Environmental Management

, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 880–897 | Cite as

Assessing the Effects of Alternative Setback Channel Constraint Scenarios Employing a River Meander Migration Model

  • Eric W. Larsen
  • Evan H. Girvetz
  • Alexander K. Fremier
Article
First Online:

Abstract

River channel migration and cutoff events within large river riparian corridors create heterogeneous and biologically diverse landscapes. However, channel stabilization (riprap and levees) impede the formation and maintenance of riparian areas. These impacts can be mitigated by setting channel constraints away from the channel. Using a meander migration model to measure land affected, we examined the relationship between setback distance and riparian and off-channel aquatic habitat formation on a 28-km reach of the Sacramento River, California, USA. We simulated 100 years of channel migration and cutoff events using 11 setback scenarios: 1 with existing riprap and 10 assuming setback constraints from about 0.5 to 4 bankfull channel widths (bankfull width: 235 m) from the channel. The percentage of land reworked by the river in 100 years relative to current (riprap) conditions ranged from 172% for the 100-m constraint setback scenario to 790% for the 800-m scenario. Three basic patterns occur as the setback distance increases due to different migration and cutoff dynamics: complete restriction of cutoffs, partial restriction of cutoffs, and no restriction of cutoffs. Complete cutoff restriction occurred at distances less than about one bankfull channel width (235 m), and no cutoff restriction occurred at distances greater than about three bankfull widths (∼700 m). Managing for point bars alone allows the setbacks to be narrower than managing for cutoffs and aquatic habitat. Results suggest that site-specific “restriction of cutoff” thresholds can be identified to optimize habitat benefits versus cost of acquired land along rivers affected by migration processes.

Keywords

Hydraulic simulation model Oxbow lake Constraint setback River dynamics River meander migration Sacramento River Setback levee 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted under CALFED grant ERP 99-N18. Insightful review comments by P. Diplas, N. Allmendinger, and an anonymous reviewer improved the manuscript. We also gratefully acknowledge the review contributions of Daniel Efseaff, Steve Greco, Lisa Micheli, and Alex Young. We gratefully acknowledge Brian Morgan for help with the figures and Kathleen Wong for editorial assistance. We gratefully acknowledge the unfailing inspiration and continued support of Stacy Cepello, of the California Department of Water Resources, without whom this work would have been impossible. The first author acknowledges Harry K. Roberts.

Literature Cited

  1. Avery E. R., E. R. Micheli, E. W. Larsen. 2003. River channel cut-off dynamics, Sacramento River, California, USA. EOS Transactions Amercian Geographical Union 84(46): Fall Meeting Supplement: H52A–1181.Google Scholar
  2. Baker W. L., G. M. Walford. 1995. Multiple stable states and models of riparian vegetation succession on the Animas River, Colorado. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 85:320–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayley P. B. 1995. Understanding large river floodplain ecosystems. BioScience 45:153–158Google Scholar
  4. Bayley P. B., H. W. Li. 1992. Riverine fishes. In: P. Calow, G. E. Petts (eds.). The rivers handbook. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford. pp: 251–281Google Scholar
  5. Beck S., D. A. Melfi, K. Yalamanchili. 1984. Lateral migration of the Genesee River, New York. In: C. M. Elliott (ed.). River meandering. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. pp: 510–517Google Scholar
  6. Bozkurt, S., P. Dekens, R. Gartland, J. Gragg, J. Lawyer, and M. McGoogan. 2000. Evaluation of setback levees on the Sacramento River. University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA. http://www.bren.ucsb.edu/research/
  7. Brice J. C. 1974. Evolution of meander loops. Geological Society of America Bulletin 85:581–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brice J. C. 1977. Lateral migration of the middle Sacramento River, California. USGS Water-Resources Investigations 77-43:1–51.Google Scholar
  9. Buer, K., D. Forwalter, M. Kissel, and B. Stohler. 1989. The middle Sacramento River: Human impacts on physical and ecological processes along a meandering river. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, pp. 22–32Google Scholar
  10. CALFED. 2000. Final programmatic environmental impact statement environmental impact report. CALFED Bay–Delta Program, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  11. California Department of Water Resources. 1995. Memorandum report: Sacramento River meander belt future erosion investigation. DWR 155. The Resources Agency, Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. CDWR. 1994. Sacramento River bank erosion investigation memorandum progress report. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Water Resources, Northern DistrictGoogle Scholar
  13. Chapin F. S., III, B. H. Walker, R. J, Hobbs, D. U. Hooper, J. H. Lawton, O. E. Sala, D. Tilman. 1997. Biotic control over the functioning of ecosystems. Science 277:500–504Google Scholar
  14. Dixon, D., Stromberg, J. C., Fremier, A. K. and Larsen,E. W. 2004. Projecting the effects of environmental change on riparian ecosystem in the Southwest: The upper San Pedro as a case study. School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tucson, AZGoogle Scholar
  15. Dwyer J. P., D. Wallace, D. R. Larsen. 1997. Value of woody river corridors in levee protection along the Missouri River 1993. Journal of American Water Resources Association 33:481–489Google Scholar
  16. Engelund F., E. Hansen. 1967. A monograph on sediment transport in alluvial streams. Teknisk Forlag, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  17. Environmental Systems Research Institute. 2004. ArcGIS 9.0. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
  18. Fischer K. J. 1994. Fluvial Geomorphology and flood control strategies: Sacramento River, California. In: S. A. Schumm, B. R. Winkley (ed.). The variability of large alluvial rivers. ASCE Press, New York. pp: 115–139Google Scholar
  19. Fremier, A. K. 2003. Floodplain age modeling techniques to analyze channel migration and vegetation patch dynamics on the Sacramento River, CA. Masters thesis. University of California, Davis, Davis, CAGoogle Scholar
  20. Furbish D. J. 1988. River-bend curvature and migration: How are they related? Geology 16:752–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Furbish D. J. 1991. Spatial autoregressive structure in meander evolution. Geological Society of America Bulletin 103:1576–1589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Furbish D. J. 1997. Fluid physics in geology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Gergel S. E., M. D. Dixon, M. G. Turner. 2002. sConsequences of human-altered floods: Levees, floods, and floodplain forests along the Wisconsin River. Ecological Applications 12:1755–1770Google Scholar
  24. Golet, G. H., M. D. Roberts, E. W. Larsen, R. A. Luster, R. Unger, G. Werner, and G. G. White. In Press. Assessing societal impacts when planning restoration of large alluvial rivers: A case study of the Sacramento River Project, California. Environmental ManagementGoogle Scholar
  25. Greco, S. E., and C. A. Alford. 2003. Historical channel mapping from aerial photography of the Sacramento River, Colusa to Red Bluff, California: 1937 to 1997. Technical report prepared for California Department of Water Resources, Northern District, Red Bluff, California. Landscape Analysis and Systems Research Laboratory, Department of Environmental Design, University of California, Davis, CAGoogle Scholar
  26. Gutreuter S., A. D. Bartels, K. Irons, M. B. Sandheinrich. 1999. Evaluation of the flood-pulse concept based on statistical models of growth of selected fishes of the Upper Mississippi River system. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:2282–2291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harwood, D. S., and E. J. Helley. 1987. Late Cenozoic Tectonism of the Sacramento Valley, California. Professional Paper 1359. US Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  28. Hooke J. M. 1984. Changes in river meanders: A review of techniques and results of analysis. Progress in Physical Geography 8:473–508Google Scholar
  29. Hooke J. M., C. E. Redmond. 1992. Causes and nature of river planform change. In: P. Billi, others (eds.). Dynamics of gravel-bed rivers. John Wiley & Sons, London. pp: 557–571Google Scholar
  30. Howard A. D. 1992. Modeling channel migration and floodplain sedimentation in meandering streams. In: P. A. Carling, G. E. Petts (eds.). Lowland floodplain rivers: Geomorphological perspectives. John Wiley & Sons, New York. pp: 1–41Google Scholar
  31. Howard A. D. 1996. Modeling channel evolution and floodplain morphology In: M. G. Anderson, others (eds.). Floodplain processes. John Wiley & Sons, New York. pp: 15–62Google Scholar
  32. Hupp C. R., W. R. Osterkamp. 1996. Riparian vegetation and fluvial geomorphic processes. Geomorphology 14:277–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hydrologic Engineering Center–River Analysis System. 2003. HEC-RAS Software 3.2.1. US Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, CAGoogle Scholar
  34. Ikeda S., G. Parker, K. Sawai. 1981. Bend theory of river meanders. Part 1. Linear development. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 112:363–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johannesson, H., and G. Parker. 1985. Computer simulated migration of meandering rivers in Minnesota. Project No. 242. University of Minnesota, St. Anthony Falls, Hydraulic Laboratory, Minneapolis, MNGoogle Scholar
  36. Johannesson, H., and G. Parker. 1989, Linear theory of river meanders. In S. Ikeda and G. Parker (eds.). River meandering. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson W. C., R. L. Burgess, W. R. Keammerer. 1976. Forest overstory vegetation and environment of the Missouri River floodplain in North Dakota, Ecological Monographs 46:59–84Google Scholar
  38. Junk, J. W., P. B. Bayley, and R. E. Sparks. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river–floodplain systems. Canadian Journal of Fish and aquatic Science 106: 110–127Google Scholar
  39. Knighton D. 1998. Fluvial forms & processes: A new perspective. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Larsen, E. W. 1995. The mechanics and modeling of river meander migration. PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  41. Larsen E. W., S. E. Greco. 2002. Modeling channel management impacts on river migration: A case study of Woodson Bridge State Recreation Area, Sacramento River, California, USA. Environmental Management 30:209–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Larsen, E. W., E. Anderson, E. Avery, and K. Dole. 2002. The controls on and evolution of channel morphology of the Sacramento River: A case study of river miles 201–185. The Nature Conservancy, Chico, CAGoogle Scholar
  43. Larsen, E. W., A. K. Fremier, and E. H. Girvetz. In Press. Modeling the effects of flow regulation scenarios on river channel migration on the Sacramento River, CA, USA. Journal of American Water Resources AssociationGoogle Scholar
  44. Leopold L. B., M. G. Wolman, J. P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial processes in geomorphology. W. H. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  45. Limm M. P., M. P. Marchetti. 2003. Contrasting patterns of juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytschaw) growth, diet, and prey densities in off-channel and main stem habitats on the Sacramento River. The Nature Conservancy, Chico, CAGoogle Scholar
  46. MacDonald, T. E., G. Parker, and D. P. Leuthe. 1991. Inventory and analysis of stream meander problems in Minnesota. St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MNGoogle Scholar
  47. Mahoney J. M., S. B. Rood. 1998. Streamflow requirements for cottonwood seedling recruitment: An integrative model. Wetlands 18:634–645Google Scholar
  48. Merritt D. M., D. J. Cooper. 2000. Riparian vegetation and channel change in response to river regulation: A comparative study of regulated and unregulated streams in the Green River Basin, USA. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 16:543–564Google Scholar
  49. Micheli E. R., J. W. Kirchner, E. W. Larsen. 2004. Quantifying the effect of riparian forest versus agricultural vegetation on river meander migration rates, Central Sacramento River, California, USA. River Research and Applications 20:537–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Morken I., G. M. Kondolf. 2003. Evolution assessment and conservation strategies for Sacramento River oxbow habitats. The Nature Conservancy, Chico, CAGoogle Scholar
  51. Naiman R. J., H. Décamps, M. Pollock. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecological Applications 3:209–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. National Research Council. 2002. Riparian areas: Functions and strategies for management. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  53. Parker G., E. D. Andrews. 1985. Sorting of bed load sediment by flow in meander bends. Water Resources Research 21:1361–1373Google Scholar
  54. Pinter, N. 2005. One step forward, two steps back on U.S. floodplains. Science 308:207–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pizzuto J. E., T. S. Mecklenburg. 1989. Evaluation of a linear bank erosion equation. Water Resources Research No. 5:1005–1013.Google Scholar
  56. Poff L. N., J. D Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks, J. C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime. BioScience 47:769–784Google Scholar
  57. Power M. E., G Parker, W. E. Dietrich, A. Sun. 1995. How does floodplain width affect floodplain river ecology? A preliminary exploration using simulations. Geomorphology 13:301–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Richter B. D., H. E. Richter. 2000. Prescribing flood regimes to sustain riparian ecosystems along meandering rivers. Conservation Biology 14:1467–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Robertson, K. G. 1987. Paleochannels and recent evolution of the Sacramento River, California. Master of Science Thesis. Earth Science and Natural Resources, University of California, Davis, CAGoogle Scholar
  60. Sacramento River Advisory Council. 1998. Sacramento River conservation area handbook. California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  61. Schiemer F., M Zalewski. 1992. The importance of riparian ecotones for diversity and productivity of riverine fish communities. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 42:323–335Google Scholar
  62. Scott M. L., J. M. Friedman, G. T. Auble. 1996. Fluvial process and the establishment of bottomland trees. Geomorphology 14:327–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shields F. D., Jr., R. R. Copeland, P. C. Klingeman, M. W. Doyle, A. Simon. 2003. Design for stream restoration. Journal of Hydrauli Engineering 129:575–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Strahan J. 1984. Regeneration of riparian forests of the Central Valley. In: R. E. Warner, K. M. Hendrix (eds.). California riparian ecosystems. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. pp: 58–67Google Scholar
  65. Stromberg J. C. 2001. Restoration of riparian vegetation in the south-western United States: Importance of flow regimes and fluvial dynamism. Journal of Arid Environments 49:17–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sun T., P. Meakin, T. Jossang. 2001. A computer model for meandering rivers with multiple bed load sediment sizes 1. Theory. Water Resources Researgh 37:2227–2241Google Scholar
  67. Tobin G. A. 1995. The levee love affair: A stormy relationship. Water Resources Bulletin 31:359–367Google Scholar
  68. Tockner K., J. A. Stanford. 2002. Riverine flood plains: Present state and future trends. Environmental Conservation 29:308–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. US Department of Agriculture. 2001. Stream corridor restoration: Principles, process and practices. The Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, USDA. Available from http://www.usda.gov/stream_restoration
  70. Vitousek P. M., H. A Mooney, J. Lubchenco, J. M. Melillo. 1997. Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Water Engineering and Technology Inc. 1988. Geomorphic analysis of the Sacramento River: Draft report. DACWO5-87-C-0084, Water Engineering and Technology, Inc., US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  72. WET. 1988. Geomorphic analysis of the Sacramento River: Draft report. DACWO5-87-C-0084. Water Engineering and Technology, Inc., US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  73. Wolman M. G., J. P. Miller. 1959. Magnitude and frequency of forces in geomorphic processes. Journal of Geology 68:54–74Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric W. Larsen
    • 1
  • Evan H. Girvetz
    • 1
  • Alexander K. Fremier
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental DesignUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations