Spawning habitat rehabilitation ‐ II. Using hypothesis development and testing in design, Mokelumne river, California, U.S.A.

Abstract Rehabilitation of salmonid spawning habitat in regulated rivers through spawning bed enhancement is commonly used to mitigate altered sediment and flow regimes and associated declines in salmonid communities. Partial design‐phase predictive results are reported from the application of SHIRA (Spawning Habitat Integrated Rehabilitation Approach) on the lower Mokelumne River, California. The primary management goal of the project was to improve habitat for spawning and incubation life stages of fall‐run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). In the summer of 2001, we conducted a pre‐project appraisal followed by development and testing of 12 design scenarios. A subsample of eight design hypotheses, used in three of the design scenarios, is presented. Hydrodynamic, habitat suitability and sediment entrainment model results were used to test five of the eight design hypotheses. Two of the three hypotheses not tested were due to inadequate data on flow boundary conditions at high discharges. In September 2001, the project was constructed in a 152 m reach of the LMR from a final design based on all eight of the design hypotheses presented. Transparent hypothesis development and testing in design is emphasized as opposed to declaring success or failure from an ongoing long‐term monitoring campaign of the case study presented.

[1]  Joseph M. Wheaton.  Spawning Habitat Rehabilitation , 2003 .

[2]  C. Walters.  Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems , 1997 .

[3]  D. M. Thompson,et al.  Velocity reversals and sediment sorting in pools and riffles controlled by channel constrictions , 1999 .

[4]  Charles C. Coutant,et al.  A GENERAL PROTOCOL FOR RESTORATION OF REGULATED RIVERS , 1996 .

[5]  PETER W. DOWNS,et al.  Post-Project Appraisals in Adaptive Management of River Channel Restoration , 2002, Environmental management.

[6]  J. Merz,et al.  Evaluation of a Spawning Habitat Enhancement Site for Chinook Salmon in a Regulated California River , 2004 .

[7]  T. Kwak,et al.  Use of Rehabilitated Habitat by Brown Trout and Rainbow Trout in an Ozark Tailwater River , 2000 .

[8]  Joseph M. Wheaton,et al.  Predicting benefits of spawning-habitat rehabilitation to salmonid (Oncorhynchus spp.) fry production in a regulated California river , 2004 .

[9]  Ian Maddock,et al.  The Importance of Physical Habitat Assessment for Evaluating River Health , 1999 .

[10]  Peter B. Moyle,et al.  Historical Abundance and Decline of Chinook Salmon in the Central Valley Region of California , 1998 .

[11]  Gregory B. Pasternack,et al.  Application of a 2D hydrodynamic model to design of reach‐scale spawning gravel replenishment on the Mokelumne River, California , 2004 .

[12]  Hugh Ellis,et al.  Model uncertainty and model aggregation in environmental management , 1996 .

[13]  D. Geist.  Hyporheic discharge of river water into fall chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) spawning areas in the Hanford Reach, Columbia River , 2000 .

[14]  M. Leclerc,et al.  Two‐Dimensional Hydrodynamic Modeling: A Neglected Tool in the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology , 1995 .

[15]  D. W. Chapman,et al.  Critical Review of Variables Used to Define Effects of Fines in Redds of Large Salmonids , 1988 .

[16]  M. Clark,et al.  Dealing with uncertainty: adaptive approaches to sustainable river management , 2002 .

[17]  W. Covington,et al.  Restoration ecology [1] , 2000 .

[18]  K. G. Ranga Raju,et al.  Mechanics of Sediment Transportation and Alluvial Stream Problems , 1978 .

[19]  M. Brunke.  Colmation and Depth Filtration within Streambeds: Retention of Particles in Hyporheic Interstices , 1999, International Review of Hydrobiology.

[20]  J. Lichatowich,et al.  Pacific Salmon at the Crossroads: Stocks at Risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington , 1991 .

[21]  T. C. Chamberlin.  The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses , 1931, The Journal of Geology.

[22]  Z. Cao,et al.  Mathematical modelling of alluvial rivers: reality and myth. Part 1: General review , 2002 .

[23]  Gary James Jason,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery , 1988 .

[24]  H. McL. Gordon,et al.  Seeds of discovery , 1980 .

[25]  J. Merz.  Comparison of diets of prickly sculpin and juvenile fall-run chinook salmon in the lower Mokelumne River, California , 2002 .

[26]  D. Montgomery,et al.  Stream-bed scour, egg burial depths, and the influence of salmonid spawning on bed surface mobility and embryo survival , 1996 .

[27]  G. Mathias Kondolf,et al.  The sizes of salmonid spawning gravels , 1993 .

[28]  L. B. Leopold,et al.  Attributes of an alluvial river and their relation to water policy and management. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  D C Froehlich,et al.  FINITE ELEMENT SURFACE-WATER MODELING SYSTEM: TWO-DIMENSIONAL FLOW IN A HORIZONTAL PLANE. USERS MANUAL , 1989 .

[30]  G. Mathias Kondolf,et al.  Some Suggested Guidelines for Geomorphic Aspects of Anadromous Salmonid Habitat Restoration Proposals , 2000 .

[31]  Joseph M. Wheaton,et al.  Spawning habitat rehabilitation ‐I. Conceptual approach and methods , 2004 .

[32]  D. Montgomery,et al.  Channel type and salmonid spawning distribution and abundance , 1999 .

[33]  T. C. Chamberlin.  The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses: With this method the dangers of parental affection for a favorite theory can be circumvented. , 1965, Science.

[34]  G. Kondolf,et al.  Assessing Salmonid Spawning Gravel Quality , 2000 .

[35]  Stanley A. Schumm,et al.  To interpret the earth : ten ways to be wrong , 1992 .

[36]  P. Wilcock.  Friction between science and practice: The case of river restoration , 1997 .

[37]  M. Clark,et al.  Supporting complex decisions for sustainable river management in England and Wales , 2002 .

[38]  D. Lonzarich.  Strategies for Restoring River Ecosystems: Sources of Variability and Uncertainty in Natural and Managed Systems , 2004 .

[39]  G. Kondolf,et al.  Salmon Spawning Habitat Rehabilitation on the Merced River, California: An Evaluation of Project Planning and Performance , 1996 .

[40]  D. Montgomery.  Hydrogeomorphic Variability and River Restoration , 2003 .

[41]  P. Defur,et al.  Implementing the precautionary principle. , 2002, The Science of the total environment.

[42]  D. Sear,et al.  Modelling three‐dimensional flow structures and patterns of boundary shear stress in a natural pool–riffle sequence , 2001 .

[43]  Paul M. Randall,et al.  Evaluating the Biotic Integrity of Watersheds in the Sierra Nevada, California , 1998 .

[44]  P. Carling.  An appraisal of the velocity-reversal hypothesis for stable pool-riffle sequences in the river severn, England , 1991 .