Geomorphology of Lowland Streams and Implications for Restoration

Geomorphology of Lowland Streams and Implications for

Restoration

Faith Fitzpatrick [email protected] US Geological Survey, WI Water Science Center, Middleton, WI

February 2015 Rock River Coalition Fitchburg, Wisconsin Glacial landforms = >>>> stream diversity \ Late Wisconsin Till (TazewellGlacial and Cary landforms in Iowa; Woodfordian in Wisconsin and Illinois)

Iowan Tazewell Erosion Till Terminal Moraine Surface from older glaciation

Driftless Area Iowan Erosion Surface; Mainly on pre-Illinoian Loess- Glacial deposits Covered Pre-Illinoian Glacial Till Illinoian Till Source: JC Knox Flood Hydrograph Examples Urbanization Effects on Flood Peaks

Pheasant Branch 250 Spring Harbor Storm Sewer Yaraha River Black Earth Creek 200

150

100 Flood Peaks in ft3/mi2 Peaks in Flood

Years 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Spring Harbor “storm drain”

Aging urban drains that cause downstream water quality issues, sedimentation, degradation of important habitats, = barriers in all directions Hydrologic Longitudinal and Lateral Connections

Overland flow P converging P P P into a hollow

Pipeflow P Saturated zones

Groundwater flow (Charlton, 2008)

Sediment Sources and Sinks Extension of drainage networks and aggradation

Original channel New channel

Aggradation/new alluvium Drainage divide Aggradation Tip of new channel Tip of original channel Marshall

Former Wetland Extent in 1890s East of Madison, Wisconsin, Near Note That Marshall Channelization Already Was Common in This Watershed

Large Goose Lake

Slide: J.C. Knox Koskonong Creek Marshall

Circa 1950 Wetland Extent, East of Madison, Wisconsin, Near Marshall

Small Goose Lake

Slide: J.C. Knox Koskonong Creek Little Menomonee Creek Incision/Bank Erosion from Ditching 1836 Government Land Office (GLO)

18 links

18 links = 12 ft Year and source Length (ft) 1930’s LEI 3,980

1937 air photo 3,910

1956 air photo 2,650 2008 air photo 2,690

Overlay of Channel Locations Little Menomonee Creek xs 28 Cross sections

740 spoil pile 739 north floodplain 738 737 flood chute 736 south floodplain 735 734 est. bankfull 733 water surface 732 731 730 729 2008 bankfull 1 ft below old floodplain Elevation in feet above NAVD 88 above NAVD feet in Elevation 728 spoil pile on south side about 3.5 ft high 727 726 2008 channel width 8-10 ft 725 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Distance from left bank in feet East Fork Cranberry River Lenawee Creek (Coniferous swamp)`

CR01 CR13

86 98 85 97 84 96 83 95 82 94 81 93 80 92 79 91 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40

EAST FORK LENAWEE Drainage area (mi2) 4.5 4.2 Base flow (cfs) 13.8 1.6 % forest 93 88 % barren/shrub 5 9 Reach slope 0.005 0.025

Whittlesey Creek, 50 year old Whittlesey Creek, local willows on the main stem scour when old willows fail Longitudinal Profile Comparisons

Whittlesey Creek Willow plantings photo Photo of Cranberry River, White Cedar swamp Similar sediment/channel morphology story for northern forests….

Meters WISCONSIN 0 Thick vertical accretion with little soil development and coarse-grained texture

Post Euro-American settlement THEN AND NOW sandy alluvium

Pratt

1.8

Large woody debris Photo Dennis from Bark River (beaver dam washout)

Pre-settlement peat

2.7 Low-flow water level

Bad River lower main stem Marengo River Whittlesey Creek Photo: Marie Peppler middle main stem 2003 flood lower main stem 2005 flood Bad River at USGS streamgage Halfway Creek Overbank Sedimentation

(Fitzpatrick et al., 2009) Historical sedimentation (and erosion) rates have decreased by an order of magnitude over the last 75 years because of widespread adoption of soil conservation practices

WI Driftless Area Upper Mississippi River Halfway Creek (Fitzpatrick, et al. 2009) Grant River – little lateral connection, great conduit for runoff

Depositional terrace ~10-yr recurrence interval

~1.5-yr recurrence interval

Grant River nr Burton, WI; September 2007 Photo: Jim Knox

The “bankfull” channel contains the flows that have a recurrence interval of about 1.5 years. This is a practical approximation of the channel-forming flow that forms the framework for stable channel design (Rosgen, 1996). Northern lowland stream morphology

Middle Branch Escanaba River near Humbolt, MI – USGS streamgage October 2009

Riffle Cross Section

96 95 94

92 Elevation (ft.) 91

90 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 ~1.5-yr recurrence interval? Distance (ft.) Middle Branch Escanaba River, October 2009 longitudinal profile 101

Bank height varies by > 1 foot 100 BANKFULL

99 ? WATER SURFACE Water Surface Slope = 0.00025 THALWEG 98

97 Riffle-riffle slope = 0.00297 Arbitrary elevation, in in feet elevation, Arbitrary 96

94 0 100 200 300 400 500 Longitudinal distance from u/s end of reach, in feet Dead River Comparison “Restored” vs. “Natural”

Which river is “better”? Which river is more “resilient” to climate change? Which river is more “stable”? “Natural” channel design – too much focus on channel as stable conduit rather than it lateral connections?

Runoff Channels Balancing River Forces

(Bull, 1991, “Geomorphic response to climate change”, p. 15; Lane 1955) Benefits from stream/riparian/palustrine vegetation interactions

• Moderate temperatures • Provide large wood • Provide organic matter/carbon • Stabilize streambanks • Reduce sediment inputs • Filters nutrient and contaminants • Provides food • Shelter (year round) Palustrine wetland vegetation (USGS; • Slows flow http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/w etlands/classwet/palustri.htm) • Ponded water, nonerosive settings Beaver dams North Shore Lake Superior, MN Threats to Lowland Stream Ecosystems

• Ditching (stream network extension) • Channelization/straightening • Increased fine sediment and nutrients from upstream areas • Decreases in water table elevations (drought, irrigation withdrawals, high capacity wells) • Decreased longitudinal connectivity for channel and riparian (culverts) • Decreased lateral connectivity (monotonous banks) • Natural and artificial levees • Decreased floodplain micro-topography • Invasive species • Urban runoff

NEH-653

Blanding’s Turtle Emydoidea blandingii (photo bios.niu.edu)

Female Blanding's turtles often nest in agricultural fields. Wetland complexes and adjacent sandy uplands are necessary to support viable populations of Blanding's turtles. Calm, shallow waters, including wetlands associated with rivers and streams, with rich, aquatic vegetation are especially preferred. The Blanding's turtle is a late maturing, long-lived species unable to recover quickly from catastrophic events that reduce the population (Congdon et al. 1993). Their relatively low mobility, high juvenile mortality rate, and low reproductive potential are also limiting factors for population growth. Loss and degradation of upland and wetland habitats, and mortality on roads are great threats to the species (Sajwaj et al. 1998). Solutions to Broken Connectivity

Reduce runoff and sediment from headwater/feeder tributaries

• Slow the flow in ditches and gullies • Increase infiltration – quench the thirst of shallow groundwater systems • Reduce erosion -- repair incised, eroding gullies (sediment sources) • Practice soil conservation in ag fields Solutions to Broken Connectivity

Reduce sediment and P from headwater/feeder tributaries

• Repair, install sediment retention structures • Designate “sacrificial” areas in easy to maintain areas

Halfway Creek, Experimental Wetlands, Jim Nissen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Solutions to Broken Connectivity

Remove longitudinal barriers • Fix culverts • Daylight connector channels, especially those that are blocking key habitat niches for aquatic and riparian species (tweeners) Repair lateral connectivity • Remove accumulated legacy sediment and ditch spoils • Reoccupy meanders • Restore stream bank micro- topography • Remove invasive and plant native species, especially conscious of transition areas Base-flow systems instead of runoff channels

•Example--Atlantic White Cedar rehabilitation in Chesapeake Bay tribs • Sometimes created over the top of existing legacy sediment • Direct connection between stream and floodplain • Minimal disturbance to existing riparian vegetation • Promote sediment and organic matter deposition • Transform nutrients into biomass • Sequester carbon

Ann Arundel County; Berg, Biohabitats; Inc.; Keith Underwood & Assoc.