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 Californiashannahanderson@berkeley.edu ● (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