Monitoring and assessment of a river restoration project in central New York

Buchanan, Brian; Walter, M. Todd; Nagle, Gregory N.; Schneider, Rebecca L.

doi:10.1002/rra.1453

Cited by 40 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 52 publications

(80 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although aerial images are not as accurate as other methods, aerial photography is the only method that can be used to measure historical streambank retreat. Buchanan et al [13], Pracheil [20], Mittelstet et al [26], Heeren et al [27], and Purvis and Fox [28] successfully analyzed aerial photography analysis to quantify the streambank erosion.…”

Section: Lateral Streambank Erosionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…He also found that riprap (similar to the rock toe and gravel bank) fully protected the streambanks. Two years after installation, Buchanan et al [13] found that 28% of the bank vanes (which are vanes that do not go across the entire river width but protect only the bank at the desired location) failed and that 36% were impaired. One limitation to comparing differences in streambank erosion rates among the practices observed within the present study is the limited number of observations for several of the practices.…”

Section: Prestabilization and Poststabilizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The cost of stream restoration continues to increase, yet few resources are being allocated to evaluate and monitor the restoration practices [13]. Annually, the USA spends $1 billion on stream restoration, the efforts of which are intended to improve the environmental health of a stream or river, generally by restoring a dynamically stable dimension, pattern, and profile [14,15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One component of stream restoration is streambank stabilization, which is generally intended to maintain a stable channel dimension at the stabilization site. Although post-installation monitoring yields important information on the effectiveness of a stabilization practice, less than 10% of the projects include any assessment of outcomes [13]. Possible reasons include lack of funds (project ended) and poor project documentation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Quantifying Effectiveness of Streambank Stabilization Practices on Cedar River, Nebraska

Davé

Mittelstet

2017

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Excessive sediment is a major pollutant to surface waters worldwide. In some watersheds, streambanks are a significant source of this sediment, leading to the expenditure of billions of dollars in stabilization projects. Although costly streambank stabilization projects have been implemented worldwide, long-term monitoring to quantify their success is lacking. There is a critical need to document the long-term success of streambank restoration projects. The objectives of this research were to (1) quantify streambank retreat before and after the stabilization of 18 streambanks on the Cedar River in North Central Nebraska, USA; (2) assess the impact of a large flood event; and (3) determine the most cost-efficient stabilization practice. The stabilized streambanks included jetties (10), rock-toe protection (1), slope reduction/gravel bank (1), a retaining wall (1), rock vanes (2), and tree revetments (3). Streambank retreat and accumulation were quantified using aerial images from 1993 to 2016. Though streambank retreat has been significant throughout the study period, a breached dam in 2010 caused major flooding and streambank erosion on the Cedar River. This large-scale flood enabled us to quantify the effect of one extreme event and evaluate the effectiveness of the stabilized streambanks. With a 70% success rate, jetties were the most cost-efficient practice and yielded the most deposition. If minimal risk is unacceptable, a more costly yet immobile practice such as a gravel bank or retaining wall is recommended.

show abstract

Section: Lateral Streambank Erosionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Prestabilization and Poststabilizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Quantifying Effectiveness of Streambank Stabilization Practices on Cedar River, Nebraska

Davé

Mittelstet

2017

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Each structure was 1 m long (thick) in the direction of flow, 3 m long perpendicular to the flow, and each extended 0.3 m above the streambed and approximately 0.2 m (one computational layer) into the streambed (Azinheira et al, 2014). These structures were spaced 45 m apart consistent with restoration guidance and prior research for a stream of this discharge (Rosgen, 2001;Crispell and Endreny, 2009;Buchanan et al, 2012;Azinheira et al, 2014).…”

Section: Hydraulic Parameters and Boundary Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 87%

Effects of inset floodplains and hyporheic exchange induced by in-stream structures on nitrate removal in a headwater stream

Hester

Hammond

Scott

2016

Ecological Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tStream restoration efforts in the United States are increasingly aimed towards water quality improvement, yet little process-based guidance exists to compare pollutant removals from different restoration techniques for variable site conditions. Excess nitrate (NO 3 − ) is a frequent pollutant of concern due to eutrophication in downstream waterbodies such as the Chesapeake Bay. We used MIKE SHE to simulate hydraulics and NO 3 − removal in a 90 m restored reach of Stroubles Creek, a second-order stream in Blacksburg, Virginia. Site specific geomorphic, hydrologic, and hydraulic data were used to calibrate the model. We evaluated in-stream structures that induce hyporheic zone denitrification during baseflow and inset floodplains that remove NO 3 − during storm flows. We varied hydraulic conditions (winter baseflow, summer baseflow, storm flow), biogeochemical parameters (literature hyporheic zone denitrification rates and newly available inset floodplain removal rates) and boundary conditions (upstream NO 3 − concentration), sediment conditions (hydraulic conductivity), and stream restoration design parameters (inset floodplain length). Our results indicate that NO 3 − removal rates within the 90 m reach were minimal. Structure-induced hyporheic zone denitrification did not exceed 3.1% of mass flowing in from the upstream channel, was achieved only during favorable background groundwater hydraulic conditions (i.e. summer baseflow), and was transport-limited such that non-trivial removal rates were achieved only when the streambed hydraulic conductivity (K) was at least 10 −4 m/s. Inset floodplain nitrogen removal was limited by floodplain residence time and NO 3 − removal rate, and did not exceed 1% of inflowing mass. Summing these removals for both restoration practices over the course of the year based on the frequency of storm and summer baseflow conditions yielded ∼2.1% annual removal. Achieving 30% NO 3 − removal required increasing the length of stream reach restored to 0.9 km-819 km (depending on hydraulic conductivity) and 3.8-46 km (depending on inset floodplain length and nitrogen removal rate) for in-stream structures during baseflow and inset floodplains during storm flow, respectively. In one of the first comparisons of process-based modeling to the Chesapeake Bay Program stream restoration guidance, we found that the guidance overestimated hyporheic NO 3 − removal for our modeled reach, but correctly estimated inset floodplain removal. Overall, our results indicate that in-stream structures and inset floodplains can improve water quality, but overall required level of effort may be high to achieve desired results.

show abstract

Comparison of effects of inset floodplains and hyporheic exchange induced by in‐stream structures on solute retention

Azinheira

Scott

Hession

et al. 2014

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The pollution of streams and rivers is a growing concern, and environmental guidance increasingly suggests stream restoration to improve water quality. Solute retention in off-channel storage zones, such as hyporheic zones and floodplains, is typically necessary for significant reaction to occur. Yet, the effects of two common restoration techniques, in-stream structures and inset floodplains, on solute retention have not been rigorously compared. We used MIKE SHE to model hydraulics and solute transport in the channel, on inset floodplains, and in structure-induced hyporheic zones of a third-order stream. We varied hydraulic conditions (winter base flow, summer base flow, and stormflow), geology (hydraulic conductivity), and stream restoration design parameters (inset floodplain length and presence of in-stream structures). The in-stream structures induced hyporheic exchange for approximately 20% of the year (during summer base flow) while inset floodplains were active for approximately 1% of the year (during stormflow). Flow onto inset floodplains and residence times in both the channel and on the floodplains increased nonlinearly with the fraction of bank with floodplains installed. The fraction of streamflow that flowed onto the inset floodplains was 1-3 orders of magnitude higher than that which flowed through the structure-induced hyporheic zone. Yet, residence times and mass storage in the hyporheic zone were 1-5 orders of magnitude larger than that on individual inset floodplains. In our modeling, neither in-stream structures nor inset floodplains had sufficient percent flow and residence times simultaneously to have a substantial impact on dissolved contaminants flowing downstream.

show abstract

Monitoring and assessment of a river restoration project in central New York

Cited by 40 publications

References 52 publications

Quantifying Effectiveness of Streambank Stabilization Practices on Cedar River, Nebraska

Quantifying Effectiveness of Streambank Stabilization Practices on Cedar River, Nebraska

Effects of inset floodplains and hyporheic exchange induced by in-stream structures on nitrate removal in a headwater stream

Comparison of effects of inset floodplains and hyporheic exchange induced by in‐stream structures on solute retention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About