Hydrobiologia

, Volume 719, Issue 1, pp 527–545 | Cite as

Restoring mediterranean-climate rivers

  • G. Mathias Kondolf
  • Kristen Podolak
  • Theodore E. Grantham
MEDITERRANEAN CLIMATE STREAMS Review paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Mediterranean-climate rivers (med-rivers) have highly variable flow regimes, with large, periodic floods shaping the (often-braided) channels, which is different from stable humid-climate rivers, whose form may be dominated by the 1.5-year flood. There is a fundamental challenge in attempting to “restore” such variable, ever-changing, dynamic river systems, and the most effective restoration strategy is to set aside a channel migration zone within which the river can flood, erode, deposit, and migrate, without conflicting with human uses. An apparent cultural preference for stable channels has resulted in attempts to build idealized meandering channels, but these are likely to wash out during large, episodic floods typical of med-rivers. Med-rivers are more extensively dammed than their humid-climate counterparts, so downstream reaches are commonly deprived of high flows, which carry sediments, modify channel morphology, and maintain habitat complexity. Restoration of the entire pre-dam hydrograph without losing the benefits of the dam is impossible, but restoration of specific components of the natural hydrograph (to which native species are adapted) can restore some ecosystem components (such as native fish species) in med-rivers.

Keywords

Episodic channels Mediterranean climate Variable flow regime River restoration Channel migration zone 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This manuscript was based on research supported by the Portuguese Studies Program and Beatrix Farrand Fund of the University of California, Berkeley. The manuscript was substantially improved in response to comments from two anonymous reviewers and editors of the special issue, thanks to improvements to the figures by Jen Natali, and suggested edits from Syd Brown and Patrick Vaughn of California State Parks.

References

  1. Almaça, C., 1995. Freshwater fish and their conservation in Portugal. Biological Conservation 72: 125–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, E. D., 1980. Effective and bankfull discharges of streams in the Yampa River basin, Colorado and Wyoming. Journal of Hydrology 46: 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baltz, D. M. & P. B. Moyle, 1993. Invasion resistance to introduced species by a native assemblage of California stream fishes. Ecological Applications 3: 246–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batalla, R. J., C. M. Gomez & G. M. Kondolf, 2004. River impoundment and changes in flow regime, Ebro River basin, northeastern Spain. Journal of Hydrology 290: 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bêche, L. A. & V. H. Resh, 2007. Short-term climatic trends affect the temporal variability of macroinvertebrates in California “Mediterranean” streams. Freshwater Biology 52: 2317–2339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beechie, T., E. Buhle, M. Ruckelshaus, A. Fullerton & L. Holsinger, 2006. Hydrologic regime and the conservation of salmon life history diversity. Biological Conservation 130: 560–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernhardt, E. S., M. A. Palmer, J. D. Allan, G. Alexander, K. Barnes, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, C. Dahm, J. Follsted-Shah, D. Galat, S. Gloss, P. Goodwin, D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, S. Katz, G. M. Kondolf, P. S. Lake, R. Lave, J. L. Meyer, T. K. O’Donnell, L. Pagano, B. Powell & E. Sudduth, 2005. Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science 308: 636–637.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bioengineering Institute, 2009. Final Project Report, Selby Creek Stream Restoration and Riparian Revegetation Project.Google Scholar
  9. Bonada, N., S. Dolédec & B. Statzner, 2007. Taxonomic and biological trait differences of stream macroinvertebrate communities between mediterranean and temperate regions: implications for future climatic scenarios. Global Change Biology 13: 1658–1671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bond, N. R., P. S. Lake & A. H. Arthington, 2008. The impacts of drought on freshwater ecosystems: an Australian perspective. Hydrobiologia 600: 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bravard, J. P. & F. Petit, 1997. Les Cours d’Eau. Armand Colin, Paris.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, T. C., J. G. Taylor & B. Shelby, 1991. Assessing the direct effects of streamflow on recreation: a literature review. Water Resources Bulletin 27: 979–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burnson, D., 1992. Lower Cuneo Channel Dimensions Report of Findings. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
  14. Cayan, D. R., K. T. Redmond & L. G. Riddle, 1999. ENSO and hydrologic extremes in the Western United States. Journal of Climate 12: 2881–2893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. City of San Jose, 1965. Park of the Guadalupe Plan. California, San Jose.Google Scholar
  16. City of San Jose, 1969. Guadalupe River Park and Central District Master Plan. Lawrence Halprin and Associates, San Jose, CA.Google Scholar
  17. City of San Jose, 1989. Final Environmental Impact Report: Guadalupe River Park. Resolution No. 89-16. Department of City Planning, San Jose, CA.Google Scholar
  18. Clavero, M., F. Blanco-Garrido & J. Prenda, 2004. Fish fauna in Iberian Mediterranean river basins: biodiversity, introduced species and damming impacts. Aquatic Conservation 14: 575–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clavero, M., V. Hermoso, N. Levin & S. Kark, 2010. Geographical linkages between threats and imperilment in freshwater fish in the Mediterranean Basin. Diversity and Distributions 16: 744–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deitch, M. J., 2006. Scientific and institutional complexities of managing surface water for beneficial human and ecosystem uses under a seasonally variable flow regime in Mediterranean-climate Northern California. Dissertation, Department of Environmental Planning, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  21. Deitch, M. J., G. M. Kondolf & A. M. Merenlender, 2009a. Hydrologic impacts of small-scale instream diversions for frost and heat protection in the California wine country. River Research and Applications 25: 118–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Deitch, M. J., G. M. Kondolf & A. M. Merenlender, 2009b. Surface water balance to evaluate the hydrological impacts of small instream diversions and application to the Russian River basin, California, USA. Aquatic Conservation 19: 274–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gasith, A. & V. H. Resh, 1999. Streams in Mediterranean climate regions: abiotic influences and biotic responses to predictable seasonal events. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 51–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gonzalez del Tánago, M., D. García de Jalón & M. Román, 2012. River restoration in Spain: theoretical and practical approach in the context of the European Water Framework Directive. Environmental Management 50: 123–139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grantham, T. E., A. M. Merenlender & V. H. Resh, 2010. Climatic influences and anthropogenic stressors: an integrated framework for streamflow management in Mediterranean-climate California, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology 55: 188–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grantham, T. E., D. A. Newburn, M. McCarthy & A. M. Merenlender, 2012. The role of stream flow and land use in limiting over-summer survival of juvenile steelhead trout in California streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 141: 585–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Greco, S. E., A. K. Fremier & E. W. Larsen, 2007. A tool for tracking floodplain age land surface patterns on a large meandering river with applications for ecological planning and restoration design. Landscape and Urban Planning 81: 354–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gumprecht, B., 2001. The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  29. Habersack, H. & H. Piégay, 2008. River restoration in the Alps and their surroundings: past experience and future challenges. In Habersack, H., H. Piégay & M. Rinaldi (eds), Gravel Bed Rivers VI: From Process Understanding to River Restoration. Elsevier, Amsterdam: 703–737.Google Scholar
  30. Hansen, A. 2003, Post-project appraisal of a channel reconstruction on Cuneo Creek, California [available on internet at http://repositories.cdlib.org/wrca/restoration/].
  31. Healey, M. C. & A. Prince, 1995. Scales of variation in life history tactics of Pacific salmon and the conservation of phenotype and genotype. In Nielsen, J. L. & D. A. Powers (eds), Evolution and the Aquatic Ecosystem: Defining Unique Units in Population Conservation. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland: 176–184.Google Scholar
  32. Hecht, B., 1994. South of the spotted owl: restoration strategies for episodic channels and riparian corridors in Central California. In Kent, D. M. & J. J. Zentner (eds), Western Wetlands, Selected Proceedings of the 1993 Conference of the Society of Wetland Scientists. University of California, Davis, California: 104–117.Google Scholar
  33. Katz, J., P. Moyle, R. Quiñones, J. Israel & S. Purdy, 2012. Impending extinction of salmon, steelhead, and trout (Salmonidae) in California. Environmental Biology of Fishes 1–18. doi:10.1007/s10641-012-9974-8.
  34. Kenny, J. F., N. L. Barber, S. S. Hutson, K. S. Linsey, J. K. Lovelace & M. A. Maupin, 2009. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2005. US Geological Survey Circular 1344, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  35. Kibel, P. S., 2007. Rivertown: Rethinking Urban Rivers. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  36. Kiernan, J. D., P. B. Moyle & P. K. Crain, 2012. Restoring native fish assemblages to a regulated California stream using the natural flow regime concept. Ecological Applications 22: 1472–1482.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Kondolf, G. M., 2006. River restoration and meanders. Ecology and Society 11:42 [available on internet at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art42/].
  38. Kondolf, G. M., 2011. Setting goals in river restoration: when and where can the river ‘heal itself’? In Simon, A., S. J. Bennett, J. M. Castro (eds), Stream Restoration in Dynamic Fluvial Systems: Scientific Approaches, Analyses, and Tools. Geophysical Monograph Series, Vol. 194. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC: 29–43.Google Scholar
  39. Kondolf, G. M. & R. J. Batalla, 2005. Hydrological effects of dams and water diversions on rivers of Mediterranean-climate regions: examples from California. In Garcia, C. & R. J. Batalla (eds), Catchment Dynamics and River Processes: Mediterranean and Other Climate Regions. Elsevier, London: 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kondolf, G. M. & P. R. Wilcock, 1996. The flushing flow problem: defining and evaluating objectives. Water Resources Research 32: 2589–2599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kondolf, G. M., A. Boulton, S. O’Daniel, G. Poole, F. Rahel, E. Stanley, E. Wohl, A. Bang, J. Carlstrom, C. Cristoni, H. Huber, S. Koljonen, P. Louhi & K. Nakamura, 2006. Process-based ecological river restoration: visualising three-dimensional connectivity and dynamic vectors to recover lost linkages. Ecology and Society 11 [available on internet at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art5/].
  42. Kondolf, G. M., S. Anderson, R. Lave, L. Pagano, A. Merenlender & E. Bernhardt, 2007. Two decades of river restoration in California: what can we learn? Restoration Ecology 15: 516–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Krause, A., 2011. Mechanical Extraction and Augmentation of Coarse and Fine Sediment on the Trinity River, California, 1950–2011. Technical Report: TR-TRRP-2011-3. Trinity River Restoration Program, Weaverville, CA.Google Scholar
  44. Leopold, L. B., 1973. River channel change with time: an example address as Retiring President of The Geological Society of America, Minneapolis, Minnesota, November 1972. Geological Society of America Bulletin 84: 1845–1860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Leopold, L. B., M. G. Wolman & J. P. Miller, 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. WH Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  46. Lindley, S. T., R. S. Schick, A. Agrawal, M. Goslin, T. E. Pearson, E. More, J. J. Anderson, B. May, S. Greene, C. Hanson, A. Low, D. McEwan, R. B. MacFarlane, C. Swanson & J. G. Williams, 2006. Historical population structure of Central Valley steelhead and its alteration by dams. San Francisco Estuary & Watershed Science 4: 1–19.Google Scholar
  47. Litton, R. B., R. J. Tetlow, J. Sorensen & R. A. Beatty, 1974. Water and Landscape: An Aesthetic Overview of the Role of Water in the Landscape. Department of Landscape Architecture, University of California. Water Information Center Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  48. Lytle, D. A. & N. L. Poff, 2004. Adaptation to natural flow regimes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19: 94–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moyle, P. B., 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  50. Moyle, P. B., M. P. Marchetti, J. Baldrige & T. L. Taylor, 1998. Fish health and diversity: justifying flows for a California stream. Fisheries 23(7): 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moyle, P. B. & J. F. Mount, 2007. Homogenous rivers, homogenous faunas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 5711–5712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moyle, P. B., J. V. E. Katz & R. M. Quiñones, 2011. Rapid decline of California’s native inland fishes: a status assessment. Biological Conservation 144(10): 2414–2423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Munné, A. & N. Prat, 2004. Defining river types in a Mediterranean area: a methodology for the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive. Environmental Management 34: 711–729.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. B. da Fonseca & J. Kent, 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nassauer, J. I., 1995. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal 14: 161–170.Google Scholar
  56. NRC (National Research Council), 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  57. NRC (National Research Council), 2005. Endangered and Threatened Species of the Platte River. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  58. Nicholson, S., 2002. Water resource development and the evolution of decision-making processes in the post-modern era: claims making in the urban environment. Master of City Planning Thesis. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  59. Ollero, A., 2007. Territorio fluvial. Diagnóstico y propuesta para la gestión ambiental y de riesgos en el Ebro y los cursos bajos de sus afluentes. Bakeaz & Fundación Nueva Cultura del Agua, Bilbao, Spain.Google Scholar
  60. Ollero, A. & A. Ibisate, 2012. Space for the river: a flood management tool. In Wong, T. S. W. (ed.), Flood Risk and Flood Management. Nova Science, Hauppauge, NY: 199–218.Google Scholar
  61. Ollero, A., A. Ibisate & J. Elso, 2009. El territorio fluvial y sus dificultades de aplicación. Geographicalia 56: 37–62.Google Scholar
  62. Opperman, J. J., R. Luster, B. A. McKenney, M. Roberts & A. W. Meadows, 2010. Ecologically functional floodplains: connectivity, flow regime, and scale. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 46: 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Partidário, M. R. & F. N. Correia, 2004. Polis—the Portuguese programme on urban environment: a contribution to the discussion on European Urban Policy. European Planning Studies 12(3): 409–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Permanyer, L., 2008. Eixample: 150 anys d’història. Viena Edicions i Ajuntament de Barcelona, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  65. Piégay, H., S. E. Darby, E. Mosselman & N. Surian, 2005. The erodible corridor concept: applicability and limitations for river management. River Research and Applications 21: 773–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ribera, I. & A. P. Vogler, 2004. Speciation of Iberian diving beetles in Pleistocene refugia (Coleoptera, Dytiscidae). Molecular Ecology 13: 179–193.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Riley, A. L., 1998. Restoring Streams in Cities. Island Press, Covelo, CA.Google Scholar
  68. Rosgen, D. L., 1991. Bull Creek Watershed Restoration Plan. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.Google Scholar
  69. Saraiva, M. G., I. L. Ramos, L. Vaz, F. Bernardo & B. Condessa, 2008. Towards Sustainability in Rehabilitating Urban River Landscapes. In Proceedings of the 4th ECRR Conference on River Restoration, Crossing Ecology with Social Concerns. Venice, Italy: 929-938.Google Scholar
  70. Schonher, T. & S. E. Nicholson, 1989. The relationship between California rainfall and ENSO events. Journal of Climate 2: 1258–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Smith, D. G., G. F. Croker & K. McFarlane, 1995. Human perception of water appearance. 1. Clarity and colour for bathing and aesthetics. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 29: 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stein, E. D., K. Vyverberg, G. M. Kondolf & K. Janes, 2011. Episodic stream channels: imperatives for assessment and environmental planning in California. In Proceedings of a Special Technical Workshop, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Report No. 0645. California State Water Board, Sacramento, CA: 1–87.Google Scholar
  73. Steinbeck, J., 1945. Cannery Row. The Viking Press, New York.Google Scholar
  74. Thorpe, J. E., 1989. Developmental variation within salmon populations. Journal of Fish Biology 35(Suppl A): 295–303.Google Scholar
  75. Tyagi, A., B. Chongtoua, D. Medina, A. Patwardhan & C. Slater, 2008. Management of Dry Weather Flows in Semi-Arid Climates Using Low Impact Development Technology. In ASCE Conference Proceedings. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.Google Scholar
  76. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 2001. Final Integrated General Re-Evaluation Report/Environmental Impact Statement, Report Supplement Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed modifications to the Guadalupe River Project, Downtown San Jose, California, Santa Clara, CA.Google Scholar
  77. USFWS & Hoopa Tribe (US Fish and Wildlife Service and Hoopa Valley Tribe), 1999. Trinity River Flow Evaluation Final Report. USFWS, Arcata, CA.Google Scholar
  78. Wainwright, J. & J. B. Thornes, 2004. Environmental Issues in the Mediterranean. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  79. Warrick, J. A., 2002. Short-term (1997–2000) and long-term (1928–2000) observations of river water and sediment discharge to the Santa Barbara channel, California. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
  80. Waylen, P. R. & C. N. Caviedes, 1990. Annual and seasonal fluctuations of precipitation and streamflow in the Aconcagua River basin, Chile. Journal of Hydrology 120: 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Whittaker, D., B. Shelby & J. Gangemi, 2005. Flows and Recreation: A Guide to Studies for River Professionals. Hydropower Reform Coalition and National Park Service Hydropower Reform Coalition, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  82. Williams, G. P., 1978. Bank-full discharge of rivers. Water Resources Research 14(6): 1141–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Williams, J. G., 2006. Central Valley Salmon: a perspective on Chinook and Steelhead in the Central Valley of California. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 4(3): 1–398 [available on internet at http://escholarship.org/uc/item/21v9x1t7].
  84. Williams, R. P., 1979. Sediment Discharge in the Santa Clara River Basin, Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, California. US Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 79-78, Menlo Park, CA.Google Scholar
  85. Wolman, M. G., 1955. The Natural Channel of Brandywine Creek, Pennsylvania. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 271. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  86. Wolman, M. G. & J. P. Miller, 1960. Magnitude and frequency of forces in geomorphic processes. The Journal of Geology 68(1): 54–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wolman, M. G. & R. Gerson, 1978. Relative scales of time and effectiveness of climate in watershed geomorphology. Earth Surface Processes 3: 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Mathias Kondolf
    • 1
  • Kristen Podolak
    • 1
  • Theodore E. Grantham
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Landscape Architecture & Environmental PlanningUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Center for Watershed SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations