biological condition of streams in...

BIOLOGICAL CONDITION OF STREAMS IN WEST

• Over half of streams in west are in fair or poor condition

• 3.5 Million miles of streams and rivers

• 700K miles of wadeable, perennial

• 190K are in poor condition

USEPA, 2006. Wadeable Streams Assessment, Office of Research & Development, Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection agency, Washington D.C., pp. 113.

2050 PREDICTED WATER SUPPLY IMPACTS

• Even with out climate change, water supply impacts inevitable… with its worse!

Roy et al. (2010) Tetra Tech http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/water-supply-shortage-water-scarcity-climate.php

http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/water-supply-shortage-water-scarcity-climate.php

COST…

Bair, B, 2004. Stream Restoration Cost Estimates. In: S. T. Allen, C. Thomson and R. Carlson (Editors), Proceedings of the Salmon Habitat Restoration Cost Workshop. NOAA, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Gladstone, OR, pp. 104-113.

• Nationwide (lower 48), Over 281,000 mi are Poor condition

– (i.e. @ $130K/ mile… over $36 Billion)

CAN WE CONTINUE TO AFFORD THIS?

• The over-cited Bernhardt et al. (2005) paper

– 38,000 projects

– At least $15 billion spent since 1990-2003

• Gross Under-Estimate

– 42,000 projects alone in PNW

WHY ALWAYS TONKA TOYS?

• If you do a google search for restoration, the first images that come up are of Tonka toys in streams

• The scope of the problem is enormous

• ‘Cheap and cheerful’ restoration is the only way we’re realistically going to recover

• Beaver as one critical tool

RIPARIAN DEGRADATION

Disturbance

• Alter flow regime

– Impoundments

– Water extraction

– Channel incision

• Landuse

– Grazing

– Timber harvest

– Agriculture

– Mining

– Urban development

• Alien Species

– Planted

– Invasions

• Alter fire regimes

• Climate change

Direct Impacts

• Altered vegetation

• Soil compaction

• Increased sediment transport

• Altered Hydrology

COMMON RIPARIAN RESTORATION APPROACHES

• Channel configuration

– New channel

– Levee removal

• Plantings

• Exotic removal/weed control

• Riparian fencing

• Grazing management

CHANNEL CONFIGURATION

Restoration costs = ?A lot when it goes

wrong

George Creek realignment

CHANNEL CONFIGURATION

REFERENCE REACH TYPE FOR STREAM RESTORATION?Logan River with beaver dam complex

FLOW MANAGEMENT TO RECOVERY RIPARIAN FUNCTION

Stromberg 2001. J. Arid Environ.

RIPARIAN FENCING

Riparian Zone Response:Wetland Indicator Status for Greenline Plant Communities

RIPARIANPLANTING

Hall et al. 2011 Eco Restoration

PLANTINGAPPROACH MATTERS


FENCING AND PLANTING?

• Season-Long Grazing (n = 4)

• Simple Rotational Grazing (n = 4)

• Intensive Rotational Grazing (n = 5)

• Wildlife Only Sites (n = 3)

100 – 120 days of grazing

30 – 40 days of grazing

< 20 days of grazing

Grazed only by wildlife

GRAZING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIESC

Colorado (Saunders & Fausch 2012)Wyoming (Saunders & Fausch 2007)

• Season-Long Grazing (n = 5)

• Intensive Rotational Grazing (n = 5)

> 120 days of grazing

7 - 14 days of grazing

Wyoming

From Saunders AFS 2015

Sta

nd

ing

bio

mass (

g/m

2)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Pe

rcen

t o

verh

ead

co

ver

0

20

40

60

80Standing biomass

Overhead cover

Season Long Simple Rotation

Intensive Rotation

Wildlife Only

CI = 1 SE


GRAZING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Rotational Grazing Season-long Grazing

Effects of Grazing Mgmt. on Stream Subsidies


Managing Livestock Grazing on Streams

on the Elko District and the Need to be

Adaptive

Bureau of Land Management, Elko, Nevada

Carol Evans

From Rehydrating Nevada presentation, Carol Evans

SUSIE CREEK 1992 SUSIE CREEK 1999

SUSIE CREEK 2012 SUSIE CREEK

OCTOBER 2012

UPSTREAM, 1991 UPSTREAM 1999

UPSTREAM, 2007 UPSTREAM 2012

1991

2011

Annual hot season grazing20 yrs of mostly spring and fall

grazing by cow-calf pairs;

Extensive beaver dam complexes

South Fork Salmon

Falls Creek

Little Quakey Riparian Pasture,

ONeil Allotment. S-42, down.

Since at least 1988: a mixture of use by both cow-calf pairs and yearlings as well as rest, early use, hot season use and fall use.

1979. Use unknown

1999 2012

1980 2010

Recovery is the result of grazing exclusion since about

1993 and colonization of the area by beaver.

Maggie Creek, S-9, upstream, 2012. Adjacent terraces show presence of western aster (Aster occidentalis), a mesic forb important for sage grouse broods, Presence of this species in this setting may indicate an elevated water table in the Maggie Creek valley bottom.

Maggie Creek, April 2012.

Shows how beaver dams are capturing and storing water on a landscape scale

with the effect of rehydrating the valley bottom.

PARTNERING WITH BEAVER FOR RIPARIAN AND STREAM RESTORATION

SOME ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY BEAVERS

• Water storage

• Reconnecting floodplains

• Incision

• Low flows (bump up surface water)

• Riparian expansion

• Habitat complexity for fish, amphibians, birds

• Increase forage and water for cattle or wild ungulates

RESTORATION STRATEGIES BEAVER

Conservation / Promotion (leave them alone)

Living with beaver

Translocation to areas with suitable capacity

Restore riparian -> Followed by Translocation

Help beaver out – Beaver Dam Analogues

Mimic Beaver

OTHER “CHEAP AND CHEERFUL”STRATEGIES

biological condition of streams in...

Documents