Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration Efforts

Bernhardt, Emily S.; Palmer, Margaret A.; Allan, J. David; Alexander, Gaylord R.; Barnas, Katie; Brooks, Shane; Carr, J.; Clayton, Stephen; Dahm, Cliff; Follstad-Shah, J; Galat, David L.; Gloss, Steven P.; Goodwin, Peter; Hart, David D.; Hassett, Brooke A.; Jenkinson, Rebecca; Katz, Stephen L.; Kondolf, G. Mathias; Lake, P. S.; Lave, Rebecca; Meyer, Judy L.; O’Donnell, T. Kevin; Pagano, Laura; Powell, Brian F.; Sudduth, Elizabeth B.

doi:10.1126/science.1109769

Cited by 1,640 publications

(1,267 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,245

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[3] A recognized need to mitigate and reverse impacts of human-dominated ecosystems on water quality has made stream restoration a multibillion dollar industry, with a majority of stream restoration projects listing improvements in water quality as a goal [Bernhardt et al, 2005]. Despite the interest in improving water quality by stream restoration, mechanisms controlling nitrogen export from suburban and urban catchments, including the effects of in-stream retention, remain poorly understood.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Streamflow distribution of non–point source nitrogen export from urban‐rural catchments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed

Shields

Band

Law

et al. 2008

Water Resources Research

144

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] Nitrogen (N) export from urban and urbanizing watersheds is a major contributor to water quality degradation and eutrophication of receiving water bodies. Methods to reduce N exports using best management practices (BMP) have targeted both source reduction and hydrologic flow path retention. Stream restoration is a BMP targeted to multiple purposes but includes increasing flow path retention to improve water quality. As restorations are typically most effective at lower discharge rates with longer residence times, distribution of N load by stream discharge is a significant influence on catchment nitrogen retention. We explore impacts of urbanization on magnitude and export flow distribution of nitrogen along an urban-rural gradient in a set of catchments studied by the Baltimore Ecosystem Study (BES). We test the hypotheses that N export magnitude increases and cumulative N export shifts to higher, less frequent discharge with catchment urbanization. We find that increasing development in watersheds is associated with shifts in nitrogen export toward higher discharge, while total magnitude of export does not show as strong a trend. Forested reference, low-density suburban, and agricultural catchments export most of the total nitrogen (TN) and nitrate (NO 3 À ) loads at relatively low flows. More urbanized sites export TN and NO 3 À at higher and less frequent flows. The greatest annual loads of nitrogen are from less developed agricultural and low-density residential (suburban/exurban) areas; the latter is the most rapidly growing land use in expanding metropolitan areas. A simple statistical model relating export distribution metrics to impervious surface area is then used to extrapolate parameters of the N export distribution across the Gwynns Falls watershed in Baltimore County. This spatial extrapolation has potential applications as a tool for predictive mapping of variations in export distribution and targeting stream channel restoration efforts at the watershed scale.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Streamflow distribution of non–point source nitrogen export from urban‐rural catchments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed

Shields

Band

Law

et al. 2008

Water Resources Research

144

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Por ser um tema de grande importância, os projetos de recuperação vem desempenhando um papel cada vez maior no gerenciamento e manejo ambiental em decisões políticas (PALMER, 2004). Esses projetos podem tornar-se bem sucedidos se forem efetivos na recuperação de espécies, melhoria na qualidade das águas continentais e aumento da diversidade de habitats que facilitem a recolonização por espécies nativas (BERNHARDT et al, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Avaliação Da Qualidade Da Água Nos Córregos Fazzari E Monjolinho No Campus Da Ufscar

Barrilli¹,

Lucca²

2012

ANAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many stream restoration practices are considered for mitigating water quality impacts, including channel realignment, riparian planting, in-stream structure installation, and floodplain reconnection (Roni et al, 2002;Ensign and Doyle, 2005;Kaushal et al, 2008;Opperman et al, 2009;Hester and Gooseff, 2010;Mason et al, 2012;Azinheira et al, 2014;Johnson et al, 2015;Jones et al, 2015). Yet water quality improvement is a relatively new goal compared to more traditional objectives such as bank stabilization, ecosystem enhancement or riparian zone management (Bernhardt et al, 2005), and little guidance is available to guide stream restoration design for purposes of improving N removal from the channel (Craig et al, 2008;Veraart et al, 2014;Johnson et al, 2015).…”

Section: Excess Nitrogen and Stream Restorationmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration Efforts

Cited by 1,640 publications

References 12 publications

Streamflow distribution of non–point source nitrogen export from urban‐rural catchments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed

Streamflow distribution of non–point source nitrogen export from urban‐rural catchments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed

Avaliação Da Qualidade Da Água Nos Córregos Fazzari E Monjolinho No Campus Da Ufscar

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About