Urban Stream Restoration Case Studies in North Carolina

Author(s):  
Gregory D. Jennings ◽  
Barbara A. Doll
Water ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 1568
Author(s):  
Barbara A. Doll ◽  
J. Jack Kurki-Fox ◽  
Jonathan L. Page ◽  
Natalie G. Nelson ◽  
Jeffrey P. Johnson

Stream restoration for mitigation purposes has grown rapidly since the 1980s. As the science advances, some organizations (Chesapeake Bay Program, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality) have approved or are considering providing nutrient credits for stream restoration projects. Nutrient treatment on floodplains during overbank events is one of the least understood processes that have been considered as part of the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Stream Restoration Nutrient Crediting program. This study analyzed ten years of streamflow and water quality data from five stations in the Piedmont of North Carolina to evaluate proposed procedures for estimating nitrogen removal on the floodplain during overbank flow events. The volume of floodplain flow, the volume of floodplain flow potentially treated, and the nitrogen load retained on the floodplain were calculated for each overbank event, and a sensitivity analysis was completed. On average, 9% to 15% of the total annual streamflow volume accessed the floodplain. The percentage of the average annual volume of streamflow potentially treated ranged from 1.0% to 5.1%. Annually, this equates to 0.2% to 1.0% of the total N load retained/removed on the floodplain following restoration. The relatively low nitrogen retention/removal rates were due to a majority of floodplain flow occurring during a few large events each year that exceeded the treatment capacity of the floodplain. On an annual basis, 90% of total floodplain flow occurred during half of all overbank events and 50% of total floodplain flow occurred during two to three events each year. Findings suggest that evaluating only overbank events may lead to undervaluing stream restoration because treatment is limited by hydrologic controls that restrict floodplain retention time. Treatment is further governed by floodplain and channel size.


2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Koepke

INTRODUCTION: In-stream and watershed dynamics in urban and urbanizing areas have significant impacts on local property and infrastructure, as well as the quality of the stream itself including: water quality, habitat, physical characteristics, and biodiversity. As land development occurs, natural vegetation and exposed soils are converted to buildings, pavement and other impervious surfaces. This leads to increased runoff during storm events as well as decreasing the time that it takes that stormwater to reach streams, wetlands, and other stormwater storage and conveyance systems. These hydrologic changes in a watershed often occur at a rapid pace which results in rapid destabilization and degradation of streams and rivers. Rivers and streams are naturally dynamic systems. They naturally erode and reshape themselves based on changes to the watershed or the stream itself. Erosion and deposition are natural processes that have always been important components of stream systems and in and of themselves are not undesirable. When natural stream dynamics are rapidly accelerated, however, an entire series of negative impacts to the stream and the biological systems that are depended on the stream occur. Rapid destabilization of streams often leads to significant bank and bed erosion that negatively impact stream health and frequently leads to negative impact to property, buildings and structures, as well as public infrastructure. Past approaches to stream bank and bed stabilization often involved channelization, armoring, and other gray infrastructure techniques to protect public and private property in the effected reaches of streams and rivers without taking into account the overall stream system dynamics. Early stabilization efforts frequently led to other unintended consequences by accelerating the rate of bank and bed erosion in untreated reaches, inadvertent flooding, and other infrastructure impacts. The complex nature of stream dynamics and fluvial geomorphology when applied to urban stream systems and significantly modified watersheds require the need for detailed analysis of the morphology of the stream. Consideration of the complex factors and processes that make up fluvial morphology are critical when selecting practices or methods of stream restoration. Many agencies and cooperative partners work to accumulate and analyze case studies and detailed research in order to develop a method of evaluating and prescribing different stream restoration techniques based on the morphologic conditions in the stream reach (Lyn D.A., and Newton J.F., 2015). An accumulation of case studies, research, and scholarly work on stream restoration techniques and practices helps shape and inform designers across multiple agencies in order to effectively select and design restoration practices. Ultimately, in urban streams, the designer is working to establish a condition of dynamic equilibrium in the treated stream reach. Dynamic equilibrium is defined as a stream reach that is in balance with sediment transport, aggradation, degradation, and bank and bed erosion. When those characteristics are in balance based on the inputs of sediment within the watershed, the bed load and sediments the stream transports, and discharge rate and volume, then the stream is considered to be in a relatively stable state (FISRWG, 1998). The selection then of stream restoration and stabilization practices in urban areas is dependent on not only the reach being treated, but also on the overall watershed dynamics. In addition to the physics of the actual practices implemented, including resistance to shear stresses and velocity of the water flow within the stream channel being treated, the practices must also take into account the larger picture of stream dynamics including sediment delivery and transport, within the watershed and not just within the treated reach. Successful urban stream restoration and stabilization techniques mimic the structures found in more undisturbed systems through the utilization of similar materials in an engineered configuration. In many streams the use of a combination of hard and soft armorment and stabilization solutions including stone, woody debris materials, modern geosynthetic reinforcement devices and native vegetation to stabilize and naturalize stream channels, thereby provided enhanced habitat, better water quality, and protecting property and infrastructure.


Author(s):  
Donald Carpenter ◽  
Louise Slate ◽  
John Schwartz ◽  
Sanjiv Sinha ◽  
Kelly Brennan ◽  
...  

2004 ◽  
pp. 1297-1304
Author(s):  
J Rodríguez ◽  
M García ◽  
F López ◽  
C García

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 481-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang-Yu Hong ◽  
Heejun Chang ◽  
Eun-Sung Chung

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Desmond Ofosu Anim ◽  
Patrick Banahene

Catchment urbanization is widely recognised as a primary driver of stream degradation by increasing stormwater runoff causing major changes to key ecosystem processes. Reinstating the ‘natural’ hydrogeomorphic conditions is central in designing successful, self-sustaining restoration actions. However, addressing urban stream degradation by re-establishing the hydrogeomorphic conditions remains a challenge and comparatively limited measurable progress has been observed particularly achieving ecological objectives. This paper articulates that stream restoration goals might be better achieved when management measures take a broader approach that considers anticipated hydraulic conditions effects that liaise relationships between flow and ecology. The study argues that fluvial systems are characterised by complex and dynamic ecosystem processes primarily governed by the hydraulic conditions (e.g. velocity, depth, shear stress), thus, as the practice of addressing urban stream restoration becomes increasingly common, it is critical to explore and understand the anticipated response of the hydraulic conditions. This paper describes how hydraulic regime consideration provides further opportunity for a holistic approach to urban stream management given their capacity to account for multiple ecological and geomorphic objectives. The paper suggests that developing suitable flow-biota-ecosystem processes nexus is critical towards addressing urban stream degradation and hydraulic consideration in restoration actions provide an important step towards that. The paper discusses opportunities to evolve management actions to achieve restoration goals by highlighting how the management of the two key levers (addressing altered flow regime and morphology) to improve the hydraulic conditions can help to address the urban stream disturbance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document