What Neighborhood Projects Teach

  • Ann L. Riley
Chapter

Abstract

What have we learned from these cases? Highly impacted urban environments can support dynamic, functioning stream systems that can support fish and wildlife habitat. Most degraded stream systems require an active restoration approach to return stream processes to re-create channels, floodplains, and riparian resources. The exciting relatively new field of historic ecology has increased our awareness of the ecosystems that used to exist and the functions they performed. Typically, we cannot re-create these ecosystems in developed urban areas, but we can create new environments that can emulate some of the past ecological processes and functions. Central to re-creating some of the functionality is advocating for adequate floodplain area so that the streams have room to adjust and re-form. Some of these re-created environments—such as meandering, single-thread channels through restricted floodplain corridors—can illicit derision from academia, which has the tendency to focus on the limitations of the urban landscape and the desirability of returning the historic landscape. From the perspective of needing to create alternatives to single-purpose flood and erosion control projects, however, the urban streams restoration movement has introduced viable environmental alternatives.

References

  1. Ambrose, Jonathan. 2014. Fisheries biologist, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Santa Rosa, CA. Personal communication to author.Google Scholar
  2. Ames, Laurel, and Michael Wellborn. 2011. “Statewide Volunteers, Threatened Again.” California Watershed Network white paper.Google Scholar
  3. Aparicio, Enric, Gerard Carmona-Catot, Peter Moyle, and Emili Garcia-Berthou. 2011. “Development and Evaluation of a Fish-Based Index to Assess Biological Integrity of Mediterranean Streams.” Aquatic Conservation 21 (4):324–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Center for Watershed Protection. 2003. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems. Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection.Google Scholar
  5. Chen, Z. Q. Richard, Kavvas, M. Levent, Hossein Bandeh, Elcin Tan, John Carlon, and Thomas Griggs. 2009. “Study of the Roughness Characteristics of Native Plant Species in California Floodplain Wetlands.” Sacramento: California Department of Water Resources.Google Scholar
  6. Chin, Anne. 2006. “Urban Transformation of River Landscapes in a Global Context.” Geomorphology 79:460–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chin, Anne, Alison Purcell, Jennifer Quan, and Vincent Resh. 2009. “Assessing Geomorphical and Ecological Responses in Restored Step-Pool Systems.” Geological Society of America Special Paper 451:199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cluer B., and C. Thorne. 2014. “A Stream Evolution Model Integrating Habitat and Ecosystem Benefits.” River Research and Applications 30 (2):135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins, Laurel, and Roger Leventhal. 2013. “Regional Curves of Hydraulic Geometry for Wadeable Streams in Marin and Sonoma Counties.” San Francisco Bay Area Data Summary Report, May 10. Prepared for San Francisco Estuary Partnership and US Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  10. Contra Costa County. 2003. Watershed Atlas. Martinez, CA: Contra Costa County Community Development Department and Public Works Department.Google Scholar
  11. Copeland, Ronald R., Dinah N. McComas, Colin R. Thorne, Philip J. Soar, Meg M. Jonas, and Jon B. Fripp. 2001. “Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects.” Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Engineer Research and Development Center ERDC/CHL TR-01-28. Washington, DC: US Army Corps of Engineers.Google Scholar
  12. Dearen, Jason. 2013. “River Otters Coming Back to the Urban Environment.” Contra Costa Times, December 14.Google Scholar
  13. Demers, Jill B., and Josh Scullen. 2010. “Bird Use of Urban Riparian Restoration Sites in Contra Costa County, San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory, California.” Report prepared for the Urban Creeks Council, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  14. DeWeerdt, Sarah. 2014. “Cohabitation.” Conservation, Winter, 33–39.Google Scholar
  15. Dosskey, Michael, Philippe Vidon, Noel Gurwick, Craig Allan, Tim Duval, and Richard Lowrance. 2010. “The Role of Riparian Vegetation in Protecting and Improving Chemical Water Quality in Streams.” Journal of American Water Resources Association, Paper no. JAWRA-09-0035-P:1–18.Google Scholar
  16. Dunne, Thomas, and Luna Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  17. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. “Stream Corridor Restoration, Principles, Processes and Practices.” Washington, DC: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.Google Scholar
  18. Ferguson, Leslie. 2013. Water quality engineer and fish biologist, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, CA. Personal communication to author.Google Scholar
  19. Feyrer, F., T. R Sommer, S. C. Zeug, G. O’Leary, and W. Harrell. 2004. “Fish Assemblages of Perennial Floodplain Ponds of the Sacramento River, California (USA), with Implications for the Conservation of Native Fishes.” Fisheries Management and Ecology 11:335–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischenich, Craig. 2001. “Stability Thresholds for Stream Restoration Materials.” Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, EMRRP Technical Note Collection ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-29. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Corps of Engineers.Google Scholar
  21. Fischenich, J. Craig, and Ronald Copeland. 2001. “Environmental Considerations for Vegetation in Flood Control Channels.” Engineer Research and Development Center ERDC TR-01-16. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Corps of Engineers.Google Scholar
  22. Garcia, Herman. 2014. “The Homeless: Turning the Problem into the Solution.” Presentation to the Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association and Bay Area Watershed Network Annual Conference, February 20, Oakland, CA.Google Scholar
  23. Grand Canyon Trust. 2013. “Beaver: Best Management Practices, A Practical Guide to Living and Working with Beaver.” Solutions to Life on the Colorado Plateau Grand Canyon Trust Utah Forest Program, Flagstaff, AZ.Google Scholar
  24. Gray, D. H., and R. Sotir. 1996. Biotechnical and Soil Bioengineering Slope Stabilization, A Practical Guide for Erosion Control. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Griffin, John. 2015. Director of Urban Wildlife Program, Humane Society of the United States. Written communication to author, December 15.Google Scholar
  26. Griggs, F. Thomas. 2009. California Riparian Habitat Restoration Handbook, 2nd ed. N.P.: California Riparian Habitat Joint Ventures.Google Scholar
  27. Grinnell, J., J. S. Dixon, and J. M. Linsdale. 1937. Fur-Bearing Mammals of California: Their Natural History, Systematic Status and Relations to Man. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hammond, F., Thomas Griggs, and Meghan Gilbert. 2011. “Long-Term Monitoring of Horticultural and Ecological Performance of Riparian Restoration Plantings along the Sacramento River, California, USA.” Report prepared by River Partners, .Google Scholar
  29. Hey, Richard. 1999. “A Geomorphic Approach to Flood Hazard Mitigation and Emergency Response.” National Park Service and Trout Unlimited Workshop. August 3–5, 1999, Livingston Manor, NY.Google Scholar
  30. Lanman C., K. Lundquist, H. Perryman, J. Asarian, B. Dolman, R. Lanman, and M. Pollock, 2013. “The Historic Range of Beaver (Castor canadensis) in Coastal California.” California Fish and Game 99 (4):193–211.Google Scholar
  31. Lazar, Julia, Kelly Addy, Arthur Gold, Peter Groffman, Richard McKinney, and Dorothy Kellogg. 2015. “Beaver Ponds: Resurgent Nitrogen Sinks for Rural Watersheds in the Northeastern United States.” Journal of Environmental Quality 44:1684–1693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee, Liang. 2012. “South Bay Regional Curve for Bankfull Discharge versus Drainage Area.” Graph. Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose, CA.Google Scholar
  33. Lennox, Michael, David Lewis, Kenneth Tate, John Harper, Stephanie Larson, and Randy Jackson. 2007. “Riparian Revegetation Evaluation on California’s North Coast Ranches.” Final Report prepared by University of California Cooperative Extension, County of Sonoma.Google Scholar
  34. Leopold, L. B. 1994. A View of the River. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Leopold, L. B., and M. G. Wolman. 1960. “River Meanders.” Geological Society of America Bulletin 71:769–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leopold, Luna B., M. Gordon Wolman, and John P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  37. Lewis, D., M. Lennox, A. O’Green, J. Creque, V. Eviner, S. Larson, J. Harper, M. Doran, and K. Tate. 2015. “Creek Carbon, Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Riparian Restoration.” University of California Cooperative Extension in Marin County Novato, CA.Google Scholar
  38. Lunde, Kevin. 2014. Environmental specialist, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, CA. Personal communication to author.Google Scholar
  39. Miller, Sarah, and Dan Davis. 2002. “Identifying Relationships for Bankfull Discharge and Hydraulic Geometry at USGS Stream Gage Sites in the Catskill Mountains, New York.” New York City Department of Environmental Protection Stream Management Program.Google Scholar
  40. Mintz, Melanie. 2014. Director of Community Development, City of El Cerrito, CA. Interview.Google Scholar
  41. National Research Council. 2002. Riparian Areas, Functions and Strategies for Management. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  42. National Resources Conservation Service. 2007a. “Streambank Soil Bioengineering Technical Supplement 141.” Part 654, National Engineering Handbook, Table TS141-4. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  43. ——.2007b. “Stream Restoration Design.” Part 654, National Engineering Handbook, 210-VI-NEH. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  44. O’Hara, Janet. 2014. Water quality engineer, San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, CA. Personal communication to author.Google Scholar
  45. Okamoto, Ariel. 1997. “Warblers Refuel at City Creek.” Estuary 6 (6):1.Google Scholar
  46. Pollock, M., T. Beechie, and C. Jordan. 2007. “Geomorphic Changes Upstream of Beaver Dams in Bridge Creek: An Incised Stream Channel in the Interior Columbia River Basin, Eastern, Oregon.” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 32:1174–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pollock, M., G. Press, and T. Beechie. 2004. “The Importance of Beaver Ponds to Coho Salmon Production in the Stillaguamish River Basin, Washington, U.S.A.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:749–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pollock, M. M., G. Lewallen, K. Woodruff, C. E. Jordan, and J. M. Castro, eds. 2015. The Beaver Restoration Guidebook: Working with Beaver to Restore Streams, Wetlands, and Floodplains. Version 1.0. Portland, OR: US Fish and Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
  49. Prunuske, Liza. 2014. Interview. Principal of Prunuske-Chatham Inc., Sebastapol, CA.Google Scholar
  50. Purcell, Alison. 2004. “A Long-Term Post Project Evaluation of an Urban Stream Restoration Project, Baxter Creek, El Cerrito, California.” Restoration of Rivers and Streams, University of California Multi-Campus Research Unit. Water Resources Center Archives, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  51. Purcell, Alison, Carla Friedrich, and Vincent Resh. 2002. “An Assessment for a Small Urban Stream Restoration Project in Northern California.” Restoration Ecology 10 (4):685–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Purdy, Sarah, Peter Moyle, and Kenneth Tate. 2011. “Montane Meadows in the Sierra Nevada: Comparing Terrestrial and Aquatic Assessment Methods.” Center for Watershed Sciences and Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis; Springer Science+Business Media B.V. June 28.Google Scholar
  53. Rantz, S. E. 1971. “Suggested Criteria for Hydrologic Design of Storm-Drainage Facilities in the San Francisco Bay Region, California.” Open File Report 71–341. Menlo Park, CA: US Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  54. Riley, A. L. 1981. Observations and Analysis of Levee Maintenance Practices. Sacramento: California Department of Water Resources.Google Scholar
  55. Riparian Habitat Joint Venture. 2004. The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: A Strategy For Reversing the Decline of Riparian Associated Birds in California. California Partners in Flight. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/pdfs/riparian.v-2.pdf.Google Scholar
  56. ——. 2007. Riparian Habitat Conservation and Flood Management in California. Conference Proceedings, California Partners in Flight, December.Google Scholar
  57. Roesner, Larry A., and Brian P. Bledsoe. 2003. Physical Effects of Wet Weather Flows on Aquatic Habitats: Present Knowledge and Research Needs. London: IWA Publishing.Google Scholar
  58. Roy, A. H., and W. D. Schuster. 2009. “Assessing Impervious Surface Connectivity and Applications for Watershed Management.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association 45 (1):198–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. 2013. Geomorphic Study in San Pedro Creek. Oakland, CA: EOA Inc.Google Scholar
  60. Schumm, S. A., M. D. Harvey, and C. Watson. 1984. Incised Channels: Morphology, Dynamics and Control. Littleton, CO: Water Resources Publications.Google Scholar
  61. Seavy, N. E., T. Gardali, G. H. Golet, F. T. Griggs, C. A. Howell, R. Kelsy, S. L. Small, J. H. Viers, and J. F. Weigand. 2009. “Why Climate Change Makes Riparian Restoration More Important than Ever.” Ecological Restoration 27:330–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2007. “Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Nine San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds.” Oakland, CA: San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.Google Scholar
  63. Shields F. D., and Donald H. Gray. 1992. “Effects of Woody Vegetation on Sandy Levee Integrity.” Water Resources Bulletin 28 (5):917–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shields, F. Douglas. 1991. “Woody Vegetation and Riprap Stability along the Sacramento River Mile 84.5–119.” Water Resources Bulletin 27 (3):527–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shields, F. Douglas, Jr., Ronald Copeland, Peter Klingeman, Martin W. Doyle, and Andrew Simon. 2008. “Stream Restoration.” In Sedimentation Engineering Processes, Measurements, Modeling and Practice (Manual of Practice No. 110), edited by Marcelo Garcia, chap. 9. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.Google Scholar
  66. Simon, A. 1989. “A Model of Channel Response in Distributed Alluvial Channels.” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 14 (1):11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Skidmore, P., C. Thorne, B. Cluer, G. Pess, T. Beechie, J. Castro, and C. Shea. 2009. Science Base Tools for Evaluating Stream Engineering, Management, and Restoration Proposals. NOAA Fisheries and US Fish and Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
  68. Soar, Phillip, and Colin Thorne. 2001. “Channel Restoration Design for Meandering Rivers.” Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Engineer Research and Development Center ERDC/CHL CR-01-1. Washington, DC: US Army Corps of Engineers.Google Scholar
  69. Sommer, T. R., M. L. Nobriga, W. C. Harrell, W. J. Batham, and W. J. Kimmerer. 2001. “Floodplain Rearing of Juvenile Chinook Salmon: Evidence of Enhanced Growth and Survival.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58 (2):325–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sullivan, Joe. 2015. Fisheries program manager, East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, CA. Personal communication to author.Google Scholar
  71. Tappe, D. T. 1942. “The Status of Beavers in California.” California Department of Natural Resources, Game Bulletin 3:4–41.Google Scholar
  72. Thorne, C. R. 1999 “Bank Processes and Channel Evolution in the Incised Rivers of North-Central Mississippi.” In Incised River Channels, edited by S. E. Darby and A. Simon, 97–122. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  73. Thorne, Colin R., Richard Hey, and Malcolm Newson. 1997. Applied Fluvial Geomorphology for River Engineering and Management. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  74. US Army Corps of Engineers. 2011. “Initial Research into the Effects of Woody Vegetation on Levees, Summary of Results and Conclusions.” Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Corps of Engineers.Google Scholar
  75. Walsh, Christopher, Tim Fletcher, and Anthony Ladson. 2005. “Stream Restoration in Urban Catchments through Redesigning Stormwater Systems: Looking to the Catchment to Save the Streams.” Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24 (3): 690–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Warner, Richard E., and Kathleen M. Hendrix, eds. 1984. California Riparian Systems, Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  77. Weiss, S. B., N. Schafer, and R. Branciforte. 2010. “San Francisco Bay Area Upland Goals Draft.” Riparian/Fish Focus Team Report, Bay Area Open Space Council, California Coastal Conservancy, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Oakland, CA.Google Scholar
  78. Wise, Scott, Pete Alexander, and Matt Graul. 2007. “Fisheries Habitat Inventory and Assessment for Lower Wildcat Creek.” Oakland, CA: East Bay Regional Park District for the Urban Creeks Council.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ann Riley 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann L. Riley

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations