Shannah Anderson • Center for Environmental Design Research Rune Storesund • Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY Learning from Post-Project Appraisals of Urban Stream Restoration Projects in California
27
Embed
Learning from Post-Project Appraisals of Urban Stream ... · II. Pre-project surveys? 8 III. Design rationale stated? 4 IV. Design drawings? 17 V. As-built drawings? 7 VI. Reproducible
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Shannah Anderson • Center for Environmental Design Research
Rune Storesund • Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY
Learning from Post-Project Appraisals of Urban Stream Restoration Projects in California
PROJECT
National River Restoration Science Synthesis (NRRSS)
PHASES
I. Comprehensive database of river restoration projects
II. Survey-based database of restoration practices
III. Post-project appraisals (PPA) – California only
BACKGROUND
40,000+
Database
350
Interviews PPAs
40
DEFINITION OF PPA
Evaluation of the effectiveness of restoration projects based onsystematic data collection.
PPA INQUIRIES
I. Was it built as designed?
II. Did it achieve its objectives?
III. Should steps be taken to address unanticipated effects?
IV. How can we improve future restoration design?
BACKGROUND
(Downs & Kondolf 2002; Skinner 1999 adapted from Sadler 1998)
Total PPAs (2005-2007)
California PPAs: 40
Urban stream projects: 20
BACKGROUND
Urban PPAsOther PPAs
San Francisco Bay Area
BACKGROUND
SIZE OF PROJECT REACHES• 61 – 343 meters• Median = 213 meters• Mean = 220 meters
PROJECT COMPLETION• 1995 – 2006
BACKGROUND
WHY RESTORE URBAN STREAMS?
I. Over 130,000 km of streams in the US are impaired by urbanization
II. Hydrologic impacts
III. Water quality impacts
IV. Morphological impacts
V. Biological composition
VI. Ecosystem processes
(Walsh et al. 2005; Suren et al. 2004; US EPA 2000; Paul and Meyer 2001; Sudduth & Meyer 2006)Time
Rat
e of
dis
char
ge Urban
Natural
BACKGROUND
WHY RESTORE URBAN STREAMS?
Atonement for environmental degradation?
• 75% of population lives in cities
• Habitat for potentially diverse and productive biota
• Water and materials conveyance
• Air purification
(United Nations Population Division 1997; Walsh et al. 2005; Paul and Meyer 2001; McPherson et al 1997 )
METHODS
STEPS TO A FULL POST-PROJECT APPRAISAL
I. Success criteria
II. Baseline surveys
III. Design rationale
IV. Design drawings
V. Post-project monitoring surveys
METHODS
(Tompkins 2006, UCB dissertation)
I. Success criteria? 11
II. Pre-project surveys? 8
III. Design rationale stated? 4
IV. Design drawings? 17
V. As-built drawings? 7
VI. Reproducible monitoring? 4
Review project docs & interview stakeholders
DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE
Reconstruct conditions with maps, aerials, etc.
Reconstruct construction of goals by interviews & doc reviewReconstruct design features by interviews & doc reviewReconstruct by ground photos, site evidence, comparison to designEvaluate value of new monitoring program to evaluate performance
YesNo
YesNo
YesNo
YesNo
YesNo
No
FIELD SURVEY METHODS
Goal/ objective definition
Evaluation parameter
Assessment approach
Field survey
technique
Project drivenUser
specified
SELECTION OF EVALUATION PARAMETERS
SELECTION OF ASSESSMENT APPROACHES
I. Interviews with project managers, designers, etc. (18)
II. Cross-section and long profile surveys (16)
III. Photo documentation (14)
IV. Facies/feature maps (12)
V. Hydrologic analysis (7)
VI. Vegetation cover/composition (6)
VII.Substrate analysis (6)
VIII.Interpretation of aerialsand historic maps (4)
IX. Topographic survey (3)
X. Stakeholder surveys (2)Facies/features map
FIELD SURVEY PARAMETERS
PROJECT INTENTS
NRRSS INTENT
Channel reconfiguration: alteration of channel plan form or longitudinal profile and/or day-lighting. Includes stream meander restoration and in-channel structures that alter the thalweg of the stream.
Results:≈ Deep incision has been arrested and stabilized≈ High riparian vegetation survival and natural recruitment≈ Increased complexity on floodplain surfaces
CASE STUDY: BAXTER CREEK AT POINSETT PARKDrainage basin size: 11km2 Restoration size: 70m
Objective: Re-create pre-culvert conditions by restoring sinuosity and riparian vegetation to the newly opened channel
• Lack of documentation and monitoring data restricts evaluation opportunities
• Movement away from “hard” engineering techniques
• Stakeholder involvement and education needed
• Document and disseminate project results
IMPLICATIONSCONCLUSIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
• Is a PPA ever “complete?”• Who is charged with maintenance of project?• More research needed on channel geometry and flow regime for urban
streams (Brown 2000)• If you build it, will they come? (Palmer et al. 997, Bond and Lake 2003)• Connect restoration projects to nearby intact reaches (Palmer et al
1997, Brierley and Fryirs 2000, Morley and Karr 2002, Findlay et al. 2006)
• Consider watershed context for restoration planning• Land-use as limiting factor• Focus on restoration of ecological structure and function in urban
streams (Charbonneau and Resh 1992, Suren and McMurtrie 2005)• Deal with uncertainty through adaptive management
Natural Urban
MORE INFORMATION?
http://repositories.cdlib.org/wrca/
Restoration.ced.berkeley.edu
Shannah AndersonCenter for Environmental Design Research
“Every increment is significant. Any restored habitat will provide a focal point for a few individuals or a few taxa that would not otherwise be present
in the system.” — Iannuzzi and Ludwig 2005
“The success of any attempt to improve the ecological condition of streams in urban areas will largely depend on human attitudes and behaviors