Dan Myers Thesis Defense July 17, 2018 Indian Mill Creek - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dan Myers Thesis Defense July 17, 2018

Indian Mill Creek

 Northwest side of Grand

Rapids

 Agricultural headwaters  Urbanized lower reaches  Coldwater trout stream  Impaired 

 Altered hydrology and

sedimentation (Sigdel 2017)

Elevation Gradient

Upper Watershed (Agricultural)

Middle Watershed (Urban / Natural)

Lower Watershed (Urban)

Flashy Flows, Eroding Banks, and High Bedload Sediment Transport

Schematic diagram of factors leading to habitat loss in Indian Mill Creek (Source: Sigdel 2017)

Outline

Intro Study #1: Habitat, Fish, and Bugs Study #2: Watershed Modeling Study #3: Streambank Erosion Synthesis and Conclusion Q & A

Study #1

 “Impacts of an

Agricultural/Urban Land Cover Gradient in a Coldwater Stream”



DT Myers, RR Rediske, JN McNair, AD Parker, and EW Ogilvie

Objective and Hypothesis

 Objective: Assess stream habitat and biological

community integrity across a gradient of agricultural and urban land cover.

 Hypothesis: Stream habitat and biological community

structure are correlated with landscape, hydrologic, and geomorphic variables.

Methods

 Stream Habitat Survey

 Geomorphic units  Streambed substrate  Woody debris  Riparian conditions

Methods

• Sediment Monitoring

Methods

 Stream Temperature Loggers

Methods

 Macroinvertebrate and Fish Surveys

 Procedure 51  Multivariate Statistics

Streambed Substrate Results

Site Median Particle Size (mm) Median Particle Type Richmond Park 5-8 Fine Gravel Sharp Dr. (Lower) 33-64 Very Coarse Gravel Sharp Dr. (Upper) 17-32 Coarse Gravel Scout Pavilion 0.26 - 0.50 Medium Sand Five Mile Rd. 0.06 - 0.125 Very Fine Sand West Branch 0.26 - 0.50 Medium Sand East Branch 0.126 - 0.25 Fine Sand Blandford Nature Center 0.26 - 0.50 Medium Sand Walker Ditch <0.06 Silt / Clay

Lower Reaches Headwaters Tributaries

Sediment Loading Results

Lower Reaches Headwaters Tributaries

Site Suspended load (kg day-1) Bedload (kg day-1) Richmond Park 523 2,687 Sharp Dr. (Lower) 110 233 Sharp Dr. (Upper) 120 9 Scout Pavilion 110 112 Five Mile Rd. 36 61 West Branch 7 31 East Branch 16 33 Blandford Nature Center 5 86 Walker Ditch 1 13

Procedure 51 Fish Results

Site Total Score Fish Community Rating Turner Ave.

• 1

Poor (<50 fish) Richmond Park (Tamarack)

• 5

Poor (<50 fish) Richmond Park (Dam)

• 4

Poor (<50 fish) Sharp Dr. (Lower)

• 2

Poor (<50 fish) Sharp Dr. (Upper)

• 5

Poor 3 Mile Road

• 4

Acceptable Scout Pavilion

• 8

Poor

Lower Reaches Middle Reaches

Procedure 51 Macroinvertebrates

Site Total Score Macroinvertebrate Rating Richmond Park

• 4

Acceptable Sharp Dr. (Lower)

• 6

Poor Sharp Dr. (Upper)

• 2

Acceptable Scout Pavilion

• 4

Acceptable 5 Mile Rd.

• 6

Poor West Branch

• 8

Poor East Branch

• 4

Acceptable Blandford Nature Center

• 3

Acceptable Walker Ave. Ditch

• 5

Poor

Lower Reaches Headwaters Tributaries

Study #1 Major Findings

 Aquatic habitat, fish, and macroinvertebrate

communities are degraded throughout the watershed

 Fine substrate in the streambed has the strongest

association with degraded macroinvertebrate communities

Study #2

 “Watershed and

Streambank Erosion Modeling in a Michigan, USA Stream Using the GWLF-E Model and MapShed GIS Plugin”



DT Myers, RR Rediske, JN McNair, and ME Allen

Objective and Hypothesis

 Objective: Spatially assess runoff, field erosion, and

streambank erosion in the Indian Mill Creek watershed using a model.

 Hypothesis: Agricultural areas in the upper watershed

contribute the most sediment from field erosion, urban areas in the lower watershed have the highest streambank erosion rates, and the model reliably estimates stream discharge.

GWLF-E Model (Evans et al. 2003)

 Enhanced Generalized Watershed Loading Functions  Mid-complexity  Validated with Pennsylvania watersheds  Appropriate because we are more interested in spatial

patterns than numerical targets

 Model runoff, sediment loading, and streambank

erosion in 20 subbasins from 1997-2015

GWLF-E Model

GWLF-E Runoff

Flashy Flows by Outlet

Discharge Estimate Evaluation

GWLF-E Field Erosion

GWLF-E Streambank Erosion

Where Does the Sediment Go?

 Watershed degradation

 Habitat  Fish  Macroinvertebrates

 Out to the Grand River

Eroding Banks Throughout!

Study #2 Major Findings

 The GWLF-E model predicts high proportions of

runoff in urban areas, like Brandywine Creek, and high field erosion rates with steep slopes and erodible soils.

 Streambank erosion is a major contributor to sediment

loading in lower subbasins of Indian Mill Creek and more research is needed about it.

Study #3

 “Measuring Streambank

Erosion: A Comparison

• f Erosion Pins, Total

Station, and Terrestrial Laser Scanner”



DT Myers, RR Rediske, and JN McNair

Objective and Hypothesis

 Objective: Compare three techniques to measure bank

erosion (erosion pins, total station, and laser scanner), then assess the spatial patterns and compare results with GWLF-E model.

 Hypothesis: The three techniques will provide

significantly different estimates of streambank erosion due to their abilities to detect spatial differences. Also, measurements will be higher than GWLF-E predictions.

Study Design

 Nine sites  18 study banks

 Laser scans at 10

 Variety of conditions

 Vegetation  Erosion or deposition

 Measurements May 2017

to May 2018

 Compared with

statistical tests

Erosion Pins, Total Station, and Laser Scanner

Laser Scanning

Significance Testing

 Normal distribution

 Shapiro Wilk Tests

 ANOVA Random Block

Design

 No detectable

differences between technique

 df=2, f=0.457, p=0.639

Pearson Test for Correlations

 Erosion pins and total station [A]

 Not significant (R2=0.26, p=0.165)

 Erosion pins and laser scanner [B]

 Not significant (R2=0.16, p=0.289)

 Total station and laser scanner [C]

 Significant (R2=0.79, p=0.001)

• 0.10

0.00 0.05

• 0.2

0.0 0.2 0.4 Erosion Pins (m^3 / m / yr) Total Station (m^3 / m / yr)

• 0.10

0.00 0.05

• 0.03 -0.01

0.01 0.03 Erosion Pins (m^3 / m / yr) Laser Scanner (m^3 / m / yr)

• 0.2

0.0 0.2 0.4

• 0.03 -0.01

0.01 0.03 Total Station (m^3 / m / yr) Laser Scanner (m^3 / m / yr)

[A] [B] [C]

Percent Difference

 Resop and Hession 2010  Erosion pins and total

station

 650%

 Laser scanner and

erosion pins

 596%

 Laser scanner and total

station

 1,275%

Comparison of Techniques at Sites

Average Laser Coverage of Bank

 No heavy vegetation

 32.5%

 Heavy vegetation

 11.75%

 Significantly different

 P = 0.047

 Tree roots also cause

data gaps

Laser Scan Coverage

Complex Banks

Bank Erosion in Watershed

East Branch (Headwaters)

 Streambed dominated

by fine sand

 GWLF-E predicts low

bank erosion

 Surveys show some of

the highest bank erosion rates

Sharp Drive (Middle Reaches)

 High gradient  Severe bank erosion  Coarser substrate

Richmond Park (Near Outlet)

 GWLF-E predicts

highest bank erosion

 Surveys show net

deposition of sediment

• n banks

 Degraded fish

community

Estimation of Sediment Loading

 GWLF-E estimate

 Field erosion = 5,078 Mg yr-1  Bank erosion = 1,031 Mg yr-1

 Erosion pin estimate

 Bank erosion = 2,020 Mg yr-1  28% of total load

Study #3 Major Findings

 Differing results between techniques could be due to a

combination of vegetation, undercut banks, and coverage; choice of technique is important.

 Streambank erosion is a major contributor to sediment

loading which affects the quality of aquatic habitat, fish, and macroinvertebrate communities in the Indian Mill Creek watershed.

Synthesis

Land Cover Change Degraded Aquatic Habitat Increased Runoff and Sediment Loading Sediment from Eroding Streambanks Impaired Fish and Macroinvertebrates

Management Recommendations

 Controlling runoff is

most important! (Walsh et al. 2005)

 Restore creek to more

natural timing and volume of flows

 Intense storm flows

constrain aquatic communities

Controlling Runoff

 Urban low impact

development

 Bioretention basins  Pervious pavement  Reduction in impervious

surface area

 Agricultural conservation

practice standards

 Riparian cover  Filter strips  Cover crops

Check Out Our Blog! Indianmillstudy.wordpress.com

Thank You!

 Coauthors

 Dr. Rick Rediske  Dr. Jim McNair  Aaron Parker  Wendy Ogilvie  Matt Allen

 Funders

 Annis Water Resources Institute  GVSU Graduate School  Lower Grand River Organization of

Watersheds

 Assistance

 Matt Allen  Noah Cleghorn  John Koches  Dr. Eric Snyder  Rachel Frantz  Dana Strouse  Eileen Boekestein  Carlos Calderon  Rajesh Sigdel  Brian Scull  Amanda Chambers  Matt Claucherty  Kurt Thompson  Molly Lane  Gene and Mary Dewys  Jake Gardner