. F Habitat suitability index models: brook trout. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/ pp. Thorn, W. C Evaluation of habitat improvement for brown trout in agriculturally damaged streams of southeastern Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resource, Investigational Report 394, St. Paul, MN. White, R. J., and O. M. Brynildson Guidelines for management of trout stream habitat in Wisconsin. Wis Dept. Natur. Resour. Tech. Bull. 39, Madison, WI.
Similar presentations
