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.
PROJECT INTENTS
RESTORATION OBJECTIVES # reporting*Channel reconfiguration 18 Riparian management 15 Bank stabilization 14Aesthetics, recreation, education 10In-stream habitat improvement 8 Water quality management 6Stormwater management 5Floodplain reconnection 5Fish passage 2Dam removal/retrofit 0In-stream species management 0Land acquisition 0
* Multiple responses allowed
* Multiple responses allowed
ACTIVITIES (COMMON)*
•Bank/channel reshaping (16)•Revegetation (14)•Grading banks (13) •Grading - plan form (12)•Grading floodplain (10)•Boulders added (8)•Wiers installed (6)
San Francisco
Berkeley
CASE STUDIES
CASE STUDY: SAUSAL CREEKDrainage basin size: 8 km2 Restoration size: 183m
Objectives: Restore stable channel profile and meander sequence, stabilize banks, restoring native vegetation
PPA surveys: cross-section & long profile surveys, behavior mapping, veg transects,
Results: ≈ increased instream habitat value≈ diverse riparian veg
≈ high use by public
CASE STUDY: TASSAJARA CREEKDrainage basin size: 60km2
Objectives: Reconnect low flow channel & floodplain, enhance native riparian cover, vegetate new floodplain surfaces; convey 100-year flow; convey sediment loads
Design approach: Compound channel
PPA surveys: Cross-section & long profile, veg mapping, aerial photo interpretation, HEC RAS
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
Design approach: Step-pool channel
PPA surveys: Cross-section long profile surveys, BMI surveys, stakeholder survey, Rapid Bioassessment
Results: ≈ Exhibiting step self-organization≈ Improved vegetative protection≈ Positive reception of project (89% & 95%)
CODORNICES CREEK
RESULTSPOSITIVE OUTCOMES
I. Successful vegetation establishment
II. Stable channel geometry
III. More complex channel features
IV. Increase of use and/or stewardship
Chin and Wohl 2005
NEGLIGIBLE OR ADVERSE OUTCOMES
I. Banks not as stable as desired
II. Minimal change in water quality
III. Limited access and/or poor reception of project
IV. Upstream/downstream constraints
INDIRECT OUTCOMES
Grade control from US/DS culverts, shopping carts as restoration elements,
step-pool channel formation, demonstration project
LESSONS LEARNED
• Projects did not have quantitative objectives
• Projects had incompatible project objectives
• 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
University of [email protected] ● (510) 642-2904
“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
within the catchments.” — Booth 2005
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CALFED Bay-Delta AuthorityMatt KondolfChristopher BentonToby MinearMark TompkinsAlison PurcellJane WardaniMaggie McKeonColleen BronnerFran SmithSarah BerndtAlicia GilbreathMary CousinsRune StoresundMelissa AsherKaumudi AtapattuStephanie Gerson
Cris BentonWater Resources Center ArchivesShiva NiaziDrew GoettingCarole SchemmerlingA.L. RileyMelanie MintzAimee RuskewiczAli SchwartzJosh BradtSarah SuttonSusan SchwartzFriends of Sausal CreekKate TollefsonTed GranthamBetsey EagonJonathan Largent