Search results

Filters

  • Journals
  • Authors
  • Keywords
  • Date
  • Type

Search results

Number of results: 1
items per page: 25 50 75
Sort by:
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The main purpose of river system is to renovate its old processes. This article represents the results of two numerical models and a field site screening results for the river renovation in Idaho, U.S.A and some restoration methodologies that have been used to better understand possible renovating strategy. Ecological recovery methods using a degraded stream ecosystem have been found after estimating a channel design's capability. Despite these representing methods it is hard to present the most effective method to get efficient renovative outcomes. Two hydrodynamics modelling (MIKE 11-GIS and HEC-RAS5) and field site screening are used to evaluate pre- and post-renovation modifies in 35 laboratory experiments and biological performance indicators. Movement formed between 1994 and 2014 have been considered in this research. Ecosystem improvements have been evaluated to compare the pre-post renovation situations by considering the parameters such as water surface elevation, lower slope, shear stress, depth, wet perimeter, and velocities. The numerical model results for all mentioned parameters show that after the completion of phase I, II, III and IV, the sinuosity of the channel will be very close to the 1986 condition. The sediment carrying capacity and potential use of MIKE 11-GIS, hydrodynamic model for scour has been reduced throughout the lower reaches of the project site, where the channel slope is at its steepest posi-tion, and a close match with the field site screening and have been shown and presented as graphs.
Go to article

Bibliography

BARINAGA M. 1996. A recipe for river recovery? Science. Vol. 273 p. 1648–1650.
BERNHARDT E.S., PALMER M.A., ALLAN J.D., ALEXANDER G., BARNAS K., BROOKS S. 2005. Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science. Vol. 308. Iss. 5722 p. 636–637. DOI 10.1126/science.1109769.
CLAYTON S., BEARRIE G., FUHRMAN D., MINNS A., GOODWIN P. 1999. Lower Red River meadow restoration project, phases III and IV conceptual design. Moscow. Ecohydraulics Research Group, University of Idaho, USA pp. 48.
DHI 2000. MIKE 11: A modeling system for rivers and channels. User Guide. DHI Software. Horsholm, Denmark. DHI Water and Environment pp. 81.
EMMETT W.W. 1975. Hydrologic evaluation of the upper Salmon River area, Idaho. USGS Professional Paper 282-B. Washington, D.C. GPO pp. 115.
FARNSWORTH J.M., BAASCH D.M., FARRELL P.D., SMITH Ch.B., WERBYLO K.L. 2018. Investigating whooping crane habitat in relation to hydrology, channel morphology and a watercentric management strategy on the central Platte River, Nebraska. Heliyon. Vol. 4 e00851. DOI 10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00851.
FISRWG 1998. Stream corridor restoration: Principles, processes, and practices. GPO No. 0120-A, SuDocs No. A57.6/2: EN 3/PT.653. Washington, D.C. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. U.S. Department of Agriculture pp. 653.
FRAAIJE R.G.A., BRAAK C.J.F., VERDUYN B., VERHOEVEN J.T.A., SOONS M.B. 2015. Dispersal versus environmental filtering in a dynamic system: drivers of vegetation patterns and diversity along stream riparian gradients. Journal of Ecology. Vol. 103. Iss. 6 p. 1634–1646.
GARSSEN A.G., BAATTRUP‐PEDERSEN A., RIIS T., RAVEN B.M., HOFFMAN C.Ch., VERHOEVEN J.T.A., SOONS M.B. 2017. Effects of increased flooding on riparian vegetation: Field experiments simulating climate change along five European lowland streams. Global Change Biology. Vol. 23. Iss. 8 p. 3052–3063.
GILLILAN S., BOYD K., HOITSMA T., KAUFFMAN M. 2005. Challenges in developing and implementing ecological standards for geomorphic river restoration projects: A practitioner’s response to Palmer et al. (2005). Journal of Applied Ecology. Vol. 42 p. 223–227.
GREGORY S.V., SWANSON F.J., MCKEE W.A., CUMMINS K.W. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioScience. Vol. 41 p. 540–551. DOI 10.2307/1311607.
GURNELL A.M., CORENBLIT D., JALÓN D.G., TÁNAGO M.G., GRABOWSKI R.C., O'HARE M.T., SZEWCZYK M. 2015. A conceptual model of vegetation–hydrogeomorphology interactions within river corridors. River Research and Applications. Spec. Iss. Hydrogeomorphology‐Ecology Interactions in River Systems. Vol. 32. Iss. 2 p. 142–163.
HENRY C.P., AMOROS C., ROSET N. 2002. Restoration ecology of riverine wetlands: A 5-year post-operation survey on the Rhône River, France. Ecological Engineering. Vol. 18 p. 543–554. DOI 10.1016/S0925-8574(02)00019-8
HORTON A.J., CONSTANTINE J.A., HALES T.C., GOOSSENS B., BRUFORD M.W., LAZARUS E. D. 2017. Modification of river meandering by tropical deforestation. Geology. Vol. 45 (6) p. 511–514.
KLEIN L.R., CLAYTON S.R., ALLDREDGE J.R., GOODWIN P. 2007. Long-term monitoring and evaluation of the Lower Red River meadow restoration project, Idaho, U.S.A. Restoration Ecology. Vol. 15 p. 223–239. DOI 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007. 00206.x.
LAKE P.S. 2005. Perturbation, restoration and seeking ecological sustainability in Australian flowing waters. Hydrobiologia. Vol. 552 p. 109–120.
LEOPOLD L.B., WOLMAN M.G. 1957. River channel patterns: Braided, meandering, and straight. USGS Professional Paper 282-B. Washington, D.C. GPO p. 39–85.
LONG J.W., DAVIS J. 2016. Erosion and restoration of two headwater wetlands following a severe wildfire. Ecological Restoration. Vol. 34. No. 4 p. 317–332. DOI 10.3368/er.34.4.317.
LONG J.W., POPE K.L. 2014. Wet meadows, science synthesis to support socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station pp. 723.
PALMER M.A., BERNHARDT E.S., ALLAN J.D., LAKE P.S., ALEXANDER G., BROOKS S. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology. Vol. 42 p. 208–217.
RAMSTEAD K.M., ALLEN J.A., SPRINGER A.E. 2012. Have wet meadow restoration projects in the Southwestern U.S. been effective in restoring geomorphology, hydrology, soils, and plant species composition? Environmental Evidence. Vol. 1. Art. No. 11.
TAL M., PAOLA CH. 2010. Effects of vegetation on channel morphodynamics: results and insights from laboratory experiments. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. Vol. 35. Iss. 9 p. 993–1121.
THOMAS R.E., POLLEN-BANKHEAD N. 2010. Modeling root-reinforcement with a fiber-bundle model and Monte Carlo simulation. Ecological Engineering. Vol. 36(1) p. 47–61.
USACE 2015. HEC-RAS River Analysis System. User's Manual. Ver. 5.0. Davis, CA. US Army Corps of Engineers. Hydrologic Engineering Center pp. 538.
USFS 1992. Integrated riparian evaluation guide. Ogden, Utah. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region pp. 91.
WARD J.V., TOCKNER K., UEHLINGER U., MALARD F. 2001. Understanding natural patterns and processes in river corridors as the basis for effective river restoration. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management. Vol. 17 p. 311–323.
WHITING P.J. 1998. Expert witness report concerning Organic Act Claims. Snake River Basin Adjudication Case No. 39576. District Court of the Fifth Judicial District of the State of Idaho pp. 109. WILLIAMS G.P. 1986. River meanders and channel size. Journal of Hydrology. Vol. 88. Iss. 1–2 p. 147–164.
WOHL E., ANGERMEIER P.L., BLEDSOE B., KONDOLF G.M., MACDONNELL L., MERRITT D.M., PALMER M.A., POFF N.L., TARBOTON D. 2005. River restoration. Water Resources Research. Vol. 41, W10301. DOI 10.1029/2005WR003985.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Abolfazl Nazari Giglou
1 2
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Islamic Azad University, Department of Civil Engineering, Parsabad Moghan Branch, Parsabad Moghan, Iran
  2. University of Idaho, Center for Ecohydraulics Research, Department of Civil Engineering, 322 E. Front St., Suite 340 Boise, ID 83702, 83712, Boise, USA

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more