Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland - Project Proposal

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

ABSTRACT The north west corner of Indiana was once home to one of the largest inland wetlands in the United States: The Grand Kankakee Marsh. This nearly half million-acre region was one of the most diverse habitats in the entire continent, supporting an unbelievable population of plant and animal life. At the heart of the marshland was the meandering Kankakee River, flowing through 250 miles of twists and turns, winding its way across the unmarred landscape as it had for millennia. Unfortunately, with the discovery of the region’s vast supply of natural resources, mass exploitation of the land quickly followed. Over the course of the 19th and 20th century, man sought to take control of the marsh, but at costly price. What resulted was a complete destruction of the landscape. The wetlands were drained in order to be converted to crop land, leaving a mere one percent of the original ecosystem intact. The Kankakee River itself was dredged and channelized, cutting off more than 2,000 riverbends, leaving what is essentially a 90-mile-long drainage ditch. A land of enchantment, inspiration, and discovery was gone.

This project proposal seeks to remedy the consequences suffered in the Kankakee region over the past two centuries. The project concentrates on the restoration and rehabilitation of the Kankakee River and small portions of surrounding marshland to its pre-industrialized, natural form. Specifically, this project will focus on returning this straightened river to a meander, reestablishing adjacent wetlands and floodplain ecosystems, restoring agricultural lands to natural habitat, and creating a network of trails, roads, and parks that connect the surrounding rural communities while providing an insight into the rich history of the area. In turn, these proposed modifications of the landscape will reduce the effects of flooding, lead to better water quality in the river, increase populations of native plant and wildlife species, and allow for increased acknowledgement of the region. This is the Rewilding of the Kankakee.

Senne |1

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 4 SECTION I: THE PROBLEM & ITS SETTING ................................................................ 8 PROBLEM STATEMENT .............................................................................................................. 8 SUB-PROBLEMS ......................................................................................................................... 9 DEFINING KEY TERMS ................................................................................................................ 9 ASSUMPTIONS ......................................................................................................................... 12 DELIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 13 PROJECT SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................................................... 13

SECTION II: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 15 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... 15 BRIEF HISTORY OF THE KANKAKEE REGION ............................................................................. 15 RIVER RESTORATION ............................................................................................................... 16 HISTORY OF WATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES................................................................................... 17 RIVER RESTORATION & MANIPULATION PRACTICES IN THE 20TH CENTURY ........................................ 18 CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES TO RIVER RESTORATION .................................................................... 19

WETLAND RESTORATION......................................................................................................... 20 DEFINING WETLANDS ............................................................................................................................ 21 HISTORY OF WETLANDS ......................................................................................................................... 22 WETLAND RESTORATION PRACTICES AND TECHNIQUES...................................................................... 23

HABITAT RESTORATION ........................................................................................................... 25 STRENGTHENING BIODIVERSITY ............................................................................................................ 25 RE-ESTABLISHING PLANT LIFE ................................................................................................................ 25 ROLE OF ECOSYSTEM ENGINEERS ......................................................................................................... 26 TARGET SPECIES ..................................................................................................................................... 27

SUCCESS / FAILURE FACTORS IN RESTORATION ...................................................................... 28 NEED FOR ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................ 28 DETERMINING SUCCESS......................................................................................................................... 29 ADDRESSING FAILURES .......................................................................................................................... 30

OUTCOMES OF EFFECTIVE RESTORATION ............................................................................... 30 ECONOMIC BENEFITS............................................................................................................................. 30

Senne |2

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS .................................................................................................................. 32 SOCIAL BENEFITS.................................................................................................................................... 34

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 35

SECTION III: METHODOLOGIES .............................................................................. 36 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... 36 FLOODING ............................................................................................................................... 37 WATER QUALITY ...................................................................................................................... 37 NATIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES ....................................................................................................... 38 NATIVE PLANT SPECIES ............................................................................................................ 38 COMMUNITY USERSHIP AND ENGAGEMENT .......................................................................... 39 EDUCATIONAL ELEMENTS ....................................................................................................... 39 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 39

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 41 APPENDECIES ......................................................................................................... 48 APPENDIX A: PROJECT TIMELINE ............................................................................................. 48 APPENDIX B: GOALS & OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................... 50 APPENDIX C: SITE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 51 APPENDIX D: SITE PHOTOS ...................................................................................................... 54 APPENDIX E: TIMELINE OF THE KANKAKEE .............................................................................. 72 APPENDIX F: HISTORIC PHOTOS .............................................................................................. 74 APPENDIX G: HISTORIC MAPS.................................................................................................. 79 APPENDIX H: PRECEDENT PROJECTS ....................................................................................... 80 APPENDIX I: SUPPLEMENTARY FLOOD DATA ........................................................................... 82 APPENDIX J: LIST OF ENDANGERED WILDLIFE AND PLANT SPECIES......................................... 87 APPENDIX K: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SURVEY................................................................. 88

CLOSING STATEMENT ............................................................................................ 90

Senne |3

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

INTRODUCTION “Never in all of my world travels have I seen a more perfect spot, nor a more tantalizing river.”

- General Lew Wallace; Civil War General, Politician, and Author “Everywhere we beheld the works of God in nature, I have lived in France and Germany, I was raised in England, but I have never seen anything in those countries that equaled the beauty of this western prairie.”

- Thomas Rodgers Barker; Early settler and entrepreneur The quotes featured above were written with regards to the serene beauty and allure of one of the largest inland wetlands in the United States: The Grand Kankakee Marsh. Spanning from present day South Bend, Indiana down into northern Illinois, this expanse of wetlands, prairie, and forests was once a place like no other, teeming with an incredibly diverse population of wildlife and home to a seemingly endless supply of natural resources. This often overlooked region’s story began nearly 17,000 years ago, forming with the retreat of the Wisconsin Glacier (Moran 2009). For centuries, the Grand Kankakee Marsh remained in its natural state, untouched by the hands of industrialism and unaware of man’s desire to take control over mother nature. At the heart of this marsh flowed the Kankakee River, a 250-mile long meandering waterway, slowly winding its way across the landscape of northern Indiana and Illinois as it had for millennia.

With an abundance of waterfowl, mammals, and fish, as well as timber, herbaceous plants, and countless other resources, the Grand Kankakee Marsh naturally attracted Native Americans and other early settlers. It even came to be described as “God’s renewable pantry” (Brian Kallies 2012). Though their exact arrival period in the area is unclear, this land was home to the native Pottawatomie people, as well as other Woodland and Mississippian tribes (Meyer 1934). These native people utilized the land for food, shelter, and even medicinal purposes. Many of the early settlers were trappers, drawn to the area by the seemingly inexhaustible supply of mink, muskrat, and beaver. Trapping in the marsh became an industry, producing millions of dollars each year (Brian Kallies 2012). It even peaked the interests of the infamous businessman John Jacob Astor, who set up multiple trading posts across the marsh. Unfortunately, as the area Senne |4

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland gained popularity, settlers began on the Native Americans and claiming territory as their own, hoping to farm the rich black soils and fertile land. Conflicts between the two parties eventually resulted in the Treaty of the Tippecanoe, an act that set in motion the systematic removal of the Native people and later the Trail of Death (Brian Kallies 2012). Up to this point, the marsh existed in nearly perfect harmony with man, but this was all about to change.

With the widespread discovery of the regions’ vast supply of natural resources, inevitably, the mass exploitation of the land quickly followed. The marsh gained more and more recognition as a sportsman’s paradise, appealing to affluent members of society from around the world.

Individuals like Presidents Benjamin Harrison and Theodore Roosevelt, as well as foreign princes and kings, flooded to the area to hunt the bountiful wildlife, including deer, fox, beaver, prairie chicken, wild turkey, muskrats, mink, and other types of water fowl (Brian Kallies 2012).

Commercial hunting for food and fashion further decimated wildlife populations in the area, while marsh hay farming and the timber industry depleted the region of more natural resources (Brian Kallies 2012). Yet, this was just the start of man’s complete destruction of the Grand Kankakee Marsh.

Halfway through the 19th century, Congress enacted the Swamp Lands Acts of 1849 and 1850, a federal legislation that transferred ownership of wetlands to the states for the purposes of draining and transforming the area into arable land (Dahl and Allord 1997). However, initial drainage efforts in the Grand Kankakee Marsh were futile, being that hand-digging the ditches was slow, tedious work and ultimately did little to take the water away. In the early 1880’s, John Campbell, Indiana’s Chief Engineer, prepared a comprehensive plan to drain the marsh once and for all. Through a complex series of drainage ditches, dug by steam-powered dredges, the state of Indiana began disfiguring the natural landscape. (Campbell 1883). Still, this did little to drain the marsh, and focus quickly shifted onto the river. In 1893, in an unprecedented measure, the state of Indiana blasted a mile long, 300 foot wide channel through a limestone rock ledge in Momence, Illinois, in hopes that the destruction of this natural dam would allow water to flow from the wetlands more freely (“A Look Back: Kankakee Marsh Was Largest Inland Wetlands in U.S. ” 2018). Once more, this attempt failed. Now, with multiple unsuccessful drainage attempts behind them, the state sought a more aggressive approach: Senne |5

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland dredging the river itself. By the early 1920’s, the dredges had cut their way through Indiana, but were met with harsh opposition at the border of Illinois as they attempted to continue straightening the river (Brian Kallies 2012). Still, it was too late for Indiana. The channelization of the Kankakee removed over 2,000 river bends and reduced the overall length of the waterway to almost a third of its original path (Friends of the Kankakee 2020). The river’s transformation into a drainage ditch effectively drained the remaining portions of the Grand Kankakee Marsh, dwindling the once half a million acres of sprawling ecosystems to a mere one percent of that (“A Look Back: Kankakee Marsh Was Largest Inland Wetlands in U.S. ” 2018).

Man had finally conquered the marsh – a land of enchantment, inspiration, and discovery was gone.

The effects of man’s belief in progress without a regard for consequences is evident here, as are the ramifications of the channelization of the Kankakee and drainage of the surrounding marshland. Heavy rains often result in devastating floods, endangering nearby rural communities. Seasonal rains also cause substantial runoff from adjacent agricultural fields, carrying with them concentrations of pesticides and pollutants downstream. Additionally, the channelized river carries an increased amount of sediment downriver, altering the character and health of the river in stretches in Illinois (Themer 2015). For a time, much of the native wildlife had all but disappeared; however, thanks to modern conservation and restoration efforts, their populations are on the rise.

In order to explore the concepts of river and wetland restoration, I am proposing a project that focuses on the straightened Kankakee River and the decimated marshland. This project will center around returning the river to its pre-channelized form and rehabilitation of the adjacent wetlands lost to agriculture. This project will feature a comprehensive master plan, a detailed site plan demonstrating methods and spatial relationships, and other valuable graphic information. The selected portion of the river spans from Route 49 on the east to Highway 231 on the west. This nine-and-a-half-mile long stretch was chosen given its close proximity to a number of rural communities, various schools, and sufficient remnants of the historic river.

Senne |6

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland Additionally, a review of literature places a considerable focus on topics relating to historic water management practices, contemporary approaches to river restoration, the history of wetlands, wetland restoration practices and techniques, habitat creation, strengthening biodiversity, re-establishing plant life, role of ecosystem engineers, success and failure factors in restoration, and the outcomes of effective restoration. Information for these various subject matters will be derived from several sources, including but not limited to books, collections of peer-reviewed articles, and professional handbooks.

The following document contains a section featuring each of the following: problem statement and sub-problems, assumptions and delimitations, definitions of key terms, and project significance. Following the initial section will be the review of literature, methodologies, and a series of appendices with supporting images, graphics, and other constructive elements.

Senne |7

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

SECTION I: THE PROBLEM & ITS SETTING PROBLEM STATEMENT This project proposal concentrates on the restoration and rehabilitation of the Kankakee River and small portions of surrounding marshland to its pre-industrialized, natural form. Specifically, this project will focus on returning this straightened river to a meander. This will be accomplished through connecting the river’s flow back into remnant channels that have been cut off by levees, as well as re-dredging other portions to align with its historic path. In addition, this project will concentrate on reestablishing and reconstructing the adjacent wetland ecosystems that were drained for agricultural purposes. In turn, this project will aid in flood prevention by allowing areas for infiltration and strengthening of the flood plain, improve water quality through natural treatment in buffer zones, and create vital habitat for migrating waterfowl and other native wildlife. Furthermore, it will seek to establish a network of trails, scenic roadways, and open spaces that will allow for more accessibility to the restored landscape. Lastly, the design will provide opportunities for education in order raise awareness on ecological conservation and offer a look back onto the river’s incredible, yet nearly forgotten past.

This project will be broken down into two pieces – the master plan and the site plan. The former of which will focus on the regional connections and opportunities created through the rehabilitation of the Kankakee and the surrounding wetlands. With the Kankakee’s headwaters located just outside of South Bend, Indiana, it is logical to use this city as one of the anchor points for the regional master plan. From there, the project will follow the course of the river as it flows downstream through rural Indiana. Kankakee, Illinois will serve as the western anchor point, given that it is the last major city along the river before it converges with the Des Plaines.

The second scale at which this project will be completed is at the site plan level in order to provide more detail of how the restoration will be carried out. For this portion of the design, a roughly nine-and-a-half-mile section of the river was selected. This section runs from Route 49 on the eastern end to Route 231 on the western edge. This area was chosen due to its close Senne |8

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland proximity to four rural towns: Hebron, De Motte, Kouts, and Wheatfield. Additionally, this area is a relatively short drive from some of the more populated areas near the lakeshore.

Moreover, this portion of the river has a sufficient number of remnant pieces, further influencing the decision.

A list of goals and objectives for this project can be found in Appendix [B]. A more detailed site summary with maps is provided in Appendix [C]. Lastly, a series of site photos can be found in Appendix [D].

SUB-PROBLEMS •

How can returning the river to a meander and restoring neighboring marshland decrease the annual effects of flooding?

•

What effects will these buffer zones have on treating contaminated runoff from the surrounding agricultural uses?

•

What native wildlife and plant species should the ecological restoration efforts concentrate on reestablishing?

•

What native plant species can be best used in order to return the river and surrounding wetlands to their natural state?

•

How might a regional trail and other amenities along the river attract visitors and connect the rural communities so that the design may raise awareness for and educate users on ecological and environmental conservation of the Kankakee?

•

What kind of educational elements would be best suited to engage visitors and provide a unique experience integrated with the history and conservation of the area?

DEFINING KEY TERMS For the purposes of this project proposal, the following terms have been identified and defined: •

Anaerobic – Refers to oxygen-less conditions (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007)

•

Bank Failure – A slumping off of bank materials when they are not strong or stable enough to resist gravity (Firehock 2006)

Senne |9

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland •

Bankfull Stage – Elevation of the upper surface of a stable stream when the stream has filled its banks and is beginning to spill out into the floodplain (Firehock 2006)

•

Biodiversity – variability in plant and animal species in a given ecosystem or region, all existing at an equilibrium (Tallamy 2007)

•

Braided River – A combination of river channels separated by small islands; constantly morphing and changing to take on a new shape

•

Buffer zones – Vegetated portions of land alongside a river or stream that decrease the effects of surrounding land uses on the waterway (Firehock 2006)

•

Channelization – A process by which a stream or river is cut through and dredged in a straight line, effectively removing meanders in order to allow for faster drainage

•

Conservation – Protection and responsible use of an ecosystem or natural resource

•

Dredging – The removal of sediment and debris from a river in order to alter the character of the waterway, i.e. widening, deepening, straightening

•

Ecological Engineering – The design, creation, and restoration of ecosystems for the benefits of humans and animals (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007)

•

Ecosystem Engineers – Plants, animals, and microbes that carry out essential biological feedbacks in ecosystems (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007)

•

Ecosystem Services – Functions or processes naturally carried out within an ecosystem that lead to a healthier, resilient environment, often benefiting humans as a secondary result

•

Floodplain – Lands adjacent to the river that are periodically or seasonally inundated by high water levels or floodwaters (Firehock 2006)

•

Habitat – A place or environment in which an animal or plant can naturally survive; an area with ample food, shelter, access to water, and any other essential features

•

Habitat Diversity - various biological and physical features that make multiple sub- or microhabitats available in a small area which are attractive to different species or groups (Weller 1999)

•

Hydric Soils – Soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper S e n n e | 10

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland portions of soil; generally poorly drained with a water table at the surface, they may have standing water over them, and may be flooded during all or part of the growing season (Biebighauser 2007) •

Hydrology – Study of properties, distribution, and effects of water on Earth’s surface, soil, and atmosphere (Firehock 2006)

•

Hydroperiod – Seasonal pattern of water level of a wetland and is the wetland’s hydrologic signature (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007)

•

Hydrophyte – A plant adapted to living in wet conditions presented in the wetland environment (Firehock 2006)

•

Levee – Embankment, berm, or low ridge of sediment alongside a waterway that prevent flooding; can be natural or man-made (Firehock 2006)

•

Marsh – A frequently or continually inundated wetland characterized by emergent herbaceous vegetation adapted to saturated soil conditions; will be used synonymously with the term wetland throughout this project (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007)

•

Meander – Continuous winding or bend in the river (Firehock 2006)

•

Pools – Deeper areas of a stream or river with slow-moving water that are often used by larger fish for cover (Firehock 2006)

•

Restoration – The return of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged or destroyed to a close approximation of its conditions prior to major disturbances, with the goal to create a self-supporting natural system that is resilient to future disturbances (Greet et al. 2020)

•

Riffles – A shallow area in a stream or river where water flows rapidly over a gravel or rocky bed (Biebighauser 2007)

•

Riparian – Pertaining to the bank of a body of flowing water; the land adjacent to a river or stream that is, at least periodically, influenced by flooding (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007)

•

Riparian Ecosystem – Ecosystem with high water table because of proximity to an aquatic ecosystem, usually a stream or river; also referred to as bottomland hardwood forest, floodplain forest, or riparian buffer (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007) S e n n e | 11

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland •

Runoff – Portion of precipitation on land that flows over the ground surface, carrying with it nutrients, pollutants, and other dissolved or suspended materials into the receiving waters (Firehock 2006)

•

Watershed – The total area of land from which water drains into a river, stream, or other body of water; also referred to as a drainage basin (Firehock 2006)

•

Wetland – An ecosystem defined by the presence of shallow water or saturated soils for a portion of the growing season, have organisms adapted to the wet environment, and soil indicators of flooding, such as hydric soils; all of which promote wetland or aquatic processes (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007)

•

Wetland Complex – string of several adjacent wetlands at a regional scale (Weller 1999)

•

Wetland Creation – Conversion of upland or shallow open-water systems to vegetated wetlands (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007)

•

Wetland Restoration – The return of a wetland from a condition disturbed or altered by human activity to a previously existing condition (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007)

ASSUMPTIONS For the purposes of this project proposal, the following assumptions have been made: •

Global temperatures will continue to rise per data acquired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

•

Climate variability will increase per data acquired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

•

Storm duration and intensity will continue to increase per data acquired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

•

Flood events will become more frequent and intense per data derived from the Natural Resources Defense Council.

•

Populations will continue to grow in the surrounding counties at an average rate of 3.8% per data from the United States Census Bureau.

•

Adequate land and property rights will have been acquired prior to design and implementation of the project.

S e n n e | 12

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland •

No modifications will be done to existing bridges, meaning the river must pass under bridges where it currently does so, but new bridges may be added if applicable.

DELIMITATIONS For the purposes of this project proposal, the following delimitations have been stated: •

Though certain plant species will be specified and discussed in this proposal, planting plans for the large-scale restoration efforts will not be provided.

•

A regional master plan along the river will be included in the project proposal, however, detailed site designs along the entirety of the regional plan will not be incorporated.

•

This project proposal will not include sources of funding.

•

This project may suggest incentives or means of acquiring land rights, but will not specify an exact method, nor go into legal detail for the acquisitions.

•

Though grading and slope will be discussed, and conceptual grading plans will be presented, detailed grading plans will not be provided over the entirety of the selected site.

•

Construction documents and details for the whole site will not be provided, rather individual details of key elements shall be produced.

•

Although river restoration methods will be discussed, the physical installation of such elements and maintenance for the river will not be included.

PROJECT SIGNIFICANCE The Grand Kankakee Marsh, along with its meandering river, was once a place of natural beauty, home to an unbelievable diversity of flora and fauna, containing an abundance of natural resources. However, with the discovery of the riches the marsh had to offer, exploitation of the land quickly ensued. The Native Americans that once sought refuge in the marsh were forcibly displaced, populations of waterfowl and mammals were all but decimated, and the health and well-being of the environment took a back seat to the concept of “progress at any cost.” The nearly half a million acres of wetlands were ditched and drained for agricultural purposes, old-growth forests were cleared to make way for open fields and timber, S e n n e | 13

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland and the winding Kankakee River was dredged and straightened to nearly a third of its natural length. Man had temporarily triumphed over mother nature.

The consequences of the channelization of the Kankakee River and drainage of its surrounding wetlands are still being felt today. Heavy rains bring dangerous flooding, carry increased runoff from adjacent agricultural fields, and intensify the effects of sediment displacement. The issues surrounding the channelized Kankakee not only prove to be detrimental to the health of the environment while continually destroying habitat, but they also endanger the surrounding rural communities and the well-being of their residents.

First and foremost, this project proposal will focus on returning the channelized Kankakee to its pre-dredged form. This will be accomplished through three different methods: tying back into remaining fragments of the river, altering existing straightened portions so that they allow for a slight meander, or dredging new channels to mimic historic flows of the river. Additionally, this project will concentrate on reestablishing, reconstructing, and restoring adjacent portions of the decimated wetlands. Furthermore, it will establish a link along the river through the implementation of a regional trail and roadways that will allow surrounding communities to better access the river while simultaneously providing an historical and cultural component.

Addressing the issues associated with the current state of the straightened Kankakee would be in the best interests of a number of stakeholders, both human and non-human. Firstly, the proposed project would benefit the surrounding rural communities by decreasing the effects of annual flooding along the river. Furthermore, the design will better connect surrounding communities, as well as the larger, more distant urban areas, to the banks of the Kankakee, increasing acknowledgement and recognition of this influential region. Moreover, this proposal will drastically improve the river’s ecosystem, creating a healthier, cleaner waterway while also strengthening habitat conditions and providing for native wildlife throughout the design.

S e n n e | 14

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

SECTION II: LITERATURE REVIEW OVERVIEW The following literature review will examine an extensive number of topics derived from a collection of credible sources including books, peer-reviewed articles, reports, and professional handbooks. This section will cover materials relating to river restoration, specifically the history of water management practices, early river restoration techniques, and contemporary approaches to river restoration. Additionally, the following review will examine wetland restoration, including conflicts defining them, a brief history of drainage efforts in the United States and across the planet, and methods for restoration. Furthermore, this section will explore the topic of habitat restoration, consisting of the reestablishment of native plant communities, importance of ecosystem engineers, and a set of target species. This review also addresses discrepancies in the scientific community regarding success versus failure of a project, and the need for assessment. Lastly, the literature review closes with a section examining the economic, environmental, and social benefits of an effective restoration.

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE KANKAKEE REGION Spanning from present day South Bend, Indiana down into northern Illinois, the Grand Kankakee Marsh was an expanse of wetlands, prairie, and forests. It was once a place like no other, teeming with an incredibly diverse population of wildlife and home to a seemingly endless supply of natural resources. This nearly forgotten regions story began nearly 17,000 years ago, forming with the retreat of the Wisconsin Glacier (Moran 2009). For centuries, the Grand Kankakee Marsh remained in its natural state, untouched by the hands of industrialism and unaware of man’s desire to take control over mother nature. At the heart of this marsh flowed the Kankakee River, a 250-mile long meandering waterway, slowly winding its way across the landscape of northern Indiana and Illinois, as it had for millennia.

With the widespread discovery of the regions’ vast supply of natural resources, inevitably, the mass exploitation of the land quickly followed. Halfway through the 19th century, Congress enacted the Swamp Lands Acts of 1849 and 1850, a federal legislation that transferred S e n n e | 15

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland ownership of wetlands to the states for the purposes of draining and transforming the area into arable land (Dahl and Allord 1997). A series of intense drainage and dredging efforts ultimately resulted in the straightening of the Kankakee River and destruction of the surrounding marshlands. The channelization of the Kankakee removed over 2,000 river bends and reduced the overall length of the waterway to almost a third of its original path (Friends of the Kankakee 2020). Furthermore, the Grand Kankakee Marsh saw its once half a million acres of sprawling ecosystems dwindle to a mere one percent of that (“A Look Back: Kankakee Marsh Was Largest Inland Wetlands in U.S. � 2018).

The effects of man’s belief in progress without a regard for the environment are still being felt today, as the channelization and drainage of the Kankakee and surrounding marshland bring a number of harmful consequences. Heavy rains often result in devastating floods, endangering nearby rural communities. Seasonal rains also cause substantial runoff from adjacent agricultural fields, carrying high concentrations of pesticides and pollutants downstream.

Additionally, the channelized river carries an increased amount of sediment downstream, altering the character and health of the river in stretches in Illinois (Themer, 2015).

Furthermore, depletion and degradation of vital wetland and riverine habitat caused the dispersion of much of the native wildlife. The Kankakee region has undoubtedly seen its share of turmoil and destruction since European settlement, but thanks to recent conservation and restoration efforts, the remaining portions of the marsh are being protected, and acknowledgment of the region is increasing. A timeline of key events is provided in Appendix [E]. A series of historic photos is located in Appendix [F].

RIVER RESTORATION Stream and river restoration is a remarkably broad area of study, encompassing a wide range of practices, management strategies, and perspectives. Given the extent of the topic, there is little agreement within the scientific community on a standard definition or description for the field, and each profession associated with the study area may offer a different approach. For instance, environmental engineers may see river restoration as returning a degraded ecosystem back to a similar natural state that was present pre-disturbance (Shields et al. 2003), whereas S e n n e | 16

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland hydrologists could describe it as a repairing damaged or compromised natural systems of an watershed (Bennett et al. 2011). Perhaps the most complete description is a combination of these various outlooks. Greet et al. (2020) offers a definition for ecological restoration, which can be applied to stream and river restoration as well: “Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged or destroyed’, with the goal to create a self-supporting ecosystem that is resilient to perturbation.”

Furthermore, restoration methods can encompass a broad range of practices, ranging from something as simple as bank stabilization or implementing fencing, to management strategies as complex as rehabilitating biota over the course of multiple decades (Wohl, Lane, and Wilcox 2015). Establishing a common language and understanding of river restoration across the scientific community will only prove to be beneficial in advancing the knowledge and insight associated with restoration efforts.

HISTORY OF WATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES While the idea of stream and river restoration may be a relatively young topic in the scientific community, the practices of manipulating and modifying channels for the benefit of our societies is not by any means a contemporary concept. Since the dawn of mankind, human beings have taken control over rivers and streams, altering them in order to better serve their societal agendas. This includes diverting waterways in order to bring water to societies, alterations to reduce the effects of flooding, and systems to provide irrigation for agricultural lands (Hodge 2002). We can find examples of such water management practices dating back as far as 4000 B.C., where the ancient Mesopotamians constructed the oldest known artificial irrigation canals in present day Iraq and Syria (Bennett et al. 2011). Other evidence includes the construction of dams in Jordan and Egypt between 3000 and 2600 B.C., sophisticated reservoir storage and irrigation systems in the Indus Valley Civilizations in 3000 B.C., Egyptian canals dating back to 2300 B.C., ditching and constructed embankments in Italy and Britain while under Roman rule, and canal locks built by Greek engineers in as early as the third century B.C. (Bennett et al. 2011). These early examples demonstrate man’s ability to adapt the surrounding S e n n e | 17

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland environment, specifically waterways, to better serve himself. As time continued and societies progressed, technology and the means of controlling streams and rivers advanced exponentially.

The rapid growth of urban areas and need for sprawling croplands has further degraded and disturbed the natural processes of our streams and rivers and their ecosystems. One study claims that, “Rivers and streams have suffered at the hands of modern civilization, perhaps more than any other type of ecosystem.� (Simpson 2008). The need for agricultural development has led to the clearing of vast portions of land and absolute destruction of existing ecosystems. This, in turn, ushered in a host of new issues, including increased runoff, extensive erosion, a rise in flooding, sedimentation displacement, and polluted waters (Bennett et al. 2011). Moreover, ditching and straightening rivers became commonplace in order to drain agricultural lands more rapidly. Though this engineering of the rivers proved effective in their ability to quickly move water away, it too carried its own consequences (Simpson 2008). The alterations and modifications to our rivers throughout history have degraded the natural functions and processes of these ecosystems to a frightening level, increasing the concern and interest in the field of stream and river restoration.

RIVER RESTORATION & MANIPULATION PRACTICES IN THE 20TH CENTURY Up until the end of the 1900s, river restoration and modification efforts were often driven by a functionality-based approach, seeking to deepen and widen the waterways in order to spur navigation and reduce the risks of property damage caused by flooding (Wohl, Lane, and Wilcox 2015). Ultimately, this continued the decline of river conditions and biodiversity in these ecosystems. As legislation and policies regarding riparian corridors were established, the gears then shifted to different approach: methods guided by esthetic forms and recreational uses (Wohl, Lane, and Wilcox 2015). Under the popular Rosgen Classification System (Rosgen 1994), rivers began taking on the new form of single-thread meandering channels. The movement gained headway as the thought of re-creating meanders seemed all but obvious on rivers that had lost their bends to channelization, yet this practice was being applied on rivers that were not necessary (Kondolf 2006). For example, functioning, healthy, irregularly winding channels were reconstructed into symmetrical meanders for esthetic purposes. However, studies have S e n n e | 18

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland found that these single-thread, meandering rivers often wash out (Kondolf, Smeltzer, and Railsback 2001). So, why did these practices continue? Kondolf (2006) argues that the desire for these specific types of rivers is rooted in 18th century landscape theory, as well as a perceived distaste for naturalized landscapes that may appear to be “messy” or “unkept.” It could be argued that it also stems from an underlying psychological fascination with symmetry and perfection found in many individuals, as well as the desire to shape the landscape to fulfil that fascination. There is an element of social conditioning to these forms as well; they are familiar and comforting to the eye and make for a picturesque setting. Unfortunately, these practices are still prevalent, but as of recent, there has been a considerable shift in the approach to river restoration.

CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES TO RIVER RESTORATION As the understanding of the sciences behind river restoration and fluvial systems has progressed, so too have the approaches and principles for design and implementation. Thus, contemporary restoration efforts have deviated from the hard-engineered solutions of the past and moved towards a more naturalized approach. Still, many projects in North America are geared towards stabilization of the banks and limiting bank erosion, both of which are assumed to be negative processes of a river. The “naturalization” that occurs in these solutions is generally still an engineered solution, though not as rigid or structured (Kondolf 2011). Most approaches simply utilize natural products such as large boulders, logs, or root wads in order to reinforce the riverbanks (Bernhardt et al. 2005). The drawbacks of such “solutions” are that they often overlook the habitat needs for birds, fish, and other species dependent on the river system. This does little to actually restore the natural fluvial processes. Despite this method’s lackluster means for naturalization, there is another approach that is both increasingly accurate in terms of total restoration and more ecologically sound.

Recently, there is increasing acknowledgement that the most effective and sustainable method to restoring the ecological value is through a process which allows the river to “heal itself.” It is done so by allowing it to flood, transport and deposit sediment, freely erode, and change position laterally (Beechie et al. 2010). This approach is arguably the most sustainable strategy for ecological river restoration (Kondolf 2011). Achieving a successful restoration through these S e n n e | 19

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland methods requires both room for the river to migrate, erode, and flood, taking into account human infrastructure so to avoid conflict with the built environment (Kondolf 2011). Therefore, creating an erodible corridor time is a desirable and achievable approach, having been advocated for in several countries, including France, Spain, the Netherlands, and the United States (Kondolf 2011). Examples, such as the Kissimmee River in Florida (Toth et al. 1998), the Aire River in Switzerland (Rosenberg 2019), and Nippersink Creek in Illinois (Simpson 2008), all demonstrate restoration projects in which a channelized system was returned to a meander and saw significant improvement to the functionality, fluvial processes, and ecological value.

Additionally, these projects, along with many others, support the theory that allowing the river to “heal itself” is an applicable approach in the right setting. Given the constraints and difficulty of implementation, this approach may not be feasible within an urban environment. However, much like the conditions along the Kankakee, it is best suited for rivers in rural areas with ample space, lack of infrastructure, and sufficient channel power (Piégay et al. 2008). Therefore, this method of allowing the river channel to migrate laterally and erode freely along the corridor should translate smoothly to this project, and create a healthier, more resilient, ecologically sound Kankakee River.

WETLAND RESTORATION In their extensive text, award-winning ecosystem ecologist and ecological engineer William J. Mitsch and Professor James G. Gosselink (2007) describe wetlands as, “among the most important ecosystems on Earth.” It is estimated that wetlands currently encompass five to eight percent of the Earth’s land coverage (Bazilvich, Rodin, and Rozov 1971). The following subsections will dive deeper into the most notable of the natural services these ecosystems provide, as well as history of wetlands and the methods for restoration.

To start, we will look at the three distinguishing features that delineate wetlands from other ecosystems. The first piece of the puzzle, however obvious as it may seem, is water. Wetlands depend on constant or periodic shallow inundation or saturation at or near the surface of the substrate (National Research Council 1995). Secondly, they are marked by the presence of hydric soils and the accumulation of organic materials that decompose slowly given the wet S e n n e | 20

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland environment (Zoltai and Vitt 1995). Lastly, this unique ecosystem is characterized by vegetation, supporting predominantly hydrophytes and other living biota that have adapted to the wet environment over an extended period of time (Cowardin et al. 1979). However, given the variability of these three factors and the extents at which wetlands exist, there is much discussion surrounding a true standard for what a wetland is.

DEFINING WETLANDS Just as the case with the concept of river restoration, the term wetland is incredibly broad, without a single agreed upon definition. In order to adequately understand the term, it is important to examine why there is such an issue on the consensus of its definition. Much of the difficulty comes from the variability and adaptability of these landscapes. As noted previously, wetlands are foremost characterized by standing water for some part of the growing season.

However, this can range from periodic flooding for a short time to standing water for a majority of the year; furthermore, these water levels can have dramatic fluctuations in short periods of time (Cowardin et al. 1979). Secondly, wetlands are a transitional landscape, located on the fringes of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, blurring the lines on the boundaries (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). To complicate things further, wetlands can be found in a number of conditions including urban settings, coastal marshes, rural countryside, and riverine and lacustrine ecosystems, all while also having a tremendous variability in size and species (Niering 1924).

Given the wide range of conditions that a wetland can take shape in, there is undoubtedly a number of types of different wetlands distributed across the globe, found from the tropics to the tundra. These inconsistencies and the ever-changing conditions of wetlands are the leading proponents behind the lack of a single, agreed upon definition, but that doesn’t necessarily mean there are not any adequate explanations.

There are a number of formal and legal definitions proposed by professional organizations and governmental agencies. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources utilizes one approach, whereas the US Fish and Wildlife Service defines it in their own unique way (Finlayson and Moser 1991; Cowardin et al. 1979). For legal purposes, stemming from the Clean Water Act, the Army Corps of Engineers have their own S e n n e | 21

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland understanding of a wetland, as do other organizations (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). Perhaps the most concise, yet complete definition is one that has been adopted by Canada: “Land that is saturated with water long enough to promote wetland or aquatic processes as indicated by poorly drained soils, hydrophytic vegetation and various kinds of biological activity which are adapted to a wet environment.” (Zoltai and Vitt 1995)

After taking into consideration the characteristics that must be present, reviewing the formal and legal definitions, and researching various types of these ecosystems, I have developed my own understanding for the term wetland: An ecosystem located in the transitional zone between terrestrial and aquatic systems, characterized by the presence of standing water (periodic or constant), consistently saturated hydric soils, and the establishment of biota adapted to the wet conditions, all of which perform physical, chemical, and biological services and processes typically present within both upland and aquatic systems.

Like any other, my definition does not cover all of the bases for wetlands. This is the trouble with defining such a complex and fluctuating ecosystem. There cannot be a single definition that proves satisfactory to all parties. Mitsch and Gosselink (2007) theoreticize that developing a comprehensive definition would require a generation of scientist and specialists well-trained on the fundamentals and processes of wetlands.

HISTORY OF WETLANDS When discussing wetland restoration, it is imperative to understand the history of destruction and degradation of wetlands across the globe and in our country. Since the beginning of civilizations, many cultures lived in a harmonic balance with these ecosystems, harvesting aquatic plants, fishing, and benefiting from other natural services the wetlands provided (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). Conversely, other cultures perceived these areas as bug-ridden wastelands, and ultimately sought to take control over them. (Larson and Kusler 1979) even went so far to described wetlands as follows: “For most of recorded history, wetlands were regarded as wastelands if not bogs of treachery, mires of despair, homes of pests, and refuges for outlaw and rebel. A good wetland was a drained wetland free of this mixture of dubious social factors.”

S e n n e | 22

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland It is estimated that throughout the course of human history we have destroyed over half of the world’s wetlands, whether for agriculture, development, or navigation purposes (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). In some places, like New Zealand, this number skyrockets to a staggering 90% loss of wetland areas (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007).

The United States alone has a considerable history of wetland drainage, dating all the way back to 1764, when our first President financed the Dismal Swamp Land Company, with the intentions of draining the Great Dismal Swamp in Virginia (Biebighauser 2007). Though this effort failed, future legislation further encouraged the drainage of wetlands across the country.

Halfway through the 19th century, Congress enacted the Swamp Lands Acts of 1849 and 1850, a federal legislation that transferred ownership of wetlands to the states for the purposes of draining and transforming these ecosystems into arable land for the agriculture industry (Dahl and Allord 1997). This transition of ownership was granted to states with major coastal wetland systems like Florida and Louisiana, many Mid-West states including Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, as well as a handful of others like California, Missouri, and Mississippi (Dahl and Allord 1997). Other policies, such as the USDA’s Agriculture Conversion Program, contributed to even more wetland depletion in the United States (Office of Technology Assessment 1984). It is estimated that agriculture is responsible for more than 80% of these losses (Frayer et al. 1983). In the Mid-West, notably Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Ohio, it is thought that nearly all, 80-90% of the original wetlands have been lost to drainage efforts (Zucker and Brown 1998).

Luckily, as more knowledge of the importance and role of wetlands was developed, a push for conservation and protection of these dwindling areas arose. Wetland protection laws in the 1970s and 1980s, including the Clean Water Act, have dramatically reduced the effects of drainage and destruction of these wetlands, but the extent of what we have lost is irreversible (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007).

WETLAND RESTORATION PRACTICES AND TECHNIQUES With the previously discussed depletion of wetlands across the globe, policies regarding restoration and creation have become more prevalent, such as the “No Net Loss” policy in the S e n n e | 23

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland United States (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). These efforts, aimed at mitigating the loss of wetlands to development, often look to create wetlands in a place where they did not exist, attempting to convert upland areas to a functioning wetland. These efforts, though rooted in virtuous thinking, routinely result in a failure to re-establish the processes and ecological value found in naturally occurring wetlands (National Research Council 2001). Rather, what commonly results from these efforts is a “wetland” that features steep slopes, narrow samples of hydrophytic vegetation along the water’s edge, and notably larger areas of open water than the reference wetlands: essentially a pond, which are unsuccessful in replacing the lost functions of a true wetland (Kentula et al. 1992). For example, one study found that over 36% of compensatory mitigation wetlands in Ohio are ponds with steep slopes and limited vegetation, further threatening biodiversity in these areas (Steinhoff 2009). In terms of true restoration and mitigation, it can be argued that this is unacceptable.

Proper restoration of wetlands should focus on reestablishing the local hydrology, strengthening the ecological value of a site, and creating a self-sustaining, persistent system.

Mitsch and Gosselink (2007) propose that, “hydrology is probably the single most important determinant of the establishment and maintenance of specific types of wetlands and wetland processes,” due to the degree at which hydrology modifies and determines the physical and biotic environment. Therefore, repairing the hydrologic processes of a wetland should be a foregone conclusion in the restoration process. This can be accomplished either by studying past data mimicking the hydrology of other local natural wetlands, such as the hydroperiod, seasonal water depths, and the extent of fluctuations (Kentula et al. 1992). In another body of work, Mitsch, along with an additional author, suggests allowing the natural processes to shape the restoration, in order to avoid over-engineering the solution with rigid constraints (Mitsch and Jørgensen 2003). As the case with river restoration discussed above, it its critical to provide sufficient land in order to properly return to pre-disturbance conditions and allow enough room to gently slope the banks (5:1 to 15:1) and provide buffers (Kentula et al. 1992). Lastly, it is necessary to be patient in the restoration process, as it takes time for the natural functions to establish and the series of succession to begin (Zedler 2000). For instance, one study found that it will take nearly 100 years for a riparian forest, or forested wetlands adjacent to a river S e n n e | 24

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland system, to provide the maximum benefits desired (Dixon, Sear, and Nislow 2019). Wetland restoration is undoubtedly necessary for sustaining biodiversity and healthy environments, but it is crucial for this to be done in a responsible and reasonable manner.

HABITAT RESTORATION Although habitat restoration is commonly a positive byproduct of effective wetland and fluvial rehabilitation, there is extensive research and an entire scientific community devoted to this topic. This section of research will focus on techniques for implementation, such as reestablishing plant life and the introduction of “ecosystem engineers,” as well as examining a set of target species for this project proposal.

STRENGTHENING BIODIVERSITY No matter the setting or boundaries, bolstering biodiversity in any restoration project should be an evident goal, and these efforts should aim to create as diverse of an ecosystem structure as possible (Gilbert and Anderson 1998). Luckily, river and adjacent floodplain habitats inherently possess a high biological diversity given their high productivity and position as a link between the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (G. Petts and Amoros 1996). Sustaining biodiversity is an issue of great importance, as outlined in an article from Conservation International (Shaw 2018), in which the author lists rationale supporting these claims: 1. Wildlife support the healthy ecosystems that we as humans rely on 2. Keeping biodiverse ecosystems functioning and intact has a direct effect on humanity’s health 3. Biodiversity is an essential part of the solution to climate change and resilience 4. Biodiversity is beneficial to our economy 5. Biodiversity is an integral part of culture and identity for societies across the globe

RE-ESTABLISHING PLANT LIFE The first step in creating a healthy ecosystem in which a diverse collection of species can thrive is the establishment of vegetation. In the case of this project, both woody and herbaceous plant species that can adapt to the wet environment are necessary for the success of the ecosystem as a whole. Plant life is capable of providing a number of the key aspects necessary for a S e n n e | 25

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland successful habitat, including food, shelter, and nesting opportunities (Weller 1999).

Additionally, well-established plant life along riparian corridors provide valuable climate highways and connections for wildlife (Haddad 2018). The most favorable approach to establishing vegetation in the ecology community again stems from the idea of naturalization, or succession. In its simplest form, this involves allowing the site to be influenced by the natural dispersal and expansion of plant life (Gilbert and Anderson 1998). Pioneer species, such as Populus, Salix, and Alnus, along with other herbaceous material will colonize near the banks, stabilizing them and preventing erosion (Karrenberg et al. 2003). But as the landscape transforms over time, these are replaced with more permanent species, and thus the series of succession continues. In regards to habitat, the importance of surrounding upland vegetation for shelter and food cannot be ignored (Weller 1999). Yet, this is not a universal approach, and when it cannot be applied, certain guidelines for specifications should be followed. When selecting species for habitat, it is important to consider native plants that serve an extensive number of biological services and provide for a wide range of wildlife (Tallamy 2007). For example, (Garbisch 1986) recommends selecting species that demonstrate the following: 1. Species with potential value for fish and wildlife 2. Species with rapid substrate stabilization 3. Species adaptable to a broad range of water depths 4. Avoid selecting an abundance of species foraged by wildlife expected to use the site 5. Avoid committing significant areas of the site to species for which success is questionable

It is clear to see that habitat restoration is extremely dependent on the establishment of plant species from the onset of a project and should not be overlooked when considering ways to repair any ecosystem.

ROLE OF ECOSYSTEM ENGINEERS Aside from vegetation, there is another component that plays a tremendous role in forming habitat and in the series of succession. That component is the presence of ecosystem engineers, “organisms that directly or in- directly modulate the availability of resources (other than themselves) to other species, by causing physical state changes in biotic or abiotic materials. In so doing they modify, maintain and/or create habitats,� as defined in (Jones et al.

S e n n e | 26

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland 1994). These species, such as beavers or muskrats in fluvial environments, can have profound effects on the character of the ecosystem, and their work often results in dynamic habitats that are constantly transforming (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). A study completed in 2004 found that these ecosystem engineers improve habitat richness and allow for the introduction of new species into an environment (Gilad et al. 2004). Though the services of these species may have some adverse effects, such as dramatically altering hydrology or delaying the successive process, their behaviors are undoubtedly an important piece to the ecosystem development (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007).

TARGET SPECIES This final subsection under the habitat restoration topic is intended to serve as a directory for wildlife species this specific project proposal will seek to create habitat for. It will examine three target groups and the general habitat necessary for them to survive.

This project proposal will target mammals that previously dominated the Grand Kankakee Marsh prior to its demise. These species include deer, fox and raccoons, as well as fur-bearing animals like beavers, muskrats, minks, and even otters (Brian Kallies 2012). Habitat implications for these mammals include providing grazing and feeding areas, allowing for substantial growth of vegetation for cover, creating a string of wetlands and varying ecosystems, and reduce pollution to food sources (May 2001).

The restoration of the Kankakee places a heavy focus on revitalizing the lost habitat and sanctuary for migrating and resident bird species in Indiana. Design for wetland and riverdependent birds should strive for commonalities in habitat so that it is able to meet the needs of several groups of species (Weller 1999). By restoring various sub-habitats across the project, such as herbaceous emergent wetlands, forested and shrub wetlands, and fluvial elements like pools and sandbars, the proposal will address a diverse selection of birds. This wide range of birds includes, but is not limited to: multiple blackbird species, various rails, wading birds like herons and egrets, several species of duck, grazing waterfowl like geese and brant (Weller 1999), and many species listed as threatened or endangered, as discussed later in this research.

S e n n e | 27

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland Finally, restoration efforts, namely those taking place within the river, will be instrumental on improving the population numbers of the fish, amphibian, and reptile species that are already residents of the Kankakee. Returning the river to a meander will re-establish the fluvial ecosystems that were lost to the channelization efforts, such as pool, undercut embankments, and protected spawning areas (Kondolf 2011). According to two reports from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, the most abundant fish species in the Kankakee include Northern Pike, various types of Bass, Walleye, Catfish, Crappie, Bluegill, Carp and multiple species of redhorse (Langbein and Bertrand 1996; Pescitelli and Rung 2008). These fish, along with frogs, salamanders, and turtles, are a key link in the food chain in this ecosystem.

SUCCESS / FAILURE FACTORS IN RESTORATION One recurring theme identified throughout the research of restoration sciences was a lack of an established set of standards regarding evaluation of projects. This in turn, has led to a lack of communication and discrepancies when determining if a restoration project was either successful or can be labeled as a failure. The following subsections will discuss the need for assessment, characteristics of a successful project, and what might constitute a failed result.

NEED FOR ASSESSMENT Delivering a quality post-completion assessment of any project is regularly a neglected or forgotten task in today’s design world, but it can be crucial in better understanding the science behind restoration. (Fischenich 2011) offers a list of benefits of conducting such assessments: 1. Justify spending on restoration efforts 2. Prioritize such projects 3. Compare benefits of alternative approaches 4. Maximize the environmental benefits per dollar spent 5. Ensure mitigation requirements are met

These provide an excellent and practical baseline for the importance of assessing restoration projects. Though, Palmer and Bernhardt (2006) argue that even when criteria have been presented and formalized, results are usually not communicated at a high level, resulting in more confusion. It is widely believed that if advancements and understanding across the S e n n e | 28

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland profession are to be improved, communication regarding successful and failed projects, criteria for assessment, and methodologies of study must too see improvement (Bennett et al. 2011).

DETERMINING SUCCESS Establishing what constitutes a successful river or wetland restoration project is paramount in further advancing the lens through which we examine such projects. In hopes of developing a set of standards for what determines an ecologically successful restoration project, a group of experts proposed five criteria to be used to evaluate restoration efforts (Palmer et al. 2005). In their proposal, they list their five principals for success: 1. A guiding image exits – There is an end result for which the project should take shape, developed from a reference source or image, derived from historic information, reference sites, classification systems, and common sense.

2. Ecosystems are improved – A successful restoration should induce measurable, apparent changes, all of which move the project towards the guiding image.

3. Resilience is increased – Restoration should allow for a morphing, dynamic, and variable system that is resilient against undesirable changes and ultimately becomes a self-sustaining entity.

4. No lasting harm is done – As straight forward as it may seem, implementation of a project should not result in any irreversible or irreparable damages directly within or affected by the site 5. Ecological assessment is completed at both pre- and post-implementation and information is made available.

In addition to these, my personal thoughts suggest that success should be determined with an economic and community centered perspective as well. Regarding the economic outlook, the assessment should evaluate cost effectiveness, cost-benefit analysis, and results on local economies. As far as community interests are concerned, a successful project should spur interest and result in increased usership, as well as strengthening the overall well-being of individuals directly affected by the restoration efforts.

S e n n e | 29

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

ADDRESSING FAILURES Failure, in many ways, can be subjective, and with the current lack of framework for which to evaluate restoration projects, the success or failure of a project can often be left up to individual biases. With the perceived notion developed from past water management practices, there is still a belief that restoration projects should promote stability and control of a natural system, more or less a structured, engineered approach (Bennett et al. 2011). Therefore, as we shift to a naturalized approach that allows for the ecosystem to play a role in shaping its environment, the resulting loss of control has the potential to be viewed as a failed attempt at restoration, though it may be a success in another’s eyes (Kondolf 2011). The aforementioned success criteria also provide a base from which to build from when determining if a project can be labeled as a failure. Failure in a restoration process, to me, is simple as not addressing or repairing the ecological processes, economic interests, habitat implications, and community needs.

OUTCOMES OF EFFECTIVE RESTORATION Although many of the positives to effective restoration have already been covered throughout the research, this final section will serve as a straight-forward presentation of the benefits of a proper restoration effort. It will approach these benefits from three different perspectives: economic, environmental, and social. Examining the multiple incentives behind a restoration project will highlight the necessity of such efforts.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS Proper restoration efforts are capable of having a tremendous impact on economic interests at both the local and national level. As the case with almost any project, there must be some sort of financial viability in order to be implemented. With much of our river systems and wetlands having been lost or degraded due to development and agriculture, we have in turn exhausted our natural protective systems that buffered our cities and towns from storm and flood events.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has found that flood damages in the United States average nearly $2 billion each year (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2006a). For instance, in 1965 the South Platte River, flowing through Nebraska and the urban S e n n e | 30

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland metropolis of Denver, saw a catastrophic flood event, causing $540 million in property damages and claiming the lives of 28 people (Otto, McCormick, and Leccese 2004). Wetlands and healthy riparian systems have the ability to dramatically reduce these effects, acting as natural sponges, storing floodwaters during major events and then releasing them afterwards. For example, a study completed by the Environmental Protection Agency found that a wetland occupying only 15% of land area can reduce the effects of flooding by as much as 60% (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2006a).

River and wetland restoration can influence the economy in other ways than just reducing the effects of flooding. These projects can spur development and increase ecotourism for surrounding communities. Returning to the aforementioned South Platte River, restoration efforts in Denver and across Nebraska have completely transformed the once degraded river system, and these municipalities are now reaping the benefits. The restored and revitalized Central Platte Valley has brought in over $1.2 billion in public and private investments from 1994 to 2004 (Otto, McCormick, and Leccese 2004). Similarly, the establishment of the Bear River Migratory Bird Sanctuary, located outside of Brigham City, has contributed to a considerable increase on visitors to the region (Larsen 2006).

The restoration efforts can also have a tremendous impact on the quality of life and employment opportunities for communities. With their ability to filter and clean water, wetlands are able to improve water quality and provide more access to safe drinking water. For instance, it is estimated that the Congaree Bottomland Hardwood Swamp removes a quantity of pollutants equaling that of what would require a $5 million water treatment plant (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2006a). Additionally, these ecosystems play a crucial role in the day to day lives of neighboring communities. In some places, like the East Kolkata Wetlands, much of society depends on the natural environment, providing a livelihood for some 200,000 urban poor who fish and harvest rice, vegetables and other crops there (Kakkar 2014). Given the abundance of waterfowl, fish, and other wildlife, other recreational activities, such as hunting, trapping, and fishing, also increase the economic benefits derived from these environments.

S e n n e | 31

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland The economic benefits of these water-based ecosystems cannot be overstated, but with much of the natural services being lost to development, the positive outcomes have not been maximized. Restoration efforts of rivers and wetlands, specifically supporting the ecosystem services they provide, will only contribute to economic gain in these areas.

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS Wetland and riparian communities, in terms of natural services they provide, are among some of the most productive and valuable ecosystems in the world. These services include providing habitat for an incredibly diverse collection of plant and animal species, reducing runoff and flooding, removing toxic pollutants and chemicals, and even playing a role in mitigating climate change. Rivers and wetlands are some of the most valuable assets to the health and sustainability of our environment.

Perhaps one of the greatest strengths of these environments, wetlands in particular, are their innate ability to bolster biodiversity and support an unbelievable number of plant and wildlife species. Wetlands have been described by some experts as “biological supermarkets,” given the extensive food chain and unique habitat for the wide variety of flora and fauna (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2006c). It has been estimated that over 80% of North America’s breeding bird population, as well as over half of the 800 migratory bird species, depend on wetlands in some capacity (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). Mitsch & Gosselink (2007) also argue that wetland habitats are imperative to the survival of a “disproportionately high percentage” of species listed as either threatened or endangered. Of the 209 animal species on these lists, over half of them rely on wetlands for survival, with some groups, like birds and amphibians, making up around 70% of that (Niering 1988). Furthermore, restoration of fluvial systems (rivers and streams) can result in the reestablishment of vital riparian habitats. One study argues, “ecological literature suggests that actively migrating, flooding rivers support the greatest habitat diversity and that these habitats are constantly being renewed,” (Kondolf 2011). As channels migrate from side to side, scouring and sediment deposition dramatically alter the corridor, creating habitat for fish and birds while also allowing vegetation to establish in successive stages (Kondolf 2011). These findings alone demonstrate the importance of water-based ecosystems for our native wildlife.

S e n n e | 32

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland As discussed previously, wetlands, floodplain buffers, and healthy riparian corridors are instrumental in decreasing, if not completely mitigating, the effects of flooding. This feat is accomplished by capturing runoff prior to it entering the river channel, modifying the peak runoff rates, and slowing the release period (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). Prior to settlement and development along the Mississippi River, floodplain forests were capable of holding 60 days’ worth of river discharge, but as alterations to the landscape and river occurred, this number dwindled to just twelve days, thereby increasing flood concerns in these areas (Alexander, Wilson, and Green 2012). Another study done by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers found that conservation of wetlands along the Charles River in Massachusetts was a less expensive, yet more effective method to controlling flooding (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2006b). Furthermore, they calculated that draining and developing the wetlands along the river would have resulted in an annual flood damage of around $17 million (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2006b).

Another valuable natural environmental service these ecosystems provide is the ability to intercept, filter, and purify water. Wetlands, perhaps more so than any other type of ecosystem on this planet, are able to reduce pollutants in the water and function as a sink for toxic chemicals. Mitsch & Gosselink’s text break down the attributes that allow such processes to occur in the wet environment: 1. As a stream or river enters a wetland, its velocity is reduced, causing suspended sediments and chemicals to drop out of the water column 2. A variety of anaerobic and aerobic processes that promote certain chemical reactions remove chemicals from the water 3. Productivity of vegetation can lead to high rates of mineral uptake 4. Wetlands are home to a vast supply of decomposers and decomposition processes

5. Accumulation of organic components often causes permanent burial of chemicals Undoubtedly the best example of wetlands functioning as a purifying landscape for agricultural runoff is the Florida Everglades. Following drainage, a period of legal disputes, and conservation efforts, a pilot program in the Everglades was launched. A nearly 4,000 acre constructed wetland demonstrated the marsh’s ability to filter chemicals, removing around 75% of incoming S e n n e | 33

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland phosphorus (Levy 2017). Another example of wetlands as runoff treatment elements stems from Northern Ohio. Daryl Dwyer, an ecology professor at the University of Toledo, constructed three wetlands with the sole purpose of cleaning water. These functioned better than planned, filtering out over half of the phosphorus and 98% of the E. coli bacteria (Levy 2017).

Perhaps one of the least acknowledged services riparian and wetland environments deliver is their ability to not only be resilient to, but positively impact climate change on a global scale. As many of us are aware of, the major cause of climate change stems from the increased levels of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere, namely carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) (Solomon, S. et al. 2007). According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, CO2 levels have increased by over 30%, methane levels have more than doubled in concentration, and N2O levels have grown by 16%. A handful of studies found that wetlands are instrumental in carbon sequestration, with the capability of accumulating up to 140 cm/1000yr (Mitra, Wassmann, and Vlek 2005). Furthermore, created wetlands have been shown to perform even better than their natural counterparts, sequestering upwards of 200 cm/1000yr (Cameron 1970). Where wetlands have the greatest impact results from their methane emissions. Currently, 20 to 25 of the current global methane emissions are a direct result of wetlands, although, this process has been happening for millennia (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). However, Mitsch and Gosselink (2007) also argue that methane generation in flowing wetlands connected to rivers and streams, the most common type of wetland, is virtually non-existent. In total, it is widely believed that the carbon storage within wetlands compensates the methane output, or in some cases, actually results in a climate positive outcome (Mitra, Wassmann, and Vlek 2005).

SOCIAL BENEFITS An often-over-looked benefit to successful restoration resides within the social aspect, yet this piece too is a positive result of a proper restoration project. Mankind has always had a unique relationship with water, as has been covered previously in this review. Early civilizations took root near bodies of water, and modern cities have sprung up in the same fashion, often with a link to water. These rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water are often a focal piece in our urban and rural landscapes and play a role in the social activities of a place. Restoration of these S e n n e | 34

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland degraded or impaired water systems can lead to an improved access to the river or wetland, a boost in aesthetic value, and an increase in recreational opportunities. One report, regarding the Thur River in Switzerland, found that visitation at a restored site was 40 times greater than that of an un-restored portion (Logar, Brouwer, and Paillex 2019). This is believed to be a direct result of improved accessibility, allowing increased opportunities for activities such as walking, picnicking, running, biking, fishing and boating (Logar, Brouwer, and Paillex 2019). In addition to these activities, wetlands and rivers can also serve as “living laboratories,� where children, students, and adults alike can discover the world around them and learn about nature’s biological processes first-hand. Though beauty is completely subjective, restoration efforts emphasizing naturalization have the potential to increase the aesthetic appeal and can inspire its visitors. The social dynamic surrounding our water systems should not be overlooked in the restoration process.

CONCLUSION The literature review presented above explores several topics, namely riparian, wetland, and habitat restoration. Through the extensive review of a series of peer-reviewed articles, books, reports, and professional handbooks, I have developed three general takeaways to be applied broadly to the project proposal: 1. When applicable, restoration projects should be given sufficient space in which to carry out the natural process associated with the given ecosystems, i.e. allowing for erodible river corridors, fluvial processes, dynamic hydrology, and natural succession 2. Restoration projects, in order to be successful, must meet certain criteria, function in a sustainable manner, perform their natural processes effectively and efficiently, and satisfy the economic, environmental, and community interests.

3. Patience with the restoration project is critical, as establishment takes time, and though the benefits may not be immediately evident, if the project is completed by way of an ecologically responsible approach, the future outcomes will be significant.

S e n n e | 35

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

SECTION III: METHODOLOGIES OVERVIEW

The methodology section of this project proposal is intended to present the procedures, techniques, and means of data acquisition that are crucial to influencing the decision-making process and design thinking throughout the Kankakee River and marshland restoration project.

This section will investigate six topics derived from the sub-problems presented in Section I of this report: •

How can returning the river to a meander and restoring neighboring marshland decrease the annual effects of flooding?

•

What effects will these buffer zones have on treating contaminated runoff from the surrounding agricultural uses?

•

What native wildlife and plant species should the ecological restoration efforts concentrate on reestablishing?

•

What native plant species can be best used in order to return the river and surrounding wetlands to their natural state?

•

How might a regional trail and other amenities along the river attract visitors and connect the rural communities so that the design may raise awareness for and educate users on ecological and environmental conservation of the Kankakee?

•

What kind of educational elements would be best suited to engage visitors and provide a unique experience integrated with the history and conservation of the area?

The areas of study shall include methodologies regarding the following: flooding, concentration of pollutants in the river, native wildlife and plant species, community usership and engagement, and educational elements. Data for these topics will be gathered through a series of interviews and questionnaires, review of historical figures, and field measurements.

Obtaining such data will provide logical reasoning and support for decisions made in the upcoming design phase.

S e n n e | 36

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

FLOODING In order to understand of effects that returning the Kankakee to a meander and restoring wetlands will have on flood control it is important to examine historical flood data. Such information can be gathered from the National Weather Service’s Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service tool (National Weather Service n.d.) and the United States Geological Survey (U.S. Geological Survey n.d.). This program has several gauges located along the river, with the most applicable being located on the eastern boundary of the selected site. Analysis of this data will provide key numerical values for which the design will seek to decrease, highlight patterns of flooding, and provide base numerical values to work with. Additionally, a case study on the restoration and re-meandering of the Kissimmee River in Florida will be completed, with a focus on how the manipulation of the river channel decreased the effects of flooding there. Photos of precedent projects, including the Kissimmee River restoration project, can are provided in Appendix [H]. Initial photos and data gathered regarding flooding in the Kankakee region can be found in Appendix [I].

WATER QUALITY Research regarding water quality will begin by gathering measurements of chemicals and pollutants in the Kankakee River. Ideally, water samples would be collected personally, however the feasibility of this is low. Therefore, data will be gathered from reports by the Indiana Water Monitoring Council (The Indiana Water Monitoring Council 2017) and the USGS in partnership with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (Arihood, Bayless, and Sidle 2006). These will provide the baseline measurements of the river’s water quality.

Additionally, further exploration of materials covered in the literature review (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007), and future investigation of professional journals (Ansari et al. 2020; Mustafa and Hayder 2020) will provide information on the techniques and effectiveness of utilizing wetlands as natural filters. Furthermore, a review of an article published in the academic journal Ecological Adaptations (Brisson et al. 2020) will study the effectiveness of certain plant species in acting as a natural water cleaning feature. The review of these sources will provide

S e n n e | 37

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland guidance in determining layout and placement of wetlands, as well as the selection of plants to filter and clean the water.

NATIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES The degradation and depletion of the Kankakee region’s natural resources has led to a drastic decline in the number and diversity of native wildlife species inhabiting the area. In order to develop a better understanding of what native wildlife species restoration efforts should target, a review of the Indiana Wildlife viewing guide (Seng and Case 1992) and the book Habitats and ecological communities of Indiana: presettlement to present (Whitaker and Amlaner 2012) will be completed. Additionally, I will be utilizing the text found in Wetland Birds (Weller 1999) and River Biota (G. E. Petts and Calow 1996) in order to gather more information regarding potential bird species. Lastly, I plan on drawing data from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (Indiana Department of Natural Resources 2020) and reviewing a wetland mammal guide (May 2001). From these sources, I will be able to develop a list of wildlife species that design efforts will be geared toward, and the components of their habitat that should be included within the restoration. A list of applicable endangered species in the seven Indiana counties can be found in Appendix [J].

NATIVE PLANT SPECIES A key goal in the restoration process is replacing and strengthening the presence of native plant species along the riparian corridor and surrounding areas. A review of wetland planting guides (Chadde 2011; Romanowski 2009; Thunhorst 1993) will serve as blueprints in which to base decisions regarding plant life. Additional information will be gathered from a Midwest native plant guide (Branhagen 2016) and a native tree handbook (Sternberg and Wilson 2004). The sources will help determine the best plants to use and where to use them along the corridor.

Ultimately, they will aid in developing an extensive plant palette that will be used to populate the restored portions of the design.

S e n n e | 38

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

COMMUNITY USERSHIP AND ENGAGEMENT In order to gather and gauge data regarding community interest and concerns, a series of online surveys and questionnaires will be distributed in the surrounding communities of Hebron, Kouts, De Motte, and Wheatfield, as well as other more populous towns and cities to the north. This survey, which can be found in full in Appendix [K], will provide data regarding potential users and their interests, activities they would participate in, and elements of the design that would increase the likelihood of them visiting the project. Furthermore, a set of interviews shall be conducted with a number of professional individuals, including members of various organizations associated with the Kankakee, local historians, writers, and professors.

These interviews will provide further qualitative data needed to better serve the community.

Lastly, a case study of the Cuyahoga Valley National Park will be completed, with a heavy focus on the Tow Path trail and the elements that make it a successful attraction. Again, photos of precedent projects, including this one, are located in Appendix [H].

EDUCATIONAL ELEMENTS To better understand and design educational elements across the site, an additional review of the literature will be completed, specifically examining (California State Parks Statewide Trails Section n.d.). This literature review will also explore two trail guideline documents (Steele and Ahrentzen 2006; Barbarasch et al. 2009). These will provide direction when designing the regional trail and provide insight on how to best integrate them into the landscape.

Additionally, a portion of the aforementioned survey, provided in full in Appendix [K], will provide data regarding the number of people familiar with the history of the area, and highlight the need for educational elements throughout the design.

CONCLUSION Again, the methodology section of this proposal is intended to present the procedures, techniques, and means of data acquisition that are crucial to influencing the decision-making process and design thinking throughout the Kankakee River and marshland restoration project.

Data for these topics will be gathered through a series of literature reviews, case studies, review of historical figures, and surveys. Obtaining such data will provide logical reasoning and S e n n e | 39

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland support for decisions made in the upcoming design phase. These research methods will be carried out across the upcoming weeks and in the beginning portions of the upcoming semester. The timeline for this project, including the research methods, will be provide in Appendix [A].

S e n n e | 40

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

REFERENCES “A Look Back: Kankakee Marsh Was Largest Inland Wetlands in U.S. .” 2018. South Bend Tribune. April 9, 2018. https://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/history/a-lookback-kankakee-marsh-was-largest-inland-wetlands-in-u-s/article_f4ce5098-53fd-50e5b54e-4f8cc7ec1538.html.

Alexander, Js, Rc Wilson, and Wr Green. 2012. “A Brief History and Summary of the Effects of River Engineering and Dams on the Mississippi River System and Delta.” Pubsusgsgov Circular 1: 53. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1375/.

Ansari, Abid Ali, M. Naeem, Sarvajeet Singh Gill, and Fahad M. AlZuaibr. 2020.

“Phytoremediation of Contaminated Waters: An Eco-Friendly Technology Based on Aquatic Macrophytes Application.” Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Research, no. xxxx. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejar.2020.03.002.

Arihood, Leslie D., E. Randall Bayless, and William C. Sidle. 2006. “Hydrologic Characteristics of a Managed Wetland and a Natural Riverine Wetland along the Kankakee River in Northwestern Indiana Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5222.” Richmond, VA. Barbarasch, Bruce, Thprd Lynn Barlow Susan Barthel, Bes Janet Bebb, Metro April Bertelsen, Pbot Richard Bosch Will Brozy Shannon Buono, Bop Tonia Burns, Ncprd Mary Anne Cassin, et al. 2009. “Trail Design Guidelines for Portland’s Park System Trail Design Guidelines Regional Trails, Natural Areas and Developed Parks.” www.PortlandParks.org.

Bazilvich, N. I., L. Ye. Rodin, and N. N. Rozov. 1971. “Geographical Aspects of Biological Productivity.” Soviet Geogrpahy 12 (5): 293–317. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00385417.1971.10770248.

Beechie, Timothy J., David A. Sear, Julian D. Olden, George R. Pess, John M. Buffington, Hamish Moir, Philip Roni, and Michael M. Pollock. 2010. “Process-Based Principles for Restoring River Ecosystems.” BioScience 60 (3): 209–22. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.3.7.

Bennett, Sean J., Andrew Simon, Janine M. Castro, Joseph F. Atkinson, Colleen E. Bronner, Stacey S. Blersch, and Alan J. Rabideau. 2011. “The Evolving Science of Stream Restoration.” In Stream Restoration in Dynamic Fluvial Systems, edited by Andrew Simon, Sean J. Bennett, and Janine M. Castro, 1–8. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union.

Bernhardt, E. S., M. A. Palmer, J. D. Allan, G. Alexander, K. Barnas, S. Brooks, J. Carr, et al. 2005.

“Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration Efforts.” Science 308 (5722): 636–37. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1109769.

Biebighauser, Thomas R. 2007. Wetland Drainage, Restoration, and Repair. Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky.

Branhagen, Alan. 2016. Native Plants of the Midwest: A Comprehensive Guide to the Best 500 S e n n e | 41

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland Species for the Garden. Portland, OR: Timber Press.

Brian Kallies. 2012. Everglades of the North. United States.

Brisson, Jacques, Mariana Rodriguez, Charles A. Martin, and Raphaël Proulx. 2020. “Plant Diversity Effect on Water Quality in Wetlands: A Meta-Analysis Based on Experimental Systems.” Ecological Applications 30 (4): 291–300. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2074.

California State Parks Statewide Trails Section. n.d. “Educating Trail Users: Advice for Planning Interpretive Trail Signs and Exhibits - American Trails.” American Trails. Accessed December 3, 2020. https://www.americantrails.org/resources/educating-trail-usersadvice-for-planning-interpretive-trail-signs-and-exhibits.

Cameron, Cornelia C. 1970. “Peat Deposits of Northeastern Pennsylvania.” Geological Survey Bulletin 1317-A. Washington, D.C. Campbell, John L. 1883. “Improvement of the Kankakee River: Drainage of the Marsh Lands in Indiana.” Indianapolis, IN. Chadde, Steve W. 2011. Wetland Plants of Indiana: A Complete Guide to the Wetland and Aquatic Plants of the Hoosier State. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace Publishing.

Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet, and Edward T. Laroe. 1979. “Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.” Water Encyclopedia. https://doi.org/10.1002/047147844x.sw2162.

Dahl, Thomas E., and Gregory J. Allord. 1997. “History of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States.” US Geological Survey. 1997. https://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/history.html.

Dixon, Simon J., David A. Sear, and Keith H. Nislow. 2019. “A Conceptual Model of Riparian Forest Restoration for Natural Flood Management.” Water and Environment Journal 33 (3): 329–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/wej.12425.

Finlayson, C. Max, and Michael E. Moser. 1991. Wetlands. Oxford, UK: Facts on File.

Firehock, Karen. 2006. A Handbook for Stream Enhancement & Stewardship. 2nd. Blacksburg, Va; Gaithersburg, Md.: McDonald & Woodward Pub. Co.; Izaak Walton League of America.

Fischenich, J. Craig. 2011. “Stream Restoration Benefits.” In Stream Restoration in Dynamic Fluvial Systems, edited by Sean J. Bennett, Andrew Simon, and Janine M. Castro, 45–67.

Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union.

Frayer, W E, T J Monahan, D C Bowden, and F A Graybill. 1983. “Status and Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the Conterminous United States 1950’s to 1970’s.” St. Petersburg, FL. Friends of the Kankakee. 2020. “The Kankakee River.” Friends of the Kankakee. 2020. http://friendsofthekankakee.org/the-kankakee-river/.

S e n n e | 42

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland Garbisch, Edgar W. 1986. “Highways & Wetlands : Compensating Wetland Losses.” McLean, VA. Gilad, E., J. Von Hardenberg, A. Provenzale, M. Shachak, and E. Meron. 2004. “Ecosystem Engineers: From Pattern Formation to Habitat Creation.” Physical Review Letters 93 (9): 1– 4. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.098105.

Gilbert, Oliver L., and Penny Anderson. 1998. Habitat Creation and Repair. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Greet, Joe, Fiona Ede, Dan Robertson, and Scott McKendrick. 2020. “Should I Plant or Should I Sow? Restoration Outcomes Compared across Seven Riparian Revegetation Projects.”

Ecological Management & Restoration 21 (1): 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12396.

Haddad, Nick. 2018. “Riparian Restoration as a Way to Create Climate Corridors.” Conservation Corridor. 2018. https://conservationcorridor.org/2018/11/riparian-restoration-as-a-wayto-create-climate-corridors/.

Hodge, A. Trevor. 2002. Roman Aqueducts and Water Supply. 2nd ed. Bristol Classical Press.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 2020. “Fish & Wildlife Department.” 2020. https://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/.

Jones, Clive G, John H Lawton, Moshe Shachak, and M Organisms. 1994. “Organisms as Ecosystem Engineer.” Oikos 69 (3): 373–86.

Kakkar, Bonani. 2014. “Sustainability through Wise Use.” Topos: The International Review of Landscape Architecture and Urban Design, no. 87: 94–97.

Karrenberg, S., S. Blaser, J. Kollmann, T. Speck, and P. J. Edwards. 2003. “Root Anchorage of Saplings and Cuttings of Woody Pioneer Species in a Riparian Environment.” Functional Ecology 17 (2): 170–77. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2435.2003.00709.x.

Kentula, Mary E., Robert P. Brooks, Stephanie E. Gwin, Cindy C. Holland, Arthur D. Sherman, and Jean C. Sifneos. 1992. Wetlands : An Approach to Improving Decision Making in Wetland Restoration and Creation. Edited by Ann J. Haiston. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Kondolf, G. M. 2006. “River Restoration and Meanders.” Ecology and Society 11 (2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01795-110242.

———. 2011. “Setting Goals in River Restoration: When and Where Can the River ‘Heal Itself’?”

In Stream Restoration in Dynamic Fluvial Systems, edited by Sean J. Bennett, Andrew Simon, and Janine M. Castro, 29–43. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union.

Kondolf, G.M., M.W. Smeltzer, and S.F. Railsback. 2001. “Design and Performance of a Channel Reconstruction Project in a Coastal California Gravel-Bed Stream.” Environmental Management 28 (6): 761–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010260.

Langbein, James R., and Bill A. Bertrand. 1996. “Fishing the Kankakee and the Iroquois.”

Larsen, Paul. 2006. “A Center That Is Not Just for the Birds.” Urban Land 65 (4): 108–9.

S e n n e | 43

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland Larson, J. S., and J. A. Kusler. 1979. “Preface.” In Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding, edited by P. E. Greeson, J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark. Minneapolis, MN: American Water Resources Association.

Levy, Sharon. 2017. “In Ohio, Learning the Importance of Wetlands and the Great Black Swamp.” Undark. March 2017. https://undark.org/2017/03/31/great-black-swamp-ohiotoledo/.

Logar, Ivana, Roy Brouwer, and Amael Paillex. 2019. “Do the Societal Benefits of River Restoration Outweigh Their Costs? A Cost-Benefit Analysis.” Journal of Environmental Management 232 (August 2018): 1075–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.098.

May, Holly L. 2001. “Wetland Mammals.” Wildlife Habitat Management Institute. 2001. https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/SC/Wetland_Mammals.pdf.

Meyer, Alfred H. 1934. “The Kankakee ‘Marsh’ of Northern Indiana and Illinois.” Ann Arbor.

Mitra, Sudip, Reiner Wassmann, and Paul L.G. Vlek. 2005. “An Appraisal of Global Wetland Area and Its Organic Carbon Stock.” Current Science 88 (1): 25–35.

Mitsch, William J., and James G. Gosselink. 2007. Wetlands. Fourth Edi. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Mitsch, William J., and Sven Erik Jørgensen. 2003. Ecological Engineering and Ecosystem Restoration. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Moran, Janet. 2009. “Kankakee River Carved out Its Place in History.” NWI Times. November 16, 2009. https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/kankakee-river-carved-out-its-place-inhistory/article_f569acc8-1f67-58d7-952f-b760d94cf853.html.

Mustafa, Hauwa M., and Gasim Hayder. 2020. “Recent Studies on Applications of Aquatic Weed Plants in Phytoremediation of Wastewater: A Review Article.” Ain Shams Engineering Journal, no. xxxx. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.05.009.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

———. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/ttps://doi.org/10.17226/10134.

National Weather Service. n.d. “Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (Current Conditions Updated Every 15 Min.).” Accessed December 3, 2020. https://water.weather.gov/ahps2/river.php?wfo=iwx&wfoid=18675&riverid=204465&pt% 5B%5D=142854&allpoints=142315%2C141476%2C142854%2C141896%2C142651%2C142 528&data%5B%5D=hydrograph&data%5B%5D=obs&data%5B%5D=impacts&data%5B%5D =probstage&data%5B%5D=probflow&data%5B%5D=probvol&data%5B%5D=stage&data% 5B%5D=flow&data%5B%5D=sitemap&data%5B%5D=crests&data%5B%5D=lowflow&data %5B%5D=lowimpacts&data%5B%5D=lowwater.

S e n n e | 44

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland Niering, William A. 1924. Wetlands. First. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. ———. 1988. “Endangered, Threatened and Rare Wetland Plants and Animals of the Continental United States.” In The Ecology and Management of Wetlands, edited by Donal D. Hook, 1st ed., 227–38. New York, NY: Springer.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1984. “Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation.” Washington, D.C. Otto, Betsy, Kathleen McCormick, and Michael Leccese. 2004. Ecological Riverfront Design : Restoring Rivers, Connecting Communities. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.

Palmer, M. A., E. S. Bernhardt, J. D. Allan, P. S. Lake, G. Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr, et al. 2005.

“Standards for Ecologically Successful River Restoration.” Journal of Applied Ecology 42 (2): 208–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01004.x.

Pescitelli, Stephen M., and Robert C. Rung. 2008. “Status of Fish Communities and Sport Fishery in the Kankakee River and Tributary Streams.” Plano, IL. Petts, Geoffrey, and C. Amoros. 1996. Fluvial Hydrosystems. 1st ed. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1491-9.

Petts, Geoffrey E, and Peter Calow. 1996. River Biota : Diversity and Dynamics : Selected Extracts from the Rivers Handbook. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science.

Piégay, Hervé, S. E. Darby, Erik Mosselman, and Nicola Surian. 2008. “The Erroible Corridor Concept: Applicability and Limitations for River Management.” River Research and Applications 21 (7): 773–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.881.

Romanowski, Nick. 2009. Planting Wetlands and Dams. 2nd ed. Collingwood VIC: Landlinks Press.

Rosenberg, Elissa. 2019. “Before and after. Both. The Revitalization of the Aire River, Switzerland.” Landscape Architecture Magazine 109 (6): 122–33.

Rosgen, David L. 1994. “A Classification of Natural Rivers.” Catena 22 (3): 169–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/0341-8162(94)90001-9.

Seng, Phil T, and David J Case. 1992. Indiana Wildlife Viewing Guide. Helena, MT: Falcon Press. https://doi.org/1560440716.

Shaw, Julie. 2018. “Why Is Biodiversity Important?” Conservation International. 2018. https://www.conservation.org/blog/why-is-biodiversity-important.

Shields, F. Douglas, Ronald R. Copeland, Peter C. Klingeman, Martin W. Doyle, and Andrew Simon. 2003. “Design for Stream Restoration.” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 129 (8): 575–84. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2003)129:8(575).

Simpson, Thomas B. 2008. “The Dechannelization of Nippersink Creek: Learning about Native Illinois Streams through Restoration.” Ecological Restoration 26 (4): 350–56. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.26.4.350.

S e n n e | 45

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland Solomon, S., D., M. Qin, Z. Manning, M. Chen, K.B. Marquis, M.Tignor Averyt, Miller HL, et al.

2007. “Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” D Qin M Manning Z Chen M Marquis K Averyt M Tignor and HL Miller New York Cambridge University Press Pp. https://doi.org/10.1038/446727a.

Steele, Kim, and Sherry Ahrentzen. 2006. “Design Guidelines.” Wake County Open Space Plan. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1t88z8x.11.

Steinhoff, Gordon. 2009. “Wetlands Mitigation Banking and the Problem of Consolidatio.”

Electronic Green Journal, no. 27: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5070/g312710758.

Sternberg, Guy, and James W. Wilson. 2004. Native Trees for North American Landscapes.

Portland, OR: Timber Press.

Tallamy, Douglas W. 2007. Bringing Nature Home. First. Portland, OR: Timber Press.

The Indiana Water Monitoring Council. 2017. “Indiana Water Report.” Richmond, VA. Themer, Robert. 2015. “Indiana’s Problem Is Ours, Too: Levee Erosion a River Worry.” The Daily Journal, June 13, 2015. https://www.daily-journal.com/news/local/indianas-problem-isours-too-levee-erosion-a-river-worry/article_70ce4fc4-ce43-5029-9de6120b32758f35.html.

Thunhorst, Gwendolyn A. 1993. Wetland Planting Guide for the North Eastern United States: Plants for Wetland Creation, Restoration, and Enhancement. St. Michaels, MD: Environmental Concern Inc. Toth, Louis A., Stefani L. Melvin, D. Albrey Arrington, and Joanne Chamberlain. 1998.

“Hydrologic Manipulations of the Channelized Kissimmee River.” BioScience 48 (9): 757– 64. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313338.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006a. “Economic Benefits of Wetlands.” Office of Water. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/2000D2PF.PDF?Dockey=2000D2PF.PDF. ———. 2006b. “Wetlands: Protecting Life and Property from Flooding.” papers2://publication/uuid/47EE8A6A-8D9C-4115-AAAB-C812106F6D0D. ———. 2006c. “Why Are Wetlands Important?” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA843-F-06-004. Washington D.C. https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/why-are-wetlandsimportant.

U.S. Geological Survey. n.d. “USGS Current Conditions for USGS 05518000 KANKAKEE RIVER AT SHELBY, IN.” Accessed December 3, 2020. https://waterdata.usgs.gov/in/nwis/uv/?site_no=05518000&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060 ,00010.

Weller, Milton Webster. 1999. Wetland Birds : Habitat Resources and Conservation Implications. Cambridge, UK ; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

S e n n e | 46

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland Whitaker, John O, and Charles J Amlaner. 2012. Habitats and Ecological Communities of Indiana: Presettlement to Present. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press Creation Date.

Wohl, Ellen, Stuart N. Lane, and Andrew C. Wilcox. 2015. “The Science and Practice of River Restoration.” Water Resources Research 51 (8): 5974–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016874.Received.

Zedler, Joy B. 2000. “Progress in Wetland Restoration Ecology.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 15 (10): 402–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(00)01959-5.

Zoltai, S. C., and D. H. Vitt. 1995. “Canadian Wetlands: Environmental Gradients and Classification.” Vegetatio 118 (1–2): 131–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00045195.

Zucker, Leslie Ann, and Larry C. Brown. 1998. Agricultural Drainage: Water Quality Impacts and Subsurface Drainage Studies in the Midwest. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Extension.

S e n n e | 47

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

APPENDECIES APPENDIX A: PROJECT TIMELINE

S e n n e | 48

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

S e n n e | 49

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

APPENDIX B: GOALS & OBJECTIVES Improve the overall health and natural functions of the terrestrial, transitional, and aquatic systems within the Kankakee River region.

• •

•

Restore surrounding marshland and floodplain systems in order to reduce the effects of annual flooding.

Strengthen buffer zones adjacent to the river channel in an effort to treat contaminated runoff and improve the water quality in the river.

Convert the channelized river back to its previous meandering form by connecting its flow back into remnant channels and re-dredging portions to align with its historic path.

Generate a thriving habitat where both native wildlife and plant life can re-establish themselves and ultimately flourish in an area that has been disfigured over the past two centuries.

• • •

Reconstruct habitats so that they better serve wildlife that has disappeared due to degradation of the region.

Utilize a plant palette comprised exclusively of native vegetation.

Select plant species that provide food and habitat for wildlife while simultaneously serving as key components in the natural fluvial systems.

Increase general accessibility to the Kankakee River and improve connectivity between rural communities and destinations within the region.

• • •

Create a regional draw to the Kankakee River and Marshland by providing more locations along the river and throughout the marsh for visitors to experience the restored landscape.

Implement a regional trail running along the river that links the rural communities and serves as attraction to the larger, more distant urban areas.

Propose a scenic roadway that links locations throughout the restored marsh and near the river’s banks.

Raise awareness and increase acknowledgement of the Kankakee Region.

• • •

Provide educational signage at key locations and along the regional trail that tells the story of the Kankakee.

Propose locations for multiple visitor centers that will serve as a park headquarters, act as additional educational opportunities, and promote tourism in the area.

Seek to receive National or State level Parkland designation.

S e n n e | 50

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

APPENDIX C: SITE SUMMARY This project will be broken down into two pieces – the master plan and the site plan. The former will focus on the regional connections and opportunities created through the rehabilitation of the Kankakee and the surrounding wetlands. With the Kankakee’s headwaters located just outside of South Bend, Indiana, it is logical to use this city as one of the anchor points for the regional master plan. From there, the project will follow the course of the river as it flows downstream through rural Indiana. Kankakee, Illinois will serve as the western anchor point, given that it is the last major city along the river before it converges with the Des Plaines.

The total straight-lined length of this segment following the river is approximately 125 miles, with around 95 miles being within Indiana. The exact project boundaries will be determined as the design progresses, but the plan may affect areas up to a mile in either direction from the banks of the river. In total, the project extents will cover land in seven Indiana counties (St. Joseph, La Porte, Starke, Porter, Jasper, Lake, and Newton) and one in Illinois (Kankakee).

The second scale at which this project will be completed is at the site plan level in order to provide more detail of how the restoration will be carried out. For this portion of the design, a roughly nine-and-a-half-mile section of the river was selected. This section runs from Route 49 on the eastern end to Highway 231 on the western edge. This area was chosen given its close proximity to 4 rural towns: Hebron, De Motte, Kouts, and Wheatfield. Additionally, this area is a relatively short drive from some of the more populated areas near the lakeshore. Moreover, this portion of the river has a sufficient number of remnant pieces, further influencing the decision. Lastly, this section of the Kankakee runs through 2 small, rural communities directly along the banks: Baums Bridge and a fringe of Hebron. The Baums Bridge community is of increased interest, given that it is home to the historic Collier Lodge, a potential element to both the site plan and master plan.

S e n n e | 51

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

Regional Master Plan base map

Site Plan base map with context

S e n n e | 52

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

Site Plan base map

S e n n e | 53

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

APPENDIX D: SITE PHOTOS The following series of photos were taken over the course of four different visits along the entirety of the river. These site visits were intended to gather photographic data and experience the site at various key locations. All site photos were taken by Jake Senne.

The first series of photos were taken on November 2nd. This site visit began at the Kankakee Fish and Wildlife Area and followed the path of the river through the rural landscape. This site visit commenced at the Grand Kankakee Marsh County Park in southern Lake County.

The second group of photos were captured on November 25th, in some of the rural areas outside of Hanna, IN. This site visit began just upriver from the beginning of the previous visit and worked its way to the North.

The third site visit took place on November 28th. This visit began outside of Thayer, IN, and worked its way down river to the Indiana/Illinois state line. From there, the visit headed south down Route 41 to the site that was once home to Beaver Lake.

The final completed site visit traveled to some of the northern portions of the river. The most notable of the stops was at the Kingsbury Fish and Wildlife Area.

An additional site visit to Momence and Kankakee, Illinois is planned prior to beginning design.

Site Visit no. 1 Photo Key

S e n n e | 54

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

01. Kankakee Fish and Wildlife Area: Waterfowl Observation Area – Nov. 2nd, 2020

02. Kankakee River Park along Route 8 – Nov. 2nd, 2020

S e n n e | 55

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

03. A remnant portion of the old Kankakee, located along County Road W 2300 S – Nov. 2nd, 2020

04. A surviving remnant of the forested marshland – Nov. 2nd, 2020

S e n n e | 56

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

05. The historic Dunn’s Bridge – Nov. 2nd, 2020

06. Route 49 bridge – Nov. 2nd, 2020

S e n n e | 57

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

07. Aukiki Wetland Conservation Area – Nov. 2nd, 2020

08. The historic Collier Lodge – Nov. 2nd, 2020

S e n n e | 58

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

09. A remnant portion of the old Kankakee flowing near Baum’s Bridge – Nov. 2nd, 2020

10. A now abandoned riverside restaurant located on 700 W outside of Hebron – Nov. 2nd, 2020

S e n n e | 59

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

11. Grand Kankakee Marsh County Park on Range Line Road – Nov. 2nd, 2020

Site Visit no. 2 Photo Key

S e n n e | 60

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

01. Railroad bridge crossing the Kankakee outside of Hanna, IN – Nov. 25th, 2020

02. Farmer ditch bridges over Bailey Ditch outside of Hanna, IN – Nov. 25th, 2020

S e n n e | 61

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

03. One of many rural ditches within the region – Nov. 25th, 2020

04. Grove of birch trees at Turkey Foot Wetlands Management Area – Nov. 25th, 2020

S e n n e | 62

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

05. The Kankakee running adjacent to the Dick Blythe Wetland Conservation Area – Nov. 25th, 2020

06. Weir water level control system along Maurey ditch – Nov. 25th, 2020

S e n n e | 63

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

Site Visit no. 3 Photo Key A

01. Blackberry Marsh; a managed wetland outside of Thayer, IN – Nov. 28th, 2020

S e n n e | 64

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

02. Remnant portion of the Kankakee and wooded wetlands – Nov. 28th, 2020

03. Pump station along the river that supplies water into the adjacent wetlands – Nov. 28th, 2020

S e n n e | 65

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

04. Black Oak Bayou in the LaSalle Fish and Wildlife Area – Nov. 28th, 2020

05. Flooded crop fields at the LaSalle Fish and Wildlife Area – Nov. 28th, 2020

S e n n e | 66

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

06. The Indiana/Illinois state line bridge which is no longer in service – Nov. 28th, 2020

Site Visit no. 3 Photo Key B

S e n n e | 67

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

07. A rare Black Oak Savanna ecosystem at the Conrad Savanna Nature Preserve – Nov. 28th, 2020

08. Beaver Lake Prairie Chicken Refuge; part of a large prairie restoration project – Nov. 28th, 2020

S e n n e | 68

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

09. A male white-tailed deer at the Kankakee Sands Conservancy – Nov. 28th, 2020

10. One of the 70 bison at the Kankakee Sands Conservancy – Nov. 28th, 2020

S e n n e | 69

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

Site Visit no. 4 Photo Key

01. The Grande Marsh at the Kingsbury Fish and Wildlife area – Nov. 29th, 2020

S e n n e | 70

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

02. A great blue heron at the Kingsbury Fish and Wildlife area – Nov. 29th, 2020

03. Tamarack Lake at the Kingsbury Fish and Wildlife area – Nov. 29th, 2020

S e n n e | 71

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

APPENDIX E: TIMELINE OF THE KANKAKEE

S e n n e | 72

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

S e n n e | 73

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

APPENDIX F: HISTORIC PHOTOS

Source: https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/dredging-up-a-solution-kankakee-flooding-might-end-if-river-wererestored-to-the-marsh/article_8731ff78-e052-5b78-aa1c-4e1098a108b7.html

Source: https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/dredging-up-a-solution-kankakee-flooding-might-end-if-river-wererestored-to-the-marsh/article_8731ff78-e052-5b78-aa1c-4e1098a108b7.html

S e n n e | 74

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

Source: https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/dredging-up-a-solution-kankakee-flooding-might-end-if-river-wererestored-to-the-marsh/article_8731ff78-e052-5b78-aa1c-4e1098a108b7.html

Source: https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/dredging-up-a-solution-kankakee-flooding-might-end-if-river-wererestored-to-the-marsh/article_8731ff78-e052-5b78-aa1c-4e1098a108b7.html

S e n n e | 75

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

Source: https://waterfowling.net/blog/

Source: https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/porter/kouts/exploring-the-history-of-baumsbridge/article_37260e91-02af-5f69-832c-b7926b97bef2.html

S e n n e | 76

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

Source: https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/porter/kouts/exploring-the-history-of-baumsbridge/article_37260e91-02af-5f69-832c-b7926b97bef2.html

Source: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/463448617876738376/

S e n n e | 77

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

Source: http://www.porterhistory.org/2015/12/historic-dunns-bridge-on-kankakee-river.html

Source: http://www.inportercounty.org/PhotoPages/KankakeeRiver/KankakeeRiver023.html

S e n n e | 78

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

APPENDIX G: HISTORIC MAPS

Source: https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/dredging-up-a-solution-kankakee-flooding-might-end-if-river-wererestored-to-the-marsh/article_8731ff78-e052-5b78-aa1c-4e1098a108b7.html

S e n n e | 79

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

APPENDIX H: PRECEDENT PROJECTS

Kissimmee River restoration project in Florida – Source: https://www.northstar.com/portfolio/kissimmee-riverrestoration-13b/

Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Ohio – Source: https://www.nps.gov/cuva/learn/historyculture/places.htm

S e n n e | 80

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

Aire River restoration project in Switzerland – Source: http://landezine.com/index.php/2016/06/renaturation-ofthe-river-aire-geneva/

Isar River restoration project in Germany – Source: https://phusicos.eu/case_study/isar-river-basin-germany/; https://urban-waters.org/en/projects/isar-plan

S e n n e | 81

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

APPENDIX I: SUPPLEMENTARY FLOOD DATA

Kankakee River Floodplain – Source: https://kankakeeandyellowrivers.org/media-gallery/maps/

Flood data measured at Route 49 – Source: National Weather Service Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service

S e n n e | 82

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

Extents of the 2018 flood – Source: https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/dredging-up-a-solution-kankakeeflooding-might-end-if-river-were-restored-to-the-marsh/article_8731ff78-e052-5b78-aa1c-4e1098a108b7.html

2018 flood – Photo taken near De Motte – Source: https://www.newsbug.info/kankakee_valley_post_news/thebig-one-again/article_d3689321-6a1b-5856-bb40-22df92a57a9c.html

S e n n e | 83

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

2018 flood – Photo taken in Kankakee County, IL – Source: https://www.weather.gov/lot/1920Feb2018_rainfall

2018 flood – Photo taken in Kankakee County, IL – Source: https://www.weather.gov/lot/1920Feb2018_rainfall

S e n n e | 84

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

2018 flood – Photo taken in north Jasper County – Source: https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/posttribune/ct-ptb-kankakee-flooding-st-0118-story.html

2019 Flood – Photo take at the Indiana/Illinois state line bridge – Source: https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/lake-newsletter/lake-news/kankakee-river-rising-but-will-fall-shortof-2018-record-flood/article_6b09403a-b4d9-595e-b82d-e295d2fbfa87.html

S e n n e | 85

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

1957 flood – Photo taken in Kankakee, IL – Source: https://www.daily-journal.com/news/local/the-great-flood-of1957/article_1ab11bf8-4ddc-5506-a222-646a381b9449.html

1957 flood – Photo taken in Kankakee, IL – Source: https://www.daily-journal.com/news/local/the-great-flood-of1957/article_1ab11bf8-4ddc-5506-a222-646a381b9449.html

S e n n e | 86

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

APPENDIX J: LIST OF ENDANGERED WILDLIFE AND PLANT SPECIES

S e n n e | 87

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

APPENDIX K: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SURVEY The survey can be found in its entirety here: https://forms.gle/txdBkpNMV7EZKUKu8

S e n n e | 88

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

S e n n e | 89

Rewilding of a River: Restoration of the Kankakee and Surrounding Marshland

CLOSING STATEMENT Thank you for reviewing my project proposal for Rewilding of a river: Restoration of the Kankakee and surrounding marshland. This has been a long and arduous process, but it has also been an incredible experience. Please feel free to contact me at jsenne@bsu.edu, jakesenne1@gmail.com, or 219-380-6957 with any comments, questions, critiques, or feedback. I welcome all inquires and would be happy to discuss my work.

Jacob J. Senne

S e n n e | 90