Hydro-Geomorphic Classification and Potential Vegetation Mapping for Upper Mississippi River Bottomland Restoration

Abstract

Ecosystem restoration that incorporates process and function has become well known among ecosystem restoration practitioners (Society for Ecological Restoration, 2004; Palmer et al., 2005; Kondolf et al., 2006;). It has been recommended for the Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS; Figure 1) by expert advisory panels (Lubinski and Barko, 2003; Barko et al., 2006) and in Federal policy (U.S. Water Resources Development Act 2007, Section 8001). Our conceptual model for the UMRS integrates process and function among five Essential Ecosystem Components (EECs; Harwell et al., 1999), with hydrology, geomorphology, and biogeochemistry strongly influencing habitat and biota (Lubinski and Barko, 2003; Jacobsen, in press). The primary ecological driver of large floodplain river landscapes is hydrology (Junk et al., 1989; Poff et al., 1997; Sparks et al., 1998; Whited et al., 2007; Klimas et al., 2009), with discharge and river stage being the most common indicators of system condition and variability. Hydrology and hydraulics are conditioned by the geomorphic setting, or geomorphic landscape, which establishes river stage and floodplain inundation response to variable discharge (Clarke, et al., 2003; Thoms, 2003; Newson, 2006; Stallins, 2006; Thorp et al., 2008). Geomorphology is frequently presented as planform aquatic features (i.e., channel, secondary channel, backwater, floodplain, etc.), the river cross-section, floodplain topography, or soil profiles and maps. Flood inundation patterns are mapped less frequently, but they are strongly influenced by both regional and local hydrology and geomorphology (Thorp et al., 2008).