Environmental Management

, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 862–879 | Cite as

Assessing Societal Impacts When Planning Restoration of Large Alluvial Rivers: A Case Study of the Sacramento River Project, California

  • Gregory H. Golet
  • Michael D. Roberts
  • Eric W. Larsen
  • Ryan A. Luster
  • Ron Unger
  • Gregg Werner
  • Gregory G. White
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Abstract

Studies have shown that ecological restoration projects are more likely to gain public support if they simultaneously increase important human services that natural resources provide to people. River restoration projects have the potential to influence many of the societal functions (e.g., flood control, water quality) that rivers provide, yet most projects fail to consider this in a comprehensive manner. Most river restoration projects also fail to take into account opportunities for revitalization of large-scale river processes, focusing instead on opportunities presented at individual parcels. In an effort to avoid these pitfalls while planning restoration of the Sacramento River, we conducted a set of coordinated studies to evaluate societal impacts of alternative restoration actions over a large geographic area. Our studies were designed to identify restoration actions that offer benefits to both society and the ecosystem and to meet the information needs of agency planning teams focusing on the area. We worked with local partners and public stakeholders to design and implement studies that assessed the effects of alternative restoration actions on flooding and erosion patterns, socioeconomics, cultural resources, and public access and recreation. We found that by explicitly and scientifically melding societal and ecosystem perspectives, it was possible to identify restoration actions that simultaneously improve both ecosystem health and the services (e.g., flood protection and recreation) that the Sacramento River and its floodplain provide to people. Further, we found that by directly engaging with local stakeholders to formulate, implement, and interpret the studies, we were able to develop a high level of trust that ultimately translated into widespread support for the project.

Keywords

Floodplain Resource management planning River restoration Sacramento River Societal impacts Stakeholder 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and the US Fish and Wildlife Service for funding the studies profiled in this article. We thank the Wildlife Conservation Board, the California Department of Fish and Game, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the various stakeholder groups that worked with us to help define and implement these studies. We thank private individuals who made donations to The Nature Conservancy, as their contributions supported the writing of this manuscript. We acknowledge Sam Lawson and Dawit Zeleke for their support and skillful leadership of the Sacramento River Project. We thank Marlyce Myers for strategic advice on planning and for managing the socioeconomic study, David Jukkola and Seth Paine for making figures, Amy Hoss for assistance with outreach, and Wendie Duron, Cori Ong and Jan Karolyi for administrative assistance. This aricle was improved thanks to insightful comments from Virginia Dale, Mary Gleason, Karen Holl, Peter Kareiva, Rich Reiner, Stacey Solie, Andy Warner, and especially Bill Parris, a local stakeholder who helped us present a balanced perspective.

Literature Cited

  1. Adams, R. G., and D. E. Gallo. 1999. The impact on Glenn County property tax revenues of public land acquisitions in the Sacramento River Conservation Area. Chico Research Foundation, Office of Sponsored Programs, California State University, Chico. Prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, R. G., and D. E. Gallo. 2001. The economic impact on Glenn County of public land acquisition and habitat restoration activities in the Sacramento River Conservation Area. Chico Research Foundation, Office of Sponsored Programs, California State University, Chico. Prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayres Associates. 2002. Two-dimensional hydraulic modeling of the Upper Sacramento River, RM 194.0 TO RM 202.0, including riparian restoration, two setback levee alternatives, and east levee removal. Glenn and Butte Counties, California. Report to The Nature Conservancy. Available from http://www.sacramentoriverportal.org
  4. Baker J. P., D. W. Hulse, S. V. Gregory, D. White, J. Van Sickle, P. A. Berger, D. Dole, N. H. Schumaker. 2004. Alternative futures for the Willamette River basin, Oregon. Ecological Applications 14:313–324Google Scholar
  5. Balsom, J. R. 1999. Cultural resources and the Glen Canyon Dam: Colorado River experimental flow of 1996. Pages 183–194 in C. Van Riper III, and M. A. Stuart (eds.). Proceeedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference of Research on the Colorado Plateau. US Geologic Survey/FRESC Report Series USGSFRESC/COPL/1999/16Google Scholar
  6. Baron J. S., N. L. Poff, P. L. Angermeier, C. N. Dahm, P. H. Gleick, N. G. Hairston Jr., R. B. Jackson, C. L. Johnston, B. D. Richter, A. D. Steinman. 2002. Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwater. Ecological Applications 12:1247–1260Google Scholar
  7. Bayley P. B. 1995. Understanding large river-floodplain ecosystems. Bioscience 45:153–158Google Scholar
  8. Bernardini, D. 2002 (June 24). Party with a purpose: Hamilton City residents do their part to help levee. Chico Enterprise Record, p. A1Google Scholar
  9. Bravard J. P., D. J. Gilvear. 1996. Hydrological and geomorphologic structure of hydrosystems. In: C. M. Elliott (ed.). Fluvial hydrosystems. Chapman & Hall, London. Pp: 510–517Google Scholar
  10. Brook A., M. Zint, R. De Young. 2003. Landowners’ responses to an endangered species act listing and implications for encouraging conservation. Conservation Biology 17:1638–1649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown A. G. 2002. Learning from the past: palaeohydrology and palaeoecology. Freshwater Biology 47:817–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buer, K., D. Forwalter, M. Kissel, and B. Stohler. 1989. The middle Sacramento River: Human impacts on physical and ecological processes along a meandering river. In: D. L. Abell (ed.). Proceedings of the California riparian systems conference: Protection management and restoration for the 1990s. General Technical Report PSW-110. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U S Department of Agriculture, Berkeley, CA pp: 22–32Google Scholar
  13. CALFED. 2000a. Multi-species conservation strategy. CALFED Bay Delta Program. Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  14. CALFED. 2000b. Strategic plan for ecosystem restoration. CALFED Bay Delta Program. Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  15. CALFED. 2001. Ecosystem restoration program: Draft stage 1 implementation plan. CALFED Bay Delta Program. Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  16. California Department of Fish and Game. 2002. Guide and annotated outline for writing land management plans. California Department of Fish and Game, Lands and Facilities Branch, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  17. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1991. Guidelines for resource documents. CDPR Resource Protection Division. Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  18. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1998. Public opinions and attitudes on outdoor recreation in California, 1997. CDPR, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  19. California Department of Water Resources. 1982. Sacramento River recreation survey, 1980. The California Department of Water Resources—Northern District. Red Bluff, CAGoogle Scholar
  20. California Department of Water Resources. 2005. Flood warnings: Responding to California’s FLOOD CRISIS. The Resources Agency. Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  21. California State Lands Commission. 1993. California’s rivers: A public trust report. Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  22. Cordell H. K., C. Betz, J. M. Boker, D. English, S. Mou, J. Bergstrom, R. J. Teasley, M. Tarrant, and J. Loomis. 1999. Outdoor recreation in American life: A national assessment of demand and supply trends. Sagamore Inc., Champaign, ILGoogle Scholar
  23. Daily G. C. (ed.). 1997. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. De Haven, R. 2000. Impacts of riprapping to ecosystem functioning, Lower Sacramento River California. US Fish and Wildlife Service Report to the US Army Corps of Engineers. Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  25. Dynesius M., C. Nilsson. 1994. Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems in the northern third of the world. Science 266:753–762Google Scholar
  26. EDAW. 2003. Sacramento River public recreation access study. Report to The Nature Conservancy. Available from http://www.sacramentoriverportal.org
  27. Ellena, N. 2000. (April 30). Will these lands be available to only a select few people? Chico Enterprise Record, p. 9AGoogle Scholar
  28. Failing, L., G. Horn, and P. Higgins. 2004. Using expert judgement and stakeholder values to evaluate adaptive management options. Ecology and Society 9(1):13 [online]; URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art13
  29. Gascoyne, T. 2001. Blake’s take on the lake. Chico News & Review. Available from http://www.newsreview.com/issues/chico/2001-07-12/cover2.asp
  30. Gleick P. H. 1998. Water in crisis: paths to sustainable water use. Ecological Applications 8:571–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Golet, G. H., D. L. Brown, E. E. Crone, G. R. Geupel, S. E. Greco, K. D. Holl, D. E. Jukkola, G. M. Kondolf, E. W. Larsen, F. K. Ligon, R. A. Luster, M. P. Marchetti, N. Nur, B. K. Orr, D. R. Peterson, M. E. Power, W. E. Rainey, M. D. Roberts, J. G. Silveira, S. L. Small, J. C. Vick, D. S. Wilson, and D. M. Wood. 2003. Using science to evaluate restoration efforts and ecosystem health on the Sacramento River Project, California. Pages 368–385 in P. M. Faber (ed.). California riparian systems: Processes and floodplain management, ecology, and restoration. 2001 Riparian Habitat and Floodplains Conference Proceedings, Riparian Habitat Joint Venture, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  32. Gore J.A., F.D. Shields. 1995. Can large rivers be restored? Bioscience 45:142–152Google Scholar
  33. Gregory R., S. Lichenstein, P. Slovic. 1993. Valuing environmental resources: a constructive approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7:177–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hacking, H. 2003 (January 8). Discussion on habitat conversion permit may kill two land purchases. Chico Enterprise Record, p. 1AGoogle Scholar
  35. Harper D. M., M. Ebrahimnezhad, E. Taylor, S. Dickinson, O. Decamp, G. Verniers, T. Balbi. 1999. A catchment-scale approach to the physical restoration of lowland UK rivers. Aquatic Conservation .Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 9:141–157Google Scholar
  36. Imran J., G. Parker, C. Pirmez. 1999. A nonlinear model of flow in meandering submarine and subaerial channels. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 400:295–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johannesson, H., and G. Parker. 1989. Computer simulated migration of meandering rivers in Minnesota. Prepared for Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources, State of Minnesota, Project Report No. 242. Saint Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MNGoogle Scholar
  38. Jones and Stokes. 2003. Socioeconomic assessment of proposed habitat restoration within the riparian corridor of the Sacramento River conservation area. Report to The Nature Conservancy. Available from http://www.sacramentoriverportal.org
  39. Katibah E. F. 1984. A brief history of riparian forests in the Central Valley of California. In: R. E. Warner, K. M. Hendrix (eds.). California riparian systems: Ecology conservation and productive management. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. pp: 23–29Google Scholar
  40. Keeney R. L. 1992. Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decision making. Harvard University Press, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  41. Kelly R. 1989. Battling the inland sea. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  42. King T. F. 1998. Cultural resource laws and practice: An introductory guide. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CAGoogle Scholar
  43. King T. F. 2000. Federal planning and historic places: The Section 106 process. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CAGoogle Scholar
  44. Kondolf, G. M., T. Griggs, E. Larsen, S. McBain, M. Tompkins, J. Williams, and J. Vick. 2000. Flow regime requirements for habitat restoration along the Sacramento River between Colusa and Red Bluff. CALFED Bay Delta Program Integrated Storage Investigation, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  45. Larsen, E. W. 1995. The mechanics and modeling of river meander migration. PhD dissertation. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  46. Larsen E. W., S. E. Greco. 2002. Modeling channel management impacts on river migration: A case study of Woodson Bridge State Recreation Area, Sacramento River, California, USA. Environmental Management 30:209–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Larsen, E. W, E. Anderson, E. Avery, and K. Dole. 2002. The controls on and evolution of channel morphology of the Sacramento River: A case study of River Miles 201–185. Report to The Nature Conservancy. Available from http://www.sacramentoriverportal.org
  48. Leavenworth, S. 2004a (March 28). Rising risk, Part 1. Defenses decayed: Neglected levees pushed past limits. The Sacramento Bee, p. A1Google Scholar
  49. Leavenworth, S. 2004b (April 2). Logjam may break on mending levees. The Sacramento Bee, p. A1Google Scholar
  50. Malanson G. P. 1993. Riparian landscapes. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Micheli E. R., J. W. Kirchner, E. W. Larsen. 2003. Quantifying the effect of riparian forest versus agricultural vegetation on river meander migration rates, Central Sacramento River, California. River Research and Applications 19:1–12.Google Scholar
  52. Miller R. E., P. D. Blair. 1985. Input–output analysis: Foundations and extensions. Prentice-Hall. Engelwood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  53. Mount J. F. 1995. California rivers and streams: The conflict between fluvial process and land use. University of California Press. Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  54. National Research Council. 2002. Riparian areas: Functions and strategies for management. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  55. Nienhuis P. H., R. S. E. W. Leuven. 2001. River restoration and flood protection: controversy or synergy. Hydrobiologia 444:85–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Peterson T. R., C. C. Horton. 1995. Rooted in the soil: how understanding the perspectives of landowners can enhance the management of environmental disputes. Quarterly Journal of Speech 81:139–166Google Scholar
  57. Poff N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks, J. C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime. Bioscience 47:769–784.Google Scholar
  58. Postel S., B. D. Richter. 2003. Rivers for life: Managing water for people and nature. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  59. Reading R. P., T. W. Clark, S. R. Kellert. 1994. Attitudes and knowledge of people living in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Society and Natural Resources 7:349–365Google Scholar
  60. Rhoads B. L., D. Wilson, M. Urban, E. E. Herricks. 1999. Interaction between scientists and nonscientists in community-based watershed management: Emergence of the concept of stream naturalization. Environmental Management 24:297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ricciardi A., J. B. Rasmussen. 1999. Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology 13:1220–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Richter B. D., D. P. Braun, M. A. Mendelson, L. L. Master. 1997. Threats to imperiled freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology 11:1081–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Richter B. D., R. Mathews, D. L. Harrison, R. Wigington. 2003. Ecologically sustainable water management: managing river flows for ecological integrity. Ecological Applications 13:206–224Google Scholar
  64. Rickman D. S., R. K. Schwer. 1993. A systematic comparison of REMI and IMPLAN models: The case of southern Nevada. Review of Regional Studies 23:129–161Google Scholar
  65. Shindler, B., and K. Aldred Cheek. 1999. Integrating citizens in adaptive management: A propositional analysis. Conservation Ecology 3(1):9 [online]; URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art9
  66. Singer M. B., T. Dunne. 2001. Identifying eroding and depositional reaches of valley by analysis of suspended sediment transport in the Sacramento River, California. Water Resources Research 37:3371–3381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Singer, M. B., and T. Dunne. 2004. Modeling decadal bed material sediment flux based on stochastic hydrology. Water Resources Research 40 40, W03302, doi: 10.1029/2003WR002723Google Scholar
  68. Stanford J. A., J. V. Ward, W. J. Liss, C. A. Frissell, R. N. Williams, J. A. Lichatowich, C. C. Coutant. 1996. A general protocol for restoration of regulated rivers. Regulated Rivers .Research and Management 12:391–413Google Scholar
  69. Sullivan S., E. McMann, R. De Young, D. Erickson. 1996. Farmers’ attitudes about farming and the environment: A survey of conventional and organic farmers. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 9:123–143Google Scholar
  70. Sutherland W. J. 2002. Restoring a sustainable countryside. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17:148–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sutton, S. 2001 (August 2). Sac River plan harmful to humans. Chico News and Review, p. 4Google Scholar
  72. The Nature Conservancy. 2003. Modeling plant community types as a function of physical site characteristics. Report to CALFED. Available from http://www.sacramentoriverportal.org
  73. Theodori, G. L., A. E. Luloff, and F. K. Willits. 1998. The association of outdoor recreation and environmental concern: Reexamining the Dunlap-Heffernan thesis. Rural Sociology 63: 94–108Google Scholar
  74. US Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Users Guide to RMA2 WES Version 4.3. Waterways Experiment Station Hydraulics Laboratory, US Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MSGoogle Scholar
  75. US Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Sacramento and San Joaquin basins comprehensive study: Technical Documentation. US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CA. Available from http://www.compstudy.org/reports.html
  76. US Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins comprehensive study Hamilton City flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration fact sheet. US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CA. Available from http://www.compstudy.org/hamilton.html
  77. US Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Hamilton City flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, California. Final feasibility report and environmental impact statement/environmental impact report. US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CA. Available from http://www.compstudy.org/hamilton.html
  78. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Public Law 105-57, signed by President William J. Clinton on October 9, 1997Google Scholar
  79. Ward J. V., K. Tockner, U. Uehlinger, F. Mallard. 2001. Understanding natural patterns and processes in river corridors as the basis for effective river restoration. Regulated Rivers .Research and Management 17:311–323.Google Scholar
  80. Whalen P. J., L. A. Toth, J. W. Koebel, P. K. Strayer. 2002. Kissimmee River restoration: A case study. Water Science and Technology 45(11):55–62.Google Scholar
  81. White, G. G. 2003. Cultural resource overview and management plan. Tehama, Glenn, Butte, and Colusa counties, California. California State University, Chico Archaeological Research Program Reports, No. 50. Report to The Nature Conservancy. Available from http://www.sacramentoriverportal.org
  82. Wilson M. A., S. R. Carpenter. 1999. Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystem services in the United States: 1971–1997. Ecological Applications 9:772–783Google Scholar
  83. Wondolleck J. M., S. Yaffee. 2000. Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory H. Golet
    • 1
  • Michael D. Roberts
    • 1
  • Eric W. Larsen
    • 2
  • Ryan A. Luster
    • 1
  • Ron Unger
    • 3
  • Gregg Werner
    • 1
  • Gregory G. White
    • 4
  1. 1.The Nature Conservancy, Northern Central Valley OfficeChicoUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  3. 3.EDAWSacramentoUSA
  4. 4.Archaeological Research ProgramCalifornia State UniversityChicoUSA

Personalised recommendations