Post on 23-Jul-2020
33
Geomorphic Assessment of the Middle and Lower Swan Lake Watershed, Calhoun Division of Two Rivers National Wildlife Refuge
Report Figures
34
35
Figure 1. Location of Middle and Lower Swan Lake watersheds in Calhoun County, Illinois
36
Figure 2. Physiographic divisions of Illinois
37
Figure 3. Thickness of loess deposits in Illinois and Calhoun County (ISGS, ????)
38
Figure 4. Surficial deposits in Illinois and Calhoun County (ISGS, ????)
39
Figure 5. Geology of Hardin and Brussels Quadrangles (Rubey, 1952)
40
Figure 6. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) for Middle and Lower Swan Lake watersheds
41
Figure 7a. Stream gradients for Metz, Lower Metz, and Deer Plain Creeks: a) slope per 100 meters
42
Figure 7b. Stream profile for Metz, Lower Metz, and Deer Plain Creeks: b) elevation profile
43
Figure 8. Landform Sediment Assemblage (LSA) Units for Middle and Lower Swan Lake watersheds
44
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 201040
80
120
160
Pre
cipi
tatio
n (c
m)
Annual Precipitation11-year Moving Average
Figure 9 Annual precipitation, 1900-2008, at St. Charles, MO
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 201030
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Pre
cipi
tatio
n (c
m)
Wet Season (11-yr Moving Average)Dry Season (11-yr Moving Average)
Figure 10. Annual precipitation for wet and dry seasons, 1900-2008, at St. Charles, MO
45
0
4,000
8,000
12,000
16,000
20,000
24,000
28,000
32,000
Land
Cov
er A
rea
(hec
tare
s)
Corn
So
rghum
So
ybea
ns
Pop.
Or O
rn. C
orn
Winter
Wheat
W. Wht.
/Soy.
Dbl. C
rop
Oats
Alf
alfa
Misc
. Veg
s. & F
ruits
He
rbs
Clove
r/Wild
flowe
rs
Fallo
w/Idl
e Crop
land
Pastu
re/Gr
ass
Woodla
nd
Peac
hes
NLCD
- Ope
n Wate
r
NLCD
- Dev
elope
d/Ope
n Spa
ce
NLCD
- Dev
elope
d/Low
Inten
sity
NLCD
- Dev
elope
d/Med
ium In
tensit
y
NLCD
- Dev
elope
d/High
Inten
sity
NLCD
- Barr
en
NLCD
- Dec
iduou
s Fore
st
NLCD
- Eve
rgree
n Fore
st
NLCD
- Mixe
d Fore
st
NLCD
- Gras
sland
Herb
aceo
us
NLCD
- Pas
ture/H
ay
NLCD
- Woo
dy W
etlan
ds
NLCD
- Herb
aceo
us W
etlan
ds
Calhoun County NASS Data19992008
Includes1999 NASS catagory"Non-Agricultural"
Figure 11. NASS land cover categories for 1999 and 2008 in Calhoun County
46
1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20100
2,500
5,000
7,500
10,000
12,500C
rops
Har
vest
ed (h
ecta
res)
Corn for GrainBarleyHay, AllOatsSorghum for GrainSoybeansWheat, All
Calhoun County (IAS Data)
Figure 12. Crops harvested from 1925-2008 in Calhoun County from IAS
47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Land
Are
a (P
erce
nt)
Corn
Soyb
eans
Win
ter W
heat
W. W
ht./S
oy. D
bl. C
rop
Oth
er C
rops
Fallo
w/Id
le C
ropl
and
Past
ure/
Gra
ssW
oodl
and
NLCD
- O
pen
Wat
erNL
CD -
Ope
n Sp
ace
NLCD
- De
velo
ped
NLCD
- De
ciduo
us F
ores
t
NLCD
- G
rass
land
Her
bace
ous
NLCD
- Pa
stur
e/Ha
y
NLCD
- W
oody
Wet
land
s
NLCD
- He
rbac
eous
Wet
land
s
Metz CreekL. Metz CreekDeer Plain Creek
Figure 13. Percent land area for 2008 NASS land cover categories in Middle and Lower Swan Lake watershed
48
Figure 14. Map of NASS land cover categories for 2008
49
Figure 15. Stream channel planform and Swan Lake open-water shoreline for 1940 and 2007
50
Figure 16. Historic stream channel and open-water shoreline planforms around Swan Lake: a) 1904 Woermann map and b) 2009 NAIP imagery
51
Figure 17. Representative cross-section of Swan Lake bed elevations in 1904 and 1994 [Source: Illinois State Water Survey, Demissie (1996)]
52
Figure 18. Land in orchards for Metz, Lower Metz, and Deer Plain Creek watersheds: a) in 1940 and 2007 and b) in 1940 and 2007 by elevation
53
Figure 19. Location of field survey stations for Metz, Lower Metz, and Deer Plain Creeks
54
Station # Sheet #:
Date: Crew:_______________ Site Coordinates:____________________
Pictures: U/S D/S X-section LB RB Samples:___________________________
Field Measurements: Reach length:__________________Est. Reach Slope:______________
Avg channel widths: (top)______(bottom)______ Avg/Max channel depth:_______/_______
LB angle (avg):_______________ RB angle (avg):_____________
Primary bank material:_______________ Primary bed material: (See #1)(GP=gravel; SP=sand; ML=silt; CL=clay; BR=bedrock)
1. Primary bed materialBedrock Boulder/Cobble Gravel Sand Silt/Clay
0 1 2 3 42. Bed Protection
a) YesOR 0
b) No (with) One (L or R) Both1 2 3
3. Degree of floodplain separation**/incision (Relative elevation of "normal" low water; floodplain/terrace @100%)0-10% 11-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%
4 3 2 1 04. Degree of constriction (Relative decrease in top-bank width from up to downstream)
0-10% 11-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%0 1 2 3 4
5. Streambank erosion (Each bank over reach length)None Fluvial Mass wasting (failures)
Left 0 1 2Right 0 1 2
6. Stream bank instability (Percent of each bank failing over reach length)0-10% 11-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%
Left 0 0.5 1 1.5 2Right 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
7. Established woody vegetative cover (Percent of each bank face over reach length)0-10% 11-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%
Left 2 1.5 1 0.5 0Right 2 1.5 1 0.5 0
8. Occurrence of bank/bar accretion (Percent of each bank with fluvial deposition over reach length)0-10% 11-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%
Left 2 1.5 1 0.5 0Right 2 1.5 1 0.5 0
9. Stage of Channel Evolution (If applicable)I II III IV V VI0 1 2 4 3 1.5
OTHER OBSERVATIONS:Total Score:
* Adapted from Kuhnle and Simon (2000)
Pattern: Meandering Straight Braided Drainage Ditch**
CHANNEL-STABILITY RANKING SCHEME*
#Banks Protection
BHS Note #
Figure 20. Channel-stability Ranking Scheme field form
55
Station # Station Description:Date: Crew:____________ Samples Taken:
Pictures: U/S: LB RB Channel Bed ___________
D/S: LB RB LB Riparian Zone ___________
RB Riparian Zone ___________
1. Availability of favorable habitat (snags, submerged logs undercut banks; average of LWD and detritus)>50% 30-50% 10-30% <10%
4 3 2 1
GP & firm SP Soft SP & ML-CL All ML-CL or All SP Hardpan/ Bedrock
4 3 2 13. Pool-variability character
Mix large/small & deep/shallow
Majority large-deep pools
Shallow pools more prevalent
Majority small-shallow or absent
4 3 2 1
0-20% 21-50% 51-80% 81-100%4 3 2 1
0-5% 5-25% 25-75% 75-100%4 3 2 1
Channelization/dreding absent
Minor or historic 40-80% reach disrupted
>80% Disrupted/ habitat altered
4 3 2 1
3-4 2-3 1-2 Straight4 3 2 1
>80% 51-80% 20-50% <20%4 3 2 1
0-5% 6-30% 31-60% 61-100%Left 2 1.5 1 0.5
Right 2 1.5 1 0.59. Vegetative Bank Protection (Bank face):
>90% covered w/mix of veg.
70-90% cover 50-70% cover; disruption obvious;
bare patches
<50% veg disruption high
Left 2 1.5 1 0.5Right 2 1.5 1 0.5
>20m 10-20 m 5-10 m <5mLeft 2 1.5 1 0.5
Right 2 1.5 1 0.5
Total Score:
8. Bank Instability (Percent each bank failing)
10. Riparian-zone width (out from edge of water)
2. Pool-substrate composition
BIOLOGICAL/HABITAT RANKING SCHEME (low gradient streams)*
7 (low). Sinuosity
7 (high). Pool-riffle sequence (% Pool + % Riffle)
6. Degree of “hard” channel alteration (channelization, dredging, embankments/shoring structures, gabion/cement)
4. Active streambed/bar deposition
5. Streambed exposure
Figure 21a. Biological/Habitat Ranking Scheme (low gradient) form
56
Station # Station Description:Date: Crew:____________ Samples Taken:
Pictures: U/S: LB RB Channel Bed ___________
D/S: LB RB LB Riparian Zone ___________
RB Riparian Zone ___________
1. Availability of favorable habitat (snags, submerged logs undercut banks; average of LWD and detritus)>70% 70-40% 40-20% <20%
4 3 2 1
0-25% 25-50% 50-75% >75%4 3 2 1
3. Velocity/Depth Regime:
All 4 regimes present
3 of 4 regimes(if 'd' is missing,score
lower
2 of 4 regimes (if 'd' and 'b' missing,
score lower
Dominated by 1 regime (usually 'a')
4 3 2 1
<5% 5-30% 30-50% >50%4 3 2 1
0-5% 5-25% 25-75% 75-100%4 3 2 1
Channelization/dreding absent
Minor or historic 40-80% reach disrupted
>80% Disrupted/ habitat altered
4 3 2 1
>80% 51-80% 20-50% <20%4 3 2 1
0-5% 6-30% 31-60% 61-100%Left 2 1.5 1 0.5
Right 2 1.5 1 0.59. Vegetative Bank Protection (Bank face):
>90% covered w/mix of veg.
70-90% cover 50-70% cover; disruption obvious;
bare patches
<50% veg disruption high
Left 2 1.5 1 0.5Right 2 1.5 1 0.5
>20m 10-20 m 5-10 m <5mLeft 2 1.5 1 0.5
Right 2 1.5 1 0.5
Total Score:
8. Bank Instability (Percent each bank failing)
10. Riparian-zone width (out from edge of water)
2. Embeddedness: Gravel, cobble, boulder % surrounded by fine sediment
BIOLOGICAL/HABITAT RANKING SCHEME (high gradient streams)*
7 (high). Pool-riffle sequence (% Pool + % Riffle)
6. Degree of “hard” channel alteration (channelization, dredging, embankments/shoring structures, gabion/cement)
4. Active streambed/bar deposition
5. Streambed exposure
a) slow-deep, b) slow-shallow, c) fast-deep, d) fast shallow; (slow is <0.3 m/s, deep is >0.5 m)
Figure 21b. Biological/Habitat Ranking Scheme (high gradient) form
57
Figure 22. Channel Stability Index (CSI) distribution for Metz, Lower Metz, and Deer Plain Creeks
58
Figure 23. Biological/Habitat Index (BHI) distribution for Metz, Lower Metz, and Deer Plain Creeks
59
Figure 24. Channel-Stability and Biological/Habitat Index distributions for Metz, Lower Metz, and Deer Plain Creeks with corresponding stream segment identification.
60
Figure 25. Channel-Stability and Biological/Habitat Index and CEM profile for Metz Creek
61
Figure 26. Channel-Stability and Biological/Habitat Index and CEM profile for Lower Metz Creek
62
Figure 27. Channel-Stability and Biological/Habitat Index and CEM profile for Deer Plain Creek
63
Figure 28. Type of bank erosion for field survey sites and location of reach groups with mass wasting erosion
64
Figure 29. Percent of banks with active erosion for field survey sites and location of mass wasting reach groups
65
Figure 30. Percent of sediment accumulating on banks or stream bars for field survey sites and location of mass wasting reach groups
66
Figure 31. Percent of banks covered with woody vegetation for field survey sites and location of mass wasting reach groups
67
Figure 32. Percent of banks covered with vegetation for field survey sites and location of mass wasting reach groups
68
Figure 33. Width of riparian zone measured out from edge of water for field survey sites and location of mass wasting reach groups
69
Figure 34. Stage of Channel Evolution Model (CEM) for field survey sites and location of mass wasting reach groups
70
Figure 35. Bank Height for field survey sites and location of mass wasting reach groups
71
Figure 36. Channel width for field survey sites and location of mass wasting reach groups
72
Figure 37. Bank angle for field survey sites and location of mass wasting reach groups