Restoration of Urban Waterways

Kyle RodgersRestoration Ecology

Spring 2011

From Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality:

“Specifically, restoration is the re-establishment of chemical, physical, and biological components of an aquatic ecosystem that have been compromised by stressors…”

Why?

• Benefits for urban development– Creation of a sense of place?

• Legally required– TMDLs, Clean Water Act, etc.

Reasons for RestorationAccording to Wolf Creek Community Alliance: “It is a win-win proposition for which we can gain widespread community support. A restored creek and trail...

– offer recreational opportunities, such as walking and bicycle trails

– increase economic vitality by drawing tourists and encouraging residents to spend more time downtown

– provide a relaxing and revitalizing environment, and a cool sanctuary in the summer

– increase the value of the creek as a wildlife habitat

– offer better flood control

– offer opportunities for community involvement

– offer educational opportunities for students as an outdoor laboratory

– increase community pride”Only 1 of 8 reasons offered for creek restoration acknowledges benefits to other species

South Platte River

• Devastating flooding in 1965 triggers efforts to clean and improve the river

• The river in Denver receives scathing commentary prior to this described as “little more than an urban ditch, filled with abandoned cars, sewage…” (American Rivers)

South Platte River

The South Platte river bank is stabilized with buried riprap and bordered by Western wheatgrass, alkali Sacaton, switchgrass, green needlegrass, blue grama, sandburg bluegrass and plains coreopsis

Recreational use of the river has soared.

In turn, citizens have become more concerned about water quality.

Source: http://www.landscapeonline.com/research/article.php?id=8984

Baxter Creek

• Baxter Creek was originally buried during development of Cerrito, CA

• Failing culvert had to be addressed:A) Continue to maintain it

ORB) Consider an alternative solution

Baxter Creek

• Baxter Creek in the Mid/early 1990s

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wrca/147758974/

Pool-Riffle Design

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wrca/147758996/in/photostream/

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wrca/147759045/in/photostream

San Luis Obispo Creek

• “Trash in San Luis Obispo Creek seems to be the rule rather than the exception…”

• A walk along the creek was “an aesthetically disgusting experience.”

• “The stream is being used as an open sewer.”

According to: A BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEKPrepared forCentral Coastal Regional Water Quality Control Boardby George D. NokesPollution BioanalystSeptember 15, 1966

San Luis Obispo:

“The City made the critical choice not to convert its creeks to the concrete-lined, vertical walled channels found in many California cities. Instead, the Council adopted a flood management policy which committed the City to an environmentally-sensitive program of protecting creeks while reducing the risk of flooding.”

• Reaches within the city lack pools, riffles, in-stream shelter, gravel substrate and a riparian corridor

• Riparian vegetation has been replaced with cement sacks and rip-rap (Cleveland, 1996)

• San Luis Obispo Creek continues to support a population of steelhead trout (Cannata, 1989)

San Luis Obispo Creek

Conclusions

“Each restoration opportunity is unique and some principles that apply to one watershed absolutely do not apply to another.” – Todd Harris, Metro Wastewater Reclamation District

Restoration success is not necessarily ecological success (Palmer et al., 2005)

-highlighting the importance of well-defined goals

Are these examples examples of ecological restoration or just riverfront revitilization?

Referenceshttp://www.wolfcreekalliance.org/restoration.html

http://blog4jen.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/san-luis-obispo-urban-creek-restoration/

http://creekdocs.clevelandcreations.com/

PALMER, M., BERNHARDT, E., ALLAN, J. D., LAKE, P., ALEXANDER, G., BROOKS, S., CARR, J., CLAYTON, S., DAHM, C. N., FOLLSTAD SHAH, J., GALAT, D. L., LOSS, S. G., GOODWIN, P., HART, D., HASSETT, B., JENKINSON, R., KONDOLF, G., LAVE, R., MEYER, J., O'DONNELL, T., PAGANO, L. and SUDDUTH, E. (2005), Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42: 208–217. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01004.x

http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/reports-and-publications/chapter_32ae7.pdf