MEANDER RESTORATION
bar
 


1. CATEGORY

1.0 – River Training

2. DESIGN STATUS

Level II

3. ALSO KNOWN AS

Bendway restoration, re-meandering, channel reconstruction.

4. DESCRIPTION

Meanders are broad, looping (sinuous) bends in a stream channel. Meandering is a form of slope adjustment with more sinuous channel paths leading to decreased reach slope. Fluvial and ecological functions are integrally related to the highly diverse spatial and temporal patterns of depth, velocity, bed material and cover found in meanders. Meander restoration consists of reconstructing meandering channels that have been straightened by humans.

5. PURPOSE

Historically, thousands of channels have been straightened to facilitate construction of roadways, bridges, and other types of transportation facilities. In some cases, ecological functions may be restored by returning the channel to a new or previous alignment. Meandering alignments may also increase visual diversity and may be perceived as more natural.

If the existing channel is eroding, particularly due to excessive channel bed slope, relocation into a new, meandering alignment may ameliorate bed erosion processes. However, new erosion along the outer (concave) bank is likely, and site-specific problems are also possible, depending upon local flow and drainage patterns and soils encountered by the new channel.

6. PLANNING

Useful for Erosion Processes:
Toe erosion with upper bank failure
Scour of middle and upper banks by currents
Local scour
Erosion of local lenses or layers of noncohesive sediment
Erosion by overbank runoff
General bed degradation
Headcutting
Piping
Erosion by navigation waves
Erosion by wind waves
Erosion by ice and debris gouging
General bank instability or susceptibility to mass slope failure

Spatial Application:
Instream
Toe
Midbank
Top of Bank

Hydrologic / Geomorphic Setting
Resistive
  Redirective
Continuous
  Discontinuous
  Outer Bend
  Inner Bend
  Incision
Lateral Migration
  Aggradation

Conditions Where Practice Applies:

Meander restoration is useful when channels have been straightened, channelized or relocated by man. Land area is needed to re-establish the meandering right of way and valley topography must be consistent with meander re-establishment. In many cases, channel straightening is associated with channel deepening due to channelization or incision, and the beds of old meanders are several meters higher than current channel beds.

Complexity:

High, due to the difficulty of predicting erosion and deposition.

Design Guidelines / Typical Drawings:

Design of meander restorations requires careful analysis of erosion and sedimentation issues. Shields (1996) reviews four methods for designing meander restorations. Since increasing channel sinuosity also decreases bed slope, careful analysis of sedimentation and erosion issues is required to insure the stability and/or adequate low flow conveyance of the new channel and adjacent reaches. In some cases, it may prove wise to excavate a new, meandering channel, but allow several years for vegetation to develop on the banks prior to diverting flows into the new channel. Otherwise, structural erosion protection may be required. If the existing channel provides a shorter, steeper path for high flows, structural measures may also be required to prevent recapture of the stream by erosion of the fill in the old channel entrance during high flows.

Meander Restoration Typical Drawing
7. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS / BENEFITS

Few natural channels are straight, and stream corridor communities are adjusted to the physical patterns typical of meanders (FISRWG, 1998). Deep pools usually occur along the concave bank near the apex of the bend, while shallow flows are found in riffles at points of inflection between bends and across the tips of point bars opposite concave banks. Coarse bed material collects at riffles in gravelly streams, providing essential habitat for many types of aquatic animals. Gradual erosion of concave banks injects large woody debris into the channel, while fresh sediment deposits on opposite bars are colonized by pioneering species, triggering successional sequences leading to high levels of plant diversity. Well-designed meandering channels are more stable, provide a greater variety of flow conditions and aquatic habitat diversity, and are visually more appealing than straight channels. The greater variety of flow conditions also enhances recreational boating and rafting opportunities.

8. HYDRAULIC LOADING

Not applicable.

9. COMBINATION OPPORTUNITIES

Large-scale stream corridor restoration, various types of protection and revegetation measures, particularly on the outside of the new bend(s).

10. ADVANTAGES

Meandering alignments are visually appealing, ecologically valuable, and may be more sustainable over the long term than straight alignments that are subject to erosion and deposition because they are not compatible with the hydrology of adjacent reaches.

11. LIMITATIONS

Meander restoration is useful when land is available to re-create meandering alignments for channels that have been previously straightened, realigned, or relocated. Since channel response to meander restoration is difficult to predict with precision, application should be limited to sites where the probability of loss of life or severe damage to adjacent structures due to failure is very small. Furthermore, this technique is poorly suited to unstable (e.g., braided or incising) streams. In most cases, meander restoration should not be attempted unless resources are available for regular maintenance.

12. MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT

Earthmoving equipment or dredge plant is needed to excavate meandering channels.

13. CONSTRUCTION / INSTALLATION

If possible, construction should be scheduled during low flow periods, avoiding sensitive time windows such as spawning or migratory periods. If riparian vegetation is to provide bank stability for the new meandering channel, it may be advantageous to construct the restored meander in the dry and allow several growing seasons for bank vegetation to develop before diverting flow into the new channel.

14. COST

Costs for channel relocation vary with site conditions. Costs for excavation and removal of material to create the new channel are a major factor, but costs for relocations of existing drainage ways and infrastructure facilities may exceed other costs.

15. MAINTENANCE / MONITORING

Restored meanders may be monitored visually and using cross-section and thalweg surveys to insure that physical stability is not threatened by erosion or sedimentation. In some cases, monitoring should extend up- or downstream. Additional monitoring may include physical aquatic habitat, fish, and macroinvertebrates.

16. COMMON REASONS / CIRCUMSTANCES FOR FAILURE

Restored meanders often have lower flow and sediment transport capacity than upstream, straightened reaches. Without frequent maintenance, sediment plugs may form in the restored meander or in the reach immediately upstream. If a stream is diverted from a straight channel into a restored meander, measures such as re-filling the straight channel or constructing sills at the junction of the two channels may be needed to prevent recapture of the stream by the straight channel.

17. CASE STUDIES AND EXAMPLES

Hunt and Graham (1975) provide a description of design of a successful meander restoration on the Clark Fork River in connection with highway construction in Montana (also described by Shields, 1982). Additional cases are described by Brookes and Shields (1996).

Please visit the Photo Gallery for some pictures.

18. RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES

Low-cost techniques are needed for managing discontinuities in sediment transport capacity in stream channels.

19. REFERENCES

Brookes, A., Knight, S. S., & Shields, F. D., Jr. (1996).  River Channel Restoration.  John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, U. K., 103-126.

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG) (1998).  Stream Corridor Restoration:  Principles, Processes, and Practices.   GPO Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A 57.6/2:EN 3/PT.653.  ISBN-0-934213-59-3. (pdf)

Hunt, W. A. & Graham, R. O. (1975).  Evaluation of channel changes for fish habitat.  American Society of Civil Engineers National Convention Meeting Reprint No. 2535, ASCE, New York.

Shields, F. D., Jr. (1982). Environmental features for flood control channels. Technical Report EL 82-7, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 133 pp.

Shields, F. D., Jr. (1996).  Hydraulic and Hydrologic Stability. Chapter 2 in A. Brookes, & F. D. Shields, Jr. (Eds.) River Channel Restoration.  John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, U. K., 103-126.