Advertisement

Water Resources Management

, Volume 30, Issue 14, pp 5281–5298 | Cite as

Monitoring Methodology of Interventions for Riverbanks Stabilization: Assessment of Technical Solutions Performance

  • António Pinto
  • L. F. Sanches Fernandes
  • Rodrigo Maia
Article

Abstract

The success of the river rehabilitation process depends not only on the intervention project but also on the attention given to the monitoring and evaluation of the implemented measures. In spite of the recent efforts on the quantification and sharing of interventions’ results, there are still very few written records documenting that information. The present work proposes a monitoring methodology for riverbanks’ stabilization interventions by comparing the results obtained by monitoring the implemented technical solutions with the corresponding theoretical time-expected performance. For this purpose, two case studies located in the south of Portugal were analysed. For each of those case studies, the dominant factors that influenced the temporal evolution of the observed outcomes were assessed. It was possible to verify that, depending on the implemented technical solution type and on the specific characteristics of the intervention site, monitoring actions can be fundamental to achieve the expected technical and ecological efficiency, namely when bioengineering technical solutions are involved. This work led to the development of a database structure that will gather information on the application of the proposed methodology over time and that shall be improved with the analysis of the behaviour of other riverbanks’ stabilization interventions. The development of this database will surely contribute to enable choosing and applying the most adequate riverbank protection solutions.

Keywords

Monitoring method Soil bioengineering Streambank restoration Erosion control Vegetation revetment Adaptive management 

Notes

Acknowledgements

As regards the second author, the research was supported by: European Investment Funds by FEDER/COMPETE/POCI– Operational Competitiveness and Internationalization Programme, under Project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006958 and National Funds by FCT - Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, under the project UID/AGR/04033/2013.

Supplementary material

11269_2016_1486_MOESM1_ESM.docx (54 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 54 kb)

References

  1. Águas do Algarve (2011) Enhancement and rehabilitation of Riparian galleries in Odelouca river. Interventions to accomplish. Reference terms relating to the Contract. In: Portuguese: Valorização e Requalificação de Galerias Ribeirinhas na Ribeira de Odelouca. Intervenções a realizar. Termos de referência respeitantes à EmpreitadaGoogle Scholar
  2. Anstead L, Boar T, Keith N (2012) The effectiveness of a soil bioengineering solution for river bank stabilisation during flood and drought conditions: two case studies from East Anglia. Area 44(4):479–488, ISSN 0004-0894. Royal Geographical SocietyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA, Allan JD et al (2005) Synthesizing US river restoration efforts. Science 308:636–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernhardt ES, Sudduth EB, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Meyer JL, Alexander G et al (2007) Restoring rivers one reach at a time: results from a survey of U.S. river restoration practitioners. Restor Ecol 15:482–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchanan B, Walter M, Nagle G, Schneider R (2012) Monitoring and assessment of a river restoration project in central New York. River Res Appl 28:216–233. doi: 10.1002/rra.1453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cavaillé P, Dommangeta F, Daumerguea N, Loucougaraya G, Spiegelbergera T, Tabacchib E, Evette A (2013) Biodiversity assessment following a naturality gradient of riverbank protection structures in French prealps rivers. Ecol Eng 53:23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cavaillé P, Ducasse L, Breton V, Dommanget F, Tabacchib E, Evette A (2015) Functional and taxonomic plant diversity for riverbank protection works: bioengineering techniques close to natural banks and beyond hard engineering. J Environ Manag 151:65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cortes R, Hughes S, Jesus J, Sanches Fernandes L, Magalhães M (2013) Enhancement and rehabilitation of riparian galleries in Odelouca project area under Ricover program. In: Portuguese: Valorização e requalificação das galerias ribeirinhas na área do empreendimento de Odelouca ao abrigo do programa Ricover. University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro. Águas do AlgarveGoogle Scholar
  9. Cramer ML (managing editor) (2002) Integrated streambank protection guidelines. Published by the Washington State Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Program. Olympia, Washington.Google Scholar
  10. Cramer ML (managing editor) (2012) Stream habitat restoration guidelines. Co-published by the Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, Transportation and Ecology, Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, Puget Sound Partnership, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Olympia, Washington.Google Scholar
  11. Dhital YP, Tang Q (2014) Soil bioengineering application for flood hazard minimization in the foothills of Siwaliks, Nepal. Ecol Eng 74:458–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evette A, Labonne S, Liebault F, Rey F, Jancke O, Girel J (2009) History of bioengineering techniques for erosion control in rivers in Western Europe. Environ Manag 43:972–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evette A, Balique C, Lavaine C, Rey F, Prunier P (2012) Using ecological and biogeographical features to produce a typology of the plant species used in bioengineering for riverbank protection in europe. River Res Appl 28:1830–1842. doi: 10.1002/rra.1560 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fabião A, Mendes A, Ferreira T (2011) Soil bioengineering case studies on southern Portugal rivers. Green Infrastructures for Biodiversity, CascaisGoogle Scholar
  15. Feld CK, Birk S, Bradley DC, Hering D, Kail J, Marzin A, Melcher A, Nemitz D, Pedersen ML, Pletterbauer F, Pont D, Verdenschot PFM, Friberg N (2011) From natural to degraded rivers and back again: a test of restoration ecology theory and practice. In: Woodward G (ed) Advances in ecological research. p 119–209Google Scholar
  16. Fisrwg (2001) Stream corridor restoration—principles, processes and practices. By the Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG) (15 Federal agencies of the US gov’t). GPO Item N°. 0120-A; SuDocs N°. A57.6/2:EN3/PT.653. ISBN-0-934213-59-3Google Scholar
  17. Florineth F (2007) Piante al posto del cemento. Manuale di ingegneria naturalistica e verde tecnico. Verde Editoriale, Milano, ISBN: 88-86569-26-2Google Scholar
  18. Godinho F, Costa S, Pinheiro P, Reis F, Pinheiro A (2014) Integrated procedure for environmental flow assessment in rivers. Environ Processes 1:137–147. doi: 10.1007/s40710-014-0012-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hammond D, Mant J, Holloway J, Elbourne N, Janes M (2011) Practical river restoration appraisal guidance for monitoring options (PRAGMO). The River Restoration Centre, p 41–80Google Scholar
  20. Jenkinson G, Barnas A, Braatne H, Bernhardt S, Palmer A, Allan D, The National River Restoration Science Synthesis (2006) Stream restoration databases and case studies: a guide to information resources and their utility in advancing the science and practice of restoration. Society for ecological restoration international. Restor Ecol 14(2):177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kondolf G, Anderson S, Lave R, Pagano L, Merenlender A, Bernhardt S (2007) Two decades of river restoration in California: what can we learn? Society for ecological restoration international. Restor Ecol 15(3):516–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kondolf G, Anderson S, Storesund R, Tompkins M, Atwood P (2011) Post-project appraisals of river restoration in advanced university instruction. Restor Ecol 19(6):696–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li MH, Eddleman KE (2002) Biotechnical engineering is an alternative to traditional engineering methods. A biotechnical streambank stabilization design approach. Landsc Urban Plan 60Google Scholar
  24. Li X, Zhang L, Zhang Z (2006) Soil bioengineering and the ecological restoration of riverbanks at the Airport Town, Shangai, China. Ecol Eng 26:304–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu Y, Rauch HP, Zhang J, Yang X, Gao J (2014) Development and soil reinforcement characteristics of five native species planted as cuttings in local area of Beijing. Ecol Eng 71:190–196. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.07.017, ISSN 0925-8574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nemus (2007) The Odelouca reservoir developments plan (In Portuguese). Instituto da ÁguaGoogle Scholar
  27. Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Allan JD, Lake PS, Alexander G, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm CN, Shah JF, Galat DL, Loss SG, Goodwin P, Hart DD, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Kondolf GM, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Sudduth E (2005) Standards for ecologically successful riverrestoration. J Appl Ecol 42:208–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Palmer M, Allan JD, Meyer J, Bernhardt ES (2007) River restoration in the twenty-first century: data and experiential knowledge to inform future efforts. Restor Ecol 15:472–481. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00243.x
  29. Palmer M, Filoso S, Fanelli R (2013) From ecosystems to ecosystem services: stream restoration as ecological engineering. Ecol Eng 65:62–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Palmeri F (2007) Laboratorio di ricerca altamente qualificato. Tecnovia – Studi Progetti Per L’Ambiente, VeronaGoogle Scholar
  31. Pander J, Geist J (2013) Ecological indicators for stream restoration success. Ecol Indic 30:106–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. PROGECO (2005) Territory protection through ecological engineering at the river basin scale. (In portuguese). Comissão de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional do Algarve. ISBN: 972-99928-0-0Google Scholar
  33. Rutherfurd I, Jerie K, Marsh N (2000) A rehabilitation manual for australian streams. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology. Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, Vol. 1 and 2. ISBN 0 642 76030 6Google Scholar
  34. Silva J (2008) Bioengineering techniques on the riverbanks recovery in the Mediterranean environment. Applying to Algibre river. II JORNADA La Bioingeniería en la Restauración Fluvial del Paisaje Mediterráneo. Valencia, EspañaGoogle Scholar
  35. Silva J, Gomez L, Flebbe E, Azinheira R (2012) Bioengineering for streambank stabilization. Revisiting algibre river project, Portugal. Cascais World Forum 2012. Soil bioengineering and land management new challenges. Sustaining Our Land, Water and Life in Changing Climate II Congress APENA - VII Congress AEIP – VI Congress EFIBGoogle Scholar
  36. Sousa R (2015) Specification methodology for plants with biotechnical potential in soil bioengineering. (In Portuguese). Master’s thesis. Universidade Federal de Santa Maria. BrasilGoogle Scholar
  37. Swinson B, Cockerill K, Colby J, Tuberty S, Gu C (2015) To restore or not to restore: assessing pre-project conditions of a habitat restoration project on the new river, North Carolina. Environ Processes 2:647–668. doi: 10.1007/s40710-015-0111-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tompkins M, Kondolf M (2007) Systematic postproject appraisals to maximize lessons learned from river restoration projects: case study of compound channel restoration projects in Northern California. Society for ecological restoration international. Restor Ecol 15(3):524–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Viriato M (2012) The river restoration linked to the project of Odelouca. (In Portuguese). III River restoration days. Portuguese water resources association. Instituto Superior de Agronomia, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  40. WFD (2000) Water framework directiveGoogle Scholar
  41. Wohl E, Angermeier P, Bledsoe B, Kondolf M, MacDonnell L, Merritt M, Palmer A, Poff L, Tarboton D (2005) River restoration. Water Resour Res 41:W10301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Woolsey S, Capelli F, Gonser T, Hoehn E, Hostmann M, Junker B, Paetzold A, Roulier C, Schweizer S, Tiegs S, Tockner K, Weber C, Peter A (2007) A strategy to assess river restoration success. Eawag aquatic research, journal compilation. Freshw Biol 52:752–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zeh H (2007) Soil bioengineering, construction type manual. European Federation for Soil Bioengineering, ZurichGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • António Pinto
    • 1
  • L. F. Sanches Fernandes
    • 2
    • 3
  • Rodrigo Maia
    • 1
  1. 1.Civil Engineering DepartmentFaculty of Engineering of University of Porto - Hydraulics, Water Resources and Environment DivisionPortoPortugal
  2. 2.Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environment and Biological SciencesVila RealPortugal
  3. 3.Department of EngineeringUTADVila RealPortugal

Personalised recommendations