§E WMWMUNWWWWHINMWIIMI

   

__THS

 

“F” ‘ LIBRARY
gag-’1 MIcrIIgan State
University

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

A CLASSIFICATION OF STREAM TYPES AT REFERENCE
REACH USGS GAGE STATIONS IN MICHIGAN

presented by

Kristine L. Boley-Morse

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

degree In Fisheries and Wildlife

 

 

MM W @L/
Major Professor 3 S ture
3m 8652;»

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Emp/o yer

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:IProjIAco&Pres/ClRC/DateDue.indd

A CLASSIFICATION OF STREAM TYPES AT REFERENCE REACH
USGS GAGE STATIONS IN MICHIGAN

BY

Kristine L. Boley-Morse

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Fisheries and Wildlife

2009

ABSTRACT

A CLASSIFICATION OF STREAM TYPES AT REFERENCE REACH
USGS GAGE STATIONS IN MICHIGAN

BY
Kristine L. Boley-Morse
In order to have a better understanding of the geomorphic
characterization and description of Michigan rivers, 43 stable reference reach
rivers with established US. Geological Survey gage stations were surveyed to
determine stream types using the Level II Rosgen Classification System.
Geomorphic field measurements of floodprone width, bankfull width, bankfull
mean depth, bankfull maximum depth, sinuosity, slope, and median channel
material were taken at reference reach locations to determine the Rosgen
Classification System stream type. Out of the 43 sites surveyed, 39 were
classified as a “C” stream type that are indicative of streams that are slightly
entrenched (>2.2), have a moderate to high width to depth ratio (>12), have
moderate to high sinuosity (>12), and have a slope less than 2% with a well-
developed floodplain in narrow to wide valleys. We now have a better
understanding of what stream types occur in Michigan at USGS gage locations
and have site specific geomorphic information that can be used as a
communication, monitoring, and research tool amongst various disciplines that‘

manage, research, monitor, and rehabilitate rivers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper would not have been possible without the support and
dedication of several people and organizations. I would like to thank Dr. William
Taylor for his patience, encouragement and understanding. He helped me grow
as a student, a professional, and as a person. Thank you to all my committee
members, Dr. William Taylor, Dr. Dana Infante, and Dr. Rich Merritt for your
support. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Mr. Chris Freiburger
for introducing me to the field of fluvial geomorphology. His passion for our
natural resources is inspiring along with his ability to inspire others. I would also
like to thank the Michigan Stream Team for their support and commitment to this
research. Their dedication to the research, management, monitoring, and
rehabilitation of our rivers will undoubtedly guide stream restoration efforts long
into the future. I would like to thank the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality, the Michigan Department of Transportation, and the US. Geological
Survey for their financial contribution to this research. Without their help, this
research would have not been possible. Thank you to the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources, Michigan Department of Transportation, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality, and the US. Army Corp of Engineers,
Detroit District, the US. Fish and Wildlife Service for providing the personnel to
help conduct the field survey work for this research. I would also like to thank
my research partner, Ms. Cynthia Rachol of the US. Geological Survey. She is

extremely hard-working, dedicated and a large part of the success of this

iii

research. I also want to express my gratitude to the Calhoun Conservation
District for allowing me to pursue my degree and the ability to participate in this
research. Finally, I would like to thank all my family for all their love and

support. This would not have been possible without them.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ........................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures ......................................................................................................... vii
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Brief Overview of Fluvial Geomorphology ............................................................... 5
Channel Dimension (cross-sectional view) ................................................... 7
Channel Pattern (plan form view) ................................................................. 9
Channel Profile (longitudinal view) ............................................................... 9
Channel Material .......................................................................................... 10
Channel Stability .......................................................................................... 11
Hydraulic Geometry ..................................................................................... 12
River Uses ................................................................................................... 14
Rehabilitation of Rivers ............................................................................... 15
USGS Gage Stations .................................................................................... 17
Stream Classification .............................................................................................. 18
Rosgen Classification System ..................................................................... 19
Methods .................................................................................................................. 31
Protocol Development ................................................................................. 31
USGS Gage Selection .................................................................................. 32
Peak Flow Analysis ...................................................................................... 33
Stream Reconnaissance .............................................................................. 34
Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 35
Data Analysis, Results, and Discussion ................................................................. 37
Conclusion and Future Needs ................................................................................ 46
Literature Cited ...................................................................................................... 52

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Valley Types, description of valley types, and associated stream
types (After Rosgen, 2006) ................................................................................... 22

Table 1.2: Surveyed USGS Gage Station ID, Station Name, channel geometry,
water surface slope, mean channel material, and stream type ............................ 41

Table 1.3: Surveyed USGS Gage Station ID, Station Name, Stream Type, and
Valley Type ............................................................................................................ 45

vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Images in this thesis are presented in color.

Figure 1: Lane’s (1955) stable channel balance relationship after Rosgen
(1996), by Sweet (2003) ....................................................................................... 12

Figure 2: The hierarchy of river inventory and assessment (Rosgen,
1996) ........................................................................................................... 21

Figure 3: Broad level stream classification delineation showing Longitudinal,
Cross-sectional, and Plan Views of Major Stream Types
(Rosgen, 1996) ...................................................................................................... 23

Figure 4: Key to the Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers
(Rosgen, 1996) ...................................................................................................... 24

Figure 5: Parameters determined from surveyed cross-section by Fongers
(MST, 2005) ........................................................................................................... 27

Figure 6: Measuring stream sinuosity (k) is Stream Length/Valley
Length ......................................................................................................... 29

Figure 7: Reach Average Pebble Count Diagram by Fongers
(MST, 2005) ................................................... .31

vii

Introduction:

Michigan is the home to over 36,000 miles of rivers (MDNR, 2009). These
rivers twist and turn across Michigan’s various landscapes to reach their
destination to one of the four Michigan Great Lakes. The geomorphic
characterization of rivers in Michigan is generally understood as a result of the
regional geology, parent materials and soil, topography, climate conditions, and
vegetation. Theses variables contribute to a river's channel morphology.
Collected, site specific geomorphic characterization information of Michigan rivers
is not known.

In 2002, members from several federal, state and local agencies who
were involved in stream monitoring, management, and rehabilitation in Michigan
got together to share their knowledge and experience and recognized the need
to increase the application of geomorphology science in physical and biological
monitoring, management, education, communication amongst agencies and
organizations, and rehabilitation of streams, hence creating the Michigan Stream
Team (MST). The MST developed goals to enhance the science of Michigan
stream geomorphology and the knowledge of those who study, manage,
monitor, rehabilitate, review permits, evaluate grant proposals, make policies
and/or legal decisions on Michigan streams.

Goals of the MST are to produce regional reference curves for Michigan,
develop and manage a database for the reference reach data including

determining the quality control necessary for stream data to be entered,

determine stream types at the reference reaches utilizing the Rosgen (1994)
Classification System, train the MST and those that manage streams in Michigan
on stream morphology, and serve as a technical resource to advance stream
morphology science to Michigan agencies and interest groups. To have a better
understanding of the physical and dynamic processes of Michigan streams, the
development of regional reference curves and classification of stream types
became a priority in order to have a baseline assessment of reference reach
stream geomorphic characterizations and morphological descriptions.

The overall goal of this research is to better understand site specific fluvial
geomorphology characteristics and morphological descriptions of Michigan
streams at USGS gage stations at reference reach streams and the application of
geomorphic tools in various aspects of river management. This thesis will be
comprised of an introduction to fluvial geomorphology and the classification of
Michigan river reference reaches located at USGS gage stations. The goal of the
introduction is to give an overview of rivers, fluvial geomorphology and its
applications. Stream processes are dynamic and are dependent on regional
geology, topography, vegetation, landuse, and climate. Land use in Michigan
has changed significantly since the turn of the century and has influenced the
function of our streams. A basic understanding of fluvial geomorphic processes
will help guide individuals that our involved in various aspects of stream
management and learn the implication of geomorphology that are fundamental

in managing Michigan streams.

The goal of this research is to type streams in Michigan using the Level II
river inventory to provide the morphologic description of streams in the Rosgen
Classification System (RCS) (1994 and 1996) at United States Geological Survey
(USGS) gage stations. The RCS, developed by Dave Rosgen (1994 and 1996) is
based on stream geomorphology or channel dimension, pattern and profile. The
geomorphic characterization of stream channels can be classified into broad
stream types “A” through “G” and to a more defined classification of the
morphological description of stream types such as “C5.” The RCS (1994 and
1996) can be used as a communication tool amongst various disciplines that are
involved in some aspect of stream management. This information can also be
used as a tool to cross-reference present, site specific information to other
streams that are located in similar physiographic regions and that are of
comparable basin sizes. Little is known about the Level II RCS (1994 and 1996)
stream types that occur regionally throughout Michigan and has not been applied
to Michigan on a large scale basis. Forty—three reference reach streams located
at USGS gage stations were classified by the RC5 (1994 and 1996) stream types.
This research will provide site specific, baseline stream morphological information
and associated stream type.

As part of the research to classify Michigan streams using the RC5 ( 1994
and 1996), data was collected concurrently to develop regional hydraulic
geometry curves for Michigan streams located at USGS gage stations. This

research is currently being reviewed by the USGS for publication and is titled

Regional Hydraulic Geometry Curves for Estimating Bankfu/l Character/Was of
Michigan Rive/5(Rachol, 2009). Regional curves relate bankfull stream channel
dimensions including cross-sectional area, mean depth and width to watershed
drainage area in similar physiographic regions (Dunne and Leopold, 1978).
Established Regional Curves are essential to channel assessment and stream
rehabilitation efforts. Regional curves support the identification of bankfull stage
and channel dimensions in ungaged watersheds in similar physiographic regions
and help estimate the appropriate bankfull dimension and discharge for natural
channel designs (Glickauf et al. 2007) by making stream rehabilitation efforts
more effective. Regional Curves developed for Michigan will assist and support
engineers, hydrologists, geomorphologists, drain commissioners, and biologists in
designing bridges, culverts, in-stream habitat structures, dam removals, and
other projects that may impact or rehabilitate stream stability and function.
Regional Curves will also provide regulating agencies critical information needed
for evaluating permit applications dealing with Michigan stream rehabilitation
and/or management projects that are considering the geomorphic implications of
an alluvial system.

There is a lack of knowledge about site specific fluvial geomorphic and
physical conditions of Michigan streams. The development of Regional
Reference Curves and the designation of Stream Types applying the RC5 (1994
and 1996) will increase the knowledge, use, and the value of fluvial

geomorphology in the management and rehabilitation of Michigan streams. The

RSC (1994 and 1996) and Regional Reference Curve development has been
implemented nationally and internationally. The information provided by this
study for Michigan streams will furnish various professionals with the tools
essential to streamline a morphological approach for communication amongst
various disciplines that manage, monitor, and assess stream condition; provide a
baseline Level II RCS (1994 and 1996) inventory of Michigan stream types at
reference reach locations located near USGS gage stations; supply regional
reference curve information at USGS gage stations that can be used to estimate
bankfull channel dimensions and discharge versus drainage area at ungaged
stream reaches in similar physiographic regions; and the creation of monitoring
stations that can be re-surveyed to evaluate stream condition over time or

expand the river inventory to the Level III and IV of the RC5 (1994 and 1996).

Brief Overview of Fluvial Geomorphology:

Michigan is the home of over 36,000 miles of rivers (MDNR, 2009). These
rivers twist and turn across Michigan’s various landscapes to reach their
destination to one of the Great Lakes. The nature of a river is a result of the
regional composition of the landscape or geology and climatic conditions
(Seelbach et al, 1997). The landscape unit of a river, called a watershed or
sometimes referred to as the catchment, is the topographic area within which
surface water runoff drains to a specific point on a stream or to other

waterbodies, such as a lake (Omernik and Bailey, 1997).

As precipitation falls from the sky, it meets the earth’s various surfaces
ranging anywhere from an ocean, lake, river, field, forest, wetland, lawn, parking
lot, or rooftop. The surface to where it falls depends on the journey to its
destination. Some of the precipitation will become part of the storage of an
ocean, lake or river and eventually evaporate back to the earth’s atmosphere.
Some precipitation may be intercepted by a forest canopy or leaf litter on the
forest floor and evaporate. Impermeable surfaces such as rooftops, roads, and
parking lots will capture a portion and the excess will run-off into storm drains
and outlet to local wetlands, rivers, lakes, retention and detention ponds.

A portion of the precipitation will be captured by the stream itself, called
channel interception. A percentage of precipitation will actually make it to the
ground and infiltrate in-between soil particles and depending on the type of soil,
may flow through the subsurface of the soil as throughflow or may percolate
further down to the water table and become groundwater flow, where the soil is
completely saturated. Water in the soil profile may also be absorbed by tree and
plant roots and transported to leaves that release water vapor back to the
atmosphere through transpiration. If it is a long and strong storm event, the soil
may become saturated and can no longer take up water and results in run-off.
The run-off will then travel across the landscape following the down slope
gradient by gravitational force reaching channels and becoming stream flow.
Stream flow is a representation of stream discharge (Q), a volume per unit time

and is expressed as cubic feet per second (cfs). A hydrograph is a plot of

discharge over time that can be utilized to determine quantitative characteristics
of a watershed and its channels (Leopold, 1994). Streams and rivers form
channel banks over time and become established at a height that confines the
stream for all but the larger streamflow events in a year (Brooks et al, 2003).
The smallest of the channels are called rills; and meet to form creeks, runs, or
streams; then, at some undefined size, they are termed rivers (Leopold, 1994).
As explained by Leopold, each channel is fed from two sources, overland flow
(run-off) to a channel and groundwater emerging at the channel boundary. In
dry conditions, all the flow in the channels derives from groundwater output

(Leopold, 1994) which is often termed baseflow.

Channel Dimension (cross-sectional view):

River channels not only carry water across the landscape, they also carry
sediment and dissolved materials, transforming the landscape by erosion,
dissolution, and deposition (Wiley and Seelbach, 1997). The combination of
these variables results in the shape or often referred to as the dimension of the
cross-section of the river channel. The cross-section of a river channel can be
described as a slice of a river from left bank to right bank that describes channel
shape. The cross-sectional shape of a river is a function of the flow, the quantity
and character of the sediment in motion through the channel, and the character
or composition of the materials (including the vegetation) that make up the bed
and banks of the channel (Leopold, 1994). Generally, in straight reaches,

channel cross-sections are trapezoidal in shape and are more asymmetrical at

curves and bends (Leopold, 1994). Natural channels migrate laterally by eroding
one bank and maintaining on average, a constant channel cross-section by
deposition on the opposite bank creating a point bar, resulting in a balance of
erosion and deposition (Leopold, 1994). This lateral migration associated with
alluvial channels is the process of floodplain development when point bars areas
are abandoned (Rosgen, 1996). Floodplains are level areas adjacent to a river
channel, constructed by a river during the present climate, that receives and
stores channel overflow during moderate flow events (Leopold, 1994). A
floodplain can be abandoned, especially during drier climate conditions, and is
referred to as a terrace (Leopold, 1994).

An important aspect of stream morphology is bankfull stage and
discharge. Bankfull stage is often termed “the incipient point of flooding.”
Rosgen further defines it as the flow that fills the channel to the top of its banks
and bankfull stage is at an elevation where the water begins to overflow onto a
floodplain (1996). Dunne and Leopold (1978) further explain the importance of
bankfull stage and the related discharge as “the bankfull stage corresponds to
the discharge at which channel maintenance is the most effective, that is, the
discharge at which moving sediment, forming or removing bars, forming or
changing bends and meanders, and generally doing work that results in the
average morphological characteristics of channels.” The general consensus of
the reoccurrence of bankfull discharge is every 1.5 years in the annual flood

series (Leopold, 1994).

Channel Pattern (plan form view):

Aerial photos are a resource that can be used to illustrate channel pattern,
such as looking down at a river from an airplane (Leopold, 1994). Rivers often
wind and bend as it moves back and forth across the floodplain. Natural,
straight river channels rarely occur and if they do, it is often for a short distance
(Leopold, 1994). According to Leopold, even a river’s thalweg (thread of the
deepest part of the river) tends to wind between the channel banks in straight
reaches of a river (1994). Patterns of rivers are a result of dissipating kinetic
energy from flow and the transportation of sediment (Rosgen, 1996). A
meander wavelength or bend in the river can be described as the portion of river
entering into a bend in the river, following the channel through the bend, and
the exit out of that bend as the river enters into a new bend. Stream flow
occurrences or regimes can change stream patterns depending on the magnitude

and duration of the flow (Rosgen, 1996).

Channel Profile (longitudinal View):

The profile of a river channel is the longitudinal description of the
downstream gradient or slope of a river from upstream to downstream. Channel
gradient decreases in a downstream direction resulting in an increase in flow,
and a decrease in sediment size (Rosgen, 1996). The profile of a river can
change from reach to reach depending on the influence of the local channel
gradient and resident stream bed materials (Rosgen, 1996). The flow of a river

as it meanders along the floodplain often carves and shapes distinct stream bed

features. Portions of the channel where there is a steeper gradient result in the
formation of riffles that are shallow and exhibit more turbulent flows. Deeper
portions of the channel are termed pools which are indicative of tranquil flows
and flatter slopes. Bed materials comprised in these features depends on the
local geology that the river flows through. The sequences of riffle and pool
features along the channel profile are often spaced at a repeating distance of
five to seven widths where the pools are often located on the outside of the
bend (Leopold, 1994). As a reference, standing in a stream channel looking
downstream, the bank on the left is referred to the left bank and the bank to the

right is referred to as the right bank, however, this is not standard.

Channel Material:

The amount of sediment transported by a stream depends on the
interrelationships between supply of material to the channel, characteristics of
the channel, the physical characteristics of the sediment, and the rate and
amount of stream flow discharge (Brooks, et al, 2003). Bed and bank materials
of an alluvial channel are critical for sediment transport, hydraulic influences of
relative roughness and the dimension, pattern, and profile of that channel
(Rosgen, 1994). Transport physics, sediment size, sediment load, increases in
the magnitude and duration of stream flow, stability of stream banks and bed all
influence the contribution of sediment from channel processes (EPA, WARSS
Introduction). The surface material of both the bed and banks of a river channel

is referred to as pavement and materials just beneath the pavement are called

10

. the sub pavement (Rosgen, 1996). Bedload is the portion of the total sediment
in transport that is carried by intermittent contact with the streambed by rolling,
sliding, and bouncing (EPA, WARSS Introduction). Suspended sediment is that
portion of the total sediment load of rivers that is carried in the water column
and contains the "wash load" or that portion of the suspended load not

represented in the bed material (EPA, WARSS Introduction).

Channel Stability:
A “stable channel balance” relationship developed by Lane (1955) based
on extensive field observations expresses the proportion between sediment

discharge, stream discharge, particle size, and slope and is expressed as:

(QS) (050) ~ (Q) (5)

Where Qs is sediment discharge

D50 is the median particle size

Q is stream discharge

And 5 is bed slope
When the relationship is balanced (Figure 1), there is no net gain or loss in a
river reach, however, a change in any of these variables can result in a series of
adjustments resulting in channel aggradation or degradation.
Channel stability is the product of equilibrium conditions of natural alluvial
channels that develop as a result of flow regimes that are a function of the
regional precipitation regime of the watershed, vegetation, evapotranspiration,

and other constant factors that affects the amount of precipitation that runs-off

or enters the stream as base flow (Nunnally, 1978). Stream channel stability

11

Figure 1: Lane's (1955) stable channel balance relationship after Rosgen (1996), by
Sweet (2003).

(— Sediment Size-——) 4—— Stream Slo -

¢__. ___, " “FA

D radation A radation ,
cg gg Discharge

 
 

        

Sediment Load

Sediment Load x Sediment Size ~ Stream Slope 1: Discharge

defined by Rosgen (1996), “is the ability of a stream, over time, in the present
climate, to transport the sediment and flows by its watershed in such a manner
that the stream maintains dimension, pattern, and profile without either
aggrading or degrading.” Leopold et al (1964) identified eight major variables
that influence stream pattern morphology that include channel width, depth,
velocity, discharge, channel slope, roughness of channel materials, sediment
load, and sediment size. As a result, Rosgen (1994) points out that “a change in
any one of these variables sets up a series of channel adjustments which lead to

change in the others in channel pattern alteration.”

Hydraulic Geometry:
As explained by Leopold (1994), cross sections of any river have changed

their shape and dimension overtime to accept a range of flows and consistently

12

reflect the way that hydraulic parameters change from low flow to high flow.
First introduced by Leopold and Maddock (1953), hydraulic geometry is the
empirical relationship of width (W), mean depth (D) and mean velocity (U) of a
given cross section and a power function of discharge of a river along a river
network in a hydraulically similar basin and can be described as:

W=aQb

0:ch

U=kQm

Where b, f, and m are exponents and a, c, and k are coefficients that
indicate a rate of increase in hydraulic variable of width, depth, and velocity with

increasing discharge. Since discharge is,

Q=WDU
Or

Q=AV
Where A is cross section area and V is velocity, then

Q= (aQb) (CQf) (ka)
Or

Q: ack (Q)b+f+m

Therefore, b + f + m and ack must equal 1. The values of b, f, and m
have been determined by plotting collected field data from gaging stations from
rivers throughout the world and describe both the geometry of the channel and

the resistance to erosion associated with the character of the bed and banks

13

(Leopold, 1994). Field data collected at USGS gage stations include individual
flow measurements recording width, cross-sectional area, gage height,

discharge, and mean velocity at a variety discharges.

River Uses:

Rivers have provided Michigan residents and visitors with historical, social,
economic, and biological benefits. Early settlers in Michigan often settled their 9
towns and villages near rivers and the current populated areas in the state are I

often found adjacent to a river. Earlier settlers used rivers by erecting dams for

 

mill power, transporting people, transporting goods (lumber, fur, etc.), water use
(drinking, cleaning, etc.), food (fish, small mammals, and plants), and
agricultural irrigation. Rivers also have social benefits by providing educational,
recreational, environmental aesthetics, and public access uses. Economically,
they provide communities and businesses with mill power, hydropower,
transportation of goods, watering livestock, irrigation of crops, recreation (fishing
and boating), and tourism. Biologically, rivers are an ecosystem that provides a
range of habitats for fish, birds, reptiles, and mammals.

As reported by Poff et al (1997), the impacts that humans have had on
the natural hydrologic processes has resulted in the disruption of the dynamic
equilibrium between the movement of water and the movement of sediment that
exists in free-flowing rivers (Dunne and Leopold, 1978). Michigan’s rivers have
suffered disconnection from dams and diversions, a reduction of functioning

floodplains from disconnection and development, increased flows from run-off

14

from impervious surfaces (parking lots, roads, and buildings (stormwater),
increased sediment and nutrient loadings from run-off of various land uses and
severe stream bank erosion, loss of channel structure from straightening and
channeling to increase drainage and reduce flooding, resulting in an overall
negative impact to the biological, chemical, hydrological, and physical dynamics

of a river.

Rehabilitation of Rivers:

An estimated $10 billion dollars was spent on the restoration of the United
States rivers with varying restoration activities including erosion control,
hydrologic stability, nutrient and sediment reduction, and the enhancement of
habitat diversity (Allan, 2009). According to the National River Science
Synthesis, between 1970 and 2006, Michigan had 846 restoration projects
ranging from bank stabilization, channel reconfiguration, dam removal/retrofit,
fish passage, flow modification, in-stream habitat improvement, in-stream
species management, riparian management, stormwater management,
aesthetics/recreation/education and water quality management costing over 41
million dollars with only 1% of the projects that were monitored pre and post
restoration (2006). These statistics confirm that few restoration projects are
evaluated to determine success (Palmer et al., 2006).

Public awareness over the last decade has prompted federal, state, local
jurisdictions and environmental groups to direct major efforts at preserving,

protecting, enhancing, stabilizing, rehabilitating and restoring rivers throughout

15

 

the United States (Rosgen, 2006). Various methods have been utilized in river
restoration including hard engineering which often uses rigid materials such as
rock rip rap (stone) and gabion baskets (a basket or cage filled with earth or
stone) to alleviate stream bank erosion. In some cases, such as the
management of designated drains, restoration includes channelization, which is a
combination of shortening (by abandoning and cutting-off natural channel
meandering bends), widening (increasing channel width), deepening (increasing
channel depth), straightening (increasing channel slope), and removing
vegetation (reducing the effective size of the channel, increasing resistance of
banks to erosion, and increasing hydraulic resistance) of a river channel
(Nunnally, 1978). Often, entire stream channels (banks and bed) are concreted
to reduce localized flooding, increase drainage, and stabilize eroding banks.
These techniques have resulted in an increase or decrease in stream morphology
variables (width, depth, velocity, discharge, channel slope, roughness of channel
materials, sediment load, and sediment size) eventually resulting in instability. As
a result, the stream will have to adjust into a new state of equilibrium.

Recently, natural channel design has emerged as a popular and preferred
restoration technique. Natural channel design often utilizes natural materials
that tend to blend in with the natural environment such as native vegetation,
root wads, in-stream rock structures, addition of woody debris, and geotextiles
to assist in vegetation colonization. These techniques are sometimes referred to

as “soft” engineering. More recently, stream geomorphology has come into the

16

 

forefront as one of the most important variables in designing stream
restorations. As defined by Rosgen (1996), “natural channel design is restoring
the dimension, pattern and profile of a disturbed river system to emulate the

natural, stable river” (Rosgen, 2006).

USGS Gage Stations:

The United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) National Streamflow
Information Program (NSIP) is a stream flow data warehouse for the United
States. The USGS operates and maintains over 7,000 nationwide gage stations
in partnership with federal, state, and local agencies and organizations (USGS,
2009). Gage stations are constructed adjacent to rivers to collect stream flow
information. The purpose of a gage station is to measure and record the height
or stage of the water above a reference point in a river channel termed gage
height (USGS, 2009). Throughout the life of the gage station, USGS technicians
conduct cross sectional area and velocity measurements by measuring width and
depth with a flow meter to determine discharge at a recorded gage height. As
more discharge measurements are made, they can be plotted against gage
height and recorded on a rating table. The rating table then provides gage
height with a known discharge and vice versa a discharge with a known gage
height. Information provided by current and discontinued gage stations in
Michigan is essential for the classification of stream type and development of

regional curves for Michigan streams.

17

 

Stream Classification:

Suggested by Naiman, stream classification implies that sets of
observations and characteristics can be organized into meaningful groups based
on measures of similarity or difference (1998). As reported by Rosgen (1994), a
definition of classification in the strictest sense means ordering or arranging
objects into groups or sets on the basis of their similarities or relationships by
Platts (1980). However, a classification arrangement can over simplify a
particularly complex system (Rosgen, 1994).

A summary of stream classification is reviewed by Wasson (1989), Naiman
et al. (1992), Montgomery and Buffington (1993), Seelbach and Wiley (1997)
and Rosgen (1994). Throughout this century, various attempts of stream
classification schemes have been made based on physical and biological
indicators over various spatial scales. Early attempts of whole-river classification
were developed by Davis (1890) who classified streams as young, mature, or old
on the basis of observed erosion patterns (Naiman, 1998). Shelford (1911)
attempted to classify rivers near Chicago based on the arrangement of fish in a
stream from mouth to source. Strahler (1957) modified Horton’s (1945)
classification of stream order by designating headwater perennial streams as
order 1, and at the confluence of two first order streams the downstream reach
was designated a second order stream. This ordering system continues
downstream where the downstream reach of the confluence of two second order

streams becomes a third order stream. The largest stream order in the world is

18

the Amazon River that is designated as a twelfth order stream. Leopold,
Wolman, and Miller (1957) as well as Schumm (1977) organized and described
stream patterns as straight, meandering, and braided patterns while Lane (1955)
developed slope-discharge relationships for braided, intermediate, and
meandering streams (Rosgen, 1994). Schumm (1977) divided river systems into
three zones; zone of production (upper reach), the zone of transfer (intermediate
reach), and the zone of deposition (lower reach). Seelbach et al (1997)
developed a landscape based ecological classification system for river valley
segments in Lower Michigan. Key attributes selected to describe the character of
river valley segments (physical channel unit) include catchment size, hydrology,
water chemistry, valley character, channel character, and fish assemblages
(Seelbach et al, 1997). As noted by Rosgen, for river classification schemes to
be useful for extrapolation purposes, restoration designs, and prediction, these

schemes should represent the physical characteristics of the river (1994).

Rosgen Classification System:

The Rosgen (1994) Classification of Natural Rivers is based on eight major
variables that influence stream morphology as described by Leopold et al. ( 1964)
as channel width, depth, velocity, discharge, channel slope, roughness of
channel materials, sediment load, and sediment size. An increase or decrease in
any of the above mentioned variables will result in channel adjustments that will
influence the other variables, contributing to a disruption in dimension, pattern,

and profile (Rosgen, 1994). As summarized by Ward and Trimble (2004) after

19

Rosgen (1996), the Rosgen Classification System (RCS) includes the following
objectives:

1) Provide a consistent frame of reference for communicating stream
morphology and condition among a variety of disciplines and
interested parties

2) Predict stream behavior from appearance

3) Develop specific hydraulic and sediment relationships for a given
stream type and its state.

4) Provide a mechanism to extrapolate site-specific data to stream
reaches with similar attributes

5) Identify if the stream is in dynamic equilibrium and/or in a transitional
(stable or unstable) stage

6) Provide a context for evaluating stream condition

The RCS (1994 and 1996) system encompasses four hierarchy inventory

levels. Level I describes the geomorphic characterization, Level II provides the
morphological description, Level III evaluates the stream “state” or condition,
and Level IV is the validation of the analyses of the previous levels (see Figure
2). This study focuses on the Level I and II of the RC5 (1994 and 1996) and is
used collectively to determine Michigan stream types and provide the physical
data necessary for the development of the regional curve.

Level I of the RC5 (1994 and 1996) is a broad level geomorphic
characterization of a river reach and is based on a river’s dimension, pattern and
profile. The RCS (1994 and 1996) categorizes stream reaches into nine stream
types (Aa+, A, B, C, D, DA, E, F, and G) and eleven Valley Types (1, II, III, IV, V,
VI, VII, VIII, VIIII, IX, X, and XI). The Level I classification and delineation

process provides a general characterization of valley types and landforms and

20

 

identifies the corresponding major stream types in watershed areas that can
often be

Figure 2: The hierarchy of river inventory and assessment (Rosgen, 1996)

 

 

 

 

 

STRUCTURAL FLUVIAL DEPOSITIONAL CLIMATIC BROAD
<30"?ng PROCESS MATERIALS INFLUENCE LIFE ZONES
f h f N f _/ f
C BASIN RELIEF - LANDFORMS - VALLEY MORPHOLOGY D
C DRAINAGE NETWORK )

 

 
    

CHANNEL PATTERNS
Single Thread
Multiple Thread
Anastomosed

CHANNEL SLOPE
Valley Slope/sinuosity

GEOMORPHXC

 
 
 

  

CHANNEL SHAPE
Narrow -

‘ . n .. Smuosrty
A through G Meander Width Ratio

 

W'Ide > Shallow

    

MORPHOLOGIuL
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO
DESCRIPTION CHANNEL SLOPE
WIDTH/DEPTH RATIO LEVEL 11
Stream Types CHANNEL MATERIAIs
smuosmr A1 - A6 .......... GI - cs

      
     
  
     

RIPARIAN VEGETATION Bank EROSION Potemial
DEPOSITIONAL PATTERN Stream SIZE/ORDER
DEBRIS OCCURRENCE FLOW REGIM
MEANDER PATTERN Channel “STATE"
Channel STABILITY Rating DIMENSI
...SEDIMENT SUPPLY PATTERNS
...BED STABILITY ..SLOPE
...W/D RATIO “STATE” MATERIALS
SEDIHENT sfnlmy:
McMahon/Degradation
VALIDATION LEVEL SEDIMENT
LEVEL IV Me in W &
Hits. Size Distribution
Bank Eroslon Rats
Imbeddednes/Distributlon
Time Trends - Stability

 

 

 

 

determined from aerial photos and topographic maps (Rosgen, 1996) (See Table
1). A general assessment is made by identifying Valley Type, channel pattern
(single thread, multiple thread, sinuous, or straight), valley and channel profile
(slope), and a rough estimate of channel dimension (narrow and deep or wide

and shallow)(see Figure 3)(F|uvial Geomorphology Training Module, 2009).

21

Table 1.1: Valley Types, description of valley types, and associated stream types

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Alter Rosgen, 2006)
Valley Associated Stream
Descri tion of Valle T as
Tame p y ’9 Types
I "v" notched canyons, rejuventated sideslopes A 8‘ G
ll Moderately steep, gentle sloping side slopes often in B
colluvial valleys.
I" Alluvial fans and debris cones. A. G, D: 3* 3
IV 35$; gradIent canyons, gorges, and confined alluwal F or C
Moderately steep valley slopes, "U" shaped glacial trough
V D & C
valleys.
V' Moderately steep, fault controlled valleys B, G, 8' C
V" Steep, highly dissected fluvial slgopes. A 8‘ G
Vlll Wide, gentle valley slope with a well—developed floodplain C or E
adjacent to river terraces. Occasional D, F & G
Broad, moderate to gentle slopes, associated with glacial
lX outwash and/or eolian sand dunes D 8‘ some C
Very broad and gentle slopes, associated with extensive C E & DA
X floodplains - Great Plains, semi-desert and desert Occasional F & G
provinces: coastal plains and tundra: Lacustrine valleys.
XI Elongate or lobate configuration of highly constructive DA & D

 

deltas with a distributary channel system.

Occasional C & E

 

Level II of the RC5 ( 1994 and 1996) requires a detailed assessment and

survey of the morphological characteristics of dimension, pattern, profile, and

channel material of a river and is conducted in the field. Level II of the RC5

(1994 and 1996) determines the morphological description of the stream and

expands stream typing into 94 types by further categorizing by slope and

channel material (see Figure 4). The morphological variables determined in

Level II in a stream should not be used to describe an entire basin area. These

characteristics may change over short and/or long distances and over time.

Level 11 criteria is used to assign a stream type by utilizing data collected in the

field of a stream cross section, longitudinal profile, and planform features at

stream reaches.

22

 

Figure 3: Broad level stream classification delineation showing Longitudinal, Cross-

sectional, and Plan Views of Major Stream Types (Rosgen,,1996). ,, 7 ,, 7

LONGITUDINAL, CROSS-SECTIONAL and PLAN VIEWS
of MAJOR STREAM TYPES

 

 

 

 

The precise identification of bankfull elevation in the field is crucial to
correctly classify streams in Level II classification. The geomorphologic
information that is needed to classify stream types at Level II include mean
bankfull depth, maximum bankfull depth, bankfull width, floodprone area width,
channel sinuosity, water surface slope, and mean channel material size (D50)
(Rosgen, 1994 and 1996). This information is collected by surveying and
measuring a river longitudinal profile, channel cross section, determining
sinuosity and median channel material in the field at reference reach locations.
“A reference reach is a geomorphic blueprint of a stable river and information

from these sites can be extrapolated to other areas that have similar valley and

23

.flE: o.~ -\+ E r? :8 move 5:25:23 ..8 829 22; ”5E: Nd -\+ >2 b9 :8 more 3.33:6 new «£855.55
Co 829 .8598 Emohm 55:; .8339 .829”. he Essence”... 2: Go 5:88 m m< . us ._<¢ ._.<2 5 E. H m 1 v.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  

99E _9202 Lo co_..oo:_wmo_0 :90sz OF 0., >9. 9:
Amman .5035 225. .233. no coronation—u common 05 3 >8. "e 0.59“.

24

lithological types for stream classification and restoration” (Rosgen, 1996).

A cross-section of a river is used to “identify channel incisement with in its valley,
as well as information concerning floodplains, terraces, colluvial slopes, structural
control features, confinement (lateral confinement), entrenchment (vertical
containment), and valley versus channel dimension” (Rosgen, 1994). Stream
width is a function of stream flow occurrence and magnitude, size and type of
transported sediment, and the bed and bank materials of the channel (Rosgen, E
1996). Channel widths can be impacted by the following influences: I

direct channel disturbances such as channelization; changes in riparian j

 

vegetation that may modify the boundary resistance and vulnerability to
streambank erosion; alterations in stream flow regime due to watershed
changes; and changes in sediment regime (Rosgen, 1996).

Bankfull width is determined by identifying the bankfull elevation on at
least one or each bank of the cross section. The optimal location to measure
bankfull width is within the narrowest segment of the selected reach where the
channel can freely adjust its lateral boundaries under existing streamflow
conditions (Rosgen, 1996). Bankfull elevation can best be determined by a
combination of physical indicators and the use of a peak flow analysis of
stage/discharge relationships at gage stations. As noted by Rosgen (1996),
physical indicators of bankfull where gage datum is not available include the
presence of a floodplain at the elevation of incipient flooding, the elevation

associated with the top of the highest depositional features, a break in slope of

25

the banks and/or a change in the particle size distribution, evidence of an
inundation feature such as a small benches, staining of rocks, exposed root hairs
below an intact soil layer indicating exposure to erosive flow, and lichens or
certain riparian vegetation species. Bankfull width is the measurement of a
channel cross section from bankfull elevation of the left bank to bankfull
elevation of the right bank. Bankfull depth is a measurement of the average I
depth of a channel cross section at bankfull elevation. Floodprone width is the
measurement of stream width at the elevation that corresponds to twice the

maximum depth (thalweg of the channel) of the bankfull elevation and is

 

associated with less than a 50 year return period flood (Rosgen, 1996)(See
Figure 5). The cross-section information is then utilized to determine the
entrenchment ratio and width to depth ratio (see Figure 5).

The entrenchment ratio is the ratio of the width of the flood-prone area to
the surface width of the bankfull channel to describe the vertical containment of
a river (Rosgen, 1994 and 1996).

Er = WFP/WW

Where Eris entrenchment ratio
WFP is floodprone width

and Wm is bankfull width

The width to depth ratio is defined as the ratio of the bankfull surface
width to the mean depth of the bankfull channel (Rosgen, 1996). According to
Rosgen, the width to depth ratio is essential to understanding the distribution of

available energy within a channel, the ability of various discharges occurring

26

within the channel to move sediment, and provides a rapid assessment of stream
stability (1996).
Width/Depth Ratio = W/d

Where W is width
and d is depth

By calculating these variables, a stream type can be designated by dimension.
Measured mean values and ranges by stream type by the RC5 (1994 and 1996)
are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 5: Parameters determined from surveyed cross-section by Fongers
(MST, 2005).
Monument Monument

II“
Flood- arone width

II 2 x maximum bankfull depth {III “II III I
IulllI
Bankfull Stage I

Water Surface

 

     
  
   

 

e .
a?“ gems.

Pattern is also used in determining stream type of the Level II RCS by the

.45..”-

measured and mean values of sinuosity. As noted by Rosgen, the planimetric
view of various stream patterns may be qualitatively described as straight,
meandering, or braided (1996). Meander geometry is a function of bankfull
width (Rosgen, 1996). Patterns in rivers are a result of its primary functions to
perform work such as transporting sediment and dissipating the energy of

moving water. When channels are straightened, the end result is the negative

27

impact on the natural morphology of the channel and its stability. Sinuosity can
be expressed in either of the following equations:
1) Using an aerial photograph, measure stream length and related valley length
for at least two meander wavelengths to determine sinuosity (See Figure 6).

K = SL/VL

Where K is sinuosity

SL is stream length

VL is valley length
2) Use measured slope ratios to determine sinuosity.

K = VS/CS

Where K is sinuosity

V5 is valley slope

and CS is channel slope

By calculating sinuosity, a stream type can be identified in the RC5 (1994

and 1996) to determine pattern. Plan-views of river patterns are grouped as:
relatively straight (“A” stream types), low sinuosity (“B” stream types),
meandering (“C” and “F” stream types), tortuously meandering (“E” stream
types), and complex stream patterns that are associated with multiple channels

and braided (“D” type) and anastomosed (“DA" stream type). Ranges of

sinuosity to determine stream type is depicted in Figure 4.

28

Figure 6: Measuring stream sinuosity (k) is Stream Length/Valley
Length

Stream Length

 

 

Valley Length

Another Level II attribute used in the Rosgen classification system is I

 

profile. Rosgen noted that channel gradient decreases in a downstream direction
with increases in stream flow and a corresponding general decrease in sediment
size (1996). The longitudinal profile of a stream reach reflects profile
morphology based on the work of Grant et al. (1990) utilized in RCS (1994 and
1996). Slope is calculated from the top of profile to the bottom of the profile on
similar stream bed characteristics (i.e. begin riffle to end riffle) of the channel
reach that is at least two meander wavelengths or twenty bankfull widths long
and is expressed in feet/feet (Rosgen, 1996).

The final attribute used in the Rosgen Level II Classification (1994) is
mean channel material referred to as the D50. A modified version of the “pebble
count” developed by Wolman (1954) is used to determine the mean channel
material in the field including the bank material and for sand and smaller sizes

(Rosgen, 1994). The 050 is the representation of bed and bank material that is

29

the size of material that is 50% of the population that is sampled is of the same
size or finer (Rosgen, 1994). In the RC5 (1994 and 1996), channel material is
categorized by six channel material types and correlated by number: 1) bedrock
(>2048 mm), 2) boulders (256mm to 2048mm), 3) cobble (64 to 256), 4)gravel
(2mm to 64mm), 5) sand (.062mm to 2mm), and 6) silt/clay (<.062) as shown
in Figure 4. A total of 100 pebbles are sampled and counted according to the
percentage of stream bed characteristics (pools, riffles, glides, and runs) of the
surveyed stream profile as shown in Figure 7. For instance, if a surveyed stream
profile of a length of 1,500 feet and consists of three runs, three riffles, and four
pools, the sample size for a pebble count would be 30% runs (10 samples taken
at each run), 30% riffles (10 samples taken at each riffle), and 40% pools (10
samples taken at each pool) to equal 100% (100 samples taken) of the entire
reach. A series of ten blind samples of bank and bed material are taken at cross
section locations from bankfull to bankfull at each bed feature. For a more in-
depth explanation of the pebble count procedure, please see “Protocol for Field

Surveys of Stream Morphology at Gaging Stations in Michigan” (2009).

30

 

Figure 7: Reach Average Pebble Count Diagram by Fongers (MST, 2005).
1 o 1 o

  

Pebble count
transects
I (10 samples)

 

% 2 meander wave—lengths or cycles 6

Methods:

Protocol Development for Regional Reference Curves and Stream Classification:
To increase the knowledge and information of the fluvial geomorphic
attributes of Michigan streams, Regional Reference Curves at USGS gage stations
and a classification of stream types designated by the RC5 (1994 and 1996) were

developed. To corroborate the development of the curves and stream
classification, the MST composed the Protocol for Field Surveys of Stream
Morphology at Gaging Stations in Michigan (2006) to streamline Regional Curve
and RCS (1994 and 1996) stream typing data collection. The protocol is divided
into two sections: 1) reconnaissance survey and 2) full field survey. The
purpose of the reconnaissance survey is to evaluate and select gage station
reaches for the full field survey. The purpose of full field survey is to collect all
the field data necessary to develop the regional curves and classify the channel
using the Level II RCS system (1994 and 1996). In order to complete needed

field work to develop the curves, a partnership was developed with the Calhoun

31

Conservation District and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct
field reconnaissance surveys, full field surveys, and analyze collected data. The
results would then be published in an USGS Scientific Report and a
comprehensive thesis of stream classification by a grad student from Michigan
State University funded through the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ), the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), and the

USGS.

USGS Gage Selection: l

 

 

To determine the number of gages available to include in the study, the
USGS conducted an initial in-house evaluation and screening of 341 discontinued
and current gage stations that fit the following criteria: the USGS gage station
had at least 10 years of record, no artificial controls (dams and/or lake level
control structures) that could influence the flow record, obstruct sediment
transport or impacted from impoundment; the site is not indicative of stream
instability such as excessive channel degradation, bank erosion, or bed
aggradation; the stream channel is able to adjust its dimension, pattern, and
profile thereby eliminating sites with bedrock influenced channels; and for
discontinued sites, the reference marks are intact to tie the survey reach into
gage datum. This resulted in the removal of 238 gage stations from the study

and left 103 that would be available for stream reconnaissance (See Figure 8).

32

Pea/r Flow Analysis:

Fongers of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
developed a Peak Flow Analysis of Michigan USGS Gages (2007) for gages with
at least 10 years of record to assist in the Regional Curve development and
stream typing using the RC5 (1994 and 1996). The peak flow analysis for
Michigan Gage stations analyzed gage stations with a minimum of 10 years of
record using PKFQWin 5.2.0 software to produce sufficiently accurate estimates

of the 80% (11/4 -year), 67% (11/2 -year), and 50% (2-year) chance floods

 

(Fongers, 2007). Program PeakFQ provides estimates of instantaneous annual-
maximum peak flows for a range of recurrence intervals, including 1.5, 2, 2.33,
5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 years (annual-Exceedance probabilities of
0.6667, 0.50, 0.4292 0.20, 0.10, 0.04, 0.02, 0.01, 0.005, and 0.002,
respectively). The Pearson Type III frequency distribution is fit to the logarithms
of instantaneous annual peak flows following Bulletin 173 guidelines of the
Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data. The parameters of the Pearson
Type III frequency curve are estimated by the logarithmic sample moments
(mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of skewness) with adjustments for low
outliers, high outliers, historic peaks, and generalized skew (USGS, 2009).

The Peak Flow Analysis of Michigan USGS Gages (2007) was used in the
field to help support the identification of bankfull at reference reach sites by
comparing gage height of the field reconnaissance and survey field day to the

1.25, 1.5, and 2-year discharge reoccurrence intervals gage heights from the

33

gage station rating table. The difference between the return floods gage height
and the field day gage height is the approximate feet above water surface where
bankfull may be located. This comparison was also supplemented with physical

and visual indications of bankfull elevation in the field.

Stream Reconnaissance:

A stream reconnaissance was conducted at 103 USGS gage sites
consistent with the Protocol for Field Surveys of Stream Morphology at Gaging
Stations in Michigan (MST, 2005). Prior to reconnaissance, a copy of the gage
station description, gage station rating table, a most recent aerial photograph,
and topographic map were collected for each site. The field reconnaissance at
gage stations included: the identification of at least two, intact USGS reference
marks to tie the field survey with gage datum; the site was considered wadeable;
the reference reach length was at least two meander wavelengths or 20 times
bankfull widths and located in the vicinity of the gage; the reach is located where
there is no contributing flow from tributaries that the gage is not accounting for;
sites that were not indicative of channel instability such as excessive stream bank
erosion, channel aggradation or degradation, a high width to depth ratio, and the
presence of channel bars; bankfull elevation was identifiable visually, physically,
or cross-referenced from the Peak Flow Analysis (Fongers, 2007) and gage
datum; the stream channel was not constrained by bedrock; and there was no

evidence of reach impact from undersized culverts and bridges, riparian land

34

 

uses, dams or lake level control structures. Each site was waded and notes were
recorded summarizing the field reconnaissance. As a result of the site
reconnaissance, 60 sites were eliminated from the study and a total of 43 sites

were surveyed.

Data Collection:

The field data collection survey consisted of the reference reach longitudinal

profile, a representative riffle cross-section, a representative pool cross-section,

 

and cross-section and reach pebble counts. The pool cross-section is not used in

fig.-. .u-rlurxv: A .—

stream classification or the regional curve development; however, the MST
deemed pool information important for geomorphic data collection for future use
in stream restoration design parameters. Surveys were conducted using the MST
protocol (MST, 2005) by staff from the USGS, Calhoun Conservation District-
Michigan State University Graduate Student (CCD), Michigan Department of
Natural Resources-Habitat Management Unit (MDNR), MDEQ, MDOT, US. Army
Corp of Engineers-Detroit District (USACE), and the US. Fish and Wildlife
Service. A Regional Curve and stream classifications were developed for five
locations in the Menominee River Basin in Michigan's Upper Peninsula by Mistak
and Stille (2008) and are included in this stream classification study.

Once on location of the site to be surveyed, gage height and discharge
were recorded if the gage station was current or there was an existing wire

weight gage from a discontinued site often located on bridges to measure

35

surface water elevation that correlates to gage height. From the Peak Flow
Analysis (Fongers, 2007), the difference in the day of the survey gage height and
the 1.25, 1.5, and 2 year return’s gage heights were used to estimate bankfull
elevation. Using a laser level, two USGS reference marks were used to tie survey
data with gage datum. Several tapes were stretched out along the left bank at a
length of two meander wavelengths or 20 times bankfull width. A longitudinal
profile survey was conducted from the top (upstream) to the bottom
(downstream) reach from riffle to riffle to collect stream bed elevations and
notes on dominant channel material, water depth, and bankfull elevations.
Bankfull elevations were rated in three tiers: 1) excellent indication of bankfull,
2) moderate indication of bankfull, and 3) poor indication of bankfull from the
visual, physical, and peak flow analysis information of each site. The longitudinal
profile survey was then closed within .02 (two hundredths) of the reference mark
datum. A site sketch of the longitudinal profile was conducted to illustrate reach
location, cross-section location, temporary benchmark locations, prominent
terraces, woody debris, floodplain and bank vegetation, channel vegetation,
riparian uses or buildings, stream bed characteristics (riffles, pools, and runs),
direction of flow, and any other information needed to identify the stream reach.
Next, a riffle and pool cross section were surveyed and tied into the
longitudinal profile. The riffle cross-section was chosen at a representative riffle
in the longitudinal reach. The cross section was then monumented with rerod on

each bank at an elevation just above estimated bankfull. A tag line was

36

stretched from the left bank to right bank from each monument. The survey was
conducted from left bank to right bank capturing any changes in elevation
including left and right bankfull elevations, left and right edge of water (surface
water elevations), and channel bed elevations with notes on dominant bed
material and a rating of bankfull elevation. Photographs were taken from the
center of the cross section channel looking at the left bank, downstream, right
bank, and upstream.

Lastly, a cross section and average reach pebble count was conducted
and recorded. The cross section pebble count consists of taking 100 first “blind
touch” samples between the index finger and thumb of bank and bed material
from bankfull to bankfull at increment measurements of bankfull width. If
material sampled was larger than 2 millimeters (coarse sand), a ruler was used
to measure the intermediate axis of the material. Pebble count data collected
from the riffle cross section is used to determine the 034 (84tlh percentile particle
size) to use in discharge calculations for regional curve development. The
average reach pebble count collected from the longitudinal profile is used to
determine the D50 (50th percentile particle size) for use in stream type

classification.

Data Analysis, Results and Discussion:
Gage station 10 number, gage station name, drainage area, state, county,
latitude and longitude, and field data collected from the longitudinal profile, riffle

and pool cross section, and pebble counts at each site was entered into

37

 

Rivermorph soltware (2002) and analyzed to determine stream type for stream
classification. Flood-prone width and stream sinuosity were measured from
topographic maps and were also entered into Rivermorph. Parameters used to
determine stream type in Rivermorph (2002) include the riffle cross-section width
(ft), mean depth (ft), maximum depth (ft), cross-sectional area (It),

entrenchment ratio (It), and width to depth ratio (ft). Slope (ft/ft) was

(:Mflu’h 1),

determined from the longitudinal profile and the D50 of channel material was

determined from the average reach pebble count. The calculations produced by

 

Rivermorph were re-calculated manually to validate results.

“al.-Lew.

Out of the 43 streams surveyed, 39 classified as a “C” stream type (See
Table 1.2 & 1.3). “C” streams are indicative of slightly entrenched (>2.2),
moderate to high width to depth ratio (> 12), moderate to high sinuosity (>12),
and a slope less than 2% with a well-developed floodplain in narrow to wide
valleys (Rosgen, 1996). The average riffle and pool sequencing is on average
one-half a meander wavelength or approximately 5 to 7 bankfull channel widths
representing the channel geometry of the reach (Rosgen, 1996). The channel
aggradation/degradation and lateral migration processes are dependent on the
natural stability of the stream banks, the present watershed conditions, flow and
sediment regimes in C type streams (Rosgen, 1996). Channels of “C” type
streams are also vulnerable to alteration and de-stabilization when there are
significant changes to bank stability, watershed condition, and flow regime are

combined and result in an acceleration of channel instability (Rosgen, 1996). “C”

38

streams classified down to channel material and slope resulted in fourteen
“C5c-,” thirteen “C4,” seven “C4c-,” two “C5,” two “C3," and one “C3c-.”

Out of the remaining four streams surveyed, two classified as a “B”
stream type and the final two classified as an “E” stream type (See Table 1.2 &
1.3). “B” streams are indicative of a moderately entrenched (1.44 to 2.2), a
moderate width to depth ratio (> 12), moderate sinuosity (>12), and a slope less !

than 4% with a limited floodplain due to narrow valley constraints. The average

pool to pool sequencing is 4 to 5 bankfull channel widths and decreases with an 3

 

increasing slope (Rosgen, 1996). “B" type streams have low streambank erosion

W.Mh;.

and channel aggradation/degradation rates (Rosgen, 1996). “B’ type streams
classified down to channel material and slope resulted in one “B4c” and one
“BSc.

“E” streams are “considered evolutiona/yin terms of fluvial process and
morphology” (Rosgen, 1996) and are indicative of a slightly entrenched (>2.2), a
very low width to depth ratio (<12), very high sinuosity (>15), and a slope of
less than 4%. “E” type streams are the most sinuous compared to all other
stream types and have a consistent riffle and pool sequence and generate the
highest number of pools per unit distance of channel distance (Rosgen, 1996).
“E” type streams “often develops inside of the wide, entrenched, and
meandering channels of the “F” type streams following floodplain development
and vegetation recovery of former “F” channel beds” (Rosgen, 1996). They can

be quite stable if the floodplain and the low width to depth ratio are maintained,

39

however, they are sensitive to disturbances and can rapidly adjust and convert to
other stream types in a short period of time (Rosgen, 1996). “E" type streams

classified down to channel material and slope resulted in one “E4” and one “E5."

40

I t ‘Mvu'l ’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . . . Swami

5 R HH mvNoo o mm H 5 3 mm vm x Bo: xomb 829$ 833$
. . . . . v.85 p.33 .8:

08 H o woooo 0 MN H NN 3 mo mH x x86 snowman; $9“ng
. . . . . cases:

08 mN H mnooo o mo H mN mm Nm N x ..8: 52m oonEm_mv. 30826
5%:

08 HH.o mmoood mmH mm.mH Ed x 538 c8: 52m oRNoHE
xoflm 5:95 22::
. . . . . mzmfloz

-umu om 0 $08 0 we H N am IV m x L8; 52m mEEa ovmnmovo
. . . . . u_oc._o>>o_u_

mu m o 3N8 0 mo H n mN mm o x E v.85 EmEmZoE onmnmovo
. . . . . mSnmxuS

-umu Nv H 9.08 o N H mm HN NH m x Em: 52m wanton oNHNmovo
. . . . . x560:

vu NH om 980 o Hv H H mm Ho m x Em: 52¢ $3328 8383
. . . . . 5.2 Bo: onu

.20 mm 2 mNooo 0 NH H mm mv t. n x mo: Ecem £30m mHmomowo
. . . . . c8325

05 m HN mooo o 3 H mm mm ov v x Hm 52m Emmom .Hm mowwmovo
. . . . . 855:5

03 ww o vooo o m. H mm mN MN m x Em: 52m .532 .Hm oowmmovo
. . . . c8550

-omu H mmooo o ow H mN vm m N x E 52m summon am 3883
. . . . . .6258

.80 N o 58 o 3 H mm mH No 0H x Em: 62m 5:8 mHoomog

EF—
EE
8: Has 5 S Ewfii czflwezv .255 a
2.2m Bio—Ea vow—E. oEmz
Enobm .5..an wont—5 .2520 033. 033. 0.9.5 .5an
.0555 5n00\523 ucofisucobcu .
noun?
.95. Each» new

..ntounE .0555 :35 duo—m «cuts» .325 .EoEoou .0555 6:52 535% .3 cabana ammo mum: 339:5 “N." 035...

41

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

535283
5 mt: 88:6 NS Hm.- 8.: x .8: .85 8.82.:
.6on cocoa Hmw>>
. . . . . ooEom
5 mm 2 ~88 o 8 H R a 3 MH x .8: .86 >88 8&ng
mph—m Comm.—
.20 mm... 880.: RH 2.3 :3 x .8: v.8.ufi828m 8823
. . . . . 8&8:
6 5. NH :8: 0 mo H m: NH ..m m x 8 8.5. 8:8 882::
85 wNHN 808.: ...H MD: Em x 892 .8: .85 ____>_ 088?:
_
88 Rd: $80.: 2: NE :3 x 88 am .85. MW 8823
8:32:58
-20 8.. N885 HQH KEN Hem x .8: 85. 88st
.5: 6:3 5:8
. . . . . m Emmi .8:
8 8 ..m 88 o H H NH 9 H: N x 85. 8.9.8.9: 832.:
. . . . . 20mm .99.
-88 NH NN 28: o HN H m 8 NM m x .85. $28 9284 844:3
. . . . . 8:328
mm H: 0 H88 o N: H 8 m 3 m x .8: .86 .8: 82:3
. . . . . :BmE:____>>
.88 mm o #8: o MN H 8 NH N NH x .8: .85. .88 8: 22:8
MC. mo
.08 mm: 038.: RE :m.mH mm... x .8: .85. he...“ 88ng
Eu
.5: Eu 5:
Amy C: a _occacu
Om 53 in
2:... H 3 2.2m 3.255 1...: .5 H z: is .8:: was: 2
583m 3.3:: 88.5 .255 .52. 25. 83:6 533m
.255 .225 582523 22:655.... .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H358 .~.H was...

 

42

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:8 8.: RN8: 8: 8.8 H:.H x 5.88 5 .2: 8.: 8888
.3525ch

08 H.: 88.: m.H HEN 8.8 x .8: .2: .3938: 88:8
:58 5.02

8 8.: ::8.: 8H 8.8 8.: x 58:82 8888
co.H .02 58.0 9.5
. . . . . as .38.

-88 8 : :88 : N: H 8 :N t. m x .8: .2: :893: 8888

8 8.8 88:: 8: 8.8 2.: x .8: .92Mxmmmuw 8888

08 :8 :88: 8: 8.8 8.: x 88.2. 8888
.5: 52¢ 2:5

8 8:: :88: H..H 8.8 8.: x 8:5 8888
.5: .821 53m

8 8.5 88:: 8: :5 8.: x 25:5 8888
.5: 52¢ 58935
g

:8 8.8 88:: .8: 8.8 8: x .8: 88:95 8888
68.: 8.8.2

88 m: 88.: R: HH..mH 8.: x 85.8.: 8858
.8... 506 58.0;

8 8.: 88:: HH.H 8.: Hm: x 882 .8: .2: 82.88
:35 85.: :52
. . . . . 880m .5: 52¢

8 : NN 8H8 : m H :N 8 N m x :35 85.: 5:2 8:88

5. E...
2.: Has a. 8 Ewfii ENRE .255 a
0:03 350:5...” 52:... 0:52
525 555: Satan .255 25¢ 25.. 2:5 555
.255 .853 552533 225555 .

 

athcquv "N2" 030...

 

 

43

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9:83
8 8.8 88:: H:.H :: 8.: x .8: .95. :58 8:88
2 58.: £8:
8 8:: :H 8:: 8H 8.8 H:.~ x 8.2 .m 55. 88.. 8828
Gr: O> O
8 8.8 :88: H:.H 8.8 I x .8: .05. awash,” :::8H8
. . . . . 2:896...
8 m m :8:: : R H R :H 8 m x .8: .95. 2.: 8:88
. . . . . 58:8 .8: 82m
8 8 8 88: : H: H 8 :H 8 m x 2.... 68.: :8: 8:88
_Omwwu
08 8.: 88:: 8: :wa Hm: x .8: .25. 2.:9: 9m. 8:88
5:
EE
8.: Has a: c: Ewfié Hgflwiv .855
8.2: 3.32.5 .82.: 2.82 E 5:5:
Eagm _mtuamz aunt—Hm .0520 2am.»— ounx 035m
.255 .3qu 5325...; £355.85 .

 

 

€8.68 8.: use.

44

Table 1.3: Surveyed USGS Gage Station ID, Station Name, Stream Type, and Valley

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type.
Station ID Name Stream Type Valley Type

Middle Branch Ontonagon

4033000 near Paulding B40 II

4060500 Iron River at Caspian B5c ll
Sturgeon River near

4040500 Sid n aw C3 V

4046000 Black River near Garnet C3 V

4150500 Cass River at Cass City CSc- VIII
Peshekee River near

4062200 Champion C4 V
Coldwater River near

4096600 Hod u nk C4 VIII
Augusta Creek near

4105700 Augusta C4 VIII
Thornapple River near

4117500 Hastings C4 VIII
East Branch Pine River

4124500 near Tustin C4 VIII

4125460 Pine River near Hoxeyville C4 V
Sturgeon River near

4128000 Wolverine C4 VIII

4129500 Pigeon River at Afton C4 Vlll
South Branch Au Sable

4135700 River near Luzerne C4 VI"

4160600 Belle River at Memphis C4 VIII

4161580 Stony Creek near Romeo C4 VIII
West Branch Stony Creek

4161760 near Wash—Hilton C4 VIII
North Branch Clinton River

4164050 near Romeo C4 VIII

4060993 Brule River near Florence C4c- VIII
St. Joseph River at

4096405 Burlington C4c- VIII
South Branch Hog Creek

4096515 near Allen C4c- VIII
Looking Glass River near

4114498 EaLle C40- VIII
South Branch Flint River

4146063 near Columbiaville 040' VI"

4159900 Mill Creek near Avoca C40- VIII
Sashabaw Creek near

4160800 Drayton Plains C4c- VIII

 

 

45

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.: .‘l't EVA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1.3: (Cont'd)
Station ID Name Stream Typo Valley Type

Pine Creek near Iron

4065600 Mountain C5 VIII
F lowerfield Creek at

4097370 Fl ow e rfi el d C5 VIII

4065500 Sturgeon River near Foster CSc- Vlll
City

4096015 Galien River near Sawyer C5C- VIII
St. Joseph River at

4096340 Clarendon CSc- Vlll
St. Joseph River near

4096400 Burlington C5c- VIII
Portage River near

4097170 Vicksburg C5c— VIII

4097540 Prairie River near Nottawa C5c- VIII
Middle Branch Black River

4102776 near South Haven C5c- VIII
Kalamazoo River near

4103010 Marengo C5c- VIII
Wanadoga Creek near

4104945 Battle Creek 050- VIII

4108600 Rabbit River near Hopkins CSc- VIII
Red Cedar River near

4111379 VWIIi am st on 050- VIII
North Branch Pentwater

4122230 River near Pentwater 050' VI”
Big Sable River near

4123000 F r e e 5 oil C5c- VIII

4172500 Portage Creek near C5c— VIII
Pinckney
North Branch Clinton River

4164150 nearMeade E4 VIII

4111500 Deer Creek near Dansville E5 VIII

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion and Future Needs:

Classifying Michigan streams utilizing the RC5 (1994 and 1996) resulted
with the majority (39 out of 43) of the stream reaches surveyed as a “C" stream
type with the remaining four as two “8” stream types and two “E” stream types.

By classifying Michigan streams on the basis of channel morphology by the RC5

46

(1994 and 1996) facilitates the ability to understand the present morphologic
characterization of the stream. We now have a better indication of what stream
types are found in Michigan at reference reach locations at USGS gage stations.
The morphological information collected for the RC5 (1994 and 1996) stream
typing can also be used to estimate the geomorphic characterization of similar
stream types located in comparable physiographic regions. The RCS (1994 and
1996) is also based on in-depth analysis of stream morphology that is
measurable and quantifiable. This classification can also be used as a consistent
frame of reference of stream morphology among a variety of disciplines that
manage rivers in Michigan. Communicating by stream types will allow individuals
that are familiar with the RC5 (1994 and 1996) and that are involved in river
management to have a picture of the geomorphic characterization of rivers of
particular interest. For instance, when describing a stream as a “C5,” in a valley
type VIII, it would be recognized that this particular stream was located in a
wide, gentle valley slope with a well-developed floodplain that is adjacent to river
terraces, channel materials are predominantly sand bed and banks, the slope is
less than 2%, the entrenchment ratio or vertical containment of the river is less
than 2.2, the width to depth ratio is less than 12, and the pattern or sinuosity of
the river is greater than 1.2.

Caution should be used when extrapolating stream type data results from
this study to similar stream types in comparable physiographic areas and applied

to stream restoration design. It is imperative that stream restoration design is

47

based on field verification of stream geomorphology, the present condition or
state of the stream, an assessment of the causes of stream instability, and the
use of supporting information to comparable stream types in similar
physiographic regions and regional curve data. Stream classification can provide
individuals with baseline information about the geomorphology of a stream reach
and can be used as an estimate of stream type to equivalent stream reaches in
similar physiographic regions.

This study classified Michigan streams to the Rosgen (1996) Level II

morphological description classification. In order to have a better understanding

 

of a stream’s “state” or condition and to validate field data collected to determine
stream condition, this study should be expanded to Level III and IV Rosgen
(1996) river inventory. Baseline morphological information has been collected at
each site through this study and these sites can be easily transformed into
monitoring stations and continually re-surveyed to evaluate morphological
conditions/changes over time. These stations can be used to expand river
inventory to the RC5 (1994 and 1996) Level III and Level IV.

Level III assess’ stream condition as it relates to stream stability, potential
and behavior beyond the Level II morphological template using 10 additional
parameters of; 1) riparian vegetation, 2) streamflow regime, 3) stream size and
stream order, 4) organic debris and/or channel blockage, 5) depositional
patterns, 6) meander patterns, 7) streambank erosion potential, 8)

aggradation/degradation potential, 9) channel stability rating, 10) altered

48

channel materials and dimensions (Rosgen, 1996). The Level III inventory
would provide additional information about the current morphological condition
of Michigan streams. As stated by Rosgen (1996) the following objectives are
met:

1) The development of a quantitative basis for comparing streams
having similar morphologies, but which are in different states
and conditions.

2) Description of the potential natural stability of a stream, as
contrasted with its existing condition.

3) Determination of the departure of a stream’s existing condition
from a reference baseline.

4) Provision of guidelines for documenting and evaluating
additional field parameters that influence stream state (eg. flow
regime, stream size, sediment supply, channel stability, bank
stability, bank erodibility, and direct channel disturbances).

5) Provision of framework for integrating companion studies (eg.
fish habitat indices and composition and density of riparian
vegetation).

6) Development and refinement of channel stability prediction
methods.

7) Provision of the basis for efficient Level IV validation sampling
and data analyses.

Level IV of the Rosgen (1996) river inventory is conducted to verify the
predicted stream condition, potential, and stability from the Level III inventory
(Rosgen, 1996). Parameters based on Level IV are; (1 streamflow
measurements, 2) sediment analysis, and 3) verification of stream stability
(Rosgen, 1996). Sediment analysis includes determining the ratio of bedload to
total load, the bedload size distribution at or near the bankfull discharge, and the
development of sediment rating curve relations (Rosgen, 1996). In the field,
stream channel monitoring can verify current stream stability by evaluating if the

stream is: 1) aggrading, 2) degrading, 3) shifting particle sizes of stream bed

49

materials, 4) changing the rate of lateral extension through accelerated bank
erosion, and 5) changing morphological types through evolutionary sequences
(Rosgen, 1996). As stated by Rosgen (1996) a comprehensive data collection
effort can provide insight into:

1) Causes, rates, magnitude and direction of river adjustment.

2) Effectiveness of mitigation measures.

3) Accuracy of prediction methodologies.

4) Development of effective mitigation/restoration.

5) Validation of prediction models.

6) Development of empirical relations.

7) Consequence of change.

8) An approach to set limits for channel change and corresponding

sediment loads.

The information that could be provided by the Rosgen (1996) Level III
and IV river inventory would provide valuable information on the condition and
the verification of the condition of Michigan streams. This data could also be
referenced for similar stream types in comparable physiographical regions in
order to predict channel behavior due to the impact of various human induced
and natural watershed changes.

The classification of stream types at USGS gage stations through this
study is lacking geographically and only has a minor representation of small
drainage sizes. A majority of USGS gage stations in Michigan are located at the
lower reaches of drainage basins. If this study was expanded to ungaged
locations, there is a strong possibility that other stream types could occur,

especially, headwater streams located in steeper valleys found in the Upper

Peninsula. Geographically, representation in the northeastern part of the Lower

50

 

“THE- . "

Peninsula and the northwestern part of the Upper Peninsula is minimal. The
expansion of stream typing using the RC5 (1994 and 1996) to stable ungaged
stream reaches would broaden the representation of Michigan stream types in
areas that were not surveyed in this study. Smaller drainage areas were also not
represented in this study since it was limited to available USGS gage stations for
the regional curve development. The smallest drainage area represented in this
study was 16.3 square miles. The expansion of stream typing using the RC5
(1994 and 1996) to smaller drainage basins would broaden representation of

stream type information in smaller and/or headwater Michigan streams.

51

LITERATURE CITED

Albert, D.A., S.R. Denton, and EN. Barnes. 1986. Regional Landscape
Ecosystems of Michigan. School of Natural Resources, University of
Michigan. 32 pp.

Allan JD. and Alexander G.G. 2006. Stream restoration in the Upper Midwest,
USA. Restoration Ecology, Vol. 14, No. 4: pp. 595-604

Brooks, K.N., P.F. Ffolliott, H.M. Gregersen, and LE DeBano. 2003. Hydrology
and the management of watersheds. Third Edition. Iowa State Press,
Ames, Iowa.

Davis, WM. 1890. The geographical cycle. Geographical Journal 14:
pp. 481-504.

Dunne, T. and LB. Leopold. 1978. Water in environmental planning. W.H.
Freeman and Company, San Francisco.

Environmental Protection Agency. WARSS Introduction. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/warsss/. Accessed March 23, 2009.

Fluvial Geomorphology Module. Available at: http://www.fgmorph.com/.
Accessed February 3, 2009.

Fongers, D. 2008. Peak flow analysis of Michigan USGS gages. Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality, Internal report, Lansing, MI.

Glickauf, S., w. Harman, S. Bevington, and K. Gilland. 2007. The development
of bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for streams of the Georgia
coastal plain. Georgia Water Resources Institute Conference.

Grant, G.E., F.J. Swanson, and MG Wolman. 1990. Pattern and origin of
stepped-bed morphology in high-gradient streams, Western Cascades,
Oregon. Geological Society Bulletin. 102: pp. 340-352

Horton, R. E. 1945. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins:
hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Geological Society of
America Bulletin 56: pp. 275-370.

Lane, E.W. 1955. The importance of fluvial geomorphology in hydraulic

engineering. American Society of Civil Engineering Proceedings 81. Paper
745: pp. 1-17.

52

Leopold, LB. 1994. A view of the river. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.

Leopold, LB, and T. Maddock. 1953. The hydraulic geometry of stream
channels and some physiographic implications. US. Geological Survey
Professional Paper No. 252. Superintendent of Documents, US.
Government Printing Office. Washington D.D.: 57pp.

Leopold, L.B., Wolman, M.G., 1957. River channel pattern: braided, meandering
and straight, physiographic and hydraulic studies of rivers. USA Geological
Survey Professional Paper 252, 85—98.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Michigan’s Natural Rivers Program.
Available at: httpzl/www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-
30301_31431_31442---,00.html. Accessed February 3, 2009.

Michigan Stream Team. 2005. Protocol for field surveys of stream morphology
at gaging stations in Michigan. Internal Report, Lansing, MI.

Mistak, J.L. and DA. Stille. 2008. Regional hydraulic geometry curve for the
Upper Menominee River. Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
Fisheries Technical Report 2008—1, Ann Arbor, MI.

Montgomery, D.R., and J.M. Buffington. 1993. Channel classification, prediction
of channel response, and assessment of channel condition.
TFW-SH10-93-002, Timber Fish and Wildlife Agreement. Department of
Natural Resources, Olympia, WA: 84 pp.

Platts, W.S. 1980. A plea for fishery habitat classification. Fisheries 5(1), 1-6.

Rachol, CM. 2009. Regional hydraulic geometry curves for estimating bankfull
characteristics of Michigan rivers. US. Geological Survey, Scientific
Investigation Report.

Rivermorph Stream Restoration Software. 2007. Rivermorph, LLC.

Rosgen, UL 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology, 2nd Edition. Wildland Hydrology,
Pogosa Springs, Colorado.

Naiman R]. and RE. Bailey. 1998. Lessons from the Pacific Northwest
Ecoregion. River Ecology and Management: Springer, 705 pp.

53

 

Nunnally, N.R. 1978. Stream Renovation: An Alternative to Channelization.
Environmental Management, Vol. 2, No 5: pp. 403-411.

Omernik, J. M. and R. G. Bailey. 1997. Distinguishing between watersheds and
ecoregions. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33(5):
pp. 935-949.

Palmer, M.A., Hart, D.D., Allan, JD. and the National River Restoration Science
Synthesis Working Group. 2003. Bridging engineering, ecological, and
geomorphic science to enhance riverine restoration: local and international
efforts. Proceedings of a National Symposium on Urban and Rural and
Stream Protection and Restoration. EWRI World Water and Environmental
Congress, Philadelphia, PA (June 2003). American society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA.

Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, B. Richter, R.
Sparks, and J. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime: a new
paradigm for riverine conservation and restoration. BioScience 47:
pp. 769-784.

Schumm, ME. 1977. The fluvial system. Wiley and Sons, New York: 338 pp.

Seelbach, P.W. and M.J. Wiley. 1997. An introduction to rivers-the conceptual
basis for the Michigan Rivers Inventory (MRI) Project. Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Fisheries Special
Report 20.

Seelbach, P.W., M.J. Wiley, J.C. Kotanchik, and ME. Baker. 1997. A landscape-
based ecological classification for river valley segments in Lower Michigan
(MI-VSEC Version 1.0). Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
Fisheries Division, Fisheries Research Report 2036.

Shelford, V.E. 1911. Ecological Succession. I. Stream fishes and the method of
physiographic analysis. Biology Bulletin 21: pp. 9-35.

Strahler, AM, 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology.
Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 38, 6: pp. 913—920

Sweet, DJ. 2003. The development of a stream restoration decision support
tool for the county of Henrico Stream Assessment and Watershed
Management Program. Masters Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, WV. 35 pp.

54

 

US. Geological Survey. PeakFQ, Flood Frequency Analysis Based on
Bulletin 178. Available at httpz/lwater.usgs.gov/software/PeakFQ/.
Accessed March 13, 2009.

US. Geological Survey. 2009. How to interpret gage height and
streamflow values. Available at
http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/tutorial/interpreting.html. Accessed March
6, 2009.

Ward and J.L. D’Ambrosio. 2008. Stream Classification. Ohio State University
Extension Fact Sheet, No. AEX-445-01. 8 pp.

Wasson, J. G. 1989. Elements pour une typologie fonctionelle des eaux
courantes: 1. Revue critique de quelques approches existantes. Bulletin
d’Ecologie, 20: 109- 127.

Wolman, MG. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material.
Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 35: 951-956.

55

N A ER

mlllllllllull]ljllllMlfllllllllllllllllllfllllllEs

2 711