Upper Columbia Natural Production Restoration Project Lucius Caldwell Kristen Kirkby John Jorgensen Daniel Russell Teresa Fish
Who Funded by BPA YN: John Jorgensen Lucius Caldwell (Former) Kristen Kirkby Teresa Fish Daniel Russell (Former) USFWS: Robes Parrish Peter Jenkins Methow Natives: Rob Crandall Methow Conservancy
Who
Where Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons
2011 Habitat Restoration Project
2011 Habitat Restoration Project Before
2011 Habitat Restoration Project
2011 Habitat Restoration Project After
Increase channel complexity Sinuosity Large wood Pool-riffle diversity Increase riparian vegetation coverage Ultimately, increased returns of ESA-listed salmonids Restoration Goals
Reach 1: Complex, Restored
Reach 2: Simplified Un-restored
Reach Comparison
Reach Comparison
Reach Comparison
UCNPRP Project Goals The goal of the Program is to identify, test, evaluate, and implement measures to increase natural production of threatened and endangered resident and anadromous salmonids in the Upper Columbia River Basin. The Program s ecosystem-based approach is expected to provide ecological benefits to an array of critical food web components and trophic functions and processes required for natural production.
UCNPRP Project Goals Collect data that quantifies trophic routing mechanisms linking primary production to extant fish production 2-fold inquiry into effects of recovery actions: Investigate legacy effects of physical habitat restoration on periphyton, invertebrates, and fishes Collect baseline ( before ) data that will facilitate quantification of effects of nutrient augmentation (carcass analog placement)
UCNPRP Project Questions Q1: Do nutrient additions appreciably improve fish production? Q2: What trophic mechanisms link nutrient additions to fish production?
Methods Field Data Collection
Methods Field Data Collection
Results Water Chemistry * * ** * ** ** ** * * ** * MS MS * * ** = 0.01; * = 0.05; MS = 0.10
Results Periphyton MS
MS (Riffle) Results BMI
Results TMI * MS * MS ** * MS
Between-Site Differences in Fish Abundance MS MS * * * MS MS ** ** * MS MS * MS MS
Between-Site Differences in Fish Biomass Density MS * MS MS ** ** * MS MS * MS
Seasonality of Fish Growth Rates MS * 2014 ** * 2014 *
Growth comparisons with Methow side channels Martens, K.D., Tibbits, W.T., Watson, G.A., Newsom, M.A., and Connolly, P.J., 2014, Methow and Columbia Rivers studies Summary of data collection, comparison of database structure and habitat protocols, and impact of additional PIT tag interrogation systems to survival estimates, 2008 2012: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1016, 92 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141016.
Between-Site Differences in Fish Production
Basin-wide fish recaptures Basin-wide O. mykiss recaptures Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Basin-wide O. tshawytscha fish recaptures Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Basin-wide S. confluentus fish recaptures Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Basin-wide fish recaptures Basin-wide S. fontinalis recaptures Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Conclusions/Take Aways Physical habitat restoration improves intrinsic potential/broadens fundamental niche space for salmonids Increased abundance Similar organismal growth rates Hancock Springs appears to be a stable system, amenable to future study for nutrient additions
Questions?
Additional Information
Basin-wide salmonid recaptures Location Sth Chk Brk Bull Bonneville 4 1 Beaver Cr 1 Chewuck 3 Lower Entiat 1 Early Winters 1 Gold Creek 1 1 John Day 3 6 Methow (Pateros) 1 1 2 McNary 6 10 Methow 3 Methow (McFarland) 2 2 Methow (Winthrop) 10 19 2 Methow Hatchery Outfall 2 1 Methow (Whitefish) 5 3 Priest Rapids 1 Rock Island 1 Rocky Reach 10 9 The Dalles 1 Estuary Towed Array 1 Wells 1 Wolf Creek 1 Twisp R 3 Spring Cr Accl Pond 1 1 Lower Twisp Accl Pond 1 Wanapum 2 Total 59 55 3 7
Reach 1: Restored Complex Narrower High [LWD] Less embedded substrate Shrubby riparia All fish species present More fish individuals present Higher fish catchability Current Design Site 1.3 Site 1.2 Site 1.1 Flow Reach 2: Unrestored Simplified Wider Low [LWD] Silted and embedded substrate Forested riparia Some species not present Less fish individuals present Lower fish catchability Site 2.3 Site 2.2 Site 2.1
Low Fish Counts in Reach 2
variance within R1 v. between R1 & R2
Current Design Flow
Reach 1 Proposed Design Flow Reach 2:
Focus on Reach 1 Strategy: Proposed Design Site 1.6 Site 1.5 Flow Consolidate resources on a more homogeneous site Increase benthic sampling intensity Site 1.4 Site 1.3 Site 1.2 Site 1.1
Focus on Reach 1 Effects: Proposed Design Flow Improves spatial resolution Increases statistical power (ability to detect treatment effects)
Possible Spatial Control Sites
Upstream reach of Hancock Springs Creek Pro: Immediately adjacent to treatment reach Hydrologically, geologically, and fluvial geomorphologically highly similar to treatment reach Riparian vegetation is highly similar to treatment reach Substantial body of pre-treatment data exists, documenting trends and variability before the application of treatment Con: Not biologically independent from treatment reach Difficult to account for fish movement between treatment and control reach Stream is gaining in flow over this meta-reach, meaning that flows, channel characteristics, and spawning activity (i.e., natural MDN inputs) differ substantially between emergence and confluence
Suspension Bridge Creek Pro : Con: Geographically close to H/S (same HUC6 watershed as H/S) Hydrologically and geologically similar to H/S Channel similar to H/S (2 nd order versus 1 st order at H/S) Channel width, gradient, habitat complexity, and sinuosity similar to H/S Conservation easement means that access is logistically and politically feasible Riparian vegetation more mature than H/S Substantial surface water inputs create non-trivial hydrological, biological, and chemical differences compared to those associated with the highly stable spring flow inputs at H/S No baseline data means that 1-2 years of pre-treatment data collection are required to establish status, variability, and trends necessary for satisfactory comparison to H/S
Fender Mills Creek Pro: Con: Geographically close to H/S (same HUC6 watershed) Proposed site for future habitat work means that this site could be useful in the future YN project proposal at this site means that logistics associated with access are currently being worked out Riparian vegetation is highly dissimilar to H/S Benthic substrate (and thus the resulting macroinvertebrate community) is not very similar to H/S Limited connectivity of pools means that during low-flow periods of the year this stream exhibits habitat unit discontinuity, while during high-flow periods, mainstem connectivity exerts substantial influence on the system No baseline data means that 1-2 years of pre-treatment data collection are required to establish status, variability, and trends necessary for satisfactory comparison to H/S
Beebe Springs Creek Pro: Con: Previous habitat restoration work is similar to that done at H/S Channel width, flow, habitat complexity, and substrate all very similar to H/S Access and sampling logistics are simplified due to public land ownership Channel similar to H/S (both 1 st order) Geographically distant from H/S (mainstem Columbia R tributary, different HUC8 watershed) Riparian vegetation more mature than H/S Beaver dams have created a dynamic and braided channel (i.e., there is a substantial side-channel and resulting island) Stream exhibits substantial dam influence (i.e., due to backflow caused by Wells Dam) Gradient is steeper than H/S No baseline data means that 1-2 years of pre-treatment data collection are required to establish status, variability, and trends necessary for satisfactory comparison to H/S
Spring Creek ( Hatchery Creek ) Pro: Con: Geographically close to H/S (same HUC6 watershed) Hydrology similar to H/S Channel similar to H/S (both 1 st order) Spring influence is similar to H/S Similar riparia to H/S Substantial hatchery influence, regarding nutrients from effluent and carcasses Fish screen below reach in question prevents upmigration of migratory fish, rendering it an essentially closed system Private land ownership with no easement means that access is logistically nontrivial No baseline data means that 1-2 years of pre-treatment data collection are required to establish status, variability, and trends necessary for satisfactory comparison to H/S
Twisp River Pro: Con: Geographically relatively close to H/S (same HUC8 watershed) Substantial body of pre-treatment data exists, documenting trends and variability before the application of treatment High variability observed in lower trophic level production and fish population abundance estimates Considerably larger stream channel (4 th order v 1 st order at H/S) Very different gradient, hydrology, geology, and riparian vegetation Legacy of firewood cutting ban has led to documented increase in fire risk, endangering potential long-term work Different HUC6 watershed (sub-basin)