These files are for public download and are freely distributable. Files are changed periodically and old files are removed from our server.

A Categorization of Approaches to Natural Channel Design
"Because the developing industry of natural channel design lacks a standard approach to design (Miller and Skidmore in process), and indeed commonly embraces approaches that limit the integrity of channel design, a more comprehensive understanding of the spectrum of approaches to design is warranted. Contemporary research and development of channel design methodologies (Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG), 1998, Watson et al. 1999, Soar et al. 2001) indicate that no single approach is appropriate for all project conditions or objectives. While these studies imply recent convergence of common approaches, previous adoption of common practices has resulted more from effective marketing techniques than from repeated success in implementation and universal applicability or acceptance."
Skidmore, Peter B; F Douglas Shields, Martin W Doyle, and Dale E Miller; 2001: A Categorization of Approaches to Natural Channel Design; ASCE River Restoration Conference, Reno, NV.

Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects
Copeland, Ronald R, Dinah N McComas, Colin R Thorne, Philip J Soar, Meg M Jonas, and Jon B Fripp, 2001 Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects (ERDC/CHL TR-01-28) US Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS.

Design for Stream Restoration
"Existing design approaches range from relatively simple ones based on stream classification and regional hydraulic geometry relations to more complex two- and three-dimensional numerical models. Herein an intermediate approach featuring application of hydraulic engineering tools for assessment of watershed geomorphology, channel-forming discharge analysis, and hydraulic analysis in the form of one-dimensional flow and sediment transport computations is described."
Shields, F D, R R Copeland, P C Klingeman, M W Doyle, and A Simon; 2003 (August); Journal of Hydraulic Engineering; 129, 8: 575-584.

Should River Restoration Be Based on Classification Schemes or Process Models? (Insights from the History of Geomorphology)
"The combination of our results, along with those of previous studies, suggests that assuming similarities between Qbf, Q2, and Qeff is not necessarily valid. The assumption that these measures of Qdom will be similar has become somewhat common in the U.S., as Qbf is often a central linchpin upon which other geomorphic parameters are based (e.g., Williams, 1986; Rosgen, 1994)."
Doyle M W, D E Miller, and J M Harbor; 1999; ASCE International Conference on Water Resources Engineering, Seattle, Washington.

An examination of the Rosgen classification of natural rivers
"Thus, Rosgen has extended his classification beyond its use as a communications tool and into the realm of predicting fluvial process. If such an extrapolation is to be pursued, it must be demonstrated that the criteria upon which the classification is based have geomorphic significance. We will argue in the following paragraphs that the Rosgen Classification, as it has come to be known, fails this critical test. Moreover, the use of the Rosgen Classification to adequately predict geomorphic response(s) to system perturbations runs contrary to much of the geomorphic literature published during the past several decades, as will be shown below."
Miller J R and J B Ritter; 1996; Catena; 27: 295-299.

Natural Channel Design at the University of Guelph
"Rosgen's stream classification system for natural channel design (NCD) is used extensively, sometimes leading to problems through misapplication. Disseminated through short courses on geomorphology for nongeomorphologist practitioners, this system categorises stream types in bands, and may be inappropriately applied by some practitioners in a manner akin to a biological classification system. Although providing a systematic framework for defining stream types and examining restoration approaches, the Rosgen NCD classification system is often inadequate as it is not process based, and may over-simplify stream type and behaviour. Key geomorphic parameters are often ignored in this system, which tends to emphasise stability rather than to recognise natural stream processes and provide for a dynamic system."
Kapitzke, Ross; 2003; Appendix C(4): Agencies, people and sites visited in Canada (Alberta & Ontario); Land and Water Australia Project JCU 15; Travelling Fellowship Report.

Seasonality of Flooding in North Carolina
"Annual Floods. Figure 1 shows that the frequency of annual floods occurring in different seasons varies with drainage area. In particular, the smallest watersheds (<100 km2) have distinctly different seasonal characteristics (a higher frequency of annual floods in summer and/or fall for all cluster groups) from basins with larger drainage areas. Because this may influence the distribution of clusters, the small watersheds were eliminated from consideration. In the far western portion of the state (west of the crest of the Appalachian Mountains), the distribution of annual floods is strongly unimodal (Fig. 2, Cluster A1). Annual floods occur most frequently in winter and spring, while few occur from May - November. Low monthly frequencies in May to November and high flood frequencies in December distinguish these stations from those in Clusters A2 and A3. The stations in Cluster A2 are grouped on the eastern flank of the Appalachians and in the upper Piedmont. These stations display a more uniform distribution of floods through the year, with the highest frequencies occurring in late winter and early spring, and a secondary period of higher frequencies occurring from August to October. The seasonal distribution of annual floods for stations in Cluster A3 (lower Piedmont and Coastal Plain) is more bimodal, displaying the highest frequencies in late winter and early spring, as well as higher frequencies from August - October. Few floods occur in May - June and November - December."
Lecce, S A; 2000 (November); Southeastern Geographer; XXXXI, 2: 168-175.

A comparison of the watershed hydrology of coastal forested wetlands and the mountainous uplands in the Southern US
Sun G; S G McNulty, D M Amatya, R W Skaggs, L W Swift Jr, J P Shepard, and H Riekerk; 2002; Journal of Hydrology; 263: 92-104.