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