Download Total Number of Fish - Wisconsin Lutheran College

INTRODUCTION
Urbanization, which is created by the establishment of areas of high-density population,
poses adverse effects on our watersheds. It has been noted that urbanization is the second leading
agent of stream degradation, behind agriculture (Morgan and Cushman 2005). A major source of
pollution is urban runoff entering the watersheds. This is due to not having adequate storm water
management facilities (SEWRPC 2010). Runoff contains numerous chemicals that disrupt the
natural systems in the river. These include road salts, lawn fertilizers and automobile fluids
(Wang et al 2001). The magnitude of runoff may increase along with urban growth. Frequent and
heavy runoff can potentially cause more flooding, eroding streambeds and banks, which further
damage stream ecosystems (Wang et al 2001). The increasing flow of urban runoff leads to
increased amounts of sediment being transported, reducing egg survival and creating the loss of
habitat (SEWRPC 2007). The damage of water quality and stream structure has a major impact
on the health of native fish species. Consequences of poor water quality are reduced survival of
eggs and fish of young age and toxicity of fish species (SEWRPC 2007). Introduction or
overproduction of non-native species could take away fish habitat from native species. Invasive
species are introduced, where their tolerance to pollution, high reproductive capabilities and lack
of predators and competitors allow them to take over and eliminate pollution intolerant native
species in degraded streams (Lyons 1992; SEWRPC 2010). Increased algae production in
response to urbanization causes death of fish due to oxygen depletion (SEWRPC 2007). Native
fish species and their aquatic ecosystems are becoming degraded in watersheds, due to the
negative impacts of urbanization. Biological monitoring can be applied in order to assess
watershed quality and will inform plans to restore its health.
Biological monitoring is an essential tool in assessing the quality of a watershed and
observing how urbanization plays a negative role. It can provide us with valuable information on
aspects of water quality such as water chemistry, physical condition, hydrology and morphology
(Anderson 2001). Certain restoration measures need to be put in place in order to manage stream
ecosystems heavily degraded by urbanization. Biological monitoring helps to understand what is
known of aquatic ecosystems and gives us insight into what is needed to restore these systems
(Williams et al 1997). An example of biological monitoring is calculating an Index of Biological
Integrity or IBI. An IBI is calculated by assessing various metrics that describe species richness
and composition, trophic and reproductive functions and fish abundance and conditions (Lyons
1992). Low numbers of fish, as well as a high number of DELTs (deformities, erosions, lesions
and tumors) are also sometimes taken into effect (Lyons 1992). By comparing the values of these
metrics with what we are expecting, we can make an accurate assessment on the current
degradation of the stream (Lyons 1992). Biological monitoring can also be used to test the
effectiveness of improvements that have already been made. Recent studies and biological
monitoring techniques have shown reduced stream ecosystem quality, due to urbanization in
various areas around the United States.
The effects of urbanization are widely reported in the United States. A highly urbanized
area of northeast Ohio has demonstrated negative side effects in its stream habitat due to
urbanization. Fish IBI scores decreased as urban land use and population density rose (Walton et
al 2007). High urbanization in areas of the Eastern Piedmont and Coastal Plain ecoregions
caused low fish abundance, low fish richness, low IBI scores, and a reduced number of pollutionintolerant native species and an influx of pollution-tolerant non-native species (Morgan,
Cushman 2005). Small streams in western Georgia showed increased cases of eroded fins,
lesions and tumors with increased urbanization (Helms et al 2005). Also, the number of
lithophilic spawners decreased as the number of herbivores increased in areas containing higher
urbanization (Helms et al 2005). The adverse effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems are
being seen through biological monitoring on both a national scale, as well as a local scale.
Biological monitoring of the nearby urbanized waterways of the local Menomonee River
and Oak Creek showed very low biotic integrity ratings for inhabitant fish species (Anderson
2001). Most of the fish species collected in this area were tolerant to water pollution and water
quality degradation (Anderson 2001). The Root River, located in Racine, Wisconsin displayed
similar results. A vast majority of sample sites showed poor water quality and biotic integrity
(Ortenblad et al 2003). Once again, the river was dominated by tolerant omnivores, while native
and lithophilous spawners were few (Ortenblad et al 2003).
The basis of this study is biological monitoring and assessment of health and relative
abundance of fish species located in the Kinnickinnic. The study takes place in a highly
urbanized section of the river that runs through the downtown section of the Milwaukee
metropolitan area. This area shows numerous sources of urbanized pollution, such as heavy
traffic, shops, construction, factories, homes and apartment complexes. There are expectations of
a low water quality and very poor health and relative abundance of fish species, resulting in low
IBI scores (Lyons 1992).
Our hypothesis is that the overall health and relative abundance of fish species in the
Kinnickinnic River will be poor, due to the adverse effects of urbanization. The mission of the
project is to test this hypothesis, as well as recommend plans in order to restore the Kinnickinnic.
The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District has already put in place a two-phase proposal to
help restore the river. The overall goal of the MMSD is to create watershed-wide stormwater
management regulations, which would help to control the flow of runoff, due to urbanization
(MMSD 2005). Engineering improvements are also a large aspect. A concrete lining was placed
on the bottom of the river in places in order to hopefully control flooding. The opposite took
place as the lining increased the velocity of water flow and decreased the amount of vegetation
(MMSD 2005). Removing the lining would be a worthy improvement. The removal of the
concrete lining and widening of the river bank is currently taking place. This will slow down the
river flow, and allow for increased vegetation, water quality and public safety (MMSD 2011). A
pool and riffle sequence is also being implemented for fish traveling from Lake Michigan
(MMSD 2011). The pools allow traveling fish to cool down and rest as they move upstream. The
purpose of this research is to assess the water quality and relative health and abundance of fish
species in the section of the Kinnickinnic River, located in the downtown Milwaukee
metropolitan area. After examining this data, accurate assessment will be made of the current
restoration measures being taken. Proposals can then be made of what else may need to be done
in order to return the river back to health.
Methods
On October 29, 2012 from 12:00 PM to 4:00 PM Central Standard Time, electroshocking monitoring of native fish species took place at the Kinnickinnic River located between
Chase street and Lincoln avenue in Lincoln Village, a south side community within Milwaukee,
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. Using satellite images (Figure 1), the length of the sampling
process was determined and found to be roughly 325 meters (Google 2012). Traditionally, this
sample length would have been determined by taking the average of six stream width
measurements and multiplying that value by thirty-five (Lyons 1992). Unfortunately, the mean
stream width (17m) made our theoretical sampling area impractical, because it would have
contained water levels too deep to safely electroshock in. This being said, the sampling area had
to be modified, shortening it to 325 meters, instead of the 600 meters called for in the Lyons
protocol. Researchers proceeded upstream using a tote barge stream shocker, which emits an
electrical current. The stream shocker used was a Honda GX 160, 4.8 horsepower generator,
attached to a small boat with two hand-held electrodes, which were used to send the current
through the water. The current we used was a DC current, which did not harm the fish, yet
remained effective (Lyons 1992). Maintaining 6 amps and 110 volts provided a sufficient current
to stun all sizes of fish, still allowing for quick recovery (Anderson 2001).
Figure 1. Satellite image of the lower portion of the Kinnickinnic River in Milwaukee, Milwaukee County,
Wisconsin (Google 2012).
Once the fish rose to the surface of the water, they were collected and placed in a live
well, to await further examination. They were measured, identified, documented, Each fish was
examined for total length, species and D.E.L.T.S., which are deformations, erosions, lesions and
tumors (Lyons 1992), and then returned to the river. After collection and examination, an index
of biotic integrity was calculated to assess the current health of the river. To determine the IBI
of the Kinnickinnic River, fish were grouped into various metrics. The Wisconsin version of the
IBI, developed by John Lyons (1992), consists of ten basic metrics. The ten metrics are sorted
into three overall groups: species richness and composition, trophic and reproductive function,
and fish abundance and condition. The values of the different metrics were calculated according
to Lyons protocol and compiled into an IBI score (Lyons 1992).
RESULTS
5 fish, spanning 4 different species, were caught during the electro-shocking process
(Table 1). No fish were caught in the downstream portion of the river. Only after we went
upstream of our entry point were any fish caught (Figure 2).
Downstream
Upstream
Entry Point
Figure 2. A picture of the section of the Kinnickinnic River which was sampled. Labeled are the entry point,
downstream, upstream. Kinnickinnic River, Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.
The blacknose shiner and the fathead minnow were caught in isolated areas away from any other
fish. Salmon were seen in the river, and were later found to be spawning, as evidenced by their
release of sperm and egg upon capture. Additional salmon were seen spawning in the river;
however, we were unable to catch them and include them in our study. We saw at least 6 salmon
during the sampling process, including the ones that were captured. The blacknose shiner and the
fathead minnow were unidentifiable at the time of sampling; therefore, they were brought to the
laboratory to be identified using Becker (1983).
Table 1. A list of all specimen that were captured during the electro shocking period on October 29, 2012 in the
lower Kinnickinnic River in Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Chinook
Salmon
Oncorhynchus
tsawytscha
Brown
Bullhead
Ameiurus nebulosus
Fathead
Minnow
Pimephales promelas
Blacknose
Shiner
Notropis heterolepis
Total
Size or Size Number of
Number
Interval
Fish in
of Fish
Size
2
750-800mm
2
1
200-250mm
1
1
70mm
1
1
50mm
1
DELTS
1, eroded
anal fin
Total
5
In order to calculate an IBI score the sampling station must be 35 times the mean stream
width and more than 50 fish must be sampled; neither of which were accomplished in this study.
Calculating an IBI score from this data could potentially lead to skewed results. (Lyons 1992).
However, if an IBI score were to be calculated it would resemble this:
Table 2. Compilation of an IBI score (Lyons 1992) for the lower Kinnickinnic river in Milwaukee, Milwaukee
County, Wisconsin. Electro sampling was done on October 29, 2012.
Metric
Number of Fish/Percent of
Fish
IBI Score
Total Number of Native
Species
0
0
Number of darter species
0
0
Number of sucker species
0
0
Number of sunfish species
0
0
Number of intolerant species
1
0
Percent tolerant species
20%
7
Percent Omnivores
20%
7
Percent Insectivores
40%
5
Percent Top Carnivores
40%
10
Percent Simple Lithophils
0%
0
Number of individuals per
300 m squared
5
-10
Percent DELT fish
20%
-10
Total IBI Score
9
Our determined IBI score is in the same “Very Poor” category as our true score of “No score”
(Table 3).
Table 3. Guidelines of interpreting overall IBI scores (modified from Karr et al. 1986) (Lyons 1992).
Overall IBI Score
Biotic Integrity Rating
Fish Community
Attributes
100-65
Excellent
Comparable to the best situations with
minimal human disturbance; all
regionally expected species for
habitat and stream size, including the
most intolerant forms, are present
with a full array of age and size
classes; balanced trophic structure
64-50
Good
Species richness somewhat below
expectation, especially due to the loss
of the most intolerant forms; some
species, especially top carnivores, are
present with less than optimal
abundances or size/age distributions;
trophic structure shows some signs of
imbalance
49-30
Fair
Signs of additional deterioration
include decreased species richness,
loss of intolerant forms, reduction in
simple lithophils, increased
abundance of tolerant species, and/or
highly skewed trophic structure; older
classes of top carnivores rare or
absent
29-20
Poor
Relatively few species; dominated by
omnivores, tolerant forms, and habitat
generalists; few or no top carnivores
or simple lithophilous spawners;
growth rates and condition factors
sometimes depressed; hybrids
sometimes common
19-0
Very poor
Very few species present, mostly
exotics or tolerant forms of hybrids;
few large or old fish; DELT fish
sometimes common
No Score
Very poor
Thorough sampling finds few or no
fish; impossible to calculate IBI
After the electro-shocking process was completed, water condition was measured using a
portable Hydrolab system. A few simple measurements were taken to check the condition of the
river’s water. (Table 4).
Table 4. River conditions as measured by a Hydrolab, taken from the lower Kinnickinnic river in Milwaukee,
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin on October 29, 2012.
Category
Score
Temperature
7.22 °C
pH
8.07
SpC
1.431 μS
DO
11.71 mg/L
SpC (Specific Conductance) is converted to total dissolved solids which is a good indicator of
the productivity of the river. Upon the conversion the TDS (total dissolved solids) of the river
was measured to be 0.71 mg/L (Chemiasoft 1999).
Discussion
The Kinnickinnic River has been degraded in quality by a number of factors. Pollution,
lessened base flows, and increased water temperatures from urbanization make it harder for fish
to live in the river. Other factors include habitat loss due to dam construction, concrete
channelization, impoundment, sedimentation, dredging, and eutrophication. These all contribute
to the decline of the river’s ability to support spawning communities (GLC 2002). The nearly
100 potential channel obstructions found in the Kinnickinnic also greatly limit the ability of fish
to move naturally up and down the river, decreasing diversity (SEWRPC 2010). In our study of
the Kinnickinnic, we encountered a small number of fish and a larger amount of trash. After
analyzing our data, we have concluded that the river is well below its potential for supporting a
healthy river ecosystem.
Figure 2. Image of team members and Chinook salmon caught during electroshock sampling for the lower
Kinnickinnic River on October 29, 2012.
Electroshock sampling conducted by our team produced very few fish. Five fish were
caught, and only one of these species is considered intolerant. An IBI score of 9 was calculated,
giving a score of “Very Poor”. The Chinook salmon that were caught were releasing sperm and
eggs, indicating that they were spawning. In a study by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage
District (MMSD) in June of 2012 in the lower Kinnickinnic River, a much larger number of fish
was collected. Total fish collected amounted to 217, spanning eight species. Gizzard shad made
up the largest portion of the total, followed by fathead minnow (Table 4). The area sampled also
contained carp spawning in shallow water. Of the species that were caught, four were considered
tolerant of pollutant waters, and none of the species had been shown to be sensitive to low water
quality. This sampling resulted in a low index of biotic integrity and a rating of very poor quality
(HNTB 2012).
Table 4. Number and Size Ranges of Fish Collected by Electroshocking in the Lower Kinnickinnic River,
Milwaukee, WI, During June 2012. (HNTB 2012).
Length Interval
Total Number
Common Name
Scientific Name
(mm)
of Fish
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus
170-175
1
Brown Bullhead
Ameiurus nebulosus
225-230
1
Common Carp
Cyprinus carpio
550-650
10
48-69
61
70-89
10
Fathead Minnow
Pimephales promelas
Gizzard Shad
Dorosoma cepedianum
100-150
129
Golden Shiner
Notemigonus crysoleucas
105-115
2
Green Sunfish
Lepomis cyanellus
130-135
2
Pumpkinseed
Lepomis gibbosus
130-135
1
Total
217
A study performed by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in 1993 concluded that the
fish community in the Milwaukee Estuary is severely limited due to pollution and structural
changes to tributaries. Fish local to the Estuary area include carp, black bullhead, perch, and
suckers. Salmon, walleye, bass, pike, and trout are also found but are unable to spawn. Chinook
and coho salmon are stocked in the harbor along with lake, brown, rainbow, and brook trout.
This is done annually with the hope that these fish populations may one day be able to spawn and
survive without stocking. The lower portions of the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic
Rivers are noted to be able to support only pollution tolerant species (Hartig 1993).
Table 5. Fish Species Composition Among Reaches in the Kinnickinnic River Watershed: 1902-1999 vs 2000-2009.
(SEWRPC 2010).
One of the key problems causing low levels of biodiversity in urban streams is the intense
and frequent disturbances that are so characteristic of urban areas. Surfaces such as black top or
concrete channeling contribute to increased water velocity. After the region receives rainfall,
water flows quickly across these impervious surfaces to fill up the river and then is swept away.
Fish populations are hard pressed to recover from these changes to their environment. The ideal
surface would instead allow the water to filter through the layers of soil and silt to reach the river
at a slow and steady pace, raising water levels at a reasonable rate (SEWRPC 2010).
In order to combat the negative effects of runoff, a variety of new techniques are being
used in the greater Milwaukee watersheds. These include disconnection of downspouts,
installation of rain barrels, green roofs, and rain gardens, as well as the construction of
biofiltration swales in parking lots and along roadways. These changes will slow down the rate at
which water is run off into a stream for drainage, hopefully limiting the effect of impervious
surfaces that are so prevalent in urban areas (SEWRPC 2010).
Out of all of Milwaukee’s watersheds, the Kinnickinnic has the lowest quality of fish,
invertebrate, and algal communities. Only two native species have been found in the river since
2000. Fish collections in the Kinnickinnic River from 1902-2009 indicated a drop in total species
from 24 to 11 and intolerant species decreased from eight to two (Table 5) (SEWRPC 2010).
Therefore, it is important to note that the Kinnickinnic River has the capacity to be a vibrant
habitat for many fish species in the absence of adverse effects of urbanization.
The similarities of the Kinnickinnic and Milwaukee Rivers may allow for the use of
certain rehabilitation techniques in both situations. The Milwaukee River has undergone
extensive rehabilitation in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s and has shown great improvement.
The Capitol Drive Station showed an improvement from an IBI score of 20 in 1996 to 80 in
2001. The Kletzsch Park Station also showed an increase in IBI score from 54 in 1996 to 80 in
2001. At the Capitol Drive station, the number of species collected in 1996 was between 5-10,
which is slightly better than our sampling in the Kinnickinnic. However, in 2001, the total
number of species collected was between 30 and 35. The Kletzsch Park Station showed slightly
less gains, with an increase in total species collected from 15 to between 20 and 25. The
improvements made to the Milwaukee River are proving to be effective, and should therefore be
used as a model for rehabilitating the Kinnickinnic.
A large number of improvements were made to the Milwaukee River to produce such an
increase in river quality. A series of bendway weirs (multi-ton rocks) and boulder clusters were
added in order to keep flows away from riverbanks while also providing cover for fish and
invertebrates. Concrete matting was also put in to prevent down-cutting and keep sediment from
washing away with the current. Then, 127 large stones were placed over the concrete matting to
keep it in place. In order to improve riverbanks, 30 willow trees were planted inside openings in
articulated concrete matting to provide bank cover. Stream banks were additionally reinforced
using natural vegetation as well as riprap and geotextiles. Areas where vegetation had been
swept away or was not growing were planted with native grasses. The North Avenue Dam was
removed with the hope that this would assist the movement of smallmouth bass as well as
salmon. Lake Sturgeon and walleye were also stocked, and a marked improvement of these
populations has been seen (Hirethota et al. 2005).
Extensive improvements have been made to the upstream portions of the Kinnickinnic.
These include removal of concrete-lined channels as well as the removal of other impervious
surfaces. Citizens are also being educated about the benefits of rain gardens and rain barrels
(HNTB 2012). Tiered retaining walls and a 15 foot wide maintenance path were also constructed
(Sear et al. 2012). Over 150,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment was removed by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2009. Because of efforts such as this, and the
proximity of the lower portion of the Kinnickinnic to the Milwaukee Estuary, it is believed that
this portion has the most potential for improvement (SEWRPC 2010). More than 80 homes in
Milwaukee will need to be torn down in order to remove concrete channeling and widen the
river. The city has already purchased many of these, and will buy the rest soon (Lepisto 2011).
The MMSD has constructed a new bridge on South 6th street, and has also made improvements
on 1,000 feet of the river. These improvements consisted of removing 500 feet of concrete lined
channel while adding stable floodplain areas and embankments to the 1,000 foot stretch, which
was also lined with stones. Other additions included natural vegetation designed to manage
flooding and access areas for both the community and maintenance efforts (Sear et al. 2012).
Urban streams with large levels of riparian forest buffer result in the highest levels of
species diversity. Therefore efforts to restore or create new vegetative buffers are relevant ideas
for the improvement of the Kinnickinnic River. However, riparian buffers should be
supplemented with other techniques such as infiltration facilities, detention basins, and grass
swales (SEWRPC 2010). Other rehabilitation suggestions include the removal of dams or
building of fish-passage structures as well as removal of concrete channelization.
Bendway weirs should be added, along with reinforcement of banks with both natural
vegetation such as willow trees or natural grasses and riprap or geotextiles. Refuges should be
constructed to give fish an area to rest after swimming in current, and find cover from predators.
These can be in the form of rock structures, vegetative structures, or deeper pools and runs
(Hirethota et al. 2005). Spawning and feeding areas should also be included. Features such as
pool or riffle structures and vegetation should also be added within the stream, in order to
provide cover as well as habitat variation. It is imperative that the river is returned to its naturally
meandering course in order to slow water velocity. Floodplains must also be established on
either side of the river so that water can flow into them after heavy rains and then slowly recede
back to normal (SEWRPC 2010).
Previous improvements made to the Kinnickinnic combined with additional
improvements to the structure of the channel, base flow, and dissolved oxygen levels will help
macroinvertebrate populations to recover. These macroinvertebrates tend to recover more
quickly than fish do, and an improved macroinvertebrate population will result in a better food
supply for many predator fish. Macroinvertebrates also reduce build up of organic material,
which require large amounts of oxygen. Therefore the recovery of macroinvertebrate populations
will result in a more robust diet for predator fish and a lower biological oxygen demand (HNTB
2012). The level of trash seen in the Kinnickinnic by our team indicates that the river would also
benefit from large scale clean-up efforts. Groups such as the River Skimmer project, Keep
Greater Milwaukee Beautiful, and Milwaukee Riverkeeper cleanup projects will continue to be
important assets for the removal of debris (SEWRPC 2010).
Literature Cited
Anderson, Robert C. 2001. Southeast Wisconsin’s Menomonee River and Oak Creek Biological
Evaluation 1999-2000. Wisconsin Lutheran College Biology Dept. Technical Bulletin 1:
1-29.
Becker, George C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press. Wisconsin.
Chemiasoft. 1999. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th
edition. www.chemiasoft.com/tds.html. (November 2012).
GLC (Great Lakes Commission). 2002. An Overview of U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern.
GLC.
Hartig, J. H. 1993. A survey of fish-community and habitat goals/objectives/targets and status in
Great Lakes areas of concern. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. 95 p.
Helms, Brian S., Jack W. Feminella and Shufen Pan. 2005. Detection of Biotic Responses to
Urbanization Using Fish Assemblages From Small Streams of Western Georgia, USA.
Urban Ecosystems 8:39-57.
Hirethota, P. S., T. E. Burzynski, B. T. Eggold. 2005. Changing Habitat and Biodiversity of the
Lower Milwaukee River and Estuary. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Southern Lake Michigan Fisheries Work Unit, PUB-FH-511-2005. Milwaukee.
HNTB (HNTB Engineering). 2012. Kinnickinnic River Flushing Station Improvements
Feasibility Study. HNTB, Contract No. M01007P01, Milwaukee.
Lepisto, M. 2011. Troubled waters: Alum helps restore Milwaukee's urban rivers and their
neighborhoods. Available:
http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/news/incommon/fall2011/story.php?s=1372&page=1.
November 2011.
Lyons, John. 1992. Using the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) to Measure Environmental Quality
in Warmwater Streams of Wisconsin. United States Department of Agriculture. General
Technical Report NC-149. 1:1-48.
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District. 2005. Kinnickinnic River Phase 2 Watercourse
Management Plan. 1:1-819.
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District. 2011. Kinnickinnic River Concrete Removal.
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District. Available:
http://v3.mmsd.com/NewsDetails.aspx. (October 2012).
Morgan, Raymond P. and Susan F, Cushman. 2005. Urbanization Effects on Stream Fish
Assemblages in Maryland, USA. Journal of the North American Benthological Society
24:643-655.
Ortenblad, Angela L., David A. Bolha, and Robert C. Anderson. 2003. Sustainability Through
Biological Monitoring on the Root River Racine, Wisconsin. Wisconsin Lutheran
College Biology Dept. Technical Bulletin 4: 1-47.
Sear, T. R., Elliot, P. C., Chapman, T. W. 2012. Kinnickinnic River Flood Management and
Watercourse Rehabilitation: Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Eric D. Loucks, editor. World
Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2012 : Crossing Boundaries.
Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States.
SEWRPC (Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission). 2010. Stream Habitat
Conditions and Biological Assessment of the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River
Watersheds: 2000-2009. SEWRPC, Memorandum Report 194. Waukesha, Wisconsin.
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 2007. Water Quality Conditions and
Sources of Pollution in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds. Technical Report Number
39:1-141.
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 2010. Stream Habitat Conditions and
Biological Assessment of the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River Watersheds: 20002009. Memorandum Report Number 194: 1-152.
Walton, Michael B., Mark Salling, James Wyles and Julie Wolin. 2007. Biological Integrity in
Urban Streams: Toward Resolving Multiple Demensions of Urbanization. Landscape and
Urban Planning 79:110-123.
Wang, Lizhu, John Lyons and Paul Kanehl. 2001. Impacts of Urbanization on Stream Habitat
and Fish Across Multiple Spatial Scales. Environmental Management 28(2):255-266.
Williams, Jack E., Christopher A. Wood and Michael P. Dombeck, editors. 1997. Watershed
Restoration: Principles and Practices. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.