Advertisement

Environmental Earth Sciences

, Volume 59, Issue 8, pp 1681–1692 | Cite as

Assessment of channel dynamics, in-stream structures and post-project channel adjustments in North Carolina and its implications to effective stream restoration

  • Jerry R. MillerEmail author
  • R. Craig Kochel
Original Article

Abstract

Site assessment and monitoring data were analyzed for 26 stream restoration projects in North Carolina where the channel was reconfigured. Post-project changes in channel capacity were highly variable from site to site, but more than 60% of the projects underwent, on average at a given site, at least a 20% change in channel capacity. An analysis of site and basin geomorphology revealed that large post-construction adjustments were associated with highly dynamic stream channels characterized by a combination of high sediment transport capacity, large sediment supply, and/or easily eroded bank materials. In-stream structures along dynamic, reconfigured channels also exhibited high incidences of damage. Thus, the design and construction of channels in a state of equilibrium, which do not exhibit excessive erosion or deposition along highly dynamic rivers is currently problematic. In light of these findings, a conceptual framework based on geomorphic parameters is put forth to assess the likelihood of project success early in the design process to (1) eliminate high risk sites from consideration of channel reconfiguration and (2) improve upon the implemented management strategies that are ultimately used. It is also argued that where space permits an enhanced natural channel, adjustment approach is likely to be more effective than projects based on natural channel design.

Keywords

River restoration Fluvial geomorphology Channel adjustment Site screening 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by a grant from the North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund under Project Number 2002B-805. Without their support this project would not have been possible. A large number of students aided in the collection and manipulation of data for this investigation, and their efforts are greatly appreciated. They include Heather Gregory, Adam Hunter, Benjamin Jackson, Patrick Jarrett, David Huffstetler, Nate Irwin, and Michelle Pederson. We are also indebted to Jessica Jaynes, who possessed the organizing skills and work ethic to convert a pile of documents into a functioning database. Thanks also are due to Chris Tennant for countless hours of manipulating monitoring records, Eric Neff for host of activities, including the analysis of database and hydrologic records, and Gary Nottis for his work with GIS and basin morphometry.

References

  1. Babcock WH (1986) Tenmile Creek: a study of stream relocation. Water Resour Bull 22:405–415Google Scholar
  2. Berger JJ (1990) Evaluating ecological protection and restoration projects: a holistic approach to the assessment of complex, multi-attribute resource management problems. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernhardt PMA, Alexander AJD, Barnas GK, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Daham C, Follstad-Shah J, Galat D, Gloss S, Goodwin P, Hart D, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Katz S, Kondolf GM, Lake PS, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Powell B, Sudduth E (2005) Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science 308:636–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brookes A (1990) Restoration and enhancement of engineered river channels: some European experiences. Regul Rivers Res Manag 5:45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brookes A (1992) Recovery and restoration of some engineered British river channels. In: Boon PJ, Calow P, Petts GE (eds) River conservation and management. Wiley, London, pp 337–352Google Scholar
  6. Bucher B, Wolff CG, Cawlfield L (2000) Channel remediation and restoration design for Silver Bow Creek, Butte, Montana. Maximum Technologies, Helena, Montana, pp 3–11Google Scholar
  7. Chang HH (1988) Fluvial processes in river engineering. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Copeland RR (1994) Applications of channel stability methods—case studies. Technical report HL-94-11. US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, MississippiGoogle Scholar
  9. Doyle MW, Harbor JM (2003) Discussion of “evaluation of Rosgen’s streambank erosion potential assessment in northeastern Oklahoma”, by Daren Harmel, CT Haan, and Russell C. Dutnell. J Am Water Resour Assoc 36:1191–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eubanks CE, Meadows D (2003) A soil bioengineering guide for streambank and lakeshore stabilization. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, October 2002, FS-683Google Scholar
  11. Frissell CA, Nawa RK (1992) Incidence and causes of physical failure of artificial habitat structures in streams of western Oregon and Washington. North Am J Fish Manag 12:182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamilton JB (1989) Response of juvenile steelhead to instream deflectors in a high gradient stream. In: Gresswell RE, Barton BA, Kershner JL (eds) Practical approaches to riparian resources management. American Fisheries Society, Montana Chapter, Bethesda, Maryland, pp 149–157Google Scholar
  13. Hansen A (2003) Post-project appraisal of a channel reconstruction on Cuneo Creek, California. University of California Berkeley. http://repositories.cdlib.org/wrca/restoration/. Cited 12 December 2006
  14. Hey RD (2006) Fluvial geomorphological methodology for natural stable channel design. J Am Water Resour Assoc 42:357–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Iversen TM, Kronvang MB, Madsen BI, Markmann P, Nielsen MB (1993) Re-establishment of Danish streams: restoration and maintenance measures. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 3:73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Juracek KE, Fitzpatrick FA (2003) Limitations and implications of stream classification. J Am Water Resour Assoc 39:639–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Knighton D (1996) Fluvial forms and processes: a new perspective. Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Kondolf GM, Smeltzer MW, Railsbeck SF (2001) Design and performance of a channel reconstruction project in a coastal California gravel bed stream. Environ Manag 28:761–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meade RH (1982) Sources, sinks and storage of river sediment in the Atlantic drainage of the United States. J Geol 90:235–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meade RH, Yuzyk TR, Day TJ (1990) Movement and storage of sediment in rivers of the United States and Canada. In: Wolman MG, Riggs HC (eds) Surface water hydrology, vol O-1. Geological Society of America, The Geology of North America, Boulder, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  21. Miles MJ (1998) Restoration difficulties for fishery mitigation in high-energy gravel-bed rivers along highway corridors. In: Klingeman PC, Beschta RL, Komar PD, Bradley JB (eds) Gravel-bed rivers in the environment. Water Resources Publications, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  22. Miller DE (1999) Deformable stream banks: can we call it a natural channel design without them? 1999 AWRA Specialty Conference, Bozeman, MTGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller JR, Kochel RC (2008) Characterization and evaluation of stream restoration projects in North Carolina. Final Report to the North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund, Project No 2002B-805, 109 ppGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller JR, Orbock Miller SM (2007) Contaminated rivers: a geomorphological-geochemical approach to site assessment and remediation. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller JR, Ritter JB (1996) An examination of the Rosgen classification of natural rivers. Catena 27:295–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nagle G (2007) Invited commentary evaluating ‘natural channel design’ stream projects. Hydrol Process 21(18):2539–2545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. National Research Council (1999) New strategies for America’s watersheds. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Allan JD, Lake PS, Alexander G, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm CN, Follstad Shan J, Galat DL, Loss SG, Kondolf GM, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Sudduth E (2005) Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. J Appl Ecol 42:208–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Puckett P, Jennings G (2007) Rock cross vane design. USDA-CSREES National Water Conference, January 28, 2007. USDA-CSREES National Water Conference Abstracts DatabaseGoogle Scholar
  30. Rosgen DL (1996) Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  31. Rosgen DL (2006) River restoration using a geomorphic approach for natural channel design. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, April 2–6, 2006, RenoGoogle Scholar
  32. Schumm SA (1977) The fluvial system. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  33. Shields A (1936) Anwendung der Ähnlichkeitsmechanik und der Turbulenzforschung auf die Geschiebebewegung. Mitteilung der perussischen Versuchsanstalt für Wasserbau und Schiffbau 26, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  34. Shields FD Jr, Copeland RR, Klingeman PC, Doyle MW, Simon A (2003) Design for stream restoration. J Hydraul Eng 129:575–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simon A, Doyle M, Kondolf M, Shields FD Jr, Rhoads B, McPhillips M (2007) Critical evaluation of how the Rosgen classification and associated “Natural Channel Design” methods fail to integrate and quantify fluvial processes and channel responses. J Am Water Resour Assoc 43:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Skidmore PB, Shields FD, Doyle MW, Miller DE (2001) Categorization of approaches to natural channel design. In: Hayes DF (ed) Proceedings of the 2001 wetlands engineering and river restoration conference, CD-ROM. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  37. Templeton SR, Sessions W, Dumas C (2006) Estimation and analysis of expenses of EEP-administered design-bid-build projects for stream mitigation in North Carolina, report overview to NC ecosystem enhancement program, given on, October 2Google Scholar
  38. Trimble SW (1974) Man-induced soil erosion on the southern Piedmont, 1700–1970, Ankeyn, Iowa. Soil Conserv Soc Am 180 ppGoogle Scholar
  39. Waal LC, Large ARG, Wade PW (1998) Rehabilitation of rivers: principles and implementation. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  40. White WR, Paris E, Bettes R (1981) Tables for the design of stable alluvial channels. Report IT208. Hydraulics Research Station, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilcox P (2008) Incorporating uncertainty in stream restoration design and effectiveness monitoring. Stream restoration in the Southeast: advancing the science and practice, November 3–6, 2008 (http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wqg/srp/pdfs/wilcock.pdf)
  42. Williams JE, Wood CA, Dombeck MP (1997) Watershed restoration: principles and practice. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  43. Wolman MG (1954) A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. Trans Am Geophys Union 35:951–956Google Scholar
  44. Wolman MG (1967) A cycle of sedimentation and erosion in urban river channels. Geogr Annlr 49A:385–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zuckerman S (1997) Thinking like a watershed. In: William JE, Wood CA, Dombeck MP (eds) Watershed restoration: principles and practices. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp 216–234Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Watershed Research and ManagementWestern Carolina UniversityCullowheeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Geology and Environmental CenterBucknell UniversityLewisburgUSA

Personalised recommendations