Central US Node Report

Updated 2/28/06

Jump To

• Introduction
• Restoration Synthesis
• Results
• Lessons Learned
• Figures

Introduction

The Central U.S. Large Rivers Node (CUSLR) is evaluating stream and river restoration practices occurring in the Upper Mississippi River Basin (UMRB). The mainstem section of the Mississippi River is characterized by a system of 26 locks and dams forming a series of shallow impoundments that occupy much of the former river’s floodplain.  Levee construction has further reduced the floodplain area and river-floodplain connectivity.  Additionally, channelization, bank stabilization, and dredging facilitate navigation.  Human settlement and agricultural land-use practices over the past 200 years have degraded water quality and increased the amount and altered the rate of sediment and nutrient flows within the basin.  Despite these modifications, the Mississippi River remains a great national treasure.  Congress has designated the UMRB as both a nationally significant ecosystem  and a nationally significant commercial navigation system.

Geographic Scope

Stream/river/watershed restoration projects have been synthesized from the Upper Mississippi River from Cairo, IL and the confluence of the Ohio River, to the Mississippi Headwaters region (Figure 1).  Area of the UMRB is approximately 190,000 square miles. States with tributaries to the Upper Mississippi River Basin include Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Michigan, Indiana, and Minnesota. Rivers used for commercial navigation within the UMRB include the Mississippi River, Illinois Rivers, lower portions of the Kaskaskia, Black, St. Croix, and Minnesota rivers, and the Chicago Sanitary/Calumet Sag Shipping Canals (Figure 1).  The above mentioned navigated rivers and remaining streams, rivers, and their watersheds within the UMRB represent two distinct strata within the UMRB, created by the CUSLR node, to aide in representation of efforts to restore this nationally renowned river and its network of tributaries.

 CUSLR Node Members

Dr. David L. Galat (Principal Investigator), T. Kevin O’Donnell (Node Manager and Graduate Research Assistant), Benedict Nagy (Phone Survey Technician), and Clayton Ridenour (Node Participant)

USGS Missouri Cooperative Fisheries and Wildlife Research Unit

University of Missouri-Columbia

Advisory Cooperators

Dr. Robb Jacobson, USGS, Columbia Environmental Research Center

Dr. Charlie Rabeni, USGS, University of Missouri

Dr. Ken Lubinski, USGS, Upper Midwest Environmental Science Center

Dr. Richard Sparks, University of Illinois

Stream/River/Watershed Restoration Synthesis

Synthesis of UMRB restoration of data into the NRRSS national database (http://nrrss.nbii.gov) was completed on October 1, 2005. Based on recommendations of CUSLR node members and advisory cooperators, and expected differences in project characteristics between large rivers and many smaller watersheds within the UMRB, two defined areas within the UMRB were identified for synthesis and presentation of restoration project characteristics.  These project location strata have been identified as:

1. Non-navigated river reaches and their watersheds (hereafter, NNR)
2. Navigated river reaches and their floodplains (hereafter, NR).

The NR stratum was identified within the UMRB by presence of active commercial navigation routes (Figure 1).  The NNR stratum represented remaining river reaches and watersheds within the UMRB.  The creation of a third project location category, referred to as 3) unknown, was later necessitated due to lack of spatial information necessary to assign individual projects to either NNR or NR strata. A total of 54 data sources contributed/collected from 33 unique agencies/entities were used for synthesis of individual projects into the national NRRSS database, for a total of 62,108 projects (Table 1). In addition to the above mentioned project location strata, individual projects were assigned to USGS hydrologic unit code (HUC) watershed units to aid in representation of project characteristics across the UMRB (Figure 2).

Phone Surveys of Restoration Project Managers

Interviews of individual restoration project managers were completed on September 15, 2005.  A total of 58 individual restoration projects from the UMSRB were identified for validation of project data collected from original sources (i.e., Table 1) and collection of fine scale project information by delivery of a scripted phone survey.  Restoration projects picked for delivery of the scripted phone survey were chosen by a random stratified selection. Information collected during conversations with individual project managers included project motivations, planning, design, implementation, monitoring, potential effects of efforts on stream systems, and lessons learned.  An additional 12 phone surveys conducted by a neighboring NRRSS node (not completed using McKnight Foundation funds) were completed within the UMRB. A total of 70 completed phone surveys within UMRB span both NNR (57) and NR (13) restoration project strata allowing examination of fine detail project characteristics from across the UMRB basin.

Examination of Selected Restoration Efforts within one Illinois River watershed

A closer examination of USDA Conservation Reserve Program and Illinois Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program efforts has continued within the La Moine River Watershed (USGS HUC #07130010) using hydrologic modeling software.  Informal meetings with USDA and Soil and Water Conservation District conservationists working within the La Moine River Watershed has enabled CUSLR to investigate local environmental, economic, and program characteristics important to implementation of various agricultural conservation/restoration practices in this watershed.  Watershed field visits and collection of stream geomorphic and site data, including stream dimensions (e.g., bankfull width and depth), riparian conditions, and agricultural producer surface water management practices, was completed by September 24, 2005.  Information collected during field visits continues to be incorporated into hydrologic modeling software, further aiding in representation of watershed hydrologic processes.  Expected results and products from this effort at the completion of CUSLR efforts include determination of potential beneficial effects from conversion of row-cropped corn-soybean field management to USDA conservation practices and alternate strategies to improving water quality in this tributary to the Illinois River.

Upper Mississippi River Basin Characteristics

Examination of projects densities within four-digit HUC watersheds indicates highest numbers of projects within the Iowa-Skunk-Wapsipinicon Rivers, followed by the Minnesota River (Figure 3).  Highest amounts of funding for river restoration funding occur with the Minnesota River basin, Iowa-Skunk-Wapsipinicon River basins, and the Lower Illinois River basin (Figure 3).  Closer examination of projects densities within eight-digit HUC watersheds, standardized by stream lengths with watersheds, indicate highest numbers of projects occur within selected watersheds in north-central portions of Iowa, followed by southwestern Minnesota, and along the Illinois-Indiana state border (Figure 4).  Further examination of river restoration project costs within eight-digit HUC watershed units, standardized by stream length, indicate watersheds distributed within southwestern Minnesota, central Iowa, and central/ southern Illinois contain the highest costing restoration efforts (Figure 5).  Overall, results indicate a large amount of effort in the form of program funding, staff time, and landowner participation has been expended to stop or reverse environmental impacts to the Mississippi River and its many tributaries.

NNR Project Characteristics

Synthesis of restoration projects from NNR indicate most projects address water quality impairment and stream/river riparian conditions while smaller numbers of projects address bank stabilization and in-stream habitat improvement (Table 2).  Original data sources used for synthesis of individual project information indicate a low percentage of projects within goal categories are monitored to assess effects of projects. Fish passage projects, followed by channel reconfiguration project contain the highest percentage of projects with monitoring present (42% and 29% of projects monitored respectively) according to available sources.  Highest medium costs for goal categories occur for stormwater management projects, followed by land acquisition projects.  However, both of these categories were indicated for a low number of projects compared to other goal categories.  Lowest medium goal costs occurred for bank stabilization, floodplain reconnection, riparian management, and water quality management projects (Table 2).  Based on synthesized data, most funding to restore streams and rivers not managed for commercial navigation has been directed toward addressing water quality issues and streamside riparian conditions (Table 2).

NR Project Characteristics

Dominant goals of UMSRB NR projects we evaluated include water quality management, instream habitat improvement, and flow modification (Table 2).  Available data sources indicate 50% of NR projects that address bank stabilization are monitored.  Medium costs for large river projects are greater than $1,000,000, except for floodplain reconnection and other goal categories (Table 2).  Funding is greatest for instream habitat improvements, totaling greater than $100,000,000 for 36 projects (Table 2).  Examination of individual NR projects indicates most projects occur within the Upper Mississippi River, followed by the Illinois River (Table 3).  A total of ca. $151,000,000 has been spent on river restoration projects within NR, with only 57 of 175 projects containing cost data.

Upper Mississippi River Basin Restoration Project Phone Surveys

A total of 70 phone surveys were completed from selected watersheds within the UMRB (Figure 6).  Projects chosen for validation of data collected to date and collection of fine detailed project information were randomly selected from both dominant national goals for river restoration projects and dominant river restoration goals within the UMRB.  Project goals chosen for phone surveys included water quality management , instream habitat improvement , riparian management, flow modification, and channel reconfiguration.  Primary goals of restoration projects chosen for phone surveys did not entirely parallel goals initially indicated by original data sources, with a larger diversity of goals present indicated by interviewees (Figure 7).  Persons participating in phone surveys from NNR most often indicated they managed/coordinated projects while NR interviewees most often indicated they were responsible for evaluating projects (Figure 8).  Phone survey NNR interviewees most often indicated past experience as an important source of knowledge to the project design plan, while NR interviewees most often indicated biologists and engineers were important sources of knowledge (Figure 9).  Project interviewees more often indicated projects contained a monitoring component compared to original data sources from which synthesized data was obtained (Table 4).  Project interviewees from NR projects most often indicated information on implementation of a specific project feature was gained after the project was completed, while, NNR interviewees indicated a diversity of information gained after project completion (Figure 10).  Overall, phone surveys provide an in-depth investigation of specific success criteria chosen for projects, monitoring variables most often chosen to evaluate projects, and lessons learned after project completion.

 

Insights/Unexpected Results from CUSLR Activities

Examination of available data sources for river restoration projects indicates no standardized approach is taken by agencies to account for project locations.  Various data formats for location of projects include stream name, state/county name, watershed, latitude/longitude coordinates, regional planning area, watershed NGO working area, etc. Our intentions to locate project locations within navigable rivers, their floodplains, and remaining UMRB watersheds was difficult given state of current data sources.  This necessitated the creation of an unknown location category when beginning comparative analyses of project characteristics.  Total number of projects within the unknown category was 8,357 costing ca. $200,000,000. This category represents a significant portion of projects synthesized by CUSLR.  The current state of restoration data sources necessities standardized collection and reporting of individual project attributes.  The national NRRSS working group recommends a minimum number of fields should be collected when river restoration projects are implemented including:

1. GIS/GPS coordinates
2. Spatial extent
3. Goal of projects
4. Listing of project actions/activities
5. Year implemented
6. Cost
7. Contact information (e.g. project manager and affiliation)
8. Summary of monitoring results (if present)

In addition to the above mentioned fields, agencies and entities implementing projects should incorporate project data collection, management, periodic updating, and subsequent QA/QC activities into restoration program funding budgets.  Results from scripted phone surveys with individual project managers indicate two major attributes of river restoration projects: 1) projects often incorporate multiple goals and 2) some form of project monitoring is performed, yet details of this monitoring often are not indicated in available data sources.  Examination of 70 projects before and after delivery of scripted phone surveys show an increase in mean number of goals from 1.9 to 2.7 unique goals per project respectively, with a significant increase in number of projects indicating aesthetics/recreation/education as a component of projects.  Our ability to detect monitoring of individual project based on available data sources was reduced compared to actual project activities.  Results from phone surveys indicate that 59 of 70 projects incorporated some form of monitoring into the project. Initial data from our synthesized data indicated that only 25 of the 70 projects chosen for phone surveys were monitored.

Lessons Learned

Significant effort has been expended to address perceived and observed degradation, while little is currently known on effects of programs, projects, practices, and future direction of basin wide conditions.  Formulation of new plans by multiple agencies to manage and restore UMRB large rivers and watersheds continue (e.g., U.S. Army Coprs of Engineers Navigation and Ecological Sustainability Program).  These management efforts and individual projects have now begun to span typical engineering, natural resource, and regulatory employment appointments and position time spans, making reliance on current personal experience for broad scale issues short-sighted.  A basin wide assessment of past project characteristics, spatial placement, efforts to monitor effectiveness of projects, and the potential synergistic/antagonistic effects of past projects is now needed to assist in future efforts to manage the Mississippi River.  CUSLR activities indicate little information on agency restoration efforts, individual project locations, and specific project components is readily available to researchers and practitioners. 

An obvious first step in prioritizing future restoration efforts may include analysis of individual projects completed to date across involved agencies and broad inter-agency dissemination of results.  Objective evaluations of current and past restoration projects at large spatial scales which cross political and geographical boundaries require considerable time and effort, which “on-the-ground” practitioners and associated agencies may not realistically undertake.  This standardized collection and analysis of individual projects is necessary in order to further this important and emerging management tool and make better use of funding.  Standardized collection of projects has been completed by NRRSS and CUSLR and dissemination of results is now a necessary next step.  Adaptive management and science based decision making are stressed as important components of new management plans and individual projects currently planned for the Mississippi and Illinois rivers.  Efforts have been made to collect engineering lessons learned under one program or in localized areas, but no basin-wide assessments of ecological effectiveness, nutrient/sediment effects of individual projects, or project synergistic/antagonistic effects have occurred.  Also, no significant integration of future and past restoration projects across involved agencies can occur except a general awareness that other efforts have been made and certain project components may or may not work well in a certain environmental context.  Current findings by CUSLR can be presented to various agencies to promote better tracking of projects and better large scale planning for the UMRB.

Figures

Figure 1.  Upper Mississippi River Basin boundaries and rivers currently managed for commercial navigation within the basin.

Table 1.  Individual projects synthesized into CUSLR database summarized by created  UMRB strata summarized and agencies/organization contributing project information.

		Strata
Contributing Agency orOrganization	# of Data Source Provided or Collected	NNR	NR	U
Audubon Society	1	0	1	0
FishAmerica Foundation	1	4	0	0
Illinois Department of Agriculture	1	441	0	0
Illinois Department of Natural Resources	2	92	3	1
Illinois State Water Survey	1	4	0	0
Iowa Department of Natural Resources	1	58	0	0
Lake Co. Illinois	1	3	0	0
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources	1	13	0	0
Minnesota Ducks Unlimited	1	1	0	0
Minnesota State University	1	28	0	0
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation	1	17	2	0
North Carolina State University	1	1	0	0
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission	2	115	2	0
Not specified		3	0	0
River Alliance of Wisconsin	1	28	0	0
River Network	1	1	0	0
St. Charles Co., IL Park District	1	1	0	0
St. Charles Co., IL SWCD	1	4	0	0
The Nature Conservancy	2	5	2	0
Trout Unlimited	1	1	0	0
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service	1	30	0	10
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers	5	20	51	1
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	7	179	1	11
U.S. Federal Highway Administration	1	1	0	0
U.S. National Park Service	1	1	2	1
University of Illinois	3	31	0	0
University of Minnesota	1	3	1	5
University of Wisconsin	1	1	0	0
Upper Sugar River Watershed Association	1	2	0	0
USDA Farm Service Agency	1	51,457	0	8,342
USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service	3	895	109	0
Water Resource Development Act 1986-2002	1	3	1	0
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources	4	118	0	1
Totals		53,561	175	8,372
# of Agencies/Organizations	33
# of Data Sources Provided	52

Central U.S. Large Rivers Node group members (left to right): Charles Rabeni, Clayton Ridenour, T. Kevin O’Donnell, Richard Sparks, David L. Galat, and Robb Jacobson.