Assessing the Impact of Culvert Design on Three Ecosystem ......Assessing the Impact of Culvert...
Transcript of Assessing the Impact of Culvert Design on Three Ecosystem ......Assessing the Impact of Culvert...
Assessing the Impact of Culvert Design on Three Ecosystem Functions in Northern
Wisconsin Streams James Olson1, Amy Marcarelli1, Sue Eggert2, Anne Timm2,
Randy Kolka2 1Michigan Technological University
2USDA Forest Service
Stream Restoration • The most common restorations try to rehabilitate
hydrologic connectivity or habitat heterogeneity • Restoration projects are most often evaluated using
ecosystem structure measurements
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pfw/r6pfw2h.htm http://peakwater.org/tag/dam-removal/
Ecosystem Structure vs. Function
Ecosystem structures • Richness • Biomass • Abundance
Ecosystem functions • Production • Respiration • Nutrient uptake
“Ecosystem processes are the transfers of energy and materials from one pool to another” Chapin et al. 2011
Lindemann 1942
Culvert Issues • Culverts can be barriers to
aquatic organism movement
• Poorly designed culverts can alter natural stream flow and the balance between erosion and sedimentation
Photo Credits: S. Eggert
Culvert Designs
Full Stream Simulation Partial Stream Simulation
Non-Replaced
• Stream simulation culverts are designed to improve hydrologic characteristics, aquatic organism passage, and ecosystem functions
Objective
• To evaluate the effectiveness of stream simulation culvert designs for restoring or maintaining ecosystem functions
Two Comparisons • Full Stream Simulation vs. Partial Stream Simulation
– 6 streams (3 Full and 3 Partial) – 3 ecosystem functions
• Stream Simulations vs. Non-Replaced – 15 streams (5 Full, 6 Partial, 4 Non-replaced) – 2 ecosystem functions
Three Ecosystem Functions • Hydrologic Connectivity
• Nutrient Uptake • Coarse Particulate Organic
Matter (CPOM) Retention
Full Stream Sim vs. Partial Stream Sim Hypotheses: • Nutrient uptake velocity will be more similar upstream and
downstream of full stream simulation culverts compared to partial stream simulation culverts
• Hydrologic connectivity and CPOM retention will be more
similar upstream, through and downstream of full stream simulation culverts compared to partial stream simulation culverts
Hydrologic Connectivity
Runkel 1998
• Transient storage characteristics estimated with One Dimensional Transport with Inflow and Storage (OTIS) Model
α As
D A
Hydrologic Connectivity Average Velocity
Upstream Through Downstream
Ave
rage
Vel
ocity
(m/s
ec)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Full Stream SimPartial Stream Sim
P=0.23
Transient Storage Characteristics
Upstream Downstream
Dis
pers
ion
(m2 s
-1)
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Full Stream Sim Partial Stream Sim
P=0.03
Upstream Downstream
Stor
age
Exch
ange
C
oeffi
cien
t (
, s-1
)
-0.001
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
Full Stream SimPartial Stream Sim
P=0.13
Upstream Downstream
Stor
age
Zone
Cro
ss
Sect
ion
Are
a (m
2 )
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Full Stream SimPartial Stream Sim
P=0.17
Upstream Downstream
As/A
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Full Stream SimPartial Stream Sim
P=0.14
Hydrologic Connectivity Dispersion
Upstream Downstream
Dis
pers
ion
(m2 s
-1)
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Full Stream Sim Partial Stream Sim
P=0.03
Nutrient Uptake
Newbold et al. 1982
Nutrient Uptake
Above CulvertBelow CulvertAv
g. U
ptak
e Ve
loci
ty (m
m/s
ec)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Full Stream SimPartial Stream Sim
P=0.38
Upstream Downstream
CPOM Retention
Upstream Through Downstream
Ret
entio
n Ve
loci
ty (m
m/s
ec)
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
0.0025
0.0030
Full Stream SimPartial Stream Sim
CPOM Retention
P=0.003
Summary of First Comparison
• Limited differences between full and partial stream simulations (CPOM, Dispersion)
• Is either stream simulation design better than non-replaced culverts?
Stream Simulation vs. Non-Replaced Hypothesis: • Hydrologic connectivity and CPOM retention will be
most similar upstream and through full stream simulation culverts, less similar for partial stream simulation culverts and least similar for non-replaced culverts
Hydrologic Connectivity
Average Velocity
Upstream Through
Ave
rage
Vel
ocity
(m/s
ec)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Full Stream SimPartial Stream SimNon-Replaced
P=0.03
Upstream Through
Ret
entio
n Ve
loci
ty (m
m/s
ec)
-0.002
-0.001
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
Full Stream SimPartial Stream SimNon-Replaced
P=0.004
CPOM Retention
CPOM Retention
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Upstream Through Above Through Upstream Through
Perc
ent o
f Rel
ease
d Le
af A
nalo
gs
% Debris Dam
% Wood
% Bank
% Backwater
% Roots
% Rocks
Non-replaced Partial Full
Summary • Hydrologic connectivity and nutrient uptake were
not different between culverts or between reaches (Dispersion*)
• CPOM retention decreased drastically through all designs but least through full stream simulations
Conclusions
• Major hydrologic issues are fixed by stream simulation designs but very little difference between them was observed in ecosystem functions
• Culverts with severe problems could not be
represented in this study
• Ecosystem functions that can be measured at small scales are more likely to respond to small culvert restorations (CPOM)
Acknowledgments Field and Lab Support • Ashley Coble • Jade Ortiz • Kellie Heiden • Brian Borowicz