-
https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/cd38cf9c8dc9449cb56f4c683868100e.pdf
664ba5773f0f5728f6dc178f5e4b05b6
PDF Text
Text
The research in this publication was partially or fully funded by Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Marvin McDaniel, Chair • Carrie Besnette Hauser, Vice-Chair
Marie Haskett, Secretary • Taishya Adams • Betsy Blecha • Charles Garcia • Dallas May • Duke Phillips, IV • Luke B. Schafer • James Jay Tutchton • Eden Vardy
�North American Journal of Fisheries Management 42:24–36, 2022
© 2021 The Authors. North American Journal of Fisheries Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Fisheries Society.
ISSN: 0275-5947 print / 1548-8675 online
DOI: 10.1002/nafm.10713
ARTICLE
From Gold Mining to Gold Medal Fishery: Evaluating the Fishery
Response to Stream Restoration on the Upper Arkansas River, Colorado
Eric E. Richer*
and Matt C. Kondratieff
Colorado Parks and Wildlife, 317 West Prospect Road, Fort Collins, Colorado 80526, USA
Greg Policky
Colorado Parks and Wildlife, 317 West Prospect Road, Fort Collins, Colorado 80526, USA; and Policky Aquatics, 711
Poncha Boulevard, Salida, Colorado 81201, USA
Matt D. Robinson
Colorado Parks and Wildlife, 317 West Prospect Road, Fort Collins, Colorado 80526, USA
Michael Atwood
Colorado Parks and Wildlife, 7405 U.S. Highway 50, Salida, Colorado 81201, USA
Madison R. Myers
Colorado Parks and Wildlife, 317 West Prospect Road, Fort Collins, Colorado 81526, USA
Abstract
Over a century of metals pollution and channel disturbance associated with historical mining, land use, and water
development contributed to degradation of aquatic and riparian habitat within the upper Arkansas River watershed
near Leadville, Colorado. Following water quality remediation, habitat restoration was conducted for a 17.7-km reach
characterized as an overwide channel that lacked velocity refuge and overwinter habitat for salmonids. The primary
goals of restoration were to improve populations of Brown Trout Salmo trutta and individual fish health, with a target
to increase fish metrics by 10% within 5 years after restoration. Fish metrics included Brown Trout density, biomass,
quality, and relative weight, where quality was defined as the density of Brown Trout over 356 mm in length. Changes
in all fish metrics were evaluated with a before-after–control-impact study design that utilized five control sites and
five impact sites. Biomass was the only metric that exhibited a significant interaction between site type and period (before and after), with increases of 12% and 21% at control and impact sites, respectively. Increased density (10%) and
relative weight (2.4%) were observed across all sites regardless of type. Changes at individual sites were less evident,
with only one impact site showing significant increases in biomass (99%) and quality Brown Trout (306%). These
results suggest that Brown Trout populations within the upper Arkansas River have continued to improve following
large-scale water quality remediation and stream restoration efforts. Additional monitoring is recommended to evaluate long-term trends and inform adaptive management.
*Corresponding author: eric.richer@state.co.us
Received March 11, 2021; accepted September 24, 2021
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which
permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
24
�EVALUATING FISHERY RESPONSE TO STREAM RESTORATION
Stream restoration has become a multibillion dollar
business (Cockerill and Anderson 2014) with the potential
to aid in species recovery, improve water quality, and create new areas for wildlife habitat and recreational activities (Bernhardt et al. 2005; Roni 2019). There are a
variety of common goals for stream restoration projects,
including aesthetics, recreation, bank stabilization, channel
reconfiguration, dam removal, fish passage, floodplain
reconnection, flow modification, instream habitat improvement, species management, land acquisition, riparian
enhancement, stormwater management, water quality, and
mitigation (Bernhardt et al. 2007; Wohl et al. 2015; Julian
and Weaver 2019). Restoration treatments for instream
habitat can range from passive approaches, such as riparian fencing, to intensive geomorphic alterations, such as
channel realignment (Roni et al. 2002; Beechie et al.
2008). Although the scale of stream restoration projects
has ranged from the reach to the watershed, most projects
that focus on instream habitat have been relatively small
(<1 km; Gore and Shields 1995; Bernhardt et al. 2005;
Roni 2019).
Hydrologic analysis and reference reach information
may be sufficient for the design of small projects with relatively low risk, but additional lines of evidence, including
information on both process and form, are warranted as
risk, scale, and uncertainty increase (NASEM 2017). Monitoring efforts for stream restoration projects are often
limited and underfunded (Bash and Ryan 2002; Bernhardt
et al. 2007; Rubin et al. 2017), and disparate success rates
have been reported for those projects that have been evaluated (Roni et al. 2008, 2018; Miller and Kochel 2012).
The effectiveness of stream restoration remains uncertain,
partially due to inconsistent definitions (Dufour and
Piégay 2009; Cockerill and Anderson 2014; Wohl et al.
2015) and insufficient monitoring (Bash and Ryan 2002;
Rubin et al. 2017; Roni 2019). Monitoring and evaluation
are critical for advancing the science and practice of
stream restoration to optimize the ecological and socioeconomic benefits (Bernhardt et al. 2007; Roni et al. 2008) of
increasingly expensive restoration projects. This study
evaluates the effectiveness of stream restoration within the
headwaters of the Arkansas River in Colorado. The project intent was to restore natural resources equivalent to
those injured by the release of hazardous substances from
the California Gulch Superfund Site (Stratus 2010a).
Degradation of the study site began in 1859 when gold
was discovered in California Gulch (USEPA 1988). Heavy
metal extraction and processing resulted in significant disturbance to the streambed and surrounding areas over the
next century. Acid mine drainage and mine tailings were
released downstream into the Arkansas River, resulting in
impairment of aquatic and terrestrial natural resources,
including surface water, fish, benthic macroinvertebrates,
riparian vegetation, and birds (Stratus 2010a). The
25
California Gulch Superfund Site was added to the
national priorities list in 1983 (Stratus 2010a, 2010b). The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began remediation
activities in 1986 to address point and non-point-sources
of metals pollution. Remediation activities included installation of water treatment facilities at the Leadville Mine
Drainage Tunnel in 1992 and Yak Tunnel in 1994 to
address these point sources of acid mine drainage (USEPA
2007). Fluvial tailing deposits were denuded areas comprised of mine waste that was transported downstream
from California Gulch and deposited on the floodplain of
the Arkansas River. Most of these deposits were remediated during 2008–2009 to reestablish riparian vegetation
and reduce metals loading to the Arkansas River (USEPA
2013). Concurrent to remediation activities, Natural
Resource Damage Assessment provisions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act led to a settlement of US$20.5 million to be
used for natural resource restoration as compensation to
the public (Stratus 2010a, 2010b), including the stream
restoration project evaluated here.
Although Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis are prevalent in reaches upstream of California Gulch, Brown
Trout Salmo trutta are the predominant trout species
within the study site today, likely due to their tolerance to
low levels of chronic metals pollution (Clements and Rees
1997; Brinkman et al. 2006; Uren Webster et al. 2013).
Despite some capacity to acclimate to elevated metals concentrations, Brown Trout populations in the upper Arkansas River were impaired by a combination of heavy
metals (Cd, Cu, and Zn) associated with historical mining
activities (Clements et al. 2010). Habitat degradation associated with land-use practices and transbasin water diversions also contributed to impairment (Stratus 2010a,
2010b). Brown Trout populations increased in abundance
and biomass in the early 2000s due to improved water
quality and flow management, leading to the designation
of more than 160 km of the Arkansas River as Gold
Medal Trout Waters in 2014. Gold Medal waters must
maintain a trout biomass of at least 67 kg/ha and a density of at least 30 quality-sized trout/ha, where qualitysized trout are defined as fish that are ≥356 mm in total
length (CPW 2018). Although the trout fishery had
improved following remediation activities, habitat quality
was still considered a limiting factor (Stratus 2010a,
2010b), and instream habitat restoration was expected to
increase fishery metrics beyond postremediation levels.
The stream restoration project was implemented for a
17.7-km reach of the Arkansas River by a group of agencies and stakeholders with a budget of $8.8 million (Stratus 2010a). Colorado Parks and Wildlife designed and
implemented restoration activities for lands with public
fishing access, which included the lower 8 km of the larger
project reach. Restoration activities on private lands were
�26
RICHER ET AL.
implemented in partnership with the Lake County Conservation District, National Resource Conservation Service,
and individual landowners. Projects on private lands
occurred in the upper 9.7 km of the larger project reach.
The primary goal of restoration was to improve instream
aquatic habitat and increase Brown Trout populations,
including a 10% improvement in fish population and
health metrics in restored areas by year 5 after construction (Stratus 2010b). Other monitoring targets included
instream structures (Richer et al. 2017), riparian vegetation (Kulchawik and Bledsoe 2013; Cubley et al., in
press), benthic macroinvertebrates (Clements et al. 2010;
Pomeranz 2015; Wolff et al. 2019), and habitat quality
(Richer et al. 2019). As evidence of a fish population
response to restoration activities may take five or more
years (Hunt 1976; Binns 1994; Roni et al. 2018), this study
represents the initial 5-year, postrestoration evaluation of
the project. Our results were intended to inform adaptive
management and monitoring efforts for this and similar
stream restoration projects.
FIGURE 1. Location of the study area and study sites along the upper
Arkansas River near Leadville, Colorado.
METHODS
Study site.— The study site is located in the southern
Rocky Mountains within the headwaters of the Arkansas
River near Leadville, Colorado (Figure 1). The study reach
is a fourth-order stream in an unconfined alluvial valley
with cobble substrate, pool–riffle morphology (Montgomery and Buffington 1997), and a C3 Rosgen stream classification (Rosgen 1994). The restoration reach had a slope
around 0.7% with a sinuosity of 1.3. The contributing area
for the study reach is 692 km2, with an elevation range of
2,790 to 4,390 m. The watershed is approximately 45%
forested, 32% grassland, 13% bare ground, 6% wetlands,
and 4% impervious (USGS 2016). Hydrology is snowmelt
dominated with an average annual precipitation of 0.63 m
and average annual discharge of 4.6 m3/s. Native salmonid
populations in Colorado were decimated by overfishing,
mining pollution, and agricultural practices in the 1800s,
which likely contributed to the extinction of the Yellowfin
Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii macdonaldi, the
native trout of the Arkansas River headwaters (Metcalf
et al. 2012). Fish propagation and stocking from state and
federal hatcheries began in the 1880s, which introduced a
variety of trout species into the Arkansas River, including
Brown Trout, Brook Trout, and Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss, as well as other lineages of Cutthroat Trout
Oncorhynchus clarkii (Buys 2004; Metcalf et al. 2012;
Rogers et al. 2018).
Restoration design.— The restoration design for the
channel and floodplain incorporated two primary components. First, hydraulic geometry and sediment transport
were analyzed to develop channel dimensions (Hardie et al.
2013). Then, restoration treatments were incorporated to
stabilize streambanks, increase overhead cover, develop
pools for overwinter survival, increase the availability of
spawning and feeding habitats, and provide refuge for juvenile salmonids (Stratus 2010b). Bank stabilization was prioritized near fluvial tailing deposits to minimize erosion and
avulsion risks in those locations. The presence of fluvial
deposits also imposed a constraint on some treatment
options, including channel realignment and development of
side channels. The approach to restoration differed to some
degree between projects with and without public fishing
access. Restoration designs on private lands were tailored
for each property based on input from the landowners,
including goals to stabilize streambanks and prevent erosion
of grazing pastures, which led to an approach that emphasized the use of boulder stabilization and enhancement
structures (NRCS 2007; Rosgen 2011). For lands with public fishing access, goals related to improved sediment transport and floodplain connectivity were addressed by
importing over 7,100 m3 of cobble to narrow the channel.
The public project also utilized far more large wood structures when compared with the projects on private lands.
Restoration activities were implemented during 2012–2014
�27
EVALUATING FISHERY RESPONSE TO STREAM RESTORATION
TABLE 1. Summary of restoration treatments for each impact site included in the study. Design plans, photos, and aerial images were used to estimate treatments at sites AR-3A and AR-4. As-built surveys (Richer et al. 2017) were used to estimate treatments at sites AR-R, AR-5, and AR-MH.
Abbreviations are as follows: NA = not available. See Table 2 for additional information on study sites.
Impact sites
Restoration treatment
Units
AR-3A
AR-4
AR-R
AR-5
AR-MH
Boulder cluster
Boulder grade control, main channel
Boulder grade control, side channel
Boulder vane
Boulder/cobble toe
Habitat boulder
Island removal
Log vane
Point-bar development
Pool development
Side-channel fill
Single rootwad
Sod mat
Wood toe/sod mat
Willow planting
Willow transplant
Each
Each
Each
Each
m
Each
m2
Each
m2
m2
m2
Each
m2
m
m2
Each
7
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
101
120
0
2
NA
0
NA
NA
0
1
1
8
0
0
628
0
1,616
306
649
0
485
0
NA
20
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
5
255
237
0
0
67
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
52
1
0
0
921
259
0
0
201
49
522
30
4
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
223
230
0
0
0
0
0
0
for all impact sites included in this study, and fencing was
installed prior to restoration to exclude livestock from riparian areas and support revegetation. Restoration was conducted continuously for the vast majority of the primary
channel within the 17.7-km reach, with the exception of two
control sites (AR-5B and AR-6A) and a few secondary side
channels. Treatment quantities for each impact site are summarized in Table 1.
Study design.— We used a before-after–control-impact
(BACI) study design to assess the effects of habitat
restoration on fishery metrics. We compared five impact
(AR-3A, AR-4, AR-R, AR-5, and AR-MH) and five control (EF-1, AR-1, AR-5B, AR-6A, and AR-6) sites (Figure 1; Table 2) to determine if restoration resulted in
significant changes in fish metrics. Impact sites utilized a
variety of restoration treatments (Table 1), including sites
that emphasized boulder vanes (AR-3A and AR-4) or
large wood structures (AR-R and AR-5). The level of geomorphic change at impact sites also varied from more
extreme interventions, such as island removal (AR-4) or
channel narrowing (AR-5 and AR-MH), to less intensive
treatments, such as the installation of boulder (AR-3A) or
log (AR-R) vanes within the footprint of the existing
channel. Although a variety of methods were used at
impact sites, the limited sample size (n = 5) did not support analysis of differences in materials or level of intervention (A. M. Hess, Colorado State University, personal
communication).
The characteristics of control sites also varied, with two
sites located upstream of the historical metals pollution
associated with California Gulch (EF-1 and AR-1), two
sites within the extent of restoration activities (AR-5B and
AR-6A), and one site located downstream of the project
reach (AR-6). Control sites within the project extent were
selected to represent both degraded (AR-6A) and reference
(AR-5B) habitat conditions. Impact sites were selected to
represent a range of restoration activities, including channel narrowing (AR-5, AR-MH), large wood treatments
(AR-R, AR-5), and boulder vanes (AR-3A, AR-4).
Prerestoration fisheries data were collected from sites
throughout the Arkansas River headwaters from 1985 to
2013 (Policky 2012, 2015; see the Supplement provided in
the online version of this article). As restoration activities
were conducted from 2012 to 2014, each site has a unique
range of sampling years that represent before and after
periods (Table 2; see the Supplement). In general, data
from 2006 to 2013 represent the before period and data
from 2014 to 2018 represent the after period. The fishing
regulations at our sites did not change and no Brown
Trout were stocked during the study period. Analysis of
historical (before 2006) data was not included in this study
as the significant improvements in fish populations following water quality remediation activities have already been
reported (Clements et al. 2010; Policky 2012, 2015).
Fish population estimates.— We estimated four fishery
metrics for all sites: Brown Trout density (fish/ha), biomass (kg/ha), quality (fish ≥356 mm/ha), and relative
weight (Wr). Fish populations were sampled by electrofishing with a five-electrode array using two-pass removal
(Seber and Le Cren 1967) to estimate density, biomass,
�28
RICHER ET AL.
TABLE 2. Study sites on the East Fork Arkansas River (EF) and Arkansas River (AR) with associated characteristics, including site type (control or
impact), year treated, elevation, and drainage area. The average length, average width, and number of fish population surveys (n) for each site are also
presented by period (before or after). Abbreviations are as follows: NA = not applicable.
Before
Site
EF-1
AR-1
AR-3A
AR-4
AR-R
AR-5
AR-5B
AR-6A
AR-MH
AR-6
Type
Control
Control
Impact
Impact
Impact
Impact
Control
Control
Impact
Control
After
Year treated Elevation (m) Area (km2) Length (m) Width (m) n Length (m) Width (m) n
NA
NA
2013
2012
2013
2013
NA
NA
2014
NA
3,047
2,964
2,901
2,868
2,843
2,833
2,824
2,806
2,805
2,791
91
257
295
531
578
611
613
622
622
692
and quality. All surveys were conducted during the month
of August, typically within a similar 2-week period with
relatively stable streamflow. At each monitoring site, individual fish were identified, measured (total length and
weight), and released after processing was completed.
Length-frequency histograms for each survey were used to
identify the minimum length cutoff (mean = 96 mm; SD =
9) used to exclude young of the year from the population
estimates. Density estimates were standardized by the area
of each monitoring site to provide an index of abundance
for all age-1 and older Brown Trout. The length and wetted width of each site (Table 2) was measured once or
twice prior to and following restoration to estimate site
area and the associated population density.
Biomass estimates were calculated by multiplying the
estimated Brown Trout density by the average weight of
all age-1 and older individuals included within the corresponding sample. Biomass estimates represent the total
mass of Brown Trout per unit area, providing an index of
the population size structure and total amount of energy
available within a system (Zale et al. 2012). The density of
quality-sized Brown Trout for each survey was estimated
by setting the minimum length cutoff for the population
estimate to 356 mm. Estimates of quality-sized Brown
Trout provide a useful indicator of the recreational value
for the fishery as creel surveys have determined that angler
satisfaction improves when they catch larger fish (Anderson 1976; Wege and Anderson 1978; Gabelhouse 1984).
Biomass and quality estimates are also used for designation of Gold Medal Trout Waters in Colorado (CPW
2018), and maintaining the Gold Medal designation
on the Arkansas River was an important management
objective.
As project objectives also included improved fish
health, Wr (Wege and Anderson 1978) was selected as an
index of fish condition. Standard weights (Ws) were
194
174
141
214
244
203
203
203
103
133
8.1
11.5
9.5
14.7
13.1
15.1
10.2
16.5
15.8
16.2
4
6
5
5
2
5
3
5
2
5
193
170
116
204
262
184
194
196
106
133
8.2
11.6
9.6
10.8
10.9
15.4
10.2
16.5
13.4
18.2
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
calculated with a length-based regression equation (Milewski and Brown 1994), and the Wr for each
Brown Trout captured during population estimates was
calculated with the following equation:
W r ¼ W =W s � 100,
where W is the observed weight of an individual and Ws
is the length-based standard weight. For analysis of Wr,
all Brown Trout less than 140 mm or greater than 554 mm
were excluded from the analysis to align with the limits of
the data set used to develop the Ws equation. To remove
outliers and erroneous Wr data, the data set was constrained to include only observations between the smallest
(63) and largest (131) average values reported by Milewski
and Brown (1994). The mean Wr was calculated for each
site and year and then used for statistical analysis. Density, biomass, quality, and Wr estimates included 95% confidence intervals as a measure of uncertainty and are
presented graphically in the Supplement.
Statistical analysis.— As the appropriate methods for
analyzing monitoring data associated with stream restoration projects has been a subject of debate (Roni et al.
2005), we elected to use both statistical and graphical
analyses to elucidate changes in fish metrics. First, we
used repeated-measures analysis of variance (RM
ANOVA) to evaluate changes in Brown Trout metrics following restoration. The linear mixed-effects models used
for RM ANOVA included two categorical independent
fixed effects: period (before or after) and site type (control
or impact). As the highest density, biomass, and quality
estimates in our data set were observed during drought
years with low flows (i.e., 2012 and 2018), average daily
discharge (m3/s) was included in the models as a continuous fixed effect for those metrics. To provide flow data for
each population estimate, the average daily discharge from
�29
EVALUATING FISHERY RESPONSE TO STREAM RESTORATION
TABLE 3. Linear model equations used in the repeated-measures
ANOVA for Brown Trout density (fish/ha), biomass (kg/ha), quality (fish
≥ 356 mm/ha), and relative weight (Wr) metrics.
Metric
Model
Density
Log10(density + 1) ~ period × type +
discharge, random = ~1|site
Log10(biomass + 1) ~ period × type
+ discharge, random = ~1|site
Log10(quality + 1) ~ period × type +
discharge, random = ~1|site
Wr ~ period × type, random = ~1|
site
Biomass
Quality
Relative weight
the date of each electrofishing survey was obtained from
the nearest of three U.S. Geological Survey stream gauges
(Figure 1). The interaction between period and type was
included in each model, and site was included as a random effect in the models due to the repeated-measures
study design. Model equations for each metric are presented in Table 3.
Results from RM ANOVA were first evaluated to
determine if there was a significant interaction between
site type and period for any Brown Trout metrics, which
would indicate that restoration treatments had an effect
on fish metrics that was independent from the natural
variation that can affect populations over time (Underwood 1994). If there was no interaction between site type
and period, the main effects (period and type) were then
investigated for the metric in question. Temporal changes
between the before and after periods were indicated by a
period effect, and a type effect indicated that metrics were
different at control and impact sites. However, those
effects alone may not indicate that restoration activities
were responsible for the change in metrics. We used a
log10(response + 1) transformation for Brown Trout density, biomass, and quality due to nonnormal distributions
of the raw data. All models were fit using the lme function
in the nlme library (Pinheiro et al. 2020), and statistical
significance (P-value) was derived using R 3.5.2 (R Core
Team 2018). Interactions and effects were considered signification at α < 0.05. If discharge was significant for an
individual fish metric, we fit generalized linear models as a
post hoc analysis to evaluate the relationship between
average daily discharge and the corresponding metric.
The change in metrics between periods was then analyzed for individual sites to investigate any significant
effects from RM ANOVA. For these site-specific analyses,
the difference between periods was evaluated with both a
Student’s t-test and Wilcoxon rank-sum (WRS) test for
each site, similar to methods used in Kolden et al. (2015).
For t-tests, we used a log10(response + 1) transformation
for Brown Trout density, biomass, and quality to better
TABLE 4. Results from repeated-measures ANOVA for Brown Trout
log-transformed density, log-transformed biomass, and relative weight for
all sites, including parameter estimates with standard errors (bold italic
type indicates P < 0.05).
Fixed effects
Intercept
Period
Type
Discharge
Period × type
Intercept
Period
Type
Discharge
Period × type
Intercept
Period
Type
Period × type
Parameter
df
Density
3.26 � 0.05
77
–0.10 � 0.04
77
0.02 � 0.05
8
–0.08 � 0.01
77
–0.03 � 0.06
77
Biomass
2.31 � 0.07
76
–0.06 � 0.03
76
0.10 � 0.09
8
–0.05 � 0.01
76
–0.09 � 0.04
76
Relative weight
94.71 � 0.93
77
–2.77 � 1.06
77
2.34 � 1.33
8
1.54 � 1.58
77
F-value
P-value
22,271
6.94
0.41
50.73
0.22
<0.0001
0.010
0.542
<0.0001
0.639
2,461
16.22
0.16
19.78
4.50
<0.0001
0.0001
0.702
<0.0001
0.037
28,475
7.40
7.30
0.95
<0.0001
0.008
0.027
0.332
meet the assumption of normality. The difference between
before and after periods was also evaluated with t-tests
and WRS tests for all sites combined, all impact sites, and
all control sites, with the estimate for each site and year
being treated as an independent sample. Changes between
periods were considered significant at α < 0.05.
RESULTS
Before-After–Control-Impact Analysis
The only significant interaction term (period × type)
from the RM ANOVA analyses was observed for Brown
Trout biomass (P = 0.037; Table 4). Biomass increased by
21% at impact sites compared with 12% at control sites.
The much larger increase in biomass at treatment sites
relative to control sites suggests that changes in biomass
at impact sites were driven by restoration treatments more
than temporal variability. Although the period × type
interaction was not significant for the density model (RM
ANOVA: P = 0.542), density did increase by 10% between
the periods (RM ANOVA: P = 0.010; Figure 2). The
value for Wr also increased between periods (RM
ANOVA: P = 0.008; Figure 2), but the change in Wr was
relatively small compared with the changes in Brown
Trout density and biomass, with an increase of 2.4%
across all sites. Higher Wr values were observed at
impacts sites (RM ANOVA: P = 0.027), but that relationship occurred during both the before and after periods
�30
RICHER ET AL.
FIGURE 2. Boxplots for Brown Trout metrics used in analysis of the before-after–control-impact (BACI) study design, including (A) density, (B)
biomass, (C) quality, and (D) relative weight. The horizontal line in each box indicates the median, and the box dimensions represent the 25th to 75th
percentile ranges. The whiskers represent 1.5 times the interquartile range, and dots outside of that range are shown as outliers.
(Figure 2). We did not present RM ANOVA results for
Brown Trout quality as the residuals for that model did
not exhibit a normal distribution. Additional RM
ANOVA results, including data distributions and model
residuals, are included in the Supplement.
Brown Trout density and biomass were the only two
metrics significantly related to average daily discharge (P
< 0.0001) in the RM ANOVA (Table 4). Average daily
discharge during electrofishing surveys ranged from 0.48
to 6.43 m3/s (mean = 2.96 m3/s; SD = 1.49). Discharge values during surveys were higher and more variable in the
after period (mean = 3.22 m3/s; SD = 1.64) when compared
with the before period (mean = 2.66 m3/s; SD = 1.26).
Observed discharge values were also higher at impact sites
(mean = 3.21 m3/s; SD = 1.40) when compared with control sites (mean = 2.74 m3/s; SD = 1.55), likely due to the
smaller drainage area associated with the upstreammost
control site (EF-1; Table 2). Average annual discharge
ranged from 3.21 to 17.00 m3/s (mean = 9.70 m3/s; SD =
3.80) during our study period, reflecting a high degree of
interannual variability in watershed hydrology. Although
both Brown Trout biomass and density exhibited negative
relationships with average daily discharge (Figure 3),
only the relationship between discharge and density was
statistically significant (generalized linear model: P < 0.0001;
R2 = 0.37).
Site-Specific Analysis
Out of the 10 sites analyzed independently for changes
in fish metrics between before and after periods, only one
site (AR-3A) differed significantly. Site AR-3A was an
impact site with increases in both Brown Trout biomass
(99%; WRS test and t-test P-values = 0.032 and 0.020,
respectively) and quality (306%; t-test P-value = 0.028).
When sites were combined by type, the Wr at control sites
increased between periods (WRS test and t-test P-values =
0.010 and 0.020, respectively), but there was no change in
Wr at impact sites (WRS test and t-test P-values = 0.369
and 0.227, respectively). Brown Trout biomass increased
across all sites (WRS test and t-test P-values = 0.008 and
0.026, respectively), as did Wr (WRS test and t-test Pvalues = 0.017 and 0.011, respectively). Complete results
for the site-specific comparisons, including graphical comparisons by year and between periods, are included
in the Supplement.
DISCUSSION
The primary goal of this stream restoration project was
to increase Brown Trout populations that are managed
for recreational fishing. Restoration of the native biota
was not possible because the Yellowfin Cutthroat Trout is
considered extinct (Metcalf et al. 2012; Rogers et al.
�EVALUATING FISHERY RESPONSE TO STREAM RESTORATION
31
FIGURE 3. Linear relationships between average daily discharge and Brown Trout (A) log-transformed density and (B) log-transformed biomass for
all study sites.
2018). As the “predisturbance condition” (Dunster and
Dunster 1996 cited by FISRWG 1998), including the
native biota, was unattainable, “rehabilitation” may be a
more appropriate description for this project than
“restoration” (Dufor and Piégay 2009). However, the project meets a broader definition of stream restoration that
considers improved hydrologic, geomorphic, and ecological processes within a degraded watershed, including
replacement of the lost, damaged, or compromised elements of the natural system (Wohl et al. 2005). In this
case, introduced Brown Trout have filled the niche once
occupied by the native Cutthroat Trout. Furthermore, the
project incorporated a variety of common objectives for
stream restoration (Wohl et al. 2015), including recreational fishing, bank stabilization, channel reconfiguration,
floodplain reconnection, and instream habitat improvement.
The restoration approach for this project utilized both
passive and active techniques, including livestock exclusion
through fencing to enhance riparian vegetation and direct
manipulation of channel morphology to enhance sediment
transport, floodplain connectivity, and fish habitat.
Restoration designs were developed with a combination of
process and morphology-based methods to provide multiple lines of evidence that informed the proposed conditions for the river. Although stream restoration projects
have typically been implemented at small scales (<1 km;
Bernhardt et al. 2005), this project was relatively large at
17.7 km in stream length. The length of the project
resulted in some challenges regarding the continuity of
design across multiple properties, as well as the design and
implementation of the monitoring program.
The project included an extensive monitoring program
that targeted specific objectives for fish populations, benthic macroinvertebrates, riparian vegetation, habitat quality, and instream structures (Stratus 2010b). The primary
objective of this study was to evaluate changes in fish metrics 5 years after completion of stream restoration, with a
target to increase fish population and health metrics by
10% over baseline conditions in restored areas. Exceeding
Gold Medal criteria for biomass and quality-sized trout
(CPW 2018) was also an important management objective,
and our results indicated that all sites within the project
extent maintained their status as Gold Medal waters following restoration. Brown Trout density, biomass, and Wr
all increased significantly following restoration, but only
biomass exhibited a significant interaction between period
and site type. Although the increase in density across all
sites was 10%, there was no difference between control
and impact sites. However, some control sites were nested
within the 17.7-km restoration reach, and control sites
only represented a small proportion of the total project
length (4.9%).
Lotic fishes are known to make local movements and
seasonal migrations to access feeding, refuge, and spawning habitats (Schlosser and Angermeier 1995), and Brown
Trout have been observed moving 40 km to access spawning habitat in an adjacent watershed (Kondratieff and
Richer 2018). As there were no migration barriers within
the study site that would restrict fish movement, higher
densities could be driving fish to seek out available habitat
at both control and impact sites. Habitat modeling indicated that restoration activities had improved spawning
habitat (Richer et al. 2019), which could have affected
recruitment and overall population density. These observations suggest that the scale of the restoration project may
have affected density observations regardless of site type
and that the change in density across all sites could in fact
be related to restoration activities. Conducting an a priori
power analysis (Baldigo and Warren 2008) may have been
beneficial prior to selecting the number, length, and location of monitoring sites. However, increasing the number
of control sites would have left more habitat in an unrestored and degraded state, which could have dampened
the fish population response.
The increase in Brown Trout biomass was not only significant, but the change at impact sites (21%) was greater
than the change at control sites (12%), indicating that this
�32
RICHER ET AL.
metric nearly achieved the target increase of 10% at
impact sites relative to control within 5 years of construction. The significant interaction between site type and period indicated that restoration activities were contributing
to the change in biomass. The change in biomass at
impact sites was partially driven by a large increase (99%)
in biomass at site AR-3A. The number of quality Brown
Trout at AR-3A also exhibited a large increase (307%).
Site AR-3A is the first site located downstream of the confluence with California Gulch, and metal concentrations
were typically the highest at the confluence and then
decreased downstream (Brinkman et al. 2006; Richer et al.
2017). The changes at site AR-3A could be indicative of
both improved habitat from restoration and continued
improvement in water quality following remediation.
The change in quality Brown Trout density was only
evaluated with the site-specific analyses as the distribution
of model residuals invalidated the BACI analysis for this
metric. The number of quality Brown Trout did not
change significantly, with the exception of site AR-3A.
The relationship between Brown Trout density and the
number of quality Brown Trout may warrant further
investigation if declines in quality Brown Trout density
become statistically significant in the future. Although the
abundance of benthic macroinvertebrates did not change
following restoration, the biomass of benthic macroinvertebrates in Brown Trout diets decreased significantly
(W. H. Clements and coauthors, Colorado State University, unpublished data). This could indicate that higher
Brown Trout densities following restoration had
increased foraging pressure on benthic macroinvertebrates, the primary prey resource for Brown Trout in
the Arkansas River headwaters, thereby suppressing any
increases in benthic macroinvertebrate abundance. These
observations could imply that the fishery has reached its
carrying capacity, benthic macroinvertebrates were less
responsive to restoration than Brown Trout, lingering
levels of metals pollution limited the response of benthic
macroinvertebrates to stream restoration, or some combination of the former.
Larger changes in trout density (53%) and biomass
(839%) have been observed in other studies (White et al.
2011; Pierce et al. 2015), but those increases occurred over
longer postrestoration monitoring periods (10–21 years).
More than 10 years of monitoring may be needed to evaluate river habitat restoration (Roni et al. 2018), which
suggests that the Brown Trout fishery in the upper Arkansas River could continue to improve beyond this initial 5year evaluation. Other studies have documented larger
increases (253%) in Brown Trout biomass 2–3 years after
restoration (Baldigo et al. 2008). For this study, the target
increase for fish metrics was only 10%, which suggests that
our study sites were closer to carrying capacity than those
studies with larger initial changes. Sites that primarily
used boulder vanes exhibited disparate changes in fish
metrics, with the largest increases occurring at site AR-3A
and apparent declines occurring at site AR-4. The major
difference between these sites was the level of channel
alteration, with major changes in channel alignment
occurring at AR-4, including island removal and filling of
a large pool adjacent to an undercut bank. The change in
fish metrics at sites that utilized wood treatments (AR-R
and AR-5) showed apparent increases in fish metrics that
were greater than AR-4 but less than AR-3A, which does
not provide any definitive inference regarding the use of
boulder versus log structures.
Although the change in average Wr between periods
was relatively small (2.4%), this increase was significant,
suggesting that fish health has improved in the upper
Arkansas River. The average Wr following restoration
(96) was still <100, but improved fish condition suggests
that habitat conditions may have improved despite the
overall increase in Brown Trout density. Habitat modeling
demonstrated that restoration treatments improved habitat
heterogeneity and foraging positions for Brown Trout
(Richer et al. 2019), which may have contributed to
improved fish condition by enhancing ecological heterogeneity (Palmer et al. 1997) and energy acquisition (Pope
et al. 2010). Improved fish condition could also be indicative of improved water quality throughout the California
Gulch Superfund Site (Clements et al. 2010). Prior to
water quality remediation, Brown Trout survival was poor
in the project area, but following remediation survival
improved dramatically, with some fish living up to 8–10
years (Policky 2015). The RM ANOVA proved to be
more robust than the site-specific analyses, which was not
surprising given the larger sample size used for the BACI
analyses. For the site-specific analyses, the simple parametric (t-test) and nonparametric (WRS) tests generally
agreed, with the exception of increased quality Brown
Trout at AR-3A, which was only detected by the t-test.
This suggests that t-tests alone would have been sufficient
for the site-specific analyses.
Average daily discharge was a significant covariate in
the RM ANOVA for density and biomass. This observation could be related to spatial variability in streamflow
and Brown Trout populations throughout the watershed
as upstream sites (EF-1, AR-1, and AR-3A) had high
Brown Trout densities and lower flows due to their smaller catchment areas. Some of the upstream control sites
(EF-1, AR-1) appear to be functioning as juvenile rearing
grounds, as indicated by the high densities and complete
absence of quality-sized Brown Trout. Interannual variability in watershed hydrology may also have contributed
to the significance of discharge in the density and biomass
models as habitat suitability within the project reach
declined significantly with increasing discharge (Richer
et al. 2019). Decreased habitat suitability during higher
�EVALUATING FISHERY RESPONSE TO STREAM RESTORATION
flows could have motivated fish to seek out more favorable habitat conditions in upstream or downstream
reaches. Conversely, lower flows can result in warmer
water temperatures that create favorable conditions for
Brown Trout recruitment and growth (Anderson and
Krieger 1994), which could explain why the highest density, biomass, and quality estimates were observed in years
of drought. Fish may also be more concentrated around
habitat features during low-flow conditions. Meeting the
assumptions of multipass depletion estimates may become
more challenging at higher flows, and capture probability
may decrease with increasing stream discharge, water
depth, wetted width, and cross-sectional area (Dauwalter
and Fisher 2007; Hense et al. 2010; Price and Peterson
2010; Mollenhauer et al. 2018). Our results suggest that
including discharge as a covariate in similar BACI analyses investigating the fish population response to stream
restoration may improve model fit, particularly if monitoring plans will entail a prolonged study period in a watershed with variable hydrology.
Monitoring of stream restoration projects has generally
been limited, and traditional data analysis methods that
rely on statistical significance may not be effective means
for elucidating changes in fish population metrics following restoration (Roni et al. 2005). Despite a substantial
effort to collect monitoring data, including 90 different
electrofishing surveys at 10 sites over a 13-year period, our
study was still limited by a relatively small sample size,
particularly for the site-specific analyses. This limited our
ability to evaluate statistical differences between sites that
utilized different materials (boulders versus wood) or
approaches (channel narrowing versus the addition of
structures). Furthermore, sites were restored in different
years and located throughout the Arkansas River headwaters, which suggests that spatiotemporal variability in
hydrology, water quality, and climate could have influenced fish metrics. Given limited resources, biannual sampling over a 10-year period may have been a more
efficient study design compared with 5 years of annual
sampling immediately after restoration. These issues highlight some of the challenges related to monitoring both
small (<1 km) and large (>10 km) stream restoration projects over the time scales required to capture ecological
change.
This study was intended to inform adaptive management for the project, as well as the design and evaluation
of similar restoration projects. This project addressed both
floodplain and instream habitat restoration for a gravelbed river in a glaciated mountain valley, which should
benefit a variety of aquatic, avian, and terrestrial species
(Hauer et al. 2016). Degraded physical habitat has been
observed in 37% of the streams in western mountains of
the United States (USEPA 2020), and metals pollution
from abandoned mines affected 23% of streams within the
33
southern Rocky Mountain ecoregion in Colorado (Clements et al. 2000). Results from this project can be used
to inform remediation and restoration projects in similar
locations impacted by historical mining, land-use, and
water development. In the Arkansas River headwaters, it
was imperative to address water quality issues prior to
undertaking instream habitat restoration. The fish population response to remediation was more pronounced than
the response to stream restoration, including average
increases in density (14%), biomass (46%), and quality
(118%) between the historical (pre-2006) and before
(2006–2013) periods (Policky 2012, 2015). This suggests
that water quality was the primary factor limiting the fishery and highlights the importance of understanding watershed conditions (Beechie et al. 2008; Bernhardt and
Palmer 2011) and restoration potential (Harman et al.
2012) when developing project goals and objectives.
Five years after restoration, monitoring indicated that
the trajectory for Brown Trout populations in the upper
Arkansas River was positive. As such, additional instream
restoration activities are not recommended at this time,
but additional maintenance may be warranted in the
future. Our results suggest that incorporating both process
(Beechie et al. 2010) and form-based (Kasprak et al. 2016)
principles into restoration design, in combination with
active and passive restoration approaches, was a successful
strategy for implementing an effective restoration project
that increased fish populations after more than a century
of impairment. However, the Arkansas River is a dynamic
system that has historically migrated across its floodplain,
and channel avulsion into fluvial tailings deposits has
occurred during the course of this study. Given this
dynamic nature, we recommend that periodic monitoring
of erosion and avulsion into fluvial tailing deposits be prioritized to inform the need for future maintenance. Remediation of untreated fluvial deposits is also recommended
as revegetating those areas could decrease metals loading
to the river (USEPA 2013) and improve the long-term
resilience of the system. As benthic macroinvertebrate
communities below California Gulch were still dominated
by metal-tolerant species (Clements and Rees 1997; Wolff
et al. 2019), we also suggest that periodic monitoring of
water quality and benthic macroinvertebrates be continued
to evaluate trends in metals pollution and its associated
effects on stream ecology. Finally, additional monitoring
of fish populations for at least 10 years after restoration is
recommended to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of
the project and inform fisheries management.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was sponsored by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), and funding was provided in part by the Federal
Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Program (Project F-161-R,
�34
RICHER ET AL.
Stream Habitat Investigations and Assistance) and Natural
Resource Damage Assessment provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act via the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment. We thank numerous CPW technicians
and volunteers for conducting fieldwork. Colorado Mountain College also provided staff and volunteers to support
electrofishing surveys. We thank Tracy Kittell (CPW), Darrell Westmoreland (North State Environmental), Tom
Foreman and Richard Smythe (Colorado Correctional
Industries), Greg Brunjak, and Laura Archuleta (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service) for supporting project implementation. Ann Hess with the Department of Statistics at Colorado State University provided valuable consultation
regarding statistical analyses, and we are thankful for her
assistance. We are also grateful to landowners that provided
access to monitoring sites located on their properties.
Finally, we appreciate the valuable guidance and insights
provided by George Schisler (CPW) during preparation and
revision of this manuscript. There is no conflict of interest
declared in this article.
ORCID
Eric E. Richer
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8721-7995
REFERENCES
Anderson, R. O. 1976. Management of small warm water impoundments. Fisheries 1(6): 5–7, 26–28.
Anderson, R. M., and D. A. Krieger. 1994. Impact analysis of a flow
augmentation program on the Brown Trout fishery of the Arkansas
River, Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Special Report Number 70, Denver.
Baldigo, B. P., and D. R. Warren. 2008. Detecting the response of fish
assemblages to stream restoration: effects of different sampling designs.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28:919–934.
Baldigo, B. P., D. R. Warren, A. G. Ernst, and C. I. Mulvihill. 2008.
Response of fish populations to natural channel design restoration in
streams of the Catskill Mountains, New York. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28:954–969.
Bash, J. S., and C. M. Ryan. 2002. Stream restoration and enhancement
projects: is anyone monitoring? Environmental Management 29:877–
885.
Beechie, T., G. Pess, P. Roni, and G. Giannico. 2008. Setting river
restoration priorities: a review of approaches and a general protocol
for identifying and prioritizing actions. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 28:891–905.
Beechie, T. J., D. A. Sear, J. D. Olden, G. R. Pess, J. M. Buffington, H.
Moir, P. Roni, and M. M. Pollock. 2010. Process-based principles for
restoring river ecosystems. BioScience 60:209–222.
Bernhardt, E. S., and M. A. Palmer. 2011. River restoration: the fuzzy
logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation.
Ecological Applications 21:1926–1931.
Bernhardt, E. S., M. A. Palmer, J. D. Allan, G. Alexander, K. Barnas,
S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, C. Dahm, J. Follstad-Shah, D. Galat,
S. Gloss, P. Goodwin, D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, S. Katz, G.
M. Kondolf, P. S. Lake, R. Lave, J. L. Meyer, T. K. O’Donnell, L.
Pagano, B. Powell, and E. Sudduth. 2005. Synthesizing U.S. river
restoration efforts. Science 308:636–637.
Bernhardt, E. S., E. B. Sudduth, M. A. Palmer, J. D. Allan, J. L. Meyer,
G. Alexander, J. Follastad-Shah, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, R. Lave,
J. Rumps, and L. Pagano. 2007. Restoring rivers one reach at a time:
results from a survey of U.S. river restoration practitioners. Restoration Ecology 15:482–493.
Binns, N. A. 1994. Long-term responses of trout and macrohabitats to
habitat management in a Wyoming headwater stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:87–98.
Brinkman, S. F., P. H. Davies, D. Hansen, and N. Vieira. 2006. Arkansas River research study final report. Colorado Division of Wildlife,
Fort Collins.
Buys, C. J. 2004. A quick history of Leadville. Western Reflections Publication Company, Montrose, Colorado.
Clements, W. H., D. M. Carlisle, J. M. Lazorchak, and P. C. Johnson.
2000. Heavy metals structure benthic communities in Colorado mountain streams. Ecological Applications 10:626–638.
Clements, W. H., and D. E. Rees. 1997. Effects of heavy metals on prey
abundance, feeding habitat, and metal uptake of Brown Trout in the
Arkansas River, Colorado. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 126:774–785.
Clements, W. H., N. K. M. Vieira, and S. E. Church. 2010. Quantifying
restoration success and recovery in a metal-polluted stream: a 17-year
assessment of physicochemical and biological responses. Journal of
Applied Ecology 47:899–910.
Cockerill, K., and W. P. Anderson Jr. 2014. Creating false images:
stream restoration in an urban setting. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association 50:468–482.
CPW (Colorado Parks and Wildlife). 2018. Gold medal trout waters.
CPW, Administrative Directive OW-10, Denver.
Cubley, E. S., E. E. Richer, D. W. Baker, C. G. Lamson, T. L.
Hardee, B. P. Bledsoe, and P. L. Kulchawik. In press. Restoration
of riparian vegetation on a mountain river degraded by historical
mining and grazing. River Research and Applications. DOI:10.
1002/rra.3871.
Dauwalter, D. C., and W. L. Fisher. 2007. Electrofishing capture probability of Smallmouth Bass in streams. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 27:162–171.
Dufour, S., and H. Piégay. 2009. From the myth of lost paradise to targeted river restoration: forget natural references and focus on human
benefits. River Research and Applications 25:568–581.
Dunster, J., and K. Dunster. 1996. Dictionary of natural resource management. University of British Colombia, Vancouver.
FISRWG (Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group).
1998. Stream corridor restoration: principles, processes, and practices.
FISRWG (15 Federal Agencies of the U.S. Government), GPO Item
Number 0120-A, SuDocs Number A 57.6/2:EN 3/PT.653. ISBN-0934213-59-3, Washington, D.C.
Gabelhouse, D. W. Jr. 1984. A length-categorization system to assess fish
stocks. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:273–285.
Gore, J. A., and F. D. Shields Jr. 1995. Can large rivers be restored?
BioScience 45:142–152.
Hardie, K., P. Kulchawik, J. Beeby, and B. P. Bledsoe. 2013. Rehabilitation of the Hayden and Reddy reaches of the upper Arkansas River
NRD. Colorado State University, Fort Collins.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs,
and C. Miller. 2012. A function-based framework for stream assessment and restoration projects. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, EPA 843-K-12006, Washington, D.C.
Hauer, F. R., H. Locke, V. J. Dreitz, M. Hebblewhite, W. H. Lowe, C.
C. Muhlfeld, C. R. Nelson, M. F. Proctor, and S. B. Rood. 2016.
�EVALUATING FISHERY RESPONSE TO STREAM RESTORATION
Gravel-bed river floodplains are the ecological nexus of glaciated
mountain landscapes. Science Advances 2(6):e1600026.
Hense, Z., R. W. Martin, and J. T. Petty. 2010. Electrofishing capture
efficiencies for common stream fish species to support watershed-scale
studies in the central Appalachians. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30:1041–1050.
Hunt, R. L. 1976. A long-term evaluation of trout habitat development
and its relation to improving management-related research. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 105:361–364.
Julian, P. J., and R. C. Weaver. 2019. Demand for stream mitigation in
Colorado, USA. Water 11:174.
Kasprak, A., N. Hough-Snee, T. Beechie, N. Bouwes, G. Brierley, R.
Camp, K. Fryirs, H. Imaki, M. Jensen, G. O’Brien, D. Rosgen, and
J. Wheaton. 2016. The blurred line between form and process: a comparison of stream channel classification frameworks. PLOS ONE
[online serial] 11(3):e0150293.
Kolden, E., B. D. Fox, B. P. Bledsoe, and M. C. Kondratieff. 2015.
Modeling whitewater park hydraulics and fish habitat in Colorado.
River Research and Applications 32:1116–1127.
Kondratieff, M. C., and E. E. Richer. 2018. Stream habitat investigations
and assistance. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Federal Aid in Sport
Fish Restoration, Project F-161-R24, Final Report, Fort Collins.
Kulchawik, P., and B. Bledsoe. 2013. Baseline monitoring of riparian
vegetation: upper Arkansas River and Lake Fork Creek. Colorado
State University, Fort Collins.
Metcalf, J. L., S. L. Stowell, C. M. Kennedy, K. B. Rogers, D. McDonald, J. Epp, K. Keepers, A. Cooper, J. J. Austin, and A. P. Martin.
2012. Historical stocking data and 19th century DNA reveal humaninduced changes to native diversity and distribution of Cutthroat
Trout. Molecular Ecology 21:5194–5207.
Milewski, C. L., and M. L. Brown. 1994. Proposed standard weight (Ws)
equation and length-categorization standards for stream-dwelling
Brown Trout (Salmo trutta). Journal of Freshwater Ecology 9:111–116.
Miller, J. R., and R. C. Kochel. 2012. Use and performance of in-stream
structures for river restoration: a case study for North Carolina. Environmental Earth Sciences 68:1563–1574.
Mollenhauer, R., J. B. Mouser, and S. K. Brewer. 2018. Sampling the
stream landscape: improving the applicability of an ecoregion-level
capture probability model for stream fishes. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 75:1614–1625.
Montgomery, D. R., and J. M. Buffington. 1997. Channel-reach morphology in mountain drainage basins. Geological Society of America
Bulletin 109:596–611.
NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine).
2017. Guidance for design hydrology for stream restoration and channel stability. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2007. Stream restoration design. NRCS, Part 654, National Engineering Handbook,
Washington, D.C.
Palmer, M. A., C. C. Hakenkamp, and K. Nelson-Baker. 1997. Ecological heterogeneity in streams: why variance matters. Journal of the
North American Benthological Society 16:189–202.
Pierce, R., C. Podner, and L. Jones. 2015. Long-term increases in trout
abundance following channel reconstruction, instream wood placement, and livestock removal from a spring creek in the Blackfoot
basin, Montana. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
144:184–195.
Pinheiro, J., D. Bates, S. DebRoy, D. Sarkar, EISPACK authors, S.
Heisterkamp, B. Van Willigen, J. Ranke, and R-Core. 2020. nlme:
linear and nonlinear mixed-effects models. R package version 3.1-150.
Available:
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/nlme/index.html.
(November 2021).
Policky, G. A. 2012. Fisheries inventories, upper Arkansas River basin.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Salida.
35
Policky, G. A. 2015. Fisheries inventories, upper Arkansas River basin.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Salida.
Pomeranz, J. 2015. Reciprocal subsidies in a fourth-order Rocky Mountain stream. Master’s thesis. Colorado State University, Fort Collins.
Pope, K. L., S. E. Lochmann, and M. K. Young. 2010. Methods for
assessing fish populations. Pages 325–351 in W. A. Hubert and M. C.
Quist, editors. Inland fisheries management in North America. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Price, A. L., and J. T. Peterson. 2010. Estimation and modeling of electrofishing capture efficiency for fishes in wadable warmwater stream.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30:481–498.
R Core Team. 2018. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. Available:
https://www.R-project.org/. (November 2021).
Richer, E. E., E. A. Gates, A. T. Herdrich, and M. C. Kondratieff.
2017. Upper Arkansas River habitat restoration project: 2013–2015
monitoring report. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Technical Publication 49, Fort Collins.
Richer, E. E., E. A. Gates, M. C. Kondratieff, and A. T. Herdrich.
2019. Modeling changes in trout habitat following stream restoration.
River Research and Applications 35:587–600.
Rogers, K. B., K. R. Bestgen, S. M. Love Stowell, and A. P. Martin.
2018. Cutthroat Trout diversity in the southern Rocky Mountains.
Pages 323–341 in P. Trotter, P. Bisson, L. Schultz, and B. Roper, editors. Cutthroat Trout: evolutionary biology and taxonomy. American
Fisheries Society, Special Publication 36, Bethesda, Maryland.
Roni, P. 2019. Does river restoration increase fish abundance and survival or concentrate fish? The effects of project scale, location, and
fish life history. Fisheries 44:7–19.
Roni, P., U. Aberg, and C. Weber. 2018. A review of approaches for monitoring the effectiveness of regional river habitat restoration programs.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 38:1170–1186.
Roni, P., T. J. Beechie, R. E. Bilby, F. E. Leonetti, M. M. Pollock, and
G. R. Pess. 2002. A review of stream restoration techniques and a
hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest
watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:1–
20.
Roni, P., K. Hanson, and T. Beechie. 2008. Global review of the physical
and biological effectiveness of stream habitat rehabilitation techniques. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28:856–
890.
Roni, P., M. C. Lierman, C. Jordan, and E. A. Steel. 2005. Steps for
designing a monitoring and evaluation program for aquatic restoration. Pages 13–34 in P. Roni, editor. Monitoring stream and watershed restoration. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169–
199.
Rosgen, D. L. 2011. Natural channel design: fundamental concepts,
assumptions, and methods. Pages 69–93 in A. Simon, S. J. Bennett,
and J. M. Castro, editors. Stream restoration in dynamic fluvial systems: scientific approaches, analyses, and tools. American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph Series 194, Washington, D.C.
Rubin, Z., G. M. Kondolf, and B. Rios-Touma. 2017. Evaluating stream
restoration projects: what do we learn from monitoring? Water 9
(3):174.
Schlosser, I. J., and P. L. Angermeier. 1995. Spatial variation in demographic processes of lotic fishes: conceptual models, empirical evidence, and implications for conservation. Pages 392–401 in J. L.
Nielsen and D. A. Powers, editors. Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: defining unique units in population conservation. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 17, Bethesda, Maryland.
Seber, G. A. F., and E. D. Le Cren. 1967. Estimating population parameters from catches large relative to the population. Journal of Animal
Ecology 36:631–643.
�36
RICHER ET AL.
Stratus (Stratus Consulting, Inc.). 2010a. Restoration plan and environmental assessment for the upper Arkansas River watershed. Stratus
Boulder, Colorado.
Stratus (Stratus Consulting, Inc.). 2010b. Draft restoration monitoring
and outreach plan for the upper Arkansas River watershed. Stratus,
Boulder, Colorado.
Underwood, A. J. 1994. On beyond BACI: sampling designs that might
reliably detect environmental disturbances. Ecological Applications
4:3–15.
Uren Webster, T. M., N. Bury, R. van Aerle, and E. M. Santos. 2013.
Global transciptome profiling reveals molecular mechanism of metal
tolerance in a chronically exposed population of Brown Trout. Environmental Science and Technology 47:8869–8877.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1988. Superfund
record of decision: California Gulch, CO. USEPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA/ROD/R08-88/020, Washington,
D.C.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. Remedial investigation report – operable unit number 12, California Gulch Superfund
Site, Leadville, Colorado. USEPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. California Gulch
operable unit 11 remedial action report. USEPA, Region 8, Denver.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2020. National rivers
and streams assessment 2013–2014: a collaborative survey. USEPA,
841-R-19-001, Washington, D.C.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2016. The StreamStats program. Available: http://streamstats.usgs.gov. (May 2021).
Wege, G. J., and R. O. Anderson. 1978. Relative weight (Wr): a new
index of condition for Largemouth Bass. Pages 79–91 in G. D.
Novinger and J. G. Dillard, editors. New approaches to the management of small impoundments. American Fisheries Society, North
Central Division, Special Publication 5, Bethesda, Maryland.
White, S. L., C. Gowan, K. D. Fausch, J. G. Harris, and W. C. Saunders. 2011. Response of trout populations in five Colorado streams
two decades after habitat manipulation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68:2057–2063.
Wohl, E., P. L. Angermeier, B. Bledsoe, G. M. Kondolf, L. MacDonnell,
D. M. Merritt, M. A. Palmer, N. L. Poff, and D. Tarboton. 2005.
River restoration. Water Resources Research 41:W10301.
Wohl, E., S. N. Lane, and A. C. Wilcox. 2015. The science and practice
of river restoration. Water Resources Research 51:5974–5997.
Wolff, B. A., S. B. Duggan, and W. H. Clements. 2019. Resilience and
regime shifts: do novel communities impede ecological recovery in a
historically metal-contaminated stream? Journal of Applied Ecology
56:2698–2709.
Zale, A. V., D. L. Parrish, and T. M. Sutton, editors. 2012. Fisheries techniques, 3rd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supplemental material may be found online
in the Supporting Information section at the end of the
article.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Journal Articles
Description
An account of the resource
CPW peer-reviewed journal publications
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
From gold mining to gold medal fishery: evaluating the fishery response to stream restoration on the Upper Arkansas River in Colorado
Description
An account of the resource
Over a century of metals pollution and channel disturbance associated with historical mining, land use, and water development contributed to degradation of aquatic and riparian habitat within the upper Arkansas River watershed near Leadville, Colorado. Following water quality remediation, habitat restoration was conducted for a 17.7-km reach characterized as an overwide channel that lacked velocity refuge and overwinter habitat for salmonids. The primary goals of restoration were to improve populations of Brown Trout <i>Salmo trutta</i><span> and individual fish health, with a target to increase fish metrics by 10% within 5 years after restoration. Fish metrics included Brown Trout density, biomass, quality, and relative weight, where quality was defined as the density of Brown Trout over 356 mm in length. Changes in all fish metrics were evaluated with a before-after–control-impact study design that utilized five control sites and five impact sites. Biomass was the only metric that exhibited a significant interaction between site type and period (before and after), with increases of 12% and 21% at control and impact sites, respectively. Increased density (10%) and relative weight (2.4%) were observed across all sites regardless of type. Changes at individual sites were less evident, with only one impact site showing significant increases in biomass (99%) and quality Brown Trout (306%). These results suggest that Brown Trout populations within the upper Arkansas River have continued to improve following large-scale water quality remediation and stream restoration efforts. Additional monitoring is recommended to evaluate long-term trends and inform adaptive management.</span>
Bibliographic Citation
A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible.
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.10713" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.10713</a>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Richer, Eric E.
Kondratieff, Matthew C.
Policky, Greg
Robinson, Matt D.
Atwood, Michael
Myers, Madison R.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Gold mining
Upper Arkansas River
Habitat restoration
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
13 pages
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
2021-09-30
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
English
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Article