Wisconsin Regional Curves Overview - USGS

Wisconsin Hydraulic
Geometry Regional Curves
Marie Peppler and Faith Fitzpatrick, USGS, Middleton, WI
Michigan Stream Team Conference Call
February 17, 2010

Objectives
Develop relations between channel hydraulic
geometry and drainage area for regions of
Wisconsin and Midwest states
• Describe relations in terms of multiple
stressors (multiple regression similar to flood
frequency regressions)
• Investigate outliers (such as presence of
wetlands)
• Build geomorphic data set for streamgages

Cooperators/funding
• started in 2006 and ongoing
• Cooperative effort among USGS, U.S. Forest Service,
and Natural Resources Conservation Service
• U.S. Forest Service --NE WI
• Natural Resources Conservation Service (MOU) – SW WI
Driftless Area
• Wisconsin DNR (interest but no funding yet)
• Cooperation with UW Stevens Point for Driftless area
and Western Lake Michigan tribs
• Proposal in development for expansion across the
Northern Lakes and Forests Ecoregion (MN, WI, MI)

Communication and Coordination
• USGS/USFS/NRCS (and maybe WI DNR)
~ bimonthly calls
~ quarterly meetings
~ potential site selection
~ field recon
~ protocol development
~ final site selection
~ field comparisons
~ data compilation/analyses
~ particle size laboratory analyses
~ data sharing/archiving
Regular communication with MI stream team
Using modified version of Ohio USGS Modified Mecklenberg
spreadsheets

Site locations

Site selection criteria
• Drainage areas of less than 300 mi 2 , with majority less than 100 mi 2
• Active streamgage (or current stage-discharge relation) a priority, crest
stage gages are secondary
• Minimum of 10 years of streamflow record, preferably 10-20 years
• Alluvial setting (no bedrock channels)
• No dams
• Limited local effects (culvert control, channelization, restoration).
Determine acceptable extent of alterations – may change as study
progresses and reconnaissance is done
• Observable field indicators of bankfull stage
• Give preference to “stable” streams with minimal recent aggradation or
incision
• Rural streams (mix of forest and agriculture)
• Range of Rosgen Level II channel types
• Some sites that were excluded on the first pass are now being reconsidered
due to the increase in record length or changes in expectations of
disturbance or wetland impacts

Site Reconnaissance
• Eligible sites are field checked
• 7 for 12 approval rate for north region
• Identify
• Reach length (20+ stream widths)
• Channel stability and riffle/pools
• Bankfull stage indicators
• USGS reference marks for gage
• Field issues (special equipment,
unique surveying or pebble count
technique needed, etc.)
• Riparian landowners
• Possible local impacts
Bad River at Mellen, WI

Field Methods
• Surveying
• Cross sections
• 3 riffles
• (at least one
valley width)
• 1 pool
• 1 at stage recorder or crest stage gage
• 1 at low-flow-measuring section for gage (approximately)
• 1 at bridge/culvert
• Cross section locations monumented with rebar
• Longitudinal Profile
Bois Brule River near Brule
• Centerline, thalweg, edge of water, bankfull and bank top elevations on
both sides though the reach (2+ stream widths us and ds of reach)

Field Methods, continued
• Bed substrate
• Pebble counts
• One at each riffle (3) and
one reach weighted
(Rosgen method)
• Hand texture sand samples
and collect sand QA if reach
is greater than 50% sand
• Bank Substrate/Structure
Spring Creek near Durand
• Collect samples at the endpoint of each transect between
the water surface and bankfull elevations
• Fill out geomorphic assessment sheets (modified Thorne)
for each bank

Field Methods, data sheets
• Modified from Colin Thorne (UK)
• Designed to collect more data than are
required to generate the regional curves with
only a small amount of additional field effort
• Example of scanned field sheets

Data management and analysis
• Five components for every site
• Photos folder (recon and data collection)
• Streamflow folder (5 files)
• Documents and Maps (pdf of scans of everything)
• 00000000_Sitename_analysis.xls (7 sheets)
• 00000000_Sitename_rawdata.xls (pebble count,
survey data analysis, etc.)
• Example
site files

Data sharing
• USFS is hosting the
ftp site – no security
permissions problems
• This has allowed
rapid communication
and sharing of
updated files and we
haven’t mixed up
versions yet!
• Need a longer term
solution to store and
share files

1,000
Preliminary Bankfull Area
Kickapoo
N Fish
Brule
100
Bankfull area (square feet)
10
Rock Br
Mishonagon
Pearl
Price DS
Price US
Black Earth
Spring
Regression results, U.P. MI Limited Use (Buck Engineering, 2009)
Regression results, L.P. MI (Rachol and Boley-Morse, 2009)
Observed, this study
y = 2.5976x 0.9875
R² = 0.7939
Power (Observed, this study)
1
1 10 100 1,000
Drainage area (square miles)

Preliminary Bankfull Q
10,000
N Fish
Bankfull Discharge (cubic feet per second)
1,000
100
10
Rock Br
Mishonagon
Pearl
Price DS &
Price US
Black Earth
Brule
Kickapoo
Regression results, U.P. MI Limited Use (Buck Engineering, 2009)
Regression results, L.P. Michigan (Rachol and Boley-Morse, 2009)
y = 18.283x 0.7023
R² = 0.5757
Observed, this study
Power (Observed, this study)
1
1 10 100 1,000
Drainage area (square miles)

10
Preliminary Bankfull Depth
N Fish
Kickapoo
Price DS
Brule
Price US
Bankfull Depth (feet)
1
Rock Br
Spring
Pearl
Mishonagon
Black Earth
Regression results, U.P. MI Limited Use (Buck Engineering, 2009)
Regression results, L.P. MI (Rachol and Boley-Morse, 2009)
y = 0.3552x 0.5087
R² = 0.661
Observed, this study
Power (Observed, this study)
0.1
1 10 100 1000
Drainage area (square miles)

Preliminary Bankfull Width

BANKFULL CHANNEL AREA (M^2)
100
10
1
Milwaukee-
Green Bay
urban
y = 0.7435x 0.6135
R² = 0.409
rural
y = 0.1623x 0.8555
R² = 0.4371
Duluth
urban
y = 0.7378x 0.5798
R² = 0.9895
Boston TIA < 6
Boston TIA > 12
Coastal and Central Maine (Dudley, 2004)
Milwaukee-Green Bay TIA < 6
Milwaukee-Green Bay TIA > 12
Chicago TIA < 6%
Chicago TIA > 12%
Wisconsin (unpublished data)
Duluth 12%
Power (Milwaukee-Green Bay TIA < 6)
Power (Milwaukee-Green Bay TIA > 12)
Power (Duluth TIA > 12%)
TIA = Total impervious area
0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000
DRAINAGE AREA (KM^2)

Current Issues
• Coordinated data management and storage has been
working well
• Modified Modified Ohio Mecklenberg sheets may be
template for future geomorphic data base
• Need to consider procedures for archiving data and
making it available to the general public
• It would be great to provide the regressions in
STREAMSTATS (with the flood frequency data) or the
data NWIS (with the real-time flow data)? Updated Vigil
Network? USGS Biological data base?
• Part of the next effort (2011-13) is to develop an answer to
the data conundrum (storage, sharing and public use)
• Pace has been slow, but this has had its advantages
for protocol development and data management

Northern Lakes and Forest Proposal
• Select approximately 30-40 USGS forested streamgages from Northern Lakes and Forest
Ecoregion in the Michigan Upper Peninsula, Wisconsin, and Minnesota and combine with
data from existing hydraulic geometry sites previously sampled for primary analysis of
bankfull characteristics and relation to drainage area and peak flow probabilities.
• Use same WI USGS/ USFS/ NRCS protocols, data management, and data analysis as used for
WI statewide study. Collect data in fy2011-2012, starting in the fall 2010.
• Categorize channel types using Rosgen Level II classification.
• Develop regional bankfull curves and flood probability. Compare relationships across Rosgen
channel types.
• Construct comparison plots of data from the streamgages with hydraulic geometry data
collected from approximately 125 reaches with bankfull, drainage area, and channel type from
previous study by Savery and others, 2001
• Compare to other hydraulic geometry data collected previously at ungaged sites.
• Compare to previously published hydraulic geometry/curves in adjacent areas, including
Michigan’s lower peninsula.
• Write proposals with federal, university, and state partners to complete regional curves in
areas where gaps exist in the coverage of Great Lakes tributaries
• Construct geomorphic data base for the Great Lakes tributaries

Level IV Ecoregions (Omernik, 2010)
Blue areas = Units within the Northern Lakes and Forest Ecoregion

Other USGS Regional Curves
• 19 other USGS publications in 11
states
• TN is in progress
• This map only includes published USGS studies
• (reports by region in NY, PA, and VA)
• Similar methods across most studies
(see spreadsheet)
• Represents a large body of data that
is collected and not archived
• NRCS/Nat’l Engineering Handbook has a national protocol

Summary
• Working toward multi-agency procedures
and methods for developing regional curves
in Wisconsin
• Protocols and data storage ready for more
wide spread use
• Working on collaboration with entities in
other states to develop curves for the entire
Great Lakes Basin
• Hope to use projects as basis for a USGS
geomorphic data base