• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文会议>World environmental and water resources congress >Comparison of Empirical and Analytical Physical Assessment Approaches for Stream Restoration: A Case Study on Abrams Creek, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee
【24h】

Comparison of Empirical and Analytical Physical Assessment Approaches for Stream Restoration: A Case Study on Abrams Creek, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee

机译：河流恢复的经验性和分析性物理评估方法的比较：以田纳西州大烟山国家公园艾布拉姆斯河为例

获取原文
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

A physical assessment approach referred to as natural channel design (NCD) iscommonly used today by stream restoration practitioners, which requires an empiricalbasedcomparison between study and reference reaches. Use of available analyticaltools, or models, into pre-design physical assessments is not widely applied, anapproach that does not require a reference condition. As a case study, a comparison ofempirical and analytical approaches was conducted on Abrams Creek, located in theGreat Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM), Tennessee. Historically, the AbramsCreek valley was used for subsistence agriculture beginning in the 19th century, andcattle grazing more recently between the 1930's and 1960's. Several tributaries and afew mainstem sections were channelized for agricultural purposes. GRSM resourcemanagers requested that a channel stability assessment be conducted to evaluatewhether restoration was needed because a consulting group was promoting a project onAbrams Creek in order to obtain mitigation credits. This study provided an opportunityto compare geomorphic data input/outputs used in NCD and analytical approaches.The NCD approach utilized stream classification and various geomorphic channelattributes at "bankfull" for a departure-type analysis. The analytical approach utilizedHEC-RAS and CONCEPTS models. Supporting these approaches, assessment ofchannel condition also included: aerial photo interpretation, rapid geomorphicassessments for stability indices, and longitudinal profile knickpoint analysis. Some ofthe findings included: 1) bankfull flow was greatly overestimated by the empiricalapproach, whereas HEC-RAS with a hydrological analysis provided a more reasonableestimate, 2) a departure analysis found that C4 study and reference reaches were similarfor most geomorphic attributes, except for channel slope and bank material, whichmade restoration needs difficult to discern, and 3) CONCEPTS provided usefulinformation on bed aggradation/degradation and bank failure rates, whereas the NCDapproach could not. In addition, similarities and differences of data input needs, andwhere professional judgment influences assessment outcomes were identified to betterunderstand uncertainties associated with outcomes for both assessment approaches.
机译：一种称为自然渠道设计（NCD）的物理评估方法是 如今，流恢复从业人员普遍使用，这需要基于经验的 研究范围和参考范围之间的比较。使用可用的分析 设计前的物理评估中使用的工具或模型并未得到广泛应用， 不需要参考条件的方法。作为案例研究，比较 实证和分析方法是在位于艾布拉姆斯河（Abrams Creek）的 田纳西州大烟山国家公园（GRSM）。历史上，艾布拉姆斯 从19世纪开始，小河谷就被用于维持生计的农业，而 在1930到1960年代之间最近放牧的牛。几个支流和一个 很少有干渠部分被用于农业目的。 GRSM资源 经理要求进行渠道稳定性评估以评估 是否需要恢复，因为一个咨询小组正在推动一项有关 艾布拉姆斯河为了获得减免信用。这项研究提供了机会 比较NCD和分析方法中使用的地貌数据输入/输出。 NCD方法利用流分类和各种地貌通道 属性在“ bankfull”处进行离场类型分析。使用的分析方法 HEC-RAS和CONCEPTS模型。支持这些方法，评估 通道条件还包括：航空照片解释，快速地貌 评估稳定性指标和纵向剖面拐点分析。一些 研究结果包括：1）实证研究大大高估了银行的全流量。 方法，而采用水文分析的HEC-RAS提供了更合理的方法 估计，2）偏离分析发现C4研究和参考范围相似 对于大多数地貌属性，除了河道坡度和堤岸材料外， 使得恢复需求难以辨认，并且3）提供的概念很有用 关于床的凝结/降解和银行故障率的信息，而NCD 方法不能。此外，数据输入需求的异同，以及 更好地确定专业判断会影响评估结果的地方 了解两种评估方法都与结果相关的不确定性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号