Assessing the effects of alternative setback channel constraint scenarios employing a river meander migration model

Environmental Management

Volumn 37, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 880-897

  Larsen, Eric W ^a   Girvetz, Evan H ^a   Fremier, Alexander K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Constraint setback; Hydraulic simulation model; Oxbow lake; River dynamics; River meander migration; Sacramento River; Setback levee

Indexed keywords

BANKS (BODIES OF WATER); CHANNEL FLOW; CONSTRAINT THEORY; OCEAN HABITATS;

CONSTRAINT SETBACK; HYDRAULIC SIMULATION MODEL; OXBOW LAKE; RIVER DYNAMICS; RIVER MEANDER MIGRATION; SACRAMENTO RIVER; SETBACK LEVEE;

RIVER BASIN PROJECTS;

BIODIVERSITY; LANDSCAPE; MEANDER; MIGRATION; RIPARIAN ZONE; RIVER SYSTEM;

ARTICLE; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; HABITAT STRUCTURE; MODEL; POPULATION MIGRATION; RIVER; RIVER ECOSYSTEM;

CALIFORNIA; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM; GEOLOGIC SEDIMENTS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; RIVERS; WATER MOVEMENTS; WATER SUPPLY;

CALIFORNIA; NORTH AMERICA; SACRAMENTO RIVER; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33646027909     PISSN: 0364152X     EISSN: 14321009     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-004-0220-9     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Avery, E. R., E. R. Micheli, and E. W. Larsen. 2003. River channel cut-off dynamics, Sacramento River, California, USA. EOS Transactions American Geographical Union 84(46) Fall Meeting Supplement: H52A-1181.
2. Baker, W. L., and G. M. Walford. 1995. Multiple stable states and models of riparian vegetation succession on the Animas River, Colorado. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 85:320-338.
3. Bayley, P. B. 1995. Understanding large river floodplain ecosystems. BioScience 45:153-158.
4. Bayley, P. B., and H. W. Li. 1992. Riverine fishes. Pages 251-281 in P. Calow, G. E. Petts (eds.), The rivers handbook. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.
5. Beck, S., D. A. Melfi, and K. Yalamanchili. 1984. Lateral migration of the Genesee River, New York. Pages 510-517 in C. M. Elliott (ed.), River meandering. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
6. Bozkurt, S., P. Dekens, R. Gartland, J. Gragg, J. Lawyer, and M. McGoogan. 2000. Evaluation of setback levees on the Sacramento River. University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA. http://www.bren.ucsb.edu/research/.
7. Brice, J. C. 1974. Evolution of meander loops. Geological Society of America Bulletin 85:581-586.
8. Brice, J. C. 1977. Lateral migration of the middle Sacramento River, California. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Technical Report No. 77-43:1-51.
9. Buer, K., D. Forwalter, M. Kissel, and B. Stohler. 1989. The middle Sacramento River: Human impacts on physical and ecological processes along a meandering river. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, pp. 22-32.
10. CALFED. 2000. Final programmatic environmental impact statement environmental impact report. CALFED Bay-Delta Program, Sacramento, CA.
11. California Department of Water Resources. 1995. Memorandum report: Sacramento River meander belt future erosion investigation. DWR 155. The Resources Agency, Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA.
12. CDWR. 1994. Sacramento River bank erosion investigation memorandum progress report. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Water Resources, Northern District.
13. Chapin, F. S., III, B. H. Walker, R. J. Hobbs, D. U. Hooper, J. H. Lawton, O. E. Sala, and D. Tilman. 1997. Biotic control over the functioning of ecosystems. Science 277:500-504.
14. Dixon, D., Stromberg, J. C., Fremier, A. K. and Larsen, E. W., 2005. Projecting the impacts of global climate change on a dryland river: The importance of disturbance regimes and geomorphic legacies. Ecological Society of America Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada.
15. Dwyer, J. P., D. Wallace, and D. R. Larsen. 1997. Value of woody river corridors in levee protection along the Missouri River 1993. Journal of American Water Resources Association 33:481-489.
16. Engelund, F., and E. Hansen. 1967. A monograph on sediment transport in alluvial streams. Teknisk Forlag, Copenhagen.
17. Environmental Systems Research Institute. 2004. ArcGIS 9.0. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA.
18. Fischer, K. J. 1994. Fluvial geomorphology and flood control strategies: Sacramento River, California. Pages 115-139 in S. A. Schumm, B. R. Winkley (eds.), The variability of large alluvial rivers. ASCE Press, New York.
19. Fremier, A. K. 2003. Floodplain age modeling techniques to analyze channel migration and vegetation patch dynamics on the Sacramento River, CA. Masters thesis. University of California, Davis, Davis, CA.
20. Furbish, D. J. 1988. River-bend curvature and migration: How are they related? Geology 16:752-755.
21. Furbish, D. J. 1991. Spatial autoregressive structure in meander evolution. Geological Society of America Bulletin 103:1576-1589.
22. Furbish, D. J. 1997. Fluid physics in geology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
23. Gergel, S. E., M. D. Dixon, and M. G. Turner. 2002. Consequences of human-altered floods: Levees, floods, and floodplain forests along the Wisconsin River. Ecological Applications 12:1755-1770.
24. Golet, G. H., M. D. Roberts, E. W. Larsen, R. A. Luster, R. Unger, G. Werner, and G. G. White. In Press. Assessing societal impacts when planning restoration of large alluvial rivers: A case study of the Sacramento River Project, California. Environmental Management.
25. Greco, S. E., and C. A. Alford. 2003. Historical channel mapping from aerial photography of the Sacramento River, Colusa to Red Bluff, California: 1937 to 1997. Technical report prepared for California Department of Water Resources, Northern District, Red Bluff, California. Landscape Analysis and Systems Research Laboratory, Department of Environmental Design, University of California, Davis, CA.
26. Gutreuter, S., A. D. Bartels, K. Irons, and M. B. Sandheinrich. 1999. Evaluation of the flood-pulse concept based on statistical models of growth of selected fishes of the Upper Mississippi River system. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:2282-2291.
27. Harwood, D. S., and E. J. Helley. 1987. Late Cenozoic Tectonism of the Sacramento Valley, California. Professional Paper 1359. US Geological Survey.
28. Hooke, J. M. 1984. Changes in river meanders: A review of techniques and results of analysis. Progress in Physical Geography 8:473-508.
29. Hooke, J. M., and C. E. Redmond. 1992. Historical changes: causes and nature of river planform change. Pages 557-571 in P. Billi, R. D. Hey, C. R. Thorne, and P. Tacconi (eds.), Dynamics of gravel-bed rivers. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
30. Howard, A. D. 1992. Modeling channel migration and floodplain sedimentation in meandering streams. Pages 1-41 in P. A. Carling, G. E. Petts (eds.), Lowland floodplain rivers: Geomorphological perspectives. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
31. Howard, A. D. 1996. Modeling channel evolution and floodplain morphology. Pages 15-62 in M. G. Anderson, D. E. Walling, and P. D. Bates (eds.), Floodplain processes. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
32. Hupp, C. R., and W. R. Osterkamp. 1996. Riparian vegetation and fluvial geomorphic processes. Geomorphology 14:277-295.
33. Hydrologic Engineering Center-River Analysis System. 2003. HEC-RAS Software 3.2.1. US Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, CA.
34. Ikeda, S., G. Parker, and K. Sawai. 1981. Bend theory of river meanders. Part 1. Linear development. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 112:363-377.
35. Johannesson, H., and G. Parker. 1985. Computer simulated migration of meandering rivers in Minnesota. Project No. 242. University of Minnesota, St. Anthony Falls, Hydraulic Laboratory, Minneapolis, MN.
36. Johannesson, H., and G. Parker. 1989, Linear theory of river meanders. In S. Ikeda and G. Parker (eds.). River meandering. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC.
37. Johnson, W. C., R. L. Burgess, and W. R. Keammerer. 1976. Forest overstory vegetation and environment of the Missouri River floodplain in North Dakota. Ecological Monographs 46:59-84.
38. Junk, J. W., P. B. Bayley, and R. E. Sparks. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Canadian Journal of Fish and aquatic Science 106:110-127.
39. Knighton, D. 1998. Fluvial forms & processes: A new perspective. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
40. Larsen, E. W. 1995. The mechanics and modeling of river meander migration. PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, CA.
41. Larsen, E. W., and S. E. Greco. 2002. Modeling channel management impacts on river migration: A case study of Woodson Bridge State Recreation Area, Sacramento River, California, USA. Environmental Management 30:209-224.
42. Larsen, E. W., E. Anderson, E. Avery, and K. Dole. 2002. The controls on and evolution of channel morphology of the Sacramento River: A case study of river miles 201-185. The Nature Conservancy, Chico, CA.
43. Larsen, E. W., A. K. Fremier, and E. H. Girvetz. In Press. Modeling the effects of flow regulation scenarios on river channel migration on the Sacramento River, CA, USA. Journal of American Water Resources Association.
44. Leopold, L. B., M. G. Wolman, and J. P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial processes in geomorphology. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.
45. Limm, M. P., and M. P. Marchetti. 2003. Contrasting patterns of juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytschaw) growth, diet, and prey densities in off-channel and main stem habitats on the Sacramento River. The Nature Conservancy, Chico, CA.
46. MacDonald, T. E., G. Parker, and D. P. Leuthe. 1991. Inventory and analysis of stream meander problems in Minnesota. St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
47. Mahoney, J. M., and S. B. Rood. 1998. Streamflow requirements for cottonwood seedling recruitment: An integrative model. Wetlands 18:634-645.
48. Merritt, D. M., and D. J. Cooper. 2000. Riparian vegetation and channel change in response to river regulation: A comparative study of regulated and unregulated streams in the Green River Basin, USA. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 16:543-564.
49. Micheli, E. R., J. W. Kirchner, and E. W. Larsen. 2004. Quantifying the effect of riparian forest versus agricultural vegetation on river meander migration rates, Central Sacramento River, California, USA. River Research and Applications 20:537-548.
50. Morken, I., and G. M. Kondolf. 2003. Evolution assessment and conservation strategies for Sacramento River oxbow habitats. The Nature Conservancy, Chico, CA.
51. Naiman, R. J., H. Décamps, and M. Pollock. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecological Applications 3:209-212.
52. National Research Council. 2002. Riparian areas: Functions and strategies for management. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
53. Parker, G., and E. D. Andrews. 1985. Sorting of bed load sediment by flow in meander bends. Water Resources Research 21:1361-1373.
54. Pinter, N. 2005. One step forward, two steps back on U.S. floodplains. Science 308:207-208.
55. Pizzuto, J. E., and T. S. Mecklenburg. 1989. Evaluation of a linear bank erosion equation. Water Resources Research 5:1005-1013.
56. Poff, L. N., J. D Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks, and J. C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime. BioScience 47:769-784.
57. Power, M. E., G. Parker, W. E. Dietrich, and A. Sun. 1995. How does floodplain width affect floodplain river ecology? A preliminary exploration using simulations. Geomorphology 13:301-317.
58. Richter, B. D., and H. E. Richter. 2000. Prescribing flood regimes to sustain riparian ecosystems along meandering rivers. Conservation Biology 14:1467-1478.
59. Robertson, K. G. 1987. Paleochannels and recent evolution of the Sacramento River, California. Master of Science Thesis. Earth Science and Natural Resources, University of California, Davis, CA.
60. Sacramento River Advisory Council. 1998. Sacramento River conservation area handbook. California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA.
61. Schiemer, F., and M. Zalewski. 1992. The importance of riparian ecotones for diversity and productivity of riverine fish communities. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 42:323-335.
62. Scott, M. L., J. M. Friedman, and G. T. Auble. 1996. Fluvial process and the establishment of bottomland trees. Geomorphology 14:327-339.
63. Shields, F. D., Jr., R. R. Copeland, P. C. Klingeman, M. W. Doyle, and A. Simon. 2003. Design for stream restoration. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 129:575-584.
64. Strahan, J. 1984. Regeneration of riparian forests of the Central Valley. Pages 58-67 in R. E. Warner, K. M. Hendrix (eds.), California riparian ecosystems. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
65. Stromberg, J. C. 2001. Restoration of riparian vegetation in the south-western United States: Importance of flow regimes and fluvial dynamism. Journal of Arid Environments 49:17-34.
66. Sun, T., P. Meakin, and T. Jossang. 2001. A computer model for meandering rivers with multiple bed load sediment sizes 1. Theory. Water Resources Research 37:2227-2241.
67. Tobin, G. A. 1995. The levee love affair: A stormy relationship. Water Resources Bulletin 31:359-367.
68. Tockner, K., and J. A. Stanford. 2002. Riverine flood plains: Present state and future trends. Environmental Conservation 29:308-330.
69. US Department of Agriculture. 2001. Stream corridor restoration: Principles, process and practices. The Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, USDA. Available from http://www.usda.gov/stream_restoration.
70. Vitousek, P. M., H. A Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J. M. Melillo. 1997. Human domination of earth's ecosystems. Science 277:494-499.
71. Water Engineering and Technology Inc. 1988. Geomorphic analysis of the Sacramento River: Draft report. DACWO5-87-C-0084, Water Engineering and Technology, Inc., US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CA.
72. WET. 1988. Geomorphic analysis of the Sacramento River: Draft report. DACWO5-87-C-0084. Water Engineering and Technology, Inc., US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CA.
73. Wolman, M. G., and J. P. Miller. 1959. Magnitude and frequency of forces in geomorphic processes. Journal of Geology 68:54-74.