Selecting Appropriate Stream and Watershed Restoration Techniques

Roni, Philip; Pess, George R.; Hanson, Karrie; Pearsons, Michael

doi:10.1002/9781118406618.ch5

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 130 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Where specific floodplains are targeted for restoration, three restoration approaches can be used: (1) fully restore natural processes where possible, (2) partially restore natural processes where some human constraints will not be removed, or (3) construct alternative habitat types where human constraints preclude restoration [e.g., Cairns , ; Brown , ; Beechie et al ., ]. Specific restoration actions therefore might include extensive removal of river levees to reconnect floodplains, limited setback of levees to partially reconnect floodplains, or construction of artificial off‐channel habitats where floodplain reconnection is not possible [e.g., Buijse et al ., ; Konrad et al ., ; Beechie et al ., ; Roni et al ., ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting natural channel patterns based on landscape and geomorphic controls in the Columbia River basin, USA

Beechie¹,

Imaki²

2014

Water Resour. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] Based on known relationships of slope, discharge, valley confinement, sediment supply, and sediment caliber in controlling channel patterns, we developed multivariate models to predict natural channel patterns across the 674,500 km 2 Columbia River basin, USA. We used readily available geospatial data sets to calculate reach slopes, 2 year flood discharge, and valley confinement, as well as to develop hypothesized landscape-level surrogates for sediment load and caliber (relative slope, percent of drainage area in alpine terrain, and percent of drainage area in erosive fine-grained lithologies). Using a support vector machine (SVM) classifier, we found that the four channel patterns were best distinguished by a model including all variables except valley confinement (82% overall accuracy). We then used that model to predict channel pattern for the entire basin and found that the spatial distribution of straight, meandering, anabranching, and braided patterns were consistent with regional topography and geology. A simple slope-discharge model distinguished meandering channels from all other channel patterns, but did not clearly distinguish braided from straight channels (68% overall accuracy). Addition of one or more of the hypothesized sediment supply surrogates improved prediction accuracy by 4-14% over slope and discharge alone. Braided and straight channels were most clearly distinguished on an axis of relative slope, whereas braided and anabranching channels were most clearly distinguished by adding percent alpine area to the model.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting natural channel patterns based on landscape and geomorphic controls in the Columbia River basin, USA

Beechie¹,

Imaki²

2014

Water Resour. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many factors can influence the success of riparian planting, including soils, water table levels, sun, shade, soil fungi, herbivores, invasive species, soil preparation before planting, and others (Roni et al 2013b), and other studies have identified a wide variety of approaches for monitoring riparian restoration efforts (Pollock et al 2005). Several studies are focused on riparian buffers (Parkyn 2004) rather than direct planting efforts along streams and rivers, and most have been implemented over the shorter term (less than 10 years) .…”

Section: Riparian Planting Projectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Stream Restoration Project Effectiveness Using a Programmatic Evaluation of Salmonid Habitat and Fish Response

O’Neal

Roni

Crawford

et al. 2016

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on stream restoration projects to benefit salmonids and other aquatic species across the Pacific Northwest, though only a small percentage of these projects are monitored to evaluate effectiveness and far fewer are tracked for more than 1 or 2 years. The Washington State Salmon Recovery Board and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board have spent more than US$500 million on salmonid habitat restoration projects since 1999. We used a multiple before-after-control-impact design to programmatically evaluate the reach-scale physical and biological effectiveness of a subset of restoration actions. A total of 65 projects in six project categories (fish passage, instream habitat, riparian planting, livestock exclusion, floodplain enhancement, and habitat protection) were monitored over an 8-year period. We conducted habitat, fish, and macroinvertebrate surveys to calculate the following indicators: longitudinal pool cross section and depth, riparian shade and cover, large woody debris volumes, fish density, macroinvertebrate indices, and upland vegetation condition class. Results indicate that four categories (instream habitat, livestock exclusions, floodplain enhancements, and riparian plantings) have shown significant improvements in physical habitat after 5 years. Abundance of juvenile Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch increased significantly at fish passage projects and floodplain enhancement projects, but significant results were not detected for other fish species. Moreover, the biological response indicators of juvenile salmonid abundance and macroinvertebrate indices showed declines at instream habitat and habitat protection projects, respectively. Our results indicate that a subset of projects can be effectively evaluated programmatically, but power and sample size estimates indicate that two or more years of preproject data are necessary to adequately determine the effectiveness of many project types, particularly for fish. Programmatic evaluations of project effectiveness should include adequate preproject sampling and multiseason monitoring for fish species to address issues of variability that are likely to be encountered in large-scale monitoring programs.

show abstract

“…Restoring floodplain-channel connectivity may simultaneously address prior human disturbances and provide proactive adaptation to climate change by increasing water retention, base flows, flood attenuation, and riparian habitat . Floodplain connectivity can be restored by removing or setting back levees (Konrad et al, 2008;Opperman et al, 2010), rerouting streamflow from ditches to historical or reengineered channels (Kristensena et al, 2014;Spencer and Bousquin, 2014), actively widening channels and lowering floodplains (Hammersmark et al, 2008;Fitzpatrick et al, 2009;Roni et al, 2013), or increasing instream sediment retention by re-establishing vegetation, woody debris, boulders, or beaver dams to aggrade the channel and raise the water table (Lester and Boulton, 2008;Polvi and Wohl, 2013;Moore et al, 2014). These actions can be implemented at the site or reach scale and have longterm benefits, because they remove major barriers to natural riparian ecosystem dynamics (Beechie et al, 2010).…”

Section: Channel and Floodplain Reconfigurationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incorporating climate change projections into riparian restoration planning and design

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change and associated changes in streamflow may alter riparian habitats substantially in coming decades. Riparian restoration provides opportunities to respond proactively to projected climate change effects, increase riparian ecosystem resilience to climate change, and simultaneously address effects of both climate change and other human disturbances. However, climate change may alter which restoration methods are most effective and which restoration goals can be achieved. Incorporating climate change into riparian restoration planning and design is critical to long-term restoration of desired community composition and ecosystem services.In this review, we discuss and provide examples of how climate change might be incorporated into restoration planning at the key stages of assessing the project context, establishing restoration goals and design criteria, evaluating design alternatives, and monitoring restoration outcomes. Restoration planners have access to numerous tools to predict future climate, streamflow, and riparian ecology at restoration sites. Planners can use those predictions to assess which species or ecosystem services will be most vulnerable under future conditions, and which sites will be most suitable for restoration. To accommodate future climate and streamflow change, planners may need to adjust methods for planting, invasive species control, channel and floodplain reconstruction, and water management. Given the considerable uncertainty in future climate and streamflow projections, riparian ecological responses, and effects on restoration outcomes, planners will need to consider multiple potential future scenarios, implement a variety of restoration methods, design projects with flexibility to adjust to future conditions, and plan to respond adaptively to unexpected change.

show abstract

Selecting Appropriate Stream and Watershed Restoration Techniques

Cited by 7 publications

References 130 publications

Predicting natural channel patterns based on landscape and geomorphic controls in the Columbia River basin, USA

Predicting natural channel patterns based on landscape and geomorphic controls in the Columbia River basin, USA

Comparing Stream Restoration Project Effectiveness Using a Programmatic Evaluation of Salmonid Habitat and Fish Response

Incorporating climate change projections into riparian restoration planning and design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About