Outdated Publication, for historical use. CAUTION: Recommendations in this publication may be obsolete.

Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service Kansas State University, Division of Biology Kansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks STREAMBANK REVETMENT

1 Outdated Publication, for historical use. CAUTION: Recommendations in this publication may be obsolete.

Introduction

Streambank erosion is a naturally occurring process in streams and rivers throughout the United States. Accelerated streambank erosion occurs when natural events or human activities cause a higher than expected amount of erosion, and is typically a result of reduced or eliminated riparian (streamside) vegetation. The removal of riparian vegetation is the primary factor influenc- ing streambank stability. Historically, channel straightening (channelization) was the primary method used to control streambank erosion. However, since the 1970s, riparian and in-stream habitat restoration by natural or artificial meth- ods has grown in popularity because channel- ization typically caused problems, such as ero- sion and flooding dowstream. Natural resource agencies throughout the Midwest have been using tree revetments as one type of streambank stabilization structure.

What are tree revetments?

Tree revetments are a series of trees laid in the stream along the eroding bank. They are de- signed to reduce water velocity, increase siltation within the trees, and reduce slumping of the streambank. Tree revetments are not designed to permanently stabilize eroding streambanks. They should stabilize the streambank until other stabi- lization techniques, such as tree plantings in the riparian area become established. Tree revet- ments are not designed to fix problems at a watershed level. Tree revetments should only be used if good land management practices are applied in the watershed, for example fencing riparian areas from cattle use, maintaining buffer strips between streams and row crops, or terrac- ing highly erodible row-crop fields.

2 Outdated Publication, for historical use. CAUTION: Recommendations in this publication may be obsolete.

How are tree revetments constructed?

Tree revetments are constructed by anchoring finely branched trees, like eastern red cedar at the bottom of an unstable streambank. Installation starts at the downstream end of the eroded bank—at a point where the bank is stable. Each tree is placed into the stream with the cut end pointing upstream. Trees are overlapped approxi- mately one-third and are anchored twice using a Duck- bill Anchor. Construction continues until the entire eroded surface is covered and the tree revetment is secured at a stable point upstream.

What did this research document? KINGS CREEK 18 The purpose of this research was to determine 16 Sample in 1994 prior to tree revetment installation at tree revetment locations. what effects tree revetments had on erosion and 14 Sample in 1996 deposition within a stream, and how these pro- 12 cesses influenced stream fishes and aquatic 10 insects. The study was conducted on Kings Creek 8 6 (Riley County) and West Creek (Greenwood 4

County), Kansas from 1994 through 1996. Revet- 2 ment sites were chosen in conjunction with the HEIGHT OF STREAMBANK (FEET) 0 0 10203040506070 Kansas Forest Service, Kansas State University DISTANCE (FEET) Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service and Kansas Department of ■ The control sites all had well-developed Wildlife and Parks. Each revetment site was riparian corridors, as shown in the photo compared to two control sites, one upstream and above. There was little change in the one downstream from the tree revetment loca- channel cross-section at the controls sites tion. While the controls had similar cross-sections from 1994 to 1996, as shown by the to the tree revetment sites, they were different representative cross-section in the graph. because they had well-developed riparian corri- dors. Therefore, if similar results were found among the controls and tree revetment sites, it was concluded that the tree revetments were functioning similar to a stable streambank with a well-developed riparian corridor.

3 Outdated Publication, for historical use. CAUTION: Recommendations in this publication may be obsolete.

WEST CREEK (PRE-TREE REVETMENT INSTALLATION) WEST CREEK 30 30

Pre-Tree Revetment (Winter ‘94) 25 25 Post-Tree Revetment (Spring ‘96) 20 20

15 15

Tree Revetment 10 10

5 5 HEIGHT OF STREAMBANK (FEET) HEIGHT OF STREAMBANK (FEET) 0 0 0 102030405060 0 102030405060 DISTANCE (FEET) DISTANCE (FEET)

■ The tree revetment sites lacked a riparian ■ After tree revetment installation, banks corridor and had accelerated erosion became more gradual and the main problems, as shown in the photo above. channel of the stream was moved away The corresponding graph shows the from the eroding bank, protecting the eroding outside bend at 26 feet in height. streambank from excessive erosion. The corresponding graph illustrates how the slope of the eroding streambank decreased, and how silt increased within the tree revetment.

4 Outdated Publication, for historical use. CAUTION: Recommendations in this publication may be obsolete.

KINGS CREEK Downstream Control 15 Tree Revetment Upstream Control

12

9

6

3 NUMBER OF FISH SPECIES

0 WINTER ‘94 SPRING ‘95 SUMMER ‘95 FALL ‘95 SPRING ‘96 PRE TREE REVETMENT POST TREE REVETMENT SAMPLES SAMPLE

WEST CREEK Downstream Control 25 Tree Revetment Upstream Control

20

15

10

5 NUMBER OF FISH SPECIES

0 WINTER ‘94 SPRING ‘95 SUMMER ‘95 SPRING ‘96 PRE TREE REVETMENT POST TREE REVETMENT SAMPLES SAMPLE

■ The number of fish species present at ■ Central stoneroller (top photo) were the Kings Creek and West Creek was not most abundant fish present in Kings related to the establishment of the tree Creek. Central stonerollers are common in revetments. This is evident by the lack of streams through eastern Kansas. Central a distinct pattern in number of fish stonerollers feed primarily on algae and species present among the controls and micro-organisms associated with the tree revetment location. streambottom. Central stonerollers only get 6 to 8 inches long. ■ Orangespotted sunfish were the most abundant fish present in West Creek. Orangespotted sunfish are in the same family of fish as bluegill and crappie, and usually feed on small aquatic insects and other fish. Orangespotted sunfish do not grow much larger than 6 inches.

5 Outdated Publication, for historical use. CAUTION: Recommendations in this publication may be obsolete.

KINGS CREEK Downstream Control WEST CREEK Downstream Control 35 Tree Revetment 10 Tree Revetment Upstream Control Upstream Control 30 8 25

6 20

15 4

10 2 5 CATCH OF CENTRAL STONEROLLERS 0 CATCH OF ORANGESPOTTED SUNFISH 0 WINTER ‘94 SPRING ‘95 SUMMER ‘95 FALL ‘95 SPRING ‘96 WINTER ‘94 SPRING ‘95 SUMMER ‘95 SPRING ‘96 PRE TREE PRE TREE REVETMENT POST TREE REVETMENT SAMPLES REVETMENT POST TREE REVETMENT SAMPLES SAMPLE SAMPLE

KINGS CREEK Downstream Control WEST CREEK Downstream Control Tree Revetment Tree Revetment Upstream Control Upstream Control 3.0 2.0

2.5 1.5 2.0

1.5 1.0

1.0 0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0 WINTER ‘94 SPRING ‘95 SUMMER ‘95 FALL ‘95 SPRING ‘96 WINTER ‘94 SPRING ‘95 SUMMER ‘95 SPRING ‘96 PRE TREE PRE TREE

AVERAGE LENGTH (IN.) OF CENTRAL STONEROLLERS REVETMENT POST TREE REVETMENT SAMPLES REVETMENT POST TREE REVETMENT SAMPLES

SAMPLE AVERAGE LENGTH (IN.) OF ORANGESPOTTED SUNFISH SAMPLE

■ Catch of central stoneroller declined ■ Catch of orangespotted sunfish declined slightly after installation of the tree at all locations after installation of the revetment at the tree revetment and tree revetment. Similar to catch of central upstream control locations. Thus, it is stonerollers in Kings Creek, catch of likely that catch of central stonerollers orangespotted sunfish was not influenced was influenced by a factor other than the by the tree revetment. Average length of tree revetment. Average length of central orangespotted sunfish remained similar at stonerollers remained similar at all all locations before and after installation of locations before and after installation of the tree revetment. the tree revetment.

6 Outdated Publication, for historical use. CAUTION: Recommendations in this publication may be obsolete.

KINGS CREEK Downstream Control KINGS CREEK Downstream Control 0.8 Tree Revetment 2.0 Tree Revetment Upstream Control Upstream Control 0.7

0.6 1.5

0.5

0.4 1.0

0.3 SILTATION (OZ.) 0.2 0.5

0.1

0.0 0.0 DIVERSITY INDEX FOR AQUATIC INSECTS WINTER ‘94 SPRING ‘95 SUMMER ‘95 FALL ‘95 SPRING ‘96 WINTER ‘94 SPRING ‘95 SUMMER ‘95 FALL ‘95 SPRING ‘96 PRE TREE PRE TREE REVETMENT POST TREE REVETMENT SAMPLES REVETMENT POST TREE REVETMENT SAMPLES SAMPLE SAMPLE

WEST CREEK Downstream Control WEST CREEK Downstream Control Tree Revetment Tree Revetment Upstream Control Upstream Control 0.8 1.0

0.7 0.8 0.6

0.5 0.6 0.4

0.3 0.4

0.2 SILTATION (OZ.) 0.2 0.1

0.0 0.0

DIVERSITY INDEX FOR AQUATIC INSECTS WINTER ‘94 SPRING ‘95 SUMMER ‘95 SPRING ‘96 WINTER ‘94 SPRING ‘95 SUMMER ‘95 SPRING ‘96 PRE TREE PRE TREE REVETMENT POST TREE REVETMENT SAMPLES REVETMENT POST TREE REVETMENT SAMPLES SAMPLE SAMPLE

■ Diversity of aquatic insects was variable ■ The amount of siltation within Kings in Kings Creek and West Creek, but was Creek (left) was generally lower at all not related to the tree revetment. Overall, locations after installation of the tree the tree revetments had no effect on the revetment. Conversely, siltation increased diversity of aquatic insects present. in West Creek at the tree revetment location after installation. This is likely caused by the tree revetments trapping sediment. Sediment trapping did not occur on Kings Creek because the tree revetment was slightly above the water level during normal flow.

7 Outdated Publication, for historical use. CAUTION: Recommendations in this publication may be obsolete.

Summary Will tree revetments stop erosion? Yes, results from this study have shown that localized streambank Control locations had well-established riparian corridors and erosion can be reduced by tree revetments. However, to stop represented areas with little streambank erosion. Therefore, if erosion for a long period of time (i.e., greater than 10 years), tree revetment locations were similar to control locations, we other methods must also be used, like large-scale watershed would conclude that tree revetments stabilized banks compa- restoration, revegetation of the riparian corridor, maintaining rable to areas with well-established riparian corridors. In buffer strips between row crops and the stream, and fencing general, tree revetments did not differ from control locations, cattle out of the stream. thus, tree revetments appear to stabilize streambank erosion. Do tree revetments clean the water? Similarly, this research suggests that tree revetments do not Water quality is generally related to problems in the watershed enhance or reduce stream fish and aquatic insect communities. It and typically tree revetments will not improve the overall water is likely that tree revetments can reduce localized sedimentation quality of a stream. The most appropriate way to improve water by trapping bank sluff behind the revetment. quality is to practice wise land use at the watershed level. This study was conducted for two years and applied on two Where can I get technical and financial assistance? streams. In addition, tree revetments were placed above the Contact your local conservation district office, Kansas Depart- water-level at normal flow. It is likely that results may vary ment of Wildlife and Parks District Biologist, Kansas Forest given different conditions. Nevertheless, the highest flood Service, or K-State Research and Extension for additional recorded at Kings Creek occurred during 1995 and the tree information on tree-revetments, cost-share opportunities, or revetment reduced the erosion potential of the flood. Tree technical assistance. revetments can provide short-term relief from streambank erosion until good land management practices are made in the Where can I get additional information about tree revetments watershed. and other streambank stabilization techniques? ■ Tree Revetments for Streambank Stabilization. Missouri Frequently Asked Questions Department of Conservation, Streams for the Future, Fisheries Division. As tree revetments increase in popularity many landowners and ■ Wetland & Riparian Best Management Practices For Kansas managers are asking a number of questions, such as: No. 2—Tree Revetments. Wetland & Riparian Areas Program. How long will the tree revetment last? K-State Research and Extension, Kansas Forest Service and It is unknown exactly how long a tree revetment will last. It has Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks. ■ been estimated to be about 10 to 15 years. However, this will Wetland & Riparian Best Management Practices For Kansas depend on how often the trees are in and out of the water. No. 4—Willow Cutting. Wetland & Riparian Areas Program. K-State Research and Extension, Kansas Forest Service and What type of tree should be used in tree revetments? Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks. Trees with many fine branches are the best at slowing nearbank ■ Wetland & Riparian Best Management Practices For Kansas currents, catching sediment carried in the stream, and catching No. 7—Tree and Shrub Planting. Wetland & Riparian Areas slump material from the bank. For this reason, Eastern red cedar Program. K-State Research and Extension, Kansas Forest is usually the best choice. Eastern red cedar is also more resistant Service and Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks. to decay than hardwood trees. ■ Wetland & Riparian Best Management Practices For Kansas No. 9—Streambank & Shoreline Protection. Wetland & How much maintenance is required? Riparian Areas Program. K-State Research and Extension, The amount of maintenance required for tree revetments is going Kansas Forest Service and Kansas Department of Wildlife and to depend on several factors. For example, the frequency they are Parks. submerged in water, number and frequency of large floods, and ■ Wiens, J.R. 1996. Effects of Tree Revetments on the Abiotic and how well the ends are secured to the streambanks. Biotic Components in Two Kansas Streams. M.S. Thesis, Will tree revetments affect the fish community? Kansas State University, Manhattan. 90 pp. The results from this study show that fish communities are not Authors: Jennifer R. Weins, Graduate Research Assistant, Division of adversely affected by tree revetments. Biology, Christopher S. Guy, Adjunct Assistant Professor, Division of Biology, Charles D. Lee, Extension Specialist, Wildlife, Animal Sciences Are permits required to install tree revetments? & Industry Whether special permits are required or not will depend upon The authors offer appreciation to F. Robert Henderson for what county and state you are in. It is best to contact the U.S. granting access to West Creek, Ron Klataske for granting access Army Corps of Engineers, and your state Division of Water to Kings Creek, and Konza Prairie Research Natural Area for Resources. allowing access to Kings Creek.

D STA ITE T N ES

U

E ¥ ¥

Y N C

Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station V

N I

R The information in this document has been funded wholly or E

O

G and Cooperative Extension Service N A M in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. E N N O T I A CT MF-2294 September 1997 L PROTE It is the policy of Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and The research was conducted at Kansas State University, Division of Cooperative Extension Service that all persons shall have equal opportunity and Biology, Kansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. The Kansas access to its educational programs, services, activities, and materials without Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit is jointly supported by the regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age or disability. Kansas State Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, Kansas State University, U.S. University is an equal opportunity organization. Issued in furtherance of Coopera- Geological Survey—Biological Resources Division, and the Wildlife tive Extension Work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, as amended. Kansas State Management Institute. University, County Extension Councils, Extension Districts, and United States Department of Agriculture Cooperating, Marc A. Johnson, Director. This and other publications from Kansas State University are available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.oznet.ksu.edu File code: Engineering 4-2 9-97—2M 8 Contents of this publication may be freely reproduced for educational purposes. All other rights reserved. In each case, credit Jennifer R. Wiens, Christopher S. Guy, Charles D. Lee, Streambank Revetment, Kansas State University, September 1997.