DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11

8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11

1/57

Backwaters Along The

Mississippi and MissouriRivers

D A N I E L L E Q U I S T

U S D B I O L O G Y G R A D S T U D E N T

O C T O B E R 2 1 S T , 2 0 1 0

R I V E R S T U D I E S L E C T U R E


2/57

What are backwaters?

Floodplain aquatic habitats that are usuallyconnected by a downstream opening to the main

channel and seasonally or periodically connected atan upstream opening.


3/57

Role of Backwaters

Backwaters Provide Productive and ProtectiveHabitats for Many Organisms

Lower flows provide protection and decrease turbidity

Increase in photosynthesis

Higher abundance of food sources for many organisms

Primary Producers, Macroinvertebrates, Zooplankton

An important fish nursery

Protected from flow

High amounts of zooplankton


4/57

Aquatic Food Web Example


5/57

Backwaters as Wetlands


6/57

Backwaters

Come in all Different Shapes and Sizes

Can Make them Difficult to Study and Compare

Lets Look at Some Backwaters Along the MississippiRiver and Missouri River


7/57

Mississippi River Watershed


8/57

Upper Mississippi Backwaters
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30794476&id=45806243


9/57

Landsat 7 Satellite ImagesSouth of Lacrosse, WI

South of Prairie Du Chien, WI


10/57
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=33578973&id=45806243


11/57

Mississippi River Watershed


12/57

Missouri River Backwaters


13/57

Missouri River Near HWY 19 Bridge


14/57

View from Missouri River Backwaters


15/57

Graphics Courtesy of Watersheds.org(1) and USACE (2)

2

11

35% impounded

32% channelized

33% unchannelized


16/57

Headwaters of Missouri River


17/57

Dammed Reaches


18/57

Dammed Reaches

500-755 miles of MissouriRiver were inundatedunder reservoirs


19/57

Dammed Reaches

Missouri River has beengreatly altered by dams

Altered flow regime

Channel Incision

This has lead to reduced

connectivity to thefloodplain and a decrease inshallow water habitat

Graphics Courtesy of USACE


20/57

Decrease in Shallow Water Habitat Along the 59-mile MNRR Pre and Post Dam

460 ha

261 ha

0

50100

150200250

300350

400450500

1941 2008

Area(ha)

Year

Shallow Water Habitat Area Changes Post DamAlong the 59-mile Reach of the MNRR


21/57

Channelized Reach

Photo courtesy of USGS


22/57


23/57

735 miles arechannelized

(Sioux City , IA to St. Louis, MO)

Aquatic habitat was lost as 168,000acres of sediment accreted behind the

wing dikes, forming new land.

Nearly 354,000 acres of meander belthabitat were lost to urban andagricultural floodplain development.

Channelization shortened the river72 miles, resulting in a loss of 127miles of river shoreline habitat.


24/57

Current Backwater (SWH) Restoration Along theMissouri River


25/57

Floodplain Connectivity

Many rivers are disconnected totheir floodplain Loss of floodplain functionality

Decreased numbers off-channelhabitats


26/57

Habitat Restoration

Restoring Shallow Water Habitat along the MissouriRiver

USACE has been working to restore shallow water habitat (SWH),including backwaters, along the Missouri River south of Ponca, NEas a response to the reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA)

outlined in the 2000 Biological Opinion (amended in 2003). Recent purchase of land by USACE may lead to future backwater

and chute construction along the 59-mile MNRR

3 Reconstructed backwaters along the 59-mile

MNRRYankton Backwater (RM 806) Gunderson Backwater (RM 777)

Ponca Backwater (RM 754)


27/57

Photo b USACE 2008

The Gunderson BackwaterRM 777


28/57

Gunderson Property 1953Pre-construction of Gavins Point Dam


29/57

Gunderson Property 2004


30/57

Gunderson Backwater 2009(Restored 2008)

777

778


31/57

Yankton Backwater Pre-restoration 1997RM 806

Photo by NPS 2005


32/57

Yankton Backwater Pre-restoration 2000RM 806

Y kt B k t P t R t ti


33/57

Yankton Backwater Post Restoration 2010(Restored 2007-08)

Photo by NDOR 2005

k k


34/57

Yankton BackwaterJune 2011

k i


35/57

Ponca Backwater Pre-restoration 1997RM 754

P B k P i


36/57

Ponca Backwater Pre-restoration 2000RM 754

P B k P C i


37/57

Ponca Backwater Post Construction 2010(Restored 2004)

Photo by USACE 2005

Ri Dik N hi


38/57

River Dike NotchingBelow the 59-mile

Missouri River Recovery Program


39/57

Missouri River Recovery ProgramESH and SWH Site Locations, 2010


40/57

D A N I E L L E Q U I S T 1 , T I M C O W M A N 2 , D A N S O L U K 1 , M A R K D I X O N 1 1 D E P A R T M E N T O F B I O L O G Y , U N I V E R S I T Y O F S O U T H D A K O T A , V E R M I L L I O N , S D 2 M I S S O U R I R I V E R I N S T I T U T E , U N I V E R S I T Y O F S O U T H D A K O T A , V E R M I L L I O N , S D

Chlorophyll a Concentration and

Water Quality Trends

Within the Main Channel, Reconstructed and NaturallyOccurring Backwaters of the 59-mile Reach of the

Missouri National Recreational River (MNRR)USD River Studies Course

October 2011


41/57

59-mile MNRR

Graphics Courtesy of Watersheds.org(1) and USACE (2)

2

11


42/57

View of the 59-mile MNRR


43/57

Primary Objectives

Spatially and temporally compare various water qualityparameters and Chl a concentrations of the restored and naturalbackwaters and the main channel of the 59-mile reach of theMNRR

Investigate relationships between Chl a concentrations and waterquality parameters

RM 757 NBW


44/57

RM 806 RBW RM 777 RBW RM 774 NBW RM 766 NBW RM 754 RBW


45/57

Methods

Samples were collected monthly in June-Sept. 2010 from the 3 reconstructed(RM 806, 777, and 754) and 3 natural backwaters (RM 774, 766, and 757) aswell as adjacent main channel sites

Samples were collected at 1/3 depth to bottom with VanDorn bottle andshipped to the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural

Resources (SDDENR) Water Quality Lab

In situ measurements (e.g., temperature, pH, conductivity, DO, and turbidity)were taken with a compound YSI probe

Chl a was determined using EPAs Standard Operation Procedure with Chl aconcentrations calculated from measurements taken with a Beckman CoulterDU 640 Spectrophotometer to estimate phytoplankton biomass.

Repeated Measures ANOVA and Multiple/Linear Regression analyses wererun on SAS 9.2


46/57

Water Quality Parameters

In Situ Temperature

Specific Conductivity

pH

Turbidity

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

InorganicsAlkalinity

Ammonia

Nitrate

Total Phosphorus

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)


47/57

Results: Spatial and Temporal Comparisons

Results indicate significant temporal trends in nitrate,ammonia, TSS, phosphorus, TDS, temperature,turbidity, and Chl a concentration (p


48/57

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

June July Aug Sept

Phosphorus

(mg/L)

0

50

100

150

200

June July Aug Sept

TSS

ReconstructedNatural

Main Channel

400

450

500

550

600650

700

750

June July Aug Sept

TDS(mg/L)

0

10

20

30

40

June July Aug Sept

Chla

concentration



49/57


01

2

3

4

5

June July Aug Sept

Nitrate(mg/L)

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

June July Aug SeptAmmonia(mg/L) Reconstructed

Natural

Main Channel

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

June July Aug Sept

TempC

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8

8.2

June July Aug

pH


50/57

Discussion

Temporal trends in TSS, TDS, and nutrients are linked with seasonalpatterns in runoff, discharge, and land use.

The restored backwaters show lower levels of TSS, TDS, and

turbidity, which is highly likely due to the lower connectivity

compared to the natural occurring backwaters


51/57

Natural Backwater RM 774

2009 2010


52/57

Natural Backwater RM 766

2009 2010


53/57

Results: Chlorophyll a Regression Analysis

ChlaConcentra

tion

TSS

Fit 95% Confidence Interval 95% Prediction Interval

Fit Plot for Chl a

Figure 12: Linear Regression Plot for Chlorophyll a (Chl a) and TotalSuspended Solids (TSS); n = 42 & R-square = 0.3104


54/57

Discussion

Evidence points to the possibility of a more light limited thennutrient limited system, but more samples would be necessary to

determine the correlations within the different habitats Most lake studies have shown phytoplankton (Chl a) to be phosphorus limited (e.g.

Dillion & Rigler 1974; Schindler 1977), as well as nitrogen limited (Downing &

McCauley 1992).

Rivers have also shown positive relationships with nutrients and Chl a (Basu and Pick

1995).

Discharge and turbidity have also been correlated withphytoplankton abundance more than nutrient concentrations in

rivers (e.g. Jones 1984; Krogstatd and Lovestad 1989) which may

be similar to what is seen in the 59-mile reach of the MNRR.

Current Project: Long-term Channel Morphology


55/57

Current Project: Long-term Channel MorphologyDynamics of the Missouri River

Mesohabitats: Backwaters

Natural Backwaters Recreated Backwaters Floodplain lakes/Oxbow lakes Backups

Other Channels

Chutes Side Channel Chutes (2) Secondary Channels (2)

Islands Sandbars

Un-vegetated Sandbars Vegetated Sandbars Constructed Sandbars

Wetted Perimeter Displaced Land

Land to Water Water To Land


56/57


57/57

THE END

Documents

DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11