Geology topics

Mathias J. Collins

Publications and source records attributed to Mathias J. Collins.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2020

River channel response to dam removals on the lower Penobscot River, Maine, United States

Most geomorphology studies of dam removals have focused on sites with appreciable quantities of stored sediments. There is great interest in channel responses to sediment releases because of potential effects on aquatic and riparian habitats and human uses of these areas. Yet, behind many dams in the Northeast U.S. and other regions of the world only minor accumulations of sediment are present because of small impoundments, run‐of‐river dam design and management (inflow ≈ outflow), low watershed sediment yield, and/or channel beds dominated by coarse sediment and/or bedrock. The two lowermost dams on the Penobscot River in Maine, United States, removed in 2012–2013, exemplified those conditions. Great Works and Veazie dams were about 6 and 10 m high, respectively. Pre‐project geophysical surveys showed coarse substrates dominated the reservoir beds and little sediment was stored in either impoundment—functions of reach geology, late Quaternary history, and upstream dams. Repeat cross‐section surveys in each impoundment, as well as the upstream and downstream reaches, were completed from 2009 to 2015 to evaluate channel morphology responses to the removals. Bed‐sediment grain size and turbidity were also measured to characterize changes in bed texture and suspended sediment. Pre‐ and post‐removal survey comparisons confirmed the expectation that bed elevations, channel shapes, and channel positions would not change substantially. Changes were often within, or close to, our estimated random measurement error. Our study shows that large‐scale physical changes are likely to be minimal when impoundments storing relatively little sediment are removed from erosion‐resistant streambeds. Many dams eligible for removal have these characteristics, making these observations an important case study that is largely unrepresented in the dam removal literature.

Maine↗

USGS2017

Dam removal: Listening in

Dam removal is widely used as an approach for river restoration in the United States. The increase in dam removals—particularly large dams—and associated dam-removal studies over the last few decades motivated a working group at the USGS John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis to review and synthesize available studies of dam removals and their findings. Based on dam removals thus far, some general conclusions have emerged: (1) physical responses are typically fast, with the rate of sediment erosion largely dependent on sediment characteristics and dam-removal strategy; (2) ecological responses to dam removal differ among the affected upstream, downstream, and reservoir reaches; (3) dam removal tends to quickly reestablish connectivity, restoring the movement of material and organisms between upstream and downstream river reaches; (4) geographic context, river history, and land use significantly influence river restoration trajectories and recovery potential because they control broader physical and ecological processes and conditions; and (5) quantitative modeling capability is improving, particularly for physical and broad-scale ecological effects, and gives managers information needed to understand and predict long-term effects of dam removal on riverine ecosystems. Although these studies collectively enhance our understanding of how riverine ecosystems respond to dam removal, knowledge gaps remain because most studies have been short (< 5 years) and do not adequately represent the diversity of dam types, watershed conditions, and dam-removal methods in the U.S.

Water Resources Research↗

USGS2017

Channel response to sediment release: insights from a paired analysis of dam removal

Dam removals with unmanaged sediment releases are good opportunities to learn about channel response to abruptly increased bed material supply. Understanding these events is important because they affect aquatic habitats and human uses of floodplains. A longstanding paradigm in geomorphology holds that response rates to landscape disturbance exponentially decay through time. However, a previous study of the Merrimack Village Dam (MVD) removal on the Souhegan River in New Hampshire, USA, showed that an exponential function poorly described the early geomorphic response. Erosion of impounded sediments there was two-phased. We had an opportunity to quantitatively test the two-phase response model proposed for MVD by extending the record there and comparing it with data from the Simkins Dam removal on the Patapsco River in Maryland, USA. The watershed sizes are the same order of magnitude (10 2 km 2 ), and at both sites low-head dams were removed (~3–4 m) and ~65 000 m 3 of sand-sized sediments were discharged to low-gradient reaches. Analyzing four years of repeat morphometry and sediment surveys at the Simkins site, as well as continuous discharge and turbidity data, we observed the two-phase erosion response described for MVD. In the early phase, approximately 50% of the impounded sediment at Simkins was eroded rapidly during modest flows. After incision to base level and widening, a second phase began when further erosion depended on floods large enough to go over bank and access impounded sediments more distant from the newly-formed channel. Fitting functional forms to the data for both sites, we found that two-phase exponential models with changing decay constants fit the erosion data better than single-phase models. Valley width influences the two-phase erosion responses upstream, but downstream responses appear more closely related to local gradient, sediment re-supply from the upstream impoundments, and base flows.

Maryland↗

USGS2016

Status and trends of dam removal research in the United States

Aging infrastructure coupled with growing interest in river restoration has driven a dramatic increase in the practice of dam removal. With this increase, there has been a proliferation of studies that assess the physical and ecological responses of rivers to these removals. As more dams are considered for removal, scientific information from these dam-removal studies will increasingly be called upon to inform decisions about whether, and how best, to bring down dams. This raises a critical question: what is the current state of dam-removal science in the United States? To explore the status, trends, and characteristics of dam-removal research in the U.S., we searched the scientific literature and extracted basic information from studies on dam removal. Our literature review illustrates that although over 1200 dams have been removed in the U.S., fewer than 10% have been scientifically evaluated, and most of these studies were short in duration ( < 4 years) and had limited (1–2 years) or no pre-removal monitoring. The majority of studies focused on hydrologic and geomorphic responses to removal rather than biological and water-quality responses, and few studies were published on linkages between physical and ecological components. Our review illustrates the need for long-term, multidisciplinary case studies, with robust study designs, in order to anticipate the effects of dam removal and inform future decision making.

WIREs Water↗

USGS2016

Synthesis of common management concerns associated with dam removal

Managers make decisions regarding if and how to remove dams in spite of uncertainty surrounding physical and ecological responses, and stakeholders often raise concerns about certain negative effects, regardless of whether or not these concerns are warranted at a particular site. We used a dam-removal science database supplemented with other information sources to explore seven frequently-raised concerns, herein Common Management Concerns (CMCs). We investigate the occurrence of these concerns and the contributing biophysical controls. The CMCs addressed are: degree and rate of reservoir sediment erosion, excessive channel incision upstream of reservoirs, downstream sediment aggradation, elevated downstream turbidity, drawdown impacts on local water infrastructure, colonization of reservoir sediments by non-native plants, and expansion of invasive fish. Biophysical controls emerged for some of the concerns, providing managers with information to assess whether a given concern is likely to occur at a site. To fully assess CMC risk, managers should concurrently evaluate site conditions and identify the ecosystem or human uses that will be negatively affected if the biophysical phenomenon producing the CMC occurs. We show how many CMCs have one or more controls in common, facilitating the identification of multiple risks at a site, and demonstrate why CMC risks should be considered in the context of other factors like natural watershed variability and disturbance history.

Journal of the American Water Resources Associatio↗

USGS2015

Incorporating climate change projections into riparian restoration planning and design

Climate change and associated changes in streamflow may alter riparian habitats substantially in coming decades. Riparian restoration provides opportunities to respond proactively to projected climate change effects, increase riparian ecosystem resilience to climate change, and simultaneously address effects of both climate change and other human disturbances. However, climate change may alter which restoration methods are most effective and which restoration goals can be achieved. Incorporating climate change into riparian restoration planning and design is critical to long-term restoration of desired community composition and ecosystem services. In this review, we discuss and provide examples of how climate change might be incorporated into restoration planning at the key stages of assessing the project context, establishing restoration goals and design criteria, evaluating design alternatives, and monitoring restoration outcomes. Restoration planners have access to numerous tools to predict future climate, streamflow, and riparian ecology at restoration sites. Planners can use those predictions to assess which species or ecosystem services will be most vulnerable under future conditions, and which sites will be most suitable for restoration. To accommodate future climate and streamflow change, planners may need to adjust methods for planting, invasive species control, channel and floodplain reconstruction, and water management. Given the considerable uncertainty in future climate and streamflow projections, riparian ecological responses, and effects on restoration outcomes, planners will need to consider multiple potential future scenarios, implement a variety of restoration methods, design projects with flexibility to adjust to future conditions, and plan to respond adaptively to unexpected change.

Ecohydrology↗

USGS2012

Developing a national stream morphology data exchange: needs, challenges, and opportunities

Stream morphology data, primarily consisting of channel and foodplain geometry and bed material size measurements, historically have had a wide range of applications and uses including culvert/ bridge design, rainfall- runoff modeling, food inundation mapping (e.g., U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency food insurance studies), climate change studies, channel stability/sediment source investigations, navigation studies, habitat assessments, and landscape change research. The need for stream morphology data in the United States, and thus the quantity of data collected, has grown substantially over the past 2 decades because of the expanded interests of resource management agencies in watershed management and restoration. The quantity of stream morphology data collected has also increased because of state-of-the-art technologies capable of rapidly collecting high-resolution data over large areas with heretofore unprecedented precision. Despite increasing needs for and the expanding quantity of stream morphology data, neither common reporting standards nor a central data archive exist for storing and serving these often large and spatially complex data sets. We are proposing an open- access data exchange for archiving and disseminating stream morphology data.

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union↗