Environmental Earth Sciences

, Volume 68, Issue 6, pp 1563–1574 | Cite as

Use and performance of in-stream structures for river restoration: a case study from North Carolina

Original Article

Abstract

In-stream structures including cross-vanes, J-hooks, rock vanes, and W-weirs are widely used in river restoration to limit bank erosion, prevent changes in channel gradient, and improve aquatic habitat. During this investigation, a rapid assessment protocol was combined with post-project monitoring data to assess factors influencing the performance of more than 558 in-stream structures and rootwads in North Carolina. Cross-sectional survey data examined for 221 cross sections from 26 sites showed that channel adjustments were highly variable from site to site, but approximately 60 % of the sites underwent at least a 20 % net change in channel capacity. Evaluation of in-stream structures ranging from 1 to 8 years in age showed that about half of the structures were impaired at 10 of the 26 sites. Major structural damage was often associated with floods of low to moderate frequency and magnitude. Failure mechanisms varied between sites and structure types, but included: (1) erosion of the channel bed and banks (outflanking); (2) movement of rock materials during floods; and (3) burial of the structures in the channel bed. Sites with reconstructed channels that exhibited large changes in channel capacity possessed the highest rates of structural impairment, suggesting that channel adjustments between structures led to their degradation of function. The data question whether currently used in-stream structures are capable of stabilizing reconfigured channels for even short periods when applied to dynamic rivers.

Keywords

River restoration In-stream structures Fluvial geomorphology Cross-vanes Habitat improvement 

Supplementary material

12665_2012_1850_MOESM1_ESM.docx (31 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 30 kb)
12665_2012_1850_MOESM2_ESM.jpg (562 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (JPEG 563 kb)
12665_2012_1850_MOESM3_ESM.jpg (255 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (JPEG 255 kb)
12665_2012_1850_MOESM4_ESM.jpg (406 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (JPEG 407 kb)
12665_2012_1850_MOESM5_ESM.jpg (421 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (JPEG 421 kb)
12665_2012_1850_MOESM6_ESM.jpg (1.6 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (JPEG 1,618 kb)
12665_2012_1850_MOESM7_ESM.jpg (469 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (JPEG 469 kb)
12665_2012_1850_MOESM8_ESM.jpg (715 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (JPEG 715 kb)

References

  1. Bathurst JC (1997) Environmental river flow hydraulics, chap 4. In: Thorne CR, Hey RD, Newson MD (eds) Applied fluvial geomorphology for river engineering and management. Wiley, Chichester, pp 69–93Google Scholar
  2. Bernhardt PMA, Alexander AJD, Barnas GK, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Daham C, Follstad-Shah J, Galat D, Gloss S, Goodwin P, Hart D, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Katz S, Kondolf GM, Lake PS, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Powell B, Sudduth E (2005) Synthesizing US river restoration efforts. Science 308:636–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brookes A (1997) River dynamics and channel maintenance. In: Thorne CR, Hey RD, Newson MD (eds) Applied fluvial geomorphology for river engineering and management. Wiley, Chichester, pp 293–307Google Scholar
  4. Brown K (2000) Urban stream restoration practices: an initial assessment. Final report for the US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Region VGoogle Scholar
  5. Frissell CA, Nawa RK (1992) Incidence and causes of physical failure of artificial habitat structures in streams of western Oregon and Washington. North Am J Fish Manag 12:182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kondolf GM (2006) River restoration and meanders. Ecol Soc 11(2):42Google Scholar
  7. Miller JR, Kochel RC (2008) Characterization and evaluation of stream restoration projects in North Carolina. Final report to the North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund, Project No. 2002B-805Google Scholar
  8. Miller JR, Kochel RC (2010) Assessment of channel dynamics, in-stream structures and post-project channel adjustments in North Carolina and its implications to effective stream restoration. Environ Earth Sci 59:1681–1692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Allan JD, Lake PS, Alexander G, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm CN, Follstad Shan J, Galat DL, Loss SG, Kondolf GM, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Sudduth E (2005) Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. J Appl Ecol 42:208–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Penrose D (2007) Evaluation of North Carolina stream restoration projects, biological responses to habitat change. USDA-CSREES 2007 National Water Quality ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  11. Platts WS, Nelson RL (1985) Stream habitat and fisheries response to livestock grazing and in-stream improvement structures, Big Creek, Utah. J Soil Water Conserv 40:374–379Google Scholar
  12. Puckett P (2007) The rock cross vane: a comprehensive study of an in-stream structure. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Dept of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State University, RaleighGoogle Scholar
  13. Puckett P, Jennings G (2007) Rock cross vane design. USDA-CSREES National Water Conference, Jan. 28, 2007; USDA-CSREES National Water Conference Abstracts DatabaseGoogle Scholar
  14. Roni P, Beechie TJ, Bilby RE, Leonetti FE, Pollock MM, Pess GR (2002) A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific northwest watersheds. North Am J Fish Manag 22:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Roni P, Hanson K, Beechie T (2008) Global review of the physical and biological effectiveness of stream habitat rehabilitation techniques. North Am J Fish Manag 28:856–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Roper BB, Konnoff D, Heller D, Wieman K (1998) Durability of Pacific Northwest in-stream structures following floods. North Am J Fish Manag 18:686–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rosgen DL (2001) The cross-vane, W-weir, and J-hook vane structures: their description, design and application for stream stabilization and river restoration. Proceedings of ASCE conference on wetlands engineering and river restoration, Reno, NV, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  18. Rosgen D (2006) The cross-vane, W-weir, and J-hook vane structures (updated 2006). Description, design and application for stream stabilization and river restoration. Wildland Hydrology, Inc. http://www.wildlandohydrology.com. Accessed December 2007
  19. Shields FD Jr, Morin N, Cooper CM (2004) Large woody debris structures for sand bed channels. J Hydraul Eng 130(3):208–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. USEPA (1989) Nonpoint sources: agenda for the future. Technical Report WH-556, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of WaterGoogle Scholar
  21. USEPA (1999) Definitions and distinctions. River corridor and wetland restoration principles. United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/defs.html. Accessed online December 2007
  22. USGS (2009a) USGS real-time water data for North Carolina. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis/rt. Accessed May 2007 to December 2009
  23. USGS (2009b) North Carolina flood frequency statistics. http://nc.water.usgs.gov/flood/floodstats/gaged/basins.html. Accessed May 2007 to December 2009
  24. Williams JE, Wood CA, Dombeck MP (1997) Watershed restoration: principles and practice. In: Williams JE, Wood CA, Dombeck MP (eds) American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MarylandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geosciences and Natural ResourcesWestern Carolina UniversityCullowheeUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeologyBucknell UniversityLewisburgUSA

Personalised recommendations