Macro Intervention: The Kraut Creek, Boone, NC

The Kraut Creek restoration project was initiated in 1995 as an integral part of a larger project pursued by Appalachian State University to replace its central energy plant, relocate its baseball stadium, realign Rivers Street, and to create a new entrance into their Campus (Hobbs, 2006).  There had been little to no research at that time done on stream restoration so this project represents an educated attempt to recreate a mountain stream in a high density downtown environment.



The creek was originally channelized in the mid 1960s resulting in frequent high velocity flooding.  The damage and repair costs associated with this condition encouraged the University to seek a long-term solution.  This solution involved a revolutionary idea at the time:  daylighting the stream.


As one of the pioneer attempts to balance art and science on a malfunctioning urban stream, this project looked to:  meander the stream to increase sinuosity to control velocity and to mimic the mountain stream context, carefully place wiers for function, visual effects, grade transition, and to create a step pool system.


Although in its infancy at the time, stream restoration, or daylighting as it was called then, was the lynch pin of this project.   A study was done of surrounding streams and a functional and esthetically pleasing stream was created.  Important features such as meander and step pools were incorporated.  The floodplain was sculpted to reduce velocity and spread the water flow.  When it wasn’t flooded, these areas form passive use and visually amenable experiences.


As a gateway to the University, this space links the downtown where many students reside to places where they attend classes.  It features two well used bus stops and tennis courts.  These amenities provide a desirable place to see and be seen and help to activate the park.  All of these nodes create a vibrant and well used park.  In addition, internal activity is created by a pedestrian loop trail.  Surrounding mountain stream morphology was analyzed and recreated with this design.  Native plants were also used to help recreate the sense of surrounding mountain  character.


As part of the gateway creation aesthetics and function meld to provide a balance between pedestrian circulation and recreation.  The quality of the aesthetic experience as well as the functionality of the floodplain design and trail layout help to create a picturesque mountain identity for Appalachian State.

The portion of this trout water stream to be restored represented the last section of the watershed.  The watershed itself had over 1/3 of its lower area urbanized with no stormwater controls in place.  This resulted in an increased frequency of high flash floods.  Designers had to contend with this as a design constraint in terms of the function of the stream but as a real threat during construction (Hobbs, 2006).  A major event did occur during construction, and the damage was significant.  Undeterred the project went through.

As noted this presented a challenge to designers that resulted in way was perhaps a restoration that was less successful from an ecological point of view.  Without the pool riffle sequence now utilized this stream does not provide the types of habitat necessary to support a complex stream food chain.  The meander was not created using hydrological calculations.  The calculations developed as well as new construction techniques reduce cost and provide tested long-term stability.  As it stands there are a few, what stream engineers call, nick points where there is some soil erosion.

Important lessons learned include recognizing and enhancing the existing activity nodes as well as the idea that new nodes can be created within a park setting (i.e. tennis court, trail, and bus stops).  Additionally, it is important to note that newer methods for stream design would have helped this stream function better and help to avoid some of the nick points Kraut Creek now has.  From a design standpoint many regard this as a shining example of an esthetically pleasing and successful urban stream restoration.

The Urban Hydrological Rationalization for Post Industrial Restoration

The traditional method of stream engineering in an urbanized area was to “remove large woody debris from the channel, straighten that channel, confine the stream in a new concrete channel, armor the banks with rip-rap, or enclose the stream in a pipe” (Brown, 2000). The aim was to move water as quickly and safely out of the immediate area to prevent “local urban flooding” (Brown, 2000). Due to this distorted form, urban streams ecologically malfunction and the wildlife that the stream and stream banks would normally support cannot survive (Brown, 2000). The physical effects of urbanization on natural water processes can be grouped into four categories: impervious surface cover (ISC), drainage density, temperature, and chemical and biological contamination (Paul, 2001).

“The most consistent and pervasive effect of urbanization is an increase in impervious surface cover within urban catchments, which alters the hydrology and geomorphology of streams” (Paul, 2001). When there is rainfall in areas with high ISC, water runs swiftly from roof tops and pavement with little to no absorption into the ground. This has two rather devastating effects both on the function of the stream and potentially to human settlement around those watercourses. Since the water runs more quickly, the time between the precipitation event to the “center of the runoff volume shortens within the urban catchments” (Paul, 2001). This results not only in more frequent flooding, but “floods that peak more rapidly” (Paul, 2001). In addition, since less water is absorbed into the ground, there is no water to provide baseflow discharge in the urban stream. The situation becomes one where there is little to no flow in what would normally have been an ephemeral stream followed by episodes of dangerously high flooding (Paul, 2001). Flooding in itself is as well a natural and much needed occurrence, however when the type and amplitude of flooding is not responsive to the climate, soil, and geology of the area, important amounts of land and vegetation can be lost from an area that normally would not have experienced those events.

It is important to address other water strategies in conjunction with stream restoration. There may be a question as to the detrimental impact of high density development or redevelopment of former industrial sites on the newly restored stream (Richards, 2000). If more ISC is introduced to an area using traditional grading and drainage plans there is no doubt that there will be a negative impact on the watershed (Richards, 2002). Lynn Richards, a policy analyst for the EPA sited two important studies conducted in 2000 that suggest that stormwater conservation redevelopment is more desirable condition compared with low density greenfield development or traditional redevelopment. The first is a study from Purdue University which “estimated that placing a hypothetical low-density development at the Chicago fringe area would produce 10 times more runoff than a mixed-uses development in the urban core” (Richards, 2000). The second, conducted at Jordan Cove, found that when “compared to conservation lot design, the large lot development produce 95% more runoff” (Richards, 2000). It only stands to reason that if there is a better and an often time cost effective (both in short and long term profit margins) means of constructing new, or retrofitting old neighborhoods it should be the preferable solution.

Brown, Kenneth. Urban Stream Restoration Practices: An Initial Assessment. Ellicott City, MD: US EPA, Office of Wetlands, Ocean, and Watersheds, 2000.

Paul, Michael J., and Judy L. Meyer. "Streams in Urban Landscape." Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia (2001): 333-356.

Richards, Lynn. Is Density Good for Water Quality? US EPA--OPEI APA Conference. 17 Apr. 2002. 19 Dec. 2005 <http://www.asu.edu/caed/ proceedings02/RICHARDS/richard1.htm>.