Applied Habitat Management at Dam Removals

Dam Removal Demystified North Carolina June 14, 2011

Brian Graber American Rivers

Outline:
Healthy River Characteristics
98 96

Design with Habitat in Mind

e le v a tio n (fe e t)

94

92

90

88

86 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

distance (feet)

Active Habitat Additions?

Characteristics of River Habitat

Flow Regime

Water Quality

Continuity

Complexity

Rivers are long, linear ecosystems

River species need different habitats:

Seasonally Through life history Refuge from events Genetic diversity

River Health: Connectivity

Different species need connectivity in water and along bed, banks, and floodplain

River Health: Connectivity

Habitat Structure: Complexity

**Good habitat is messy**

In-channel On banks On bed

Complexity (habitat) is provided by:

Vegetation Substrate Dead wood (LWD) Bed features Dynamic planform

River Health: Complexity

Bed Feature Complexity

Slope 0% to 1% - meandering with pools and riffles Slope 1% to 2% - transitional Slope > 2% - step-pools Recent research is finding that pre-settlement rivers had even more complexity than current theory (Abbe and Montgomery 2003; Walter and Merritts 2008)
River Health: Complexity

Designing with Habitat in Mind

Restoration Theory
Defining restoration
Return to a pre-disturbance state?

Recent research has been highly critical of river restoration Dam removals turn rivers back into rivers and let them do their own work

Restoration: return to self-sustaining processes within the current (and future) land use
Restoration Theory

Concept Checklist for Successful Restoration Think long-term Pursue self-sustaining approaches First, eliminate stressors Simulate nature

Restoration Theory

Forget about short-term benefits and impacts

Use a 50-year rule in project planning
Think about what the river will be like in 50 years and what you're doing or not doing to contribute to that

Restoration Theory: Think Long-Term

Anything that requires maintenance is not really a long-term solution

Natural river processes provide habitat that is
Long-term, self-sustaining Broad in spatial scale instead of localized Beneficial to multiple species and life stages

Don't depend on human intervention long-term

Budgets change Programs change Institutional knowledge disappears
Restoration Theory: Self-Sustainability

Rivers are dynamic and will repair themselves if given the opportunity

Restoration Theory: Eliminate Stressors

The majority of the habitat restoration comes from removing the dam
Water quality, flow regime, connectivity, complexity
Restored fish passage Restored connectivity along bed, banks, riparian area Temperature regime improvement (and associated dissolved oxygen) Restored riverine flow characteristics Restored sediment dynamics Cleaned substrate Restored vegetative cover long-term Restored riverine bed features long-term

Dam removal sets river on a trajectory to restore long-term habitat if given freedom to do its own work

Simple Design Features for Habitat

1) Remove full vertical extent of the dam

Get any channel spanning structure out
Habitat Design Features

2) Connect riparian corridor upstream and downstream of dam

Turn retaining walls into river banks if possible Consider more than just swimming species

Habitat Design Features

3) Remove enough dam width for floodplain

Floodplains
Deposit sediment and nutrients Increase riparian corridor connectivity Increase roughness Decrease stream power

Habitat Design Features

Stream Power

= Qs
where is stream power is the specific weight of the flowing fluid Q is the discharge s is the energy slope of the channel
Stream Power

Rivers are Dynamic: Erode and Deposit

Adjustment is a natural process and it creates habitat
(Florsheim, et al. 2008)

Bed features
pools, riffles, step-pools

Side channels Cut-off channels (ox bows) Wood recruitment Retains connectivity between river and floodplain improves riparian vegetation dynamics
Source: Mount, 1995

Stream Power

Drained Impoundments Can Be Extremely Dynamic

Stream Power

Impoundment Aspect Ratio

Aspect ratio: Ratio of impoundment width to river width Low aspect ratio results in less potential for lateral migration Potential for vertical erosion remains

Stream Power

 High aspect ratio impoundment Has high potential for lateral migration following dam removal

Stream Power

Active Habitat Additions?

Assess risk

Simulate nature

Grade control, bank stabilization

Assess risk of not doing habitat and stabilization work 1) Infrastructure

Are there utilities, roads, bridges, or retaining walls that need protection? Work toward direct protection or combined instream/direct protection

Active Habitat: Assess Risk

2) Sediment Transport

Will short-term erosion cause long-term damage? Species of concern Particle sizes

Active Habitat: Assess Risk

3) Habitat Formation
Is the river free to create habitat?
Urban settings Give the river as much space as possible

Stream Power: Baseflow dominated spring creeks take longer to form habitat than powerful rivers

Active Habitat: Assess Risk

4) Failure potential of habitat work

Failure risk of active habitat management
Consider potential for lateral and vertical migration Look at aspect ratio and stream power

Active Habitat: Assess Risk

Simulate Nature
Consider natural analogs to guide restoration Consider historical changes to reference conditions Consider limitations to simulating nature

Active Habitat: Simulate Nature

Benefits of Simulating Nature

Only way to really restore multiple native species and multiple life stages

**Over time, the river will win**

Work with the rivers natural tendency

Consider 50-year timeframe

Active Habitat: Simulate Nature

What provides habitat in natural rivers?

Active Habitat: Simulate Nature

Woody habitat provides:

Habitat cover Bed complexity
Creates and maintains pools

Habitat stability: Decreased erosive power

wood only 2% of streambed area, but accounted for 50% of the total flow resistance (Manga and Kirchner 2000)

Active Habitat: Wood

Wood Projects and Habitat

Stewart, et al. 2006: Woody debris was the only type of habitat installation assessed that increased fish population abundance Miller, et al. 2010: Based on 24 studies, large wood additions produced largest and most consistent responses for macroinvertebrates (compared to instream rock projects)

Active Habitat: Wood

Consider jump-starting the riparian succession plant trees

It takes 80 to 150 years of tree growth before wood is sustainably recruited into river
Active Habitat: Wood

How Long-Term Riparian Growth Helps Rivers

Allows succession Provides cover Equilibrium channel stability Increases infiltration Reduces temperature Increases DO Reduces sediment Recruits woody habitat

Active Habitat: Wood

Photo by Tim Watts

Some Thoughts on Bank Stabilization

What provides bank stability in natural rivers?
Channel cross section dimensions
Riffle X-Section
Dist -3.4 -2.7 5 7.6 9 12.6 15 18 20.8 25.5 30.3 35.5 40 42.3 45.3 47 49.7 56.3 FS 4.27 4.45 10.96 12.5 13.7 14.31 14.94 15.52 15.96 15.88 15.73 15.47 14.99 13.71 12.28 11.51 10.31 9.02 HI 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 at 83 on long profile elevation 95.73 2 feet up to top of slope, top of bank is ferns and rush 95.55 89.04 87.5 86.3 bankfull-top of mini-point bar 85.69 on point bar 85.06 LEW 84.48 84.04 deepest point 84.12 84.27 84.53 85.01 REW 86.29 grassy 87.72 trees overhang 88.49 89.69 90.98 slopes gently up to steep forested valley after 40 ft.
North Fish Creek
96 94

more important to bank stability than what is on the banks

Appropriate channel dimensions allow use of vegetation for stability rather than heavy rock (assess infrastructure risk)

elevation (ft.)

92 90 88 86 84 82 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

distance (ft.)

Bank Stabilization

Erosion can occur in two stages:

(where there is a large quantity of fine-grained sediment)

Stage 1: Initial vertical erosion (headcutting) Stage 2: Long-term bank erosion Consider managing it in two stages
Bank Stabilization

Two-Stage Process
Slowly drain impoundment to allow sediment to stabilize in place Later, pull back banks to a more stable cross section May be higher cost may need to mobilize twice
Bank Stabilization

Some Thoughts on Grade Control

Grade Control

Intro to Instream Structures

Grade control
cross vanes, vortex weirs, W-weirs

Instream habitat structures J-hook

vanes, wing deflectors, lunker structures

Instream bank stabilization flow

deflectors

Grade Control

Some Grade Control Considerations

Grade control can inhibit cleaning of bed material Grade control does not inhibit lateral migration It may take river out of context (simulate nature)
Cross vanes create step-pools Step-pools only occur naturally at steeper slopes

Remember stream power:

Steep streams will create their own step-pools naturally

Grade Control

Instream Structure Failures

Mooney, et al. (2007) analyzed 127 instream structures: Found a 42% failure rate and 32% partial failure rate Frissell and Nawa (1992) analyzed 161 instream structures from 1 5 years old: Found 18.5% failure rate and 60% damage (impairment) rate Miller, et al. (2010) analyzed 391 instream structures in North Carolina: 30% of structures were damaged, with cross vanes and double wing deflectors sustaining the most damage

**Over time, the river will win**

Grade Control

Grade Control: Think Long-Term

Because of failure rate, dont count on grade control alone to protect at-risk infrastructure If grade control is critical to sediment management, consider that it will fail over time Consider deformable structures
Plan for intentional failure Design rock sizes for a smaller flood such as 10-year or 25-year flood
Grade Control

Decision-Making Process for Applied Habitat Management

1) What will happen if we do nothing besides remove the dam? - consider 50-100 year timeframe 2) Assess risk (many types) 3) Simulate nature if actively managing

Summary of Habitat Management Steps to Consider

1) Remove full vertical extent of dam 2) Remove enough width for banks and some floodplain 3) Consider letting river reconstruct its own habitat 4) Consider jump-starting riparian succession (plant trees) 5) If active management desired, consider using wood

Thank You!

For more information:

Brian Graber, bgraber@amrivers.org

References
Abbe, T.B. and Montgomery, D.R. 2003. Patterns and processes of wood debris accumulation in the Queets River basin, Washington. Geomorphology 51:81-107. Florsheim, J.; Mount, J.; and Chin, A. 2008. Bank erosion as a desirable attribute of rivers. BioScience 58(6):519-529. Frissell, C. and Nawa, R.K. 1992. Incidence and causes of physical failure of artificial habitat structures in streams of Western Oregon and Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:182-197. Manga, M. and Michael and Kirchner, J.W. 2000. Stress partitioning in streams by large woody debris. Water Resources Research 36(8):2373-2379. Miller, J.C. and Kochel, R.C. 2010. Assessment of channel dynamics, in-stream structures and post-project channel adjustments in North Carolina and its implications to effective stream restoration. Environmental Earth Sciences 59:1681-1692. Miller, S.W.; Budy, P.; and Schmidt, J.C. 2010. Quantifying macroinvertebrate responses to in-stream habitat restoration: applications of meta-analysis to river restoration. Restoration Ecology 18(1):8-19. Mooney, D.; Holmquist-Johnson, C.; and Holburn, E. 2007. Qualitative evaluation of rock weir field performance and failure mechanisms. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Services Center. Palmer, M.A.; Menninger, H.L.; and Bernhardt, E. 2010. River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice? Freshwater Biology 55: 205-222. Thompson, D. 2002. Long-term effect of instream habitat-improvement structures on channel morphology along the Blackledge and Salmon Rivers, Connecticut, USA. Environmental Management 29(1):250-265. Stewart, et al. 2006. Does the use of in-stream structures and woody debris increase the abundance of salmonids? Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation Systematic Review Report No. 12. Thompson, D. 2006. Did the pre-1980 use of in-stream structures improve streams? A reanalysis of historical data. Ecological Applications 16(2): 784-796. Walter, R.C. and Merritts, D.J. 2008. Natural streams and the legacy of water-powered mills. Science 319:299-304.60