Hydraulic analysis of river training cross-vanes as part of post-restoration monitoring

Endreny, Theodore A.; Soulman, M. M.

doi:10.5194/hess-15-2119-2011

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cross‐vanes are designed to control stream channel grade, reduce bank erosion, dissipate stream energy and enhance aquatic habitat (Rosgen, ). Cross‐vanes are installed within a glide or at the head of a riffle (Doll et al ., ), and they are a common structure of research interest (Crispell and Endreny, ; Endreny and Soulman, ; Lautz and Fanelli, ; Radspinner et al ., ). Cross‐vanes concentrate flow at the thalweg of the channel and generate a series of repeating bedforms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface water–groundwater interaction at restored streams and associated reference reaches

Daniluk

Lautz

Gordon

et al. 2012

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stream restoration goals include improving habitat and water quality through reconstruction of morphological features found at analogous, pristine stream reaches. Enhancing hyporheic exchange may facilitate achieving these goals. Although hyporheic exchange at restoration sites has been explored in a few previous studies, comparative studies of restored versus reference or control streams are largely absent. We hypothesized that restoration cross-vanes enhance hyporheic exchange, resulting in biogeochemical alteration of stream water chemistry in the streambed. Two streams restored using cross-vanes to control erosion and improve habitat were compared with their associated reference reaches, which provided the basis for the restoration design. Thirteen temperature profile rods with vertically stacked sensors were installed at each site for 2 weeks. Heat tracing was used to quantify vertical flux in the streambed from the diurnal temperature fluctuations in the subsurface. Stream water and bed pore waters from mini-piezometers were analysed for ion and nutrient chemistry. In general, mean vertical flux rates through the streambed were small throughout reference sites (À0.3 to 0.3 m/day) and at most locations at restored sites. Immediately adjacent to cross-vanes, vertical flux rates were larger (up to 3.5 m/day). Geochemistry of pore waters shows distinct differences in the sources for the reference and restored sites. Strong downwelling zones adjacent to cross-vanes showed high dissolved oxygen (10.75 mg/l) and geochemistry in the streambed similar to surface water. Reference sites had lower dissolved oxygen in the streambed (0.66-5.14 mg/l), and geochemical patterns suggest a mixture of discharging groundwater and surface water in the hyporheic zone. Restored sites also clearly show sulfate and nitrate reduction occurring in the streambed, which is not observed at the reference sites. The stream restoration sites studied here enhance rapid hyporheic exchange, but upwelling of groundwater has a stronger influence on streambed geochemistry at reference sites. Figure 4. Mapped bed temperature ( C) at a depth of 7 cm at each field site, derived from field measurements with a hand-held temperature probe at the points indicated 3736 T. L. DANILUK ET AL

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface water–groundwater interaction at restored streams and associated reference reaches

Daniluk

Lautz

Gordon

et al. 2012

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alternatively, river restoration can be seen as a separate group when categorizing causes of avulsion. This group may not only accommodate channel realignment, but also river training works such as cross vanes [ Endreny and Soulman , ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chute cutoff as a morphological response to stream reconstruction: The possible role of backwater

Eekhout

Hoitink

2015

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stream restoration efforts often aim at creating new unconstrained meandering channels without weirs and bank revetments. In reconstructed streams, the initial morphological response of the new streams is often rapid, until a dynamic equilibrium is reached. Here we report on a chute cutoff that occurred within 3 months after realization of a stream restoration project, caused by a plug bar that formed in response to a backwater effect. The temporal evolution of the morphology of both the new and the old channels was monitored over a period of nearly 8 months, including precutoff conditions. The observations can be separated into three stages. Stage 1 is the initial period leading to cutoff vulnerability, stage 2 is the actual cutoff, and stage 3 is the morphological adjustment in response to the cutoff. In stage 1, a plug bar was deposited in one of the channel bends. Hydrodynamic model results show the location of the plug bar coincides with a region where bed shear stress decreased in downstream direction due to backwater. Longitudinal channel bed profiles show that the channel slope decreased soon after channel reconstruction. Hence, sediment from upstream was available to form the plug bar. After the plug bar was deposited, an embayment formed in the floodplain at a location where the former channel was located (stage 2). The former channel was filled with sediment prior to channel construction. It is likely that the sediment at this location was less consolidated, and therefore, prone to erosion. The chute channel continued to incise and widen into the floodplain and, after 6 months, acted as the main channel, conveying the discharge during the majority of time (stage 3). The cutoff channel gradually continued to fill with sediment, from the moment the plug bar formed until the chute channel incised into the floodplain. Sedimentary successions of the deposited material show upward fining, which is in agreement with observations of chute cutoffs in rivers. Although the artificial setting limits the degree in which the observed processes can be projected on natural rivers, the observations prompt to investigate the role of backwater effects in natural chute cutoff initiation.

show abstract

“…Monitoring is especially valuable when coupled with mathematical modelling of the processes observed at the stream restoration project site. Several studies show that results of numerical modelling of the stream restoration project reach agrees favourably with the observations gathered during monitoring efforts (Lacey and Millar, ; Eudreny and Soulman, ; Buchanan et al ., ). Therefore, the same numerical models could prove useful as tools for predicting channel response.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The complexity of modelling efforts coupled with stream restoration site monitoring has varied. While some studies have shown benefits of using one‐dimensional hydraulic models (Buchanan et al ., ), other studies have employed two‐dimensional models (Lacey and Millar, ; Niezgoda and Johnson, ; Eudreny and Soulman, ). Biron et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The complexity of modelling efforts coupled with stream restoration site monitoring has varied. While some studies have shown benefits of using one-dimensional hydraulic models (Buchanan et al, 2012), other studies have employed two-dimensional models (Lacey and Millar, 2004;Niezgoda and Johnson, 2006;Eudreny and Soulman, 2011). Biron et al (2012) applied a three-dimensional numerical model validated by field data to simulate sediment transport patterns around instream restoration structures to determine the importance of variables in the successful design of the structures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hydraulic Interaction between Rock Cross Vane Stream Restoration Structures and a Bridge Crossing

Newlin

Schultz

2014

River Res. Applic.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The performance of a stream restoration project that incorporates a bridge crossing is evaluated within a 3-year monitoring period. A goal of the project was to alleviate and prevent future sediment aggradation within the waterway of a low-clearance bridge crossing. The stream restoration project included two rock cross vanes and stepped riprap and vegetation bank stabilization. Monitoring of the project involved the collection of channel survey data, pebble counts, and general observations of instream structure condition and sediment movement. The evaluated performance of the restoration structures is related to the general hydrologic conditions, the historical changes in the watershed and channel, and the hydraulic conditions created by the low-clearance bridge crossing. Backwater effects created by the bridge crossing are found to be a substantial cause of the failure of the stream restoration project to meet its goals. The low-clearance bridge hydraulics are preventing a rock cross vane located upstream of the bridge from creating a scour hole in the centre of the channel; instead, aggradation is occurring in this portion of the channel. However, degradation is occurring downstream of the bridge causing the failure of the second rock cross vane and of the riprap and vegetation bank. Although the hydraulic conditions may stem from the initial design of the bridge crossing, any restoration structure should be designed according to the current site hydraulics. In addition to providing insight into the design and construction of stream restoration structures, the results have implications for the design and management of bridge crossings.

show abstract

Hydraulic analysis of river training cross-vanes as part of post-restoration monitoring

Cited by 7 publications

References 25 publications

Surface water–groundwater interaction at restored streams and associated reference reaches

Surface water–groundwater interaction at restored streams and associated reference reaches

Chute cutoff as a morphological response to stream reconstruction: The possible role of backwater

Hydraulic Interaction between Rock Cross Vane Stream Restoration Structures and a Bridge Crossing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About