Geomorphic Assessment Methods for Quantifying Stream Restoration Success—
A Geomorphologist’s View
Faith Fitzpatrick, Research Hydrologist, [email protected] 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: [email protected];
https://www.usgs.gov/staff-profiles/faith-a-
fitzpatrick
https://www.usgs.gov/centers/umid-water
Top Related