Kankakee River Revival Plan - Ball State Landscape Architecture Undergraduate Thesis by Jake Senne

KANKAKEE RIVER REVIVAL PLAN RESTORE | RECONNECT | REVIVE A comprehensive guide to the restoration and revitalization of the Kankakee River and surrounding landscape Written and designed by Jake Senne | April 2021

Kankakee River Revival Plan

Kankakee River Revival Plan:

A comprehensive guide to the restoration and revitalization of the Kankakee River and surrounding landscape Jake Senne Ball State University College of Architecture and Planning Department of Landscape Architecture Comprehensive Capstone Project Studio Professors: Chris Marlow & Natalie Yates Project Proposal Advisor: Pete Ellery Thesis Advisor: Justin Menke

Preface | I

A BSTR AC T 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 a 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 river bends, leaving what is essentially a 90-mile-long drainage ditch. A land of enchantment, inspiration, and discovery was gone. The Kankakee River Revival Plan seeks to remedy the consequences suffered in this region over the past two centuries while also designing for a more sustainable and resilient landscape for future generations to come. This project focuses foremost on the restoration and rehabilitation of the Kankakee River and its adjacent wetlands. The plan aims to re-establish the floodplain landscape so that it may carry out its natural environmental processes, uninhibited by the rigidity of the current riverbed. It also sets the framework for a system of regional trails, hiking paths, and recreational areas, creating a pedestrian-centered circulation system linking rural communities while establishing the area as an attractive outdoor destination. The implementation of this plan and modifications of the landscape would result in reduced annual flooding, better water quality in the Kankakee, increased populations of native plant and wildlife species, economic gains in the small communities near the river, and a more wide-spread acknowledgment for the beauty and rich history of the area.

II | Kankakee River Revival Plan

ACKN OW LE DG M E NTS I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude towards a handful of individuals. Firstly, I would like to thank Chris Marlow, Natalie Yates, Justin Menke, Chris Baas, and Pete Ellery for their direct contributions to this project. I would not have been able to produce such an extensive and thorough comprehensive document without your guidance, feedback, critiques, and challenges. Next, I would like to thank my classmates, not only for your objective views and comments on this project, but for making the past five years an enjoyable experience. I am thankful for the friendships I have developed and the memories made through all of our field trips, group projects, and studios together. Thirdly, I would like to recognize the incredible staff and faculty in the Landscape Architecture department at Ball State. I am immensely thankful for all of the direction and insight you have given to me these past five years. Without your influences, I would not be anywhere near the designer or person I am today. For that, I am extremely grateful. I would also like to thank some of my closest friends that have always been there for me. I appreciate you listening to me go on and on about this project for the past nine months even though you probably could care less. Finally, I would like to extend the greatest appreciation to my parents. From a young age, you instilled in me a hard-working and driven spirit that has translated to my adult life. I am eternally grateful for all that you have done for me.

Preface | III

TA BL E O F CO NT ENTS S E C T I O N 11 17 18 19 19 22 22

I :

I N T R O D U C T I O N

0 1 INTRODU C TION 0 2 TH E PROBLEM & I TS S E T T I NG P ro j e c t S i g n i fi cance S u b - P ro b l em s D efi n i n g Key Term s A s s u m pt i o n s D el i m i tat i on s

S E C T I O N

I I :

R E S E A R C H

0 3 R EVIEW OF LIT E R AT U R E

0 4 PROJEC T R ESEARCH

28 28 29 32 36 39 40 48 50 54 56 58 59

O ve r v i ew Br i ef H i sto r y of the Kankakee Re g io n R i ve r Resto rat i o n Wet l a n d Resto ratio n Ha b i tat Resto ratio n S u c c es s / Fa i l u re Facto rs in Re sto ratio n O u tco m es o f Effe ctive Resto ratio n

C o m m u n i t y E n gagem ent S ur vey P re c e d ent P roject C as e S tudies Ta rget Wi l d l i fe S pe cie s P l a nt S p ec i e s R i ve r D ata & C onditio ns Tra i l Des i g n G uidelines Rev iew

S E C T I O N 63 64 65

67 68 69 70 82

96 98 100

I I I :

D E S I G N

0 5 DESIGN INTROD U C T I O N P roj ec t L ocat i o n G oa l s & O b j ec tive s 0 6 INVENTORY & A NALYS I S S i te V i s i t s

GIS Mapping E xi st i n g C on d i tio ns S .O.C .C . A n a l ys is

A g g re s s i ve A p pro ach C a l c u l ated A p pro ach

M a ster P l a n S e g m ent M a ster P l a n S e g m ent M a ster P l a n S e g m ent M a ster P l a n S e g m ent M a ster P l a n S e g m ent Ye l l ow R i ver S pur

0 7 CONC EPTUAL D ES I G N C on s er vat i ve A ppro ach

103 0 8 MASTER PLANN I NG 104 M a ster P l a n O ve r v iew 106 108 110 112 114 116

IV | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

1 2 3 4 5

P R O C E S S

118 119

Be aver L a ke S p ur O vera l l Tra n sform atio n

122 124 126

D eter m i n i n g Re sto ratio n Ex tents F l o od p l a i n M odif icatio ns F l o od p l a i n Tra n s itio nal Zo ne s

130 132 136 140 142 144 146

Tra i l System O ver v iew Pave d M u l t i - U s e Trail E l evated Bo a rdwalk O ver l o ok Poi nts Hi k i n g Tra i l s P r i m i t i ve C a m ps ites Ped e st r i a n C onnectiv ity

152 154 156 158

B l a c k O a k Bayo u Trailhe ad E n g l i s h L a ke Trailhe ad C r u m stow n Tra ilhead Veh i c u l a r C o n n e ctiv ity

160 162

S i g n a ge & Way f inding A m e n i t i es Pa l ette

121 0 9 R ESTOR ATION P RO CES S

129 1 0 R EGIONAL TR AI L SYST E M

149 1 1 TR AILH EAD DES I G N Tra i l h ea d D es i gnatio n & Feature s 150

159 1 2 AMENITIES & MAT E R I ALI T Y

S E C T I O N

I V :

C O N C L U S I O N

167 1 3. CONTINUING R ES EARCH

168 170

F u r t h e r Re s ea rch & Des ig n F u t u re C o l l a b oratio n

178

B i b l i og ra p hy

173 1 4. R EFLEC TION R E F E R E N C E S

A P P E N D I C E S 186 187 188 190 214 224 230 232 238 242 248 250 252 258

A p p en d i x A p p en d i x A p p en d i x A p p en d i x A p p en d i x A p p en d i x A p p en d i x A p p en d i x A p p en d i x A p p en d i x A p p en d i x A p p en d i x A p p en d i x A p p en d i x

A - L ist o f F ig ures B - G o als & O bjectives C - P has e d Im plem e ntatio n D - S i te Pho to s E - Ea rly Inve nto r y Draw ing s F - Target W ildlife S pe cie s Lists G - P lant Palette H - US GS R iver Gauge Data I - Recent F lo o d Im ages J - F ull S ur vey K - L i st o f S ur vey Res po ns e s L - Tim e line o f H isto rical Eve nts M - H isto ric Pho to s N - Histo ric M aps Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s | V

8 | Kankakee River Revival

SECTION I:

INTRODUCTION 9

IN T RO D U C T IO N SECTION I: 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,” thanks to the density of these riches (Brian Kallies 2012). Though their exact arrival period in the area is unclear, this land was home to the native Potawatomi 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, even peaking the interests of the infamous businessman John Jacob Astor, who set up multiple trading posts throughout the marsh (Brian Kallies 2012). Unfortunately, as the area gained notoriety, settlers began encroaching on the Native American tribes and claiming territory as their own, hoping to farm the rich black soils and fertile land near the river. 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,

12 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l

mass exploitation of the land quickly followed. The marsh gained more and more recognition as a sportsman’s paradise, appealing to the affluent members of society from around the world. Individuals like Presidents Benjamin Harrison and Theodore Roosevelt, as well as foreign kings and princes, flooded to the area to hunt the bountiful wildlife, including deer, fox, beaver, prairie chicken, wild turkey, muskrats, mink, and other types of waterfowl (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 1880s, 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: dredging the river itself. By the early 1920s, 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 essentially a massive 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. The effects of man’s belief in progress without a regard for the 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 concentrations of pesticides and pollutants into the waterway. Additionally, the channelized river carries an increased amount

Introduction | 13

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 due to the loss of their habitat; however, thanks to modern conservation and restoration efforts, their populations are on the rise. The Kankakee River Revival Plan seeks to remedy the consequences suffered in this region over the past two centuries while also designing for a more sustainable and resilient landscape for future generations to come. This comprehensive guide will contain the following chapters and explorations: • A section diving into the significance of the project and overarching problem, a list of sub-problems that the plan would solve, definitions of key terms, and lastly assumptions and delimitations of the project. • A literature review, which focuses on topics relating to river and wetland restoration, habitat reestablishment, success and failure factors in restoration, and the outcomes of an effective restoration project. • Research that explores precedent projects, current river conditions, applicable plant and wildlife species, trail design guidelines, and community feedback. • A walk through the entire design process, including site inventory and analysis, conceptual designs, master planning, the restoration process, the regional trail system, individual trailhead designs, and the amenities and materials palette that would be featured throughout the project. • A concluding section which explores the continuation of the project and futures steps, as well as a reflection on the work. • A list of all references used for the research. • The appendices containing a collection of helpful lists, images, tables, and other useful information.

14 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l

Introduction | 15

THE PROBLEM & SETTING

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION

PROJECT SIGNIFICANCE In order to understand the reasoning behind the project and the argument for the implementation of the Kankakee River Revival Plan, it is important to consider the history of events here, the current conditions of the landscape, and the long list of problems associated with the channelization of the Kankakee and the disfiguration of its adjacent ecosystems. The consequences of the dredging and draining that occurred over a century ago are still being felt today in a number of ways, but perhaps the most dramatic and impactful of these is the annual flooding of the river. Heavy seasonal precipitation, snow melt, and ice blockages contribute to high water levels nearly every single year due to the current configuration of the river channel and lack of floodplain systems. These flood events often inundate agricultural land, lead to road closures, damage properties, and endanger the residents of nearby communities. As recently as 2018, floodwaters have extended nearly 4 miles from the river’s bank, threatening cropland, existing infrastructure, residences, and individuals nearby. Similarly to the issues with flooding, the current conditions of the river and adjacent land contribute negatively to the water quality within the Kankakee. Heavy rains and runoff from agricultural fields often carry harmful pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals, leading to a higher concentration of these pollutants in the river. Furthermore, the wide, deep channel of the Kankakee results in an increase in sediment displacement, causing buildup and issues downriver. In addition to these, the depletion of natural habitat and mass conversion to cropland has led to a drastic decrease in the populations of both native plant and animal species in the region. Many of these species play a key role in regulating natural environmental systems and creating a healthy riparian ecosystem. Lastly, with the long distances between towns, roadways void of any scenery besides cropland, and lack of recognition for this area, there seems to be a severe disconnect and loss of identity for this once recreational destination and historical river. As discussed throughout this guide, the Kankakee River Revival Plan would respond to these issues as well as proposing other improvements. The restoration process would dramatically increase the storage capacity of the floodplain, protect nearby communities and build resiliency to the effects of climate change, lead to a healthier river system, strengthen habitat for native flora and fauna species, increase connectivity and accessibility along the river corridor, and re-establish an identity for this region.

18 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

SUB-PROBLEMS For the purposes of this project, the following sub-problems have been identified and addressed within the design process: • 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, 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) • 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)

The Problem & Setting | 19

• 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 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)

20 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

• 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 selfsupporting 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) • 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, the following assumptions have been made: • Global temperatures will continue to rise per data acquired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The Problem & Setting | 21

• 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 for the design and implementation of the project. • State- or privately-owned conservation areas or managed lands would allow for complete restoration on their property.

DELIMITATIONS For the purposes of this project, 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. • 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, 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 may be integrated into some drawings • Although river restoration methods will be discussed, the physical installation of such elements and maintenance for the river will not be included.

22 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

The Problem & Setting | 23

24 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l

SECTION II:

RESEARCH

RE V I EW O F LI T E RAT UR E

SECTION II: RESEARCH

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 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).

28 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

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 L. 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 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

Review of Literature | 29

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 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

30 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

different approach: methods guided by aesthetic 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 aesthetic purposes. However, studies have 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 “unkempt.” 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 fulfill 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 acknowledgment 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 methods requires both

Review of Literature | 31

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 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.

32 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

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 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

Review of Literature | 33

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.” 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

34 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

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 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

Review of Literature | 35

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 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 re-establishing 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.

36 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Plant life is capable of providing a number of the key aspects necessary for a 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. 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

Review of Literature | 37

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 river-dependent 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. 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.

38 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

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 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.

Review of Literature | 39

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.

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.

40 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

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 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

Review of Literature | 41

derived from these environments. 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. 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

42 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

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 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 gases 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

Review of Literature | 43

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 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:

44 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

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.

Review of Literature | 45

P ROJEC T RES EA RC H

SECTION II: RESEARCH

Project Research | 47

CO MM UNI TY E N GAGE M E NT SURV E Y In order to better understand the potential users of the site, as well as their wants and needs, a digital survey was distributed to members of nearby communities and towns. This survey gathered input from 100 individuals from a wide range of age groups, allowing me to analyze an array of data while also providing guidance in the design process, specifically when it came to offering access to recreational activities or determining what features would be most beneficial to users. Additionally, it highlighted the lack of awareness regarding the drainage of the wetlands and the rather limited use or interaction with the Kankakee River. Furthermore, it reinforced the thinking that this design could create a draw to the area and depicted a high likelihood that people would use this trail. The full survey and collection of responses can be found in Appendices J & K.

Age Group

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

How often they interact with the river

55-65

Figure 4.1 - Age group pie chart

65+

Aware of drainage prior to survey

Weekly

Monthly

Yearly

Never

Figure 4.2 - Interaction period pie chart

Likelihood of using proposed trail Highly Likely

Somewhat Likely

Somewhat Unlikely

Highly Unlikely Yes

Somewhat

Figure 4.3 - Awareness of drainage pie chart

48 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Figure 4.4 - Likelihood of using trail bar graph

Interest in proposed activities

Likelihood of visiting with more activities

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Highly Likely Somewhat Likely Somewhat Unlikely Highly Unlikely 0

Figure 4.5 - Interest in proposed activities bar graph

Figure 4.6 - Visitation with more activities bar graph

Activities or amenities that would increase interest

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Figure 4.7 - Activities or amenities that increase interest bar graph

Time willing to drive to the trail

Likelihood of visiting with better accessibility Highly Likely

Somewhat Likely

Somewhat Unlikely

Less than 15 mins

15 - 30 mins

30 - 45 mins

45 - 60 mins

Over 1 hour

Figure 4.8 - Drive time pie chart

Highly Unlikely 0

Figure 4.9 - Increased visitors with better accessibility bar graph

Project Research | 49

P REC E DE NT P ROJEC T C ASE ST UD I ES KI S S I M ME E R IVE R R ESTO R AT IO N PROJEC T OV E RV I E W DESIGNER

LOCATION

SIZE

COMPLETION

Southern Florida Water Management

Near Okeechobee, Florida

44 miles of the river to be restored

Phase 4 of 4 completed in 2020

The Kissimmee River once meandered for 103 miles through central Florida, but in 1948 the water way was deepened, straightened, and widened to combat flooding, resulting in the C-38 canal. Today, upwards of 8 miles of the C-38 canal have been backfilled and water flow has been re-established to nearly 24 mies of the original meandering channel. Additionally, areas of the floodplain have been restored to better protect against major flood events.

BENE F I TS

I M AG ES

ENVIRONMENTAL

Before

After

• The water now flows in its original, natural channel, improving the complex fluvial processes lost with the channelization. • The restored floodplain has seen the re-establishment of many of its wetland-dependent species. • It is estimated that more than 320 fish and wildlife species will benefit from the project. • Established new habitats for native species.

SOCIAL • Due to the relative rural location and lack of accessibility, there are no significant social benefits resulting from this project. • Some activities like kayaking and boating are available, but not a major emphasis.

ECONOMIC • Given the lack of data for such a young project, the economic benefits have not yet been discovered. • The restored floodplain may prove more effective in the long run.

KEY TAKEAWAYS • Backfilling such an extensive, large channel is possible, yet understandably very expensive. • The environmental results of such a project can be tremendous. Figure 4.10 - Kissimmee River Case Study Image Set

50 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

OH IO & E RI E C ANAL TOWPAT H T R AIL PROJEC T OV E RV I E W DESIGNER

LOCATION

Multiple entities, notably Northeaster Ohio the National Park Service

SIZE

COMPLETION

101 miles of trail

Slated to be totally completed by 2025

Originally used for mules pulling canal boats along the Ohio & Erie Canal, the Towpath Trail is now the quintessential running, walking, and biking route in Northeastern Ohio. The trail, which runs from Cleavland, through the Cuyahoga Valley National Park and Akron, and all the way down to New Philadelphia, links key destinations and small historic towns, while also providing insight into the history of the region and the towpath’s origins.

BENE FITS

I M AG ES

ENVIRONMENTAL • The Towpath itself has not had a tremendous direct impact on the environment, but it has helped raise awareness and promote conservation of the area. • A portion of the trail runs through the Beaver Marsh in the National Park, a restored wetland that was at one time used as a junk yard. to discover the various landscapes and unique ecosystems within the region.

SOCIAL • A multitude of trailheads, rest areas, and nodes of activity support social interactions along the trail. • The many trailheads make it accessible to a wide range of users. • Restaurants, shops, and other amenities nearby encourage social activity. • Annual events bring even more people to experience the trail.

ECONOMIC • Place a multitude of trailheads, rest areas, and nodes of activity to support social interactions along the trail. •Annual events bring even more people to experience the trail.

KEY TAKEAWAYS • A regional trail can be used to spur tourism in small towns and lead to a increase notoriety. • Link nodes of activity to provide an experience and social opportunities. Figure 4.11 - Case Study Image Set 2

Project Research | 51

P REC E DE NT P ROJEC T C ASE ST UD I ES A I RE RI V E R R ESTO R AT IO N PROJEC T OV E RV I E W DESIGNER

LOCATION

SIZE

COMPLETION

Superpositions; Atelier Descombes Rampini

Geneva, Switzerland

Roughly 3 miles of river; 125 acres in total

Phase 3 of 4 completed in 2015

The Aire river flows through Swiss valleys that were historically devoted to farming, so naturally it was channelized over time. In 2001, the State of Geneva proposed a competition for the restoration of the river. The winning bid took issue with the idea the river could be returned to its original state. Instead they proposed a project in which the canal and the river would exist side by side, creating a dynamic relationship between the natural and build landscape.

BENE F I TS

I M AG ES

ENVIRONMENTAL • One can not effectively design the path of a river, so by allowing the river to determine its own path the erodible corridor, the design is able to carry out its natural movement without extending outside of the project boundaries. • Increase in water quality and natural sediment displacement. • The retained canal still has the potential to provide ecological benefits.

SOCIAL • Artistic and poetic design that shares the history of the river. • Retention of the existing canal provides a unique opportunity for activities. • The duality of the project allows users to experience the river in various ways. • The project area has seen a drastic increase in the number of visitors since its implementation.

Prior to releasing water

ECONOMIC • Given that this project’s intentions were focused on bolstering the environmental and social benefits, there were no outstanding economic benefits.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Water developed own path

• The idea of an erodible corridor that allows the river to determine its own path may be applicable to this project. • The possibility of celebrating the existing channel rather than backfilling it. Figure 4.12 - Case Study Image Set 3

52 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

I SA R RI V E R R ESTO R AT IO N PROJEC T OV E RV I E W DESIGNER

LOCATION

SIZE

COMPLETION

City of Munich

Munich, Germany

Roughly 5 miles of the river

2011

The river bed, flowing through the dense urban area, has been transformed from a once structured, fixedbank channel to a meandering waterway with varying widths, gravel banks and islands, and an improved floodplain. Steep concrete embankments and paving have been removed and replaced with flat sloping banks that have developed naturally as the river migrates laterally. The restoration of the Isar has had significant impacts for the city of Munich.

BENE FITS

I M AG ES

ENVIRONMENTAL

Before

After

Before

After

• Increased space allows the river to establish a more natural flow path and thus leads to longitudinal and lateral continuity. • Naturalization of the corridor resulted in improvement of habitat for flora and fauna. • Cross-river sills that previously inhibited fish movement were removed. • Improved morphological processes. • Increased biodiversity in the urban area. • Overall drastic improvement in water quality and river health

SOCIAL • Increased general accessibility to the river corridor. • Multi-purpose trail along the banks provides opportunity for various activities. • New natural sand and gravel banks have led to increased use of the river.

ECONOMIC • Flood runoff has been improved, decreasing damages caused by drastic events. • Low-lying city districts are now better protected from high waters.

KEY TAKEAWAYS • Removing harsh, rigid embankments can lead to improved river conditions and a decrease in the effects of flooding. • The natural process of the river may result in inviting and usable elements like the sand bars. Figure 4.13 - Case Study Image Set 4

Project Research | 53

TA RG E T W I LDLI F E SPEC I ES The degradation and depletion of the Kankakee region’s natural resources and habitat areas has led to a drastic decline in the populations and overall biodiversity of native wildlife species in 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) was completed. Additionally, I utilized 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 target wildlife species. Lastly, I reviewed selections from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (Indiana Department of Natural Resources 2020) and a wetland mammal guide (May 2001) to continue building a solid base of knowledge. Following the review of each of these sources, I was able to develop a list of over 225 applicable bird, mammal, amphibian, reptile, and fish species that the restoration process could serve. Some of these species are listed as endangered at either the federal or state level. Furthermore, I was able to identify basic habitat needs and ecological preferences for each of these species. This information was then used to determine the various types of ecosystems that would be implemented along the riparian corridor in the restoration process. This list of wildlife species also aided in building a plant palette, selecting species of flora that would provide shelter, nesting opportunities, food sources, and other benefits to the target wildlife. Pictured on the following page is a small sample of creatures that would benefit from the restoration of the Kankakee River and its surrounding wetlands. Common wetland species like the American Beaver, Muskrat, Red-Winged Blackbird, and others are pictured here. Also included in these images are a number of federally or statewide endangered species including the Yellow-Crowned Night Heron, the Star-Nosed Mole, the Least Bittern, and the Solitary Sandpiper. The full lists of target wildlife species and their basic habitat conditions can be found in Appendix F. These lists are broken down into birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, and endangered species.

54 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

BE LT E D K I NGFISHE R

R E D -WINGED BLACKBIRD

A M E RI C AN B EAVE R

STA R-NOS ED MOLE Condylura cristata

Ondatra zibethicus

YELLOW-CROWNED NIGHT HERON

LEA ST BIT TERN

S OLITA RY SA NDPIPER

EA STERN NEWT

COMMON SNAPPING TURTLE

Megaceryle alcyon

Castor canadensis

Nyctanassa violacea

RE D - EA RE D SL ID E R Trachemys scripta elegans

Agelaius phoeniceus

Ixobrychus exilis

Notophthalmus viridescens

WOOD DUCK Aix sponsa

MUS KRAT

Tringa solitaria

Chelydra serpentina

Figure 4.14 - Sample Wildlife Species Photo Grid

Project Research | 55

P L A NT PA LE T T E With many of the region’s natural landscapes being destroyed, much of the native ecosystems and plant life have been lost in favor of agricultural land. A key proponent of the restoration process is the re-establishment of native plant species. To gain a better understanding on this topic, a review of wetland planting guides (Chadde 2011; Romanowski 2009; Thunhorst 1993) served as blueprints on which to base decisions regarding the selection of plant life within the design. Further information gathered from a Midwest native plant guide (Branhagen 2016) and a native tree handbook (Sternberg and Wilson 2004) aided in the plant selection process. Lastly, resources from the Indiana Native Plant Society, Spence Restoration Nursery, and Hoffman Nursery were utilized to further strengthen the choices of plant life (Indiana Native Plant Society 2021; Spence Restoration Nursery 2011; Hoffman Nursery 2016). These sources allowed me to build an extensive plant palette comprised exclusively of native species. These species were selected given their ability to grow in a number of conditions that would be present in the restoration process, as well as their ability to sustain populations of native wildlife species. These plant species are intended to play many roles in their given ecosystems, including providing food and shelter, stabilizing soils and preventing erosion, purifying contaminated runoff through phytoremediation, and strengthening biodiversity throughout the region. Highlighted on the following page is a small sample of the native plant palette. Hardy, flood tolerant trees like the Swamp White Oak, River Birch, and Silver Maple can be found in low lying areas throughout the design. Wetland flowering species such as the Cardinal flower or Marsh Milkweed serve native wildlife as well as providing beauty for visitors. Graminoids like the Tussock Sedge and the Yellow Fox Sedge are adaptable to a wide range of growing conditions and can be used to purify runoff from adjacent agricultural lands. The full plant palette can be found in Appendix G. This list is broken down into shade trees, shrubs and ornamental trees, and graminoids, and forbs.

56 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

SWA MP WHIT E OAK

RIV ER BIRCH

S ILV ER MA PLE

C A RD I NA L FLOWE R

NE W ENGLA ND A STER

MA RS H MILKWEED

T U S S O C K SE D GE

BUT TON BUS H

YELLOW FOX S EDG E

SWA M P ROSE M AL LOW

LIZA RD ’S TA IL

FA LS E INDIGO BUS H

Quercus bicolor

Lobelia cardinalis

Carex stricta

Hibiscus moscheutos

Betula nigra

Symphotrichum novae-angilae

Scientific Name

Saururus cernuus

Acer saccharinum

Asclepias incarnata

Carex annectens

Baptisia australis

Figure 4.15 - Sample Plant Palette Photo Grid

Project Research | 57

R I VER CO NDI T I ONS & DATA

Figure 4.16 - 2018 Kankakee River Flood Extents; source: https://www.newsbug.info/kankakee_valley_post_news/the-big-oneagain/article_d3689321-6a1b-5856-bb40-22df92a57a9c.html

FLOOD DATA

Information regarding flood data along the river was gathered from the National Weather Service’s Advanced Hydrologic Prediction tool (National Weather Service n.d.) and the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey n.d.). There are several river gauges located along the river, each providing values for flood stages, records of historic crests, and patterns of flooding. Additional flood data can be found in Appendix H, as well as photos of recent flood events in Appendix I.

WATER QUALITY Ideally on a project of this nature, water samples would be gathered and tested accordingly, but that simply was not achievable in this research phase. Rather, reports from the Indiana Water Monitoring Council (The Indiana Water Monitoring Council 2017) and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (Arihood, Bayless, and Sidle 2006) showed that water quality in the Kankakee tested higher than expected, yet pollutants and contaminants were still present in their samples.

FLOW DATA Using

the

aforementioned

Hydrologic Prediction Service tool (National Weather Service n.d.), data regarding flow rates was gathered in order to study the discharge at the given gauge

locations.

Additional

data is available in Appendix H. Figure 4.17 - Kouts USGS Kankakee River Gauge Data; source: https://water.weather. gov/ahps/

58 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

T RA I L DESI G N G UI D E L INES R E V I E W To guide the design, layout, and placement of the various trail types featured in the project, a review of two trail guideline documents (Steele and Ahrentzen 2006; Barbarasch et al. 2009) was completed. Additionally, a review of California State Park’s sign standards(California State Parks Statewide Trails Section n.d.) provided insight on how to best integrate signage along the trail. Key takeaways from each of these reviews are provided below.

WAKE COUNTY TRAIL DESIGN GUIDE • When possible, maintain a minimum 50’ vegetated buffer on both sides of the river • Provide an additional buffer in urban development areas • Minimum of 10’ wide trail tread, but 12-14’ is preferred • Aggregate surface can be used outside of the floodplain, but paved is preferred • Minimum 14’ width for boardwalks • Major and minor trailheads should be installed throughout the greenway system • Trailheads should include parking, restrooms, drinking fountains and directional signage.

CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS GUIDE • Signage should be designed to stimulate visitors’ interests while challenging their imaginations or offering new perspectives of familiar topics • Use themes to help visitors better understand the messages while creating a unified design • Know your intended audience and tailor signage to them • People enjoy sequenced stories, not long rambling lectures • Avoid sensory overload • Relate a clear message • Make the messages fun and exciting

PORTLAND TRAIL DESIGN GUIDELINES

Figure 4.18 - Trail Guideline Review Image Set

• Hiking trails should maintain a natural surface material and generally a 2% cross slope. A minimum of 3’ should be considered for an accessible trail. Provide 8’ of vertical clearance • Walking and biking trails should be 10-12’ wide. Maintain a 1% cross slope and a 0-3% longitudinal slope (8% max). A 100’ turn radius is preferred with a 150’ sight distance. Provide a minimum of 8’ of vertical cxlearance, 12’ under bridges. • Reinforce paved trails to withstand the weight of maintenance and emergency vehicles. Project Research | 59

60 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

SECTION III:

DESIGN PROCESS 61

DESIGN INTRODUCTION SECTION III: THE DESIGN PROCESS

P ROJEC T LO C ATION

Figure 5.1 - Project Location

The Kankakee River’s headwaters are located in northern Indiana, just outside of the sprawling city of South Bend. The initial portion of the river, also named Dixon West Place Ditch, flows southeast through the agricultural lands of St. Joseph county and into La Porte County, where it eventually forms the border between La Porte and Starke County. It continues flowing south until it converges with one of its tributaries, the Yellow River. From there, it continues its eastbound trajectory, forming the border between Porter and Jasper County. Here, the river veers to the north, passing just below Kouts before reverting course and heading back south east before passing between Hebron and De Motte. It continues southeast, creating the border between Lake and Newton County until it eventually reaches the Indiana/Illinois state line. Once in Illinois, the Kankakee flows due east until reaching the town of Momence, where it then flows southeast again before turning northward and continuing through Kankakee, IL. From there, it flows north east until it converges with the Des Plaines River. The main portion of the project follows the Kankakee as it flows from outside of South Bend, across the north western corner of Indiana, and into Illinois before terminating in Kankakee, IL. Aside from the major river corridor, there are multiple spurs that branch off from the main portion and connect to nearby communities or points of interest. 64 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

G OA L S & O B JEC T IV ES VISION STAT E M E NT The mantra of “Restore - Reconnect - Revive” serves as a guiding principle for the Kankakee River Revival Plan. At the base of the entire project is the RESTORATION, the most critical factor in the plan’s success. The return of the natural conditions will bring with it an opportunity to RECONNECT, linking individuals back to the Kankakee River and rich and storied past of the region while also tying the river back into its historic channel. The third step, REVIVAL, is achieved through bringing an identity and widespread acknowledgment back to the river’s banks, making the Kankakee an attractive, prominent destination once again.

R E S T O R E N AT U R A L L A N D S C A P E • Return the Kankakee River to a meander • Restore surrounding marshland and strengthen floodplain systems • Reinforce transitional zones adjacent to the river • Bolster buffer zones between agricultural land

S T R E N G T H E N H A B I TAT • Reconstruct habitats to better serve a wide array of native wildlife species • Utilize an exclusively native plant palette • Select plant species that benefit wildlife and play a role in natural systems

IMPROVE ACCESSIBILITY • Provide locations throughout the site for visitors to experience the landscape • Implement a regional trail system that runs the length of the rive links nearby towns • Place accessible trailheads near major roads and circulation routes

INCREASE ACKNOWLEDGMENT • Provide educational signage at trailheads and along the regional trail • Propose multiple locations for visitor centers • Increase opportunities for recreational activities (biking, kayaking, hiking, hunting, fishing, etc.) • Seek National Historic or Recreational Trail designation, or obtain State Park classification The full detailed list of goals and objectives can be found in Appendix B. Project Introduction | 65

INVE NTORY & A NA LYSIS

SECTION III: DESIGN PROCESS

S I T E V I SI TS

Figure 6.1 - Site Visits Map

The site inventory and analysis process began with a series of five separate site visits completed from early November into January. Over the course of the site visits, I spent nearly 20 hours in the car, driving the entire course of the river and photographing key locations along the way. Getting out into the field and seeing the area firsthand was a crucial step early in the design process, allowing me to personally experience the landscape. This step also revealed spatial information, notable landmarks, destinations, and other elements of this nature that were not identifiable using satellite imagery or Google Street View. The full set of photos, maps showing where each image was taken, and more details about the site visits can be found in Appendix D.

68 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

G I S M A P PI NG Working in GIS was instrumental in the early stages of the design process, allowing me to overlay multiple layers of information, quickly perform spatial analysis, and explore the relationships between the data sets. Some of these layers included land uses, cultivated lands, soil data, hydrology, population densities, natural features, recreational interests, existing infrastructure, presettlement conditions, nearby schools and museums, and a long list of others. The spatial relationships and overlapping pieces allowed me to begin mapping the existing conditions and perform the site Analysis, as well as providing considerations later in the design process. Figure 6.2 provides a small sample of some of the GIS layers used in the mapping process.

LAND USE

CULTIVATED LANDS

SOILS

WETLANDS

RECREATIONAL

INSTITUTIONAL

Figure 6.2 - Sample GIS Layers Photo Grid

Inventory & Analysis | 69

EX I ST I NG CO NDIT IONS OV ERV I E W

Using the GIS data as a base, I began mapping out the existing conditions in the region. Through this process, I meticulously combed through the entirety of the site, identifying and marking the existing features along the river. Included in these features were nearby structures, vehicular and railroad bridges, natural elements like wetlands, adjacent woodlands, and cut off meanders, abandoned railways, cropland, populations, managed lands, and vehicular circulation routes. The following six images (Figures 6.3 - 6.8) provide a closer look at the existing conditions along the river.

Figure 6.3 - Existing Conditions Overview

70 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Inventory & Analysis | 71

EX I ST I NG CO NDIT IONS S EGM EN T 1

Figure 6.4 - Existing Conditions Segment 1

72 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Inventory & Analysis | 73

EX I ST I NG CO NDIT IONS S EGM EN T 2

Figure 6.5 - Existing Conditions Segment 2

74 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Inventory & Analysis | 75

EX I ST I NG CO NDIT IONS S EGM EN T 3

Figure 6.6 - Existing Conditions Segment 3

76 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Inventory & Analysis | 77

EX I ST I NG CO NDIT IONS S EGM EN T 4

Figure 6.7 - Existing Conditions Segment 4

78 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Inventory & Analysis | 79

EX I ST I NG CO NDIT IONS S EGM EN T 5

Figure 6.8 - Existing Conditions Segment 5

80 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Inventory & Analysis | 81

S O CC A NA LYSI S OV ERV I E W

After studying the existing conditions across the entirety of the site, I began analyzing that information through the lens of the project’s goals and objectives. To do so, I carried out a SOCC Analysis, an adaptation of the traditional SWOT analysis process, examining strength, opportunities, concerns, and constraints along the Kankakee River corridor. Existing or established elements that would play a positive role in the project were noted as strengths. These features mostly included state- or privately-owned managed lands, existing natural areas, tributaries flowing into the Kankakee, and existing trails and recreation areas. Opportunities were considered to be pieces that could benefit the design, whether they were physical features or merely thoughts. Many of the opportunities identified revolved around using abandoned railways or tributaries that branched towards other towns. Other opportunities included drawing visitors from the dense populations of northwest Indiana and the Chicago area, as well as connecting to the Indiana Dunes National Park.

Concerns were determined to be existing elements that were not directly limiting the project but could still have an adverse effect on the design process. In most cases, these were small towns or communities near the river. Lastly, constraints were considered to be rigid limitations of the project. These included existing infrastructure, groups of structures adjacent to the river, or other existing elements that restrict the design in any way. Figure 6.9 - SOCC Analysis Overview

82 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

The following five images (Figure 6.9 - 6.14) provide a closer look at the SOCC Analysis along the river corridor. Early hand-drawn site inventory and analysis maps can be found in Appendix E.

Inventory & Analysis | 83

S O CC A NA LYSI S S EGM EN T 1

On this first segment, the strengths include Potato Creek State Park, the Kingsbury Fish & Wildlife Area, the Little Kankakee River, Potato Creek, and a handful of wetland conservation areas. Opportunities involve connecting along the two tributaries, connecting South Bend to the project, and using the location of the drained Mud Lake area in some capacity. Concerns here were raised due to the stretches of farmland that were owned by one individual.

Figure 6.10 - SOCC Analysis Segment 1

84 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Inventory & Analysis | 85

S O CC A NA LYSI S S EGM EN T 2

On this portion of the analysis, the Kingsbury F&W Area, the Swampland Conservation and Dick Blythe Conservation area, and the Turkey Foot Wetland Management area were all identified as existing strengths. Opportunities here included connecting to Walkerton via an abandoned railway and bringing in more potential visitors along US RT 30. Concerns on this segment were raised due to residences close to but not directly along the river, a gas station nearby, and a quarry relatively close by.

Figure 6.11 - SOCC Analysis Segment 2

86 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Inventory & Analysis | 87

S O CC A NA LYSI S S EGM EN T 3

Strengths located in the third portion include the Kankakee and Jasper-Pulaski F&W Areas, existing river access points, the Aukiki Conservation area, and a couple of historic points. This area had a lot of opportunities present, namely all of the abandoned railways, many radiating from North Judson. Other opportunities here involve connecting dense populations to the north via US RT 421 and SR49. Concerns here are the existing communities nearby, along with a neighboring power plant.

Figure 6.12 - SOCC Analysis Segment 3

88 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Inventory & Analysis | 89

S O CC A NA LYSI S S EGM EN T 4

Figure 6.13 - SOCC Analysis Segment 4

90 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

This fourth segment contains three major strengths: the Grand Kankakee Marsh Co. Park, an existing hunt club, and the La Salle F&W Area. Opportunities include using I 65 to provide easy access to many more people, connecting to Lowell, an abandoned railroad heading south to an area of high interest, and the resurrection of Sumava Resorts as a destination along the river. Concerns revolve around the towns of Shelby, Thayer, and the Sumava Resorts area.

Inventory & Analysis | 91

S O CC A NA LYSI S S EGM EN T 5

On the final segment, the Kankakee River State Park, a number of preserves, and the Pembroke Savanna were identified as strengths. Opportunities include connecting to the Chicago area and Champaign via US RT 55, establishing a link along the Iroquois River, connecting to the state park, and branching off to the savannas south of Momence. Concerns were raised due to the highly developed areas along the river, namely in Kankakee, Momence, Aroma Park, and Sun River Terrace.

Figure 6.14 - SOCC Analysis Segment 5

92 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Inventory & Analysis | 93

CO NCEPT UA L D ES I GN

SECTION III: DESIGN PROCESS

CO N SE RVATI V E A PPROAC H The first of the three concepts is the conservative approach. This approach is quite minimal comparatively but it would still have a significant impact here. With this approach, minimal land would be acquired and there would be absolutely no relocation of existing homes or structures. The project process focuses only on restoring the remaining wetland areas along the Kankakee. As for the river itself, the new channel would only diverge from its current course when there are existing and easily identifiable remnant portions present. Furthermore, this concept would not require any modifications to existing roadways, bridges, or other infrastructure. Lastly, the design for the trail system would only run along the Kankakee; there would be no branches off to nearby towns. Furthermore, trailheads throughout the project would be minimal in both quantity and features at each. Ultimately, this concept was not chosen due to the fact that it did not fully accomplish the goals of the project nor did I believe it fulfilled my vision for the design.

Note: The Concept Design drawings are not to an exact scale nor accurate in terms of location of structures or tra Figure 7.1 - Conservative Approach Diagram

96 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

ailheads. They are intended to serve as a representation of the design thinking, not a precise plan.

Conceptual Design | 97

AGG R ESSI V E A P PROAC H The second concept is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum than the previous version. This approach would look to acquire large swaths of land, converting massive portions of agricultural fields back into natural land. Through this process, it is likely that many residences or structures near the river would have to be relocated with little discretion. The restoration of the Kankakee would look to return it to nearly its exact historical course by connecting into existing remnant pieces and dredging a new channel wherever necessary to revert the river to its original form. In doing so, major modifications to the existing infrastructure would be necessary. Aside from the Kankakee, this approach would also look to restore the meanders and adjacent wetlands along portions of both the Little Kankakee River, the Yellow River, and Potato Creek. As far as the trail system is concerned, the network would extend to considerably distant towns. There would be an extensive number of trailheads, each with a significant number of features. Similarly to the first, this option was not selected. While the ambitiousness of this concept did meet the criteria as far as making an impact on the landscape, I felt that it was far too authoritative. The idea of displacing a large number of people did not seem fair or right, nor was the widespread acquisition of cropland for the project completely just.

Note: The Concept Design drawings are not to an exact scale nor accurate in terms of location of structures or tra Figure 7.2 - Aggressive Approach Diagram

98 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

ailheads. They are intended to serve as a representation of the design thinking, not a precise plan.

Conceptual Design | 99

CA LC ULATE D A P PROAC H The final concept falls right in between the previous two, a happy-medium of sorts, taking the best ideas and design thinking from both and combining them to form a justifiable design. This approach is responsible and reasonable in selecting the land to restore, considering a handful of factors. Nevertheless, the project still seeks to create a continuous string of natural riparian ecosystems. The restoration of the river would still look to connect into any existing and apparent remnants when possible as well as dredging new portions when needed. However, the re-meandering would be conscience of existing infrastructure, looking to limit the amount of alterations. Residences or structures along the river would only be relocated in isolated instances, where it is absolutely necessary for the success of the project. The trail system in this concept would still be relatively widespread, with spurs branching off to nearby towns, just in moderation. Additionally, there would still be an extensive number of trailheads, but the size, amenities, and features would be determined by a tiered system. Seeing that this concept was a composite of the best ideas from the other approaches, it was clearly the most sensible selection to move forward with. I felt that this approach met the criteria set forth in the goals and best accomplished my vision for the design while still being mindful and cognizant of the nearby residents and landowners.

Note: The Concept Design drawings are not to an exact scale nor accurate in terms of location of structures or tra Figure 7.3 - Calculated Approach Diagram

100 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

ailheads. They are intended to serve as a representation of the design thinking, not a precise plan.

Conceptual Design | 101

M AST E R P LA NNI NG SECTION III: DESIGN PROCESS

103

M A ST E R PLA N Like the guide mentioned earlier, the main portion of the master plan follows the Kankakee River from its headwaters just outside of South Bend, through the rural agricultural lands of northwest Indiana, and into Illinois, where it terminates in the city of Kankakee. Aside from this, there are a number of trails and restored areas that break off from this main corridor, some of these following smaller tributaries or abandoned railways. This overview of the master plan calls out points of special interest, locations of visitor’s centers, and areas of high recreational interest. In total, the master plan calls for the restoration of roughly 79,312 acres of land, mainly focused on the Indiana portions. Additionally, the restoration of the Kankakee saw upwards of 400 meanders returned to the river’s course, increasing the overall length by almost double. The images on the following pages (Figures 8.2 - 8.8) will provide a closer look at a number of segments throughout the master plan and offer more detail on the design.

Figure 8.1 - Master Plan Overview

104 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Master Planning | 105

M A ST E R PLA N SEGM E NT 1 The first enlarged segment of the master plan follows the Kankakee from just outside of South Bend down to where SR 104 crosses the river. Immediately evident are the handful of branches off of the main corridor. The first of these follows the Little Kankakee River, serving as a connection up to La Porte and the small town of Rolling Prairie. The second major spur follows Potato Creek through the town of North Liberty and eventually into the state park, providing access to the park goers. The last of these branches is a shorter one, breaking off the main trail towards the Sumption Prairie Trailhead. This trailhead serves as a link to the Millhouse Camp, an organization and camp for individuals with special needs.

Additionally in this segment, there are three major trailheads: The Potawatomi Trailhead located right outside of South Bend, the North Liberty Trailhead located near their town center, and most notably, the Mud Lake Trailhead, accessed off SR 104. The Mud Lake location is home to a visitors’ center and rental services, as well as direct access to two new hiking trails. Given its positioning at the convergence of trails and adjacency to a major vehicular route, it made sense for this trailhead to be a main destination in this area.

Figure 8.2 - Master Plan Segment 1

106 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Master Planning | 107

M A ST E R PLA N SEGM E NT 2 The next portion of the design runs along the river as it travels to the south east from SR 104 down to SR 39. This segment of the project encompasses the Kingsbury Fish & Wildlife Area, home to a pristine remnant wetland. Here, the trail loops through the F&W Area, providing access to some hiking trails, overlooks, wildlife viewing opportunities, and primitive camping areas. Though hunting would still be permitted in this and other F&W Areas, more regulations and measures would be necessary to ensure the safety of visitors, hikers, and campers. Aside from the Kingsbury F&W Area, there are a number of other existing conservation areas, notably the Dick Blythe and Turkey Foot Wetlands. Given its proximity to US RT 30, the Blythe’s Trailhead was designated a Tier I. There are a handful of hiking areas in this section as well. These are accessed at the Turkey Foot, Blythe’s, and Swampland locations. Lastly on this section, a spur near the F&W Area branches off along an abandoned railroad towards Walkerton. There, the trailhead provides bike rentals and other services.

Figure 8.3 - Master Plan Segment 2

108 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Master Planning | 109

M A ST E R PLA N SEGM E NT 3 The third segment, running from SR 39 to Co. Road S 250 W, is abundant with historical, recreational, and natural interests. On the northeastern end of this section, the river flows through the Kankakee F&W Area, home to more existing wetlands. Featured here would be an overlook, hiking trails, and primitive camp areas. There is a collection of historical locations within this third segment. These include the small communities of English Lake and Lomax Station, the historic Dunn’s Bridge, and lastly the Collier Lodge, an old hunting club and lodge dating back to the late 1800s. Each of these represent different time periods in the area and help paint a picture of the past for visitors.

Figure 8.4 - Master Plan Segment 3

110 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Of the three Tier I trailheads on this portion, the most influential is the Old Trappers location. Placed adjacent to the Collier Lodge, this trailhead would house the projects largest visitor’s center, rentals, maintenance facilities, access to hiking, and even lodging, while also serving as the trail system’s headquarters.

With and abundance of abandoned railways here, the trail system really starts to take shape and expand away from the river. The Judson Junction trailhead, located at an old railroad station, is a key factor in this area, with six different trails extending out from there, connecting to some smaller towns and recreational areas like Tippecanoe State Park and the Jasper-Pulaski F&W Area. Another trail, this one north of the river, connects the rural towns of La Crosse, Kouts, and Hebron.

Master Planning | 111

M A ST E R PLA N SEGM E NT 4 Similarly to Segment 3, the fourth portion of the project is full of notable locations. Continuing on from S 250 W, we immediately come to the General Lew Wallace Trailhead, named after an infamous Civil War officer, author, and painter who used the marsh as a retreat following the war. Here, two spurs break off, one traveling north to Hebron and the other south to De Motte. Moving along the river towards the state line, there are two Tier II trailheads to take note of. The first of these, the Thomas Barker Trailhead, is located in the Grand Kankakee Marsh County Park. The second is at the Ahlgrim Park location, right off of SR 55. Each of these contain remnants of the old landscape, historical elements, and recreational opportunities. The Black Oak Bayou Trailhead is another notable destination within the design. This trailhead, located off of US RT 41, provides users with access to another visitor’s center, a number of activities, lodging, and access to the Beaver Lake Trail. Lastly, before crossing the border into Illinois, the design traverses through the La Salle F&W Area. Already a popular destination for outdoorsmen, increased hiking, camping, and wildlife viewing opportunities will attract even more visitors.

Figure 8.5 - Master Plan Segment 4

112 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Master Planning | 113

M A ST E R PLA N SEGM E NT 5 The last segment along the river follows the Kankakee as it flows into Illinois. Compared to the previous four enlargements, there is a considerable decline in the amount of land that is being restored here. This is partially due to the fact that when the State of Indiana was dredging the Kankakee and attempted to continue on into Illinois, the dredges were met with opposition from members of the communities here. Therefore, restoration of the river is not necessary here. However, given the widespread development and great deal of residences established directly along the river for much of this segment, the land acquired for restoration became more isolated. Nevertheless, pockets of naturalized land still occur, and the route for the regional trail persists. Here, the trail snakes its way through cropland and behind residences, set back a bit from the river until it reaches the city of Kankakee. Though I personally would have liked the trail to continue on to the state park and eventually to the Des Plaines River, it was virtually impossible to route the trail through the heavily developed area. As far as trailheads along this segment, there are two Tier I levels here: the Gar Creek and Momence Trailheads. Each has a significant increase in the number of services offered there, but the Momence location is home to a small visitor’s center in addition to these.

Figure 8.6 - Master Plan Segment 5

114 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

The final point to note on this segment are the two hiking areas south of Momence. These are the Pembroke and Guiding Star Savannas. Located here are examples of one of the rarest ecosystems in the entire country: the black oak savanna. Given their extremely displaced location, there were no viable routes for a trail to access them. However, these are a short drive from the Momence Visitor’s Center and the Kankakee area.

Master Planning | 115

Y EL LOW R I V E R SPUR

Figure 8.7 - Master Plan Yellow River Trail

116 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

There are two other large spurs that branch off from the river, the first of these being the Yellow River Trail. This section of the project breaks away at the Kankakee F&W Area, following the Yellow River upstream to the east. The design continues to the east, passing through Knox and several smaller communities before turning to the north past Twin Lakes and eventually terminating just outside of Plymouth. Along the way, the design restores adjacent land to a healthy riparian system and returns channelized stretches of the tributary to a meander. Many of the trailheads along this portion are on the smaller size given their more rural setting. However, the Yellow River and Menominee Trailheads, each a Tier II, offer rentals and other amenities.

Master Planning | 117

BEAV E R LA K E SP UR

The other large spur, the Beaver Lake Trail, breaks away at the Black Oak Bayou Trailhead and heads south along an abandoned railway until it reaches Morocco. From there, the trail loops back through the Willow Slough F&W Area. On the journey south, the trail passes through the ghost town of Conrad and the Kankakee Sands Conservation Area, an existing restoration project on the site of the drained Beaver Lake.

Figure 8.8 - Master Plan Beaver Lake Trail

118 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

This portion of the trail system also offers excellent examples of the black oak savannas directly accessible from the trail. Additionally, it allows visitors to get a glimpse of wild prairie chickens or see a herd of over 70 bison that live in the conservation area.

OVERA LL TR A NSFOR M AT I ON Aside from the managed lands directly adjacent to the Kankakee, it is estimated that there is around 14,500 acres of natural wetlands and floodplain forest along the river. Adding the acreage of the managed lands, the total rises to roughly 28,800 acres. However, this figure would be a major exaggeration, given that not all of these managed lands are in their natural state.

Figure 8.9 - Natural land prior to restoration

As stated earlier, this project would see the measurement of natural land skyrocket to just under 80,000 acres, assuming that restoration would take place within the managed lands and F&W Areas. The length of the river would increase as well thanks to the return of nearly 400 meanders. Currently the channelized river length sits at about 94 miles, but the new channel would measure out at 165 miles.

Figure 8.10 - Natural land following restoration

Master Planning | 119

R ESTOR AT I O N P RO C ESS

SECTION III: DESIGN PROCESS

121

D ET E R M I NI NG R ESTOR AT ION E XT E NTS

In order to determine where the restoration would take place and where the river would be re-routed to, a complex, multi-step comparison process was preformed along every mile of the project. Through this process, a long list of factors were careful examined and cross-checked to ascertain what land would be best to restore and where the extents of the project would be. Some of the factors that went into the decision-making process included topographic features, soil data, existing wetlands and woodlands, satellite imagery, digital elevation models, flood data, existing infrastructure like residences or roadways, historical maps, property rights, and other components.

Figure 9.1 - Determining Restoration Extents

122 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Restoration Process | 123

FLO ODP LA I N M OD I FI C AT I ONS With its current conditions in Indiana, the Kankakee functions more or less as a glorified drainage ditch rather than an actual river. The riverbed is comprised of a wide, straight channel with steep embankments and tall levees. This serves little purpose as far as benefits for wildlife or positively contributing to natural systems. Rather than decreasing flooding (one of the intended outcomes of channelization), these conditions actually lead to frequent and considerable flood events. With the floodplain being confined to this rigid, structured channel, there is nowhere for excess water to go except outward from the river. Recently, heavy rains and snow melt have led to flooding up to 4 miles away from the Kankakee.

With the increased lateral distance to work with, the river’s floodplain is able to be widened, and topographical modifications would make for a smoother transition from upland and agricultural areas down to the riverbed. Though the width and depth of the channel would be significantly decreased, the storage capacity of the floodplain would actually increase by an estimated 1350%. Additionally, with the river’s overall length nearly doubling, that storage capacity percentage would only continue to rise when applied along the entire river. This means that flood events would be contained in naturalized areas, no longer causing property damage, inhibiting vehicular circulation, or endangering residents of the nearby communities. Figure 9.2 - Floodplain Modifications

124 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Restoration Process | 125

FLO ODP LA I N TR ANSIT I ONAL ZONES

Figure 9.3 - Floodplain Transitional Zones Section

When there is enough lateral distance, the progression from the agricultural land down to the river channel would go through these transitional zones: an upland buffer, a seasonal floodplain, and the aquatic systems. These transitional zones would create a diverse set of habitats, capable of supporting a wide range of plant, mammal, bird, and insect species. Furthermore, the increase in plant material and establishment of catchment areas would serve hydrological purposes such as slowing and capturing runoff, filtering surface and sub-surface flow, recharging the water table, and treating pollutants and contaminants in the water through phytoremediation, ultimately leading to a healthier riparian system.

126 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Restoration Process | 127

REGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM

SECTION III: DESIGN PROCESS

129

T RA I L SYST E M OV E RV I E W A predominant component of the Revival Plan was the establishment of the Kankakee River Regional Trail System. This system is made up of a network of 20 separate trails and recreational areas, totaling over 300 linear miles of paved paths, elevated boardwalks, and hiking routes. Spaced at accessible increments are 74 individualized trailheads, each designed to provide the best experience and necessary resources for visitors. This network of pedestrian-centered pathways spans 11 counties across Indiana and Illinois, connecting around 40 rural and semi-urban communities while providing direct access to upwards of 200,000 people. At the heart of the trail system is the Teakiki Trail, a 102-mile-long route running from South Bend to Kankakee. A number of branches break off the main trail and extend out to nearby communities or points of interest. With the state of Indiana recently awarding $30 million for new trail construction, there is an obvious desire to increase these types of recreational opportunities in the state.

Figure 10.1 - Regional Trail System Overview

130 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

R e g i o n a l Tra i l S y s t e m | 1 3 1

PAVE D M ULT I - U SE T R AIL

The most prevalent and common trail type in the Kankakee River Regional Trail System is found in the upland and seasonal floodplain zones. This path, paved with permeable asphalt, is generally 12-14’ wide, with a striped centerline running down the middle. On some of the longer stretches, the path would often feature a covered mid-trail rest area with seating and informational signage. Figure 10.2 - Paved Multi-Use Trail Section

132 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

R e g i o n a l Tra i l S y s t e m | 1 3 3

PAVE D M ULT I - U SE T R AIL The paved multi-use trails would have the ability to stay open year-round, except for times of unusually high rainfall or snow melt. In the spring, summer, and fall, the trail can be used for jogging, biking, walking, or roller blading. In the winter, visitors can come cross-country ski or snowshoe along the trail.

Figure 10.3 - Paved Multi-Use Trail Perspective

134 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

R e g i o n a l Tra i l S y s t e m | 1 3 5

EL EVATE D B OA RDWAL K

The second trail type, found in the aquatic zones or areas receiving frequent high waters, would be an elevated boardwalk. The boardwalks are positioned atop a reinforced central column fastened to a telescoping adaptive height system. Situated on the underside of the boardwalk is a dock float, a buoyant foam housed in a hardened rubber casing. This entire system allows the boardwalk to securely adapt to fluctuating water levels, preventing closures of large sections of the trail due to minor water rises. On the topside of the boardwalk, traffic is split into two different pieces: a 10’ two-lane biking area and a 6’ walking lane. This limits conflicts between cyclists and the foot traffic, creating a safer experience for all users. Lastly, bumpouts would be placed periodically along the path, allowing spaces for signage, bike parking, seating, fishing, or getting a little bit closer to nature. Figure 10.4 - Elevated Boardwalk Section

136 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

R e g i o n a l Tra i l S y s t e m | 1 3 7

EL EVATE D B OA RDWAL K

An added strength that these boardwalks bring is the ability to get visitors closer than ever to the wetlands and allow them to immerse themselves in the landscape. The boardwalks provide a entry into an ecosystem that is otherwise nearly inaccessible to the general public. Figure 10.5 - Elevated Boardwalk Perspective

138 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

R e g i o n a l Tra i l S y s t e m | 1 3 9

OVER LO O K P O I N TS

Figure 10.6 - Overlook Point Perspective

140 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

With there being little topographic change across the entirety of the site, there are very few naturally occurring vistas or lookout points. In order to let visitors take in the beautiful scenery along the Kankakee, a number of overlook points have been established. In certain situations, these observation decks may even rise above the treetops and provide a new perspective of the landscape.

R e g i o n a l Tra i l S y s t e m | 1 4 1

H I KI N G TR A I LS

The last of the trail types are the hiking paths. Given that the intention of hiking is to get off the main trail and experience nature in a more direct way, there is nothing really spectacular about this trail type. The surface would either be a naturally occurring dirt or rock material, or some other organic ground covering like pine needles or wood chips. Formal seating along these trails would be non-existent, rather, large stumps or rocks would serve as resting points for hikers. Figure 10.7 - Hiking Trail Section

142 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

R e g i o n a l Tra i l S y s t e m | 1 4 3

P RI M I T I V E C A M P SIT ES Accessed by the hiking trails, there are a number of primitive camping areas scattered throughout the project. These campsites would be located in areas where the soils are not saturated for much of the year. Unlike common campgrounds, these would not have electrical hookups or restrooms nearby. The only provided amenities would be a steel fire ring and picnic tables. However, this is not everyone’s cup of tea; therefore, a few typical campgrounds are still present close to the Kankakee.

Figure 10.8 - Primitive Campsite Perspective

144 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

R e g i o n a l Tra i l S y s t e m | 1 4 5

P ED ESTR I A N CONNEC T IV IT Y A prime consideration when placing the trailheads was the ease of access and spacing between them. Through speaking with three avid cyclists and taking into account my own biking and running preferences, I was able to space the trailheads at distances that could be easily accomplished on an enjoyable bike ride or jog. Additionally, the high number of trailheads and various starting/stopping points means that there are constantly different routes available for cyclists and other users of the trails. With all of these available routes, it may be feasible to host long bike races, full or half marathons, 10 and 5k fundraisers, or other events throughout the Kankakee River Regional Trail System. The accompanying graphic, Figure 10.9, depicts time intervals for a casual bike ride, with each concentric circle representing a 15-minute one-way ride.

Figure 10.9 - Pedestrian Connectivity Diagram

146 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

R e g i o n a l Tra i l S y s t e m | 1 4 7

TR AI LH EA D D ES IGN SECTION III: DESIGN PROCESS

149

T RA I LH EA D DESIGNAT I ON & FEAT UR ES As discussed previously, the trailhead sizes and amenities offered there are based off a tiered system, with Tier I trailheads being the most extensive and Tier III being the simplest, with just the basic necessities there. Regardless of tier level, all trailheads would still have a standard list of features present: • Parking (size will vary based on tier level) • Restrooms (structure will vary based on tier level) • Water fountains and bottle refill stations • Wayfinding, informational, and educational signage • Bike racks and repair stations • Seating and rest areas

Though each trailhead is unique, and the amenities are determined on their context, Figure 11.2 to the right illustrates the common elements that can be found at each tier level. Ideally, with enough time, all of the trailheads would have been individually designed. Figures 11.3 - 11.5 provide examples for each level of trailhead. Lastly, Figures 8.2 - 8.8 show the features present at every trailhead location.

Figure 11.1 - Regional Drive Times Diagram

One of the determining factors when deciding the tier level for each trailhead location was their proximity, or lack thereof, to major highways or state roads. With a majority of users still having to access the site via their vehicle, it was important to place the highest tiered trailheads near the most prominent circulation routes. Figure 11.1 shows general drive times in 15-minute intervals. 150 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

TIER I - MAJOR TRAILHEAD • Large parking lot • Structured restrooms • Maintenance & Management facilities • Bike rentals • Kayak rentals (at select locations) • Bait shop (at select locations) • Vending machines • Visitor’s Center (at select locations)

TIER II - MEDIUM TRAILHEAD • Medium to large parking lot (varies by location) • Structured, but limited restrooms • Vending machines (at select locations) • Bike rentals (at select locations) • Kayak rentals (at select locations)

TIER III - MINOR TRAILHEAD • Small parking lot (may be paved or natural material) • Waterless restrooms

Figure 11.2 - Tiered Trailhead Features

Tra i l h e a d D e s i g n | 1 5 1

BL AC K OA K BAYOU T R AIL HEAD - T IE R I

Figure 11.3 - Black Oak Bayou Trailhead

152 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Tra i l h e a d D e s i g n | 1 5 3

EN GLI SH LA K E TR AIL HEAD - T IE R II

Figure 11.4 - English Lake Trailhead

154 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Tra i l h e a d D e s i g n | 1 5 5

CRU M STOW N TR AIL HEAD - T IE R III

Figure 11.5 - Crumstown Trailhead

156 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Tra i l h e a d D e s i g n | 1 5 7

AMENITIES & MATERIALITY

SECTION III: DESIGN PROCESS

159

S I GNAG E & WAYFI ND I NG

In order to create a common design language and identity throughout the project, materials and amenities were carefully selected to blend seamlessly with each other and the surrounding environment. The design for the various signage types features a base of wood, either large slabs or posts, with black steel accents to add contrast. Graphics would be etched into the wood and filled with a dyed white resin, and then coated with a protective sealant.

160 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Figure 12.1 - Signage & Wayfinding

The amenities palette, depicted on Figure 12.2, continues the use of treated wood and black steel, but also adds in cor-ten steel accents to give the design a rougher, more rugged appearance. The materials present on these elements and signage help the design distinguish itself and create a common theme across all 300 plus miles of trails.

Amenities & Materiality | 161

A M ENI TI ES PA LET T E

St r ee ts c a p e s ™ 0 9 7 0 B e n ch

St reet l i fe™ Sol i d B i ke Par king

St r ee t l i f e ™ B ow i e B ri d g e

St reet l i fe™ B ri g h t Bo llar ds

Ro m t e c ™ Ti m b e r Po s t Pa v i l i o n

Rom t ec™ Dou bl e Vault Wa t erl es s Res t roo ms

Wood & Black Coated Steel

Weathered Wood & COR-TEN Steel

Figure 12.2 - Amenities Palette Photo Grid

162 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Weathered Wood & COR-TEN Steel

COR-TEN Steel

Stree t life™ R & R P i c n i c Ta b l e s

St reet s ca p es ™ Met ro S B in

St r u ct u r a ™ B ol L i gh t s

El ka y™ B ot t l e F i l l i n g St a t i o n

C us t o m W ildl i f e S c u l p t u re s

Top Tree™ Ul t i m a t e B i ke Repair St a t i on s

Weathered Wood & COR-TEN Steel

Timber Posts & Black Coated Steel

COR-TEN Steel

Wood Container

Brown Coated Steel

Amenities & Materiality | 163

164 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

SECTION VII:

CONCLUSION 165

CONTI NUI NG RES EA RC H

SECTION IV: CONCLUSION

167

FURTHER RESEARCH & DESIGN Given the time constraints and other limiting factors, there is undoubtedly much more work that needs to be done with the Kankakee River Revival Plan until it could come into fruition. Though I would have liked to have completed these explorations personally, I did not have the time nor the adequate resources to fully and accurately carry out these pieces of the project. The following subsections will touch on some aspects of research that would benefit the argument for implementation, as well as the many facets of the design process that still need to be considered moving forward.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Should this plan ever be considered, a much more intense and inclusive community engagement process should be carried out. With the constraints of time and the inability to meet with individuals in person thanks to the public health crisis at this time, the community outreach and input was fairly limited. Though I was able to receive a decent amount of feedback on my survey, this is only a minute fraction of people that would be impacted by this project. A series of town meetings, focus groups, surveys, charrettes, and personal interviews should be carried out with individuals from affected communities, residents of riverside homes, stakeholders, landowners, farmers, or anyone else that may have insight or critiques.

RIVER DATA Due to both a lack of expertise and resources, I personally was not able to measure a handful of data points with the Kankakee. More data regarding average stage height, patterns of flooding, water quality and concentration of pollutants, levee heights, average flow rates and patterns, and sediment displacement should be gathered and analyzed so that the plan may better respond to these measurements. Organizations such as the USGS, National Weather Service, Army Corps of Engineers, and other specialists would be notable resources.

WILDLIFE & PLANT DATA Though this guide includes a pretty extensive list of plant and animal species that would benefit from this plan, more research is necessary on this topic. Firstly, with the wildlife, a study regarding existing populations of applicable wildlife should be completed. This study should analyze habitat necessities, migration or movement patterns, and other criteria so that we are able to better understand the absolute necessities and characteristics of these creatures. Regarding plant life, researchers should conduct a physical survey of remaining natural areas, taking inventory of existing plant life and the presence of invasive species. Other research on the growing conditions should be considered as

168 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

well. To complete this research, partnerships with the Indiana Department of Natural Resources or biologists may be helpful.

SITE MAPPING Although I spent hours upon hours meticulously combing through the site using satellite images, site visits, and GIS, I believe a more thorough exploration and mapping process would greatly benefit the project. Whether it was private property or quite remote, there were portions of the river that I was not able to access and map.

RESTORATION Concerning the restoration process, there are a number of considerations that should be examined moving forward. The project included a graphic highlighting transitional zones in the floodplain, but there should be more consideration on where these will fall within the master planning process. Additionally, future research should explore how to best carry out the restoration process, from the re-meandering and excavation of land, to the physical implementation of plants.

TRAILHEAD DESIGNS Ideally, all 74 trailheads in the regional trail system would be individually designed according to the unique conditions and limitations at each site. Of course, I would have preferred to have completed more site plans in this document, but it was not feasible with the time constraints.

TECHNICAL DRAWINGS Understandably, an entire set of construction drawings and details would be necessary for this project. Drawings like grading plans, planting plans, layouts, and others should be completed across the entire project. Details of the various trail types, structures, parking areas, and amenities should be completed as well.

PHASING With a project of this scale, the construction and implementation process would have to be carried out over the course of many years. A conceptual phasing diagram, located in Appendix C, gives an idea of how this project may be implemented. Granted, this is only a concept, so a more detailed and precise phasing plan should be completed.

Continuing Research | 169

FUTURE COLLABORATION Looking forward, I have considered sharing the Kankakee River Revival Plan project with a handful of professional organizations or departments in hopes that pieces of it may be considered or better yet implemented. Some organizations that may be interested in this guide include the Nature Conservancy, the Indiana DNR, the National Park Service, Indiana State Parks, and the Friends of the Kankakee organization. Though I am aware that the practicality and feasibility of the entire project coming to life would require great strides in many aspects, I believe there are smaller elements that have the possibility of moving forward. Some of these pieces included: • Portions of the regional trail system, especially along abandoned railroads, could be easily implemented • Restoration of pockets of wetlands or floodplain ecosystems adjacent to the river • Re-meandering of segments of the river, notably where there are easily identifiable remnant portions in more remote areas • Construction of overlook points, especially at places where there is existing scenery, like the Kankakee, Kingsbury, and La Salle Fish and Wildlife areas • Restoration of old railway bridges as parks or river crossings, much like Dunn’s Bridge County Park • Increasing accessibility to the river, even just through small parking lots and boat launches • Transformation of the Collier Lodge into a historical destination, using it as a showcase and educational opportunity

With all of this being said, if there is ever any future advancement of this project, I would love to be involved in some capacity. Please feel free to contact me via email at jakesenne1@gmail.com, or by phone at (219)-380-6957, and I would be happy to help in whatever way possible.

170 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Continuing Research | 171

RE F LEC T IO N

SECTION IV: CONCLUSION

173

Having worked on this project for nearly an entire year, I have come to learn an incredible amount not only about the Kankakee River and its deep and rich history, but also about the responsibility we have to preserve the natural world in whatever way we can. Personally, it is a shame to me that I was never able to experience the full glory of this region or see the beauty of this landscape before it was destroyed by man’s belief in progress over everything. Though we cannot change what happened here in the past, we can prevent future atrocities of the same nature from occurring elsewhere. We are responsible for standing up for our Earth, advocating for the environment, and pushing for change. This is our call as people of this planet, not just today or tomorrow, but for centuries to come. In closing, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for reading through the Kankakee River Revival Plan: A comprehensive guide to the restoration and revitalization of the Kankakee River and surrounding landscape. I have poured a tremendous amount of time and energy into the research and design of this project, and I can confidently say that I am pleased with where it got to in the rather short amount of time allotted. Again, thank you for taking the time to read through this document, and I hope you were able to take something away from it or find some enjoyment in imagining what this place could be. - Jake Senne

174 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Reflection | 175

176 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l

REFERENCES 177

BIBLIOGRAPHY “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-look-back-kankakee-marsh-was-largestinland-wetlands-in-u-s/article_f4ce5098-53fd-50e5-b54e-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 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-users-advice-for-planning-interpretive-trail-signs-andexhibits. Cameron, Cornelia C. 1970. “Peat Deposits of Northeastern Pennsylvania.” Geological Survey Bulletin 1317-A.

178 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

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/. 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-way-to-create-climate-corridors/. Hodge, A. Trevor. 2002. Roman Aqueducts and Water Supply. 2nd ed. Bristol Classical Press. Hoffman Nursery. 2016. “Our Plants.” 2016. https://hoffmannursery.com/plants. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 2020. “Fish & Wildlife Department.” 2020. https://www.in.gov/dnr/ fishwild/.

References | 179

Indiana Native Plant Society. 2021. “Native Plant Palettes.” 2021. https://indiananativeplants.org/landscaping/ native-plant-palettes/. 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. 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-ohio-toledo/. 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.

180 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

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-in-history/article_f569acc81f67-58d7-952f-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 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/10.1016/03418162(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.

References | 181

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. 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. Spence Restoration Nursery. 2011. “Plant Communities.” 2011. http://www.spencenursery.com/plant_ communities/. 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-is-ours-too-levee-erosion-ariver-worry/article_70ce4fc4-ce43-5029-9de6-120b32758f35.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/47EE8A6A8D9C-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-wetlands-important. 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.

182 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

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.

References | 183

184 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l

APPENDICES 185

A P P E NDI X A - LI ST OF FIGUR ES 0 4 P ROJ EC T R ES EA RC H

48. Figure 4.1 - Age group pie chart 48. Figure 4.2 - Interaction period pie chart 48. Figure 4.3 - Awareness of drainage pie chart 48. Figure 4.4 - Likelihood of using trail bar graph 49. Figure 4.5 - Interest in proposed activities bar graph 49. Figure 4.6 - Visitation with more activities bar graph 49. Figure 4.7 - Activities or amenities that increase interest bar graph 49. Figure 4.8 - Drive time pie chart 49. Figure 4.9 - Increased visitors with better accessibility bar graph 50. Figure 4.10 - Kissimmee River Case Study Image Set 51. Figure 4.11 - Towpath Trail Case Study Image Set 52. Figure 4.12 - Aire River Case Study Image Set 53. Figure 4.13 - Isar River Case Study Image Set 55. Figure 4.14 - Sample Wildlife Species Photo Grid 56. Figure 4.15 - Sample Plant Palette Photo Grid 58. Figure 4.16 - 2018 Kankakee River Flood Extents 58. Figure 4.17 - Kouts USGS Kankakee River Gauge Data 59. Figure 4.18 - Trail Guideline Review Image Set

0 5 P ROJ EC T I NTRO DU C TI O N 64. Figure 5.1 - Project Location Map

0 6 INV E NTO RY & A NA LYS I S

68. Figure 6.1 - Site Visits Map 69. Figure 6.2 - Sample GIS Layers Photo Grid 70. Figure 6.3 - Existing Conditions Overview 72. Figure 6.4 - Existing Conditions Segment 1 74. Figure 6.5 - Existing Conditions Segment 2 76. Figure 6.6 - Existing Conditions Segment 3 78. Figure 6.7 - Existing Conditions Segment 4 80. Figure 6.8 - Existing Conditions Segment 5 82. Figure 6.9 - S.O.C.C. Analysis Overview 84. Figure 6.10 - S.O.C.C. Analysis Segment 1 86. Figure 6.11 - S.O.C.C. Analysis Segment 2 88. Figure 6.12 - S.O.C.C. Analysis Segment 3 90. Figure 6.13 - S.O.C.C. Analysis Segment 4 92. Figure 6.14 - S.O.C.C. Analysis Segment 5

0 7 CONC E PTUA L D ES I G N

96. Figure 7.1 - Conservative Approach Diagram 98. Figure 7.2 - Aggressive Approach Diagram 100. Figure 7.3 - Calculated Approach Diagram

186 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

08 M AST ER PLAN

104. Figure 8.1 - Master Plan Overview 106. Figure 8.2 - Master Plan Segment 1 108. Figure 8.3 - Master Plan Segment 2 110. Figure 8.4 - Master Plan Segment 3 112. Figure 8.5 - Master Plan Segment 4 114. Figure 8.6 - Master Plan Segment 5 116. Figure 8.7 - Master Plan Yellow River Trail 118. Figure 8.8 - Master Plan Beaver Lake Trail 119. Figure 8.9 - Naturalized land prior to restoration 119. Figure 8.10 - Naturalized land following restoration

09 R ESTO R AT IO N PRO C ES S

122. Figure 9.1 - Determining Restoration Extents 124. Figure 9.2 - Floodplain Modifications 126. Figure 9.3 - Floodplain Transitional Zones Section

10 R EGIO N AL T R AIL SYST EM

130. Figure 10.1 - Regional Trail System Overview 132. Figure 10.2 - Paved Multi-Use Trail Section 134. Figure 10.3 - Paved Multi-Use Trail Perspective 136. Figure 10.4 - Elevated Boardwalk Section 138. Figure 10.5 - Elevated Boardwalk Perspective 140. Figure 10.6 - Overlook Point Perspective 142. Figure 10.7 - Hiking Trail Section 144. Figure 10.8 - Primitive Campsite Perspective 146. Figure 10.9 - Pedestrian Connectivity Diagram

11 T R AILH EAD DES IGN

150. Figure 11.1 - Regional Drive Times Diagram 151. Figure 11.2 - Tiered Trailhead Features 152. Figure 11.3 - Black Oak Bayou Trailhead 154. Figure 11.4 - English Lake Trailhead 156. Figure 11.5 - Crumstown Trailhead

12 AM E NIT IES & M AT E R IALI TY 160. Figure 12.1 - Signage & Wayfinding 162. Figure 12.2 - Amenities Palette Photo Grid

A P P ENDI X B - G OA L S & OB JEC T IV ES Improve the overall health and natural functions of the terrestrial, transitional, and hydrologic 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 a wide array of wildlife species. • 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 project by providing more locations along the river and throughout the region for visitors to experience the 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. • Extend the trail system to nearby towns by transforming old railways into additional portions of trail. • Place accessible trailheads near major intersections of vehicular and pedestrian circulation routes.

Raise awareness and increase acknowledgment 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. • Increase recreational opportunities by implementing new hiking trails, kayak and canoe launches, wildlife observation areas, and designated hunting zones. • Seek to receive designation as a National Historic or Recreational Trail, or look to obtain Indiana State Park classification

Appendix A & B | 187

A P P E NDI X C - PHASE D I M PL E M E NTAT I ON Though not included in the design process drawings, a potential phasing diagram for implementation was completed. At this level of detail, this diagram is more of a conceptual drawing, not a final product, intended more so to communicate thoughts on how to best phase in the project. The first phase of implementation would take place in the stretches between Baum’s Bridge and The Grand Kankakee Marsh Co. Park. This initial phase would act as a demonstration and showcase for what the larger restoration project could accomplish. The second phase builds off the first, expanding both up and downstream. The third phase starts branching away from the river using the railways in the area, as well as expanding to Momence. These first three phases would establish a strong central nucleus to build from. Phase four of seven really starts to expand upriver, heading northward up to Kingsbury F&W Area, as well as establishing the initial portion of trail along the Yellow River. Phase five establishes branches away from the river, these along the Little Kankakee, Potato Creek, and the long southern spur of Beaver Lake trail. Phase six would then finish the project along the Kankakee River, as the design would reach the larger metro areas of South Bend and Kankakee. The final phase completes the small remaining portions of trail that are relatively distant from the river and not integral to the project right off the bat.

Phasing Diagram

188 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Appendix C - Phasing Diagram | 189

A P P E NDI X D - SI T E PH OTOS SITE VISIT NO. 1 The first series of photos were taken on November 2nd, 2020. This site visit began at the Kankakee Fish and Wildlife Area at the intersection of SR 8 and SR 39. From there it followed the path of the river across Porter County and into Lake County. The visit commenced at the Grand Kankakee Marsh County Park south of Lowell.

Site Visit No. 1 Photo Locations Map

190 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Waterfowl observation lot at the Kankakee Fish and Wildlife Area

Kankakee River Park and picnic area off of Route 8

Appendix D - Site Photos | 191

A remnant portion of the old Kankakee, nicknamed the Horseshoe Bend, located along Co Road W 2300 S

A surviving portion of old growth forested marshland

192 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

The historic Dunn’s Bridge

Route 49 steel truss bridge crossing the Kankakee

Appendix D - Site Photos | 193

Aukiki Wetland Conservation Area

The historic Collier Lodge located in the small community of Baums Bridge

194 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Another remnant portion of the old Kankakee flowing adjacent to the Collier Lodge

A now abandoned riverside restaurant located on 700 W outside of Hebron

Appendix D - Site Photos | 195

Wetlands within the Grand Kankakee Marsh County Park off of Range Line Road

Another piece of remaining wetlands in the Grand Kankakee Marsh County Park

196 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

SITE VISIT NO. 2 The second grouping of photos were captured on November 25th in some of the rural areas off of US RT 30, near Hanna and Davis, IN. This site visit began just upriver from the starting point of the first site visit, working its way north, exploring a couple of the wetland conservation areas and rural landscape near the Kankakee.

Site Visit No. 2 Photo Locations Map

Appendix D - Site Photos | 197

Railroad bridge crossing the Kankakee outside of Hanna, IN

A farmer’s ditch bridges over Bailey Ditch

198 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Anther one of the many ditches in the cropland of the region

A grove of river birch trees at the Turkey Foot Wetlands Management Area

Appendix D - Site Photos | 199

The Kankakee running adjacent to the Dick Blythe Wetland Conservation Area

Weir water level control system along Maurey Ditch

200 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

SITE VISIT NO. 3-A The third site visit, which took place on November 28th, was split into two different portions. The first of these focused on areas near the river. This initial portion began outside of Thayer, IN and worked its way downriver through Sumava Resorts and the La Salle Fish and Wildlife area. After reaching the Indiana/Illinois state line, we moved onto the second half of the visit.

Site Visit No. 3-A Photo Locations Map

Appendix D - Site Photos | 201

Blackberry Marsh, a managed wetland, outside of Thayer, IN

A remnant portion of the Kankakee and wooded wetlands by the Blackberry Marsh

202 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Pump station along the river that supplies water to the adjacent managed wetlands

Black Oak Bayou in the La Salle Fish and Wildlife Area

Appendix D - Site Photos | 203

Flooded crop field within the La Salle Fish and Wildlife Area

The Indiana/Illinois state line bridge, which is no longer in service

204 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

SITE VISIT NO. 3B The second half of Site Visit no. 3 began near Schneider, IN. From there, we traveled south along US RT 41 through Lake Village and made our way down to Conrad. At that point, we broke off from the highway and explored the Kankakee Sands Conservation Area before doubling back across 41 to an observation point.

Site Visit No. 3-B Photo Locations Map

Appendix D - Site Photos | 205

A piece of the rare black oak savanna ecosystem at the Conrad Savanna Nature Preserve

Beaver Lake Prairie Chicken Refuge, part of a large prairie restoration being completed by the Nature Conservancy

206 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

A male white-tailed deer at the Kankakee Sands Conservancy

One of over 70 bison living at the Kankakee Sands Conservancy

Appendix D - Site Photos | 207

SITE VISIT NO. 4 The fourth set of photographs was relatively minimal, given that the visit was only intended to explore the Kingsbury Fish and Wildlife area. Though much of the land is restricted because it is used for hunting and trapping, there were still areas accessible to me. The maze of roadways in this former WWII munitions plant eventually led to the grand marsh portion of the property.

Site Visit No. 4 Photo Locations Map

208 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

The Grand Marsh at the Kankakee Fish and Wildlife Area

A great blue heron at the Kingsbury Fish and Wildlife Area

Appendix D - Site Photos | 209

More wetlands at the Kingsbury Fish and Wildlife Area

Tamarack Lake, a stopping point for sandhill cranes on their migration, at the Kingsbury Fish and Wildlife Area

210 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

SITE VISIT NO. 5 The final site visit took place on January 15th, 2021. This visit began at Momence Island Park, and then followed the river to the east through a handful of small communities before reaching Kankakee. After this, I then traveled a bit farther downstream to the Kankakee River State Park and a handful of little natural areas along the river.

Site Visit No. 5 Photo Locations Map

Appendix D - Site Photos | 211

The Kankakee flowing past the Momence Island Park

The river in its natural state, taken outside of Momence, IL

212 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

The convergence of the Kankakee and Iroquois River near Aroma Park

An overlook point at the Kankakee River State Park outside of Kankakee, IL

Appendix D - Site Photos | 213

A P P E NDI X E - EAR LY INV E NTORY D R AWINGS

Combined Site Analysis Drawings

214 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Appendix E - Early Inventory Drawings | 215

Site Analysis Enlargement Drawing 1

216 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Appendix E - Early Inventory Drawings | 217

Site Analysis Enlargement Drawing 2

218 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Appendix E - Early Inventory Drawings | 219

Site Analysis Enlargement Drawing 3

220 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Appendix E - Early Inventory Drawings | 221

Site Analysis Enlargement Drawing 4

222 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Appendix E - Early Inventory Drawings | 223

A P P E NDI X F - TARGE T WIL D L I FE SPEC I ES BIRD SPECIES LIST

Target Bird Species List

224 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

BIRD SPECIES LIST CONT.

Target Bird Species List Continued

A p p e n d i x F - Ta r g e t W i l d l i f e S p e c i e s | 2 2 5

AMPHIBIAN & REPTILE SPECIES LIST

Target Amphibian and Reptile Species List

226 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

MAMMAL SPECIES LIST

Target Mammal Species List

A p p e n d i x F - Ta r g e t W i l d l i f e S p e c i e s | 2 2 7

APPLICABLE ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST

Target Endangered Species List

228 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

SAMPLE FISH SPECIES LIST

Target Fish Species List

A p p e n d i x F - Ta r g e t W i l d l i f e S p e c i e s | 2 2 9

A P P E NDI X G - PL ANT PAL E T T E

SHADE & CANOPY TREES

COMMON NAME

SCIENTIFIC NAME

ORNAMENTAL TREES & SHRUBS

COMMON NAME

SCIENTIFIC NAME

GRAMM

COMMON NAME

Box elder

Acer negundo

Smooth Alder

Alnus serrulata

Big Bluestem

Red Maple Silver Maple Sugar Maple

Acer rubrum Acer saccharinum

Allegheny Serviceberry False Indigo Bush

Amelanchier laevis Amorpha fruticosa

Acer saccharum

Ohio Buckeye Serviceberry

Aesculus flava Amelanchier canadensis

Devil's Walkingstick Red Chokeberry

Aralia spinosa Aronia arbutifolia

River Bulrush Woodland Brome Blue‐Joint Grass

River Birch Paper Birch

Betula nigra

Pawpaw Buttonbush Silky dogwood

Asimina triloba Cephalanthus occidentalis Cornus amomum

Carpinus caroliniana Carya ovalis

Roughleaf dogwood Graystem dogwood Red‐oiser dogwood

Cornus drummondii Cornus foemina racemosa Cornus sericea

Riverbank Tussock Sedge Meadow Sedge Burr Sedge

American Chestnut Hackberry Eastern Redubud

Castenea dentata Celtis occidentalis Cercis canadensis

Witchhazel Smooth hydrangea Common winterberry

Hamamelis virginiana Hydrangea arborescens Ilex verticalla

Hairy Wood Sedge Lake Sedge Lurid Sedge

Persimmon Black Walnut

Diospyros virginiana Juglans nigra

Winterberry holly Virginia sweetspire

Ilex verticillata Itea virginica

Wooly Sedge Shorts Sedge

American Larch American Sweetgum

Larix larcina Liquidambar styraciflua

Common spicebush Sweetbay magnolia

Lindera benzoin Magnolia virginiana

Tussock Sedge Northern Sea Oats

Tuliptree Jack Pine Eastern White Pine

Liriodendron tulipifera Pinus banksiana Pinus strobus Platanus occidentalis

Praire Crabapple Black chokeberry Ninebark

Malus ioensis Photinia melanocarpa Physocarpus opulifolius

Tufted Hair Grass Beak Grass Canada Wild Rye

American Plum Hoptree Swamp azalea

Prunus americana Ptelea trifoliata Rhododendron viscosum

Bottlebrush Grass Riverbank Wild Rye

Fragrant sumac Swamp rose

Rhus aromatica Rosa palustris Salix discolor Sambucus canadensis Vaccinium corymbosom Viburnum dentatum Viburnum trilobum

Gray Birch American Hornbeam Red Hickory

American Sycamore Eastern Cottonwood

Betula papyrifera Betula populifolia

Populus deltoides

Quacking Aspen Wild Cherry

Populus tremuloides Prunus serotina

White Oak Swamp White Oak

Quercus alba Quercus bicolor

Pin Oak Bald Cypress

Quercus palustris Taxodium distichum

Pussy Willow Elderberry Highbush blueberry

American Linden Eastern Hemlock

Tilia americana Tsuga canadensis

Southern arrowwood Highbush cranberry

Project Plant Palette

230 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Sand Reed Yellow Fox Sedge Prairie Oval Sedge Finged Sedge

Virginia Wild Rye Soft Rush Switch Grass Little Bluestem Woolgrass Reddish Bulrush Indian Grass Prairie Dropseed

MINOIDS

SCIENTIFIC NAME

FLOWERING PLANTS

COMMON NAME

SCIENTIFIC NAME

FLOWERING PLANTS CONT.

COMMON NAME

SCIENTIFIC NAME

Andropogon gerardii

Sweetflag

Acornus americanus

Wild bergamot

Monarda fistulosa

Bolboschoenus fluviatilis Bromus pubescens Calamagrostis canadensis

Nodding onion Nodding wild onio

Allium cernuum Allium cernuum

Sundrops Stiff goldenrod

Oenothera fruticosa Oligoneuron rigidum

Blue star willow Columbine

Amsonia tabernaemontana Aquilegia canadensis

Arrow Arrum Penstemon

Peltandra virginica Penstemon digitalis

Wild ginger Marsh milkweed

Asarum canadense Asclepias incarnata

Garden phlox Obedient plant

Phlox paniculata Physostegia virginiana

Butterfly weed False blue indigo Marsh marigold

Asclepias tuberosa Baptisia australis Caltha palustris

Mayapple Jacob’s ladder Solomon’s seal

Podophyllum peltatum Polemonium reptans Polygonatum biflorum

American bellflower Turtlehead

Campanulastrum americanum Chelone glabra

Yellow coneflower Showy black‐eyed susan

Ratibida pinnata Rudbeckia fulgida

Tall coreopsis Woodland larkspur Pale‐purple coneflower

Coreopsis tripteris Delphinium tricorne Echinacea pallida

Black‐eyed susan Sweet black‐eyed susan Brown‐eyed susan

Rudbeckia hirta Rudbeckia subtomentosa Rudbeckia triloba

Hollow joe‐pye weed Sweet joe‐pye weed Queen‐of‐the‐prairie

Eutrochium fistulosus Eutrochium purpureum Filipendula rubra

Bloodroot Wild stonecrop Royal catchfly

Sanguinaria canadensis Sedum ternatum Silene regia

Wild geranium Sneezeweed

Geranium maculatum Helenium autumnale

Compass plant Prairie dock

Silphium laciniatum Silphium terebinthinaceum

Elymus hystrix Elymus riparius

Western sunflower False sunflower Swamp rose mallow

Helianthus occidentalis Heliopsis helianthoides Hibiscus moscheutos

Blue‐eyed grass Zigzag goldenrod Gray goldenrod

Sisyrinchium angustifolium Solidago flexicaulis Solidago nemoralis

Elymus virginicus Juncus effusus

Dwarf crested iris Wild Iris

Iris cristata Iris versicolor

Autumn goldenrod Indian pink

Solidago sphacelata Spigelia marilandica

Panicum virgatum Schizachyrium scoparium

Blue flag Prarie blazing star

Iris virginica Liatris pycnostachya

Celandine poppy New England aster

Stylophorum diphyllum Symphyotrichum novae‐angliae

Scirpus cyperinus Scirpus pendulus

Dense blazing star Cardinal flower

Liatris spicata Lobelia cardinalis

Aromatic aster Spiderwort

Symphyotrichum oblongifolium Tradescantia ohiensis

Sorghastrum nuntans Sporobolus heterolepis

Blue lobelia Virginia bluebell

Lobelia siphilitica Mertensia virginica

Ironweed Culver’s root

Vernonia gigantea Veronicastrum virginicum

Calamovilfa longifolia Carex annectens Carex bicknellii Carex crinita Carex emoryi Carex granularis Carex grayi Carex hirtifolia Carex lacustris Carex lurida Carex pellita Carex shortiana Carex stricta Chasmanthium latifolium Deschampsia caespitosa Diarrhena obovata Elymus canadensis

Appendix G - Plant Palette | 231

A P P E NDI X H - U SGS R IV E R GAUGE DATA USGS RIVER GAUGE AT DAVIS (DAVI3)

Stage Exceedance Forecast for Davis Gauge Location

Flood Data for Davis Gauge Location

232 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

USGS RIVER GAUGE AT Dunn’s BRIDGE (DBRI3)

Stage Exceedance Forecast for Dunn’s Bridge Gauge Location

Flood Data for Dunn’s Bridge Gauge Location

Appendix H - USGS River Gauge Data | 233

USGS RIVER GAUGE NEAR KOUTS (KTSI3)

Stage Exceedance Forecast for Kouts Gauge Location

234 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

USGS RIVER GAUGE AT SHELBY (SLBI3)

Stage Exceedance Forecast for Shelby Gauge Location

Flood Data for Shelby Gauge Location

Appendix H - USGS River Gauge Data | 235

USGS RIVER GAUGE AT MOMENCE (MOMI2)

Stage Exceedance Forecast for Momence Gauge Location

Flood Data for Momence Gauge Location

236 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

USGS RIVER GAUGE NEAR WILMINGTON (WLMI2)

Stage Exceedance Forecast for Wilmington Gauge Location

Flood Data for Wilmington Gauge Location

Appendix H - USGS River Gauge Data | 237

A P P E NDI X I - R EC E NT FLOOD IM AGES

2018 flood near De Motte, IN; source: https://www.newsbug.info/kankakee_valley_post_news/the-big-one-again/article_d36893216a1b-5856-bb40-22df92a57a9c.html

2019 flood 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-short-of-2018-record-flood/article_6b09403a-b4d9-595e-b82d-e295d2fbfa87.html

238 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

2018 flood in Kankakee County, IL; source: https://www.weather.gov/lot/1920Feb2018_rainfall

2018 flood in Jasper County; source: https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/ct-ptb-kankakee-flooding-st-0118-story. html

Appendix I - Recent Flood Images | 239

High waters collecting on cropland; source: https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/newsbug.info/content/tncms/assets/v3/ editorial/4/b1/4b1a281a-f698-55dc-bd63-ae20bb86165c/5d10f7bb680c5.image.jpg?resize=800%2C450

Residents overlooking the river as ice blockage causes flooding in Kankakee County; source: https://www.chicagotribune.com/weather/ ct-met-will-county-flood-warning-wilmington-rescues-20190206-story.html

240 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

May 2020 flooding; source: https://www.countryherald.com/news/kankakee-river-flooding-captured-by-drones-firefighters/

Residents in Sumava Resorts preparing for high waters; source: https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/lake-newsletter/lakenews/kankakee-river-rising-but-will-fall-short-of-2018-record-flood/article_6b09403a-b4d9-595e-b82d-e295d2fbfa87.html

Appendix I - Recent Flood Images | 241

A P P E NDI X J - F U L L SURV E Y

242 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Appendix J - Full Survey | 243

244 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Appendix J - Full Survey | 245

246 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Appendix J - Full Survey | 247

A P P E NDI X K - LI ST OF SURV E Y R ESPON S ES

List of Survey Responses Part 1

248 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

List of Survey Responses Part 2

Appendix K - List of Survey Responses | 249

A P P E NDI X L - TI ME L INE OF HISTOR IC EVENTS

Timeline of Historic Events Part 1

250 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Timeline of Historic Events Part 2

Appendix L - Timeline of Historic Events | 251

A P P E NDI X M - H ISTOR IC PH OTOS

Overlooking the dredging of the river in 1918; 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

Early settlers on the marsh prior to drainage; 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

252 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

A live-in dredge/houseboat; source: https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/dredging-up-a-solution-kankakee-flooding-might-end-ifriver-were-restored-to-the-marsh/article_8731ff78-e052-5b78-aa1c-4e1098a108b7.html

A massive dredge working on the Kankakee; 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

Appendix M - Historic Photos | 253

Hunters in the Grand Kankakee Marsh; source: https://waterfowling.net/blog/

The Valley Gun Club near Kouts; source: https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/porter/kouts/exploring-the-history-of-baums-bridge/ article_37260e91-02af-5f69-832c-b7926b97bef2.html

254 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

Baums Bridge community in 1912; source: https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/porter/kouts/exploring-the-history-of-baumsbridge/article_37260e91-02af-5f69-832c-b7926b97bef2.html

Old river boat on the Kankakee; source: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/463448617876738376/

Appendix M - Historic Photos | 255

Construction of Dunn’s Bridge in 1979; source: http://www.porterhistory.org/2015/12/historic-dunns-bridge-on-kankakee-river.html

Baums Bridge in 1907; source: http://www.inportercounty.org/PhotoPages/KankakeeRiver/KankakeeRiver023.html

256 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

1957 flood taken in Kankakee, IL; source: https://www.daily-journal.com/news/local/the-great-flood-of-1957/article_1ab11bf8-4ddc5506-a222-646a381b9449.html

Appendix M - Historic Photos | 257

A P P E NDI X N - H ISTOR IC MAPS REGIONAL MAPS Historic maps of northwest Indiana highlight just how broad and extensive the Grand Kankakee Marsh truly was. The first image shows the wide reaches of the marsh, as well as the location of Beaver Lake, which was wiped from the map years later. Additionally, the second image provided here shows the considerable number of tributaries and ditches that feed into the Kankakee River.

1898 map from Century Atlas Company; source: 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

1909 map of the Kankakee River Basin; source: https://digitalcollections.lib.washington.edu/digital/collection/fishimages/id/35470/

258 | K a n k a k e e R i v e r R e v i v a l P l a n

TOWNSHIP MAPS Provided below is a selection of postal service maps dating back to 1910. Though much of the wetlands had already been drained at this time, the river had yet to be channelized. These county maps were instrumental in showing where the historic riverbed was, and where the new channel could return to its pre-dredged form.

1840 Lake County Map

1910 Porter County Map

1910 La Porte County Map

1910 Starke County Map

1910 Newton County Map 1910 Jasper County Map 1910 St. Josephs County Map All images sourced from https://indianamemory.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15078coll8

Appendix N - Historic Maps | 259

KA N KA K E E R I V E R R E V I VA L P L A N

Kankakee River Revival Plan - Ball State Landscape Architecture Undergraduate Thesis

Articles inside

Appendix C - Phased Implementation

Bibliography

Appendix G - Plant Palette

Appendix B - Goals & Objectives