Geomorphic Assessment Methods for Quantifying Stream Restoration Success—

A Geomorphologist’s View

Faith Fitzpatrick, Research Hydrologist, fafitzpa@usgs.govUpper Midwest Water Science Center

NRDAR Science Seminar, April 15, 2020

1

Views from the past…..

2

“Restoration” definitionsRestoration-return to an “initial

condition” of ecological function

Rehabilitation – return to some

level of ecological function

Reclamation/Mitigation –

changing the biophysical capacity

of a stream

Definitions from USDA NEH-653 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/null/?cid=stelprdb1043244

Fry

irs a

nd B

rierl

ey,

2000

3

Why do we fix rivers?• Stabilization

• Fish habitat

• Flood mitigation

• Water quality

• Disasters

4

Bernhardt et al., 2005, Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration Efforts, Science 308:636-637.

5

Stream Mitigation Policy – Minnesota Example

https://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Portals/57/docs/regulatory/Special%20Notices/REVISED%20-

%20ANNOUNCEMENT%20OF%20DEVELOPMENT%20OF%20MINNESOTA%20STREAM%20ASSESSMENT%20TOOLS%20AND%20DISTRICT-

WIDE%20STREAM%20MITIGATION%20GUIDANCE.pdf?ver=2019-06-19-071800-993

Harman, (StreamMechanics) Stream Functions Pyramid Framework and Stream Quantification Tool (SQT) – measures functional

lift from stream restoration projects and functional loss from permitted impacts. SQT also used for debits and credits.

https://stream-mechanics.com/stream-functions-pyramid-framework/

Stream Functions Pyramid Framework

6

USACE, 2017, https://stream-mechanics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/WY-SQT-User-Manual-V1.0_COMBINED.pdf

Hydrology

• Catchment hydrology

• Reach runoff

• Flow alteration

Hydraulics

• Floodplain connectivity

Geomorphology

• Large wood

• Lateral stability

• Riparian vegetation

• Bed material characterization

• Bedform diversity

• Planform

Stream Quantification Tool Example Measures

7

Stream buffers added:

X HydrologyX Reach runoffX Flow alterationX Floodplain

connectivityX Large wood✓ Lateral stability? Riparian vegetation ? Bed materialX Bedform diversityX Planform

= limited biodiversity?

Geomorphic assessment = EASY!

8National Engineering Hanbook 653

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/water/manage/restoration/?cid=stelprdb1043244

9

Restored stream reach:

? Catchment hydrology✓ Reach runoff✓ Flow alteration✓ Floodplain connectivity✓ Large wood? Lateral stability✓ Riparian vegetation ✓ Bed material✓ Bedform diversity✓ Planform

= extensive biodiversity?

Geomorphic assessment = HARD!(Do we have the toolset handy that can properly measure diversity?)

National Engineering Hanbook 653

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/water/manage/restoration/?cid=stelprdb1043244

Areas where there is potential for more innovation for rehabilitation:

• Hydrology more than “skin deep”

• Reach context -- longitudinal continuum, evolutionary trajectory, and landforms

• Evaluating and monitoring “messy” channels, designing diversity instead of central tendency

• Hydrologic resiliency and risk of design failure

10

Duluth, MN

Milwaukee, WI

Grand Portage, MN

Post-glacial setting = great diversity of landforms; glacial

landforms control drainages

Examples of geomorphic assessments

12

Harrelson et al., 1994

Fitzpatrick et al., 2006

Young et al., 2015

Coles, et al., 2012

• Representative reach

• Equidistant transects

Fitzpatrick et al., 1998Kaufmann et al. 1999

USGS NAWQA USEPA EMAP

Habitat Assessment Protocols

Hierarchical basis of River Styles (Thompson et al, 2001; Brierley and Fryirs, 2005)

WatershedConditions within which rivers operate

Landscape UnitValley setting of stream

River StyleLength of channel with similar planform, geometry, and texture controls

Hierarchical basis of River Styles (Thompson et al, 2001)

(GREGORY, 2006; Schumm, 1977; Church,

2002; Fryirs and Brierley, 2000)

16

River Network = Longitudinal Continuum of Hydrology, Hydraulics, Sediment, and Geomorphic Processes

Rosgen Channel Classification—Longitudinal Continuum of Channel Forms

17Rosgen, 1996

18Rosgen, 1996

Rosgen Channel Classification—Longitudinal Continuum of Channel Forms

Montgomery and Buffington (1997) Longitudinal Continuum of Bedform Types

Grand Portage

remnant large wood-

formed step-pool.

19

Fitzpatrick, et al., 2006;

https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5029/pdf/SIR_2006-5029.pdf

Upper Great Lakes River Networks–Longitudinal Continuum Depends on Post-Glacial Landforms

Fitzpatrick, et al., 2016;

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20165104

Glacial landforms mix up the hydraulics, sediment, and the geomorphology along the usual network continuum

21Fitzpatrick, et al., 2006;

https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5029/pdf/SIR_2006-5029.pdf

Fitzpatrick, et al., 2016;

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20165104

Glacial landforms mix up the hydraulics, sediment, and the geomorphology along the usual network continuum

22Fitzpatrick, et al., 2006;

https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5029/pdf/SIR_2006-5029.pdf

Fitzpatrick, et al., 2016;

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20165104

Knox, 2019

Illinois State Geological Survey

Post-glacial landforms and bedrock outcrops = diversified river morphology, slopes and substrates over short distances

23

Wisconsin Driftless Area

Glacial landscapes, bedrock, and landform-caused diversity, Grand Portage Creek example

24

Fitzpatrick et al., in prep

These data are preliminary or provisional and are subject to revision. They are being provided to

meet the need for timely best science.

Duluth Channel Classification

25Fitzpatrick, et al., 2006; https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5029/pdf/SIR_2006-

5029.pdf

Geomorphic Assessments• Purpose – describe condition, process, characteristic

• hydrologic

• hydraulic

• sediment

• landforms

• habitat

• biogeomorphic/vegetation

• Morphology or process based

• Quantitative or qualitative

• Rapid (1-2 hrs per site) or Intensive (1 day per site)

• River continuum or reach specific

Observations and Measurements

Inventory/

Riverwalk

Observations and Measurements

Rapid and

Intensive

Assessments

Four Components of Channel Form

Knighton, 1998

Leopold et al., 2005, Geomorphic effects of urbanization in forty-one years of observation, Proceedings of

the American Philosophical Society, 149(3).

30

Traditional Cross-Section Surveys for Monitoring Channel Change

Pool

Riffle

Riffle

Riffle

Measuring streams for geomorphic and habitat assessments (emphasis has been on central tendency; channel centric,

hydraulics, conveyance area)

• Typically transect based (11 – 20+)• Looking for central tendency• Focused on fish and hydraulic stability• Measured during low flow

Fitzptarick, et al., 2004: Monitoring channel morphology and bluff erosion. https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2004/5272/

Example: MI Lower Peninsula Bankfull regional curves (Rachol and Boley-Morse, 2009)

32

Channel morphology data used to size channels appropriately based on drainage area and regional hydrology

Reach-Based Geomorphic/Habitat AssessmentAdditions to 1998 National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA)

Program habitat protocol for subsequent geomorphic

assessment and monitoring studies:• (Channel morphology)

• Total bank height

• Surface area of bank erosion

• Pebble counts

• Bars, silt deposition (volume calcs)

• Slope

• Large wood counts

• Pool area and function

• Riparian vegetation

• Historical alterations

• Channel alterations and bank stabilizations

• Indicators of geomorphic and sediment processes

33NAWQA: Fitzpatrick et al., 1998; https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri984052/pdf/wri98-4052.pdf

Duluth: Fitzpatrick, et al., 2016; https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20165104

Milwaukee: Young et al., 2012; https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ds947

1998 USGS National Water-Quality

Assessment Protocol – based on

measurements at 11 transects

Google Earth – Kinnickinnic River restored section

34

Intensive habitat/geomorphic assessment

with restoration evaluation goal =

extended transects, areas, and banklines

Google Earth

35

Google Earth – Kinnickinnic River restored section

Transect/subtransects:

Google Earth

Modified pebble counts:

-Gravelometer sizes for

soft and hard bottom (105

pts)

-Water depth

-Silt depth

-Macrophyte coverage

-Note for riprap

Bankfull, wetted width

Total bank height

Water depth at bank toe

Bar, islands

36

Google Earth – Kinnickinnic River restored section

Area between transects:

Google Earth

Exposed bars

– type, substrate, veg

Pools

-area, freq, forcing

Large wood

Size, freq, function

Artificial bed structures

- type, condition

37

Google Earth – Kinnickinnic River restored section

Google Earth

Bank erosion, bare banks

-length and height,

substrate, veg, categorical

retreat rate

Artificial bank structures

-type, condition

Springs

Tiles, storm sewers, etc.

Bank lines:

38

Google Earth – Kinnickinnic River restored section

Riparian vegetation:

Google Earth

Transects

Quadrants

Quarter point for trees/shrubs

1 channel width diameter circle

- Vegetation community

- Invasive species

39

Google Earth – Kinnickinnic River restored section

Duluth 2012 FloodPre- and Post- Geomorphic Assessments

Photo Derek Montgomery, MPR http://blogs.mprnews.org/updraft/2013/06/anatomy-of-

a-mega-flood-duluth-flood-1-year-after/

Brewery Creek

(volunteer photo, source Karen Gran)

Sargent Creek

Amity Creek

Kingsbury Creek – Hwy 2

Duluth post-flood assessments – melded cross section

surveys with reach-based geomorphic assessments

Fitzpatrick, et al., 2006; https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5029/pdf/SIR_2006-5029.pdf

Fitzpatrick, et al., 2016; https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20165104

Pre- and Post Flood Duluth Example Channel Bed Substrate Change

• 7 comparable sites• Comparison of cumulative

frequency plots• All but one site transitioned

from cobbles and boulders to predominantly gravel sized material

42Fitzpatrick, et al., 2016; https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20165104

Duluth Example -- Large Wood Frequency and Function

o 8 comparable siteso 27 to 97% reduction in

wood frequencyo 70% overall reduction in

wood frequencyo 14 to 88% reduction in

volume

43

Fitzpatrick, et al., 2016;

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20165104

Duluth Example -- Pool Frequency

• Eight comparable sites

• Marked reduction in pool frequency, forcing, and spacing following the 2012 flood

44Fitzpatrick, et al., 2016;

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20165104

Milwaukee Area Study Objectives

• Describe the range of geomorphic and habitat characteristics for streams with varying levels of alteration and rehabilitation in the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District planning area

• Explore how to better describe structure and function related characteristics in terms of diversity and resilience

Minimally altered –

Underwood Creek

Urban analog –

Mukwonago River

Concrete-lined

Underwood Creek

Rehabilitated

Underwood Creek

45

Four groupings of streams

Urban Analog and Rehabilitated Examples –Different Channel Types

Kinnickinnic River

Rehabilitated,

Pool/riffle channel type

Slope 1.02 percent,

Riparian wetland vegetation = 0 percent

Pebble Creek

Urban Analog,

Wetland channel type

Slope less than 0.01 percent,

Riparian wetland vegetation = 100 percent

46

Milwaukee’s Underwood Creek--glacial landforms, presettlement vegetation, and slopes help to identify diverse habitat units that form the basis for where different channel bedform types are found

47Fitzpatrick et al., in prep These data are preliminary or provisional and are subject to revision. They are being provided to

meet the need for timely best science.

Milwaukee channel width/depth ratios – statistics for mean, standard deviation, kurtosis, and skew help to define differences between stream types and within-reach diversity

Mean Standard

deviation

Kurtosis Skew

48Fitzpatrick et al., in review These data are preliminary or provisional and are subject to revision. They are being provided to

meet the need for timely best science.

Valu

e

49

Mean Standard

deviationKurtosis Skew

Silt

Sand

Gravel

Cobble

Boulder

Concrete, etc.

Fitzpatrick et al., in review

Milwaukee streambed substrates– statistics for mean, standard deviation, kurtosis, and skew help to define differences between stream types and within-reach diversity

These data are preliminary or provisional and are subject to revision. They are being provided to

meet the need for timely best science.

Some observations on stream restoration designs…..

50

Engineered Using

Natural Channel DesignNatural

51

Engineered channels tend to be single thread and lack bankline diversity

compared to natural springfed wetland channels

Channel reconstruction following impoundment failure and catastrophic flood

Dead River, Upper Peninsula, Michigan

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Ele

vati

on

(ft

.)

Distance (ft.)

Riffle Cross Section

Elevation

Series1

Middle Branch Escanaba River near Humbolt, MI – USGS streamgage 04057800 October 2009

52

Reference reaches at gages are typically in constricted channels, bridge crossings;

bank heights are likely high compared to unconstricted natural wetland channels

These data are unpublished and were collected during training exercises.

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

0 100 200 300 400 500

Arb

itra

ry e

leva

tion

, in

fee

t

Longitudinal distance from u/s end of reach, in feet

BANKFULL

WATER SURFACE

THALWEG

Water Surface Slope = 0.00025

Riffle-riffle slope = 0.00297

?Bank height varies by more than a 1 foot

Central tendency of adopting one bankfull height = loss of floodplain connectivity and diversity for

wetland channel types (Middle Branch Escanaba River, October 2009 longitudinal profile)

53These data are unpublished and were collected during training exercises as example data sets.

Beaver-dominated streams are missing restoration design templates and natural beaver dam/pond settings are impossible to measure with standard transect-based protocols

Grand Portage CreekFitzpatrick et al., in prep

These data are preliminary or provisional and are

subject to revision. They are being provided to meet the

need for timely best science.

Base flow

Storm runoff

Underwood after more rehab?

Underwood Creek

Bark

River

(urban

analog)

Underwood Creek restored

Bark River

Underwood Creek concrete

55

Hydrologic connectivity has mainly focused on runoff characteristics and expanding/reconnecting floodplains to reduce flood peaks. Need more understanding of the connections among shallow aquifers, hyporheic zones, baseflow, and floodplain water tables

Bark

River

runoff

Underwood

Creek runoff

Underwood

Creek

reduced

runoff?

Underwood

Creek estimated

base flow

Data from U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System; (USGS, 2019)

Aquifers Base flow

56Kansas State Geological Survey; http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/pic9/pic9_2.html

Floodplain stratigraphy needs consideration for more complete hydrologic connectivity

USGSNanson and Croke, 1992

Hauer et al., 2016

Channel and floodplain designs have little subsurface connections – interest is growing for increasing floodplain infiltration potential

Kinnickinnic River Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and Interfluve, Inc. 201758

Precipitation patterns change over time

NOAA, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/us-trends/prcp/oct59

USGS

Nemadji RiverUSGS ID 04024430

Duluth, MN

Annual Suspended Sediment LoadsAnnual Flood Series

River floods and sediment loads can be highly variable

Fitzpatrick et al., in prep These data are preliminary or provisional and are subject to revision. They are being provided

to meet the need for timely best science.

61

Upper Midwest = Risk of landslides, mass wasting, gullying seems to be more common lately. (Combination of hydraulics, shallow groundwater, and geotechnical characteristics?)

MN DNR, 2016, https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/shoreland/landslide-inventory.pdf

Valley evolution following large floods –Marengo River, Wisconsin; 2016

(Fitzpatrick and Peppler, 2007)

Changes in climate patterns can lead to large-scale changes in features that we think of as being constant, such as slope, longitudinal profile, and valley setting

64

Valley evolution from catastrophic dam-break-like flood following road embankment failure – North Fish Creek, Wisconsin, 2018

64Looking upstream from road crossing Looking downstream from road crossing

WI DOT, 2018

Culvert Washout on Hwy 2

65

2018 Culvert/embankment failure

• 2018 Sediment washout out of road embankment = about 800,000

cubic feet or 30,000 tons

• Equal to filling 100-ft wide valley for 1 mile with a blanket of 1 foot of

sediment

• Sediment deposited in less than a day but will take millennia to be

evacuated by the river

North Fish Creek, WI, 2018 Road embankment failure

Widespread

sediment

deposition

Geomorphic assessments and restoration evaluation:

• Need reach-scale intensive level of data collection over time to evaluate success

• Reach-scale assessments need context above and below the floodplain surface

• Lowland wetland streams need extra attention

• When analyzing data, need to look at diversity as well central tendency

• Need to know risk of failure for a reach where large floods and sediment loads may cause geomorphic evolution

Take Home Points

Photo: Naomi Tillison, Bad River Tribe Natural Resources Dept.

Thank you!

USGS colleagues:

Jim Blount

Michelle Nott

Ben Young

Molly Breitmun

Scott Hagar

Marie Peppler

Krista Hood

Eric Dantoin

Cooperators and partners:

Bad River Tribe

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

WI and MN DNR

Grand Portage National Monument

USGS National Water Quality Assessment

USDA Soil Erosion Control Program

InterFluve, Inc.

Bayfield County

The Nature Conservancy

City of DuluthMN Pollution Control Agency

USGS NAWQA

Contact: fafitzpa@usgs.gov;

https://www.usgs.gov/staff-profiles/faith-a-

fitzpatrick

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/umid-water