Hydraulic geometry relationships, or regional curves, relate bankfull stream channel dimensions to watershed drainage area. Hydraulic geometry relationships for streams throughout North Carolina vary with hydrology, soils, and extent of development within a watershed. An urban curve that is the focus of this study shows the bankfull features of streams in urban and suburban watersheds throughout the North Carolina Piedmont. Seventeen streams were surveyed in watersheds that had greater than 10 percent impervious cover. The watersheds had been developed long enough for the streams to redevelop bankfull features, and they had no major impoundments. The drainage areas for the streams ranged from 0.4 to 110.3 square kilometers. Cross‐sectional and longitudinal surveys were conducted to determine the channel dimension, pattern, and profile of each stream and power functions were fitted to the data. Comparisons were made with regional curves developed previously for the rural Piedmont, and enlargement ratios were produced. These enlargement ratios indicated a substantial increase in the hydraulic geometry for the urban streams in comparison to the rural streams. A comparison of flood frequency indicates a slight decrease in the bankfull discharge return interval for the gaged urban streams as compared to the gaged rural streams. The study data were collected by North Carolina State University (NCSU), the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNC), and Charlotte Storm Water Services. Urban regional curves are useful tools for applying natural channel design in developed watersheds. They do not, however, replace the need for field calibration and verification of bankfull stream channel dimensions.

No abstract

The Stream Performance Assessment (SPA), a new rapid assessment method, was applied to 93 restored, 21 impaired, 29 reference, and 13 reference streams with some incision throughout North Carolina. Principal component analysis (PCA) indicated restored streams align more closely with reference streams rather than impaired streams. Further, PCA‐based factor analysis revealed restored streams were similar to reference streams in terms of morphologic condition, but exhibited a greater range of scores relative to aquatic habitat and bedform. Macroinvertebrate sampling and GIS watershed analyses were conducted on 84 restored streams. SPA and watershed data were compared to Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) taxa to determine which factors indicate stream health. SPA and watershed factors were used in least squares, ridge, and principal component regression (PCR) to develop a prediction model for EPT taxa. All three methods produced reasonable predictions for EPT taxa. Cross‐validation indicated ridge regression resulted in the lowest prediction error. The ridge model was then used to predict EPT taxa numbers for 21 impaired and 25 reference streams in addition to the 84 restored streams. Statistical comparisons of the predicted scores indicated urban streams (>10% impervious watershed cover) have lower expected numbers of EPT taxa. Rural restored streams have macroinvertebrate metric scores similar to those predicted for rural reference streams.

Increased global temperatures resulting from anthropogenically induced climate changes have increased the frequency and severity of adverse weather events, including extreme rainfall events, floods, and droughts. In recent years, nature-based solutions (NBS) have been proposed to retain storm runoff temporarily and mitigate flood damages. These practices may help rural farm and forest lands to store runoff and reduce flooding on farms and downstream communities and could be incorporated into a conservation program to provide payments for these efforts, which would supplement traditional farm incomes. Despite their potential, there have been very few methodical assessments and detailed summaries of NBS to date. We identified and summarized potential flood reduction practices for the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. These include agricultural practices of (1) cover cropping/no-till farming; (2) hardpan breakup; (3) pine or (4) hardwood afforestation, and (5) agroforestry; establishing the wetland and stream practices of (6) grass and sedge wetlands and earthen retention structures, (7) forest wetland banks, and (8) stream channel restoration; and establishing new structural solutions of (9) dry dams and berms (water farming) and (10) tile drainage and water retention. These practices offer different water holding and storage capacities and costs. A mixture of practices at the farm and landscape level can be implemented for floodwater retention and attenuation and damage reduction, as well as for providing additional farm and forest ecosystem services.