DOCSLIB.ORG

SEDIMENT REMOVAL from ACTIVE STREAM CHANNELS in OREGON: Considerations for Federal Agencies for the Evaluation of Sediment Removal Actions from Oregon Streams

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SEDIMENT REMOVAL from ACTIVE STREAM CHANNELS in OREGON: Considerations for Federal Agencies for the Evaluation of Sediment Removal Actions from Oregon Streams SEDIMENT REMOVAL FROM ACTIVE STREAM CHANNELS IN OREGON: Considerations for Federal Agencies for the Evaluation of Sediment Removal Actions from Oregon Streams. Developed with support from: US Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service US Army Corps of Engineers US Environmental Protection Agency March 1, 2006 Version 1.0 Acknowledgements: This document has been developed through Federal interagency cooperation and dedicated staff, including: Janine Castro, FWS, Anne Mullan and Marc Liverman, NMFS, and John Barco and Shelly Hansen, USACE. Additional input was provided by the staff of the Oregon Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Environmental Quality, and State Lands, especially Christine Svetkovich, DEQ, Jim Brick and Patty Snow, ODFW, and Lori Warner-Dickinson, DSL. This document has incorporated to a great extent the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region Guidelines: “The Effects of Sediment Removal from Freshwater Salmonid Habitat” (Cluer, 2004), which can be viewed at: http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/policies/April19-2004.pdf. The NMFS Guidelines, authored by fluvial geomorphologist Dr. Brian Cluer, were extensively reviewed by independent recognized experts in the field of fluvial geomorphology, NMFS staff, aggregate industry representatives, independent consultants, and the Offices of General Counsel from the U.S. Department of Commerce and NMFS Southwest Region. Additionally, invited reviews from discipline experts were received from: Dr. Colin Thorne (Professor of Geography – University of Nottingham UK, and Colorado State University), Kris Vyverberg (Engineering Geologist - California Dept. Fish and Game – Sacramento, CA), Dr. Joan Florsheim (Geomorphologist - University of California – Davis, CA), and Dr. Thomas Dunne (Professor of Geomorphology – University of California - Santa Barbara, CA). An earlier White Paper, “Instream Aggregate Mining Issues in Oregon” (Castro and Cluer, 2003), was incorporated into this document as Chapter 3, Effect of Sediment Removal from Streams. The White Paper was reviewed by Federal and state agency personnel, industry representatives, and non-governmental organizations. Comments and suggestions from these reviews were incorporated to the extent possible in Chapter 3. 1 1 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE ................................................................................5 1.1 Relevant Statutes............................................................................................................................ 6 1.2 Extent .............................................................................................................................................. 7 1.3 General Methods for Mining Aggregate ...................................................................................... 8 1.3.1 Instream Pit Extraction................................................................................................................ 8 1.3.2 Bar Scalping ................................................................................................................................9 2 STREAM FORM, FUNCTION, AND ANADROMOUS SALMONID HABITAT.......10 2.1 Stream Channel Dynamics .......................................................................................................... 10 2.1.1 Channel Form and Function ...................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Water Quality............................................................................................................................... 16 2.3 Floodplain / Channel Connection ............................................................................................... 16 2.3.1 Floodplains as Sources and Sinks.............................................................................................. 17 2.3.2 Riparian Communities............................................................................................................... 17 3 EFFECTS OF SEDIMENT REMOVAL FROM STREAMS .....................................19 3.1 Effects on Channel Morphology and Hydraulics ...................................................................... 20 3.1.1 Increased Width / Depth Ratio. ................................................................................................. 20 3.1.2 Bank Erosion............................................................................................................................. 21 3.1.3 Changes in Sediment Transport................................................................................................. 21 3.1.4 Reduced Sinuosity of the Mid-High Flow Channel................................................................... 22 3.1.5 Altered Sediment Sorting Processes.......................................................................................... 22 3.2 Alteration of the Sediment Transport Continuum.................................................................... 23 3.3 Effects on Habitat Components .................................................................................................. 25 3.3.1 Effects on Riffle Habitats. ......................................................................................................... 25 3.3.2 Effects on Pool Habitats. ........................................................................................................... 28 3.3.3 Effects on Riparian Vegetation ................................................................................................. 29 3.3.4 Effects on Stream Complexity and Diversity ............................................................................ 32 3.3.5 Effects on Water Quality........................................................................................................... 33 3.3.6 Fish and Wildlife....................................................................................................................... 34 3.4 Disturbance Regimes ................................................................................................................... 39 3.5 Summary of Effects...................................................................................................................... 40 4 CURRENT METHODS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SEDIMENT REMOVAL ..42 4.1 History........................................................................................................................................... 42 4.2 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 44 2 4.3 Recommended Process to Evaluate Sediment Removal Proposals.......................................... 45 4.3.1 Identify appropriate sediment harvest locations........................................................................ 46 4.3.2 Identify species, life stages present, and habitat elements needed. ........................................... 49 4.3.3 Identify physical processes that create or maintain habitat elements. ....................................... 50 4.3.4 Select alternatives that minimize habitat disturbance and disruption of physical processes that create and maintain habitat. ..................................................................................................................... 51 4.4 Summary of Current Management Techniques in Oregon and their Limitations................. 52 4.4.1 Construction Best Management Practices ................................................................................. 52 4.4.2 In-Water Work Period............................................................................................................... 52 4.4.3 Turbidity.................................................................................................................................... 52 4.4.4 No Operation within the Active Flowing Stream or Below the Low Water Line ..................... 53 4.4.5 Grading and Shaping ................................................................................................................. 53 4.4.6 No Removal of Live Woody Vegetation................................................................................... 54 4.4.7 Leave Strips and Berms............................................................................................................. 54 4.5 Recommended Methods of Sediment Removal ......................................................................... 54 4.5.1 Design Discharge ...................................................................................................................... 55 4.5.2 Retaining Bar Form................................................................................................................... 56 4.5.3 Fish Passage .............................................................................................................................. 57 4.5.4 Restoration-Based Approach..................................................................................................... 58 4.5.5 Floodplain/Wetland Creation .................................................................................................... 58 5 MITIGATION ...........................................................................................................60 5.1 Mitigation Requirements............................................................................................................. 60 5.2 Mitigation Goals..........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Urban Flood Resilience Research Project Review
    Achieving Urban Flood Resilience in an Uncertain Future www.urbanfloodresilience.ac.uk Urban Flood Resilience @BlueGreenCities Aim Make urban flood resilience achievable nationally, by making transformative change possible through adoption of the whole systems approach to urban flood and water management Urban Flood Resilience A city’s capacity to maintain future flood risk at acceptable levels by: 1. preventing deaths and injuries, 2. minimising damage and disruption during floods, 3. recovering quickly afterwards, 4. ensuring social equity, 5. protecting the city’s cultural identity and economic vitality Urban Flood Resilience Research Themes • Engineering Design of the integrated Blue/Green and Grey (B/G+G) treatment trains that support resilient management of both water quantity and quality • Planning that puts UFRM at the heart of urban planning & focuses on interfaces between planners, developers, engineers and beneficiary communities • Development of flood and water management assets that function inter-operably with other urban systems: inc. transport, energy, land-use and natural systems Urban Flood Resilience Research Questions 1. How can we adapt flood and water quality treatment infrastructure to meet the challenges posed by changes in climate, governance, economic development and environmental values that are unavoidable, but uncertain? 2. How can flood models, infrastructure data and community exposure/vulnerability information be combined to support local, regional and national assessment of the potential for integrated B/G+G infrastructure to meet these challenges? 3. How can engineered flood and water systems be aligned with natural processes to: (a) realise the resource potential of all forms of urban water (b) become inter-operable with other urban systems? Urban Flood Resilience Research Questions 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Addressing Challenges of Urban Water Management in Chinese Sponge Cities Via Nature-Based Solutions
    water Review Addressing Challenges of Urban Water Management in Chinese Sponge Cities via Nature-Based Solutions Yunfei Qi 1,2,*, Faith Ka Shun Chan 1,3,4,* , Colin Thorne 5,*, Emily O’Donnell 5, Carlotta Quagliolo 6 , Elena Comino 7, Alessandro Pezzoli 6, Lei Li 1, James Griffiths 8, Yanfang Sang 9 and Meili Feng 1 1 School of Geographical Sciences, University of Nottingham Ningbo, Ningbo 315100, China; [email protected] (L.L.); [email protected] (M.F.) 2 Guizhou Survey & Design Research Institute for Water Resources and Hydropower, Guiyang 550002, China 3 School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK 4 Water@Leeds Research Institute, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK 5 School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK; emily.o'[email protected] 6 DIST—Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning, Politecnico di Torino and Università degli Studi di Torino, 10125 Torino, Italy; [email protected] (C.Q.); [email protected] (A.P.) 7 DIATI—Department of Environment, Land and Infrastructure Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, 10129 Torino, Italy; [email protected] 8 National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd (NIWA), Christchurch 8602, New Zealand; James.Griffi[email protected] 9 Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research Chinese Academy of Sciences: Beijing, Beijing 100000, China; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] (Y.Q.); [email protected] (F.K.S.C.); [email protected] (C.T.); Tel.: +86-0851-85584746 (Y.Q.); +86-0574-88180000 (F.K.S.C.); +44-0115-95-15431 (C.T.) Received: 2 September 2020; Accepted: 5 October 2020; Published: 8 October 2020 Abstract: Urban flooding has become a serious issue in most Chinese cities due to rapid urbanization and extreme weather, as evidenced by severe events in Beijing (2012), Ningbo (2013), Guangzhou (2015), Wuhan (2016), Shenzhen (2019), and Chongqing (2020).
    [Show full text]
  • Achieving Urban Flood Resilience in an Uncertain Future
    water Communication Achieving Urban Flood Resilience in an Uncertain Future Richard Fenner 1,*, Emily O’Donnell 2, Sangaralingam Ahilan 3 , David Dawson 4, Leon Kapetas 1 , Vladimir Krivtsov 5, Sikhululekile Ncube 5 and Kim Vercruysse 4 1 Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK; [email protected] 2 School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK; Emily.O’[email protected] 3 Centre for Water Systems, College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QF, UK; [email protected] 4 Faculty of Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK; [email protected] (D.D.); [email protected] (K.V.) 5 School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK; [email protected] (V.K.); [email protected] (S.N.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +44-1223-765626 Received: 26 April 2019; Accepted: 22 May 2019; Published: 24 May 2019 Abstract: Preliminary results of the UK Urban Flood Resilience research consortium are presented and discussed, with the work being conducted against a background of future uncertainties with respect to changing climate and increasing urbanization. Adopting a whole systems approach, key themes include developing adaptive approaches for flexible engineering design of coupled grey and blue-green flood management assets; exploiting the resource potential of urban stormwater through rainwater harvesting, urban metabolism modelling and interoperability; and investigating the interactions between planners, developers, engineers and communities at multiple scales in managing flood risk. The work is producing new modelling tools and an extensive evidence base to support the case for multifunctional infrastructure that delivers multiple, environmental, societal and economic benefits, while enhancing urban flood resilience by bringing stormwater management and green infrastructure together.
    [Show full text]
  • Ningbo As a “Blue-Green City” in the “Sponge City” Campaign
    Received: 21 May 2016 Revised: 28 February 2018 Accepted: 11 April 2018 DOI: 10.1111/jfr3.12451 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Aligning ancient and modern approaches to sustainable urban water management in China: Ningbo as a “Blue-Green City” in the “Sponge City” campaign Y-T. Tang1 | F.K.S. Chan1 | E.C. O'Donnell2 | J. Griffiths3 | L. Lau1 | D.L. Higgitt4 | C.R. Thorne2 1School of Geographical Sciences, University of Nottingham Ningbo, Ningbo, China Modern urban flood and water management emphasises holistic strategies that 2School of Geography, University of Nottingham, reduce flood risk while providing cobenefits to urban economies, societies, and Nottingham, UK environments. The “Blue-Green City” concept provides a viable framework for 3National Institute for Water and Atmospheric putting this into practice. Ningbo, is a coastal city with high flood risk, whose his- Research, Christchurch, New Zealand tory as a Chinese “water town” demonstrates that approaches to water management 4 Lancaster University College, Beijing Jiaotong implicit to the “Blue-Green” concept were practiced in ancient times, and lessons University, Weihai, China can be learned from these applications. Furthermore, recent launch of the “Sponge Correspondence ” Prof. Colin R. Thorne, School of Geography, City campaign by China's National Government demonstrates the political will to University of Nottingham, University Park, implement sustainable flood and water management in ways consistent with the Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK. “Blue-Green” ideals. Selection of Ningbo for a pilot project presents the opportu- Email: [email protected] nity to integrate new “Sponge city” approaches with ancient “Blue-Green” princi- Funding information UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research ples, within the contexts of both new urban development and retrofit.
    [Show full text]
  • Blue-Green Cities Key Project Outputs
    www.bluegreencities.ac.uk @BlueGreenCities Delivering and Evaluating Multiple Flood Risk Benefits in Blue-Green Cities Key Project Outputs EPSRC Project EP/K013661/1 February 2013 – February 2016 A Blue-Green City aims to recreate a naturally-oriented water cycle while contributing to the amenity of the city by bringing water management and green infrastructure together. This is achieved by combining and protecting the hydrological and ecological values of the urban landscape while providing resilient and adaptive measures to deal with flood events. The Blue-Green Cities Research Consortium aimed to develop new strategies for managing urban flood risk as part of wider, integrated urban planning intended to achieve environmental enhancement and urban renewal in which multiple benefits of Blue-Green Cities are rigorously evaluated and understood. The Consortium’s objectives were to: 1. Put competent authorities, businesses and communities at the centre of the research by establishing feedback pathways between them and the urban flood risk management (FRM) modellers, planners and decision makers to ensure co-production of knowledge; 2. Model existing flood risks using coupled surface/sub-surface hydrodynamic models linked to semi-quantitative assessments of sediment/debris dynamics and habitats, using fieldwork where necessary to fill knowledge gaps in urban drainage network forms and functions; 3. Identify and assess candidate options for adaptive strategies combining hard and soft responses to flood risk that are capable of functioning as spatially-integrated, urban FRM systems; 4. Use fieldwork to identify and understand the behavioural responses of individual and institutional stakeholders to the candidate options for urban FRM; 5. Synthesise existing and novel performance measures to identify ‘value added’ at a range of scales and under flood/non-flood conditions, in an ensemble of possible flood futures; 6.
    [Show full text]
  • River Sediment Dynamics Short Course
    River Sediment Dynamics Short Course Tuesdays and Thursdays in October 2020 – 2 pm to 5 pm Outline This remotely taught short course covers the fluvial processes responsible for erosion, transport and deposition of sediment within rivers, providing a fundamental understanding of how sediment dynamics drive channel formation, adjustment and evolution. The course also deals with how sediment dynamics can be investigated and accounted for in the contexts of practical river management and restoration. During this course, students will learn about: (1) the physics of sediment erosion, transport and deposition, (2) interactions between fluvial processes, sediment movement and channel form, (3) the roles of plants and animals in influencing sediment dynamics and channel form, (4) practical methods to predict and model sediment transport using spreadsheets, one- dimensional, and two-dimensional models (5) how knowledge of sediment dynamics can inform sustainable river management and, especially, river restoration Students will undertake hands-on practical work to learn how to use different types of sediment transport software and we will use case-studies to learn how to select the sediment analysis and tool appropriate for application in different river management and restoration contexts and projects. Instructors Dr Colin Thorne is Chair of Physical Geography at the University of Nottingham, UK. He earned his BSc and PhD in Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia under the supervision of Dr Richard Hey and his early professional career was mentored by Dr Daryl Simons and Dr Stanley A. Schumm at Colorado State University. In a career spanning five decades, Colin has researched and taught not only at Nottingham and CSU, but also London University, Canterbury University (New Zealand), the USDA National Sedimentation Laboratory, US Army Waterways Experiment Station and NOAA Fisheries (Santa Rosa, CA).
    [Show full text]
  • Delivering and Evaluating Multiple Flood Risk Benefits in Blue-Green Cities
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works International Conference on Hydroinformatics 2014 Delivering And Evaluating Multiple Flood Risk Benefits In Blue- Green Cities Nigel G. Wright Colin Thorne How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cc_conf_hic/338 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] 11th International Conference on Hydroinformatics HIC 2014, New York City, USA DELIVERING AND EVALUATING MULTIPLE FLOOD RISK BENEFITS IN BLUE-GREEN CITIES NIGEL G WRIGHT (1), COLIN R. THORNE (2), EMILY LAWSON (2) (1): School of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. (2): School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK In the UK a research consortium has been funded to develop new strategies for managing urban flood risk as part of wider, integrated urban planning intended to achieve environmental enhancement and urban renewal in which multiple benefits of Blue-Green Cities are rigorously evaluated and understood. This approach is very much part of the resilience paradigm and seeks to develop the socio-technical tools required to fully evaluate resilience options as part of a wider system. INTRODUCTION It is widely acknowledged that flood risk is increasing across the globe due to the combination of urbanisation, economic growth and a changing climate. This combination makes those living in cities particularly vulnerable. In England over 2.4 million properties are at risk of fluvial or coastal flooding, with a further 2.8 million properties susceptible to surface water flooding [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Addressing Challenges of Urban Water Management in Chinese Sponge Cities Via Nature-Based Solutions
    water Review Addressing Challenges of Urban Water Management in Chinese Sponge Cities via Nature-Based Solutions Yunfei Qi 1,2,*, Faith Ka Shun Chan 1,3,4,* , Colin Thorne 5,*, Emily O’Donnell 5, Carlotta Quagliolo 6 , Elena Comino 7, Alessandro Pezzoli 6, Lei Li 1, James Griffiths 8, Yanfang Sang 9 and Meili Feng 1 1 School of Geographical Sciences, University of Nottingham Ningbo, Ningbo 315100, China; [email protected] (L.L.); [email protected] (M.F.) 2 Guizhou Survey & Design Research Institute for Water Resources and Hydropower, Guiyang 550002, China 3 School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK 4 Water@Leeds Research Institute, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK 5 School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK; emily.o'[email protected] 6 DIST—Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning, Politecnico di Torino and Università degli Studi di Torino, 10125 Torino, Italy; [email protected] (C.Q.); [email protected] (A.P.) 7 DIATI—Department of Environment, Land and Infrastructure Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, 10129 Torino, Italy; [email protected] 8 National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd (NIWA), Christchurch 8602, New Zealand; James.Griffi[email protected] 9 Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research Chinese Academy of Sciences: Beijing, Beijing 100000, China; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] (Y.Q.); [email protected] (F.K.S.C.); [email protected] (C.T.); Tel.: +86-0851-85584746 (Y.Q.); +86-0574-88180000 (F.K.S.C.); +44-0115-95-15431 (C.T.) Received: 2 September 2020; Accepted: 5 October 2020; Published: 8 October 2020 Abstract: Urban flooding has become a serious issue in most Chinese cities due to rapid urbanization and extreme weather, as evidenced by severe events in Beijing (2012), Ningbo (2013), Guangzhou (2015), Wuhan (2016), Shenzhen (2019), and Chongqing (2020).
    [Show full text]
  • The Blue-Green Path to Urban Flood Resilience Newcastle, Thursday 7Th
    The Blue-Green Path to Urban Flood Resilience Newcastle, Thursday 7th March 2019 Speaker Biographies Morning Session Cllr Nick Kemp is the Cabinet member for the Environment, Newcastle City Council. Colin Thorne is the Chair of Physical Geography at Nottingham University. He researches flooding and flood management. Following the ‘Millennium Floods’, he co-lead the Government’s Flood Foresight Project (2002-4), which underpinned Defra’s new policy of ‘Making Space for Water’. In 2008, he advised Sir Michael Pitt on responses to the 2007 summer floods. Between 2008 and 2012, Colin was Deputy Director of the national Flood Risk Management Research Consortium, developing ideas for ‘Natural Flood Management’. Between 2013 and 2016 he was Principal Investigator for the ‘Blue- Green Cities’ research consortium and currently leads the Urban Flood Resilience research consortium. Colin also has extensive experience in international research and gives advice to governments all around the World. In 2017 he won the ‘Back Award’ of the Royal Geographical Society, for his national and international, policy-related research. Leila Huntington has worked for the Environment Agency (EA) since 2004. She was appointed as the Flood & Coastal Risk Manager in the North East area in 2016. Prior to this Leila was a team leader in the Partnership and Strategic Overview team within the Flood & Coastal Risk Management (FCRM) department. Leila’s previous roles within the Environment Agency include national and area roles within flood incident management and asset performance teams. The area Flood & Coastal Risk Manager leads the work we do to improve flood protection and resilience of communities across the North East and as part of this is responsible for the development and delivery of the FCRM 6 year capital investment programme.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Flood Management Oxford Martin Restatement 4: a Restatement of the Natural Science Evidence Concerning Catchment-Based ‘Natural’ Flood Management in the UK
    4 Natural flood management Oxford Martin Restatement 4: A restatement of the natural science evidence concerning catchment-based ‘natural’ flood management in the UK Oxford Martin Restatements review the natural science evidence base underlying areas of current policy concern and controversy. Written in policy neutral terms and designed to be read by an informed but not technically specialist audience, restatements are produced by a writing team reflecting the breadth of opinion on the topic in the science community and involve wide consultation with interested stakeholders. The final version of the restatement is peer- reviewed prior to publication. This paper was published in March 2017 in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A. It deals with catchment-based ‘natural’ flood management in the United Kingdom. Flooding is a very costly natural hazard in the UK and is expected to increase further under future climate change scenarios. Flood defences are commonly deployed to protect communities and property from flooding, but in recent years flood management policy has looked towards solutions that seek to mitigate flood risk at flood-prone sites through targeted interventions throughout the catchment, sometimes using techniques which involve working with natural processes. This Restatement provides a succinct summary of the natural science evidence base concerning the effectiveness of catchment-based ‘natural’ flood management in the UK. The evidence summary is designed to be read by an informed but not technically specialist audience. Each evidence statement is placed into one of the four categories describing the nature of the underlying information. This pdf contains: Pages 1-6 A short paper describing the project Pages 6-19 The restatement itself which is the formal appendix to the paper Pages 20-31 An annotated bibliography of the evidence underlying the restatement (officially the Electronic Supplementary Material accompanying the paper).
    [Show full text]
  • Using Diatoms to Assess River Restoration: a Pilot Study in Whychus Creek, Oregon, USA
    Portland State University PDXScholar Environmental Science and Management Faculty Publications and Presentations Environmental Science and Management 2020 Using Diatoms to Assess River Restoration: A Pilot Study in Whychus Creek, Oregon, USA Peter M. Edwards Portland State University Yangdong Pan Portland State University Lauren Mork Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Colin R. Thorne University of Nottingham Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/esm_fac Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Edwards, P. M., Pan, Y., Mork, L., & Thorne, C. (2020). Using diatoms to assess river restoration: A pilot study in Whychus Creek, Oregon, USA. River Research and Applications, 36(10), 2089-2095. This Article is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Environmental Science and Management Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Received: 17 February 2020 Revised: 15 June 2020 Accepted: 30 July 2020 DOI: 10.1002/rra.3712 SHORT COMMUNICATION Using diatoms to assess river restoration: A pilot study in Whychus Creek, Oregon, USA Patrick M. Edwards1 | Yangdong Pan1 | Lauren Mork2 | Colin Thorne3 1Department of Environmental Science and Management, Portland State University, Abstract Portland, Oregon A primary goal of river restoration is to reestablish lost ecological functions. Yet the 2 Monitoring Program, Upper Deschutes impact of restoration on diatom assemblages and algal biomass in a stream is rarely Watershed Council, Bend, Oregon 3School of Geography, University of addressed in the scientific literature reporting the outcomes of restoration projects Nottingham, Nottingham, UK aimed at improving riverine habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration Design for Meandering Streams: River Engineering and Structures
    Restoration design for meandering streams: river engineering and structures Colin Thorne School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD. [email protected] Introduction Successful river restoration requires that a project achieves its goals in a sustainable and cost-effective manner. In most, perhaps practically all, cases the goals of river restoration are multi-functional. Consequently, engineering functions such as flood defence and channel stabilisation may sit alongside wildlife conservation, increased biodiversity and aesthetic enhancement as legitimate intended outcomes of a restoration scheme. In such cases there is clearly a case for employing engineering design approaches to ensure stability in the restored channel and for applying engineering analyses to the selection of appropriate techniques for bank protection. Even if there is no engineering dimension to the project, a geomorphic-engineering design may still be an appropriate way to approach the problem of ensuring that the restored channel is capable of transporting the sediment load supplied from upstream - so satisfying continuity in the sediment transfer system. This short review uses a geomorphic-engineering approach recently developed at the University of Nottingham under a research project sponsored by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering Research Design Center, Vicksburg to illustrate how principles developed for the design of stable flood control channels may be modified for restoration design. It goes on to use a case studies from the Bluff-line streams of North Mississippi and the River Medway in Kent to demonstrate how bio-engineered structures may be used to provide essential grade control and bank stabilization that is effective, economical and even perhaps not out of place in a restored channel.
    [Show full text]