Skip to main content

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

Environmental Management volume 37, pages 862–879 (2006)Cite this article

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Notes

  1. For further details, see EDAW (2003)

  2. For further details, see White (2003).

Literature Cited

  • 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, CA

  • 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, CA

  • 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

  • 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 14:313–324

    Google Scholar 

  • 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/1999/16

  • 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 12:1247–1260

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayley P. B. 1995. Understanding large river-floodplain ecosystems. Bioscience 45:153–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardini, D. 2002 (June 24). Party with a purpose: Hamilton City residents do their part to help levee. Chico Enterprise Record, p. A1

  • Bravard J. P., D. J. Gilvear. 1996. Hydrological and geomorphologic structure of hydrosystems. In: C. M. Elliott (ed.). Fluvial hydrosystems. Chapman & Hall, London. Pp: 510–517

    Google Scholar 

  • Brook A., M. Zint, R. De Young. 2003. Landowners’ responses to an endangered species act listing and implications for encouraging conservation. Conservation Biology 17:1638–1649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown A. G. 2002. Learning from the past: palaeohydrology and palaeoecology. Freshwater Biology 47:817–827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: 22–32

  • CALFED. 2000a. Multi-species conservation strategy. CALFED Bay Delta Program. Sacramento, CA

  • CALFED. 2000b. Strategic plan for ecosystem restoration. CALFED Bay Delta Program. Sacramento, CA

  • CALFED. 2001. Ecosystem restoration program: Draft stage 1 implementation plan. CALFED Bay Delta Program. Sacramento, CA

  • 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, CA

  • California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1991. Guidelines for resource documents. CDPR Resource Protection Division. Sacramento, CA

  • California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1998. Public opinions and attitudes on outdoor recreation in California, 1997. CDPR, Sacramento, CA

  • California Department of Water Resources. 1982. Sacramento River recreation survey, 1980. The California Department of Water Resources—Northern District. Red Bluff, CA

  • California Department of Water Resources. 2005. Flood warnings: Responding to California’s FLOOD CRISIS. The Resources Agency. Sacramento, CA

  • California State Lands Commission. 1993. California’s rivers: A public trust report. Sacramento, CA

  • 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, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily G. C. (ed.). 1997. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, CA

  • Dynesius M., C. Nilsson. 1994. Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems in the northern third of the world. Science 266:753–762

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • EDAW. 2003. Sacramento River public recreation access study. Report to The Nature Conservancy. Available from http://www.sacramentoriverportal.org

  • Ellena, N. 2000. (April 30). Will these lands be available to only a select few people? Chico Enterprise Record, p. 9A

  • 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

  • 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

  • Gleick P. H. 1998. Water in crisis: paths to sustainable water use. Ecological Applications 8:571–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, CA

  • Gore J.A., F.D. Shields. 1995. Can large rivers be restored? Bioscience 45:142–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory R., S. Lichenstein, P. Slovic. 1993. Valuing environmental resources: a constructive approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7:177–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, H. 2003 (January 8). Discussion on habitat conversion permit may kill two land purchases. Chico Enterprise Record, p. 1A

  • 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 9:141–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Imran J., G. Parker, C. Pirmez. 1999. A nonlinear model of flow in meandering submarine and subaerial channels. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 400:295–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, MN

  • 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

  • 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: 23–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney R. L. 1992. Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decision making. Harvard University Press, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly R. 1989. Battling the inland sea. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • King T. F. 1998. Cultural resource laws and practice: An introductory guide. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • King T. F. 2000. Federal planning and historic places: The Section 106 process. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, CA

  • Larsen, E. W. 1995. The mechanics and modeling of river meander migration. PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley

  • 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 30:209–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Leavenworth, S. 2004a (March 28). Rising risk, Part 1. Defenses decayed: Neglected levees pushed past limits. The Sacramento Bee, p. A1

  • Leavenworth, S. 2004b (April 2). Logjam may break on mending levees. The Sacramento Bee, p. A1

  • Malanson G. P. 1993. Riparian landscapes. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Miller R. E., P. D. Blair. 1985. Input–output analysis: Foundations and extensions. Prentice-Hall. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Mount J. F. 1995. California rivers and streams: The conflict between fluvial process and land use. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. 2002. Riparian areas: Functions and strategies for management. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nienhuis P. H., R. S. E. W. Leuven. 2001. River restoration and flood protection: controversy or synergy. Hydrobiologia 444:85–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 81:139–166

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Postel S., B. D. Richter. 2003. Rivers for life: Managing water for people and nature. Island Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 7:349–365

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricciardi A., J. B. Rasmussen. 1999. Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology 13:1220–1222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richter B. D., D. P. Braun, M. A. Mendelson, L. L. Master. 1997. Threats to imperiled freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology 11:1081–1093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richter B. D., R. Mathews, D. L. Harrison, R. Wigington. 2003. Ecologically sustainable water management: managing river flows for ecological integrity. Ecological Applications 13:206–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Rickman D. S., R. K. Schwer. 1993. A systematic comparison of REMI and IMPLAN models: The case of southern Nevada. Review of Regional Studies 23:129–161

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, M. B., and T. Dunne. 2004. Modeling decadal bed material sediment flux based on stochastic hydrology. Water Resources Research 40 40, W03302, doi: 10.1029/2003WR002723

  • 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 12:391–413

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 9:123–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland W. J. 2002. Restoring a sustainable countryside. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17:148–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, S. 2001 (August 2). Sac River plan harmful to humans. Chico News and Review, p. 4

  • The Nature Conservancy. 2003. Modeling plant community types as a function of physical site characteristics. Report to CALFED. Available from http://www.sacramentoriverportal.org

  • 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: 94–108

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, MS

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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, 1997

  • 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 

  • 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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Wilson M. A., S. R. Carpenter. 1999. Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystem services in the United States: 1971–1997. Ecological Applications 9:772–783

    Google Scholar 

  • Wondolleck J. M., S. Yaffee. 2000. Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. The Nature Conservancy, Northern Central Valley Office, Chico, California, 95928, USA

    Gregory H. Golet, Michael D. Roberts, Ryan A. Luster & Gregg Werner

  2. Department of Geology, University of California, Davis, California, 95616, USA

    Eric W. Larsen

  3. EDAW, Sacramento, California, 95814, USA

    Ron Unger

  4. Archaeological Research Program, California State University, Chico, California, 95929, USA

    Gregory G. White

Authors
  1. Gregory H. Golet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael D. Roberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eric W. Larsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ryan A. Luster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ron Unger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gregg Werner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gregory G. White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregory H. Golet.

Appendices

Appendix A

General and Specific Recommendations for Improving Public Access and Recreational Opportunities, Management, and Infrastructure in the Sacramento River Project Area, California.Footnote 1

General Recommendations

  • Improve the condition of boat ramps and other access points

  • Provide more outreach, including brochures, kiosks, and visitor center(s)

  • Provide maps and signage to assist in finding river access and services and to reduce trespassing

  • Increase the number of facilities and amenities such as trails, picnicking, and camping facilities, especially in the southern portion of the study area

  • Minimize conflicts between different recreational uses (e.g., hunting vs. hiking)

  • Increase coordination and resource sharing among management entities, local landowners, and other stakeholders

Specific Recommendations

  • Establish a “Pine Creek Preserve” near the “J” levee setback area with a public nature center and a dynamic river research center: Over 1538 ha of conservation land is currently held by government agencies and nonprofit organizations in the Pine Creek/Hamilton City area (see Figure 1). Included in this area is a complex matrix of habitat types, including riparian forest, grassland, and riverine wetland habitat, as well as a set of current and future horticultural restoration sites. The area offers tremendous research potential, as well as great opportunities for high-quality wildlife-compatible recreational experiences. A concept plan and figure representing a hypothetical “Pine Creek Preserve” is provided in EDAW (2003).

  • Establish facilities to support multiday boating trips on the river: No comprehensive assessment has been made of the recreational facility and access needs of boaters (e.g., kayakers, canoeists) wishing to take multiday trips down the river. Completing such an assessment and filling unmet needs should be a priority, as it would greatly enhance recreational experiences available on the river.

  • Improve public information outreach: The Sacramento River Conservation Area Forum is encouraged to spearhead an effort to widely communicate information on recreation access opportunities to the public. The effort could include development of a river signage program, updated maps and guides, and a public recreation access website (http://www.sacramentoriver).

  • Establish a formalized management coordination committee: The private, local, state, and federal landowner groups and agencies that manage land with public access opportunities should share resources and expertise and develop strategies to address a variety of issues (e.g., coordination of maintenance and law enforcement activities, development of a shared GIS database).

Appendix B

Components of the Cultural Resources Study of Floodplain Lands of the Sacramento River Project Area, California.Footnote 2

  1. 1.

    Overview of the paleoenvironment, prehistory, Native American cultures, history of contact, and postcontact change in the study area

  2. 2.

    Review of documents included in the California Historical Resources Information System housed at the California Office of Historic Preservation

  3. 3.

    Archaeological survey of selected Units of the Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge (conducted to assist USFWS in meeting cultural resource inventory mandates as specified in Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act)

  4. 4.

    Characterization of previously identified and newly discovered cultural resources within the Project area. Includes information on resource location, age, composition, function, cultural affiliation, status, integrity, eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), management concerns, and opportunities for immediate or long-term mitigation

  5. 5.

    Review of curation facilities required to further identify and evaluate cultural materials collected from the project area, including ethnographic, historical, and archaeological items

  6. 6.

    Development of research priorities for the study area; includes identification of pertinent historical, prehistoric and geoarchaeological research themes, and their relevance to specific cultural resources in the project area

  7. 7.

    Summary management plan including recommendations for future investigations, public interpretation of archaeological and paleoenvironmental findings, and administration and coordination for future actions which may affect cultural resources

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Golet, G.H., Roberts, M.D., Larsen, E.W. et al. Assessing Societal Impacts When Planning Restoration of Large Alluvial Rivers: A Case Study of the Sacramento River Project, California. Environmental Management 37, 862–879 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0167-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0167-x

Keywords

  • Floodplain
  • Resource management planning
  • River restoration
  • Sacramento River
  • Societal impacts
  • Stakeholder