Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment Approach for Identifying Compatibility of Restoration Projects with Geomorphic and Flooding Processes in Gravel Bed Rivers

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A critical requirement for a successful river restoration project in a dynamic gravel bed river is that it be compatible with natural hydraulic and sediment transport processes operating at the reach scale. The potential for failure is greater at locations where the influence of natural processes is inconsistent with intended project function and performance. We present an approach using practical GIS, hydrologic, hydraulic, and sediment transport analyses to identify locations where specific restoration project types have the greatest likelihood of working as intended because their function and design are matched with flooding and morphologic processes. The key premise is to identify whether a specific river analysis segment (length ~1–10 bankfull widths) within a longer reach is geomorphically active or inactive in the context of vertical and lateral stabilities, and hydrologically active for floodplain connectivity. Analyses involve empirical channel geometry relations, aerial photographic time series, LiDAR data, HEC-RAS hydraulic modeling, and a time-integrated sediment transport budget to evaluate trapping efficiency within each segment. The analysis segments are defined by HEC-RAS model cross sections. The results have been used effectively to identify feasible projects in a variety of alluvial gravel bed river reaches with lengths between 11 and 80 km and 2-year flood magnitudes between ~350 and 1330 m3/s. Projects constructed based on the results have all performed as planned. In addition, the results provide key criteria for formulating erosion and flood management plans.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aggett GR, Wilson JP (2009) Creating and coupling a high-resolution DTM with a 1-D hydraulic model in a GIS for scenario-based assessment of avulsion hazard in a gravel-bed river. Geomorphol 113(1–2):21–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartz KK, Lagueux MK, Scheuerell MD, Beechie T, Haas AD, Ruckelshaus MH (2006) Translating restoration scenarios into habitat conditions: an initial step in evaluating recovery strategies for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63(7):578–1595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beechie T, Pess G, Roni P, Giannico G (2008) Setting river restoration priorities: a review of approaches and a general protocol for identifying and prioritizing actions. N Am J Fish Management 28(3):891–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt ES, Sudduth EB, Palmer MA et al (2007) Restoring rivers one reach at a time: Results from a survey of U.S. river restoration practitioners. Restor Ecol 15(3):482–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biedenharn DS, Copeland RR, Thorne CR, Soar PJ, Hey RD (2000) Effective discharge calculation: a practical guide (No. ERDC/CHL-TR-00-15). Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Lab, Vicksburg, MS

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair GR, Lestelle LC, Mobrand LC (2009) The ecosystem diagnosis and treatment model: a tool for assessing salmonid performance potential based on habitat conditions. Am Fish Soc Symp 71:289–309

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brasington J, Langham J, Rumsby B (2003) Methodological sensitivity of morphometric estimates of coarse fluvial sediment transport. Geomorphol 53(3–4):299–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brierley G, Fryirs K, Outhet D, Massey C (2002) Application of the river styles framework as a basis for river management. Appl Geogr 22(1):91–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brierley G, Fryirs K, Cook N, Outhet D, Raine A, Parsons L, Healey M (2011) Geomorphology in action: linking policy with on-the-ground actions through applications of the River Styles Framework. Appl Geogr 31:1132–1143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnett KM, Reeves GH, Miller DJ, Clarke S, Vance-Borland K, Christiansen K (2007) Distribution of salmon-habitat potential relative to landscape characteristics and implications for conservation. Ecol Appl 17(1):66–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cluer B, Skidmore P, Beechie T, Castro J, Shea C, Pess G, Thorne C (2011) RiverRAT: tools and science for assessing river management and restoration projects. In: Proceedings of the 2011 world environmental and water resources congress: bearing knowledge for sustainability, May 22–26, Palm Springs, California. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, pp 2582–2592

  • Copeland RR, McComas DN, Thorne CR, Soar PJ, Jonas MM (2001) Hydraulic design of stream restoration projects. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Report No. ERDC/CHL-TR-01-28. Engineering Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 2001

  • Cramer ML (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

  • Downs PW, Kondolf GM (2002) Post-project appraisals in adaptive management of river channel restoration. Environ Manag 29(4):477–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenfeld JG (2000) Defining the limits of restoration: the need for realistic goals. Restor Ecol 8(1):2–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott J, Capesius G, Joseph P (2009) Geomorphic changes resulting from floods in reconfigured gravel-bed river channels in Colorado, USA. Geol Soc Am Special Paper 451:173–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson RI (1984). The threshold between meandering and braiding. In: Smith H (ed). Proceeding of the 1st international conference on hydraulic design. Springer, New York, NY, pp 6.15–6.29

  • Formann E, Habersack HM, Schober S (2007) Morphodynamic river processes and techniques for assessment of channel evolution in alpine gravel bed rivers. Geomorphol 90(3–4):340–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaeuman DA, Schmidt JC, Wilcock PR (2003) Evaluation of in-channel gravel storage with morphology-based gravel budgets developed from planimetric data. J Geophys Res 108(F1):6001. doi:10.1029/2002JF000002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galay VJ, Rood KM, Miller S (1998) Human interference with braided gravel-bed rivers. In: Klingeman PC, Beschta RL, Komar PD, Bradley JB (eds) Gravel-bed rivers in the environment. Water Resources Publications, LLC, Highlands Ranch, Colorado, pp 471–507

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilvear DJ (1999) Fluvial geomorphology and river engineering: future roles utilizing a fluvial hydrosystems framework. Geomorphol 31(1–4):229–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall JE, Holzer DM, Beechie T (2007) Predicting river floodplain and lateral channel migration for salmon habitat conservation. J Am Water Res Assoc 43(3):786–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ham DG, Church M (2000) Bed-material transport estimated from channel morphodynamics: chilliwack River, British Columbia. Earth Surf Process Landf 25:1123–1142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilldale RC, Mooney D (2007) One-dimensional hydraulic modeling of the Yakima basin: a component of Yakima River basin water storage feasibility study, Washington. Technical Series No. TS-YSS-14. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado

  • Kleinhans M (2010) Sorting out river channel patterns. Progr Phys Geog 34(3):287–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klingeman P, Martz M, Walla H, Castro J, Groznik F (2004) Ecosystem goals, river dynamics, and river restoration design. In: Proceedings of the 2004 world water and environmental resources congress: critical transitions in water and environmental resources management, June 27–July 1, Salt Lake City, Utah. ASCE, Environmental and Water Resources Institute (EWRI)

  • Kondolf GM (1998) Lessons learned from river restoration projects in California. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 8:39–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kondolf GM (2000) Some suggested guidelines for geomorphic aspects of anadromous salmonid habitat restoration proposals. Restor Ecol 8(1):48–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kondolf GM, Wolman MG (1993) The sizes of salmonid spawning gravels. Water Resour Res 29:2275–2285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kondolf GM, Smeltzer MW, Railsback SF (2001) Design and performance of a channel reconstruction project in a coastal California gravel-bed stream. Environ Manag 28(6):761–776

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kondolf GM, Anderson S, Lave R, Pagano L, Merenlender A, Bernhardt ES (2007) Two decades of river restoration in California: what can we learn? Restor Ecol 15(3):516–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kondolf GM, Angermeier PL, Cummins K et al (2008) Projecting cumulative benefits of multiple river restoration projects: an example from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system in California. Environ Manag 42(6):933–945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lagasse PF, Spritz WJ, Zevenbergen LW, Zachman DW (2004) Handbook for predicting meander migration. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington DC, NCHRP Report 533

  • Lane SN, Westaway RM, Hicks DM (2003) Estimation of erosion and deposition volumes in a large, gravel-bed, braided river using synoptic remote sensing. Earth Surf Process Landf 28:249–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leopold LB, Wolman MG (1957) River channel patterns: braided, meandering and straight U.S. Geol Surv Prof Paper 282B:39–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold LB, Wolman MG, Miller JP (1995) Fluvial processes in geomorphology. Republication. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, NY, p 522

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis CA, Lester NP, Bradshaw AD, Fitzgibbon JE, Fuller K, Hakanson L, Richards C (1996) Considerations of scale in habitat conservation and restoration. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53(Suppl. 1):440–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li SS, Millar RG, Islam S (2008) Modelling gravel transport and morphology for the Fraser River gravel reach, British Columbia. Geomorphol 95(3–4):206–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorang MS, Whited DC, Hauer FR, Kimball JS, Stanford JA (2005) Using airborne multispectral imagery to evaluate geomorphic work across floodplains of gravel-bed rivers. Ecol Appl 15(4):1209–1222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar RG (2000) Influence of bank vegetation on alluvial channel patterns. Water Resour Res 36(4):1109–1118. doi:10.1029/1999WR900346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar RG (2005) Theoretical regime equations for mobile gravel-bed rivers with stable banks. Geomorphol 64:207–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne JA, Sear DA (1997) Modelling river channel topography using GIS. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 11(5):499–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukundan R, Radcliffe DE, Ritchie JC (2011) Channel stability and sediment source assessment in streams draining a piedmont watershed in Georgia, USA. Hydrol Process 25(8):1243–1253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (2007) Stream restoration design. Part 654, National Engineering Handbook. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington DC

  • Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Allan JD et al (2005) Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. J Appl Ecol 42(2):208–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker G (1990) Surface-based bedload transport relation for gravel rivers. J Hydraul Res 28:417–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker G (2004) The uses of sediment transport and morphodynamic modeling in stream restoration. In: Proceedings of the 2004 world water and environmental resources congress: critical transitions in water and environmental resources management, June 27–July 1, Salt Lake City, Utah. ASCE, Environmental and Water Resources Institute (EWRI)

  • Pretty JL, Harrison SSC, Shepherd DJ, Smith C, Hildrew AG, Hey RD (2003) River rehabilitation and fish populations: assessing the benefit of instream structures. J Appl Ecol 40(2):251–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid LM, Dunne T (2003) Sediment budgets as an organizing framework in fluvial geomorphology. In: Kondolf GM, Piegay H (eds) Tools in fluvial geomorphology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 463–500

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoads BL (2009) Planform change and stream power in the Kishwaukee River watershed, Illinois: geomorphic assessment for environmental management. Geol Soc Am Special Paper 451:09–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson WR (2002) Simplified model for assessing meander bend migration rates. J Hydraul Eng 128(12):1094–1097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roni P, Beechie TJ, Bilby RE, Leonetti FE, Pollock MM, Pess GR (2002) A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest watersheds. N Am J Fish Management 22(1):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roni P, Hanson K, Beechie T (2008) Global review of the physical and biological effectiveness of stream habitat rehabilitation techniques. N Am J Fish Manag 28(3):856–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roper BB, Buffington JM, Archer E, Moyer C, Ward M (2008) The role of observer variation in determining Rosgen stream types in northeastern Oregon mountain streams. J Am Water Res Assoc 44(2):417–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosgen D, Silvey HL (1996) Applied river morphology. Wildland hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumps JM, Katz SL, Barnas K, Morehead MD, Jenkinson R, Clayton SR, Goodwin P (2007) Stream restoration in the Pacific Northwest: analysis of interviews with project managers. Restor Ecol 15(3):506–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt LJ, Potyondy JP (2004) Quantifying channel maintenance instream flows: an approach for gravel-bed streams in the Western United States. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-128, May

  • Sear D, Newson M, Hill C, Old J, Branson J (2009) A method for applying fluvial geomorphology in support of catchment-scale river restoration planning. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 19(5):506–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shields Jr FD, Copeland RR, Klingeman PC, Doyle MW, Simon A (2007) Stream restoration. In: Garcia MH (ed) Sedimentation engineering, ASCE manuals and reports on engineering practice No. 110. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, pp 461–503

  • Shields FD Jr, Copeland RR, Klingeman PC, Doyle MW, Simon A (2003) Design for stream restoration. J Hydraul Eng 129:575–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shields Jr FD, Copeland RR, Klingeman PC, Doyle MW, Simon A (2007) Stream restoration. In: Garcia MH (ed) Sedimentation engineering, ASCE manuals and reports on engineering practice No. 110. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, pp 461–503

  • Shields FD Jr, Pezeshki SR, Wilson GV, Wu W, Dabney SM (2008) Rehabilitation of an incised stream using plant materials: the dominance of geomorphic processes. Ecol Soc 13(2):54

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon A, Doyle M, Kondolf M, Shields FD Jr, Rhoads B, McPhillips M (2007) Critical evaluation of how the Rosgen classification and associated “Natural Channel Design” methods fail to integrate and quantify fluvial processes and channel response. J Am Water Res Assoc 43(5):1117–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skidmore PB, Thorne CR, Cluer BL, Pess GR, Castro JM, Beechie TJ, Shea CC (2011) Science base and tools for evaluating stream engineering, management, and restoration proposals. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-112, p 255

  • Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery Forum (2005) Snohomish River basin salmon conservation plan. Snohomish County Surface Water Management. http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/Public_Works/Divisions/SWM/Work_Areas/Habitat/Salmon/Snohomish/Snohomish_Basin_Salmon_ConservationPlan.htm. Accessed March 2006

  • Tompkins MR, Kondolf GM (2007) Systematic postproject appraisals to maximize lessons learned from river restoration projects: case study of compound channel restoration projects in Northern California. Restor Ecol 15(3):524–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson DM (2002) Long-term effect of instream habitat-improvement structures on channel morphology along the Blackledge and Salmon Rivers, Connecticut, USA. Environ Manag 29(1):250–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson DM (2006) Did the use of in-stream structures improve streams? A reanalysis of historical data. Ecol Appl 16(2):784–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg JH (1995) Prediction of alluvial channel pattern of perennial rivers. Geomorphol 12:259–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board (2013) Manual 18, salmon recovery grants. Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, Olympia, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcock PR (2004) Sediment transport in the restoration of gravel-bed rivers. In: Proceedings of the 2004 world water and environmental resources congress: critical transitions in water and environmental resources management, June 27–July 1, Salt Lake City, Utah. ASCE, Environ Water Res Institute (EWRI)

  • Wissmar RC, Beschta RL (1998) Restoration and management of riparian ecosystems: a catchment perspective. Freshw Biol 40:571–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wohl E, Angermeier PL, Bledsoe B, Kondolf GM, MacDonnell L, Merritt DM, Palmer MA, Poff NL, Tarboton D (2005) River restoration. Water Resour Res 41(1):W10301-1–W10301-12

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolman MG, Miller JP (1960) Magnitude and frequency of forces in geomorphic processes. J Geol 68:54–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Many individuals and organizations contributed to the assessments. The work in western Washington rivers was performed under contract to and in collaboration with Snohomish County Surface Water; the Yakima River work was performed in collaboration with ICF Jones and Stokes under contract to the Yakama Nation. Of special note, Suzy Brunzell, Allison Sanders, Laura Audette, and Sheila Hagen of Snohomish County, and Danniel Stratten of ICF Jones & Stokes provided considerable GIS support. Chris Nelson and Rick Vining of Snohomish County assisted in field bathymetric, topographic, and pebble-count surveys. The approach was implemented as part of multiple assessments funded by the Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) under Grants 02-1609 and 07-1769. The Yakima River work was funded by SRFB Grant No. 10-1925. We thank Joel Sholtes and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive critiques and suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. R2 Resource Consultants Inc., 15250 NE 95th Street, Redmond, WA, 98052, USA

    Paul DeVries

  2. Snohomish County Public Works, 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, MS-607, Everett, WA, 98201-4046, USA

    Robert Aldrich

Authors
  1. Paul DeVries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Aldrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul DeVries.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

DeVries, P., Aldrich, R. Assessment Approach for Identifying Compatibility of Restoration Projects with Geomorphic and Flooding Processes in Gravel Bed Rivers. Environmental Management 56, 549–568 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0518-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0518-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation