PresentationPDF Available

Integrating hydrogeomorphological principles and human benefits in river restoration: framework proposal for projects management

Authors:
Étienne Gariépy-Girouard at Université du Québec à Montréal
Étienne Gariépy-Girouard
Thomas Buffin-Bélanger at Université du Québec à Rimouski UQAR
Thomas Buffin-Bélanger
Pascale M. Biron at Concordia University Montreal
Pascale M. Biron
Download file PDFDownload file PDF
Read file
Download citation

Abstract and Figures

It is essential for river restoration to integrate hydrogeomorphological principles and human benefits. They can allow achieving a variety of objectives that are consistent with potential functioning of rivers as well as their uses. However, due to some operational limitations, the projects carried out in the province of Quebec still take little account of these principles and often present unique and specific objectives. Moreover, despite their potential utility for river restoration projects implementation, few if no frameworks integrate both their theoretical principles and their practical considerations. Therefore, this presentation aims to (1) propose a framework that is more representative of river restoration projects management in Quebec, (2) illustrate its principal aspects with examples and (3) demonstrate its applicability for carrying out projects. Built through a review of the literature and collaboration experiences in river restoration, the proposed framework points out projects funding and stakeholders' expertise as its principal practical considerations. Using this framework would be relevant for projects planning, funding and evaluation, which could guide water management regulations.
Figures - uploaded by Étienne Gariépy-Girouard
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Étienne Gariépy-Girouard
Content may be subject to copyright.
Gariepy-Girouard_et_al_2022
db.pdf
Content uploaded by Étienne Gariépy-Girouard
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Étienne Gariépy-Girouard on Jul 18, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Gariepy-Girouard_et_al_2022
da.pdf
Content uploaded by Étienne Gariépy-Girouard
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Étienne Gariépy-Girouard on Jul 18, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
4 > 8 juillet LYON 2022
Étienne Gariépy-Girouard1, Thomas Buffin-Bélanger1
& Pascale Biron2
1Département de biologie, chimie et géographie, Université du Québec à Rimouski (Qc)
2Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University (Qc)
Integrating hydrogeomorphological
principles and human benefits in river
restoration: framework proposal for
projects management
Context
Benefits of integrating
hydrogeomorphological principles
into river restoration:
•Objectives: various and
consistent with river’s
functioning and diverse uses
•Results: more sustainable and
consistent with river’s context
(Beechie et al., 2010 ; Biron et al., 2018 ; Cottet et al., 2022 ; Dufour
& Piégay, 2009 ; Friberg et al., 2016 ; Wohl et al., 2015) L’Yzeron, Lyon (Véronique Benacchio, 2021)
Context
Projects achieved in Québec
(Canada) still take little account of
these principles:
•Objectives: unique and specific
(habitats improvement for a few
species and public safety)
•Results: control of fluvial
processes with engineering works
(Biron, 2017 ; Biron et al., 2018)
Saint-Georges canal, Port-Menier (Gaëtan Laprise, 2021)
Unnamed stream, Magog (Natur’Eau-Lac, [n.d.])
Harman et al., 2012
Context
Angelopoulos et al., 2017
McDonald et al., 2004
Context
Proposed
framework
The Saint-Georges canal (Anticosti)
Georges Martin-Zédé, 1901 d-maps.com
Québec
1901
Étienne Gariépy-Girouard,
2021
2021
The Saint-Georges canal (Anticosti)
Gaëtan Laprise, 2019
Étienne Gariépy-Girouard, 2019
Upstream (2019)
Downstream (2019)
Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, [n.d.]
The Saint-Georges canal (Anticosti)
Gaëtan Laprise, 2021
The Saint-Georges canal (Anticosti)
Upstream (2021)Downstream (2021)
Gaëtan Laprise, 2021
The Saint-Georges canal (Anticosti)
« It all revolves around us, but we
know that we don’t have the
technical expertise. »
« Even if, theoretically, we consider
each advice as equal, it’s not that
true according to the law. The final
word is given by the engineer,
regarding other considerations
[than the project’s ones]. »
(Translated from P05)
The Saint-Georges canal (Anticosti)
« This blindspot came from our lack
of knowledge. [...] From the first
visit on the field, we realized no fish
could cross this drop [...], it was
going to need a ladder. This added
almost 200 000$ or 250 000$ [+
60% - 80%] from the beginning.»
« The structure of federal funding
even led to absurd decisions. »
(Translated from P05)
The Saint-Georges canal (Anticosti)
« We are opportunistic. If there is a
funding that fits, we have to find a
project to get it. »
« If there is this financial possibility
to do this kind of action [...], we
choose our restoration objectives
according to the funding
opportunity. »
(Translated from P01)
The Saint-Georges canal (Anticosti)
« This project’s major challenge
was to make different expertise
talk to each other. »
(Translated from P05)
« It takes time if we want to
achieve sustainable results that
meet our objectives. »
(Translated from P06)
Conclusion
Relevance of the framework:
•For projects’ planning
•For projects’ analysis and
funding
•For projects’ monitoring
and feedback
Modified from Jacobs et al., 2013
References
Angelopoulos, N. V., Cowx, I. G., & Buijse, A. D. (2017). Integrated planning framework for successful river restoration
projects: Upscaling lessons learnt from European case studies. Environmental Science and Policy, 76, 12–22.
Beechie, T., Sear, D. A., Olden, J. D., Pess, G. R., Buffington, J. M., Moir, H., Roni, P., & Pollock, M. M. (2010). Process-
based Principles for Restoring River Ecosystems. BioScience, 60(3), 209–222.
Biron, P. M. (2017). La restauration de l’habitat du poisson en rivière : une recension des écrits. Rapport scientifique
présenté à la Fondation de la Faune du Québec, 70 p.
Biron, P. M., Buffin-Bélanger, T., & Massé, S. (2018). The need for river management and stream restoration
practices to integrate hydrogeomorphology. The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien, 62(2), 288–295.
Cottet, M., Morandi, B., & Piégay, H. (2022). What are the Political, Social, and Economic Issues in River Restoration?
Genealogy and Current Research Issues. In B. Morandi, M. Cottet, & H. Piégay (Eds.), River Restoration: Political,
Social, and Economic Perspectives (pp. 1–47). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Dufour, S., & Piégay, H. (2009). From the myth of a lost paradise to targeted river restoration: forget natural
references and focus on human benefits. River Research and Applications, 25(5), 568–581.
Friberg, N., Angelopoulos, N. V., Buijse, A. D., Cowx, I. G., Kail, J., Moe, T. F., Moir, H., O’Hare, M. T., Verdonschot, P.
F. M., & Wolter, C. (2016). Effective River Restoration in the 21st Century: From Trial and Error to Novel Evidence-
Based Approaches. In A. J. Dumbrell, R. L. Kordas, & G. Woodward (Eds.), Advances in Ecological Research (Vol. 55,
pp. 535–611). Academic Press Inc.
Harman, W., Starr, R., Carter, M., Tweedy, K., Clemmons, M., Suggs, K., & Miller, C. (2012). A Function-Based
Framework for Stream Assessment & Restoration Projects. 340 p.
Jacobs, D. F., Dalgleish, H. J., & Nelson, C. D. (2013). A conceptual framework for restoration of threatened plants:
the effective model of American chestnut (Castanea dentata) reintroduction. New Phytologist, 197(2), 378–393.
McDonald, A., Lane, S. N., Haycock, N. E., & Chalk, E. A. (2004). Rivers of dreams: On the gulf between theoretical and
practical aspects of an upland river restoration. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 29(3), 257–281.
Wohl, E., Lane, S. N., & Wilcox, A. C. (2015). The science and practice of river restoration. Water Resources Research,
51(8), 5974–5997.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Chapter Eleven. Effective River Restoration in the 21st Century: From Trial and Error to Novel Evidence-Based Approaches
Article
Full-text available
  • Sep 2016
  • ADV ECOL RES
This paper is a comprehensive and updated overview of river restoration and covers all relevant aspects from drivers of restoration, linkages between hydromorphology and biota, the current restoration paradigm, effects of restorations to future directions and ways forward in the way we conduct river restoration. A large part of this paper is based on the outcomes of the REFORM (REstoring rivers FOR effective catchment Management, http://reformrivers.eu/) project that was funded by EU's 7th Framework Programme (2011–15). REFORM included the most comprehensive comparison, to date, of existing river restorations across Europe and their effect on biota, both in relation to preintervention state and project size in terms of river length restored. The REFORM project outcomes are supplemented by an extensive literature review and two case studies to illustrate key points. We conclude that river restorations conducted up until now have had highly variable effects with, on balance, more positives than negatives. The largest positive effects have interestingly been in terrestrial and semiaquatic organism groups, in widening projects, while positive effects on truly aquatic organisms groups are only seen when in-stream measures are applied. The positive responses of biota are primarily seen as increased abundance of organisms with very little indication that overall biodiversity has increased: specific traits rather than mere species number or total abundance have benefited from restoration interventions. This modest success rate can partly be attributed to the fact that the catchment filter is largely ignored; large-scale pressures related to catchment land use or the lack of source populations for the recolonisation of the restored habitats are inadequately considered. The key reason for this shortfall is a lack of clear objective setting and planning processes. Furthermore, we suggest that there has been a focus on form rather than processes and functioning in river restoration, which has truncated the evolution of geomorphic features and any dynamic interaction with biota. Finally, monitoring of restoration outcomes is still rare and often uses inadequate statistical designs and inappropriate biological methods which hamper our ability to detect change.
View
From the Myth of a Lost Paradise to Targeted River Restoration: Forget Natural References and Focus on Human Benefits
Article
Full-text available
  • Jun 2009
  • RIVER RES APPL
In the last two decades river restoration has become increasingly a field of research asking a series of complex questions related not just to science but also to society. Why should we restore ecosystems? Is restoration always beneficial? When is it beneficial? What should be the target reference states? What is success and when can it be evaluated? Our objective is to chronicle and discuss the fundamental concepts of reference versus objective, state versus process-based actions, nature versus culture and ecosystem integrity versus ecosystem benefits driven restoration. We discuss the dynamic and yet unresolved definition of a reference state. Although the desire to re-create the past is tempting, science has shown that river systems follow complex trajectories frequently making it impossible to return to a previous state. Therefore, restoration goals are moving away from explicitly defining a reference state because of the difficulty of attaining that reference state. We argue that the reference-based strategy should be progressively replaced by an objective-based strategy that reflects the practical limitations of developing sustainable landscapes and the emerging importance of accounting for human services of the target ecosystem. After a decade during which natural processes have been the focus of restoration, it appears that particular processes are not equally valuable everywhere and that regional complexity must be better understood to adjust restoration actions. Copyright
View
Process-Based Principles for Restoring River Ecosystems
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2010
Process-based restoration aims to reestablish normative rates and magnitudes of physical, chemical, and biological processes that sustain river and floodplain ecosystems. Ecosystem conditions at any site are governed by hierarchical regional, watershed, and reach-scale processes controlling hydrologic and sediment regimes; floodplain and aquatic habitat dynamics; and riparian and aquatic biota. We outline and illustrate four process-based principles that ensure river restoration will be guided toward sustainable actions: (1) restoration actions should address the root causes of degradation, (2) actions must be consistent with the physical and biological potential of the site, (3) actions should be at a scale commensurate with environmental problems, and (4) actions should have clearly articulated expected outcomes for ecosystem dynamics. Applying these principles will help avoid common pitfalls in river restoration, such as creating habitat types that are outside of a site's natural potential, attempting to build static habitats in dynamic environments, or constructing habitat features that are ultimately overwhelmed by unconsidered system drivers.
View
What are the Political, Social, and Economic Issues in River Restoration? Genealogy and Current Research Issues
Chapter
  • Sep 2021
River restoration initiatives are now widespread across the world. The research efforts undertaken to support them are increasingly interdisciplinary, focusing on ecological but also societal issues. Based on a review of previous contributions, this chapter provides an overview of research in human and social sciences in the field of river restoration. It illustrates how, in three decades, such approaches have evolved and strengthened within the restoration sciences. The scientific community working on societal issues has structured itself, often regionally and circumstantially, to contribute to, critically assess, and improve restoration policies and practices. Our scientific literature review highlights this research field and is structured along three thematic axes: (i) human–river interactions, especially perceptions and practices of rivers and how these interactions can be changed by restoration projects; (ii) critical analysis of political processes, with a particular interest in governance and decision‐making, and a specific emphasis on the question of public participation in restoration projects; and (iii) evaluation of the economic benefits of river restoration. All these scientific contributions on societal issues are based on survey methods, documentary analysis, or economic valuation, which are introduced in dedicated inserts. Finally, we discuss how these research efforts and the diversity of researchers’ positions contribute to improve restoration approaches in practice.
View
Promoting fluvial geomorphology to "live with rivers" in the Anthropocene Era
Article
  • Feb 2021
  • GEOMORPHOLOGY
Is geomorphology at the forefront of river management? The aims of this article are to explore potential answers to this question in terms of role, barriers, motivation and prospects for river management in the Anthropocene Era. We justify and execute our analysis, first through the growing interest in applied geomorphology and its role to improve river ecology and river policy design; second, by interviewing 24 specialists (researchers (i.e., biologists, ecologists, geomorphologists), engineers, river managers, planners) from different countries. We detected three barriers (academic, management and social) that prevent geomorphology from being more involved in river policy. We then propose three principles for living with rivers, considering geomorphology one of the key factors: (i) working across disciplinary frontiers, (ii) promoting integrated approaches, and (iii) improving fluvial education. Our conclusions look to rivers as natural and dynamic systems where geomorphological knowledge can improve the skills of engineers, ecologists and embrace a transdisciplinary approach. The new riverscape that we propose for the Anthropocene Era must be conceived using negotiation and discussion between an interconnected network of actors, regulators, scientists (sometimes), and natural and cultural values, where management objectives are raised and designed.
View
The need for river management and stream restoration practices to integrate hydrogeomorphology: Stream restoration and hydrogeomorphology
Article
  • Sep 2017
There is growing support amongst scientists worldwide about the need for a shift in river management approaches to include hydrogeomorphic processes. However, the degree to which these concepts are transferred to governmental agencies and practitioners varies widely. In Quebec, for example, many stream restoration projects are based on the (incorrect) assumption that river mobility and its inevitable consequences (bank erosion of meanders, presence of woody debris in the channel) are problematic for salmonids. This paper presents examples drawn from current guidelines on stream restoration for fish habitat in Quebec to demonstrate the need to improve the knowledge exchange among scientists and decision makers about the positive impact of river mobility and large wood dynamics on biodiversity. Our observations reveal that existing guidelines for stream restoration in Quebec need to be revised to better integrate hydrogeomorphic concepts and to no longer assume that maintaining rivers in a static state is beneficial for fish. Adopting the “freedom space for rivers” approach would likely result in improved habitat as it combines natural processes related to mobility, flooding, and riparian wetland connectivity to determine the minimal space around rivers where development should not be allowed, thus allowing river processes to be restored.
View
Integrated planning framework for successful river restoration projects: Upscaling lessons learnt from European case studies
Article
  • Oct 2017
  • ENVIRON SCI POLICY
Despite considerable investment in river restoration projects, there is still limited information on the efficacy and success of river restoration activities. One of the main reasons is poor or improper project design, resulting in common problems such as: not addressing the root cause of habitat degradation; not establishing reference conditions, benchmarks and not defining endpoints against which to measure success; inappropriate uses of common restoration techniques because of lack of pre-planning; and inadequate monitoring or appraisal of restoration projects. In this paper peer-reviewed and grey literature and a large database of existing case studies were reviewed to identify the prevailing challenges river managers face when planning and developing river restoration projects. To overcome these current challenges an integrated project planning framework has been developed that incorporates adaptive management and project management techniques. It encapsulates key concepts and decision support tools to advance the existing sequence of project identification, project formulation, project implementation and post-project monitoring to incorporate multidisciplinary decision making to meet specific environmental and socio-economic objectives. The proposed river restoration project planning framework is adaptable and can therefore be applied to any project development scenario locally, regionally or internationally.
View
The science and practice of river restoration
Article
River restoration is one of the most prominent areas of applied water-resources science. From an initial focus on enhancing fish habitat or river appearance, primarily through structural modification of channel form, restoration has expanded to incorporate a wide variety of management activities designed to enhance river process and form. Restoration is conducted on headwater streams, large lowland rivers, and entire river networks in urban, agricultural, and less intensively human-altered environments. We critically examine how contemporary practitioners approach river restoration and challenges for implementing restoration, which include clearly identified objectives, holistic understanding of rivers as ecosystems, and the role of restoration as a social process. We also examine challenges for scientific understanding in river restoration. These include: how physical complexity supports biogeochemical function, stream metabolism, and stream ecosystem productivity; characterizing response curves of different river components; understanding sediment dynamics; and increasing appreciation of the importance of incorporating climate change considerations and resiliency into restoration planning. Finally, we examine changes in river restoration within the past decade, such as increasing use of stream mitigation banking; development of new tools and technologies; different types of process-based restoration; growing recognition of the importance of biological-physical feedbacks in rivers; increasing expectations of water quality improvements from restoration; and more effective communication between practitioners and river scientists. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
View
A conceptual framework for restoration of threatened plants: The effective model of American chestnut (Castanea dentata) reintroduction
Article
We propose a conceptual framework for restoration of threatened plant species that encourages integration of technological, ecological, and social spheres. A sphere encompasses ideas relevant to restoration and the people working within similar areas of influence or expertise. Increased capacity within a sphere and a higher degree of coalescing among spheres predict a greater probability of successful restoration. We illustrate this with C astanea dentata , a foundation forest tree in North America that was annihilated by an introduced pathogen; the species is a model that effectively merges biotechnology, reintroduction biology, and restoration ecology. Because of C . dentata 's ecological and social importance, scientists have aggressively pursued blight resistance through various approaches. We summarize recent advancements in tree breeding and biotechnology that have emerged from C. dentata research, and describe their potential to bring new tools to bear on socio‐ecological restoration problems. Successful reintroduction of C . dentata will also depend upon an enhanced understanding of its ecology within contemporary forests. We identify a critical need for a deeper understanding of societal influences that may affect setting and achieving realistic restoration goals. Castanea dentata may serve as an important model to inform reintroduction of threatened plant species in general and foundation forest trees in particular. Contents Summary 378 I. Castanea dentata as a model at the intersection of reintroduction biology and restoration ecology 379 II. Technological approaches for recovery of Castanea dentata 381 III. Ecology of the historically dominant Castanea dentata in contemporary forests 385 IV. Societal challenges for successful reintroduction of Castanea dentata 388 V. Conclusions 389 Acknowledgements 389 References 389
View
Rivers of Dreams: On the Gulf Between Theoretical and Practical Aspects of an Upland River Restoration
Article
  • Sep 2004
  • T I BRIT GEOGR
This paper is concerned with development and application of a conceptual model of the river restoration process and, through a specific case study, a demonstration of the challenges that arise when combining ecological and geomorphological principles with social and economic issues. Thus, it demonstrates the difference between the ideal goals of river restoration and the practical determinants of the nature of a river restoration that derive from individual and community goals. It begins by exploring theoretically what a river restoration project might involve. It then introduces the options developed for restoration of a particular case study river and the associated decisionmaking process. As a result of strong community involvement, institutional and financial regulations, the location of the restoration site in a National Park, and the influence of governmental and non-governmental organizations, the actual decisionmaking process resulted in a practical river restoration that departed significantly from the idealized goals of a restoration defined in purely scientific terms. It is argued that these practical limitations are likely to remain the dominant influence upon the nature and scope of river restoration projects.
View