Action Effectiveness Monitoring in the Upper Columbia

1. Action Effectiveness Monitoring in the Upper Columbia (Chapter 4) Karl M. Polivka, Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service

2. Key Management Questions for Effectiveness Monitoring Which actions could be suggested as most important to managers and funding entities? Which projects (if any) affected the environmental parameters (physical/chemical (water quality))? What is the scale (reach/population) of the effect on environmental and biological parameters? Are biological parameters affected at the population scale by single or multiple action types?

3. Dr. Phil Roni, NWFSC: Global review of effectiveness monitoring studies of various habitat restoration techniques. Road Improvements Riparian Rehabilitation Floodplain connectivity In-stream habitat structures Nutrient addition

4. Dr. Phil Roni, NWFSC: Global review of effectiveness monitoring studies of various habitat restoration techniques: General results Riparian Rehabilitation: Livestock exclusion has shown the most promising results Floodplain Connectivity: Dam removal has shown promise for improving habitat diversity In-stream habitat restoration: Show success at increasing local fish abundance, but results are highly variable among species, life stages and structure types

5. Protect High Quality Habitats Functioning habitats Natural areas Refuge areas Water Quality and Quantity Improve quality Provide adequate flow Habitat Connectivity Restore Watershed Processes Sediment and hydrology Riparian and floodplain Improve Instream Habitat Instream structures Nutrient enhancement

6. Tricia Gross and Jennifer O’Neal – Effectiveness monitoring in the Upper Columbia, meta-analysis Survey of 10 projects in 6 different monitoring categories for changes in metrics (fish abundance, physical habitat condition)

7. Riparian Rehabilitation: “Livestock exclusion has shown the most promising results” – Roni Gross and O’Neal (different sites across WA and OR): “Livestock exclusion projects significantly decreased bank erosion.”

8. Other general conclusions from regional meta-analysis of effectiveness monitoring • Fish passage projects effective when population densities below barriers-to-be-removed are relatively high. • In-stream habitat projects increased pool area, no other significant effects detected. • No significant effects of riparian planting projects; possible bank erosion detected, however. • Removal of levees has increased off-channel habitat • Other connectivity projects had mixed results

9. Patrick Connolly et. al. – Effectiveness of dam removal an replacement with vortex weirs in Beaver Cr. • Questions: • Increased fish movement rate? • More individuals upstream? • Change in age/size structure of individuals upstream?

10. Floodplain Connectivity: “Dam removal has shown promise for improving habitat diversity” – Roni Connolly et al.: • Increased rate of movement of adult steelhead through weirs • Juvenile steelhead/rainbow: Increased number of individuals following successful upstream passage, but slower overall rate relative to control weirs • Relative density of different age class varied in different parts of the stream despite showing overall increased movement. • Downstream movement of steelhead/rainbow also facilitated, but smolts of steelhead move primarily from lower river

11. Polivka: In-stream Habitat Structures: Entiat River

12. Project Background: Lower Entiat River (RM ~ 3.5) Bureau of Reclamation designed several microhabitat scale structures to enhance rearing habitat Engineered Log Jams (N = 4, our study) Rock “barbs” (N = 5, our study)

13. In-stream habitat restoration: “…the placement of structures appears to be successful at increasing local fish abundance, but results are highly variable among species, life stages and structure types” – Roni • Research Questions: • Are the restoration efforts resulting in increased abundance, performance, and population persistence of aquatic species? • What conceptual and/or field tools are available to evaluate the species’ response in terms of these metrics

14. Chinook density through the season Effect F df error p Reach 25.63 18 <0.001 Month 66.45 36 <0.001 R X M 12.74 36 <0.001 Chinook density was higher in the treated reach and decreased over time in both reaches

15. Steelhead density through the season Effect F df error p Reach 3.64 18 0.073 Month 22.42 36 <0.001 R X M 4.162 36 0.024 Steelhead density marginally higher in control reach; decline with time consistent with previous results; interaction with time particularly for increase in August.

16. Species Differences in Short-Term Habitat Affinity Chinook • Chinook had higher affinity for instream structures (treated reach only) in July compared with August • Steelhead had higher affinity for pools created by instream structures compared with pools in the treated reach in July. In August, overall habitat affinity was high and instream structures did not affect this behavior.

17. Summary: effectiveness monitoring of instream structures, Entiat River • Species differences in abundance: Chinook and steelhead densities respond differently to structures • Species differences in pool residence/affinity depending on structures • Short-term, small scale studies can identify the effectiveness of these studies, but further observations are needed to determine whether population responses are long-term and observable in other reaches.

18. Key Management Questions for Effectiveness Monitoring Which actions could be suggested as most important to managers and funding entities? Which projects (if any) affected the environmental parameters (physical/chemical (water quality))? What is the scale (reach/population) of the effect on environmental and biological parameters? Are biological parameters affected at the population scale by single or multiple action types?

19. Key Management Questions for Effectiveness Monitoring Which actions could be suggested as most important to managers and funding entities? Which projects (if any) affected the environmental parameters (physical/chemical (water quality))? What is the scale (reach/population) of the effect on environmental and biological parameters? Are biological parameters affected at the population scale by single or multiple action types?

20. Key Management Questions for Effectiveness Monitoring Which actions could be suggested as most important to managers and funding entities? • RTT Deliberations/Recommendations: • Small-scale structures appear to have some benefit, but issues with short-duration of monitoring studies and replication need to be addressed • Small-scale structures recommended if properly sited and used in a complementary fashion with larger, channel spanning structures. • Dam removal in Beaver Cr. shows increased overall fish passage to/from upper reaches.

21. Key Management Questions for Effectiveness Monitoring 4. Are biological parameters affected at the population scale by single or multiple action types? Whole Beaver Cr. population shows demographic shifts in response to dam removal. Larger population scale (whole sub-basin, e.g.) effects might require population modeling after models can be parameterized based on biological responses observed at smaller scales

22. Dr. Phil Roni, NWFSC: Global review of effectiveness monitoring studies…limitations • Generally: • There is little post-treatment monitoring to begin with • Studies do not cover a sufficient spatial/temporal scale • Metrics (response measurements) need to be consistent

23. Limitations from Effectiveness Monitoring in Upper Columbia • Which projects (if any) affected the environmental parameters (physical/chemical (water quality)? • Gross & O’Neal showed decreased bank erosion as a result of livestock exclusion, but this was not specific to the Upper Columbia • 3. What is the scale of the effect on environmental and biological parameters? • From the survey of Upper Columbia projects (Gross & O’Neal) it is difficult to determine successful projects due to many non-significant results and small effects

24. Limitations from Effectiveness Monitoring in Upper Columbia Whole-basin BACI monitoring of physical parameters in streams (Jordan et. al): Increased variation in thalweg depth (at deepest point across the stream) is expected to benefit fish. BACI monitoring shows that increase in variation following treatment is not distinguishable from pre-treatment conditions.

25. Observation of variation in thalweg depth through time confirms that only one treated site differed from controls.

26. UCRTT Advisory Notes: • Actions that have a short life span and that do not restore ecosystem processes, likely less effective in long term • e.g., instream structures possibly ineffective in some locations due to flow patterns which affect erosion/damage over time • Need for “process-based” actions, rather than actions that address symptoms rather than causes of degradation

27. UCRTT Management Recommendations UCRTT concludes that managers should follow a sequence of actions similar to those outlined by Roni There is little evidence from the Upper Columbia that water quality is a limiting factor, whereas water quantity is being addressed in some locations Connectivity projects have shown some success (e.g., Beaver Cr./Methow) Instream structures: In Lower E UCRTT recommends properly sited structures and longer term study of effects on fish populations and stability of smaller structures. Protect High Quality Habitats Functioning habitats Natural areas Refuge areas Water Quality and Quantity Improve quality Provide adequate flow Habitat Connectivity Restore Watershed Processes Sediment and hydrology Riparian and floodplain Improve Instream Habitat Instream structures Nutrient enhancement