The Effects of River Alteration and
Restoration on
Instream Biota and Human Needs
Adirondackexplorer.org
By Ashley Koetsier, Kaylee Pollander,
Lee Simard, Cole Talbot, and Zack Theberge
Why We Love Streams...
Goals
Evaluate the impacts altered stream systems
have on instream biota
-Impact on human interests
Determine restoration focuses that will increase
instream biota
-Minimize impact on other human needs
Objectives
-Identify causes of stream alteration
-Identify the impacts different types of stream
alteration has on instream biota
-Identify what impacts the loss of instream biota
have on humans
-Identify possible focuses of restoration that will
benefit instream biota without negatively
affecting human needs
What is our Endpoint?
Sustainability
Social
Economic
Environmental
Social Needs
Must follow laws:
Water quality discharge
Fisheries habitat
Flooding fluvial erosion
Stream dynamic equilibrium
1.
2.
3.
4.
Balance with Sustainability Model
Does it hit the target?
•
Social Agenda
People hear what they want to hear
Cause and effect:
•
o
Get people to hear what you have to say
Intellectual Quotient vs. Emotional Quotient
Must account for people's emotions
•
Social and Economic Interaction
People work to pay the mortgage
connected to house, property
Less expensive to not repair
FEMA
More funding than Insurance companies
Few cases of abandonment
roads
relocations
buyouts
•
•
•
•
•
Causes of Stream Alteration
•
•
•
Prior land use
Channelization
Riparian land use
Prior Land Use and Land Use
History
http://lynn.boston-baden.com/lvb/tc-pix/float.gif
Riparian Land Use
http://www.usernetsite.com/photography/creative-photography-by-navid-baraty/house-near-river-by-navid-baraty.jpg
Channelization
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Los_Angeles_River_channelized.jpg/640pxLos_Angeles_River_channelized.jpg
This is what happens when you channelize
a stream and a thousand year flood
happens...
Let the kid represent biota and detritus...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAD0MAMZj
gg
Impact on Fish Populations
Impacts of altered
streams:
Environmental
-Increased sedimentation
-Faster currents
-Changes in water
temperature
-Loss of physical
structure and habitat
-Loss of food sources
Adirondackexplorer.org
Natural Stream Morphology...Why
restore it?
- Sinuosity
Dynamic Equilibrium
- Higher Retention
- Increased Habitat
For both fish and macroinvertebrates
- Increased Aesthetics
- Undisturbed complexity
Image from Brown, Inc. 2010
Human Benefits of
Instream Biota Restoration
-Median cost $45,000/project
-Over $1 billion spent annually on stream
restoration
(Bernhardt et al. 2005)
-Is it worth it?
www.nrcs.usda.gov
Restore Macroinvertebrates
Environmental:
-Allochthonous inputs main
nutrient source in most
small temperate forested
streams
-Little algal or macrophyte
growth
-Essential for breaking down
inputs and releasing
nutrients and energy
downstream
-Restoring streams increases
downstream productivity
woodswander.com
Improve Fish Populations
Benefits of Restoration:
Economic, Social,
Environmental:
-License sales, tackle,
bait, gas, food,
lodging, etc.
-Commercial Fisheries
-Pacific salmon
-Return marine nutrients
inland
Moyle et al. 2011 (EPA.gov)
Intrinsic Benefits
Social
-Aesthetic values
-Cultural values
kjpermaculture.blogspot.com
Focuses of Restoration
-Specific restoration objectives vary by situation
-A manager can choose from several different
overarching focuses for restoration, each with
their own pros and cons
-Evaluate each to decide which focus best
meets our endpoint
Leave System as Is
-Results dependent on system
-Minimally degraded system could result in
natural recovery
-Less likely to recover in a highly degraded
system
-Is the stressor removed?
-Eg. Removal of woody debris to accelerate
drainage from an agricultural field
Focus Restoration on Stream
Dynamics
Pros:
-Addresses all
environmental
needs
-Surrounding
landscape would be
restored as well
-Some social and
economic needs
met
Cons:
-Extremely expensive
-Very complicated
-Unrealistic in most
cases to remove all
human influences
-May cause loss to
infrastructure
Focus on Restoring Stream
Dynamics
Social
Economic
Environmental
Focus on Best Meeting Human
Needs
Pro:
-Social circle
addressed
-Economic circle
possibly addressed
-Protect infrastructure,
human investments
Cons:
-Fails to address
environmental circle
-Natural processes
not enhanced
-Potentially cost more
in the long run?
Focus on Best Meeting Human
Needs
Social
Economic
Environmental
Focus on Instream Habitat
Restoration
Pros:
-Provides foundation
for natural
processes to begin
occurring around
-Can be designed to
meet human needs,
both social and
economic
Cons:
-More costly to
undertake
-May not include all
necessary factors for
processes to begin
-Eg. Allochthonous
inputs, water
temperature and
quality
Focus on Instream Habitat Restoration
Social
Economic
Environmental
Focus on Restoring Instream Biota
Pros:
-Would ensure overall
ecological integrity
-Stressors would be
removed from
system
-Can be designed to
meet human needs,
both social and
economical
Cons:
-More costly to
undertake
-Have to have
understanding of
stream processes
-May sacrifice some
natural conditions to
meet human needs
Focus on Restoring Instream Biota
Social
Economic
Environmental
Recommended Focus...
Focus on restoration of instream biota
-Ensures ecological integrity
-Can be easily adapted to meet human needs
-Can be assessed quantitatively
-Balances all three circles
Assessing Instream Biota
Why Biological Monitoring?
In-stream biota reflects...
-Ecological integrity
-Synergistic impacts
-Dynamic changes over time
-Non-point source stressors
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr. William Bowden for his inspiring wisdom
and beautiful mustache. Also, we would like to show our gratitude
to Philip Halteman, who motivated us with his kind words and chic
corduroys. We thank Todd Menees for the interview that helped
to further our knowledge on stream restoration around the state of
Vermont.
Literature Cited
Bernhardt, E.S., M.A. Palmer, J.D. Allan, G. Alexander, K. Barnas, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, C. Dahm, J. Follstad-Shah, D.
Galat, S. Gloss, P. Goodwin, D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, S. Katz, G.M. Kondolf, P.S. Lave, J.L. Meyer, T.K. O’Donnell,
L. Pagano, B. Powell, and E. Sudduth. 2005. Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration Efforts. Science 308:636-637.
Beugly, J. and M. Pyron. 2010. Variation in Fish and Macroinvertebrate Assemblages Among Seasonal and Perennial Headwater
Streams. American Midland Naturalist. 163:2-13
Brooker, M.P. 1985. The Impact of River Channelization: IV The Ecological Effects of Channelization. The Geographic Journal.
151:63-69.
Browne Inc., F. X. 2010. Stream restoration. Retrieved from http://www.fxbrowne.com/html/Services/Updates/Stream
Restoration.htm
Carline, R.F. and S.P. Klosiewski. 1985. Responses of fish populations to mitigation structures in two small channelized streams
in Ohio. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5:1-11.
Culp, J., S. Walde, and R. Daviel. 1983. Relative importance of substrate particle size and detritus to stream benthic
macroinvertebrate microdistribution. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40:10: 1568-1574.
EPA. 2005. Stream Channelization. EPA.gov. 3/28/2012. http://www.epa.gov/region07/wetlands/pdf/ChannelizationFS04Final.pdf
Gergel, S.E., M.D. Dixon, and M.G. Turner. 2002. Consequences of human-altered floods: Levees, floods, and floodplain forests
along the Wisconsin River. Ecological Applications 12:1755-1770.
Gortz, P. 1998. Effects of stream restoration on the macroinvertebrate community in the River Esrom, Denmark. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 8:115-130.
Greenwood, M.J., J.S. Harding, D.K. Niyogi, and A.R. McIntosh. 2012. Improving the effectiveness of riparian management for
aquatic invertebrates in a degraded agricultural landscape: stream size and land-use legacies. Journal of Applied Ecology
49:213-222.
Hermans, C., J. Erickson, T. Noordewier, A. Sheldon, and M. Kline. 2007. Collaborative environmental planning in river
management: An application of multicriteria decision analysis in the White River Watershed in Vermont. Journal of
Environmental Management 84: 4: 534-546.
Literature Cited (con't)
Kline, M. and B. Cahoon. 2006. Managing toward stream equilibrium conditions. River Management Publications. VT DECWatershed Management Division.
Laasonen, P., T. Muotka, and I. Kivijarvi. 1998. Recovery of macroinvertebrate communities from stream habitat restoration.
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8:101-113.
Lau, J.K., T.E. Lauer, and M.L. Weinman. 2006. Impacts of channelization on stream habitats and associated fish assemblages
in East Central Indiana. American Midland Naturalist 156:319-330.
Lehane, B.M., P.S. Giller, J. O’halloran, C. Smith, and J. Murphy. 2002. Experimental provision of large woody debris in streams
as a trout management technique. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 12:289-311.
Lenat, D.R., and J.K. Crawford. 1994. Effects of land use on water quality and aquatic biota of three North Carolina Piedmont
streams. Hydrobiologia 294: 185-199.
Lepori, F., D. Palm, and B. Malmqvist. 2005. Effects of stream restoration on ecosystem functioning: detritus retentiveness and
decomposition. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:228-238.
Louhi, P., M. Ovaska, A. Maki-Petays, J. Erkinaro, and T. Muotka. 2011. Does fine sediment constrain salmonid alevin
development and survival? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68:1819-1826.
Lukas, J.A. and D.J. Orth. 1995. Factors affecting nesting success of smallmouth bass in a regulated Virginia stream.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124:726-735.
Meyer, J.L. 1997. Stream health: incorporating the human dimension to advance stream ecology. Journal of the North American
Benthological Society 16:439-447.
Muotka, T. and P. Laasonen. 2002. Ecosystem recovery in restored headwater streams: the role of enhanced leaf retention.
Journal of Applied Ecology 39:145-156.
Muotka, T., R. Paavola, A. Haapala, M. Novikmec, and P. Laasonen. 2002. Long-term recovery of stream habitat structure and
benthic invertebrate communities from in-stream restoration. Biological Conservation 105:243-253.
Literature Cited (con't)
Negishi, J., and J. Richardson. 2003. Responses of organic matter and macroinvertebrates to placements of boulder clusters in a
small stream of southwestern British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Sciences 60: 247-258.
Nerbonne, B.A. and B. Vondracek. 2001. Effects of local land use on physical habitat, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish in the
Whitewater River, Minnesota, USA. Environmental Management 28:87-99.
Osborne, L.L., P.B. Bayley, L.W.G. Higler, B. Statzner, F. Triska, and T.M. Iversen. 1993. Restoration of lowland streams: an
introduction. Freshwater Biology 29:187-194.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, J.D. Allan, P.S. Lake, G. Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, C.N. Dahm, J. Follstad Shah,
D.L. Galat, S.G. Loss, P. Goodwin, D.D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, G.M. Kondolf, R. Lave, J.L. Meyer, T.K. O’Donnell,
L. Pagano, E. Sudduth. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 208217.
Petersen, R.C., B.L. Madsen, M.A. Wilzbach, C.H.D. Magadza, A. Paarlberg, A. Kullberg, and K.W. Cummins. 1987. Stream
management: emerging global similarities. Ambio 16:166-179.
Quinn, T.P. 2005. The behavior and ecology of pacific salmon and trout. UBC Press: Vancouver, B.C.
Roth, N.E., J.D. Allan, and D.L. Erickson. 1996. Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial
scales. Landscape Ecology 11: 141-156.
Sovell, A.A., B. Vondracek, J.A. Frost, K.G. Mumford. 2000. Impacts of rotational grazing and riparian buffers on physicochemical
and biological characteristics of southeastern Minnesota, USA, streams. Environmental Management 26: 629-641.
Sharma, S. and D.A. Jackson. 2007. Fish assemblages and environmental conditions in the lower reaches of northeastern Lake
Erie tributaries. Journal of Great Lakes Research 33:15-27.
Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E Cushing. 1980. River continuum concept. Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:130-137.
Literature Cited (con't again...)
Wang, L., J. Lyons, P. Kanehl, and R. Bannerman. 2001. Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and fish across multiple spatial
scales. Environmental Management 28: 255-266.
Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams. Sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph.
Whiles, M.R., B.L. Brock, A.C. Franzen, and S.C. Dinsmore. 2000. Stream invertebrate communities, water quality, and land-use
patterns in an agricultural drainage basin of northeastern Nebraska, USA. Journal of Environmental Management 26:563576.
Wyzga, B. 2001. A geomorphologist’s criticism of the engineering approach to channelization of gravel-bed rivers: case study of
the Raba River, Polish Carpathians. Environmental Management 28: 341-358.