Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration in the Milwaukee Estuary AOC

8/9/2019 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration in the Milwaukee Estuary AOC

1/59

Making Connections Across Our Watersheds

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restorations – Milwaukee Estuary AOC

2015 Clean Rivers, Clean Lake Conference

Andrew T. Struck, Director

Ozaukee County Planning and Parks Department

Beth Wentzel, PEInter-Fluve


2/59


Ecological Division – Fish Passage & Habitat Program

Planning andParks

Department

Golf DivisionTourismDivision

PlanningDivision

EcologicalDivision

BirdConservation

Fish PassageProgram

Fragmentation& ImpedimentRemediation

MonitoringHabitat

RestorationEducation and

OutreachReporting

InvasiveSpecies

Trails DivisionParks,

Recreation, andCulture Division


3/59


Watershed-Wide Conservation Approach

ADAPTIVE

MANAGEMENT

PROJECT Example PROGRAM Example

Planning Opportunity Landowner /

Impediment

Measurable

Outcomes

Metrics -

Socioeconomic

/ Biological

Research / Design Immediate

Needs

Permitting /

Design &Engineering

Criteria

Long term /

WatershedScale

Level of Effort

/ Priority – Inventories /

GIS modeling

Implementation /

Program Delivery

Objectives Construct

Fish Passage

/ RemoveImpediment

Multiple

Objectives

to AchieveGoal

Dams and

Other Barriers

(Public Works /Cons. Corps)

Monitoring /

Evaluation

Demonstrate

Success

Target

Species

Identify Next

Steps

Beneficial Use

Impairments


4/59


Theme – “Making Connections”

Renewing “Old” Connections

•Lake Michigan

• Milwaukee River

• Milwaukee Estuary AOC

•Tributary Streams

• Spawning and Rearing Habitat

Forming “New” ConnectionsWith Non-Traditional

Stakeholders Through

Collaborative Partnerships

Ozaukee County

Elected OfficialsMunicipalities

Businesses

Schools

NGOs

Citizens/LandownersVolunteers


5/59


6/59


Fish Passage Program – Ecological Impacts•250 Impediments Removed

–49 Culverts Replaced or Removed

–8 Dams Removed or Remediated

–193 Other Impediments Removed

•131 Stream Miles Reconnected

•8,043 Acres of Wetlands Reconnected

• Increased abundance of target species

–Documented fish reproduction after

impediment removals and presence of

target species at monitoring sites

• Impact on status of listed species or

species of concern

–7 rare and/or imperiled species

documented

•Changes in recreational angling

–Creel pre-survey completed (post-survey

anticipated)

–County-wide tourism increase

• M-T Fishway Monitoring

– 36 Fish Species, Multiple Wildlife Species

–Several Citizen Reports

• Water Quality Monitoring

– 84,169 Continuous Monitoring Samples

– 150 Grab Samples

• Sediment Contamination Monitoring

– 411 Samples Analyzed

– 135 PCB Locations Identified


7/59Making Connections Across Our Watersheds

Aquatic Connectivity – Linear and Lateral

• Much of SE Wisconsin’s desirableaquatic habitat has been lost or

significantly altered

• Quality natural aquatic habitat remainand are protected, but are ecologicallyisolated

• Creating aquatic habitat is expensiveand typically inferior

• Linear Impediments and Connectivity

– Passability within rivers and streams

• Lateral Impediments and Connectivity

– Connections from rivers and streamsto adjacent wetlands, floodplains,and associated habitat


8/59



Native Fish Swimming Performance

• Northern Pike – TargetSpecies

– Good for short distance“bursts” < 15 sec.

– Fair for “sustained”movements in velocities< 2 ft/s

– Poor for “prolonged”swimming

– Very Poor jumpers

–

Require Low velocity< 2 - 3 ft/s)

– Short jumps < 8 inches – Frequent rest areas



Impediment Inventory and RemediationFragmentation &

ImpedimentRemediation

LinearConnectivity

Dams and Large-Scale

Impediments

Design,Engineering and

Permitting

Local Force orPublicly Bid

Construction

Dam Removals orFishways (Large

and Small)Culverts/Bridges Ford Crossings

Small-ScaleImpediments

ConservationCorps or

Volunteers

Log Jams andDebris Deposits

InvasiveVegetation

LateralConnectivity

GIS Habitat Tool

LandownerCoordination

Engineering,Design &

Permitting

Local Force orPublicly Bid

Construction

WetlandRestoration

Stream andFloodplainRestoration

Monitoring andManagement



Large Dams on the Milwaukee River

Newburg Dam Removal (2012)

Mequon-Thiensville Dam Passive

“Nature-like” Fishway (2010)

Lime Kiln Dam Removal (2010)

Bridge Street Dam Passive

Fishway (Designed 2009-2011)

Dam removed or modified by others

Approximate AOC Boundaries



Milwaukee River Mainstem Miles Reconnected

Lake Michigan to Mequon-Thiensville Fishway 20 miles

Mequon-Thiensville Fishway to Lime Kiln Dam 10 miles

Lime Kiln Dam to Bridge Street Dam 2 miles

32 miles

Bridge Street Dam to Newburg Dam 24.5 miles

Newburg Dam to Barton Dam (West Bend) 13 miles

37.5 miles



“Large-Scale” Structural Impediments

• Stream Crossings

–Culverts traditionally designedto pass water, not fish

• Perched

• Excessive velocities

• Diffuse/low depth

• Aggraded

• Blocked with debris

– Stone ford crossings

– Channel constricting bridge

abutments – Other “creative” crossings

• Dams

– Large scale

–

Low-head

Perched Culvert

Excessive Velocities



Stream Crossing Design Considerations• Design should consider:

– Preference given to:

• Clear span bridges

• Buried or bottomless single barrel

designs

• Structures in-filled with appropriate

material

• Stone ford crossings

–Bankfull width (1.2 x bf width ideal)

– No impact to the upstream

floodplain

• H&H modeling

• Accommodate a variety of flood flows,

climate change, etc.

– Fish swimming criteria (< 2% slope

preferred)

• FishXing Software

• USFS road and stream crossing design

methodology



Stream Crossing Design Considerations

– Utilities

– Stream alignment

– Landowner and usage needs

– Remediation vs full replacement

• Cross vanes, baffles, culvert isolation

–

Structure size and type• Available equipment

• Road fill/cover depth/ROW width

• Side slopes

• Headwalls/wingwalls

• Depth of structure/substrate

• Culvert slope (match stream grade)



“Small Scale” Non-Structural Impediments

• Impediments Include

–

Log Jams/Debris Jams – Sediment Aggradations

– Invasive Vegetation

– Pervious Fill Deposits

– Railroad Ballast Deposits



GIS-Based Fish and Wildlife Decision Support Tool

• Program staff and partners are

developing and refining GIS Tools

to:

• Identify native fish and

wildlife Species of Local

Conservation Interest (SLCI)

• Identify critical habitats

important to ensuring the

survival of native fish and

wildlife, especially SLCI’s

• Guide habitat enhancement

projects for maximum

economic and ecological

value



Table 3: Comparisons of Ozaukee County Species Rankings

GroupTotal #

Species

# State

Listed

#

SGCN

#

SLCI

# State Listed

that are not SLCI

# SLCI that are

not State Listed

Mammals 54 13 7 23 4 14

Breeding Birds 72 36 52 65 1 29

Reptiles 16 4 4 10 2 8

Amphibians 18 2 5 4 1 3

Fish 104 14 13 34 4 24

Primary Burrowing

Crayfish

3 2 1 2 0 0

Mussels 22 6 2 7 1 2

Total 289 77 84 145 13 80

Species Checklists



Vetted occurrence records were

georeferenced:a) Assigned coordinates with

precision estimates

b) Assigned year, vetting, and status

ranks

c) GIS layers delivered

d) Training provided on use

Species Data Mapped



Example Matrix: Herp association scored 0-3

Wetland Habitat Context

F o r a g e c r o p s

G r a s s l a n d

F o r e s t

S h r u b

O p e n W a t e r

A q u a t i c B e d / D e e p M a r s h

S h a l l o w M a r s h < 5 a c

S h a l l o w M a r s h 5 a c o r

l a r g e r

W e t l a n d M e a d

o w

W e t l a n d F o r e s t b r o a d l v d

d e c i d u o u s

W e t l a n d F o r e s t

c o n i f e r o u s

W e t l a n d F o r e s t m i x e d

W e t l a n d S h r u

b

R e e d c a n a r y g

r a s s

m o n o c u l t u r e

Chorus FrogOpen Wetlands near

Grassland1 3 1 2 0 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2

Wood FrogWetlands near

Woodlands 0 1 3 1 0 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 0

Blanding's TurtleWetland/Upland

Complex 1 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 1

Land CoverType*

Species

HERPS

Mapping Critical Habitat Over PRW’s



Wildlife Matrix Habitat

Milwaukee River Basin

Cedar Creek

Watershed

Potential Wood Frog Forest Habitat

Potential Wood Frog Wetland Habitat

Surface Water

Watershed Boundary

Predicted

Species

Distribution



Wildlife Matrix Habitat

Milwaukee River Basin Cedar Creek

Watershed

Restorable Wood Frog Wetlands

Suitable Wood Frog Forest Habitat

Suitable Wood Frog Wetland Habitat

Surface Water

Watershed Boundary

Add

PRWs



GIS-Based Fish and Wildlife Decision Support Tool

Mole Creek Habitat

Enhancement Project

Ulao Creek Habitat

Enhancement Project



Using the Tool: Ulao Creek Project

Examine:

- existing conditions

- potentially restorable wetlands

- vetted species data


25/59


Examine models of potential species

habitat.

Species of Local Conservation Interestidentified as potentially enhanced:

Spotted Salamander

Central Newt

Butler’s Gartersnake

Blanding’s Turtle

Prairie Crayfish

American BeaverStar-nosed Mole

Least Weasel

Silver-haired Bat

Eastern Red Bat

Little Brown Bat

Northern Long-eared Bat

American Woodcock

Blue-winged TealCommon Gallinule

Great Blue Heron

Red-shouldered Hawk

Sedge Wren

Willow Flycatcher

Migratory Bird Habitat

Numerous fishes including:Northern Pike

Iowa Darter

Least Darter

Using the Tool: Ulao Creek Project


26/59


AOC Fish & Wildlife Population and Habitat Restoration Projects


27/59


Ulao and Kaul Creek Current Conditions

Photo Credits: Will Wawrzyn, WDNR

Hydrologic connection

Hydrologic disconnection

• Channelized reaches (artificially straightened

for agricultural uses) provide poor habitat

• Linear sinuosity

• In-stream features are excessively wide and are

exclusively shallow runs with maximum water

depth

• Overwinter pool cover and spawning quality

riffles are absent and substrate is dominated

by fine materials

• Canopy shade almost absent

• Channel is incised, diffuse and /or

hydrologically disconnected from floodplain• Lack of recurring overbank flows prohibit

floodplain building and the former wetland

corridor lacks suitable overbank flood flows to

sustain a diverse wetland plant and wildlife

community


28/59


Habitat Enhancement – Ulao and Kaul Creeks• Project Goal

– Rehabilitate the function and values associated with a

cold and/or warm stream ecosystem and floodplain

wetlands

• Project Objectives

– Excavate a stable meandering stream plan form

– Increase stream length and sinuosity

– Decrease mean stream width, and increase effective

water depths and stream velocities (levees)

– Increase in-stream and bank cover for fish and wildlife,

emphasizing coarse woody debris in pools and

boulder retards in pools and glides

– Rehabilitate acres of wet deciduous forest and wet

meadow wetland currently in agricultural land use by

excavating connected wetlands and wetland scrapes


29/59


Habitat Enhancement – Ulao and Kaul Creeks• Project Objectives (cont)

– Increase duration of suitable hydro-period for

northern pike spawning

– Increase topographic diversity to improve

canopy shading - planting deciduous trees

and expanding shrub-carr areas

–

Creation of additional habitat for birds, herps,and other wildlife

– Increase the amount of pool and deep glide

and construct coarse substrate riffles for

lithophilic spawning fish and

macroinvertebrates


30/59


Ulao Creek Habitat Enhancement DesignBeth Wentzel, PE


31/59



32/59


Project reach


33/59



34/59



35/59


Emerald Ash Borer


36/59



37/59



38/59



39/59



40/59



41/59


A l b d h


42/59

Stream Geometry Design Approaches

1

5/3 1*7/6

( 1)b

c ca

Q s DnS

• Analog based approach

• Reference reach• Empirical relationships

• Analytical


43/59


Analogs


44/59


45/59



46/59

Hydrology and Hydraulics

What is your Design Flow?• Flood Flows - DNR/FEMA regulatory flows

Statistical Recurrence

Interval Upper Reach Flow, cfs Lower Reach Flow, cfs

500 yr 830 1288

100 yr 633 957

50 yr 521 780

25 yr 450 664

10 yr 346 511

5 yr 254 385

2 yr 171 252


47/59


What is your Design Flow?• “Typical” High Flows - Translation of gage data from region


48/59


Key Hydraulic Features:• Very flat slopes (0.03 – 0.11%)

• Flood water elevations driven by culvert constrictions

• Very low shear stresses


49/59


Large Wood Habitat


50/59

Large Wood Habitat

Large Wood Design

Considerations:

• Bouyancy

• Type of wood• Type and depth of

soil balast

• Cabling

•

Lift and Drag Forces• Flow velocity

• Size of wood

• Position of wood

• Future Debris Collection


51/59

Riparian Enhancements


52/59

Construction


53/59


54/59


Construction


55/59

Planting


56/59

Planting


57/59

Planting


58/59

Next Steps

• Phase 3 Construction

(incl wetland scrapes

from Phase 1)

• Phase 4 Design andConstruction

QUESTIONS?


59/59

QUESTIONS?

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration in the Milwaukee Estuary AOC

Documents