A case study for stream restoration: monitoring Juday Creek at the

A case study for stream restoration: monitoring
Juday Creek at the Notre Dame Warren Golf Course
Patrick D. Shirey
Ecologist & Project Manager
Stream & river restoration = $1B/yr industry
Few projects are monitored long term
Research goal: improve efficacy of restoration
projects by monitoring ecological response
March 17th & 18th, 2016
WCD Engineers’
Workshop
Funding
NSF IGERT
NPS George Melendez
Wright Fellowship
New
channel
Old
channel
Land and Water Magazine 1999
Juday Creek
Notre Dame, IN
[email protected] 412-265-2729 Web: www.ecologypolicy.com
Acknowledgments – 100s of individuals + federal, state, local, and
private funding sources have been vital for completing this research
Collaborators: Michael Brueseke, Jillian Kenny, & Gary Lamberti
Manuscript on ecology portion under peer review (Ecology and Society)
Restoration Project Design by J.F. New & Associates
Grant support:
•USGS Water Resources Grant
•Bayer Pre-doctoral Fellowship
•National Science Foundation GLOBES IGERT Fellowship
(globes.nd.edu)
•Notre Dame Center for Aquatic Conservation
Fellowship
•National Park Service George Melendez Wright
Climate Change Fellowship
•This material is based upon work supported by the
National Science Foundation under Grant No. DGE0504495
An interdisciplinary approach to inform ecological restoration &
environmental policy: Merging ecology, history, and law
Historical Ecology
Namekagon River (WI)
Policy Review
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
Endangered Species
Illegal trade in listed plants
Informing Ecosystem
Management
Assisted colonization of
endangered species
All major U.S. Rivers
River segments listed
under WSRA
Frank W. Preston (1896-1989) trained as a civil engineer apprentice
under the surveyor and water works engineer in Loughborough, UK
1916, B.Sc. Civil Engineering, University of
London (age 20 with first class honors)
1925, Ph.D. University of London
1927, Founded Preston Laboratories
1950, D.Sc. University of London, for his
work on glass technology
1959, sold Preston Laboratories to
employees (American Glass Research)
Over a million annual visitors enter Moraine State Park (16,000 acres)
with the largest human-made lake in Pennsylvania (3,000+ acres)
http://www.morainepreservationfund.org/
Ecological restoration - assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has
been degraded, damaged, or destroyed (www.ser.org)
Recovery
Cressy Field, San Francisco
Recovery
Black River Falls Mine
Pre-restoration 1977 http://www.theearthpartners.com/
Post-restoration 1992
Ecological restoration projects attempt to return an ecosystem to a
previous historical trajectory
“Hard” engineering (B)
Jackson and Hobbs 2009
“Soft” engineering (A)
The scale and cost of stream restoration varies and can be expensive
$20,000-40,000
“soft” stream
restoration
$100,000-400,000
“hard” stream
restoration
>$500,000
dam removal,
large river restoration
Watershed Restoration Efforts & Preventing Degradation
Restoration ecology – scientific study of ecosystem response to
restoration projects
ISI Web of Knowledge® citations
“Like solving a puzzle whose pieces
themselves change shape, ecologists
around the world are developing
techniques to restore degraded and
exploited ecosystems”
The Rise of Restoration Ecology
July 31, 2009
Due to lack of monitoring restoration projects, the effectiveness of
restoration methods has lagged restoration efforts
Review of 78 restoration projects designed to increase stream
habitat diversity (Palmer et al., 2010, Freshwater Biology)
Increasing macroinvertebrate diversity
Unsuccessful
(76)
Successful (2)
Conclusion: If restoration practitioners want to improve stream water quality
and quantity, we must address watershed issues first
For many ecosystems, an interdisciplinary focus on the watershed may
provide additional information to improve restoration efforts
1929
1949
Wolves
Elk
Elk
Willow
Willow
1963
2003
Wolves
Elk
Elk
Willow
Beschta and Ripple 2006 – Yellowstone National Park – Gallatin River
Juday Creek is a 3rd-order tributary of the St. Joseph River that flows
through Mishawaka and South Bend in St. Joseph County, Indiana
Juday Creek Watershed
Notre Dame
St. Joseph River Watershed
Approximate Land use:
70% Agriculture
15% Urban
13% Forested
1% Wetland
Land surveys from 1829 provide Juday Creek watershed characteristics
prior to extensive development
Much Traditional Ecological
Knowledge was lost when
most Potawatomi were
forcibly removed, except
(Leopold) Pokagon Band
63% Mixed-deciduous,
oak-hickory forest
37% Wet prairie / marsh
habitat in headwaters
Michigan City Public Library
U.S. General Land Office Surveys
Flow Direction
(http://www.thekankakeeriver.com)
The contemporary policy approach to wetlands is to avoid, minimize
and mitigate due to historical losses that impacted water quality
1800s U.S Federal
policy on wetlands
(1) Impeded land
development
(2) Created menace to
public health
(3) Gave advantage to
Native American
Tribal Governments
(4) Discouraged
EuropeanAmerican
Settlement
1885: “clearing has begun, drainage will follow, and the monotonous
usefulness of arable land will supplant this natural botanic garden”
Arthur J. Stace (1838-1890)
• Professor of mathematics at Notre Dame
• St. Joseph County Surveyor (1874-1880)
• Poet, littérateur (Vapid Vaporings)
• U.S. Commissioner to the 1889 Paris Exposition
1885 Scholastic: “The spot where alone blooms
the trailing arbutus, or Mayflower (Epigcea
repens) is becoming narrower every season by the
same fatality of utilization. Castilleia coccinea and
Trillium grandiflorum will be driven this spring
from their chosen nook where the woods open
upon the marshes of Cottin's (Juday) Creek.”
Epilobium angustifolium
Fireweed (Indiana listed)
Laws encouraged wetland drainage; as early as 1875, Juday Creek was
called a State Ditch - earlier maps called it Sheffield Creek (1863)
1980s: Commercial development and ditch
maintenance caused further degradation
Howard 1907: “A ‘state ditch’
has taken the place of the
pretty stream”
1979: Regional mall opens in center of watershed,
spurring commercial and residential development
in South Bend and Mishawaka suburbs
1980s – 1990s: declines in macroinvertebrates and fish biomass led to
a watershed management plan in 1995
Notre Dame Ecology classes record
decline of fish in the headwaters
(McIntosh & Lodge pers. com.)
1986 – Drainage Board ordered
maintenance operations that
removed snags, fallen trees, and
woody debris
1982
1990
Macroinvertebrate
production
declines by 78%
(Kohlhepp and
Hellenthal 1992)
South Bend Tribune
September 3, 1995
Because of declines in water quality in the 1980s, residents formed
the Juday Creek Task Force to develop a watershed management plan
Goal 1. Preserve and improve the creek’s population of brown trout and other
species to 1986 levels
Goal 2. Reduce the frequency and severity of flooding of properties
Goal 3. Eliminate stream bank erosion
Goal 4. Prevent groundwater contamination
Goal 5. Develop a master planning process to address future development
Goal 6. Restore sediment movement to natural levels based on agency guidance
Goal 7. Reduce E. coli concentrations by 50%
Goal 8. Strictly adhere to existing rules and regulations governing creek
activities
Goal 9. Establish filter strips along both sides of the creek in agriculture areas
Goal 10. Preserve and protect the creek’s natural wetlands at current locations
http://www.sjrbc.com/docs/resources/watershed_plans/juday_creek.pdf
Goal: Monitor the restoration of Juday Creek on ND campus to
evaluate efficacy of restoration via new channel construction
Unfortunately, many projects are
not monitored long term due to a
• Lack of funding
• Desire to move to new research
projects
• Project being labeled a success or
failure before a complete evaluation
Results published after 5 years
(Moerke et al. 2004 JNABS)
Results after 16 years 1997-2013 are in
review with Ecology and Society (Shirey et al.)
www.landandwater.com Vol. 42 No. 1
Long-term ecological monitoring of projects is critical for evaluating restoration efficacy
Restoration goals: 1) create a self-maintaining stream channel, 2)
increase stream habitat diversity, and 3) enhance fish diversity
Restoration Design (J.F. New)
R1
R2
Abandoned U
Warren Golf Course at Notre Dame
Stream length
20% increase
Tree canopy over
stream
Eventual 67%
increase
Pools
6x increase
Logs
7x increase
Boulders
60x increase
Gravel substrate
35x increase
Vegetation
20m buffers
Construction Cost
$200,000
Monitoring Cost
<$100,000
Fish Monitoring: sites monitored 1 year before construction of the
Warren Golf Course and relocation of Juday Creek and for 16 years
Unrestored (U1)
Restored (R1)
Restored (R2)
Unrestored (U2)
Abandoned
Flow
Fish surveys: we blocked a 60 meter section with nets for each site
and sampled using multiple-pass sequential depletion
Identify, measure, and weigh fish
Set block nets at 0m and 100m
Multiple pass electrofishing
(Zippin 1958; Everhart et al. 1975)
Population Estimate using multi-pass electrofishing
Trout have decreased to 0 caught in all reaches in 2012 (1 in 2013), but
bass have increased in abundance since 2008
Brown trout (Salmo trutta)
• Non-native
• Introduced circa 1900 (Europe)
95% Confidence
Interval
Fewer trout
Rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris)
• Intolerant of silt, pollution
• Native
More bass
Population Estimate using triple pass electrofishing
Mottled sculpin and Johnny darter have experienced a delayed
response to the restoration (disturbance)
Johnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum)
Mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi)
The Juday Creek fish community shifted from introduced trout to
native bass in these reaches
Non-metric multidimensional
scaling (NMDS) –
• mathematical tool for examining
“distance” between communities
• points nearest one another are
more similar than points distant
Creek chub
Blacknose dace
Brown trout
Rainbow trout
Mottled sculpin
Johnny
darter
White
sucker
1997
1998
2004
2008
Rock bass
Largemouth bass
Green sunfish
Smallmouth bass
2013
We don’t have evidence to suggest temperature is a factor in fish shift,
but periods of low discharge could be a factor
July average
temperature °C
FTP = Final Temperature
Preferrendum (% of summer)
UILT = Upper Incipient Lethal
Temperature (% of summer)
Habitat surveys: The percent of fine sediments has increased in both
restored reaches
Three sediment cores were
taken from each reach
The cores were wetand dry-sieved
Ten size fractions were
obtained (63µm-16mm)
Unrestored: no change
Restored: increase in
fine sediment
Coarse-scale surveys: Habitat changed in unrestored reaches due to
recruitment of large wood from fallen trees (storm event in 2008)
Large Woody Debris
Volume (m³/100m)
U1
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
R1
Storm events
add wood
R2
U2
1997 prerest.
1997 postrest.
1999
2000
Year
2001
2002
2011
Risk of not engaging with policymakers: not informing stream
managers of habitat importance of large wood to fish community
Indiana – logs equated with trash
Recruited by storm
2009
logs removed under Indiana
Drainage Law by County Surveyor
2011
Shirey et al. in draft
Do residents want to continue to see
rock bass and smallmouth bass?
If goal is to improve stream habitat, our monitoring highlights the
importance of incorporating ecology into state law and local policy
Indiana – logs equated with trash
Michigan U.P. – logs create habitat
2009
logs removed under drainage law
2011 - Fish biomass declined 59%
Issue of aesthetics and educating
public on perceptions of ‘natural’
Evaluating Law & Policy: The Indiana Drainage Law (Title 36, Article 9,
Chapter 27) is both antiquated and progressive (Shirey et al. in draft)
progressive
antiquated
Watershed landowners pay
for stream maintenance
Disproportional benefit to agriculture (subjective)
$
$
$ $ $ $
$$
$
Quick removal of invasives
$
$ $ $ $
$ $
$
$
$ $
$ $
$$
Tax on those “benefited”
$
$
$
$ $$$
$$
$
Mowing vegetation is counter to most BMPs
“Maintenance”
Photos from Elkhart River Restoration Association website
Requires trash removal
Removing “obstructions”
Do Indiana residents want to manage the majority of their streams as ditches?
Land use restrictions (ordinance) require bioswales, detention
basins, and setbacks to reduce nonpoint source pollution
Goal 5. Develop a master planning
process to address future
development ✔
Design Firms: HOK (Landscape Arch.)
Intuition and Logic (stormwater system)
http://intuitionandlogic.com
Cost ~$5m with 10% cost savings over
traditional system (gray infrastructure)
So what? Why do we care?
Land values are tied to water quality (see Braden et al. 2008)
Bowman Creek, South Bend, IN
Like watersheds in Western PA, challenges remain for getting
landowners to cooperate with Best Management Practices
Not achieving Goal 3. Eliminate stream
bank erosion ✕
Not achieving Goal 9. Establish
agriculture filter strips ✕
Lessons learned from monitoring the fish community response
to a reach-scale stream restoration
Monitored Juday Creek to inform efficacy of fish habitat restoration
Pre-restoration 1997
Post-restoration
Reviewed existing law and policy –
Indiana Drainage Law
Indiana Code § 36-9-27
e.g., Removing “obstructions”
2007
2013
Identified a need for putting
results in context with history
1829: 37% wetland
2000: <1% wetland
Collaborators: Michael A. Brueseke, Jillian B. Kenny, Gary A. Lamberti
The challenges in restoring stream ecosystems can be
addressed by improving watershed management approaches
Implement Long-term Monitoring
Adapt Management Approach
Conduct Restoration Project
Inform Management Practices
A case study for stream restoration: monitoring
Juday Creek at the Notre Dame Warren Golf Course
Patrick D. Shirey
Ecologist & Project Manager
March 17th & 18th, 2016
WCD Engineers’
Workshop
Collaborators: Michael Brueseke,
Jillian Kenny, & Gary Lamberti
Contact: [email protected]
Desk: 412-265-2729
Web: www.ecologypolicy.com
Funding
NSF IGERT
NPS George Melendez
Wright Fellowship
Juday Creek
Notre Dame, IN