Base flow, Floods, and Sediment Loads of Lake Superior Tributaries

By Faith A. FitzpatrickU.S. Geological Survey, WRD, Middleton, Wis.

Base Flow, Floods, and Sediment Loads

How do tributaries vary in these characteristics because of geology geomorphology, and land use?

What implications do these natural and human-caused variations have for fisheries management and restoration?

OtherClayLoam

PeatSand/gravelPigeon

Washington

Knife

Montreal

Trap Rock

OntonagonFish

St. Louis

Deer

Bois BruleBad

WhittleseyWhite

SturgeonTahquamenon

Au TrainNemadji

Flow exceeded 90% of the time, standardized by drainage area

0.0

0.5

1.0

Was

hingt

onPig

eon

Knife

St. Lo

uis

Deer C

rNem

adji

Bois

Brule

BadW

hiteFis

h

Whitt

lese

yM

ontre

al

Ont

onag

onStu

rgeo

n

Trap

RockAu

Trai

n

Tahqu

amen

on

FE

ET

^3

PE

R

SE

CO

ND

/MIL

ES

^2

• Base flow – geologic setting important

#

#

#

##

##

#

## #

#

#

#

#

.

.

tm.

Baseflow, August 2002(cubic feet per second)

Whittlesey Creek

Base flow complexities……..

0-0.100.1-10

10-19

Contributing Area from Deep Flow System

Whittlesey “watershed”

North Fish Creek

Whittlesey Creek

Sioux River

• Floods—geologic setting and land use

Flow exceeded 10% of the time, standardized by drainage area

0.0

1.5

3.0

4.5

Was

hingt

onPig

eon

Knife

St. Lo

uis

Deer C

rNem

adji

Bois

Brule

BadW

hiteFis

h

Whitt

lese

yM

ontre

al

Ont

onag

onStu

rgeo

n

Trap

RockAu

Trai

n

Tahqu

amen

on

FE

ET

^3

PE

R

SE

CO

ND

/MIL

ES

^2

St. Louis6%

Nemadji9%

Bois Brule0%

Ontonagon18%

Sturgeon14%

Portage14%

Iron3%

Bad19%

Tahquamenon1%

Black4%

Amnicon3%

Montreal4%

Presque Isle5%

U.S. Suspended Sediment Contributions to Lake Superior

Average Daily Loads(Robertson, 1996)

Post-settlement annual sediment budget (metric tons per year)

North Fish Creek

• Sediment—Importance of Bed Load and Yield Descriptions

Suspended load Total load(kg/ha/yr) (kg/ha/yr)

Bad River 1,030 no dataFish Creek 1,450 4,380

Suspended load Total load (dump trucks/day) (dump

trucks/day)

Bad River 58 176??

Fish Creek 2 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50TIME, IN HOURS

DIS

CH

AR

GE

(M

3/S

)North Fish Creek—Floods 2 times and sediment loads 2.5 times pre-settlement rates

0

1000

2000

3000

Ga

ge

do

bs

erv

ed

Cu

rre

nt

co

nd

itio

ns

Fo

res

ted

De

ten

tio

nb

as

ins

19

28

ag

ric

ult

ure

SE

DIM

EN

T L

OA

D (

TO

NN

ES

)

Estimated bankfull discharge, m3/s

151995 10

<1906

600

8

DISTANCE FROM MOUTH (KILOMETERS)

AL

TIT

UD

E (

ME

TE

RS

)

40 20 0

200

300

40025

meters

1995

10<1946

600

12

4

Brook trout originally foundthroughout entire stream

Limited sustained brook trout in headwaters

Habitat Protection and Restoration:

Focus efforts on reducing watershed runoff and erosion-control in upper main stem

Use restoration techniques similar to those for urban streams–keep/restore pre-development storm hydrographs

Rehabilitation techniques geared toward reducing watershed runoff and bank erosion

Detention, infiltration basins in headwaters Increase forest cover in watershed Grade control structures in upper main stem Bank protection in upper main stem Large woody debris Beaver (Do nothing)

Acknowledgments This presentation contains

results from cooperative studies among the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Bayfield County, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey

Special thanks to Dennis Pratt (WDNR) and Dave Saad (USGS) for slide contribution