Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling the Hydrodynamic and Morphologic Response of an Estuary Restoration

  • Published:
Estuaries and Coasts Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Estuary evolution is investigated using the hydrodynamic and sediment transport model, Delft3D, to study the response of a dammed tidal basin to restored tidal processes. The development of decadal (10-year) morphological simulations of the restored estuary required simplifying several data inputs and implementing a time-scale acceleration technique. An innovative river sediment discharge schematization was developed that connected sediment discharge to morphological change in the estuary. Mud erodibility parameters were determined from laboratory analysis of sediment cores from the modern lakebed and statistical refinement with a Bayes network of the probability of occurrence. The changing estuary morphology appears to have a dominant impact on the physical habitat (substrate, inundation frequency, mean salinity, and salinity range). The numerical model provides a tool to compare the functions of the historical estuary and possible future alternatives for a restored estuary. Sensitivity of the morphological model to sediment types and erodibility parameters was also examined. A conceptual model covering morphology and indicators of physical habitat for three phases of estuary evolution during restoration is presented that could be applied to estuarine systems that are severely out of equilibrium.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Cooper, J.A.G. 2002. The role of extreme floods in estuary-coastal behaviour: contrasts between river- and tide-dominated microtidal estuaries. Sedimentary Geology 150: 123–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalrymple, R.W., B.A. Zaitlin, and R. Boyd. 1992. Estuarine facies models: conceptual basis and stratagraphic implications. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 62(6): 1130–1146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R.A. (ed.). 1978. Coastal sedimentary environments, 413. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vriend H.J., Capobianco M., Latteux B., Chesher T., Stive M.J.F., 1993. Approaches to long-term modelling of coastal morphology: A review. Coastal Engineering 21: 225–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eshleman, J., Ruggiero, P., Kinsley, E., Gelfenbaum, G., and George, D., 2006. Capitol Lake, Washington 2004 data summary. USGS Data Series report.

  • Friedrichs, C.T., and D.G. Aubrey. 1996. Uniform bottom shear stress and equilibrium hypsometry of intertidal flats, in mixing in Estuaries and Coastal Seas. Coastal and Estuarine Studies 50: 405–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganju, N.K., N. Knowles, and D.H. Schoellhamer. 2008. Temporal downscaling of decadal sediment load estimates to a daily interval for use in hindcast simulations. Journal of Hydrology 349: 512–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelfenbaum, G., Roelvink, J.A., Meijs, M., Buijsman, M. and Ruggiero, P. 2003. Process-based morphological modeling of Grays Harbor inlet at decadal timescales. Proceedings of the Coastal Sediments ‘03 International Conference, 13p.

  • George, D. A., Gelfenbaum, G., Lesser, G., Stevens, A. W. 2006. Deschutes estuary feasibility study—Hydrodynamics and sediment transport modeling. United States Geological Survey Open File Report 2006–1318. 222 pp.

  • Haff, P.K. 1996. Limitations on predictive modeling in geomorphology. In The scientific nature of geomorphology, ed. B.L. Rhoads and C.E. Thorn, 337–358. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, P.S. 1998. Controls on floc size in the sea. Oceanography 11: 13–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jumars, P.A., and A.R.M. Nowell. 1984. Effects of benthos on sediment transport: difficulties with functional grouping. Continental Shelf Research 3: 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latteux, B. 1995. Techniques for long-term morphological simulation under tidal action. Marine Geology 126: 129–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, B.A., P.S. Hill, T.G. Milligan, K.J. Curran, P.L. Wiberg, and R.A. Wheatcroft. 2008. Size sorting of fine-grained sediments during erosion: results from the western Gulf of Lions. Continental Shelf Research 28(15): 1935–1946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesser, G. R. 2010. An approach to medium-term coastal morphological modeling. UNESCO-IHE PhD thesis. UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, The Netherlands.

  • Lesser, G.R., J.A. Roelvink, J.A.T.M. Van Kester, G.S. Stelling, and V. Lakhan. 2004. Development and validation of a three-dimensional morphological model. Coastal Engineering 51: 883–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lick, W., Z. Chroneer, C. Jones, and R. Jepsen. 1997. A predictive model of sediment transport. Estuarine and Coastal Modeling 5: 389–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, R., and B.D. Richter. 2007. Application of the indicators of hydrologic alteration software in environmental flow setting. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43: 1400–1413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeil, J., C. Taylor, and W. Lick. 1996. Measurements of erosion of undisturbed bottom sediments with depth. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 122: 316–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mih, W., and J. Orsborn. 1974. Sediment removal and maintenance system for the upper basin of Capital Lake Olympia, Washington. Preliminary Report, 33. Pullman: Washington State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partheniades, E. 1965. Erosion and deposition of cohesive soils. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, American Society of Civil Engineers 91: 105–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postma, H., 1967. Sediment transport and sedimentation in the estuarine environment. In Estuaries, ed. G.H. Lauff, 158–179. Washington: AAAS.

  • Pritchard, D., A.J. Hogg, and W. Roberts. 2002. Morphological modeling of intertidal mudflats: the role of cross-shore tidal currents. Continental Shelf Research 22: 1887–1895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J., R. Jepson, D. Gotthard, and W. Lick. 1998. Effects of particle size and bulk density on erosion of quartz particles. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 124: 1261–1267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, W., P. Le Hir, and R.J.S. Whitehouse. 2000. Investigation using simple mathematical models of the effect of tidal currents and waves on the profile shape of intertidal mudflats. Continental Shelf Research 20(10/11): 1079–1097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roelvink, J.A. 2006. Coastal morphodynamic evolution techniques. Coastal Engineering 53: 277–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanford, L.P. 2008. Modeling a dynamically varying mixed sediment bed with erosion, deposition, bioturbation, consolidation, and armoring. Computers and Geosciences 34(10): 1263–1283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simenstad, C., D. Reed, and M. Ford. 2006. When is restoration not? Incorporating landscape-scale processes to restore self-sustaining ecosystems in coastal wetland restoration. Ecological Engineering 26(1): 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sondi, I., M. Juracic, and V. Pravdic. 1995. Sedimentation in a disequilibrium estuary: the Rasa River Estuary (Adriatic Sea, Croatia). Sedimentology 42: 769–782.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Soulsby, R.L., L. Hamm, G. Klopman, D. Myrhaug, R.R. Simons, and G.P. Thomas. 1993. Wave–current interaction within and outside the bottom boundary layer. Coastal Engineering 21: 41–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiegelhalter, D.J., A.P. Dawid, S.L. Lauritzen, and R.G. Cowell. 1993. Bayesian analysis in expert systems. Statistical Science 8: 219–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, A.W., R.A. Wheatcroft, and P.L. Wiberg. 2007. Seabed properties and sediment erodibility along the western Adriatic margin. Italy: Continental Shelf Research 27: 400–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, A.W., Gelfenbaum, G., Elias, E., Jones, C., 2008. Incorporation of fine-grained sediment erodibility measurements into sediment transport modeling, Capitol Lake, Washington. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008–1340, 72 p.

  • Uncles, R.J. 2002. Estuarine physical processes research: some recent studies and progress. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 55: 829–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Wegen, M., A. Dastgheib, B.E. Jaffe, and D. Roelvink. 2010. Bed composition generation for morphodynamic modeling: case study of San Pablo Bay in California, USA. Ocean Dynamics 61(2–3): 173–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Wegen, M., B.E. Jaffe, and D. Roelvink. 2011. Process–based, morphodynamic hindcast of decadal deposition patterns in San Pablo Bay, California, 1856–1887. Journal of Geophysical Research 116: F02008. doi:10.1029/2009JF001614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rijn, L. 1993. Principles of sediment transport in rivers, estuaries, and coastal seas, 715. Amsterdam: Aqua.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheatcroft, R.W., and C.A. Butman. 1997. Spatial and temporal variability in aggregated grain-size distributions, with implications for sediment dynamics. Continental Shelf Research 17: 367–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P.B., M.K. Orr, and N.J. Garrity. 2002. Hydraulic geometry: a geomorphic design tool for tidal marsh channel evolution in wetland restoration projects. Restoration Ecology 10(3): 577–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R., and J. Widdows. 2002. A model of sediment transport over an intertidal transect, comparing the influences of biological and physical factors. Limnology and Oceanography 47: 848–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was part of a large collaborative process, and we would like to acknowledge the contributions of the Deschutes Estuary Feasibility Study Technical Committee, including Curtis Tanner, Steven Morrison, and Nathaniel Jones. Giles Lesser was instrumental in developing the morphological modeling techniques. We thank Edwin Elias, Jodi Eshleman, and Bert Jagers for their assistance in executing the project. We thank George Tate and Craig Jones for help collecting cores and performing SedFlume analysis. Nathaniel Plant provided guidance in applying the Bayesian model to the erodibility data. The manuscript was greatly improved by input from Jessica Lacy, Greg Hood, Neil Ganju, and an anonymous reviewer. This project was funded by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB), the Washington Department of General Administration, the Puget Sound Action Team, the Port of Olympia, and the US Geological Survey Coastal and Marine Geology Program. We thank our friends and colleagues for their support during this multiyear effort.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. United States Geological Survey, 400 Natural Bridges Dr, Santa Cruz, CA, USA

    Douglas A. George, Guy Gelfenbaum & Andrew W. Stevens

  2. ESA PWA, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Douglas A. George

Authors
  1. Douglas A. George
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guy Gelfenbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew W. Stevens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas A. George.

Appendix

Appendix

Cross-Section Transects Used in Sensitivity Analysis to Sediment Grain Size

Fig. 15
figure 15

Map of cross-section locations in model domain

Full size image
Fig. 16
figure 16

Cross-section transect 1

Full size image
Fig. 17
figure 17

Cross-section transect 2

Full size image
Fig. 18
figure 18

Cross-section transect 3

Full size image
Fig. 19
figure 19

Cross-section transect 4

Full size image
Fig. 20
figure 20

Cross-section transect 5

Full size image
Fig. 21
figure 21

Cross-section transect 6

Full size image
Fig. 22
figure 22

Cross-section transect 7

Full size image
Fig. 23
figure 23

Cross-section transect 8

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

George, D.A., Gelfenbaum, G. & Stevens, A.W. Modeling the Hydrodynamic and Morphologic Response of an Estuary Restoration. Estuaries and Coasts 35, 1510–1529 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-012-9541-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-012-9541-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation