Environmental Management

, Volume 43, Issue 6, pp 1201–1218

Don’t Fight the Site: Three Geomorphic Considerations in Catchment-Scale River Rehabilitation Planning

Article

Abstract

Three geomorphic considerations that underpin the design and implementation of realistic and strategic river conservation and rehabilitation programs that work with the nature are outlined. First, the importance of appreciating the inherent diversity of river forms and processes is discussed. Second, river dynamics are appraised, framing the contemporary behavioral regime of a reach in relation to system evolution to explain changes to river character and behavior over time. Third, the trajectory of a reach is framed in relation to downstream patterns of river types, analyzing landscape connectivity at the catchment scale to interpret geomorphic river recovery potential. The application of these principles is demonstrated using extensive catchment-scale analyses of geomorphic river responses to human disturbance in the Bega and Upper Hunter catchments in southeastern Australia. Differing implications for reach- and catchment-scale rehabilitation planning prompt the imperative that management practices work with nature rather than strive to ‘fight the site.’

Keywords

River rehabilitation Geomorphology Human impact River change River evolution River recovery River Styles Landscape connectivity 

References

  1. Allan JD (2004) Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 35:257–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan JD, Johnson LB (1997) Catchment-scale analysis of aquatic ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 37:107–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beechie T, Bolton S (1999) An approach to restoring salmonid habitat-forming processes in Pacific Northwest watersheds. Fisheries 24:6–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohn BA, Kershner JL (2002) Establishing aquatic restoration priorities using a watershed approach. Journal of Environmental Management 64:355–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brierley GJ, Fryirs KA (2000) River styles, a geomorphic approach to catchment characterization: implications for river rehabilitation in Bega catchment, New South Wales, Australia. Environmental Management 25:661–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brierley GJ, Fryirs KA (2005) Geomorphology and river management: applications of the river styles framework. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Brierley GJ, Fryirs KA (eds) (2008) River futures. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Brierley GJ, Cohen T, Fryirs KA, Brooks AP (1999) Post-European changes to the fluvial geomorphology of Bega Catchment, Australia: implications for river ecology. Freshwater Biology 41:839–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brierley GJ, Fryirs K, Outhet D, Massey C (2002) Application of the River Styles framework as a basis for river management in New South Wales, Australia. Applied Geography 22:91–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brierley G, Fryirs KA, Boulton A, Cullum C (2008) Working with change: the importance of evolutionary perspectives in framing the trajectory of river adjustment. In: Brierley GJ, Fryirs KA (eds) River futures. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 65–84Google Scholar
  11. Brooks AP, Brierley GJ (1997) Geomorphic responses of lower Bega River to catchment disturbance, 1851–1926. Geomorphology 18:291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brooks AP, Brierley GJ (2000) The role of European disturbance in the metamorphosis of lower Bega River. In: Finlayson BL, Brizga SA (eds) River management: the Australasian experience. Wiley, Chichester, pp 221–246Google Scholar
  13. Brookes A, Sear DA (1996) Geomorphological principles for restoring channels. In: Brookes A, Shields FD (eds) River channel restoration: guiding principles for sustainable projects. Wiley, Chichester, pp 75–101Google Scholar
  14. Brookes A, Shields FD (eds) (1996) River channel restoration: guiding principles for sustainable projects. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  15. Brooks AP, Brierley GJ, Millar RG (2003) The long-term control of vegetation and woody debris on channel and floodplain evolution: insights from a paired catchment study in southeastern Australia. Geomorphology 51:7–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brummer CJ, Abbe TB, Sampson JR, Montgomery DR (2006) Influence of vertical channel change associated with wood accumulations on delineating channel migration zones, washington, USA. Geomorphology 80:295–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bunn SE, Arthington AH (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management 30:492–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chessman BC, Fryirs KA, Brierley GJ (2006) Linking geomorphic character, behaviour and condition to fluvial biodiversity: implications for river rehabilitation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Research 16:267–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clarke SJ, Bruce-Burgess L, Wharton G (2003) Linking form and function: towards an eco-hydromorphic approach to sustainable river restoration. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 13:439–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Collins BD, Montgomery DR (2001) Importance of archival and process studies to characterizing pre-settlement riverine geomorphic processes and habitat in the Puget Lowland. In: Dorava JM, Montgomery DR, Palcsak BB, Fitzpatrick FA (eds) Geomorphic processes and riverine habitat. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp 227–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Downs P, Gregory KJ (2004) River channel management: towards sustainable catchment hydrosystems. Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata Z, Knowler D, Lévêque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard AH, Soto D, Stiassny MLJ (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status, and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81:163–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Everard M (2004) Investing in sustainable catchments. Science of the Total Environment 324:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Everard M, Powell A (2002) Rivers as living systems. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 12:329–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frissell CA, Bayles D (1996) Ecosystem management and the conservation of aquatic biodiversity and ecological integrity. Water Resources Bulletin 32:229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frissell CA, Liss WJ, Bayles D (1993) An integrated, biophysical strategy for ecological restoration of large watersheds. In: Spangenborg NE, Potts DE (eds) Changing roles in water resources management and policy. American Water Resources Association, Bethesda, pp 449–456Google Scholar
  27. Fryirs KA (2003) Guiding principles of assessing the geomorphic condition of rivers: application of a framework in Bega catchment, South Coast, NSW, Australia. Catena 53:17–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fryirs KA, Brierley GJ (1998) The character and age structure of valley fills in upper Wolumla Creek catchment, South Coast, New South Wales, Australia. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 23:271–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fryirs KA, Brierley GJ (2001) Variability in sediment delivery and storage along river courses in Bega catchment, NSW, Australia: implications for geomorphic river recovery. Geomorphology 38:237–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fryirs KA, Brierley GJ (2005) Practical applications of the River Styles framework as a tool for catchment-wide river management: a case study from Bega Catchment, NSW, Australia. e-book. www.riverstyles.com. Accessed 1 Dec 2007
  31. Fryirs KA, Brierley GJ, Preston NJ, Kasai M (2007a) Buffers, barriers and blankets: the (dis)connectivity of catchment-scale sediment cascades. Catena 70:49–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fryirs KA, Brierley GJ, Preston N, Spencer J (2007b) Catchment-scale (dis)connectivity in sediment flux in the Upper Hunter catchment, New South Wales, Australia. Geomorphology 84:297–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fryirs KA, Spink A, Brierley GJ (2009) Post-European settlement response gradients of river sensitivity and recovery across the upper Hunter catchment, Australia. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms (in press)Google Scholar
  34. Gilvear DJ (1999) Fluvial geomorphology and river engineering: future roles utilizing a fluvial hydrosystems framework. Geomorphology 31:229–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gore JA (ed) (1985) The restoration of rivers and streams: theories and experience. Butterworth, BostonGoogle Scholar
  36. Gore JA, Bryant FL, Crawford DJ (1995) River and stream restoration. In: Cairns J Jr (ed) Rehabilitating damaged ecosystems. Ann Arbor, Lewis, pp 245–275Google Scholar
  37. Graf WL (2001) Damage control: dams and the physical integrity of America’s rivers. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Harvey A (2002) Effective timescales of coupling within fluvial systems. Geomorphology 44:175–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hildén M (2000) The role of integrating concepts in watershed rehabilitation. Ecosystem Health 6:39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hooke JM (2003) Coarse sediment connectivity in river channel systems: a conceptual framework and methodology. Geomorphology 56:79–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hoyle J, Brooks A, Brierley GJ, Fryirs KA, Lander J (2008) Spatial variability in the timing, nature and extent of channel response to typical human disturbance along the Upper Hunter River, New South Wales, Australia. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 33:868–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hughes FMR, Colson A, Mountford JO (2005) Restoring riparian ecosystems: the challenge of accommodating variability and designing restoration trajectories. Ecology and Society 10(2):12Google Scholar
  43. Jacobson RB, Galat DL (2006) Flow and form in rehabilitation of large-river ecosystems: an example from the Lower Missouri River. Geomorphology 77:249–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jungwirth M, Muhar S, Schmutz S (2002) Re-establishing and assessing ecological integrity in riverine landscapes. Freshwater Biology 47:867–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kern K (1992) Rehabilitation of streams in South-West Germany. In: Boon PJ, Calow P, Petts GE (eds) River conservation and management. Wiley, Chichester, pp 321–336Google Scholar
  46. Kondolf GM, Downs PW (1996) Catchment approach to planning channel restoration. In: Brookes A, Shields FD (eds) River channel restoration: guiding principles for sustainable projects. Wiley, Chichester, pp 103–126Google Scholar
  47. Kondolf GM, Smeltzer MW, Railsback SF (2001) Design and performance of a channel reconstruction project in a coastal California gravel-bed stream. Environmental Management 28:761–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kondolf GM., Boulton AJ, O’Daniel S, Poole GC, Rahel FJ, Stanley EH, Wohl E, Bång A, Carlstrom J, Cristoni C, Huber H, Koljonen S, Louhi P, Nakamura K (2006) Process-based ecological river restoration: visualizing three-dimensional connectivity and dynamic vectors to recover lost linkages. Ecology and Society 11:5. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art5/
  49. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  50. Montgomery DR (2001) Geomorphology, river ecology, and ecosystem management. In: Dorava JM, Montgomery DR, Palcsak BB, Fitzpatrick FA (eds) Geomorphic processes and riverine habitat. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp 247–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Montgomery DR (2006) Geomorphology and restoration ecology. Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education 134:19–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Montgomery DR (2008) Geology: dreams of natural streams. Science 319(5861):291–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Montgomery DR, Bolton SM (2003) Hydrogeomorphic variability and river restoration. In: Wissmar RC, Bisson PA (eds) Strategies for restoring river ecosystems: sources of variability and uncertainty in natural and managed systems. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, pp 39–80Google Scholar
  54. Montgomery DR, Buffington JM (1998) Channel processes, classification, and response potential. In: Naiman RJ, Bilby RE (eds) River ecology and management. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 13–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Newson MD (2002) Geomorphological concepts and tools for sustainable river ecosystem management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 12:365–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Newson MD, Large ARG (2006) ‘Natural’ rivers, ‘hydromorphological quality’ and river restoration: a challenging new agenda for applied fluvial geomorphology. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 31:1606–1624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Newson MD, Newson CL (2000) Geomorphology, ecology and river channel habitat: mesoscale approaches to basin-scale challenges. Progress in Physical Geography 24:195–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Allan JD, Lake PS, Alexander G, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm CN, Follstad Shah J, Galat DL, Loss SG, Goodwin P, Hart DD, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Kondolf GM, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Srivastava P, Sudduth E (2005) Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:208–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Phillips JD (2003) Sources of nonlinearity and complexity in geomorphic systems. Progress in Physical Geography 27:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Piégay H, Darby SE, Mosselman E, Surian N (2005) A review of techniques available for delimiting the erodible river corridor: a sustainable approach to managing bank erosion. River Research and Applications 21:773–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Poole GC (2002) Fluvial landscape ecology: addressing uniqueness within the river discontinuum. Freshwater Biology 47:641–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Postel S, Richter B (2003) Rivers for life: anaging water for people and nature. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  63. Rapp CF, Abbe TB (2003) A framework for delineating channel migration zones. Publication No. 03-06.027. Washington State Department of Ecology, OlympiaGoogle Scholar
  64. Richards K, Brasington J, Hughes FMR (2002) Geomorphic dynamics of floodplains: ecological implications and a potential modelling strategy. Freshwater Biology 47:559–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rohde S, Schütz M, Kienast F, Englmaier P (2005) River widening: an approach to restoring riparian habitats and plant species. River Research and Applications 21:1075–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Roni P, Beechie TJ, Bilby RE, Leonetti FE, Pollock MM, Pess GR (2002) A review of stream restoration and a hierarchal strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rosgen DL (1996) Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa SpringsGoogle Scholar
  68. Rutherfurd I, Jerie K, Marsh N (2001) Planning for stream rehabilitation: some help in turning the tide. Water: Journal of the Australian Water and Wastewater Association 28:25–27Google Scholar
  69. Schmidt JC, Webb RH, Valdez RA, Marzolf GR, Stevens LE (1998) Science and values in river restoration in the Grand Canyon. Bioscience 48:735–7747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schumm SA (1969) River metamorphosis. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, American Society of Civil Engineers 95:255–273Google Scholar
  71. Schumm SA (1985) Patterns of alluvial rivers. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Science 13:5–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sear DA, Arnell NW (2006) The application of palaeohydrology in river management. Catena 66:169–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sear DA, Newson MD, Brookes A (1995) Sediment-related river maintenance: the role of fluvial geomorphology. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 20:629–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Simon A, Darby SE (2002) Effectiveness of grade-control in reducing erosion along incised river channels: the case of Hotophia Creek, Mississippi. Geomorphology 42:229–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Simon A, Doyle M, Kondolf GM, Shields FD Jr, Rhoads B, Grant G, Fitzpatrick F, Juracek K, McPhillips M, MacBroom J (2007) Critical evaluation of how the Rosgen Classification and associated “natural channel design” methods fail to integrate and quantify fluvial processes and channel response. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Southwood TRE (1977) Habitat, the templet for ecological strategies? The Journal of Animal Ecology 46:336–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Spencer J, Fryirs K, Keating D, Brierley GJ (2004) River Styles® in the Upper Hunter Catchment. In: Report presented to the Upper Hunter River rehabilitation initiative, Macquarie University, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  78. Spink A, Fryirs KA, Brierley GJ (2009) The relationship between geomorphic river adjustment and management actions over the last 50 years in the upper Hunter catchment, NSW, Australia. River Research and Applications (in press)Google Scholar
  79. Sullivan SMP, Watzin MC, Hession WC (2004) Understanding stream geomorphic state in relation to ecological integrity: evidence using habitat assessments and macroinvertebrates. Environmental Management 34:669–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Thoms MC (2006) Variability in riverine ecosystems. River Research and Applications 22:115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Thomson J, Taylor MP, Fryirs KA, Brierley GJ (2001) A geomorphological framework for river characterisation and habitat assessment. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 11:373–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Thorp JH, Thoms MC, DeLong MD (2006) The riverine ecosystem synthesis: biocomplexity in river networks across space and time. River Research and Applications 22:123–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Thorp JH, Thoms MC, DeLong MD (2008) The riverine ecosystem synthesis: toward conceptual cohesiveness in river science. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  84. Townsend CR, Hildrew AG (1994) Species traits in relation to a habitat template for river systems. Freshwater Biology 31:265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Walker J, Diamond M, Naura M (2002) The development of physical quality objectives for rivers in England and Wales. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Research 12:381–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Walter RC, Merritts DJ (2008) Natural streams and the legacy of water-powered mills. Science 319(5861):299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Ward JV, Tockner K, Uehlinger U, Malard F (2001) Understanding natural patterns and processes in river corridors as the basis for effective river restoration. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 17:311–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Ward JV, Tockner K, Arscott DB, Claret C (2002) Riverine landscape diversity. Freshwater Biology 47:517–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wheaton JM, Pasternack GB, Merz JE (2004) Spawning habitat rehabilitation—I. Conceptual approach and methods. International Journal of River Basin Management 2:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wheaton JM, Darby SE, Sear D (2008) The scope of uncertainties in river restoration. In: Darby SE, Sear D (eds) River restoration: managing the uncertainty in restoring physical habitat. Wiley, Chichester, pp 21–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wissmar RC, Beschta RL (1998) Restoration and management of riparian ecosystems: a catchment perspective. Freshwater Biology 40:571–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wissmar RC, Bisson PA (eds) (2003) Strategies for restoring river ecosystems: sources of variability and uncertainty in natural and managed systems. American Fisheries Society, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  93. Wissmar RC, Braatne JH, Beschta RL, Rood SB (2003) Variability of riparian ecosystems: implications for restoration. In: Wissmar RC, Bisson PA (eds) Strategies for restoring river ecosystems: sources of variability and uncertainty in natural and managed systems. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, pp 107–127Google Scholar
  94. Wohl E (2004) Disconnected rivers: linking rivers to landscapes. Yale University Press, New HavenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wohl E, Merritts DJ (2007) What is a natural river? Geography Compass 1(4):871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wohl E, Angermeier PL, Bledsoe B, Kondolf GM, MacDonnell L, Merritt DM, Palmer, Poff NL and Tarboton D (2005) River restoration. Water Resources Research 41:AW10301Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Geography, Geology and Environmental ScienceUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Discipline of Environmental Science, Department of Environment and GeographyMacquarie UniversityNorth RydeAustralia

Personalised recommendations