Comparing Practices between Stream Restoration/Revitalization in the United States and the Czech Republic
John Schwartz, PhD, PE
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee
Authors:
-- John S. Schwartz, University of Tennessee, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Knoxville, Tennessee
-- Tomas Dostal, Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of Hydromelioration and Landscape Engineering, Czech Republic
-- Petr Koudelka. Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of Hydromelioration and Landscape Engineering, Czech Republic
-- Karina Bynum, Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Resources, Cookeville, TN
Much can be learned by comparing approaches to stream restoration design criteria between the United States (US) and the Czech Republic (CZ) where it is termed stream revitalization. The practices of rehabilitating streams in both countries vary based on different histories, watershed governance, cultural perspectives about landscape and nature, and project objectives. The CZ has a history of intensively managed land and water with changes to the drainage network beginning in the 17th century compared relatively to the United States. This history impacts concepts of a reference stream condition. Watershed governance differences where in the US governance multiple agency regulate water resources, and separated among federal, state, and local agencies. In contrast, the CZ has five water (watershed) districts collectively managing floodplain protection, watershed and stream restoration, water withdrawals, channel conveyance, point and non-point pollution control for water quality and ecological health. Differences in history and governance have led to different approaches to design. Stream revitalization in the CZ relies on a non-reference reach approach and hydrological engineering models for multiple flow stages, including floodplain and channel flow capacities. There is a design focus on flow diversification, floodplain connectivity for natural enhancement integrated with flood control/prevention, and ecological stability. In contrast, in the US a reference reach approach has dominated the practice, termed natural channel design, which uses a geomorphic analog and referenced to a visually-determined bankfull stage to estimate flow capacity. Although ecological objectives are often stated in the US, many projects are geomorphic reconstruction with the premise that ecological recovery will occur – often stated as “build it and they will come.” Differences in restoration/revitalization approaches between the US and CZ are largely founded in design criteria for planform and floodplain geomorphology, and habitat considerations. Practices in both countries are supported differently through training. In the CZ, training is dominated by the academic community and supported by professional workshops, whereas in the US training is dominated by Rosgen courses. By comparing US restoration and CZ revitalization, viewing the practices through different cultural lenses, this presentation describes the potential for improvements to both design frameworks.
About John Schwartz, PhD, PE
Dr. John Schwartz is a Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Tennessee – Knoxville, and the Director of the Tennessee Water Resources Research Center. He joined the CEE Department at UT in 2003 focusing on research in areas of water resources engineering, water quality, and stream restoration. He received his BS in Civil Engineering from the University of Missouri Columbia in 1982, his MS in Fisheries Science at Oregon State University in 1991, and his PhD from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign in 2002. In addition to academia, Dr. Schwartz has worked in both the public and private sectors including US EPA in Region 6 in NDDES Enforcement, and Oregon consulting firms.