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 up from Zoha/Wolenec property line

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

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

Objectives  Did restoration activities immediately affect stream habitat, macroinvertebrates and fish?  To what degree did the restoration affect these aspects within the sampling sites?

Sampling Methods  Habitat Surveys  Physical  Chemical  Fish Surveys  Electroshocker  Macroinvertebrate Surveys  Surber sampler

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

Habitat Survey  Physical Characteristics  River width and depth  Bank erosion  Riparian zone coverage  Substrate/embeddedness  Macrophytes  Chemical Characteristics  D.O.  Temperature  Conductivity

Significant Changes in Habitat Addison Wolenec Zoha   width  depth substrate    composition substrate  depth   erosion

Channel Width 9 Pre Restoration 8 Post Restoration 7 * * 6 Width (m) 5 4 3 2 1 0 Addison Wolenec Zoha Site

Channel Depth 50 Pre Restoration 45 * Post Restoration 40 35 Depth (cm) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Addison Wolenec Zoha Site

Channel Erosion 1 Pre Restoration 0.9 Post Restoration Amount of erosion (m) 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 * 0.4 0.3 * 0.2 0.1 0 Addison Wolenec Zoha Site

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

Invertebrate Abundance Number of Invertebrates 2500 Pre Restoration Post Restoration 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Addison Wolenec Zoha Site

Invertebrate Diversity 20 Pre Restoration 18 Post Restoration Number of taxa 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Addison Wolenec Zoha Site

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.

Fish Abundance 300 Pre Restoration 250 Post Restoration Abundnace of fish 200 150 100 50 0 Addison Wolenec Zoha Site

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

Fish Diversity 10 Pre Restoration 9 Number of fish species Post Restoration 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Addison Wolenec Zoha Site

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.

Brown Trout Abundance 40 Pre-Restoration 35 Post-Restoration # of Brown Trout 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Addison Wolenec Zoha Site

Brown Trout Lengths Length of trout (mm) 300 Pre Restoration * 250 Post Restoration 200 150 100 50 0 Addison Wolenec Zoha Site

Addison: Brown Trout Size 14 Pre Restoration 12 Post Restoration 10 # of trout 8 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 - 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 0 - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 Size (mm)

Wolenec: Brown Trout Size 12 Pre Restoration 10 Post Restoration # of trout 8 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 5 0 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 - 1 0 - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 Size (mm)

Zoha: Brown Trout Size 6 Pre Restoration 5 Post Restoration # of trout 4 3 2 1 0 0-50 50-100 100-150 150-200 200-250 250-300 300-350 350-400 400-450 Size (mm)

In Summary: Habitat  The most changes occurred at Wolenec.  The fewest changes occurred at Addison.  The greatest changes in magnitude occurred at Wolenec

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.

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.

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.

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.

Conclusions  Immediate changes may not reflect long term impacts  Additional surveys will have to be done to understand the long-term effects of restoration.

Special Thanks  Trout Unlimited- Harry and Laura Nohr Chapter  Dodgeville Department of Natural Resources  University of Wisconsin-Platteville  Kristopher Wright