| Literature DB >> 18043964 |
Jeffrey H Braatne1, Stewart B Rood, Lori A Goater, Charles L Blair.
Abstract
River damming provides a dominant human impact on river environments worldwide, and while local impacts of reservoir flooding are immediate, subsequent ecological impacts downstream can be extensive. In this article, we assess seven research strategies for analyzing the impacts of dams and river flow regulation on riparian ecosystems. These include spatial comparisons of (1) upstream versus downstream reaches, (2) progressive downstream patterns, or (3) the dammed river versus an adjacent free-flowing or differently regulated river(s). Temporal comparisons consider (4) pre- versus post-dam, or (5) sequential post-dam conditions. However, spatial comparisons are complicated by the fact that dams are not randomly located, and temporal comparisons are commonly limited by sparse historic information. As a result, comparative approaches are often correlative and vulnerable to confounding factors. To complement these analyses, (6) flow or sediment modifications can be implemented to test causal associations. Finally, (7) process-based modeling represents a predictive approach incorporating hydrogeomorphic processes and their biological consequences. In a case study of Hells Canyon, the upstream versus downstream comparison is confounded by a dramatic geomorphic transition. Comparison of the multiple reaches below the dams should be useful, and the comparison of Snake River with the adjacent free-flowing Salmon River may provide the strongest spatial comparison. A pre- versus post-dam comparison would provide the most direct study approach, but pre-dam information is limited to historic reports and archival photographs. We conclude that multiple study approaches are essential to provide confident interpretations of ecological impacts downstream from dams, and propose a comprehensive study for Hells Canyon that integrates multiple research strategies.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18043964 PMCID: PMC2233706 DOI: 10.1007/s00267-007-9048-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Manage ISSN: 0364-152X Impact factor: 3.266
Fig. 1Map of the study region showing rivers and dams of the Hells Canyon Complex
Recent studies that include multiple comparisons for investigating ecological impacts from dams above river canyons of western North America (north to south) and the Snake River
| Author (year) | River(s) | Location | 1. Upstream versus downstream | 2. Progressive downstream | 3. Dammed versus free-flowing | 4. Pre- versus post-dam | 5. Sequential post-damming | 6. Flow modification | 7. Process-based modeling |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rood and others ( | St. Mary River through Box Canyon | Alberta | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Andrews | Green and Yampa rivers through Dinosaur Monument | Colorado | X | X | X | X | |||
| Schmidt and others ( | Grand Canyon of the Colorado River | Arizona | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Johnson and others ( | Snake River, upstream of Hells Canyon | Idaho | X | X | |||||
| Schmidt and others ( | Snake River, Hells Canyon | Idaho, Oregon | X | X | |||||
| Proposed composite study | Snake River, Hells Canyon | Idaho, Oregon | X | X | X | X | X | ? | X |
aadditional relevant articles are cited within the articles in this group
Research strategies to analyze ecological impacts downstream of dams and their suitability for the Snake River through Hells Canyon
| Research strategy | Study design | Consideration / complexity | Suitability for Hells Canyon |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Upstream versus downstream | Paired comparison: upstream = control, downstream = treatment | Dams are not randomly situated and are often at geomorphic transitions | Low - an extreme geomorphic transition exists |
| 2. Progressive downstream | Quantitative comparison suitable for pattern analysis | Inflowing tributaries can mitigate impacts of damming but also introduce system complexity | Medium - the inflow of the Salmon River provides considerable system recovery |
| 3. Dammed versus free-flowing | Paired or multiple comparison: free-flowing = control or reference, dammed = treatment | Although regional rivers have biophysical similarities, each river is somewhat unique | High - in biophysical condition, the Salmon River Gorge is very similar to Hells Canyon |
| 4. Pre- versus post-dam | Paired comparison: pre-dam = control, post-dam = treatment | Comprehensive biophysical inventories were seldom undertaken prior to damming | Medium - historic descriptions and archival photographs are available |
| 5. Sequential post-damming | Multiple comparison that may be suitable for pattern analysis | Other coincidental changes complicate interpretation | Medium - sequential aerial photographs permit comparison of large-scale features |
| 6. Flow or sediment modification or dam removal | Pre-determined paired or multiple comparison | A specialized post-damming comparison that may test causal association | Uncertain - following recent relicensing , there may be slight, but probably not major, changes in dam operations |
| 7. Process-based modeling | Quantitative modeling with hydrogeomorphic foundation (i.e., hydrology & geomorphology ➔ vegetation ➔ wildlife) | Requires defined and deterministic relationships but some processes remain poorly understood | High - the physically rigid landscape simplifies hydrogeomorphic modeling and riparian vegetation is limited |
Fig. 2Schematic showing general spatial comparisons to analyze environmental impacts downstream from dams. Triangles represent dams and reservoirs
Fig. 3Typical views of the Snake River upstream (top, near Weiser, July 1997) and downstream (bottom, below Hells Canyon Dam, July 1997) from the Hells Canyon Complex of three dams and reservoirs
Fig. 4Comparisons of channel slopes (longitudinal gradients) and channel and valley widths for the Weiser reach of the Snake River upstream of the Hells Canyon Complex (n = 22), for the Hells Canyon reach downstream of the dams (n = 58), and for the adjacent lower gorge of the Salmon River (n = 67). Different letters indicate significantly different (p < 0.05) widths
Fig. 5Schematic showing the proposed spatial comparisons to analyze environmental impacts downstream from the Hells Canyon Complex of dams
Hydrological characteristics of river reaches in the Hells Canyon region
| River gaugea | Years of record | Drainage area (km2) | Mean annual discharge (m3/s) | Annual peak discharge (m3/s) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ave | Max | Min | Ave | Max | Min | |||
| Snake River at Murphy | 1914–1998 | 108,521 | 314 | 543 | 191 | 706 | 1339 | 306 |
| Major tributaries above Weiserb | 1914–1998 | 70,707 | 198 | 488 | 48 | 593 | 1053 | 116 |
| Snake R. at Weiser | 1914–1998 | 179,228 | 513 | 1031 | 239 | 1299 | 2393 | 422 |
| Snake R. at Hells Canyon Dama | 1965–1997 | 189,847 | 585 | 1035 | 276 | 1356 | 2777 | 578 |
| Salmon R. at Whitebird | 1914–1998 | 35,095 | 316 | 506 | 165 | 1798 | 3681 | 617 |
aHells Canyon Dam data were provided by Idaho Power Corp. and data for other gauges were derived from USGS gauging stations
bOwyhee, Boise, Malheur, Payette, and Weiser rivers. The associated peak flow values are estimates based on data from Weiser and Murphy gauges
Assessment of different comparison studies for analyzing impacts of damming and flow regulation on the Snake River through Hells Canyon
| Proximal score (P) local landscape (weight = 2) | Distal score (D) watershed conditions (weight = 1) | Comparability index = P + D | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Upstream vs. downstream (Weiser vs. Hells Canyon) | Different (0.5) | (almost the) Same (1) | 1.5 |
| Dammed vs. free-flowing (Hells Canyon vs. Salmon) | Very similar (1.5) | Different (0.25) | 1.75 |
| Pre- vs. post-dam (Hells Canyon) | Same (2) | Very similar (0.75) | 2.75 |
We applied a quartile scaling of: 0 = very different; 0.25 = different; 0.5 = somewhat different; 0.75 = very similar; or 1.0 = same; and multiplied this value by the weight to produce the P and D score