Stream Habitat Management
Dear Professor Orth Letter - Week 1
I am fairly new to the aquatics field. Having majored in Environmental Sciences and Policy with an emphasis in geospatial analysis, I never really made an effort to understand streams or how the aquatic ecosystem worked. After working for nearly two years at Colombia’s Biodiversity Research Institute, I got very frustrated of not being able to “sell” the importance of conserving biodiversity as it seemed (and still seems) a very intangible goal. Continue reading...
Tree of Knowledge
Below are my two trees of knowledge. On the left, the tree I drew Week 1; and on the right, the tree I drew in Week 15.
Key Principles
"Principles are fundamental to practice and understanding and may be derived from science, law, or morality." Key Principles Stream Habitat Management Assignment, Dr. Don Orth.
Throughout the semester we visited different controversies around stream habitat management. Through time, researchers find evidence to these controversies and thus principles start to become applicable to the field of stream habitat management. Others continue to be highly debated, and there is mixed evidence. Recognizing these controversies makes science be continually changing and evolving. These are the main take-home messages.
Throughout the semester we visited different controversies around stream habitat management. Through time, researchers find evidence to these controversies and thus principles start to become applicable to the field of stream habitat management. Others continue to be highly debated, and there is mixed evidence. Recognizing these controversies makes science be continually changing and evolving. These are the main take-home messages.
Written Abstracts and Reflections
Brief summary of the following scientific articles we read, followed by a reflection. (In bold the papers I found particularly interesting)
Bennett, S. J., et al. 2011. The Evolving Science of Stream Restoration.
Cormier, S. M. and G. W. Suter. 2008. A framework for fully integrating environmental assessment. Environmental management.
McManamay, et al. 2012. Revisiting the homogenization of dammed rivers in the southeastern US.
Trush, W. J., et al. 2000. Attributes of an alluvial river and their relation to water policy and management.
Newbury, R., et al. 2011. Restoring Habitat Hydraulics With Constructed Riffles.
Fausch, K. D., et al. 2002. Landscapes to riverscapes: bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes.
Rosenfeld, J. 2003. Assessing the habitat requirements of stream fishes: an overview and evaluation of different approaches.
Cormier, S. M., et al. 2009. Using field data and weight of evidence to develop water quality criteria.
Wenger, S. J. et al. 2008. Stream fish occurrence in response to impervious cover, historic land use, and hydrogeomorphic factors.
Palmer, M. A., et al. 2010. River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice?
Moerke, A. H. and G. A. Lamberti. 2004. Restoring stream ecosystems: lessons from a midwestern state.
Bartholow, J. M. 2010. Constructing an Interdisciplinary Flow Regime Recommendation.
Wohl, E. 2011. Seeing the Forest and the Trees: Wood in Stream Restoration in the Colorado Front Range, United States.
Hester, E. T. and M. N. Gooseff. 2011. Hyporheic Restoration in Streams and Rivers.
Schmetterling, D. A. and R. W. Pierce. 1999. Success of Instream Habitat Structures After a 50‐Year Flood in Gold Creek, Montana.
White, S. L., et al. 2011. Response of trout populations in five Colorado streams two decades after habitat manipulation.
Doyle, M. W. 2012. America’s Rivers and the American Experiment.
Bennett, S. J., et al. 2011. The Evolving Science of Stream Restoration.
Cormier, S. M. and G. W. Suter. 2008. A framework for fully integrating environmental assessment. Environmental management.
McManamay, et al. 2012. Revisiting the homogenization of dammed rivers in the southeastern US.
Trush, W. J., et al. 2000. Attributes of an alluvial river and their relation to water policy and management.
Newbury, R., et al. 2011. Restoring Habitat Hydraulics With Constructed Riffles.
Fausch, K. D., et al. 2002. Landscapes to riverscapes: bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes.
Rosenfeld, J. 2003. Assessing the habitat requirements of stream fishes: an overview and evaluation of different approaches.
Cormier, S. M., et al. 2009. Using field data and weight of evidence to develop water quality criteria.
Wenger, S. J. et al. 2008. Stream fish occurrence in response to impervious cover, historic land use, and hydrogeomorphic factors.
Palmer, M. A., et al. 2010. River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice?
Moerke, A. H. and G. A. Lamberti. 2004. Restoring stream ecosystems: lessons from a midwestern state.
Bartholow, J. M. 2010. Constructing an Interdisciplinary Flow Regime Recommendation.
Wohl, E. 2011. Seeing the Forest and the Trees: Wood in Stream Restoration in the Colorado Front Range, United States.
Hester, E. T. and M. N. Gooseff. 2011. Hyporheic Restoration in Streams and Rivers.
Schmetterling, D. A. and R. W. Pierce. 1999. Success of Instream Habitat Structures After a 50‐Year Flood in Gold Creek, Montana.
White, S. L., et al. 2011. Response of trout populations in five Colorado streams two decades after habitat manipulation.
Doyle, M. W. 2012. America’s Rivers and the American Experiment.
Oral Explanation Learning Outcome
This
assignment gave me the opportunity to look at the issue from an ecosystem
perspective, instead of from a human perspective. I re-iterated my belief that while sometimes
there are some conflicts between human interests and ecosystems, that if we
just spend more time and effort analyzing how to minimize the impacts on
ecosystems, flood management can be a win-win for all.
As mentioned in the video, putting in some of these flood control structures that are friendlier to aquatic organisms might not be realistic given the constraints of the land. However, I find it extremely important to recognize trade-offs and synergies between these flood structures, aquatic ecosystems, and society. In discussing the trade-offs and synergies between flood managers, and stream habitat managers and civil society, then decisions can be made with all the pros and cons on the table. In acknowledging the different possible scenarios, then the decisions that are taken acknowledge the possible impacts these can have on future generations.
As mentioned in the video, putting in some of these flood control structures that are friendlier to aquatic organisms might not be realistic given the constraints of the land. However, I find it extremely important to recognize trade-offs and synergies between these flood structures, aquatic ecosystems, and society. In discussing the trade-offs and synergies between flood managers, and stream habitat managers and civil society, then decisions can be made with all the pros and cons on the table. In acknowledging the different possible scenarios, then the decisions that are taken acknowledge the possible impacts these can have on future generations.
Interview with Stream Habitat Specialist - Dr. Tess Thompson
Stroubles Creek Restoration, Blacksburg, VA
1.What is the appropriate scale to do stream restoration? Without constraints (budget, etc.)? With constraints?
2. What are the main causes of flooding today? Can people intervene on a local scale?
3. What are your views on structural versus non-structural flood control management approaches?
For full interview, go here.
2. What are the main causes of flooding today? Can people intervene on a local scale?
3. What are your views on structural versus non-structural flood control management approaches?
For full interview, go here.
Issue Paper: Evidence for managing floods: hard versus soft structures?
Río Subachoque
Problem Statement
Floods occur naturally and aquatic ecosystems have
adapted to these events (Bunn & Arthington, 2002); however humans
are in dissonance with floods because of the casualties and damages they
cause. The drivers of floods operate at
different scales: climate change on a regional, and land use changes on a local
scale. The management of floods is an
evolving science. In the past, hard
structures were ubiquitous and widely used until several high flood events
surpassed the designed capacities which called for a reassessment of these
approaches (Griggs & Paris, 1982). In recent times the role of natural
ecosystems, such as wetlands and floodplains, to mitigate floodwaters is
starting to be recognized as a valuable asset to flood regulation.
Despite the evidence of natural ecosystems to mitigate floods, hard structures continue to be used for flood regulation. The two approaches - hard structures (dams, levees, dikes, etc.) and soft structures or non-structural landscape approaches (retention and detention ponds, restoring wetlands and floodplains) - to regulating floods have advantages and disadvantages. Floods are not equally distributed throughout the landscape, making adaptive territorial planning important. Given the nature of floods - low probability of occurrence and high consequence - what is the evidence to manage floods between hard and soft/non-structural landscape approaches?
This paper explores the hydrologic modes of action between approaches, the evidence between hard and soft/non-structural landscape approaches to managing floods, and the scales at which flood controls operate. This paper focuses on in-land, non-coastal flooding, based on evidence primarily from the United States.
Continue here.
Despite the evidence of natural ecosystems to mitigate floods, hard structures continue to be used for flood regulation. The two approaches - hard structures (dams, levees, dikes, etc.) and soft structures or non-structural landscape approaches (retention and detention ponds, restoring wetlands and floodplains) - to regulating floods have advantages and disadvantages. Floods are not equally distributed throughout the landscape, making adaptive territorial planning important. Given the nature of floods - low probability of occurrence and high consequence - what is the evidence to manage floods between hard and soft/non-structural landscape approaches?
This paper explores the hydrologic modes of action between approaches, the evidence between hard and soft/non-structural landscape approaches to managing floods, and the scales at which flood controls operate. This paper focuses on in-land, non-coastal flooding, based on evidence primarily from the United States.
Continue here.
Dear Professor Orth Letter - 15 Weeks after...
The Stream Habitat Management course has given me a solid framework on streams. I can now understand that impacts on one level (e.g. flow alterations) will have repercussions on everything else (e.g. aquatic organisms, stream bank stability, sediment transport, etc.). I have also gained a deeper understanding of the nuances and caveats of stream rehabilitation; everything from measuring the right metric for the project goal to experimental design to using the appropriate technique taking into consideration the scale of the intervention and other watershed factors.
Integrating the principles learned in class, the researching and writing of the issue paper and the interview with the stream habitat management specialists, I have come to realize that in whatever “natural” circumstance (i.e. floods not coming from obsolete urban water drainage systems), floods are great as they maintain the dynamics of freshwater aquatic systems. In other words, while flood regulation can be seen as an ecosystem service, floods also provide a plethora of other services.
I now feel more confident of talking about streams and aquatic systems; and am capable of being autodidactic if I wish to delve deeper into a subject.
Thank you,
Tiz
Integrating the principles learned in class, the researching and writing of the issue paper and the interview with the stream habitat management specialists, I have come to realize that in whatever “natural” circumstance (i.e. floods not coming from obsolete urban water drainage systems), floods are great as they maintain the dynamics of freshwater aquatic systems. In other words, while flood regulation can be seen as an ecosystem service, floods also provide a plethora of other services.
I now feel more confident of talking about streams and aquatic systems; and am capable of being autodidactic if I wish to delve deeper into a subject.
Thank you,
Tiz