Restoration of a Southwestern Wisconsin River Amanda Lederer Kris - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

restoration of a southwestern
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Restoration of a Southwestern Wisconsin River Amanda Lederer Kris - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Restoration of a Southwestern Wisconsin River Amanda Lederer Kris Wright Addison Site Downstream site 400 m from Cty I Bridge Wolenec Site Restoration site 200 m upstream of Cty. I Bridge Zoha Site Upstream site 300 m


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Restoration of a Southwestern Wisconsin River

Amanda Lederer Kris Wright

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Addison Site

 Downstream site

 400 m from Cty I Bridge

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Wolenec Site

 Restoration site

 200 m upstream of Cty. I

Bridge

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Zoha Site

 Upstream site

 300 m up from

Zoha/Wolenec property line

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Brown Trout Habitat

 Deep pools  Narrow channels  Woody debris  Undercut banks/coverage  Overhanging vegetation  Clear, oxygenated water  Water temperature: 15-18°C  Gravel substrate

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Restoration Activities

 Rip-rap and cattle bridges were used

to slow erosion

 Lunkers were added to supply fish

protection

 Channel width was decreased  Channel depth was increased  Riparian zone vegetation was

modified

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Objectives

 Did restoration activities immediately affect

stream habitat, macroinvertebrates and fish?

 To what degree did the restoration affect

these aspects within the sampling sites?

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Sampling Methods

 Habitat Surveys

Physical Chemical

 Fish Surveys

Electroshocker

 Macroinvertebrate

Surveys

Surber sampler

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Habitat Hypotheses

  • 1. We expected significant changes in habitat

characteristics at Addison and Wolenec but not at Zoha

  • 2. We expected the greatest changes in

magnitude at Wolenec

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Habitat Survey

 Physical Characteristics

 River width and depth  Bank erosion  Riparian zone coverage  Substrate/embeddedness  Macrophytes

 Chemical Characteristics

D.O. Temperature Conductivity

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Significant Changes in Habitat

Addison Wolenec Zoha width

 

depth

substrate composition

  

substrate depth

erosion

 

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Channel Width

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Addison Wolenec Zoha Site Width (m)

Pre Restoration Post Restoration

* *

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Channel Depth

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Addison Wolenec Zoha Site Depth (cm)

Pre Restoration Post Restoration

*

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Channel Erosion

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Addison Wolenec Zoha Site Amount of erosion (m)

Pre Restoration Post Restoration

* *

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Invertebrate Hypotheses

  • 1. We expected the abundance and diversity

to increase at Addison, decrease at Wolenec, and not change at Zoha.

  • 2. We expected the greatest changes in

abundance and diversity at Wolenec

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Invertebrate Abundance

500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Addison Wolenec Zoha Site Number of Invertebrates

Pre Restoration Post Restoration

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Invertebrate Diversity

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Addison Wolenec Zoha Site Number of taxa

Pre Restoration Post Restoration

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Fish Hypotheses

  • 1. We expected the abundance to increase at

Addison, decrease at Wolenec, and no change at Zoha.

  • 2. We expected the diversity to increase at Addison

and Wolenec, but no change at Zoha.

  • 3. We expected the greatest changes in abundance

and diversity at Wolenec.

slide-19
SLIDE 19

50 100 150 200 250 300

Addison Wolenec Zoha Site Abundnace of fish

Pre Restoration Post Restoration

Fish Abundance

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Fish Diversity

 Brown Trout  Common Shinner  White Sucker  Lampery  Creek Chub  Mottled Sculpin  Slimy Sculpin  Johnny Darter  Long nose Dase  Hornyhead Creek

Chub

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Fish Diversity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Addison Wolenec Zoha Site Number of fish species

Pre Restoration Post Restoration

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Brown Trout Hypotheses

  • 1. Brown trout abundance will increase at Addison,

decrease at Wolenec, with no change at Zoha.

  • 2. Brown trout size will increase at Addison,

decrease at Wolenec, with no change at Zoha.

  • 3. The greatest magnitude of change in trout

abundance and size will occur at Wolenec.

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Brown Trout Abundance

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Addison Wolenec Zoha Site # of Brown Trout

Pre-Restoration Post-Restoration

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Brown Trout Lengths

50 100 150 200 250 300 Addison Wolenec Zoha

Site Length of trout (mm)

Pre Restoration Post Restoration

*

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Addison: Brown Trout Size

2 4 6 8 10 12 14

  • 5

5

  • 1

1

  • 1

5 1 5

  • 2

2

  • 2

5 2 5

  • 3

3

  • 3

5 3 5

  • 4

Size (mm) # of trout

Pre Restoration Post Restoration

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Wolenec: Brown Trout Size

2 4 6 8 10 12

  • 5

5

  • 1

1

  • 1

5 1 5

  • 2

2

  • 2

5 2 5

  • 3

3

  • 3

5 3 5

  • 4

4

  • 4

5

Size (mm) # of trout

Pre Restoration Post Restoration

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Zoha: Brown Trout Size

1 2 3 4 5 6

0-50 50-100 100-150 150-200 200-250 250-300 300-350 350-400 400-450

Size (mm) # of trout

Pre Restoration Post Restoration

slide-28
SLIDE 28

In Summary: Habitat

 The most changes occurred at Wolenec.  The fewest changes occurred at Addison.  The greatest changes in magnitude occurred

at Wolenec

slide-29
SLIDE 29

In Summary: Macroinvertebrates

 Abundance decreased at Zoha, increased at

Wolenec, with little change at Addison.

 The greatest change in abundance occurred at

Zoha.

 There was very little change in diversity at all

three sites.

 Community is dominated by tolerant and common

taxa, many of which are not key diet items for trout.

slide-30
SLIDE 30

In Summary: Fish

 The abundance increased at Wolenec,

decreased at Zoha, with little change at Addison.

 The diversity increased at Wolenec, but no

change occurred at Addison and Zoha.

 The greatest changes in abundance and

diversity occurred at Wolenec.

slide-31
SLIDE 31

In Summary: Brown Trout

 Addison had the highest abundance,

followed closely by Wolenec.

 Addison was dominated by smaller trout

while Wolenec was dominated by larger trout.

 Brown trout size decreased at Zoha, with

little change at Wolenec and Addison.

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Conclusions

 Restoration did appear to impact habitat

characteristics, fish and macroinvertebrates.

 Wolenec was most impacted by immediate restoration

activities, though not necessarily in a negative way

 Downstream impacts at Addison were less drastic than

expected

 Zoha unexpectedly DID change

 Addison is well suited for smaller trout, while

restoration may have increased the suitability of Wolenec to support large trout.

 Habitat in Zoha appears to be less than ideal.

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Conclusions

 Immediate changes may not reflect long term

impacts

 Additional surveys will have to be done to

understand the long-term effects of restoration.

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Special Thanks

 Trout Unlimited- Harry and Laura Nohr

Chapter

 Dodgeville Department of Natural

Resources

 University of Wisconsin-Platteville  Kristopher Wright