integrated status and effectiveness monitoring program (isemp) imws€¦ · ·...

Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program (ISEMP) IMWs

• Next three talks will focus on design and methods

• Final talk will focus on hypotheses and responses

– Lemhi, Entiat, Bridge = true ISMEP

– Asotin = using ISEMP approach

• All Interior Columbia River Basin

• All anadromous salmonid centric

– stream rearing juvenile life history types

• All FCRPS Biological Opinion motivated

– quantify linkage between habitat actions and changes in fish survival

“ISEMP” IMWs • Model based inference

– Population production model

– Hierarchical staircase experimental design model

• CHaMP habitat metrics

– Supports understanding fish-habitat mechanisms

• Fish metrics based on mark-recap and PIT tags

– Abundance, growth, survival, production

• All have explicit Hos to be tested

– Floodplain reconnection = quality habitat = increased production

– Channel complexity = refuge habitat = increased survival

Watershed Production Model -Multi-Stage Beverton-Holt

where - N i,t = number of fish at life stage (i), time (t)

- Ni+1, t+1 = number of fish in next life-stage (i+1) and time (t+1)

- pi,t = productivity, or maximum survival rate for life-stage (i)

- c i,t = capacity, or maximum numbers that survive life-stage (i)

(Moussalli & Hilborn 1986)

ti

titi

ti

ti

Ncp

NN

,

,,

,

1,1 11

t

t

tSb

aSR

1

Yijklm= qi+βj+(βτ)jk +(qβτ)ijk+sjl+ehijklm Source DF Fixed or

Random

Symbol Subscript Interpretation

Year 17 Random q i accounts for variability from year to year that

simultaneously affects all RAUs

RAU 10 Fixed β j accounts for differences among RAU’s

RAU*YAT 118 Fixed (βτ) jk contains differences among the Years after Treatment, as

well as interaction effects between YATs and RAUs

Year*RAU*YAT 52 Random (qβτ) ijk measures variability of differences among YATs and RAUs

across years. This term serves as error term for

treatment comparisons.

Site(RAU) 55 Random s jl accounts for variability of sampling sites within an RAU

Residual Error 935 Random e hijklm measures variability over time of response

measurements made on the same sampling site.

IMW Experimental Design (hierarchical/staircase design - mixed model)

123456123456123456123456123456123456123456123456123456123456123456123456123456123456

1D

1E

1F

1G

2A

2C

3A

3C

1 2 3 4 5 6

10 11

1 2 3 4 5

3D

3F

MA

D M1

M2

M3

ENTI

AT

1B/1C

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

7 8 9 10 11

6

1 2 3 4 5 6

13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

7 8 9 10 11 12

7 8 9 10 11 12

10 11 12

14

1 2 3 4 5

13

1 2 3 4 5

14

7 8

13

0

3 4 5 6

14

7 81 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 2

0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0

0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

Restoration applied

1 = YAT or year after treatment

Entiat IMW Experimental Design Stream-Reach-Site

Years

“ISEMP” IMWs

• These four IMWs are not clones

• Common framework to support learning, but each has different rehabilitation methods and strengths

Intensively Monitored

Watersheds

“ISMEP”IMWs


Watersheds

Lemhi River Novelty – based on parameterization of population production model Strength – large scale contrast possible, single action type


Watersheds

Entiat River Novelty – restoration implementation structure arises from experimental design Strength – excellent community input and support


Watersheds

Asotin River and Bridge Creek Novelty – posts/beavers are a novel low-cost restoration action. Process based

restoration Strength – compact watershed, limited treatment type, experimental design

based

Data Management

• Common framework, including intentional contrast amongst “ISEMP” IMWs supports learning

• BUT – diversity of methods, participants, locations, large-scale/long term requires strong attention to

– Data Management

– QA/QC

– Storage/retrieval

Lemhi River, ID – Environmental Setting

Miles of Stream

Land Ownership

Total BLM USFS State Private

Mainstem 66 0 0 0 66 All Streams 897 247 359 33 258

Basin Characteristics

Lemhi River

Min Mean Max

Flow (CFS) < 100 270 550

Precipitation (in) 3.6 9.4 14.8

Elevation (ft) 4,100 - 11,000

300+ diversions

1,500 cfs

Lemhi River Limiting Factors

Lemhi River Limiting Factors

Loss of Tributary Habitat

Canyon Creek Reconnect

1. Stream Dewatering 2. Riparian/Degraded Habitat

Diversions and Screening (IDFG SP)

Lemhi Backroad Culvert

LSC Reconnect Projects Flow Limited

L52 Removal (TNC/USBWP)

Little Spring Creek Rehab (TU)

Lower Diversion Removal (USBWP)

Fencing (IDFG/TU/USBWP)

Spring Creek/Pond Rehab (IDFG)

HWY 28 Culverts (USBWP)

Lemhi River – Assumptions

• Assumptions/Hypotheses:

– productivity limited by habitat quantity and quality

– life stage specific survival/abundance is a function of habitat quantity and quality

– those relationships can be modeled

Lemhi River - Watershed Model -Multi-Stage Beverton-Holt

where - N i,t = number of fish at life stage (i), time (t)

- Ni+1, t+1 = number of fish in next life-stage (i+1) and time (t+1)

- pi,t = productivity, or maximum survival rate for life-stage (i)

- c i,t = capacity, or maximum numbers that survive life-stage (i)

- Moussalli & Hilborn (1986)

ti

titi

ti

ti

Ncp

NN

,

,,

,

1,1 11

t

t

tSb

aSR

1

How to relate to habitat?

Lemhi River - Watershed Model - carrying capacity (c)

- Carrying Capacity = max. number of fish that survive life-stage

- OR in a habitat context = numbers of fish by life-stage i in a specific habitat type j

- D = abundance/density of fish

- H = (e.g. pools) or reach type (e.g. plane-bed)

- But, we are interested predicting restoration effects and where they occur so we adapt the equation for - t = temporal periods (e.g. year, seasonal, etc.)

- k = spatial context (e.g. watershed, tributary, etc.)

- where - A = areal extent (or other spatial measure)

- L = Land use type (or empirical measures of habitat)

ij

n

j

ji DHc ,

1

n

j

ij

n

qtkqqjktik DLHAc

1

,

1

,,,,

Lemhi River – Monitoring Approach • Information needs:

– adult escapement – brood-year specific juvenile abundance/survival in

tributary and mainstem habitat – habitat quantity/quality

• Response Design – LGD run decomposition via IPTDS – GRTS-distributed juvenile PIT tagging

• recap/re-sight via repeat surveys, IPTDS, and RSTs

– GRTS-distributed habitat sampling CHaMP – fish/habitat relationships described by

survival/abundance and contrast across tributaries

Fish Sampling -GRTS -IPTDS -RSTs *Metrics at scale of actions. *Fish and Habitat in same frame.

Fish Methods Abundance (A), Growth (G), Movement (M), Survival

(S), Production (P)

Mark-Recapture Surveys (MR) Mobile PIT Tag Surveys

Fixed Antenna Array (Array)

Season Method Attribute

Summer MR, Array A,G,M,S,P

Fall MR, Array A,G,M,S,P

Winter Mobile, Array M,S

Spring Mobile, Array M,S

Available Habitat: 285.1 km

LWD per km: 94.5 m3

Fine Sediment: 24.5 %

D50: 62.0 mm

Pool

Glide

Riffle

Mainstem Lemhi & Hayden

n = 40

Pool

Riffle Available Habitat: 23.4 km

LWD per km: 83.7 m3


D50: 53.5 mm

Bohannon Creek

n = 2

Pool

Riffle

Glide


LWD per km: 24.7 m3


D50: 22.3 mm

Kenny Creek

n = 3

Pool

Glide

Riffle Available Habitat: 64.0 km

LWD per km: 70.7 m3


D50: 29.3 mm

Canyon Creek

n = 12

Pool

Glide

Riffle


LWD per km: 45.9 m3


D50: 44.9 mm

Big Timber

n = 11

Lemhi River – IMW Strengths and Weaknesses

• Strengths:

– model provides analytical framework

– tool for assessing alternative/subsequent restoration scenarios

• Weaknesses:

– brood-year basis requires time series data

– few opportunities to directly test capacity

Lemhi River – Preliminary Conclusions

• See weakness number 1 – life cycle models take years to populate…

• Anadromous fish using reconnected tribs.

• Documented production of anadromous juveniles from: – reconnected streams with anadromous

escapement

– reconnected streams without anadromous escapement

• Within-watershed resident migration to/from reconnected tributaries.

Entiat IMW

Photo courtesy of Mike Cushman

Ecological Concerns

Simplified channel conditions

Photos courtesy of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Restoration Potential

Photo courtesy of U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation

Entiat IMW Design

Valley Segment

Habitat Action Implementation Reach 2012

2014

2017

2020

VS3

3F

RM26

3E

3D

3C

3B

3A

VS2

2D

2C

2B

2A

VS1

1G

1F

1E

1D

1C

1B

1A

RM0

Temporary Control

Habitat Restoration Actions

No Identified Actions

Internal Control, never treated

Effectiveness Monitoring

Terraqua, Inc. U.S. Forest Service- Entiat Ranger District U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Forest Service–PNW Research Station Yakama Nation

Technical Review Entiat Habitat Subcommittee U.C. Regional Technical Team

Oversight & Landowner Involvement

Entiat Watershed Planning Unit

Project Design U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Yakama Nation Chelan County NRD U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Project Sponsors Cascadia Conservation District Chelan County NRD Chelan-Douglas Land Trust Washington Rivers Conservancy Yakama Nation

Coordination Partners ISEMP U.C. Salmon Recovery Board Bonneville Environmental Foundation

Entiat IMW Partners

Before: The Peanut Butter Model

Planning and design Permitting Project construction

After: Regional Coordination

Photo courtesy of Yakama Nation

Hypotheses • The implementation of habitat actions will significantly improve the

magnitude and variability of physical habitat and macroinvertebrate indicators

The combined effect of habitat actions will:

• Increase salmonid density, growth and survival

Habitat Monitoring

Photo courtesy of Mike

Cushman

• Monitoring since

2005

• CHaMP since 2011

Channel Unit

Information

• Large wood

• Substrate type

• Undercut banks

• Fish cover

Site Information

• Total Drift Biomass

• Riparian Structure

• Solar Input

• Alkalinity

• Conductivity

• Temperature

Habitat Monitoring – Topographic Surveys

Fish Monitoring

• 3 years winter & summer mark-recapture data

• >10 years RST (5 covering whole watershed)

• >10 years steelhead & Chinook redd surveys

• 6 instream PIT tag detection arrays

• 8 years status & trend monitoring throughout watershed

IInstream

PIT Tag

Detection

Array

Strengths

• Community and collaborator support

• Well-coordinated effort

• Based on an experimental design with pulsed implementation – increase power to detect fish response

• Lots of monitoring

Challenges

• Limited restoration potential due to geomorphology and sociological constraints

• Massive coordination effort

• Access to private land

• Sampling large river

• Funding

Asotin Creek Intensively Monitored Watershed, southeast Washington

Presenter: Stephen Bennett Eco Logical Research Inc.

Asotin IMW

Limiting Factors – Riparian Function

Limiting Factors – Large Wood

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Managed Reference

Year

Larg

e W

oo

dy

Deb

ris

(ln

)

Median wood counts (ln) in managed and reference conditions across the interior Columbia Basin (Roper et al. 2011; AFS symposium in Seattle, WA).

~ = 100 pieces/km

Restoration Philosophy

• Let the River Do the Work (Zeedyk and Clothier 2009)

• Minimal impact

• Cheap and Transferable

• $100s/structure

• <10-15 m BFW (much of steelhead extent)

• Substitute density for stability

• 50 structures/km x 12 km = 600

Restoration with PALS

Post Assisted Log Structures (PALS)

- Posts driven ~ 1 m deep - 5-10 posts/structure - 60-80% across channel

Posts - $20-50 LWD - donates (USFS) Labor - $50-150 $70-200

Trial of 15 structures 12/15 survived a ~1000 cfs flood

Hypotheses

Testing Habitat Hypotheses CHaMP Surveys

- DEM of Difference (DoD)

Pre-Treatment

Post-Treatment

= DoD

DEM = grid of x,y,z coordinates Using GIS Subtract “z” (elevation) for each x,y location Post – Pre treatment DEM = Change due to restoration Red = Erosion Blue = Deposition

Stream Flow

Legend

- Posts

Geomorphic Change Detection (DoD)

Software available at Joewheaton.org

Red = Erosion Blue = Deposition

Experimental Design

Asotin Creek IMW experimental design. One treatment section will be treated each year starting in 2012. All other sections remain as controls.

Monitoring Design

Fish Methods Abundance (A), Growth (G), Movement (M), Survival

(S), Production (P)

Mark-Recapture Surveys (MR) Mobile PIT Tag Surveys

Fixed Antenna Array (Array)

Season Method Attribute

Summer MR, Array A,G,M,S,P

Fall MR, Array A,G,M,S,P

Winter Mobile, Array M,S

Spring Mobile, Array M,S

RESULTS Abundance

Density of juvenile steelhead by sample period: 2008-2012 (90% CI). South Fork treated in late summer 2012, Charley and North Fork are controls.

Conclusions

The Good

• Restoration approach feasible, cheap, effective, and highly transferable

• Design and Monitoring infrastructure robust – Ready to detect a change!

Not So Good

• Hard to keep time series going

• Funding Uncertainty

Acknowledgements Collaborators and Funding

Landowners and Sponsors

Thornton & Koch Families

Nick Bouwes and Nick Weber - Eco Logical Research, Inc., Providence, UT Joe Wheaton , Florie Consolati - Watershed Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT Chris Jordan, Michael Pollock, Jason Hall - NOAA Fisheries Service, Northwest Science Center Carol Volk- South Fork Research, Inc.

The ecological impacts of stream restoration: providing structures to assist beavers to aggrade an incised channel to

benefit endangered steelhead

Made possible by BPA and BLM

Mean Annual Flood Height

Post Depth 60–90 cm

Different Flavors of BDSS

Restoration

Post Lines

Reinforced Dams Wicker Weaves

Beaver dam support structures

Will steelhead respond to this restoration?

Beaver dams

Raised

Water

Levels

Variable

Water

Velocity

Sediment Sorting

Aggradation

Groundwater

Recharge

Reconnect

Floodplain

Pools,

Area

Dissipated

Flows Increased

Sinuosity

Decreased

Gradient

Beaver

Recruitment

Decreased

Dam

Failure

Decreased

Stream

Power

Increased base flows

Localized Upwelling

Temperature Heterogeneity

Riparian

Vegetation

Gravels for Spawning

and concealment

Foraging

Resting

Locations

High Flow Refugia

Shading

Undercut Banks

Allothonous inputs

More Pools

Expectations

More habitat (e.g. pools) More refugia (high flows, predators) More food More habitat complexity

Heterogeneity in: topography velocities temperature substrate

Increase in steelhead abundance, survival, growth and production

Treatment 2009

Control/Trt 2014

Long Term Control

Murderers Creek

Beaver dams

Raised

Water

Levels

Variable

Water

Velocity

Sediment Sorting

Aggradation

Groundwater

Recharge

Reconnect

Floodplain

Pools,

Area

Dissipated

Flows Increased

Sinuosity

Decreased

Gradient

Beaver

Recruitment

Decreased

Dam

Failure

Decreased

Stream

Power


Localized Upwelling


Riparian

Vegetation


and concealment

Foraging

Resting

Locations

High Flow Refugia

Shading

Undercut Banks

Allothonous inputs

More Pools

BDS Structure

DEM of Difference

Beaver dams

Raised

Water

Levels

Variable

Water

Velocity

Sediment Sorting

Aggradation

Groundwater

Recharge

Reconnect

Floodplain

Pools,

Area

Dissipated

Flows Increased

Sinuosity

Decreased

Gradient

Beaver

Recruitment

Decreased

Dam

Failure

Decreased

Stream

Power


Localized Upwelling


Riparian

Vegetation


and concealment

Foraging

Resting

Locations

High Flow Refugia

Shading

Undercut Banks

Allothonous inputs

More Pools

Inset floodplain frequently inundated

Beaver dams

Raised

Water

Levels

Variable

Water

Velocity

Sediment Sorting

Aggradation

Groundwater

Recharge

Reconnect

Floodplain

Pools,

Area

Dissipated

Flows Increased

Sinuosity

Decreased

Gradient

Beaver

Recruitment

Decreased

Dam

Failure

Decreased

Stream

Power


Localized Upwelling


Riparian

Vegetation


and concealment

Foraging

Resting

Locations

High Flow Refugia

Shading

Undercut Banks

Allothonous inputs

More Pools

What About the Fish?

Passive Instream Antenna Mobile Antenna

Pressure Transducer

Catchment wide fish surveys

Electroshocking

Juvenile Steelhead Habitat Preference

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Win

ter

Spri

ng

Fall

Win

ter

Spri

ng

Fall

Win

ter

Spri

ng

Fall

Win

ter

Spri

ng

Fall

Win

ter

Spri

ng

Fall

Win

ter

Spri

ng

Fall

O. m

ykis

s d

ensi

ty (

no

./1

00

m2)

Bridge (trt) Murderers (cntrl)

Pre-restoration Post-restoration

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Density of O. mykiss in Bridge and Murderers (trt and cntrl)

-30.00

-20.00

-10.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

Win

ter

Spri

ng

Fall

Win

ter

Spri

ng

Fall

Win

ter

Spri

ng

Fall

Win

ter

Spri

ng

Fall

Win

ter

Spri

ng

Fall

Win

ter

Spri

ng

Fall

Dif

fere

nce

in O

. myk

iss

den

sity

(tr

t-cn

trl)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Difference of O. mykiss between Bridge and Murderers (trt - cntrl) Average Ḋ-pre and Ḋ-post restoration (p=0.007)


Ḋ-pre

Ḋ-post

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

mer

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

mer

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

mer

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

mer

Fall

Win

ter

O. m

ykis

s su

rviv

al s

eas

on

Bridge (trt) Murderers (cntrl)


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Survival of O. mykiss in Bridge and Murderers (trt and cntrl)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

mer

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

mer

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

mer

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

mer

Fall

Win

terR

atio

of

O.m

ykis

s su

rviv

al (

trt/

cntr

l)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Ratio of Survival O. mykiss in Bridge and Murderers (trt/cntrl) Geomean Ṙ-pre and Ṙ-post restoration (p<0.001)

Ṙ-pre

Ṙ-post


-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Sum

me

r

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

me

r

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

mer

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

me

r

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

me

r

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

me

r

O. m

ykis

s gr

ow

th (

g/se

aso

n)

Bridge (trt) Murderers(cntrl)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Growth of O. mykiss in Bridge and Murderers (trt and cntrl) Pre-restoration Post-restoration

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

Sum

mer

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

mer

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

mer

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

mer

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

mer

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

merD

iffe

ren

ce in

O. m

ykis

s gr

ow

th (

trt-

cntr

l)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Difference in Growth of O. mykiss in Bridge and Murderers (trt - cntrl) Average Ḋ-pre and Ḋ-post restoration (p=0.036)

Ḋ-pre

Ḋ-post


y = -0.0088x + 0.2464 R² = 0.514

(0.05)

-

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

- 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Gro

wth

(g/

day

)

Density O. mykiss (no./100m2)

Murderers Creek Density Dependent Growth

y = -0.0031x + 0.1871 R² = 0.4082

-

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

- 10 20 30 40 50 60

Gro

wth

(g/

day

)

Density O. mykiss (no./100m2)

Bridge Creek Density Dependent Growth

Production (growth*abundance*survival)

(Δbiomass/100m2/season)

Summer Fall/Winter Winter/Spring

Growth Survival

N

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

me

r

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

me

r

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

me

r

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

me

r

Fall

Win

ter

Pro

du

ctio

n (

Δg/

10

0m

2/s

eas

on

) Bridge (trt) Murderers (cntrl)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Production of O. mykiss of Bridge and Murderers (trt and cntrl) Pre-restoration Post-restoration

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

mer

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

mer

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

mer

Fall

Win

ter

Sum

mer

Fall

Win

ter

Dif

fere

nce

in P

rod

uct

ion

(tr

t-cn

trl)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012

Difference in Production of Bridge and Murderers (trt - cntrl) Average Ḋ-pre and Ḋ-post restoration (p=0.10)

Ḋ-pre

Ḋ-post


Conclusions • Increase in deeper pools

• Increased ground water storage

• Aggradation

• Frequent inundation of the floodplain

• Habitat complexity

– Topography

–Velocity

– Substrate

– Temperatures

Conclusions • Increase in population abundance

• Increase in survival (at multiple scales)

• Decrease in growth

• Increase in steelhead production

• Continued fish passage

It’s working!

integrated status and effectiveness monitoring program (isemp) imws€¦ · ·...

Documents