Environmental Management

, Volume 62, Issue 2, pp 352–364 | Cite as

Assessing the Hydrogeomorphic Effects of Environmental Flows using Hydrodynamic Modeling

  • Angela GregoryEmail author
  • Ryan R. Morrison
  • Mark StoneEmail author


Water managers are increasingly using environmental flows (e-flows) as a tool to improve ecological conditions downstream from impoundments. Recent studies have called for e-flow approaches that explicitly consider impacts on hydrogeomorphic processes when developing management alternatives. Process-based approaches are particularly relevant in river systems that have been highly modified and where water supplies are over allocated. One-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) hydrodynamic models can be used to resolve hydrogeomorphic processes at different spatial and temporal scales to support the development, testing, and refinement of e-flow hypotheses. Thus, the objective of this paper is to demonstrate the use of hydrodynamic models as a tool for assisting stakeholders in targeting and assessing environmental flows within a decision-making framework. We present a case study of e-flows on the Rio Chama in northern New Mexico, USA, where 1D and 2D hydrodynamic modeling was used within a collaborative process to implement an e-flow experiment. A specific goal of the e-flow process was to improve spawning habitat for brown trout by flushing fine sediments from gravel features. The results revealed that the 2D hydrodynamic model provided much greater insight with respect to hydrodynamic and sediment transport processes, which led to a reduction in the recommended e-flow discharge. The results suggest that 2D hydrodynamic models can be useful tools for improving process understanding, developing e-flow recommendations, and supporting adaptive management even when limited or no data are available for model calibration and validation.


Environmental flows Hydrodynamic modeling Adaptive management Sediment 



This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant #1345169). We would like to thank Tetra Tech and GeoSystems Analysis Inc. for their role in collecting and analyzing data and for development of the HEC-RAS model. We would especially like to thank Steve Harris, Todd Caplan, Chad McKenna, Gregory Gustina, Walt Kuhn, Melinda Harm Benson, and Dr. Michael Harvey for continued insights and support throughout the duration of this project.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Allan C, Watts RJ (2018) Revealing adaptive management of environmental flows. Environ Manage 61:520–533. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong JD, Kemp PS, Kennedy GJA, Ladle M, Milner NJ (2003) Habitat requirements of Atlantic salmon and brown trout in rivers and streams. Fish Res 62:143–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arthington AH, Pusey BJ (2003) Flow restoration and protection in Australian rivers. River Res Appl 19:377–395. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ASTM D2487-11 (2011) Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
  5. ASTM D6913-04 (2009) e1 Standard test methods for particle-size distribution (gradation) of soils using sieve analysis. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
  6. Ban X, Du Y, Liu HZ, Ling F (2011) Applying instream flow incremental method for the spawning habitat protection of Chinese sturgeon (Acipenser sinensis). River Res Appl 27:87–98. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bockelmann BN, Fenrich EK, Lin B, Falconer RA (2004) Development of an ecohydraulics model for stream and river restoration. Ecol Eng 22:227–235. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braatne JH, Jamieson R, Gill KM, Rood SB (2007) Instream flows and the decline of riparian cottonwoods along the Yakima River, Washington, USA. River Res Appl 23:247–267. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bunn SE, Arthington AH (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manage 30(4):492–507. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapman DW (1988) Critical review of variables used to define effects of fines in redds of large salmonids Trans Am Fish Soc 117:1–21. 0001:CROVUT 2.3.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chow VT (1955) A note on the manning formula. Eos, Trans Am Geophys Union 36:688–688. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crisp T (2008) Trout and Salmon: Ecology, Conservation and Rehabilitation. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  13. Crowder DW, Diplas P (2000) Using two-dimensional hydrodynamic models at scales of ecological importance. J Hydrol 230:172–191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crowder DW, Diplas P (2002) Assessing changes in watershed flow regimes with spatially explicit hydraulic models. J Am Water Resour Assoc 38:397–408. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dunbar MJ, Alfredsen K, Harby A (2012) Hydraulic‐habitat modelling for setting environmental river flow needs for salmonids. Fish Manage Ecol 19:500–517. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elder JW (1959) The dispersion of marked fluid in turbulent shear flow. J Fluid Mech 5:544–560. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Escobar-Arias MI, Pasternack GB (2010) A hydrogeomorphic dynamics approach to assess in-stream ecological functionality using the functional flows model, part 1—model characteristics. River Res Appl 26(9):1103–1128. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fischer HB, List JE, Koh CR, Imberger J, Brooks NH (2013) Mixing in inland and coastal waters. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Fisher SG, Heffernan JB, Sponseller RA, Welter JR (2007) Functional ecomorphology: feedbacks between form and function in fluvial landscape ecosystems. Geomorphology 89:84–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flanigan KG, Haas AI (2008) The impact of full beneficial use of San Juan-Chama Project water by the City of Albuquerque on New Mexico’s Rio Grande Compact obligations. Nat Resour J 48:371–405. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fleckenstein J, Anderson M, Fogg G, Mount J (2004) Managing surface water-groundwater to restore fall flows in the Cosumnes River. J Water Resour Plan Manage 130:301–310. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fogg JL, Hanson BL, Mottl HT, Muller DP, Eaton RC, Swanson S (1992) Rio Chama instream flow assessment. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land ManagementGoogle Scholar
  23. Gaeuman D (2014) High-flow gravel injection for constructing designed in-channel features. River Res Appl 30:685–706. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gostner W, Alp M, Schleiss AJ, Robinson CT (2013) The hydro-morphological index of diversity: a tool for describing habitat heterogeneity in river engineering projects. Hydrobiologia 712:43–60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gibson SA, Pasternack GB (2016) Selecting between one‐dimensional and two‐dimensional hydrodynamic models for ecohydraulic analysis. River Res Appl 32:1365–1381. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gregory A. (2013). Incipient motion of mixed sediment load on the Rio Chama. Civil Engineering ETDs.
  27. Guo J (2002) Hunter rouse and shields diagram. Adv Hydraul Water Eng 2:1096–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hauer FR, Lorang MS (2004) River regulation, decline of ecological resources, and potential for restoration in a semi-arid lands river in the western USA. Aquat Sci 66:388–401. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hydrologic Engineering Center (2010) HEC-RAS River Analysis System User’s Manual, Version 4.1, CPD-68. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering CenterGoogle Scholar
  30. King J, Brown C, Sabet H (2003) A scenario-based holistic approach to environmental flow assessments for rivers. River Res Appl 19:619–639. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. King J, Brown C (2010) Integrated basin flow assessments: concepts and method development in Africa and South-east Asia. Freshw Biol 55:127–146. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kondolf GM, Wolman MG (1993) The sizes of salmonid spawning gravels. Water Resour Res 29:2275–2285. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lai YG (2009) Two-dimensional depth-averaged flow modeling with an unstructured hybrid mesh. J Hydraul Eng 136:12–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lane BA, Pasternack GB, Sandoval‐Solis S (2018). Integrated analysis of flow, form, and function for river management and design testing. EcohydrologyGoogle Scholar
  35. Lucas MC, Marmulla G (2000) An assessment of anthropogenic activities on and rehabilitation of river fisheries: current state and future direction. Manage Ecol River Fish, pp 261–278Google Scholar
  36. Maloney KO, Lellis WA, Bennett RM, Waddle TJ (2012) Habitat persistence for sedentary organisms in managed rivers: the case for the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) in the Delaware River. Freshw Biol 57:1315–1327. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maloney KO, Talbert CB, Cole JC et al. (2015) An integrated Riverine environmental flow decision support system (REFDSS) to evaluate the ecological effects of alternative flow scenarios on river ecosystems. Fundam Appl Limnol 186:171–192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Milhous RT, Updike MA, Schneider DM (1989) Physical habitat simulation system reference manual: version II (Vol. 89, No. 16). US Fish and Wildlife ServiceGoogle Scholar
  39. Morrison RR (2014) Managing complex water resource systems for ecological integrity: evaluating tradeoffs and uncertainty. Dissertation, University of New MexicoGoogle Scholar
  40. Morrison RR, Stone MC (2014) Spatially implemented Bayesian network model to assess environmental impacts of water management. Water Resour Res 50:8107–8124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Morrison RR, Stone MC (2015a) Investigating environmental flows for riparian vegetation recruitment using system dynamics modelling. River Res Appl 31:484–496. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Morrison RR, Stone MC (2015b) Evaluating the impacts of environmental flow alternatives on reservoir and recreational operations using system dynamics modeling. J Am Water Resour Assoc 51:33–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Olsson TI, Persson BG (1988) Effects of deposited sand on ova survival and alevin emergence in brown trout (Salmo trutta L.). Arch fuer Hydrobiol 113:621–627.Google Scholar
  44. Pasternack GB, Wang CL, Merz JE (2004) Application of a 2D hydrodynamic model to design of reach‐scale spawning gravel replenishment on the Mokelumne River, California. River Res Appl 20:205–225. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pasternack GB, Bounrisavong MK, Parikh KK (2008) Backwater control on riffle–pool hydraulics, fish habitat quality, and sediment transport regime in gravel-bed rivers. J Hydrol 357:125–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Petticrew EL, Krein A, Walling DE (2007) Evaluating fine sediment mobilization and storage in a gravel‐bed river using controlled reservoir releases. Hydrol Process 21:198–210. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB et al. (1997) The natural flow regime. Bioscience 47:769–784. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Poff NL, Zimmerman JKH (2010) Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshw Biol 55:194–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Poff NL, Richter BD, Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Naiman RJ, Kendy E et al. (2010) The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshw Biol 55(1):147–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Propst DL, Gido KB, Stefferud JA (2008) Natural flow regimes, nonnative fishes, and native fish persistence in arid-land river systems. Ecol Appl 18:1236–1252. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rastogi AK, Rodi W (1978) Predictions of heat and mass transfer in open channels. J Hydraul Div 104(3):397–420Google Scholar
  52. Reinfelds I, Lincoln‐Smith M, Haeusler T, Ryan D, Growns I (2010) Hydraulic assessment of environmental flow regimes to facilitate fish passage through natural riffles: Shoalhaven river below Tallowa Dam, New South Wales, Australia. River Res Appl 26:589–604. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sanderson JS, Rowan N, Wilding T, Bledsoe BP, Miller WJ, Poff NL (2012) Getting to scale with environmental flow assessment: The Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool. River Res Appl 28:1369–1377. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shafroth PB, Wilcox AC, Lytle DA, Hickey JT, Andersen DC, Beauchamp VB et al. (2010) Ecosystem effects of environmental flows: modelling and experimental floods in a dryland river. Freshw Biol 55:68–85. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shenton W, Hart BT, Chan T (2011) Bayesian network models for environmental flow decision-making: 1. Latrobe River Australia. River Res Appl 27:283–296. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shiau JT, Wu FC (2013) Optimizing environmental flows for multiple reaches affected by a multipurpose reservoir system in Taiwan: restoring natural flow regimes at multiple temporal scales. Water Resour Res 49:565–584. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shiau JT, Wu FC (2007) Pareto-optimal solutions for environmental flow schemes incorporating the intra-annual and interannual variability of the natural flow regime. Water Resour Res 43:W06433. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Soulsby C, Youngson AF, Moir HJ, Malcolm IA (2001) Fine sediment influence on salmonid spawning habitat in a lowland agricultural stream: a preliminary assessment. Sci Total Environ 265:295–307. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Strickler A (1923) Beiträge zur Frage der Geschwindigkeitsformel und der Rauhigkeitszahlen für Ströme, Kanäle und geschlossene Leitungen. Eidg. Amt für Wasserwirtschaft, BernGoogle Scholar
  60. Swanson BJ, Meyer G, Coonrod J (2012) Coupling of hydrologic/hydraulic models and aerial photos through time fluvial geomorphologic changes along the Rio Chama, New Mexico 1935–2005.Google Scholar
  61. Swanson BJ, Meyer G (2014) Tributary confluences and discontinuities in channel form and sediment texture: Rio Chama, NM. Earth Surf Process Landf 39:1927–1943. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Turnpenny AWH, Williams R (1980) Effects of sedimentation on the gravels of an industrial river system. J Fish Biol 17:681–693. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. US Army Corps of Engineers (2010) HEC-RAS river analysis system.Google Scholar
  64. Vanzo D, Zolezzi G, Siviglia A (2016) Eco-hydraulic modelling of the interactions between hydropeaking and river morphology. Ecohydrology 9(3):421–437. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vinson MR (2001) Long-term dynamics of an invertebrate assemblage downstream from a large dam. Ecol Appl 11:711–730.[0711:LTDOAI]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Webb JA, Watts RJ, Allan C, Conallin JC (2018) Adaptive management of environmental flows. Environ Manage 61:339–346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Williams BK (2011) Adaptive management of natural resources- frameworkamd issues. J Environ Manage 92:1346–1353. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wohl E, Bledsoe BP, Jacobson RB et al. (2015) The natural sediment regime in rivers: broadening the foundation for ecosystem management. Bioscience 65:358–371. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wolman MG (1954) A method of sampling coarse river‐bed material. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 35:951–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yang T, Zhang Q, Chen YD, Tao X, Xu CY, Chen X (2008) A spatial assessment of hydrologic alteration caused by dam construction in the middle and lower Yellow River, China. Hydrol Process 22:3829–3843. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yarnell SM, Petts GE, Schmidt JC et al. (2015) Functional flows in modified riverscapes: hydrographs, habitats and opportunities. Bioscience 65:963–972. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yin XA, Yang ZF, Petts GE (2012) Optimizing environmental flows below dams. River Res Appl 28:703–716. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations