University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Application of the adaptive river management approach to Ayamama River in Turkey

(USC Thesis Other)

Application of the adaptive river management approach to Ayamama River in Turkey

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

APPLICATION OF THE ADAPTIVE RIVER MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO
AYAMAMA RIVER IN TURKEY

By

Selman Ermihan

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC VITERBI SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Civil and Environmental Engineering

December 2019
ii

Dedications

To my beloved family

iii

Acknowledgements
I would first like to thank my sponsor company. This work would not have been possible
without the financial support of the General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works in Turkey.
I would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my research advisor, Prof J.J Lee
from the Viterbi School of Engineering / Civil and Environmental Engineering at USC, for
providing me the opportunity to do research and providing invaluable guidance throughout
this research. It was a great privilege and honor to work and study under his guidance. I am
extremely grateful for what he has offered me. I would also like to thank him for his
friendship, empathy, and great sense of humor.
Besides my advisor, I would like to thank the rest of my thesis committee: Prof. Dr. Carter
Wellford and Prof. Dr. James Moore, for their encouragement, insightful comments and
recommendation.
Last but not least, I am deeply grateful to My parents, Fahrettin Donat, Hasan Gundogdu and
whole my family members for their endless support, trust, understanding, presence, and love.

iv

Table of Contents
Dedications ..................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. River Ecosystems ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2. River Degradation ............................................................................................................ 2
1.2.1. Causes of River Degradation .................................................................................... 3
1.3. Water Systems in Turkey ................................................................................................. 4
1.4. Objective of the Study ...................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 2 The River Restoration Process ...................................................................................... 6
2.1. River Restoration.............................................................................................................. 6
2.1.1. Historical Development of River Restoration........................................................... 7
2.1.2. Methods of Assessing Ecosystem Degradation ........................................................ 8
2.1.3. River Restoration Techniques ................................................................................... 9
2.1.4. Assessment of River Restoration Results ............................................................... 10
2.2. Adaptive River Management ......................................................................................... 11
2.2.1. Forms of Adaptive River Management................................................................... 12
2.2.2. Framework of Adaptive River Management .......................................................... 14
2.2.3. Major Challenges of the Adaptive River Management .......................................... 15
2.2.4. Adaptive River Management as an Appropriate Method ....................................... 15
Chapter 3 Case Studies ................................................................................................................ 17
3.1. The Kissimmee River ..................................................................................................... 17
3.1.1. Flood Control Project .............................................................................................. 19
3.1.2. Effects of Channelization ........................................................................................ 20
3.1.3. Restoration Initiatives Before 1992 ........................................................................ 21
3.1.4. The Kissimmee River Restoration Project (KRRP)................................................ 22
3.1.5. The Kissimmee River Restoration Evaluation Program (KRREP) ........................ 25
v

3.1.6. Some Interim Responses of The Project ................................................................ 26
3.2. Glen Canyon Dam .......................................................................................................... 32
3.2.1. Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES) ........................................................ 34
3.2.2. Glen Canyon Protection Act (GCPA) ..................................................................... 35
3.2.3. Glen Canyon Environmental Impact Statement ..................................................... 36
3.2.4. Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program .............................................. 37
3.2.5. Evaluation of The Project Outcomes ...................................................................... 44
3.3. The Guadalupe River ..................................................................................................... 46
3.3.1. History of the Guadalupe River Project .................................................................. 47
3.3.2. Guadalupe River Project (Downtown) Collaborative ............................................. 48
3.3.3. The Environmental Challenge of the Project .......................................................... 49
3.3.4. The Guadalupe River Adaptive Management Plan ................................................ 50
3.3.5. Project Objectives ................................................................................................... 51
3.3.6. Adaptive Management Team .................................................................................. 51
Chapter 4 Proposed Study ............................................................................................................ 53
4.1. The Ayamama River ...................................................................................................... 53
4.1.1. The Ayamama Stream and its Watershed ............................................................... 54
4.1.2. Historical Development of The Ayamama River ................................................... 56
4.1.3. Problems of The Ayamama River ........................................................................... 60
4.1.4. Restoration Works at The Ayamama River ............................................................ 64
4.1.5. Recommendations for The Ayamama River........................................................... 71
Chapter 5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 73
5.1. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 73
References ..................................................................................................................................... 75

vi

List of Figures
Figure 1. River ecosystem services …….…………………………….……………………………2
Figure 2. River systems in Turkey ………….………………………..……………………………4
Figure 3. Adaptive management processes…………………………...…………………………..13
Figure 4. The adaptive management cycle ………………………...……………………………..14
Figure 5. Factors of an appropriate adaptive management………...……………………………...16
Figure 6. The kissimmee river map from lake kissimmee to lake...………………………………18
Figure 7. Actual and planned completion dates of KRRP phases…………………………………24
Figure 8. Annual peak flood series for the Colorado River……………………………………….32
Figure 9. Daily Discharges between 1957 and 1993...……………………………………………33
Figure 10. The Project Area…..…………………………...……………………………………...37
Figure 11. The organizational structure for the Adaptive Management Program……….......……41
Figure 12. The Adaptive Management Work Group representatives...…………………………...42
Figure 13. Location of Guadalupe River Watershed………...……………………………………47
Figure 14. Steelhead Trout…………………………………………...…………………………..49
Figure 15. Schematic Depiction Adaptive Management…………………………………………50
Figure 16. The Ayamama River flood event at 2009……………………………………………..54
Figure 17. The river mouth of The Ayamama River………………………………………….......55
Figure 18. The Ayamama stream and watershed…………...…………………………………….55
Figure 19. Enhancement of Streambed Cross-section of the Ayamama Stream and a Part of Flood
Risk Map Prepared by ISKI………………………………………………………………………58
Figure 20. Current land use pattern of Ayamama Stream and its watershed …………...…………59
vii

Figure 21. Industrial - Domestic discharges to Ayamama Stream………………………………..62
Figure 22. Basaksehir Sular Valley……………...……………………………………………….63
Figure 23. The Ayamama River Flood zone risk maps……...……………………………………65
Figure 24. Ayamama Stream Protection Bands...………………………………………………...65
Figure 25. The cross-sections of the channel…………...………………………………………...65
Figure 26. Çobançeşme-E5 Highway-Mahmutbey-Atatürk Airport Intersection years of 2012-
2013-2014………………………………………………………………………………….…….67
Figure 27. Çobançeşme-E5 Highway-Mahmutbey-Atatürk Airport Intersection years of 2012-
2013-2014...……………………………………………………………………………………...68
Figure 28. Truck Parking Lot Area……………………...………………………………………..68
Figure 29. The route between 2004 and 2009………………………...…………………………..69
Figure 30. The area between Çobançeşme intersection and Gunesli intersection...………………70
Figure 31. Ataköy Advanced Biological Treatment Plant……………...………………………...70
Figure 32. Proposed Adaptive River Management Cycle for the Ayamama River……………….72

viii

List of Tables
Table 1. Causes of river degradation………………………………………………………….……3
Table 2. Restoration techniques by objectives……………………………………………………..9
Table 3. Assessment of flow regimes with adaptive management………………………………..12
Table 4. Restoration Process of KRRP Phases……………………………………………………23
Table 5. Four metrics to evaluate dissolved oxygen……………………………………………...28

ix

Abstract
Rivers play an important role in the ecosystem. Degradation of river ecosystems results in the
endangering of native species, increasing flood risk, pollution of water, changing of flow regime,
and changing in sediment transportation. River bed degradation may proceed downstream as well
as upstream depending upon the cause of degradation. There are many causes of river degradation,
such as the increase or decrease in water discharge, change in river morphology, and addition or
removal of water structures.
Restoration works are required to restore the degraded river ecosystems. Several restoration
techniques exist to restore the degraded rivers, and these techniques are gathered under four main
river management methods. These four methods are Build Resilience, Scenario Planning,
Maximum Sustained Yield, and Adaptive Management. The selection of the most appropriate
management method depends on two main parameters, which are uncertainty and controllability.
In this thesis work, The Ayamama River in Istanbul, Turkey was studied, and a new restoration
approach was proposed based on the experience and knowledge gained from existing projects. The
selection of the restoration method was based on historical development as well as the current
conditions of the Ayamama River. High uncertainty and high controllability were the main driving
factors for Ayamama River, which suggests the use of adaptive management as a restoration
method.
The adaptive management method uses innovative techniques and scientific perspectives to restore
the degraded rivers. The method promises to reduce the inherent uncertainty in river ecosystems
by means of continues monitoring, data collection, comparing results with demand, and adjusting
the hypothesis. This cycle continues until the most suitable hypothesis is achieved, and the river is
restored to its desired condition.
This study aims to deliver the rehabilitation works for the Ayamama River using the adaptive
management method. After restoration, the Ayamama River will provide 500-year flood
protection, more recreational areas for the community, remove the water pollution, and bring back
the aquatic life. The results of this work will provide guidelines and new perspectives for future
river restorations in Turkey.
1

Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1. River Ecosystems
Rivers and streams are most altered in Earth’s ecosystem. Channelization of rivers has fragmented
almost all major river networks, with devastating ecological consequences. Human disturbance
has permanently altered river conditions, which requires a shift in management programs that will
provide improved river health and sustainable ecosystem. This new perspective has a sustainability
focus, striving to meet biodiversity needs while protecting ecosystem services that meet human
needs.
Rivers ecosystems provide a riparian area between the land and water which form a diverse mosaic
of habitats by covering river channels and its floodplains. Water and sediment are transported onto
the floodplain during flood events and provide the nutrients that render river ecosystems highly
productive. Carbon (organic matter), which is essential for sustaining riverine plant, animal and
micro-organism communities in the river channels, is provided by floodplains.
Importance of river ecosystems to human well-being becomes clear when the specific services are
looked more precisely. People depend on rivers for fresh water supply, sanitation, and agriculture
purposes. Freshwater ecosystems provide major provisioning (e.g. fresh water and timber supply),
regulatory (e.g. water and erosion regulation, self-purification), cultural (recreation and
ecotourism) and supporting (e.g. soil formation, nutrient and water cycling) services as shown in
Figure 1 (De Bello et al., 2010).

2

Figure 1. River ecosystem services (De Bello et., 2010)

1.2. River Degradation
By the invention of irrigation, perhaps 7000 years ago, riverine ecosystems have been altered
systematically in large scales (Mays 2008). Economic and technological innovations accelerated
the degradation of river ecosystems due to expansion of technologies and human activities.
Urbanization as well as increase in agricultural and industrial demand reshaped the river
ecosystems. This resulted in construction of dams and other river modification projects that
affected the aquatic life. Steady changes to habitat (land use change and geo-engineering), climate,
overexploitation of resources (water, soil, biomass), and pollution has resulted in loss of
biodiversity and ecosystem services. In order to overcome these issues, rivers have been
systematically channelized for transport, drainage, flood protection, and to protect zones for high-
density habitation (Zarfl et al., 2014).

3

1.2.1. Causes of River Degradation
Downstream and upstream river bed degradations are two types of river bed degradations that are
often encountered, and each has their own degradation mechanisms. For downstream degradation,
independent river channel variables, such as increase in water discharge, decrease in size of bed
material, and decrease in bed material discharge are the main causes. On the other hand, changing
of river slope which can occur as a result of natural river behavior or by man-made changes leads
up to upstream degradation. Different degradation factors, as well as their primary causes are
shown in Table 1 (Galay 1983).

Table 1. Causes of river degradation (Galay 1983)

4

1.3. Water Systems in Turkey
Turkey, contrary to common belief, is not a water reach country. Figure 2 shows the river networks
in Turkey. It has more than 42 rivers and 120 lakes that spread all the country. Over the past 60
years, Turkey experiences more than 35 flood events, which resulted in life and property losses.

Figure 2. River systems in Turkey
Main use of rivers in Turkey are for drinking water, irrigation, fishery, and energy production
purposes. According to Turkish Statistics Group, under current conditions, there will be major
water shortages in 20 years. In order to overcome these shortages, water resources and rivers
should be protected and maintained with innovative methods that will provide more sustainable
environment (Oktem & Aksoy 2014).

5

1.4. Objective of the Study
Literature reviews shows that restoration of degraded rivers involves complicated and lengthy
processes. Moreover, rivers are living systems, which makes their conditions highly unpredictable.
Prior restoration works, correct assessment of river conditions needs to be carried out. Proposed
restoration method should consider the prior condition of the river ecosystem and provide
sustainable ecosystem that is compatible with the nature.
This study proposes use of Adaptive Management method for river restorations, which based on
scientific studies. This restoration method supersedes other traditional restoration methods by
using experiments to achieve the most desired conditions.
Restoration project was prosed to Ayamama River in Turkey, which elaborates the steps and
techniques that are needed to achieve set objectives. These objectives were defined based on the
existing projects in the USA that used Adaptive Management method in river restorations.

6

Chapter 2 The River Restoration Process
2.1. River Restoration
Stream Restoration literature started to show up in the late 1980s. There are many words in the
literature which phrase restoration, such as reclamation, rehabilitation, naturalization, or some
similar terms (Brookes & Shields 1996; FISRWG, 1998). The Society for Ecological Restoration
defines restoration as “process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded,
damaged or destroyed” (SER, 2002).
Rivers have a significant role in the ecosystem. They supply water for consumption and non-
consumption uses, as well as a food source for aquatic organisms. In addition, Rivers have a critical
role in sediment transportation, predator/prey relationships, and some cultural activities such as
recreation and tourism. Degradation of any of these services will require restoration works. When
degradation occurs in the river, which changes the river ecology, it is not possible to reach the
conditions of the river before the change. Rivers create new ecosystems after alterations. The
primary purpose of the stream restoration is the reclamation of ecosystem function and services
(Matlock & Robert 2011).
River restoration term contains a variety of stream management activities, including river
channelization, removal of dams, enhancement of riparian trees, flow modifications, and more
(Bernhardt et al., 2007).
Stream restoration works require cooperation among many academic disciplines and specialties.
Engineers, hydrologists, biologists, restoration ecologists, geologists, geomorphologists, and
horticulturalists all can help to reduce the complexity of river systems.

7

2.1.1. Historical Development of River Restoration
Hunters and Fishermen showed the first signs of first river restoration efforts. Even if the first
restoration activities to minimize erosion and protect water supplies date back thousands of years,
the first acceptable river restoration works have been done in the late 1800s (Thompson & Stull
2002; White 2002). The more comprehensive restoration activities, such as planting trees, bank
protection, and stabilization, building weirs to create pools, have been made in the early 20th
century. Between the 1950s and the 1980s, several state and federal river restoration programs
were conducted in the USA. As a result of these activities, riparian ecosystems had been recovered
significantly in many streams (White, 2002).
The large-scaled restoration management approach, which contains an ecosystem or watershed
rather than a single river, arises in the late 1990s (Hillman & Brierely 2005). After the 1990s until
today, this comprehensive approach became widespread. This approach purposed to solve the main
problem, which has led to the degradation of habitat rather than just restoring the current conditions
(Roni & Beechie 2013).
According to Cowx & Welcomme (1998), Restoration activities in European countries are started
in the 1980s and increased significantly in the 1990s. Restorations were mostly focused on
channelized or straightened rivers and floodplains. Other developed countries, such as Australia
and New Zealand, also started restoration works in the 1980s and 1990s (Gippel & Collier 1998).

8

2.1.2. Methods of Assessing Ecosystem Degradation
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) is developed by Karr in 1981. The purpose of this index is evaluating
the health condition of an aquatic ecosystem. The assessment of the ecosystem is carried out by
determining the measurable features. Metric values are compared with the reference values, which
are prior conditions or best available conditions. These data are transferred to an index, which
gives the comparison of the results of current and desired conditions. A similar multi-metric index
is applied worldwide, with different desired conditions, biotic communities, and scoring methods.
Ecosystem Health (EH) is another method to assess the status of ecosystems, which is very similar
to the IBI method. However, it is more advanced method than IBI, because it does not only
demonstrate evidence of natural sciences but also it reflects the evidence from possible
sociological activities. IBI method use Natural Science to evaluate current changes from pristine
conditions. However, the EH method considers sociological conditions to create an assessment.
Sometimes, riverine social-ecological systems (SES) may be dynamic. In this case, deciding to
pristine conditions as a reference parameter will be impossible. Especially, extreme events may
ultimately affect SES; that is why developing a new method to assess dynamic systems became
necessary. At this point, the Ecological Resilience Method has been developed. This method helps
to decide for a potential answer of SES about the stability domain. It also helps to decide the
system's capacity to absorb disturbance and recover afterward (Sendzimir & Stefan 2018).

9

2.1.3. River Restoration Techniques
River restoration works aim to solve a variety of ecological problems and use many techniques to
reach the desired goals. Most of the time, one project may seek to restore many degraded systems
at the same time. Due to this reason, determining the most suitable restoration technique is an
essential part of the project. Before determining the suitable technique, a comprehensive watershed
evaluation is required, which contains special conditions of the area, desired restoration goals, and
clarification of problems.
Restoration objectives can be categorized under 7 titles; Connectivity, Sediment, and Hydrology,
Riparian, Habitat Improvement and Creation, Beaver Reintroduction, Increase Nutrients and
Productivity, and Bank Stabilization (Roni and Beechie 2013).
• Connectivity objectives include solving the migration corridors connection problems,
providing desirable sediment and nutrients transportation to solve lateral habitats
connection problems, and providing natural migration of channel.
• Sediment and Hydrology objectives include regulation of sediment supply amounts,
restoration of runoff and hydrology, water quality, providing convenient flow for aquatic
biota and habitat, and decreasing the amount of sediment and runoff from farms.
• Riparian objectives include providing better bank stability and instream conditions,
regulation of shade, vegetation and processes, and riparian zone rehabilitation.
• Habitat Improvement and Creation objectives include providing better instream habitat
conditions for fish, providing better spawning habitat, and increasing the amount of habitat
and complexity.
• Beaver Reintroduction objectives include enrichment of pool habitat, correction of
floodplain connection, and riparian habitat rehabilitation.
• Increase Nutrients and Productivity objectives include regulation of the productivity of the
system to improve biotic production, managing nutrient levels for lack of anadromous
fishes.
• Bank stabilization objectives include lowering the level of erosion and enriching the
riparian or instream habitats.

10

Each objective has several restoration techniques. Restoration techniques by objectives are listed
in Table 2.

Table 2. Restoration techniques by objectives (Roni & Beechie 2013)

2.1.4. Assessment of River Restoration Results
The growing awareness about riverine ecosystems required restoration works and publishing of
project success. But there are no agreed standards to evaluate the ecological restoration success.
Palmer et al. (2005) proposed five criteria for evaluating the success from an ecological
perspective. Firstly, a healthy and dynamic river at the project site should create reference criteria
for the design of ecological stream restoration. Secondly, positive and measurable responses to the
restoration project must be obtained. Thirdly, at the end of the project, a more self-sustaining and
flexible stream system is expected, and only minimal required maintenance works are needed for
the future. Fourthly, during the construction phase, no lasting harm should be inflicted on the
ecosystem. Fifthly, pre and post-evaluation must be conducted and obtained data must be available
for the public. Further restoration projects should also be able to use this data (Palmer et al. 2005).

11

2.2. Adaptive River Management
The adaptive management method aims to use intelligent choices about the restoration of large-
scale ecological systems. Its objective is intelligent choices only arise from cooperation with
scientists and policymakers (Cortner & Moote 1994). Large scale systems consistently suffer from
complex interactions. Complex interactions create uncertainty. In order to get efficient results from
restoration programs, uncertainty needs to be minimized. Traditional methods, such as standard
hypothesis tests are inadequate to reduce uncertainty. Furthermore, traditional approaches assume
that managers are sure about the social, economic, and ecological outcomes of the restoration
works. These assumptions have some invalid points. First, the complexity of ecosystems makes it
almost impossible to predict potential outcomes of management actions. Second, it is difficult to
obtain an accurate measurement of ecosystem responses. Third, the ecosystem, which is under the
influence of many factors, gives uncertain responses to management actions (Conroy, 2000;
Costanza et al., 1993). Scientists and managers have advocated comprehensive monitoring and
evaluating works to avoid uncertainty. At this point, the adaptive management approach promises
to incorporate feedback models by simulating the interactions of biophysical and social systems
(Lee et al., 1992; Turner, 1994). Thus, the adaptive management approach increases the ability of
science to estimate how ecological systems will respond to restoration works. The main principle
of adaptive management is that “if the human understanding of nature is imperfect, then human
interactions with nature should be experimental” (Lee, 1993). Concordantly, Downs & Kondolf
(2002) noted that” Because river systems are not fully understood, no river restoration scheme can
ever be fully guaranteed to succeed.” According to Kohm and Franklin (1997), the adaptive
management approach is the most suitable way under the circumstances of uncertainty; also, it is
a perfect way for the acquisition of data and the continued accumulation of knowledge. Proposed
adaptive management approach increases rate of learning, assists the progress of information flow
among policymakers, and builds shared understanding among the diverse groups such as policy
actors, scientists, and managers (McLain & Lee 1996).

12

Adaptive river management aims to make learning about the social, ecological, and economic
outcomes of river basins easier. That is why it enforces ecological monitoring, research, and
modeling. This process gives an opportunity for the experience and intuition to be applied at river
channel management and river restoration. Experimental management was critical in river
engineering in the late 20
th
century. For example, based on a British river engineers’ questionnaire
survey in 1985, 54% considered experience, 16% in-house design manuals or programs, 15%
manufacturer design guide, and 9% discussion with manufacturers as an essential basis for
management (Hemphill & Bramley 1989). However, only %6 applied technical papers, reports,
textbooks, or other materials, was related to the adaptive management context.
2.2.1. Forms of Adaptive River Management
Adaptive management is divided into two categories as active and passive. In passive adaptive
management, after considering existing information and previous experiences, a new management
plan is created by managers as a correct plan for this project. Revisions are made according to the
data obtained from monitoring works (Walters & Hilborn, 1978). The application of this method
is basic and inexpensive, and it does not provide enough reliable data for current and future
projects. In Active Adaptive Management, before deciding for the best management method,
managers apply various hypotheses to obtain the desired outcomes of the ecosystem. The obtained
data from monitoring works help to decide about the feasibility of hypotheses (Walters & Hilborn,
1978). Outputs of active management are reliable to assess restoration impacts on the ecological
and socio-economic conditions (Lee, 1993). The Glen Canyon Dam Management Program is an
excellent example of active adaptive management.
Table 3 and Fig. 3 demonstrate the attitude of active and passive management in a case study (Prato
2003; Allen et al., 2011)

13

Table 3. Assessment of flow regimes with adaptive management (Prato, 2003)

Figure 3. Adaptive management processes (Allen et al. 2011)

14

2.2.2. Framework of Adaptive River Management
The adaptive management process is iterative. It is structured to decrease uncertainty and enrich
knowledge acquisition (Fig. 4). Considering the uncertainty of river systems and ineffective trial
and error approaches, the adaptive river management approach promises to solve these problems.
Unlike trial and error approaches, defined management objectives, and hypotheses that consider
the environmental outcomes, result in an unambiguous adaptive management structure (Allen et
al., 2011).

Figure 4. The adaptive management cycle (Allen et al. 2011)

The adaptive management process starts with establishing a clear purpose to solve an aimed
problem. After that, the hypothesis will be decided and implemented. During the implementation
phase, responses of the river system are monitored with a pre-prepared monitoring system. Lastly,
these outcomes are evaluated and adjusted, and finally, it is shared with the public sources as a
guide for future projects

Define The
Problem
Identify
Objectives
Decide
Hypotheses
Implement Monitor
Evaluate
Adjust
15

2.2.3. Major Challenges of the Adaptive River Management
Implementation of adaptive management faces some potential challenges (Lee 1993; Wilhere
2002).
• Adaptive management is expensive and requires a long-time. Assessing the response of the
ecosystem requires long term monitoring works after the project is completed. That's why
it requires long term funding. Moreover, during this process, Funding institutions may
change their priorities, and they may not provide adequate funding to run the rest of the
project
• Because people want to see and publish the results quickly, the lengthiness of the process
causes impatient agency and stakeholders
• Fear of failure in managers about applying new methods rather than traditional methods
• Experimental works could be risky at large scale rivers. These management actions could
have unexpected negative results in the ecosystem
• If intermediate outcomes of restoration plan demonstrate that the currently selected
management plan does not provide targeted outcomes, then political pressure could cause
changing the management regime before the experimentation is completed
2.2.4. Adaptive River Management as an Appropriate Method
Adaptive River Management is not the most convenient method to solve all unpleasant problems,
because it contains some challenges which make it unproductive. Moreover, the Adaptive
Management method is also not suitable for some natural conditions. Uncertainty and
uncontrollability of the ecosystem are the most critical factors to make adaptive river management
methods appropriate or inappropriate (Fig.5). In addition to this, some of the ecological problems
require a very long-term monitoring process, which may cause political difficulties in
implementing adaptive management. Under these conditions, this method may not be appropriate
in all cases.

16

If there is low uncertainty on the project, which means outcomes of the system are correctly
predictable, there is no reason to implement the adaptive management method. On the other hand,
if uncertainty is high, but controllability is low, implementing the adaptive method is not
appropriate most of the time (Allen et al., 2011).

Figure 5. Factors of an appropriate adaptive management (Peterson et al., 2003)

17

Chapter 3 Case Studies
3.1. The Kissimmee River
The Kissimmee River Watershed is located in central Florida between the city of Orlando and
Lake Okeechobee. The watershed is subdivided to Upper Basin and Lower Basin. The Upper Basin
is 4229-km
2
and consisting of around 24 lakes. The lower basin is 1963-km
2
and consisting of the
Kissimmee River and tributaries. The lower basin is located between Lake Kissimmee and Lake
Okeechobee (Fig. 6) (Koebel, 1995). Prior to channelization, The Kissimmee River meandered
approximately 161 km within a 2-5 km floodplain. The gradient of the river was 0.07 m/km, and
the mean velocity of the main river channel was ranging between 0.2 m/s and 0.6 m/s at most of
the time (Anderson et al., 2005).
The historic Kissimmee River was hydrologically unique. Over 50% of the time, 94% of the
floodplain was inundated. The floodplain water depths were around 0.3-0.7 meters at inundated
times (Toth, 1990).
Prior to channelization, the Kissimmee River-floodplain system supported around 35 species of
fish, 16 species of waterfowl, and six other types of waterbirds (Trexler 1995, Perrin et al., 1982).

18

Figure 6. The Kissimmee river map from Lake Kissimmee to Lake Okeechobee (Bousquin et al., 2005)

19

3.1.1. Flood Control Project
The Kissimmee River had many flood events, and some of them were severe. Runoff accumulation
within the basin and the subsequent rise of lake levels within the upper basin were two main
reasons for flooding at the Kissimmee River. Moreover, limited and inadequate outlet capacity
tended to be another cause of flood event.
The Kissimmee Basin was exposed to a severe hurricane in 1947, and the mean peak monthly
discharge was more than 170 m
3
/sec during a two-year period after the hurricane. The area between
Lake Cypress and Lake Kissimmee remained inundated for around eight months. It caused high
property damage and extensive public pressure to decrease any possible food damages. (USACE,
1992)
In 1948, the U.S Army Corps of Engineers was authorized to launch flood control and protection
project for the Central and Southern Florida. In 1954, The Kissimmee River part of the project was
authorized by Congress, and it planned and designed from 1954 to 1960. Construction started in
1962 and completed in 1971. Within the scope of the project, the river was channelized and
transformed into a series of impounded pools. Six water structures (S-65 - S-65E) were built along
the length of the newly created canal (Koebel, 1995).

20

3.1.2. Effects of Channelization
The physical effects of the channelization, including alteration of the system’s hydrologic
characteristics, remarkably decreased the availability of floodplain wetlands and critically
degraded fish and wildlife resources of the Kissimmee River ecosystem (Toth 1993). Prior to the
channelization, The Kissimmee River was 166 km long of meandering channel. The River was
transformed into a 90 km long, 9 m deep, and 100 m wide channel. Around 56 km of the river
channel and 2800 ha of floodplain wetland habitat was replaced due to excavation of the canal and
deposition of the resulting spoil. Along the canal’s length, five water structures were located. These
structures worked as dams and changed the slope of the river and created deep impoundments. The
impoundments drained much of the floodplain, removed natural water-level fluctuations, and
extremely modified flow characteristics (Toth 1993). Between 12,000-14,000 of all the pre-
channelized floodplain wetlands were drained, converted into the canal, or covered with the spoil
(USCAE, 1985).
According to Perrin et al. (1982), floodplain utilization by wintering waterfowl has been reduced
around 92%. The main reason for this reduction was losing of foraging habitat, which existed along
the periphery of the floodplain (Chamberlain 1960). Prior to channelization, wading birds had a
large population on the ecosystem. Favorable feeding habitats, which were created by water level
fluctuations, provided excellent forage for wading birds. However, after channelization, the
wading bird population reduced and replaced by Bubulcus ibis (cattle egret) (Toland, 1990).
Low and no-flow regimes in the canal and remnant river channels dramatically reduced the
dissolved oxygen levels. Also, it caused to the encroachment of floating vegetation. Fishes without
tolerance to low oxygen levels such as Sport Fish were replaced by spices with tolerance such as
Lepisosteus platyrhincus (Florida Gar) and Amia calva (bowfin) (Toth 1993). In addition, the ratio
of larval and juvenile refuge sites, and adult spawning were decreased dramatically (Trexler,
1995).
21

3.1.3. Restoration Initiatives Before 1992
According to USFWS (1959), the potential ecological damages mentioned prior to the construction
of the channelization work and during the construction process (1962-1971), a grassroots
movement to restore ecological damages on the Kissimmee River started to form (Koebel, 1995).
The first public hearing on the potential for restoration of the Kissimmee River held by the South
Florida Water Management District (Loftin et al., 1990). In 1976, as a result of the public concern,
the Florida Legislature passed the Kissimmee River Restoration Act. This act mandated the
creation of the Kissimmee River Coordinating Council (KRCC). The primary purposes of the
Council were restoration of natural seasonal water level fluctuations in the upper basin lakes, and
to re-establish favorable conditions to vegetation, native aquatic life, and production of wetland
wildlife. As a result, major restoration and planning studies were initiated by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District (Bousquin et al., 2005).
The First Federal Feasibility Study (1978-1985) purposed to “evaluate the feasibility of modifying
the existing flood control system for purposes of improving water quality and enhancing fish and
wildlife resources” (USAEC, 1985; Koebel, 1995). Many restoration plans were evaluated within
this study. As a result, the backfilling of the C-38 plan was preferred. However, the first study did
not approve federal participation.
The purpose of the Kissimmee River Demonstration Project (1984-1990) was to assess the
implementation of backfilling plan. As a result of the project, the feasibility of restoring structures
and function of the ecosystem were approved. After recreating two components of pre-channelized
hydrology, which are fluctuations of water level and reintroduction of flow, floodplain inundation
grew and biological communities were reestablished (Toth, 1993).

22

The purpose of the second federal feasibility study (1990-1991) was to assess the extent of federal
participation in the restoration project and implementation of the backfilling plan. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers was authorized by the 1986 Water Resources Development Act. With this Act,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could restore existing Corps projects to increase environmental
quality and to weigh the pros and cons of such enhancements works (Woody, 1993). The result of
this study led to the approval of the modified Level 2 Backfilling Plan. This plan contained
continuous backfilling of around 35 km C-38 from middle reaches of Pool B to lower reaches of
Pool D, and removal of S-65B, S-65C (USAECM, 1991).
3.1.4. The Kissimmee River Restoration Project (KRRP)
In 1992, The Kissimmee River ecosystem restoration and Kissimmee River Headwater
Revitalization Project were authorized by the U.S Congress via the Water Resources Development
Act. The restoration project and Headwater Revitalization project were combined with the 1994
cost-sharing Project Cooperative Agreement between the U.S Army Corps of Engineers and the
SFWMD (Bousquin et al. 2005). A pilot project, which involved filling a 330 m section of C-38,
was initiated in April 1994. The Purpose of the test project was to evaluate the construction
technique, water quality impacts, consolidation and stability, and subsequent colonization of
backfill by vegetation (Koebel et al., 1999).
Given the regional scope, project cost, and ecological assessment, this project was one of the most
significant and most comprehensive river restoration projects in the world (Koebel et al., 2014).
The Kissimmee River Restoration Project planned to fill 22 miles of the canal, remove two water
control structures and reconstruct 10 miles of the river channel. At the end of the project, the
restoration works altered around 40 square miles of the river-floodplain ecosystem. Moreover,
about 40 continuous miles of river channel received restored flow, and more than 12,000 acres of
wetlands were reestablished (SFWMD 2008). Construction of (KRRP) was divided into four main
phases, which were Phases I, IVA, IVB, and II/III, listed respectively in planned order of
completion (Table 4).

23

Table 4. Restoration Process Phases of KRRP (Roni and Beechie 2013)

More than 20 additional projects, such as levee and canal modifications, water control structure
modifications and removals, flood reduction projects, and a railroad bridge replacement, supported
this project (Koebel et al., 2014).
Construction of Phase I was started in 1999 and completed in February 2001. More than 12 km of
C-38 in the lower portion of Pool B and most of Pool C were backfilled. The backfilling material
used for the C-38 canal was the same as the C-38 canal material at pre-channelization (Koebel et
al. 2018). Moreover, Phase I removed the S-65B water control structure, carved about 2 km of the
new river channel. 5792 AC of floodplain wetlands were gained under Phase I. Phases IVA and
IVB completed in 2007 and 2010, respectively. Under these phases, more than 9 km of canal
backfilled, and more than 8 km of river channel carved. 1908 ac of floodplain wetlands were gained
under the Phases IVA and IVB. Phases II and III were the last significant phases of construction.
Phase III started in 2015 and was completed in 2016. The Phase II contract was awarded in January
2016 and is scheduled for completion in 2020 (Koebel et al., 2019).

24

Figure 7. Actual and planned completion dates of KRRP phases (Koebel et al., 2018)
25

3.1.5. The Kissimmee River Restoration Evaluation Program (KRREP)
The requirement of a restoration evaluation program to assess the results of the project was defined
at The Final Integrated Feasibility Report (IFR) for KRRP (USACE, 1991). In addition to this,
restoration evaluation is stated in the 1994 cost-sharing Project Cooperative Agreement (PCA)
between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and SFWMD. As a result of this agreement, the
responsibility of the evaluation process was assigned to SFWMD.
Monitoring was the primary way to restoration assessment. The USACE 1991 report defined four
main required components of the monitoring program. These are ecological monitoring, hydraulic
monitoring, sedimentation monitoring, and stability attributes monitoring. The monitoring was
used to resolve specific goals, such as: (1) tracking the ecological status and assessing if the result
of the project meets its ecological goal by gathering and analyzing data, (2) identifying the
potential needs for adaptive management during the system recovery, (3) evaluating the impact of
water quality and biota during construction, and (4) applying the methods used in this project to
other restoration projects where applicable by documenting the restoration and evaluation
approach.
After the identification of the requirement of general monitoring and comprehensive
documentation, the KRREP was created by SFWMD scientists. The KRREP studies involved four
significant aspects which were (1) prediction of restoration responses, (2) estimation of baseline
conditions, (3) estimation of pre-channelization conditions, and (4) measurements of the metrics
over time.
The collection of baseline data prior to the restoration is an essential attempt to illustrate the
success or failure of the project. For most studies, the baseline data collection period started around
1995 and ended prior to the first phase of the project (1999). On the other hand, in some studies
such as hydrology, water quality had better opportunities. They used data from existing monitoring
programs, which were created in the early 1970s (Bousquin et al., 2005).

26

The study of Pierce et al. (1982) used primarily reference information for pre-channelization
conditions. The study created a vegetation map for the entire Kissimmee River and flood plain.
For this purpose, they had used 1952-1954 pre-channelization aerial photographs (Bousquin et al.
2005). In addition, some studies used data from a case that is ecologically similar to the Kissimmee
River and an almost untouched system.
Conditions of the pre-channelized system created restoration expectations, and the success of the
project was tracked using 25 restoration expectations (Koebel et al. 2014). To assess the current
and future status of the ecosystem recovery and to guide adaptive management of the system, the
ecological and hydrologic responses from restored phases were documented. Monitoring
mandated to continue for at least 5 years after completion of the restoration project or until
ecological responses has stabilized (USACE, 1991).
3.1.6. Some Interim Responses of The Project
3.1.6.1. Hydrology
There are some expectations for KRREP connected with hydrology. The first one is Expectation
3, which is about Hydroperiod Requirements for Broadleaf Marsh (BLM), and the other is
Expectation 4, which is about recession rates. These expectations were evaluated for Water Year
2018.
The Expectation 3
Component A: Fifty-nine percent of water years will have a mean depth at BLM sites ≥ 1
ft for 210 consecutive days.
Component B: Forty percent of water years will have a mean depth at BLM sites ≥ 1 ft for
210 consecutive days in the August–February window.

27

The Expectation 4
Component A: Seventy-two percent of recession events will have a mean recession rate of
< 1 ft per 30 days.
Component B: One hundred percent of recession events will have a mean recession rate of
< 2 ft per 30 days.

There was only one floodplain inundation event observed in WY2018, which only met the depth
criteria (at least 1 ft depth); other criteria were not met because the duration of the event was 63
days, which was far away than the 210-day duration criterion. The recession rates and a shallower
inundation event surpassed the maximum recession rate criterion for 1 ft per 30 days. Also, at any
year of the interim period (2001-2018), these targets have not been met yet (Koebel et al., 2019).
Moreover, Expectations 1, 2, and 5 are also about hydrology. Expectation 1 would be met when
S-65 discharge was greater than zero throughout a water year. There were some improvements in
flow status that happened during the interim years compared to the baseline period. For example,
the average number of days with flow per year increased from 254 days to 322 days. Also, the
frequency of years with the continuous flow at S-65 was 3 years, and it became 7 years during the
interim period. Expectation 1 was not met in all interim years due to two extreme drought periods
(Anderson, 2014b).
Expectation 5 is about the mean channel velocity. It was targeted to mean velocity between 0.2–
0.6m/second for 85% of the measurements. Due to the lack of hydraulic gradient within the pool
and 0m/second periodic point measurements, it was assumed that the mean channel velocity had
never met the targeted condition at the baseline period. Measurements from four river channel sites
during the interim period demonstrated that mean velocity were ranged from 0.01 to 0.53
m/second. That is why Expectation 5 was not met completely (Anderson, 2014b).

28

3.1.6.2. Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
The Expectation 8
Mean daytime concentration of DO in the Kissimmee River channel at 0.5 to 1.0 m depth will
increase;
Component A: from < 1–2 mg/L to 3–6 mg/L during the wet season (June–October)
Component B: from 2–4 mg/L to 5– 7 mg/L during the dry season (November–May).
Component C: Mean daytime DO concentrations within 1 m of the channel bottom will
exceed 1 mg/L more than 50%of the time.
Component D: Mean daily (24-hour) DO concentrations will be > 2 mg/L more than 90%
of the time.

The concentration level of daytime dissolved oxygen was higher than pre-restoration levels in
WY2018, as previous interim period years. Considering the four metrics to evaluate DO status,
two of them were met expectations (Table 5) in WY2018 (Koebel et al., 2019).

Table 5. Four metrics to evaluate dissolved oxygen (DO) (Koebel et al. 2019)

Component of Expectation 8 WY 2018 Result Success
Component A 2.43 ± 0.42 mg/L Negative
Component B 7.06 ± 0.30 mg/L Positive
Component C 83% Positive
Component D 78% Negative

29

3.1.6.3. Floodplain Vegetation
The Expectation 12
Wetland plant communities will cover > 80% of the area of the floodplain restored in
Phases I–IV (Carnal, 2005a).
The Expectation 13
BLM will cover at least 50% of the restored floodplain in Pools B, C, and D (Carnal,
2005b).
The Expectation 14
Wet prairie communities will cover at least 17% of the floodplain restored by Phases I–IV
of the restoration projects (Carnal, 2005c).

There are 3 expectations for KRREP connected with floodplain vegetation. The Expectation 12
for wetland vegetation was started to meet soon after the completion of Phase I and continued to
meet at WY2018. On the other hand, short hydroperiods and exotic species invasions caused
negative impacts on Expectation 13. Because of these reasons, Expectation 13 has never been met
yet. The target for Expectation 14 was met since 2008 (Koebel et al., 2019).
3.1.6.4. Wading Bird Abundance
The Expectation 24
Mean annual dry season density of long-legged wading birds (excluding cattle egrets) on
the restored floodplain will be ≥ 30.6 birds per square kilometer (Williams and Melvin
2005b).

Expectation 24 is for dry season monthly wading bird density. The three-year period of 2016-2018
had 37.2 ± 12.1 birds/km2 densities, which was higher than the Expectation 24. Also, the long-
term annual three-year running average (2002–2018) was 41.1 ± 3.7 birds/km2, which certainly
higher than the Expectation 24 (Koebel et al., 2019).
30

3.1.6.5. Waterfowl Abundance
The Expectation 25
Winter densities of waterfowl within the restored area of the floodplain will be ≥ 3.9 ducks
per square kilometer (ducks/km2). Species richness will be ≥ 13 (Williams et al., 2005a).
The highest dry season waterfowl abundance since completion of Phase I construction was
recorded during 2017-2018 as 42.0 ± 11.2 ducks/km². This record was significantly higher
than the related expectation. Moreover, the long-term (2002–2018) mean annual three-year
running average of waterfowl abundance was 11.1 ± 1.2 ducks/km², also significantly
higher than the restoration expectation of 3.9 ducks/km² (Koebel et al., 2019).
3.1.6.6. Organic Deposition Layer
The Expectation 6
In river channels, mean thickness (MT) will decrease by at least 67%, exposed bed (EB)
will increase by at least 167%, and thickness at the thalweg (TT) will decrease by at least
70% (Anderson et al., 2005).

Targets for Expectation 6 exceeded at the interim period. MT, EB, and TT showed significant
changes from the baseline measurements. The mean thickness change was 79% decrease, which
met the targeted decrease. The exposed bed increased more than 2,000% over the baseline value
of 3.5%. The average interim period value was 71%. The baseline condition of the thalweg
thickness was averaged 21 cm and ranged from 1 to 91 cm. It reduced to averaged 4 cm and ranged
from 0 to 34 cm, which was a decrease of 81% from the baseline (Anderson, 2014a).

31

3.1.6.7. Meander Bends with Active Point Bars
Expectation 7
Point bars will form on the inside bends of river channel meanders (Anderson et al., 2005).

The restoration expectation was that all meander bends (%100) should have point bars (MBPB).
This expectation came from the reference conditions. After channelization, the presence of point
bars at meander bends dropped to 0%. There were still some meander bends, but there were not
any point bars observed at that period.
During the interim period presence of MBPB was increased significantly. In the year 2002, 27
MBPB were recorded, 25 of them were in the former remnant river channels, and 2 of them were
in the re-carved channels. Another evaluation was in 2009 via aerial photography, and the presence
of 72 MBPB was observed, which was 99% of the total number of meander bends in the Phase I
area. Therefore, expectation was not wholly met yet (Anderson, 2014a).

32

3.2. Glen Canyon Dam
Closing of the Colorado River with The Glen Canyon Dam brought significant alterations to the
Colorado River ecosystem. Primarily, Glen Canyon Dam has changed the seasonal flow, sediment-
carrying capacity, and temperature of the Colorado River. These changes in the Colorado River
are blamed for narrowing rapids, beach erosion, invasion of nonnative riparian vegetation, and
losses of native fishes (Webb et al.,1999). In addition, these alterations were associated with non-
native species entering the ecosystem.
Before the dam was completed, the river was a sediment-rich river. During spring and early
summer and ordinarily produced flood events, it was transporting a significant amount of
sediments. Furthermore, the frequency of floods on the Colorado River was changed by the
operations of the Glen Canyon Dam. For example, the average recurrence intervals were 2 years
for floods with peak discharges of 85,000 ft3/s, whereas the 2-year flood during the post-dam
period was 31,500 ft3/s (Fig.8) (Webb et al., 1999).

Figure 8. Annual peak flood series for the Colorado River (Webb et al., 1999)
33

Dam operations have dramatically changed the hydrology of the Colorado River. After the flow
regulation, although interannual flow fluctuation became more stable, daily flow fluctuation has
increased (Dawdy, 1991). Fig.9 demonstrates that the pre and post-dam hydrographs for Colorado
River are entirely different. During the pre-dam period, May and June were the annual peak flood
months. However, during the post-dam period, discharges were more stable. The peak discharges
occur in January and July (Webb et al., 1999). The mean annual peak discharge of the Colorado
River at Lees Ferry is 920 m3/s, which was less than the powerplant capacity of around 930 m3/s.

Figure 9. Daily Discharges between 1957 and 1993 (Webb et al., 1999).

The essential factor for the degradation of the post-dam ecosystem is low sediment transport. After
the dam was completed, Lake Powell traps sediments traveled along the river. Some downstream
tributaries transported sediments that were not efficient. During the pre-dam period, around 29
million tons (26 million Mg) of sand joined to Grand Canyon from the Colorado River annually.
Nowadays approximately 16% of pre-dam sand amount is provided by upstream sources (Webb
et al., 2000).
34

The released water temperature from Glen Canyon Dam was 46°F (8°C) because the penstocks of
the dam were well below the surface of Lake Powell (Webb et al., 1999). Water temperature
fluctuated seasonally from 32°F to 84°F at the pre-dam period. (Rote et al., 1997) The lack of
warm water has impeded spawning of endangered humpback chub in the Colorado River.
The diversity of plants on the Colorado River corridor increased due to the alterations. In addition,
lack of having seasonal flooding increased the ability of growing and adaptation of riparian
vegetation. As a result, downstream of The Glen Canyon Dam has been to more abundance of
riparian vegetation. (USGS, 1996)
3.2.1. Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES)
The Glen Canyon Environmental Studies from 1982 to 1996 was a scientific program, organized
by the Bureau of Reclamation. The increasing public concern and the international importance of
Grand Canyon National Park about the impacts of Glen Canyon Dam made obligatory to create
this program. It was the first efficient study program to examine the negative and positive impacts
of dam operations on downstream environments (Gloss et al. 2005). Firstly, The GCES program
was developed for two main objectives; (National Research Council, 1991)
• Aimed to decide the impacts of the dam operation on the natural and recreation resources
of the Grand Canyon
• Aimed to reduce the negative impacts on downstream with making changes on current
Colorado River Storage Project mandates and the law of the river
• In the year 1989, Secretary of the Interior commanded the Bureau of Reclamation to
prepare environmental impact statement (EIS) about consequences of Glen Canyon Dam
operations. After this command, The Glen Canyon environmental studies purposed to
provide specific data for the environmental impact statement (Reclamation, 1995).

35

3.2.2. Glen Canyon Protection Act (GCPA)
The Glen Canyon Protection Act was passed by Congress on October 30, 1992. The act directed
the Secretary of the Interior to manage Glen Canyon Dam in such a way as to "protect, mitigate
adverse impacts to and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen
Canyon National Recreation Area were established." In addition, the act was required to create
long-term monitoring programs and activities to ensure that Glen Canyon Dam was operated in a
manner consistent with the Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCDAMP, 2001). Section 1802 of the
Act (Appendix A) states:

In General-The Secretary shall operate Glen Canyon Dam in accordance with the additional
criteria and operating plans specified in section 1804 and exercise other authorities under existing
law in such a manner as to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which
Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established,
including, but not limited to natural and cultural resources and visitor use.
Compliance with Existing Law-The Secretary shall implement this section in a manner entirely
consistent with and subject to the Colorado River Compact, the Upper Colorado River Basin
Compact, the Water Treaty of 1944 with Mexico, the decree of the Supreme Court in Arizona vs.
California, and the provisions of the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 and the Colorado
River Basin Project Act of 1968 that govern allocation, appropriation, development, and
exportation of the waters of the Colorado River basin.
Rule of Construction-Nothing in this title alters the purposes for which the Grand Canyon
National Park or the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established or affects the
authority and responsibility of the Secretary with respect to the management and administration of
the Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, including natural
and cultural resources and visitor use, under laws applicable to those areas, including, but not
limited to, the Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535) as amended and supplemented.
36

3.2.3. Glen Canyon Environmental Impact Statement
The Glen Canyon Environmental Studies illustrated that the operations of Glen Canyon Dam
caused significant impacts on downstream resources. After these findings, In July 1989, the
Secretary of the Interior decided to prepare EIS to reevaluate dam operations. The EIS was studied
by a large amount of scientific research, public involvement, and stakeholder cooperation. As a
result of this research, The Glen Canyon Environmental Impact Statement was completed In
March 1995.
This reevaluation aimed to provide guidance, consistent with law to unfavorable impacts on the
downstream environment, and Native American interests in Glen and Grand Canyons. Also, it
aimed to produce useful hydropower. These purposes necessitated the analysis of various
alternatives.
The Record of Decision was signed by the Secretary of Interior on October 9, 1996. The Record
of Decision noted that;
The goal of selecting a preferred alternative was not to maximize benefits for the most resources,
but rather to find an alternative dam operating plan that would permit recovery and long-term
sustainability of downstream resources while limiting hydropower capability and flexibility only
to the extent necessary to achieve recovery and long-term sustainability (Reclamation 1996).
As a result, The Glen Canyon Environmental Impact analyzed nine operational alternatives to
allow the Secretary of Interior to follow these aims. Between the nine alternatives, The modified
low fluctuating flow (LFF) was chosen with minor changes (Reclamation, 1996).

37

3.2.4. Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program
The presence of an adaptive management program had a place for all EIS alternatives. Therefore,
the Record of Decision created The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program in 1996 to
implement the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992. The focused activity area of this program
was included from The Dam to Lees Ferry, which was approximately 15 river miles (RM), and
277 RM corridor below Lees Ferry. Totally, the study area contains 293 RM of Colorado River
(Fig.10). Also, Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreational Area were
under the program (Gloss et al., 2005).
The main objectives of the program were integrated dam operations, resource protection,
management of downstream, monitoring, resource activities, and enhancing the conditions and
values of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, and Grand Canyon National Park (Bureau
of Reclamation, 2019).

Figure 10. The Project Area (Gloss et al., 2005)
38

3.2.4.1. The Principles of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program
The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program adopted some principles during the
restoration project (Gloss et al. 2005).
The presence of Glen Canyon Dam and the invasion of non-native species have altered the
Colorado River ecosystem perinatally
• This project contains high-level uncertainty
• Experimentation and monitoring works will be used to achieve objectives of the Grand
Canyon Protection Act, Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement, and the
Record of Decision.
• The program is always open for new experiments to test different approaches to reach the
most appropriate recover results of the ecosystem
• The Adaptive Management program is able to reevaluate proved inappropriate, unrealistic,
or unattainable targets
• The diversity of perspectives or spiritual values of the stakeholders is essential and should
be considered during the program
• Management action alternatives that benefit all resources and values will be pursued first.
If the project still has not achieved desired targets or it is not possible, actions that have a
neutral impact, or as a last resort, actions that minimize negative impacts on other
resources, will be pursued consistent with the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact
Statement, and the Record of Decision

39

3.2.4.2. The Goals of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program
The main objectives of The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program are listed below
(Gloss et al. 2005).
• Protect or improve conditions to create an appropriate ecosystem for extirpated species,
existing native species, and endangered species
• Regulate water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve the Adaptive
Management Program ecosystem goals
• Conduction of a high-quality monitoring and research program to achieve the Adaptive
Management Program ecosystem goals
• Maintain power production capacity and energy generation, increase the generation amount
at feasible and advisable situations which will not have adverse effects on ecosystem goals
• Improvement and enrichment at recreational areas
• Restoration of sediment transportation and storage conditions
3.2.4.3. Organizations and Positions within the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive
Management Program (GCDAMP)
The EIS outlined an innovative organizational structure for pursuing the GCDAMP. The program
was administered by a senior Department of the Interior official (designee) and facilitated by the
Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG), which was organized as a Federal Advisory
Committee.
The AMWG made recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior on how to best alter the
operating criteria at Glen Canyon Dam or other management actions to protect downstream
resources in order to fulfill the Department of the Interior’s obligations under the GCPA (U.S.
Department of the Interior, 1995).

40

The Secretary of the Interior appointed the group’s 25 members, who included representatives
from Federal and State resource management agencies, the seven Colorado River Basin States,
Native American tribes, environmental groups, recreation interests, and contractors of federal
power from Glen Canyon Dam .The GCDAMP also included a monitoring and research center
(USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center), the technical work group, and
independent scientific review panels.
After the signing of the Record of Decision for the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact
Statement (Reclamation 1996), the EIS created an innovative organizational structure for the Glen
Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (Fig.11). There were five main components in this
program:
• Secretary of the Interior’s Designee
• Adaptive Management Work Group
• Technical Work Group
• Independent review panels
• Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center
Functions, roles, and organizations of the Adaptive Management Program were explained In the
Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement (Reclamation, 1995) and Record of Decision
(Reclamation, 1996).
41

Figure 11. The organizational structure for the Adaptive Management Program (Reclamation, 1996).

3.2.4.3.1. Secretary of the Interior’s Designee
The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program was supervised mainly by The Secretary
of the Interior’s Designee. The primary obligations of the position were: (GCDAMP, 2001)
• It is like a bridge between the Secretary of the Interior and the Adaptive Management
Work Group to forward certified recommendations and decisions about dam operation
and another management processes. Moreover, the designee may review, modify, and
remand recommendations from the Adaptive Management Work Group.
• Position controls to comply with obligations of the Department of the Interior to
implementation of the Grand Canyon Protection Act and Record of Decision for the
Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement.
• The position controls to responsibilities of the Department of the Interior, which is
about American Indian tribes with interests or assets affected by the program.
42

3.2.4.3.2. Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG)
The Adaptive Management Work Group was organized as a Federal Advisory Committee, which
included representatives from the stakeholder tribes, organizations, and institutions. The AMWG
made recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior on how to best alter the operating criteria
at Glen Canyon Dam or other management actions to protect downstream resources in order to
fulfill the Department of the Interior’s obligations under the GCPA (U.S. Department of the
Interior, 1995).
According to “Reclamation 1995:36,” other responsibilities of The AMWG were:
• Ongoing and planned annual operations reports to be analyzed and forwarded to the
Secretary of the Interior Designee by the ADMW;
• Analyzes and forwards annual budget proposals;
• Provides coordination of operating criteria changes in the Annual Operating Plan

Figure 12. The Adaptive Management Work Group representatives (Gloss et al., 2005)

43

3.2.4.3.3. Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center
The Grand Canyon Protection Act was indicated to the presence of a long-term monitoring and
research program. Following this act, The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center was
built. This center provided easier information transfer and communication between scientists and
members of the Technical Work Group and Adaptive Management Work Group.
In addition, it had a technical advisory role for the Secretary of the Interior’s Designee and the
Adaptive Management Work Group and forwards scientific information about resources in the
Colorado River ecosystem (GCDAMP, 2001).
3.2.4.3.4. Technical Work Group
Technical representatives of Adaptive Management Work Group members created The Technical
Work Group. The primary responsibility of this group was providing technical assistance to the
Adaptive Management Work Group. Also, it reviewed scientific studies, which were conducted or
proposed by the program, and developed criteria and standards for monitoring and research
program. Lastly, it was responsible for the presence of a discussion forum, which was for Technical
Work Group members, external scientists, the public, and other interested people (GCDAMP,
2001).
3.2.4.3.5. Independent Review Panels

Independent review panels were stated in the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement
(Reclamation, 1995). Qualified individuals, who may not be part of this program for long-term
monitoring and research studies, joined these panels to assess the quality of research, monitoring
and making recommendations for the research that was being conducted by the Adaptive
Management Program (GCDAMP, 2001).

44

3.2.5. Evaluation of The Project Outcomes
Continued research and monitoring work, as a part of the Adaptive Management discipline,
provided essential information to evaluate the success of the project. The EIS aimed to achieve
predicted results with the preferred alternative of modified low fluctuating flows (MLFF). As a
result, outcomes of the MLFF operations met only some of the predictions.
3.2.5.1. Fish Response
The EIS prediction for native and nonnative fish species was a population increase for them.
During the last 10 years and under MLFF operations, the system has not given desired outcomes.
Historically, the Grand Canyon had 8 native fish species, and six of eight species were endemic to
the Colorado River ecosystem (Mueller and Marsh 2002). The humpback chub is one of them, and
only it is endangered. The EIS prediction is increasing of chub abundance but, during the MLFF
operations, populations of the humpback chub kept decreasing. On the other hand, diversity, and
abundance of nonnative fish species have increased bellow (Gloss et al. 2005).
3.2.5.2. Water Quality
Closing of Colorado River with Glen Canyon Dam caused reduced variability in water
temperature. According to current scientific information, the MLFF operations have not enriched
water quality in the downstream.
Lake Powell is the primary water source of the downstream ecosystem. Changes in water quality
at Lake Powell directly affect water quality in the downstream. Therefore, the Lake Powell
monitoring program was a convenient source to observe alterations and obtained information from
the monitoring program that demonstrated the MLFF operations have not mainly affected water
quality since 1991 (Gloss et al., 2005).
45

3.2.5.3. Sediment Responses
The monitoring and research works have illustrated that the MLFF operations did not stop the loss
of fine sediment. During this period, the amount of fine sediment has decreased. Sandbars
continued to erode, and accumulation on new sand inputs was not observed (Gloss et al., 2005).
3.2.5.4. Human Uses
Eliminating very high and very low discharges within the scope of the MLFF influenced
recreational uses positively. The MLFF provided year-round recreational boating and fishing for
the community (Gloss et al., 2005).
3.2.5.5. Hydroelectric Power Generation
The environmental constraints on Glen Canyon Dam operations had significant economic losses.
The acceptability of those costs showed the consistency of society about environmental
conservation objectives. The dam operations under the MLFF provided benefits to both local and
regional economies due to the stabilization of flows. On the other hand, to have a proper cost-
benefit analysis, the economic value of documented environmental benefits below the dam versus
constraints of the dam operations needs to be assessed (Gloss et al., 2005).
3.2.5.6. Vegetation Response in the River Corridor
The EIS predicted a modest increase in woody vegetation under The MLFF operations. As a result,
not only native woody vegetation amount increased, but also nonnative woody vegetation had an
increase during this period. In addition, The EIS also predicted that the presence of marsh
communities would stay the same or less. This prediction was also correct, because, since the
implementation of the MLFF, wet marsh vegetation decreased, and dry marsh vegetation
increased. Also, the density of marsh vegetation around the wetted zone had a significant increase.
On the other hand, these vegetation increases had a negative impact on recreational uses because
of the decrease in camping sites (Gloss et al., 2005).

46

3.3. The Guadalupe River
The Guadalupe River originates from mountain tributaries and drains into South San Francisco
Bay. Guadalupe river passes through the downtown of San Jose city; which resulted in frequent
floods in the city downtown. The watershed of Guadalupe comprises around 170 square miles
area.
Before flood protection activities, approximately 10,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) flows with
more than a 10-year recurrence interval was occurring in downtown San Jose. On the other hand,
mostly less than 5 CFS flows were occurring between May and October. These massive flow
fluctuations caused by precipitation created a "flashy" river system for The Guadalupe River
(Gurevich et al. 2005). The Guadalupe River provides primary drainage through the valley, now
known as “Silicon Valley," and this critical urban area has flooded 14 times since World War II
(Scott et al., 2011).
As an estimate of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), a 100-year recurrence interval flood
could cause more than $2 billion damage in Santa Clara County. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers has been studying to create a comprehensive flood protection project for almost 60
years. There were many alternatives considered, such as channel widening, bypass construction,
levee raising, concrete trapezoidal channels, channel reinforcement with rip-rap, and floodplain
acquisition. However, these alternatives were rejected or canceled due to lack of funds, political
issues, and concerns over endangered anadromous fish (Scott et al., 2011).

47

Figure 13. Location of Guadalupe River Watershed (Gurevich et al., 2005)
3.3.1. History of the Guadalupe River Project
The Congress in 1986 authorized a flood protection project for downtown San Jose. The project
was planned to implement with several phases by the Corps and its cosponsors, the Santa Clara
Valley Water District (Water District) and the City of San Jose (Scott et al., 2011). The objectives
of the Downtown Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project were fish and wildlife protection,
flood protection for 100-year interval recurrence flood and mitigation, and recreational features
(Gurevich et al., 2005).
The first two phases of the project were constructed between 1992 and 1996. Within the scope of
Phase 1, the creation of an overflow area through the construction of a bench cut was planned.
Phase 2 involved the construction of a bench-cut, a secondary channel with a weir at the upstream
end, armoring, and a low-flow channel. Lastly, Under Phase 3, the widening of the channel and
removal of trees and brush on the banks were planned. Thus, the water temperature at the channel
would stay cold for cold-water fish during the summer (Scott et al., 2011).
48

In the year 1996, the National Heritage Institute (NHI) which is representing the Guadalupe-
Coyote Resource Conservation District, Trout Unlimited, the Western Waters Canoe Club, and the
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association, filed a Notice of Clean Water Act Citizen’s
Suit. The concern of NHI was the third phase of the project that would be harmful to steelhead
trout and Chinook salmon. (These species are listed under the Endangered Species Act.) They
thought that increased flow velocity at the channel would make it difficult to find a place to hide
for left juvenile fish (Scott et al., 2011). Therefore, the remaining phase of the construction was
terminated.
3.3.2. Guadalupe River Project (Downtown) Collaborative
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and City
of San Jose arrived at a consensus about following collaborative process among U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Fisheries, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, and NHI
mainly to avoid costly and lengthy litigation, and in an effort to move the flood protection project
forward.
Members of the collaboration decided on flood protection, recreational development, and
environmental quality objectives for the project. Measurement of success of objectives was a
problem because they did not know which outcomes of the project were enough to be satisfied at
the time being, and the adaptive management approach helped to overcome these uncertainties
(Gurevich et al., 2005).

49

3.3.3. The Environmental Challenge of the Project
The main environmental challenge of the project was the lifecycle of steelhead. It was a special-
status anadromous fish (Fig.14). Steelhead has been listed as one of the endangered species by The
Central California Coast steelhead evolutionarily significant unit (ESU).
Anadromous fish have a very complicated life cycle. From November to April, steelhead migrates
up the Guadalupe River, and spawning period is most probably between January and May. The
hatching process ends from March through early June. Juvenile steelhead needs to stay in
freshwater for a minimum of one year. Smolts form of juvenile migrate to the ocean from
November through May. Steelhead needs a cool water temperature for each life stage, that’s why
the planned project must evaluate temperature levels of water during pre-and post-project. This
condition made the replacement of shaded riverine aquatic (SRA) cover the essential part of the
project's impacts on steelhead. Benefits of SRA cover to fish are protection from predators,
enrichment of streambank stability, increases habitat complexity, provides habitat for food
organisms, and provides the shade needed to maintain suitable water temperatures (Gurevich et
al., 2005).

Figure 14. Steelhead Trout

50

3.3.4. The Guadalupe River Adaptive Management Plan
In order to answer questions such as the presence of fisheries after the project and be able to
analyze whether or not the project’s environmental goals would be met, the Adaptive Management
process was applied to the project. The process contains measurable objectives, a monitoring
program to assess outcomes of the project, and feedback loops to improve conditions (Fig.15)
(Gurevich et al., 2005).

Figure 15. Schematic Depiction Adaptive Management Process (Jones and Stokes Assocoiates, 2001)

51

3.3.5. Project Objectives
Desirable environmental objectives must be objectively measurable because any unclear,
immeasurable monitoring results may cause a debate on the project process. However, natural
systems are complex and contain high-level uncertainty. These adverse conditions make it hard to
decide appropriate environmental objectives for projects. Also, the Adaptive Management process
requires that objectives and goals of the project must be accurately measurable with indicators.
3.3.6. Adaptive Management Team
The Guadalupe River Adaptive Management Team (AMT) is organized by SCVWD (Santa Clara
Valley Water District) to evaluate annual monitoring reports. The AMT consists of technical
representatives from each collaborative.
The primary responsibilities of AMT are;
• Assessment of reached outcomes from monitoring works and compare them with
objectives
• Evaluation of recommendations
• Suggesting recommendations for following years
The AMT is also responsible for revising the project objectives when any of them is not met and
not likely to be met. In this situation, The AMT may create a more suitable indicator or objective.
However, if the AMT decides that indicator and objective are reasonable, monitoring works would
continue until the measurable objective has been met.
During the life of the project, annual monitoring reports need to be prepared, or until when the
AMT decides that the objective has been met completely (Gurevich et al., 2005).

52

Planned monitoring activities to evaluate project outcomes have different methods, frequencies,
and duration times. For example, to indicate Anadromous Fish Occurrence (AFO), one of the
indicators is adult migration and spawning, and monitoring activity to assess is the visual
observation of adult fish and spawning activity. The frequency of the monitoring is 4 times a year
(October, November, February, and March), and the duration of monitoring is 10 years from
construction. On the other hand, some of the monitoring activities have very long duration times,
for example, a monitoring activity, that is measuring stream channel geometry, to indicate water
temperature at the river has 40 years duration time and 5 years frequency.
Due to variability in monitoring activities duration time, and requirement of adaptive management
method, it is too early to have a judgment on exact project success. However, early monitoring
works illustrate that the outcomes of the project are positive, and short-term goals are being
achieved (Gurevich et al., 2005).

53

Chapter 4 Proposed Study
4.1. The Ayamama River
In the context of the thesis, the "Adaptive River Management" method is analyzed in terms of role,
portion, and effects on river rehabilitation works. In addition, 3 case studies in the USA were
studied to understand the productivity and sustainability of the method. Based on the experience
obtained in these studies, The Ayamama River is selected to be evaluated under a possible adaptive
management method. In this sense, the case of Ayamama Stream in Istanbul is chosen because of
its crucial and problematic situation in a highly urbanized area. Most riverine networks in Turkey
are utilized in a wide range of agricultural, residential, construction, and land reclamation works,
which puts these rivers under the stress of human activities. Recently, the increasing frequency of
flooding problems and outcomes caused a high awareness in a society. Consequently, some steps
have been taken through restoration works on riverine networks, focusing primarily on streaming
morphological modifications to enrich the capacity of the channel.
The Ayamama River restoration project was one of those attempts. The river has experienced a
dramatic flood in 2009, which caused severe loss of life and property (Fig.16). After the dramatic
flood event in 2009, the Metropolitan Municipality of Istanbul and the Istanbul Water and
Sewerage Administration (ISKI) launched a rehabilitation project for the Ayamama Stream
(Delibas, 2002). The primary purposes of the project were, preservation of the watershed from a
500-year recurrence interval flood, draining direct industrial discharges into Waste Water
Biological Treatment Plant by collectors, and increasing the presence of ecological activities
(ISKI, 2019).
This project is an example of the river restoration perspective in Turkey. This perspective focuses
on water quality issues, alteration of channel capacity, and aesthetic concerns when traditional
restoration methods are used. As a result of those traditional methods, river systems, that contain
high uncertainty, did not have appropriate outcomes at the end of the restoration project.
54

Figure 16. The Ayamama River flood event in 2009 (Demir, 2013)

4.1.1. The Ayamama Stream and its Watershed
The Ayamama River is in the north-western part of Turkey in the Marmara Region, which rises
from the eastern part of Basaksehir district. The Ayamama River watershed passes through 6
districts of Istanbul which are Bagcilar, Bahcelievler, Bakirkoy, Basaksehir, Kücükcekmece, and
Sultangazi. Ayamama River extends through these districts starting from Basaksehir, and
continues to Bagcilar, Kücükcekmece, and Bahcelievler, and finnaly to Bakirkoy. The river mouth
of Ayamama debouches to the Marmara Sea from the district of Bakirkoy (Fig.17). The basin area
of the river is 66,76 km² and 42 kilometers (21 km mainstream and 21 km tributaries) long with 8
tributaries (Fig. 18) (Delibas, 2002).
55

Figure 17. The river mouth of The Ayamama River (Google Earth, 2019)

Figure 18. The Ayamama stream and watershed (Delibas, 2002)
56

The average basin slope is 6.94%, and the drainage area's mean altitude is 86.64 meters. The
elevation decreases through the streambed at downstream sections. The entire watershed covers a
wide range of area, which contains a variety of land-use trends that is highly populated and
urbanized area. In this context, general land use in the Ayamama Stream catchment area consists
of various land-use patterns, including industrial, commercial, residential, military, urban
(education, sports, health units, etc.), urban green areas, and bare lands. As a general picture, the
area's land-use features consist mainly of three significant trends: industrial areas, residential areas,
and military areas that occupy most of the watershed's land surface (Delibas, 2002).
The Ayamama Stream watershed area is horizontally fragmented with two important highways,
which are TEM (Trans-European Motorway) and D-100 (E-5), and there is one longitudinal
linkway between them which named as Basin Ekspres Road. This convenient transportation
pattern of the area affects the stream system negatively due to the high demand for urbanization.
Moreover, the period between the years 1950 to 2012 demonstrated profound changes occurred in
the land use pattern, that caused severe effects on the system. This proves that it was due to a lack
of legal background and wrong decisions (Delibas, 2002).
4.1.2. Historical Development of The Ayamama River
The Ayamama River in Istanbul is one of the rivers in the city that has been under development
for the past 15 years. However, commercial buildings and industrial facilities have continued their
development around the river regardless of its protection zone and the safe distance from the
riversides.
In the upper part of the river basin, due to the lack of urbanization, the population is less settled
and the natural cover of the soil is preserved. However, the rest of the river basin has undergone
significant changes in land cover in recent decades. Significant changes include the creation of
shrubs and grasslands, as well as areas with bare soil that are more commonly seen in construction,
urban, and industrial areas.
Until the 1950s, the Ayamama River, which was then the site of the Ottoman Army's camp for
military dispatches with untouched nature, suitable for farming in the river basin, and healthy
waters, was an excellent place for leisure. In the watershed of this river, there were gardens,
57

farmland, and lush plains. In Ottoman and Byzantine times, these were used as public spaces, and
there were no constructions in the area. This pattern of use of the region changed after the 1950s
with the beginning of the Republic of Turkey.
In the 1970s, a significant project called TEM, or E-80 highway, started connecting 10 different
countries from Gürbulak in Turkey to Lisbon in Portugal. About 71 kilometers of this route passed
through Istanbul, which was completed in the early 80s. Second Bosphorus Bridge is one of the
buildings on the route that was completed in 1988. This route serves as a bridge between Europe
and Asia. The high speed of development in the area has made the river watershed a growing place
for construction and development. In the late 90s, after the completion of the Istanbul railway,
Bakırköy became one of the most populated areas in the city.
The construction of the TEM highway was completed in the late 1980s and opened to the public
in 1986. After the construction of the first and second bridges and the connection of the E-5 roads
to the TEM, the capacity of the transport network in the area increased significantly. Increase in
the transportation capacity and roads resulted in increase of the population, and the investors saw
the growing area as an opportunity to invest in commercial, industrial, or residential projects. In
this regard, the Basin Express Road was built to connect TEM to E-5, thus making the triple-axis
of transport in the area a significant change in the Ayamama River watershed and making changes
to the river water route. Prior to the construction of the road, the Ayamama River basin was mostly
consisted of agricultural land. However, after the Basin Express Road was built, commercial,
industrial, and residential construction has begun. By the 1990s, commercial centers, media
services, and industrial buildings had moved into the area, resulting in significant population
growth. With the growth of the TEM highway project as a route to Europe, the area has seen large
construction projects which has continued to this day.

58

In 2008, Istanbul Water and Sewerage Administration (ISKI) launched the Ayamama Stream
Rehabilitation Project, which sought to reduce the risk of flooding in the area. The project was
taken more seriously by the flood of 2009 and accelerated its implementation. The project sought
to reduce the risk of flooding by increasing the width of the streambed cross-section, which can
be seen in Figure 19. It was also planned to relocate industrial waste to the Ataköy Biological
Wastewater Treatment Plant to reduce the amount of pollution in the area. In addition to this
project, another project for early warning of the flood danger is underway, developed by AKOS
and implemented in several major streams in Istanbul, including Ayamama stream. The project
uses cameras and surveillance stations to monitor flood status and prepare people for pre-flood
evacuation.

Figure 19. Enhancement of Streambed Cross-section of The Ayamama Stream and a Part of Flood Risk
Map Prepared by ISKI (Demir, 2010)

Despite various efforts and projects to restore the Ayamama River and reduce the risk of flooding,
the pattern of watershed use has not changed significantly, and it has witnessed the overcrowding
of urban buildings and structures that followed the trend of growth and development that began in
the 1950s. According to land use analysis in these areas, which is shown in Figure 20, the majority
of the river basin districts have industrial facilities and residential populations, and only in small
parts of the catchment, there are still agricultural land and green spaces.
59

Figure 20. Current land use pattern of Ayamama Stream and its watershed (Generated by the data of
IMM,2011)

60

4.1.3. Problems of The Ayamama River
The Ayamama River has deleterious problems such as flooding, pollution, and alterations of
stream channels that have environmental impacts on the hydrological and urban systems.
4.1.3.1. Flood Problem
Violent and rapid floods that travel in narrow paths due to heavy rains at high speeds are called
flash floods. When heavy rains occur, there is a short interval between the peak of rainfall and the
peak of the discharge stream, which is a critical time period for flood prevention. Urbanization of
land surfaces has also reduced soil absorption capacity and shortened the interval between the two
peaks. Therefore, in urban areas that have pavements, asphalt, and man-made soils that have low
absorption capacity, floods are more likely to occur.
Floods are likely to occur at any time and can be caused by rising groundwater levels or by heavy
rainfall as well as river or sea overflows. Parts of Istanbul are at risk of flooding, and to this day,
the city has experienced floods of varying intensity. From 1950 to 2010, Turkey witnessed 35
floods. Man-made drainage systems, which differ from natural absorption of the ground, are
unable to drain water during heavy rain, which is one of the leading causes of flooding in Istanbul.
The width of the channel, which has been reduced due to overcrowding, is much less capable than
the natural rivers and does not meet the need for heavy rainwater discharge. The main motorways
D100 and E80 were designed to cross the natural flow path, including side roads at the valley level
and below the valley floor. Therefore, the main motorway blocks the surface flows and the side
roads act as water flow channels. In the event of heavy rainfall, water will no longer be directed to
current drainage systems but will flow on the roads based on current slope conditions.

61

There is already a large population in the Ayamama River basin, and this area is at a serious risk
of flooding and damage to its residents and infrastructure. The region witnessed floods in 1995,
2002 and 2009. The flooding of the Ayamama River in 1995 caused about a $40 million loss. Most
of this damage occurred along the E-5 to TEM highways, however, there were numerous shops
and industrial buildings alongside it, all of which suffered massive damage. In 2009, the negative
consequences of the flood were multiplied due to a lack of infrastructure to respond to massive
population migration to the area and natural disaster policies that have been in place since 2002.
The flood killed 31 people and caused more than $100 million loss.
In 1997, according to the Istanbul development plan, the use of the Ayamama River Basin area
was changed from a recreational area to a residential area by an amendment. The Ayamama River,
which runs through the heart of Istanbul, has been interrupted, polluted, and narrowed by river
basin construction. The increasing urban population in the area has both eroded the river basin
environment and put pressure on infrastructures that are barely responsive to the current
population.
4.1.3.2. Pollution Problem
Overcrowding and highly industrialization in the river basin causes pollution and a decline in water
quality, which results in degradation in aquatic life. A study by Dülger et al. (2008) estimated the
genotoxic water pollution in the Ayamama and Haramidere rivers. They found that the Ayamama
River water has genetic mutations effects due to pollution from urban and industrial waste.
Because of the negative impacts of the pollution that is carried from the Ayamama River to the
Marmara Sea, the health of the aquatic life of the region and all its associated ecosystems are under
attack. Sivri and Seker (2010) showed that stations 1 and 2 of Atakoy wastewater treatment plants
have high bacterial contamination in most months of the year. This contamination resulted in a
closure of the Bakırköy-Ataköy public beach.
62

Figure 21. Industrial - Domestic Discharges to Ayamama Stream (Delibas, 2012)

4.1.3.3. Stream Channel/Burial Problem
Human activities have resulted in change of the river stream channel due to increasing population
congestion and changing patters from agricultural use to urban use in the region. Some of these
changes occurred along the riverbed due to overcrowding, that flowed into narrower cement
channels and cut off contact with the soil. Therefore, the water from the river is not adequately
absorbed to the ground. In addition, large portions of the soil surface were buried beneath artificial
man-made surfaces, such as asphalt, concrete surfaces, paving, buildings, and roads, which
prevented the soil from absorbing surface water. This meant that the structures of urban life have
caused the living soil system to fail to perform its absorption well, causing flood problems in the
city. As a result, the pressure on urban drainage infrastructure and built-up areas around the
riverbed has increased.

63

Due to the high intensity of construction and the creation of communication and transport
infrastructure in the area, the river basin is profoundly affected by the roads and highways of the
region. That is why the Ayamama River stream channel has changed in many ways. One of the
places that caused the most problems for the stream channel is the intersections. Also, in some
residential areas, water channels became narrower and flowed into concrete streambeds, which
increased the flow rate and flood risk in the area. Specifically in Basaksehir district, the main
waterway is beneath 10th Street, and instead of using the natural tributaries of the Ayamama
Stream, artificial waterways have been built for recreational areas in the ‘Sular Valley’ (Fig. 22).

Figure 22. Basaksehir Sular Valley

Dense urbanization along the transport axis has channelized parts of the Ayamama River flow, and
the concrete surfaces of these channels also exacerbate this problem. Statistics show that tributaries
are flowing more freely in northern areas where built-up is less compared to the middle and
southern regions of the river basin, which have a high population density. In addition to all the
above-mentioned problems, it can be said that the main reason for all these problems was the
creation of transportation linkages.

64

4.1.4. Restoration Works at The Ayamama River
Within the scope of the Ayamama River rehabilitation project, flood zone risk maps, determining
conditions of river absolute protection areas, widening of river cross-sections, riverbed
straightening, and creation of the Atakoy Advanced Biological Wastewater Treatment Plant
projects were planned and began to be implemented.
4.1.4.1. Flood Zone Risk Maps
In March 2010, flood zone risk maps were created that illustrated prone areas to flood events.
These risk maps were created by the Istanbul Water and Sewerage Administration (ISKI) and
purposed to decide risky areas, properties, and create new master plans for these areas (Kervan,
2016). The created model to produce flood zone risk maps was simulated with meteorological data
of the flood day, and outcomes of the model were in good agreement with the Ayamama River
Flood Event results on 09.09.2009. These outcomes proved that the Flood model was accurate and
able to simulate existing results (Demir, 2013).
As a result of this study, reasons to trigger flood events were determined, such as small cross-
sections and culvert types, and rehabilitation projects were proposed (Demir, 2013).
65

Figure 23. The Ayamama River Flood zone risk maps (Demir, 2010)

Figure 24. Ayamama Stream Protection Bands (Demir, 2010)
66

In Fig 24, three stages creek protection bands have been created and the measures to be applied in
the areas between these zones have been determined.
The area within red lines is the most preserved zone. Excavation, excavation, filling, casting,
material storage activities are not allowed in this area. Moreover, based on natural conditions of
the riverbed and interference to canal cross-sections, building a structure that affects streamflow
is not allowed in this zone. Lastly, this zone does not have a reconstruction permit (Demir, 2010).
The zone between blue and red lines still has a flood risk. Therefore, the basement floor is
forbidden on reconstruction permits, and insurance is required for current basement floors. The
basin elevation of the structure is must be at least 1.5 m higher than the river Kret altitude.
The zone rules between the blue and white lines are almost the same as the previous zone; the only
requirement of obligatory insurance shows differences for basement and ground floors (Demir,
2010).
4.1.4.2. Widening of River Cross-Sections
Widening of river channels project was designed to manage a 500-year recurrence interval flood.
Therefore, the required cross-sections of the channel were expanded up to 4 times (Fig.25).

Figure 25. The cross-sections of the channel (Demir, 2010)
67

• Culvert structure under the Basin Express link road was replaced and enlarged to 30m wide.
It encompassed from 3 small 3 m wide culverts prior.
• Culvert structure under the E-5/Airport link road was enlarged to 25m wide. It
encompassed from 3 small 3 m wide culverts prior. Fig. 26 and Fig. 27 illustrates changes
of Cobancesme intersection- E5 Highway-Airport linkway over the years.
• 12 m wide open channel cross-section in the Cobancesme intersection area was widened
to 25 m.
• The Channel cross-section under the E-5 highway was enlarged from 12 m to 25 m.
• The narrower channel at the truck parking lot area was enlarged. It was one of the main
reasons for many casualties at the 2009 flood (Fig. 28).

Figure 26. Çobançeşme-E5 Highway-Mahmutbey-Atatürk Airport Intersection years of 2004-2009
(Kervan, 2016)
68

Figure 27. Çobançeşme-E5 Highway-Mahmutbey-Atatürk Airport Intersection years of 2012-2013-2014
(Kervan, 2016)

Figure 28. Truck Parking Lot Area (Demir, 2013)
69

4.1.4.3. Riverbed Straightening
Rehabilitation works that started in 2009 have been adopted to match the stream morphology. The
channel had a more circular structure prior to restoration works.
According to the data obtained from Google Earth on November 2015, it was observed that the
sections of Ayamama River Çobançeşme Intersection-E5 Highway- Mahmutbey Atatürk Airport
connection was wider and stream morphology was less meandering structure. The line shown in
purple in Figure 29 shows the route between 2004 and 2009, and the line shown in red shows the
current route.

Figure 29. The route between 2004 and 2009 - the line shown in red shows the current route

Figure 30 shows the area between Çobançeşme intersection and Güneşli intersection. The new and
flatter river route is shown with red and old, and the more curved river route is shown with the
green color (Kervan, 2016).
70

Figure 30. The area between Çobançeşme intersection and Güneşli intersection (Kervan2016)
4.1.4.4. Advanced Biological Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater goes into the Sea of Marmara through Ayamama River, and its tributaries cause
dangerous pollution in the river and reduce ecological activities. Ataköy Advanced Biological
Treatment Plant has been built in order to prevent this pollution problem (Fig.31) (Demir 2010).
In the scope of the project, wastewater flowing to Ayamama River will be collected through
collectors and will be sent to Ataköy Advanced Biological Wastewater Treatment Plant. As of
2013, a total of 77 km of wastewater and stormwater channels were constructed, which had
between Ø300-Ø2400 mm diameters (Demir 2013).

Figure 31. Ataköy Advanced Biological Treatment Plant (ISKI 2019)
71

4.1.5. Recommendations for The Ayamama River
The socio-economic development in The Ayamama River and its basin, restoration works,
disasters, flood events have been investigated. According to the outcomes achieved from these
investigations, it is shown that the high amount of uncertainty was present in this region. The prime
sources of this uncertainty were the complexity of the ecosystem influenced by many factors and
the difficulty in planning project purposes and appraising the consequences. In this situation, the
Adaptive Management method was favored for having a more stable and reliable restoration.
Likewise, the created table by Peterson et al. (2011), also indicates that Adaptive Management is
the most appropriate method under these conditions.

The known problems for Ayamama River and the issues that need to be resolved in the
rehabilitation project are as items mentioned below:

• Inadequate structure of canals and river cross-sections for a 500-year recurrence interval.
• In addition, the wastes unloaded into the riverbed block the culverts.
• Enclosed areas in the creek bed unfavorably affect the living ecosystem
• Non-zoned constructions and commercial activities in the floodplain.
• Point and non-point polluters (domestic, agricultural, industrial, etc.), urban run-off and
pollutants from infrastructure contractions (hard infrastructure such as roads, bridges, etc.)
caused unhealthy aquatic life and declined in species heterogeneity.
• Straight course of polluted water into the Marmara Sea harms the endurance activities.
• The large percentage of impermeable surfaces in the watershed accelerates the flow rate to
the river, and rainwater rushes to the canals rather than being absorbed by the surface.
• Interventions to the river bed, such as leveling, caused the creek to lose its natural
composition.
• Inadequate recreational investments in the river environment.

It has been found from the case investigations and research studies that foundations of the
recommended rehabilitation project for The Ayamama River should be as follows:

• Adaptive Management should be a preferred method for the rehabilitation plan (Fig. 32).
• Legislation should be prepared by the government that indicates the scope and authority of
the Adaptive Management method. This legislation must provide adequate financial funds
for the probable long monitoring process.
• A team, which consists of representatives from various organizations, must be created to
conduct this process. Recommended organizations to create an Adaptive Management
team are universities, relevant ministries, provincial directorates, and social organizations.
• The mentioned team should have a nonpartisan formation and should not be influenced by
influences from the government or entrepreneur.
• The objectives of the project must be identified clearly by doing enough experiments to
decide the most effective implementation method.
• Project objectives must be measurable.
72

• The project objectives should purpose to establish a sustainable system that is most closely
to the unaffected system.
• The system involving at high rate of uncertainty requires numerous experimental studies,
which scientists must be conscious of likely negative impacts of experiments on the
ecosystem.
• The monitoring process which is one of the most critical components of adaptive river
management should be conducted carefully and studiously.
• Outcomes of monitoring works must be evaluated objectively and publish clearly.
• According to examined case studies, the duration of the monitoring process is ranging
between 1 month to 40 years. Also, longer times may be required for different projects.
That is why stakeholders should be ready for a long-time process.
• The rehabilitation project should also aim high knowledge acquisition rate and society must
have access to reports about outcomes and current situation of the project easily.
• Listing and archiving of restoration outcomes are very important because the Adaptive
Management method also aimed to guide future projects.

Figure 32. Proposed Adaptive River Management Cycle for the Ayamama River

73

Chapter 5 Conclusion
5.1. Conclusion
In this study, adaptive management method was used to propose a rehabilitation framework for
the Ayamama River in Turkey. This proposal was based on the existing applications of adaptive
management in the USA. These applications were restoration projects of the Kissimmiee river, the
Glen Canyon, and the Guadalupe river.
Main goals of the projects were:
• Flood protection
• Creating suitable environment for native and endangered species
• Improvement of recreational area
• Maintain power production capacity and energy generation
• Deciding most suitable flow regime
Removing uncertainty, increasing data acquisition, and participation of multiple stakeholders
made adaptive river management method most suitable to achieve these set goals. However,
adaptive management has drawbacks, such as long monitoring times, long term funding support,
priorities of new government, and unpredictable experiment results. Despite these drawbacks,
interim results demonstrate that adaptive river management method provided acceptable outcomes.
Outcomes and applications of existing projects showed that adaptive river management is the most
suitable restoration method for rivers with high uncertainty and controllability. The Ayamama
River in Turkey pertains similar conditions which resulted in inclination of using adaptive river
management as a restoration method.
The degradation of the Ayamama River throughout the years resulted in many problems such as
• Major flooding that resulted in civil death and property lost
• Pollution of water
• Loss in aquatic life
• Pollution of Marmara Sea
• Loss of recreational area
74

The proposed restoration project of the Ayamama River uses adaptive river management method,
which aims to resolve these issues and create more sustainable river ecosystem. This proposal
requires participation of diverse stakeholders, such as researchers, law makers, non-profit
organizations, and local government. In addition, due to complexity and longevity of the project,
it is crucial to have continues long term funding, monitoring of results, and informing public
regarding the progress of the project. Satisfaction of these requirements will yield to successful
application of adaptive river management method to restoration project of the Ayamama River and
will create more sustainable river ecosystem. Lastly, restoration works of the Ayamama River will
lay the foundation for future applications of the adaptive river management method in Turkey.

75

References
Allen, C.R., Fontaine, J.J., Pope, K.L., Garmestani, A.S., 2011. Adaptive management for a
turbulent future. J. Environ. Manage. 92 (5), 1339–1345.
Anderson, D. H. 2014. Geomorphic responses to interim hydrology following Phase I of the
Kissimmee River Restoration Project, Florida. Restoration ecology, 22(3), 367-375.
Anderson, D. H. 2014. Interim hydrologic responses to phase I of the Kissimmee River restoration
project, Florida. Restoration ecology, 22(3), 353-366.
Anderson, D. H., Bousquin, S. G., Williams, G. E., & Colangelo, D. J. 2005. Defining success:
expectations for restoration of the Kissimmee River. South Florida Water Management District,
West Palm Beach, FL.
Ayamama Islahında 5 Bin 400 Metre. (2019, May 1). Retrieved October 10, 2019, from
https://www.iski.istanbul/web/tr-TR/kurumsal/haberler1/haberler-detay/ayamama-islahi-son-
surat.
Bernhardt, E. S., Sudduth, E. B., Palmer, M. A., Allan, J. D., Meyer, J. L., Alexander, G., ... &
Rumps, J. (2007). Restoring rivers one reach at a time: results from a survey of US river restoration
practitioners. Restoration Ecology, 15(3), 482-493.
Bousquin, S. G., Anderson, D. H., Williams, G. E., & Colangelo, D. J. 2005. Establishing a
baseline: pre-restoration studies of the channelized Kissimmee River. South Florida Water
Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA.
Brookes, A., & Shields Jr, F. D. 1996. River channel restoration: guiding principles for sustainable
projects.
Carnal, L. 2005a. Expectation 12: Areal Coverage of Floodplain Wetlands.

76

Carnal, L. 2005b. Expectation 13: Areal Coverage of Broadleaf Marsh. D.H. Anderson, S.G.
Bousquin, G.W. Williams and D.J. Colangelo, eds. pp. 13-1 through 13-4. In Kissimmee River
Restoration Studies Volume II – Defining Success: Expectations for Restoration of the
Kissimmee River. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Technical
Publication ERA 433. Available online at:
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd_repository_pdf/krr_volii_expectation
s.pdf
Carnal, L. 2005c. Expectation 14: Areal Coverage of Wet Prairie. D.H. Anderson, S.G.
Bousquin, G.W. Williams and D.J. Colangelo, eds. pp. 14-1 through 14-4. In Kissimmee River
Restoration Studies Volume II – Defining Success: Expectations for Restoration of the
Kissimmee River. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Technical
Publication ERA 433. Available online at:
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd_repository_pdf/krr_volii_expectation
s.pdf
Chamberlain, E. B. 1960. Florida waterfowl populations, habitats and management (No. 7).
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.
Conroy, M. J. 2000. 11. MAPPING BIODIVERSITY FOR CONSERVATION AND LAND USE
DECISIONS. Spatial Information for Land Use Management, 145.
Cortner, H. J., & Moote, M. A. 1994. Trends and issues in land and water resources management:
setting the agenda for change. Environmental Management, 18(2), 167-173.
Costanza, R., Wainger, L., Folke, C., & Mäler, K. G. 1993. Modeling complex ecological
economic systems: toward an evolutionary, dynamic understanding of people and
nature. BioScience, 43(8), 545-555.
Cowx, I. G., & Welcomme, R. L. (1998). Rehabilitation of rivers for fish fishing New Books.
De Bello, F., Lavorel, S., Díaz, S., Harrington, R., Cornelissen, J. H., Bardgett, R. D., ... & da
Silva, P. M. (2010). Towards an assessment of multiple ecosystem processes and services via
functional traits. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(10), 2873-2893.
77

D.H. Anderson, S.G. Bousquin, G.W. Williams and D.J. Colangelo, eds. pp. 12-1 through 12-4.In
Kissimmee River Restoration Studies Volume II – Defining Success: Expectations for Restoration
of the Kissimmee River. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL.
Technical Publication ERA 433. Available online at:
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd_repository_pdf/krr_volii_expectation
s.pdf.
Delibaş, M. 2012.Critical Assessment of Stream Daylighting as an Approach for Renaturalization
of Riverine Systems in Urban Areas Case Study On: Ayamama Stream (Master's thesis). Istanbul
Technical University, Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Istanbul.
Demir, A. Şehir Taşkınları ve İstanbul [PowerPoint Slides]. 2010. (2016, February 10). Retrieved
from http://www.dsi.gov.tr/docs/sempozyumlar/1-1-sehir-taskinlari-a-demir.pdf?sfvrsn=6.
Demir, A. 2013. İstanbul’da Yaşanan Taşkınlar ve Taşkın Önleme Çalışmaları. (2013, December
11). Retrieved October 10, 2019, from http://www.dsi.gov.tr/docs/sempozyumlar/istanbul'da-
yaşanan-taşkınlar-ve-taşkın-önleme-çalışmaları-(a-demir).pdf?sfvrsn=2.
Downs, P. W., & Kondolf, G. M. 2002. Post-project appraisals in adaptive management of river
channel restoration. Environmental Management, 29(4), 477-496.
Dülger, M., Yılmaz, S., Koçak, E., & Petek, M. (2008). Determination of Genotoxic Pollution of
Ayamama and Haramidere Streams with SOSChromotest", ÇESKO, 3. Üniversite Öğrencileri
Çevre Sorunları Kongresi.
FISRWG (Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group). (1998). Stream Corridor
Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. National Technical Information Service, PB98-
158348INQ. Springfield, VA.
Galay, V. J. (1983). Causes of river bed degradation. Water resources research, 19(5), 1057-1090.
Gippel, C.J. & Collier, K.J. 1998. Degradation and rehabilitation of waterways in Australia and
New Zealand. In: de Waal, L.C., Large, A.R.G. & Wade, P.M. (eds) Rehabilitation of Rivers:
Principles and implementation, Wiley, Chichester, England, pp. 269–300.
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. (2015, April 1). Retrieved October 10, 2019,
from http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/pdfs/sp_final.pdf.
78

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. (2019, May 30). Retrieved October 10, 2019,
from https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/index.html.
Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and Melis, T.S., eds., 2005. The state of the Colorado River ecosystem
in Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282, 220 p.
Gurevich, Alberto & Neudorf, Terrence & Mody, Devin & Chesterman, David. 2005. Adaptive
Management of the Guadalupe River Watershed, San Jose, CA. 1-12. 10.1061/40792(173)64.
Hemphill, R. W., and M. E. Bramley. 1989. Protection of river and canal banks. Butterworths,
London, 200 pp.
Hillman, M. and Brierley, G. 2005. A critical review of catchment-scale stream rehabilitation
programmes. Progress in Physical Geography 29(1), 50–76.
Jones and Stokes Associates 2001. Guadalupe River project, Downtown San Jose, California
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento
District,and Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Kervan, T. 2016. Avrupa Ülkelerinde Entegre Nehir Restorasyonu Yaklaşımlarının İncelenmesi
Ve İstanbul Ayamama Deresi Vaka Analizi(Master Thesis), İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Istanbul,
Turkey.
Koebel, J. W., Jones, B. L., & Arrington, D. A. (1999). Restoration of the Kissimmee River,
Florida: water quality impacts from canal backfilling. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment, 57(1), 85-107.
Koebel, J.W., S.G. Bousquin, D.A. Anderson, M.D. Cheek, Zack Welch, H. Chen, B.C. Anderson,
L. Spencer, T. Beck, T. Coughlin and C. Mallison. 2019. Chapter 9: Kissimmee River Restoration
and Basin Initiatives. In: 2016 South Florida Environmental Report – Volume I, South Florida
Water Management District, and West Palm Beach, FL.
Koebel, J.W., S.G. Bousquin, D.A. Anderson, M.D. Cheek, Zack Welch, H. Chen, B.C. Anderson,
L. Spencer, T. Beck, T. Coughlin and C. Mallison. 2018. Chapter 9: Kissimmee River Restoration
and Basin Initiatives. In: 2016 South Florida Environmental Report – Volume I, South Florida
Water Management District, and West Palm Beach, FL.
79

Koebel, Joseph & Bousquin, Stephen. 2014. The Kissimmee River Restoration Project and
Evaluation Program, Florida, USA. Restoration Ecology. 22. 10.1111/rec.12063.
Koebel, Joseph. 1995. An Historical Perspective on the Kissimmee River Restoration Project.
Restoration Ecology. 3. 149 - 159.
Lee, K. N. 1994. Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment.
Island Press.
Lee, R. G., R. Flamm, M. G. Turner, C. Bledsoe, P. Chandler, C. Deferrari, R. Gottfried, R.J.
Nairnan, N. Schumaker, and D. Wear. 1992. Integrating sustainable development and
environmental vitality. Pages 499-521 in B. Naiman (ed.), Watershed management: Balancing
sustainability and environmental change. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Loftin, M. K., Obeysekera, J., Neidrauer, C., & Sculley, S. 1990. Hydraulic performance of the
phase I demonstration project. In Proceedings of the Kissimmee River Restoration Symposium,
eds. MK Loftin, LA Toth, and J. Obeysekera (pp. 197-209).
M. J. Hill and J. Aspinall (Editors). Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, The Netherlands, pp.
145-158.
Mays, L. W. (2008). A very brief history of hydraulic technology during antiquity. Environmental
Fluid Mechanics, 8(5-6), 471-484.
Matlock, Marty D., and Robert A. Morgan. 2011. Ecological engineering design: restoring and
conserving ecosystem services. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
McCreary, S., Gamman, J., Brooks, B., Whitman, L., Bryson, R., Fuller, B., ... & Glazer, R. (2001).
Applying a mediated negotiation framework to integrated coastal zone management. Coastal
Management, 29(3), 183-216.
McLain, R. J., & Lee, R. G. (1996). Adaptive management: promises and pitfalls. Environmental
management, 20(4), 437-448.
National Research Council. 1991. Colorado River Ecology and Dam Management: Proceedings
of a Symposium May 24-25, 1990 Santa Fe, New Mexico. National Academies Press.
80

Oktem, U. A., & Aksoy, A. (2014). Türkiye’nin su riskleri raporu. WWF-Türkiye Erişim adresi:
http://awsassets. wwftr. panda. org/downloads/turkiyenin_su_riskleri__raporu_web. pdf.
Palmer, M. A., Bernhardt, E. S., Allan, J. D., Lake, P. S., Alexander, G., Brooks, S., ... & Galat,
D. L. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of applied
ecology, 42(2), 208-217.
Peterson, G. D., Cumming, G. S., & Carpenter, S. R. (2003). Scenario planning: a tool for
conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation biology, 17(2), 358-366.
Perrin, L. S., M. J. Allen, L. A. Rowse, F. Montalbano, K. J Foote, M. W. Olinde. 1982. A report
on fish and wildlife studies in the Kissimmee River basin and recommendations for restoration.
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Okeechobee, Florida, USA.
Prato, T. 2003. Adaptive Management Of Large Rivers With Special Reference To The Missouri
River 1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 39(4), 935-946.
Restoration. (2012, January 10). Retrieved October 10, 2019, from www.ser.org.
Roni, P., & Beechie, T. (Eds.). 2012. Stream and watershed restoration: a guide to restoring
riverine processes and habitats. John Wiley & Sons.
Rote, J.J., Flynn, M.E., and Bills, D.J., 1997, Hydrologic data, Colorado River and major
tributaries, Glen Canyon Dam to Diamond Creek, Arizona, water years 1990-95, U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 97-250, 474 p.
Saral, A., OZCAN, O., & MUSAOGLU, N. (2010). Flood risk analysis using information
diffusion theory–a case study: Ayamama Creek. In 30th EARSeL Symposium: Remote Sensing for
Science, Education and Culture.
Sendzimir, J., & Schmutz, S. 2018. Challenges in Riverine Ecosystem Management. In Riverine
Ecosystem Management (pp. 1-16). Springer, Cham.
SER (Society for Ecological Restoration Science and Policy Working Group) (2002) The SER
Primer on Ecological Restoration. www.ser.org.
81

Sivri, N., & Seker, D. Z. (2010). Investigation of Enteric Bacteria of Surface Waters in the
Southwestern Coast of Istanbul by means of GIS. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, 10(4), 505-511.
Thompson, D.M. & Stull, G.N. 2002. The development and historic use of habitat structures in
channel restoration in the United States: the grand experiment in fisheries management.
Geographie physique et Quaternaire 56, 45–60.
Toland, B. R. 1990. Effects of Kissimmee River Pool B Restoration Demonstration Project on
Ciconiiformes and Anseriformes. Pages 83-91 in M. K. Loftin, L. A. Toth, and J. T. B. Obeysekera,
editors. Proceedings of the Kissimmee River Restoration Symposium. South Florida Water
Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA.
Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., and Vierra, L.E., Jr., 2003, Computation and analysis of the
instantaneous-dis- charge record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona—May 8, 1921,
through September 30, 2000: Reston, Va., U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1677,118 p.
Toth, L. A. 1990. Impacts of channelization on the Kissimmee River ecosystem. Pages 47-56 in
K. Loftin, L. Toth, and J. Obeysekera, editors. Proceedings of the Kissimmee River Restoration
Symposium. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA.
Toth, L. A. 1993. The ecological basis of the Kissimmee River restoration plan. Florida Scientist
56:25–51.
Trexler, J. C. 1995. Restoration of the Kissimmee River: a conceptual model of past and present
fish communities and its consequences for evaluating restoration success. Restoration Ecology
3:195-210.
Turner, M. G., D. N. Wear, and R. O. Flamm. 1994. Landownership and land cover dynamics in
the southern Appalachian highlands and Olympic peninsula. Ecological Applications (in press).
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1985. Central and Southern Florida Kissimmee River Florida
Final Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Jacksonville Dsitrict, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
82

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991. Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental
Impact Statement, environmental restoration of the Kissimmee River, Florida. U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1959. Appendix I, Fishery basic data, Kissimmee River project, a
segment of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force. 1995. Report of
the U.S. Department of the Interior Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force, vol. I:
Overview. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
United States. Bureau of Reclamation. (1995). Operation of Glen Canyon Dam: Colorado River
Storage Project, Arizona, Final Environmental Impact Statement (Vol. 2). US Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
USDOI (US Department of the Interior). 1996. Record of decision, operation of Glen Canyon
Dam, final environmental impact statement.
Walters, C. J. and R. Hilborn, 1978. Ecological Optimization and Adaptive Management. Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics 9:157-188.
Webb, R.H., Griffiths, P.G., Melis, T.S., and Hartley, D.R., 2000, Sediment delivery by ungaged
tributaries of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Water
Resources Investigation Report 00-4055, 67 p.
Webb, R.H., Wegner, D.L., Andrews, E.D., Valdez, R.A., and Patten, D.T., 1999, Downstream
effects of Glen Canyon Dam in Grand Canyon: a review, in Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J.C., Marzolf,
G.R., and Valdez, R.A., eds., The controlled flood in Grand Canyon: scientific experiment and
management demonstration: Washington, D.C., American Geophysical Union, Geophysi- cal
Monograph Series, v. 110, p. 1–21.
White, R.J. 2002. Restoring streams for salmonids: Where have we been? Where are we going?
In: M. O’Grady (ed.) Proceedings of the 13th International Salmonid Habitat Enhancement
Workshop, Westport, County Mayo, Ireland, September 2002. Central Fisheries Board, Dublin,
Ireland, pp 1–31.
83

Wilhere, G. F., 2002. Adaptive Management in Habitat Conservation Plans. Conservation Biology
16:20-29.
Williams, G.E. and S.L. Melvin. 2005b. Expectation 24: Density of Long-legged Wading Birds on
the Floodplain. Pages 24-1 through 24-5 in: D.H. Anderson, S.G. Bousquin, G.W. Williams and
D.J. Colangelo (eds.), Kissimmee River Restoration Studies, Volume II – Defining Success:
Expectations for Restoration of the Kissimmee River, Technical Publication ERA 433, South
Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL.
Williams, G.E., B.D. Dugger and S.L. Melvin. 2005a. Expectation 25: Winter Abundance of
Waterfowl on the Floodplain. Pages 25-1 through 25-5 in: D.H. Anderson, S.G. Bousquin, G.W.
Williams and D.J. Colangelo (eds.), Kissimmee River Restoration Studies, Volume II – Defining
Success: Expectations for Restoration of the Kissimmee River, Technical Publication ERA 433,
South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL.
Woody, T. (1993). Grassroots in action: the Sierra Club’s role in the campaign to restore the
Kissimmee River. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12, 201–205.
Zarfl, C., Lumsdon, A. E., Berlekamp, J., Tydecks, L., & Tockner, K. (2015). A global boom in
hydropower dam construction. Aquatic Sciences, 77(1), 161-170.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Rivers play an important role in the ecosystem. Degradation of river ecosystems results in the endangering of native species, increasing flood risk, pollution of water, changing of flow regime, and changing in sediment transportation. River bed degradation may proceed downstream as well as upstream depending upon the cause of degradation. There are many causes of river degradation, such as the increase or decrease in water discharge, change in river morphology, and addition or removal of water structures. ❧ Restoration works are required to restore the degraded river ecosystems. Several restoration techniques exist to restore the degraded rivers, and these techniques are gathered under four main river management methods. These four methods are Build Resilience, Scenario Planning, Maximum Sustained Yield, and Adaptive Management. The selection of the most appropriate management method depends on two main parameters, which are uncertainty and controllability. ❧ In this thesis work, The Ayamama River in Istanbul, Turkey was studied, and a new restoration approach was proposed based on the experience and knowledge gained from existing projects. The selection of the restoration method was based on historical development as well as the current conditions of the Ayamama River. High uncertainty and high controllability were the main driving factors for Ayamama River, which suggests the use of adaptive management as a restoration method. ❧ The adaptive management method uses innovative techniques and scientific perspectives to restore the degraded rivers. The method promises to reduce the inherent uncertainty in river ecosystems by means of continues monitoring, data collection, comparing results with demand, and adjusting the hypothesis. This cycle continues until the most suitable hypothesis is achieved, and the river is restored to its desired condition. ❧ This study aims to deliver the rehabilitation works for the Ayamama River using the adaptive management method. After restoration, the Ayamama River will provide 500-year flood protection, more recreational areas for the community, remove the water pollution, and bring back the aquatic life. The results of this work will provide guidelines and new perspectives for future river restorations in Turkey.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Feasibility of using a lined portion of the Los Angeles River for artificial recharge

PDF

Numerical and experimental study on dynamics of unsteady pipe flow involving backflow prevention assemblies

PDF

A coastal development idea for Gulf of Thailand to improve global trades

PDF

Predicting debris yield using artificial intelligence models

PDF

Hydrodynamic modeling and feasibility study of harnessing tidal power at the Bay of Fundy

PDF

Oscillations of semi-enclosed water body induced by hurricanes

PDF

Numerical analysis of harbor oscillation under effect of fluctuating tidal level and varying harbor layout

PDF

Open channel flow instabilities: modeling the spatial evolution of roll waves

PDF

Groundwater contaminant transport predictions in a sustainable water management scenario

PDF

Optimizing biomembrane reactor systems for water reclamation and reuse applications

PDF

Vision-based studies for structural health monitoring and condition assesment

PDF

Novel techniques for analysis and control of traffic flow in urban traffic networks

PDF

Understanding the transport potential of nearshore tsunami currents

PDF

Impacts of heat mitigation strategies and pollutant transport on climate and air quality from urban to global scales

PDF

Developing frameworks to quantify the operational and environmental performance of energy systems within the context of climate change

PDF

The development of a hydraulic-control wave-maker (HCW) for the study of non-linear surface waves

PDF

Using demand-side management for decarbonization: developing methods to quantify the impact of altering electricity consumption patterns

PDF

Efficient stochastic simulations of hydrogeological systems: from model complexity to data assimilation

PDF

Bioelectrochemical treatment of anaerobic process effluents: mitigation of dissolved methane and sulfide

PDF

The roles of surface and pore properties in wetting resistance for membrane distillation membranes

Asset Metadata

Creator Ermihan, Selman (author)

Core Title Application of the adaptive river management approach to Ayamama River in Turkey

School Viterbi School of Engineering

Degree Master of Science

Degree Program Civil Engineering (Environmental Engineering)

Publication Date 12/11/2019

Defense Date 10/23/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag adaptive management,adaptive river management,OAI-PMH Harvest,reclamation,river rehabilitation,river restoration

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Lee, Jiin Jen (committee chair), Moore, James Elliott, II (committee member), Wellford, Carter (committee member)

Creator Email ermihan@usc.edu,selman_ermihan@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-251054

Unique identifier UC11675283

Identifier etd-ErmihanSel-7997.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-251054 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ErmihanSel-7997.pdf

Dmrecord 251054

Document Type Thesis

Rights Ermihan, Selman

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA