Quantifying Fish Habitat Associated with Stream Simulation Design Culverts in Northern Wisconsin

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of culvert replacement design on fish habitat and fish weight by comparing substrate diversity and weight at three stream simulation (SS)‐design and three bankfull and backwater (BB)‐design sites on the Chequamegon‐Nicolet National Forest, Wisconsin. Stream channel cross‐sections, Wolman substrate particle counts, and single‐pass backpack electro‐fishing survey data were used to quantify fish habitat and fish weight in 50‐m upstream and downstream sample reaches at each site. We applied generalized linear mixed models to test the hypothesis that substrate size and fish weight did not differ according to stream‐crossing design type (SS or BB) and location (upstream or downstream). Substrate particle sizes were significantly greater upstream of the stream crossing when compared to downstream of the stream crossing at both SS and BB sites for riffles and pools. Substrate particle sizes were also significantly greater upstream of BB sites when compared to upstream of SS sites. Results of this study indicated statistically greater individual fish weights upstream of SS‐design sites in comparison to upstream of BB‐design sites in first‐ to third‐order low gradient streams. These results suggested that the SS‐design approach appears to be more effective at transporting sediment downstream, and illustrated the value of using fish weight as an indicator of biological success for stream‐crossing designs. Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Evaluating the Effects of Culvert Designs on Ecosystem Processes in Northern Wisconsin Streams

“…Similarly, Timm et al . (in press) report that bankfull widths were not significantly different upstream and downstream of the stream simulation and bankfull culverts included in our study, but that substrate particles sizes were significantly larger upstream than downstream of both styles of culverts. However, without similar upstream–downstream data prior to replacement or from non‐replaced culverts in the region, it is impossible to attribute the difference observed in geomorphology or ecosystem processes to specific culvert characteristics.…”

Moving beyond fitting fish into equations: Progressing the fish passage debate in the Anthropocene

“…Removal of such barriers is often achievable and cost‐effective, and should be a priority for achieving rapid, sustained recovery of freshwater communities (although we acknowledge that dams can sometimes serve as a barrier to the spread of non‐native species; Gangloff, ). Removal also has the advantage of restoring physical habitat and ecosystem processes (Birnie‐Gauvin, Aarestrup, et al, ; Birnie‐Gauvin, Tummers, Lucas, & Aarestrup, ; Timm, Higgins, Stanovick, Kolka, & Eggert, ).…”

“…As such, the conditions inside the culvert replicate adjacent stream reaches and represent no greater impediment to the movement of organisms than progress through the normal stream environment. Studies of culverts built using this approach indicate that not only do they provide effective fish passage, but they are also more effective at maintaining sediment transport (Timm et al, ), and they are more resilient to large floods than traditional hydraulic culvert designs (Barnard, Yokers, Nagygyor, & Quinn, ; Gillespie et al, ). It has also been shown that the relatively modest increases in initial investment to implement stream simulation designs can yield substantial societal and economic benefits in the long term (Gillespie et al, ).…”