Modelling the flooding capacity of a Polish Carpathian river: A comparison of constrained and free channel conditions

• 1D steady-flow model was used to examine the effect of mountain river restoration on hydraulic conditions of flood flows.
• Unmanaged and channelized cross sections differ in hydraulic parameters of flood flows.
• Hydraulic contrasts between both cross section types increase with flood magnitude.
• River widening in freely developed sections reduced shear forces in the channel.
• Floodwater retention in floodplain areas is low in unmanaged and channelized cross sections.

The gravel-bed Biała River, Polish Carpathians, was heavily affected by channelization and channel incision in the twentieth century. Not only were these impacts detrimental to the ecological state of the river, but they also adversely modified the conditions of floodwater retention and flood wave passage. Therefore, a few years ago an erodible corridor was delimited in two sections of the Biała to enable restoration of the river. In these sections, short, channelized reaches located in the vicinity of bridges alternate with longer, unmanaged channel reaches, which either avoided channelization or in which the channel has widened after the channelization scheme ceased to be maintained. Effects of these alternating channel morphologies on the conditions for flood flows were investigated in a study of 10 pairs of neighbouring river cross sections with constrained and freely developed morphology. Discharges of particular recurrence intervals were determined for each cross section using an empirical formula. The morphology of the cross sections together with data about channel slope and roughness of particular parts of the cross sections were used as input data to the hydraulic modelling performed with the one-dimensional steady-flow HEC-RAS software. The results indicated that freely developed cross sections, usually with multithread morphology, are typified by significantly lower water depth but larger width and cross-sectional flow area at particular discharges than single-thread, channelized cross sections. They also exhibit significantly lower average flow velocity, unit stream power, and bed shear stress. The pattern of differences in the hydraulic parameters of flood flows apparent between the two types of river cross sections varies with the discharges of different frequency, and the contrasts in hydraulic parameters between unmanaged and channelized cross sections are most pronounced at low-frequency, high-magnitude floods. However, because of the deep incision of the river, both cross section types are typified by a similar, low potential for the retention of floodwater in floodplain areas. The study indicated that even though river restoration has only begun here, it already brings beneficial effects for flood risk management, reducing flow energy and shear forces exerted on the bed and banks of the channel in unmanaged river reaches. Only within wide, unmanaged channel reaches can the flows of low-frequency, high-magnitude floods be conveyed with relatively low shear forces exerted on the channel boundary. In contrast, in channelized reaches, flow velocity and shear forces are substantially higher, inevitably causing bank erosion and channel incision.