Experiment in Stream Restoration

Shields, F. Douglas; Cooper, Charles M.; Knight, Scott S.

doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9429(1995)121:6(494)

Cited by 92 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the field, restoration success or failure is often assessed by measuring bed topography or geometry, for example by determining channel enlargement ratios [30], measuring local scour [28,31], or by assessing the structural integrity of restoration designs [10,[32][33][34]. Results are notoriously difficult to compare, however, due to the time it takes for "success" or "failure" to manifest [12] and the occurrence of both positive and negative consequences that may or may not have been part of the design [34].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Performance of In-Stream Restoration Projects Using Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Transponders

MacVicar

Chapuis

Buckrell

et al. 2015

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Instream channel restoration is a common practice in river engineering that presents a challenge for research. One research gap is the development of monitoring techniques that allow for testable predictions of sediment transport and supply. Here we use Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) transponders to compare the short-term (1-year) sediment transport response to flood events in a restored and a control reach. The field site is Wilket Creek, an enlarged creek in a fully urbanized catchment without stormwater management control in Toronto, Ontario. The responses to three flooding periods, each of which are at or above the design bankfull discharge, are described. Key results are that (i) particle mobility is lower in the restored reach for all three periods; (ii) full mobility occurs in the control reach during the first two floods while partial mobility occurs in the restored reach; and (iii) the constructed morphology exerted a controlling influence on particle entrainment, with higher mobility in the pools. Log-transformed travel distances exhibit normal distributions when grouped by particle size class, which allows a statistical comparison with power law and other predictive travel-distance relations. Results show that three bedload transport conditions can occur, with partial mobility associated with a OPEN ACCESSWater 2015, 7 5567 mild relation between particle size and travel distance and full mobility associated with either a flat or steep relation depending on the degree of integration of particles in the bed. Recommendations on seeding strategy and sample sizes are made to improve the precision of the results by minimizing confidence intervals for mobility and travel distances. Even in a short term study, the RFID sediment tracking technique allows a process-based assessment of stream restoration outcomes that can be used to justify the instream intervention and plan future attempts to stabilize and enhance the system.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Performance of In-Stream Restoration Projects Using Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Transponders

MacVicar

Chapuis

Buckrell

et al. 2015

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These types of deflectors are often paired on opposite banks creating V-deflectors for paired peninsular-wing designs and Ydeflectors for paired peninsular-wing deflectors with chutes (Hubbs et al, 1932). Spurs, spur dikes, jetties or groins are essentially the same design as peninsularwing deflectors and are used for both bank protection and habitat development (Richardson et al, 1990;Shields et al, 1995). Mid-channel designs include I-deflectors and A-deflectors (Hubbs et al, 1932).…”

Section: Deflectorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Throughout this history, habitat structures were prized for their ability to improve conditions for game fish (Hewitt, 1931;Hunter et al, 1941;Shetter et al, 1946;Saunders and Smith, 1962;Olson and West, 1989;Shields et al, 1995). However, the use of habitat structures also resulted in many failures that included the destruction of structures by floods (Hewitt, 1931;Aitken, 1935;Ehlers, 1956;Babcock, 1986;Hamilton, 1989;Frissell and Nawa, 1992;Thompson, 2002), a reduction in aquatic species diversity (Cooper and Knight, 1987) and disruption of invertebrate populations (Madsen, 1938).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of evaluations conducted also gauge the success of projects less than five years after completion (i.e. Hubbs et al, 1932;Madsen, 1938;Hunter et al, 1941;Shetter et al, 1946;Saunders and Smith, 1962;Hamilton, 1989;Olson and West, 1989;Shields et al, 1995). It is therefore difficult to determine if instream structures are effective in the long term to reverse habitat degradation that results from anthropogenic impacts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Development and Historic Use of Habitat Structures in Channel Restoration in the United States: The Grand Experiment in Fisheries Management

Thompson

Stull

2004

gpq

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of instream structures to modify aquatic habitat has a long history in the United States. Pioneering work by wealthy landowners in the Catskills region of New York produced a range of designs in the decades preceding the Great Depression in an effort to replenish fish populations depleted from overfishing. The scientific evaluation of structures began in 1930. Within two years, a Michigan research team claimed improved fish populations. Cheap labor and government-sponsored conservation projects spearheaded by the Civilian Conservation Corps allowed the widespread adoption of the techniques in the 1930s, before adequate testing of the long-term impact of the devices. The start of World War II temporarily ended the government conservation efforts and prevented the continued evaluation of structures. During the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, designs of instream structures remained essentially unchanged. Meanwhile, the small number of evaluations of the impact of the structures often were flawed. The continued use of early designs of instream structures helped instill a false belief that instream structures were proven to be a benefit to fish. Even modern use of instream structures continues to rely on the basic blueprints developed in the Catskills, despite documented problems with the use of these designs.L’emploi de structures aménagées dans le lit des rivières visant à modifier l’habitat aquatique a une longue histoire aux États-Unis. Des travaux pionniers effectués par de riches propriétaires terriens dans la région des Catskills (État de New York) ont entraîné l’élaboration d’un éventail de designs durant les décennies qui ont précédé la Grande Dépression ; ceux-ci visaient le rétablissement des populations de poissons lourdement touchées par une pêche excessive. L’évaluation scientifique de ces structures a débuté en 1930. En moins de deux ans, une équipe de recherche du Michigan a déclaré avoir obtenu un accroissement des populations de poissons. Dans les années 1930, une main-d’oeuvre bon marché et des projets de conservation subventionnés par le gouvernement et supervisés par le Civilian Conservation Corps ont concouru à étendre à grande échelle l’emploi des techniques du Michigan et ce, avant même qu’une évaluation adéquate des effets à long terme de tels dispositifs ne soit complétée. Le début de la Seconde Guerre mondiale a temporairement interrompu les efforts de conservation gouvernementaux et a empêché l’évaluation suivie des structures en place. Durant les années 1940, 1950 et 1960, le design de ce type de structures est demeuré pratiquement inchangé et les quelques recherches réalisées pour évaluer leur impact se sont souvent révélées erronées. L’usage continu de ces dispositifs primitifs a contribué à corroborer la fausse croyance selon laquelle leur effet bénéfique sur les poissons était démontré. Même maintenant, l’utilisation de ces structures aménagées dans les cours d’eau continue à reposer sur les plans rudimentaires élaborés autrefois dans les Catskills, malgré les problèmes relatés dans la...

show abstract

“…Channel widths of streams for which restoration projects are typically designed range from a few meters to less than 20 meters. Identification of unstable streams as a consequence of disturbed basin conditions is crucial in meander restoration in order to assess the suitability of the project or to adopt alternative solutions consistent with forms and processes, and to promote the recovery of stream stability (Shields et al, 1995). Empirical relationships concerning channel form parameters are usually based on data from rivers in dynamic equilibrium.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of Stream Meanders for Stream Restoration

Rinaldi

Johnson²

1997

J. Hydraul. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stream meander restoration designs currently used by many state and local government agencies are often based on empirical equations, such as those developed by Leopold and Wolman (1957;1960). In order to assess the suitability of these equations and propose alternative strategies, 18 sites in CentralMaryland were selected and data on channel planform, cross-sections, sediments, and spacing and sizing of the poois and riffles were collected and analyzed to characterize the channel type in the study area. A large bias was found comparing the meander parameters measured to those computed using the Leopold and Wolman equations for the streams in central Maryland. Based on these results, appropriate empirical equations for the study area that can assist in stream restoration designs were investigated. An additional approach that can assist in stream restoration consists of the application of a detailed stream reconnaissance to verify that the restoration project is consistent with the natural form and processes of the river.

show abstract

Experiment in Stream Restoration

Cited by 92 publications

References 22 publications

Assessing the Performance of In-Stream Restoration Projects Using Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Transponders

Assessing the Performance of In-Stream Restoration Projects Using Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Transponders

The Development and Historic Use of Habitat Structures in Channel Restoration in the United States: The Grand Experiment in Fisheries Management

Characterization of Stream Meanders for Stream Restoration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About