Yosemite Slough Wetland Restoration

Note: much of this information is from a talk I attended 2 weeks ago about the Yosemite Slough restoration project.

Yosemite slough was recently "restored" by WRA Environmental Consultants. The project is part of the larger Candlestick Point State Recreation Area, which is in the planning and design stages. The site is also adjacent to the large development proposed at Bayview-Hunter's Point. (See photo). The project was surrounded by industrial sites and vacant lots. The vacant lots were purchased, and the land was bought for restoration purposes.

The project was funded primarily through mitigation from BART, SFO, and other sources, who needed to recreate tidal marsh habitat that they had previously destroyed. The rest of the funding came from the proposed adjacent development. Thus, the criteria for success was simply the creation of enough tidal marsh habitat to offset what was destroyed.

Sea-level-rise was taken into consideration for the project, in that the site was graded to allow tidal marsh habitat to gradually move uphill in response to sea level changes. Under current regulations, mitigation projects are considered successful if they create sufficient habitat within 5 years. However, after 5 years, all bets are off. The huge irony inherent in this project is that millions of dollars were spent to recreate tidal marsh habitat that will be completely underwater by 2080!! The question then becomes, how can restoration in the name of mitigation be justified when the temporal scale of regulations is only 5 years, particularly when sea level rise is taken into consideration?

Sonoma Land Trust's Sear's Point Restoration Plan

The Sears Point Wetlands and Watershed Restoration Project Final Preliminary Plan from 2007 seems to be a relatively good example of how ecological concepts and social and economic considerations are incorporated into a Restoration plan. I am unable to comment on their criteria for success at this point because a monitoring plan is forthcoming.

Stakeholders were involved throughout the process, including adjacent landowners, scientists.

Relationship to landscape scale, regional setting and other restoration projects were considered in the project scoping and the existing conditions description. The use of “landscape planning units” as a main planning principle brings elements of landscape ecology and community assembly in to play.

Opportunities and Constraints analysis took into consideration ecological resources, topography and hydrology, flood protection, infrastructure, invasive species, and public access. Additional considerations included cultural resources, sea level rise, hunting activities, contaminated soil, mercury, mosquito production, agriculture conversion, and existing land use. I was disappointed that climate change and sea level rise were only considered as an “additional consideration” and not a major driver in the decision of whether or not to restore the wetland.

The plan includes one specific restoration project (Diked Baylands Restoration and Enhancement), and a section devoted to watershed (upland areas) management and enhancement. I will focus on the former. The restoration plan built upon the existing conditions and opportunities and constraints chapters. The Plan started with design goals, moved into an alternatives analysis, included supporting design elements (engineering models, trails, utility relocation), site management (storm water, vegetation management, mosquito control, adaptive management), operations and maintenance, a cost estimate, and an alternatives comparison. It is not clear in the document which alternative was chosen as the preferred alternative to be implemented, or when implementation will begin. The “economic consideration” was simply the inclusion and consideration of implementation costs. It is also not clear whether this will weigh heavily in the Sonoma land Trust’s decision of which alternative to implement.

Overall, I think the plan is well organized and well grounded in ecological theory. It would have been a stronger plan if future conditions were considered a bit more strongly throughout the plan.

Daylighting of Tennesse Hollow

Tennessee Hollow Watershed, Thompson's Reach Daylighting 
The Presidio, CA

 Tennessee Hollow is the largest watershed within the Presidio and comes from three natural springs. Recent initiatives plan to restore segments of the reaches under a watershed Revitalization project, and in 2005, a large daylighting project kicked off the process.

This 150 meter segment of Tennessee Hollow removed 77,000 tons of landfill and removed this short segment of the stream from pipes. Five years have passed since construction on the project. A monitoring plan was done in 2007, but as far I know, this is the only published monitoring document and does not live up to the initial goals of a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 year monitoring program that they originally planned. Specifically looking at the vegetation monitoring process, the 2007 monitoring results included a point, grid and ocular sampling, yet the three are not as comprehensive as other processes. Joe Mcbride, a UC Berkeley faculty member who was consulted on this project suggested a different type of monitoring plan but the head ecologist refused and used his own hybrid system because it was easier. Therefore the quality and the frequency of monitoring on this site has fallen short of its goals.

 In talking with various project contributors, one of the problems with the vegetation is that plant community zones were created and there wasn't a specific plan for the distribution of the plants otherwise. During planting parties, volunteers were given very basic instruction on how to plant the 35,000 seedlings and therefore didn't necessarily achieve the right community plant structure that would occur naturally, but rather patterns of individual aesthetic bias.

Having recently tried to do research on the site, I'm a little disappointed in it's "success." Surely the vegetation has thrived, as evidenced by the incredibly lush patches of willow.  However, the site according to the Presidio's ecologist Mark Frey, is off limits to the public. While restoration projects should surely be allowed time to grow and thrive without human disturbance, I have a strong belief that restoration projects should seek to involve the public over time. After 5 years of undisturbed growth, it seems that the vegetation is strong enough to encounter interaction with the public. It also seems like with so much money spent on a project like this, it only seems worth while in the long run if it provides some sort of public benefit in this urban context. I would suggest a second round of design that is interactive and allows visitors to experience the site and possibly even be able to see that the stream is coming out of and going into pipes on both ends. On a plus side, I will note that studies have shown dramatic increases in wildlife habitat in this area.

Restoring Thermal Refugia for Coho Salmon in the Mid-Klamath

Mid Klamath Creek Mouth and Off-Channel Enhancement Project
http://www.mkwc.org/programs/fisheries/index.html

This project is being led by the Mid-Klamath Watershed Council and implemented a survey of creek mouths of tributaries that flow into the Mid-Klamath River. The project was conducted through partnerships with tribal agencies, local landowners and area residents.

The primary project goal was to identify and prioritize restoration projects at creek mouths, which allow coho salmon to access cold water "thermal refugia" within the creeks. These refugia are often pools and low gradient stream segments within flood plain areas around creek mouths of creeks. They are important during low flow summer months, when the mainstem Klamath temperature can become lethal for salmon. Recent infrared images show the temperature differences between the mainstem. Many of the creek mouth restorations have recently been implemented, and involve a wide range of interventions -- ranging from building step pools, to removing blocked culverts, to redirecting creek flows.

Several interesting elements of these projects are 1) prioritization, 2) the role of historic conditions, and 3) implications of funding limitations, 4) community involvement, and 5) monitoring. What stands out in this project is the broad range of partnerships that allow for extensive fish monitoring and stream temperature measurements to take place, with community volunteers. Photo point monitoring and snorkeling surveys at the creek mouths is a main monitoring strategy.
The funding limitations however, require the organization to carefully prioritize creek restoration projects, through a) evaluating the physical barriers for fish to reach refugia, because creek sites are all different and require different interventions, and b) comparing the abundance of coho currently found in the region.
Historical aerial photos provide a useful record of historic conditions that enhanced cold water creeks, and highlight the issue of changes over time in the creek beds. Some creek beds have changed drastically, as a result of drastic human intervention in the system from road building and mining. In some cases, landslides have caused creeks to shift out of old creek beds into a new drainage channel. What does this mean for restoration?

In some cases, restoration groups would prefer a restoration project that addresses changes in creek hydrology at a fundamental level, but these large-scale changes are expensive and political. Instead, what is feasible is only the band-aid solution -- providing a mini-refugia. This brings up the scale issue. Restoration managers bring up the issue of whether the spacing of the refugia is adequate and would like to do more, but potential for landscape scale restoration is only just now becoming a possibility with the Klamath Restoration Settlement.

Forest Landscape Restoration

The Dinkey Landscape Restoration Project, which is being conducted at the Sierra National Forest, has been recently funded by the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, which is administered by the United States Forest Service. “The purpose of the CFLR Program is to encourage the collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration of priority forest landscapes.” More specifically, this program strives to “1) encourage ecological, economic, and social sustainability; 2) leverage local resources with national and private resources; 3) facilitate the reduction of wildfire management costs, including through reestablishing natural fire regimes and reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire; 4) demonstrate the degree to which various ecological restoration techniques achieve ecological and watershed health objectives; and, 5) encourage utilization of forest restoration by-products to offset treatment costs, to benefit local rural economies, to and improve forest health”. Projects must occur primarily on National Forests.

I imagine that all large restoration projects funded by the federal government must have fairly strong scientific justification, and thus it is not surprising that the project I am focusing on (The Dinkey Landscape Restoration Project) is firmly rooted in current science; it relies heavily on the recent publication “An Ecosystem Management Strategy for Sierran Mixed-Conifer Forests” (North et al. 2009). Specific goals of this project include: 1) reduction of wildfire threat to neighboring communities via fuels treatments, 2) improvement of habitat for the Pacific fisher and the California spotted owl, 3) removal of invasive plants, and 4) collaboration among numerous stakeholders (ranging from environmental groups to timber companies to tribal organizations). The design of the project has clearly been influenced by numerous ecological concepts, including forest disturbance ecology, wildlife population dynamics, and invasion biology. Methods used to accomplish the stated goals consist primarily of prescribed fire and mechanical thinning (the latter of which will yield salable timber and presumably provide economic benefits to the local community). As an example of a specific target, the proposal claims that fireline intensities will be reduced by 80% (although it should be noted that the success of this objective cannot be completely assessed unless a large wildfire occurs within and beyond the restoration zone). Other goals will be evaluated via detailed monitoring and annual reporting, which is a requirement of the program. In the case of this specific project, monitoring will be conducted for at least 10 years, which is probably a long time frame for most restoration projects, but given the slow rates at which forests develop, even this interval may be too short to provide definitive answers. More details are provided in the full funded proposal.

Image: Spotted Owl, taken by US Fish and Wildlife Service (public domain)

San Joaquin River Restoration

On October 1, 2009 the Bureau of Reclamation began the first release of Interim Flow water from Friant Dam into the San Joaquin River, wetting lengths of the San Joaquine that had not seen water during this time of year for decades and beginning one of the largest river restorations in US History. The San Joaquin River Restoration Project (SJRRP) is the result of a Settlement reached in September 2006 on an 18-year lawsuit to provide sufficient fish habitat in the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam near Fresno, California, by the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Commerce, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Friant Water Users Authority (FWUA). The Settlement received Federal court approval in October 2006. The Goals of the settlement are two fold:

Restoration: "To restore and maintain fish populations in "good condition" in the main stem of the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River, including naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish."

Water Management: "To reduce or avoid adverse water supply impacts to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors that may result from the Interim Flows and Restoration Flows provided for in the Settlement. Full Restoration Flows are scheduled to start no later than January 1, 2011"

This highly complex project is planned to retore over 151 mile of river length. If you want a good overview check out this KQED video: http://www.kqed.org/quest/television/restoration-of-the-san-joaquin-river

One of the most interesting aspects of this project is the highly prescriptive control of water into the system below Fiant Dam through various control structures and the actual recapture of restoration flows at the confluence of the river with the Delta which will be pumped back up stream for water users. It will also be interesting to see how well the fish respond once they are reintroduced. Fall Run Chinook will be reintroduced from the Merced river tributary but Spring Run Chinook have been extirpated from the area and will have to be breed, introduced and managed before they can become a self sustaining population. NOAA is currently reviewing a permit application from the Bureau to collect individuals from other populations which they will then breed in "conservation hatcheries" in the San Joaquin below the dam. Finally, per the settlement agreement, there is a tremendous amount of data being collects and, although they don't say explicitly that they will be incorporating adaptive management, it is apparent that they will be using this data to modify restoration activities and dam operations. I am looking forward to seeing the new information scientist will be able to gain from this project in the coming years.

Images: Interim release flows out of Fiant Dam Oct.1, 2009 (above), Mendota Dam; San Joaquin River in Reach 2 before and after interim flows began (left). Courtesy of San Joaquin River Restoration.

Crissy Field, Presidio, San Francisco, CA

The Presidio in San Francisco had a heavily contaminated airfield when it was abandoned by the military and was acquired by the National Park Service. After removal of the airfield and a major remediation of its contamination, the Park Service recreated a historical tidal lagoon at the scenic airfield site that opened to the public in 1999.

The objectives of the re-design of the airfield were many, and included both high public use and restoration of ecologically functioning tidal wetlands. The project had both public and private funding, and lots of public attention. Fundamentally, the project is a huge public success, in spite of serious hydrological problems and questionable ecological success.

The privately-produced 2003 and 2004 technical reports provided by Katie on the blog are the primary source of my information about the project's goals and relative successes and failures; a search for peer-reviewed literature that could add more current information about the project was not successful.

The project's hydrology problems are complex. Since the completion of the "restoration" (at about 20 acres it represents a tiny portion of the infilled historic lagoon), there have been insufficient flows both in and out of the lagoon; heavy scouring by seasonally strong flows and the deposition of new sand has substantially changed its morphology over a short period of time; it appears to be too deep to support a complex range of plant species; banks are too steep in many places, and bank erosion is a problem; freshwater inlets have changed from their historic flows and flow locations due to upland construction and landform changes, and now carry additional piped-in stormwater (this freshwater information comes from personal research). The hydrology reports recommended re-engineering the morphology of the lagoon in order to correct its function, and specifically recommended a major enlargement of the lagoon.

The overall ecology of the lagoon was less directly addressed in these reports, but recommendations for adaptive monitoring revealed that the original ecological models and goals were insufficiently specific and clear. The re-creation of a generally historic model of the original lagoon seems to have been the original goal, with species richness and eradication of invasive species as primary targets. But the engineered lagoon does not replicate the size, location, hydrology, or function of the long disappeared lagoon, and the current condition of its small model seems to have so far failed to meet even general goals. More to the point, it is clearly problematic to assess the success of a project when goals are overly broad, when there is no specific reference model, and when benchmark measurements for success are not devised.

Compared to these ecological goals, the social goals for the project appear to have been very clear, and to be clearly successful. The park, which provides access to the bay's edge near Golden Gate, is well-loved and well-used, and a formerly blighted area provides healthy outdoor recreation to a large local population. There may be hidden social issues in regard to park management, of course, but this project did not suffer from disregard for the space as a public amenity. It anything, the public use dominated the attention of the planners to the detriment of ecological services for non-human species.

photo GGNRA web site

The Future Patagonia National Park

In 2004, Conservacion Patagonica purchased Estancia Valle Chacabuco (173,000 acres) in Chile’s Ayeson region. The goal of the purchase is the restoration of the purchased lands and the eventual creation of a new national park that encompasses over 750,000 acres. Conservacion Patagonica, a non-profit run by Americans Kristine and Doug Tompkins dedicated to creating new national parks in Chile and Argentina using philanthropic monies, chose this region as the future home to a new national park because of its varied landscape (steppe, grasslands, southern beech forests, high peaks, lakes, lagoons and “one of Chile’s most emblematic rivers, the Baker River.” Despite Estancia Valle Chacabuco’s long-time use as a sheep farm, the site also has its entire original species of flora and fauna intact—the restoration of habitat for the endangered huemel deer (Chile’s national symbol for nature) is a major goal of the project. The huemel deer population is an estimated 120 individuals, ten percent of the remaining population. Few areas of healthy grasslands remain as wildlife habitat in the Patagonian steppe due to their conversion to grazing land and preserving the region’s biodiversity requires restoring productive grassland habitat.
Since purchasing the Estancia, Conservacion Patagonica has embarked on an effort to reverse the effects of over a century of livestock (20,000 sheep and 3,000 cows were removed from the property) grazing. This overgrazing, coupled with Patagonia’s relentless winds has led to massive desertification (estimates put desertification levels at 30% of the Patagonian steppe). Livestock and fencing have been largely removed from the site, allowing grasslands the opportunity to recover and wildlife populations unimpeded movement throughout their historic habitat. In addition, park managers are working to remove some of the 38 species of exotic plants that have flourished in the grasslands. This invasives removal targets six species: rose hip, poison hemlock, common mullein, thistle (two species), and non-native pine.
The most interesting thing to me about this project is the creativity of park managers in creating stakeholder support for the project and in recruiting sufficient manpower for such a spatially-large restoration effort. Conservacion Patagonica involves local peoples in the restoration, often those whose livelihoods may have otherwise been negatively impacted by the project, and is working to develop alternative economic opportunities (ie tourism) to ranching in the region that will enhance long-term environmental outcomes. For example, former hunters have been hired to track pumas so that biologists can learn more about their deer predation. The organization’s creative stakeholder outreach is evidenced by its sheep dog training program—it trains sheep dogs to protect livestock herds from pumas (endangered); these dogs will be given to neighbors to reduce incidents of puma hunting. Efforts like this both improve short-term environmental outcomes AND increase stakeholder buy-in to long-term conservation efforts. These efforts stand in stark contrast to conservation organizations’ history of eschewing social considerations (particularly those of local inhabitants) in favor of conservation.
The park reduces its costs with a vibrant volunteer program (primarily tourists) that provides free labor to the exotics and fencing removal effort.
Unfortunately, I was not able to track down the Park’s 10-year management plan and the restoration’s goal, “To create a thriving ecosystem with all the native species, overgrazed, damaged grasslands must return to productivity and health” is fairly vague. None-the-less, the restoration/conservation project is noteworthy for its creative approach to developing stakeholder support and its particularly large spatial scale.
Photo credit: Mark Zimring; Peninsula Valdez, Argentina

Starr Ranch Audubon Sanctuary Thistle Removal

http://www.starrranch.org/invasives.html

Starr Ranch is an Audubon Sanctuary in Orange County. It’s a 4,000 acre preserve of what was once a 10,000 acre cattle ranch in the 1960s. In the late 1990s, the research staff surveyed the grasslands within the ranch and assessed that close to 20% was invaded by artichoke thistle, Cynara cardunculus. The lead researcher at Starr Ranch initiated an adaptive management strategy to eradicate the artichoke thistle. The goal for the project was not complete eradication of the plant but to keep cover within a range of 0-5% in grasslands.

The restoration practitioners decided that chemical control was not an option, and began multiple experiments testing different control treatments. Based on their results, they implemented two removal strategies (Brush cutting and surface tilling) based on the abundance of thistle. Areas that were cleared of artichoke thistle were replanted with coastal sage scrub species and native grassland species. Their target goal date for complete control of artichoke thistle is 2015; however this was initially 2010. While it has taken longer than they originally anticipated, they are very satisfied with their methods and results (see the link to the newspaper article on the website).

I find this project interesting because they opted to use very labor-intensive methods when on a small budget, when in contrast the Nature Reserve of Orange County and The Nature Conservancy were spending close to a quarter of a million of dollars on artichoke thistle control. However, the neighboring control efforts did not incorporate any plantings or seed addition. It seems like the pairing control with active plantings done at Starr Ranch seems to have resulted in greater success (higher native species recovery) than the neighboring control efforts. Was taking a non-chemical approach better? It’s hard to say given it’s taken the ranch longer than the neighboring agencies to see large scale reductions in thistle cover given that they were working with a smaller area. But, for the organization this project has definitely been successful thus far -- it’s reduced thistle cover without using chemical herbicides.

Image credit: field covered in artichoke thistle taken at Starr Ranch. The image comes from the Starr Ranch website

Small-scale Cooperative Afforestation CDM Pilot Project Activity on Private Lands Affected by Shifting Sand Dunes in Sirsa, Haryana

Across South Asia, the monsoon rains and muddy streets of August 1947 marked the end of the great and horrifically violent British Indian Empire. On the 14th and 15^th of August 1947, Pakistan and India were created from the vestiges of two centuries of British exploitation. The drawing of these new political lines on the map, based partly on religious demographics, lead to an influx of Sikh and Hindu refugees from the new territory of Paskistan into India.

Over the next few years, the Sirsa district of India’s Haryana state, on the fringes of the Great Thar Desert, was inundated with immigrants seeking safety in religious numbers. These newcomers, coupled with the impoverishing legacies (trajectories) of British rule, had drastic affects for the socioecological state of the district. The forested areas were cleared for fuel, the cleared areas farmed, and the farmed areas depleted. This rapid and large-scale deforestation has had severe implications for the socioecological systems in the area: changing local climate, increasing sand dune formation and migration, and depleting nutrients from the soil. Only small remnants of the native forest remain.

On the 23^rd of March 2009, after years of wading through the murky waters of UN bureaucracy, the Haryana CDM Tree Farmers Society registered their restoration project with the UN and began producing carbon offset credits they could sell on the international carbon market. It is proposed that with capital investments, this degraded land and the communities that farm it, can produce a commodity that is increasingly sought after by carbon spewing developed countries: the omnipotent carbon offset credit. The project is approved to generate credits for 20 years with validation every 5 years. The purpose of this restoration project is four fold:

1) to earn carbon credits from re/afforesation through the CDM mechanism

2) mitigate climate change through biosequestration of carbon

3) to improve local environmental conditions, to increase water holding capacity of soils through increased organic matter (humus), and to stabilize sand dunes by converting abandoned and marginal crop lands through agroforestry and agroecological BMPs

4) increase income, provide employment, alleviate poverty

The project entails the reforestation/afforetation of 370 hectares of marginal farm land with seven tree species, six native and one exotic, and the implementation BMPs. It is interesting to note that the one exotic species chosen for this project is a Eucalyptus hybrid that has become naturalized not just ecologically in the area, but also culturally. Also, many of the trees being planted are native to the general region, but do not naturally occur in the areas being reforested. Agroforestry species were chosen based on ecological, economic, and social criteria. Some species were chosen specifically to fulfill certain ecological and/or socioeconomic functions.

Because this is a CDM based restoration project, the criteria for success are fairly straightforward. The success is based, in order of importance, on the goals laid out above. Funding for the project is tied explicitly to the ability of restoration actions to demonstrate that carbon is being sequestered. Therefore, in a sense, poverty alleviation depends on the ability to demonstrate that your restoration site sequesters carbon. This project was approved under the CDM’s “simplified baseline and monitoring methodology,” which means that only live above and below ground biomass are measured and monitored (other routes through the CDM bureaucracy can get at other carbon stocks like litter, woody debris, and soil organic carbon). As well, it is argued that social, financial, and technological barriers prevent the degraded areas from naturally regenerating. These barriers fulfill the additionality condition of the CDM. This condition stipulates that the project would not take place without CDM funding. The actual methodologies for measurement and verification, along with the procedure for procuring CDM funding can be found on the UNFCCC website listed above. There is also a database of all CDM and JI projects if one is so inclined.

In a past discussion piece I argued that the social implications of restoration are becoming increasingly important to the financial communities that seek offsets credits and the institutions that enable this financing. I think this project is a good example of the role that social success, or proposed social success, plays in securing financing. While the main point of the project is carbon offset credit generation, thorough attention to poverty alleviation played a big role in the approval and authorization of the project. This can be seen in both how the project was planned and proposed, and the fact that the Haryana CDM Tree Farmers Society is comprised of 227 farmers in eight communities that each allocated a small portion of land for the project.

There are of course many questions not answered about the project. Will it actually lead to increased standards of living for the eight communities while also sequestering carbon? Or will the benefits accrue to a select few? Is measuring just live above ground and below ground biomass a scientifically sound method for understanding carbon biosequestration? Will reforestation stop the sand dunes from encroaching in on the farmlands, or will the current socioecological trajectories and the system attractor of commodity production and exchange prevent this from happening? For me, I think one of the most important questions that never really gets answered is what happens after 20 years and credit generation dries up? I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Image credit: http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/media/galleries/climate_profile_china.html

giacomini wetland restoration

I was fairly far into reading some of the numerous pages about different aspects of the Giacomini wetlands restoration project when it occurred to me that I hadn't read about a single set-back in the project to date. Everything seemed to be just great, in fact, not only was just about everything going as planned, it was going faster than anticipated, and if it wasn't going to plan, then it had simply skipped over unnecessary years worth of transition habitats to a state closer to what they want to see. I think I was just surprised to read about a project that seems to be working quite well. In addition, they seem to have an excellent outreach program and whoever is writing up these reports is very good at writing up reports. All the potential problems that have been discussed in class just seem to fade away into the background and disappear. If you ever need to do a restoration project, do it in point reyes.

At first, they were assuming a kind of linear progression of ecosystem types that followed the classical notion of succession leading to a climax vegetation type with the expectation that it could take up to 20 years to get to where they wanted to be (going from pastureland to a tidal wetland). However, after they started the project and breached the levees, they found that the transition was non-linear and more closely followed the threshold/state shift model we discussed earlier in the class.

The project is only it's second year ( if I was reading that correctly), and they already are reporting increases in bird species and improvements in water quality. I certainly don't question the accuracy of what they're reporting and there's probably an obvious desire to show the community that what they're doing is having positive results, but, if it were up to me, I just can't help feel like I'd want to be a little more conservative in reporting how the project is progressing simply because it will probably be a long time with set-backs along the way before they truly reach their goal. Actually, I'm really glad to have learned about the RFS project and to read about some of these projects because I was beginning to think that restoration projects will always require a very long time to succeed...and in the end probably won't succeed. This makes it seem like it actually works.

San Dieguito Lagoon Restoration

This painting is evocative- is this really what North County, San Diego looked like 150 years ago? Now it is strip malls, freeways and subdivisions . . .

My case study is the San Dieguito Lagoon Restoration Project. The project is funded by Edison power company, which runs the San Onofre nuclear plant (on the coast to the north); thus it is a mitigation project. Lagoon functioning is mandated to be maintained through 2050. Because of the suburban and farming areas surrounding the project, much attention was given in the documents to property ownership.

1) What are the criteria for success? How were they set?
The main goal is to restore the hydrology to create a "natural, self-sustaining tidal marsh." Thus berms on the river will be inspected and rehabilitated annually, the outlet Thus other factors, such as invasive species were to be dealt with as needed, but without a a concrete plan, though with a focus on removing them from newly vegetated areas (time period or methods unspecified). Increasing habitat for endangered species is also a goal, but it is poorly defined and there appears to be no monitoring planned to access compliance. Mostly the planners appear to be attempting to fulfill the guidelines from the plethora of permits (e.g. FWS, CCC) to avoid impact or use best practices, rather than proactively attempting to restore the habitat and monitor their success.

2) What ecological concepts (e.g., ecosystem succession, landscape connectivity, Community assembly) seemed to influence the design or rationale?
Hydrology! They thought a lot about watersheds (landscape), influence from surrounding area as well as tidal influence. This wetland drains a larger area than any other in S. CA, thus it receives many inputs. Changes in beach structure to the south, affect sediment deposition in the outlet channel. Further this project is contextualized with regional goals to increase wetland acreage between Tijuana and LA.

3) To what extent were social or economic considerations incorporated?
They increased access to the area (via trails) as well as provided informational material. To ensure flood levels wouldn't increase and impact commercial or agricultural areas the banks of the river were stabilized. The berms are also designed to limit impact to the beach, which has high traffic. Maintaining the viewshed for residents was also of concern. NGOs were purportedly involved in the planning process (according the the website) but were not mentioned in the document.

In sum, this was a mitigation project that merely sought to comply with regulations, restoring processes and providing habitat comes off as lip service. Nonetheless, the total cost was $40,000,000!

Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project

I decided I'd look close to home (I grew up in Walnut Creek) to see if there were any active restoration projects around the creeks. There are a lot of "Friends of the __ Creek" organizations and communities frequently have creek clean-up days (I went to some of those when I was in high school), but I was curious if there were any specific projects that were actually involving changing hydrology or habitat. I believe Molly was working on a project related to this so I thought it might be of interest (and please feel free to add to what I have here).

As it turns out, there is a portion of Walnut Creek (the creek, not the city) in Martinez which was channelized in the 60s by the Army Corps of Engineers, and since then silt has built up in that channel, which poses an interesting issue: some of that deposited sediment has become habitat, but it has reduced the channel's ability to control floods, which means the Corps is insisting that the Flood Control District (which is a part of the Contra Costa County Public Works department) take an action to come into compliance.

One thing in the favor of the Flood Control District, in my opinion, is that they are taking into account the ecological values that the deposited sediment has. Unfortunately, the Corps is forcing them to do something about the lack of flood control. So there are two parts to the restoration plan: first, they are going to do something in the short term to appease the Corps, which will involve some removal of sediment or 'desilting' (the "2007 Interim Protection Measures Project"); and second, they are in the planning stages of a process that will try to come up with a solution which will work better than the existing ones. As of this year (2010) they are in the stages where they are doing a lot of hydrological modeling to determine what kind of sediment loading can be expected (something that was underestimated by the Corps back when they channelized the creek in the 60s). "The current emphasis is to develop a watershed-wide sediment transport model to determine the source and volume of generated sediment and develop a revised channel design that either allows the sediment to settle out in non-environmentally sensitive areas or to encourage the sediment to pass through the channel out to the bay. " The Flood Control District repeatedly notes that funding for this project is partially provided by the Corps, and that funding level fluctuates wildly over the years.

There is some thought about recreational values as well, including a proposal to extend the developed part of the Iron Horse Trail (a bike path which currently goes from Dublin/Pleasanton Bart up through Concord) further north along this section of the creek (ultimately all the way to Susuin bay). The Flood Control District has also generated a report on the potential for chinook and steelhead salmon spawning along these lower reaches of Walnut Creek, and the report "confirmed the presence of redds in the bed of Lower Walnut Creek, but found very low survival of eggs and fry," indicating that scour and fines (the sediment) may have respectively washed away or buried the eggs.

My evaluation: While the overall premise of this project is good, in the sense that they are seeking ways to better understand the sediment loading and hydrology of the watershed (and they are looking at some of the watershed-level issues) and are trying to balance human needs (flood control) with ecological needs (e.g. salmon spawning), I feel that they could make more efforts to involve the communities in some of the planning. While they have described a very specific planning process (conforming to the Corps' standards for this kind of process) which includes public input, there is no indication of what the public input was at the earlier stage. The stage they state that they are now working on comes after a stage of "Public meeting / workshop to determine the project scope" but there are no documents on the project's website indicating what was determined at that/those meetings, leaving me to wonder how well that meeting was advertised, for example, and to whom. There are later stages where the public reviews the draft report on what they plan to do and there is to be a public meeting after that stage, but it strikes me as somewhat 'after the fact.'

It has been pointed out time and again that the human factor is just as important as the ecological/geological factors... while they talk about a watershed-wide sediment model, I want to know more about how human actions affect that model, e.g. development, management of the creeks upstream, etc. They mention studying the economic effects of flooding, which is something, but I didn't see anything else along these lines.

They are clearly not yet at the point where they have established criteria for success, and I hope that after they have done some hydrological and sediment modeling, they will do some ecological modeling as well to follow up on efforts like the salmon report. In fact, because they have had to de-silt parts of the channel, they could watch and see how the sediment builds up and how the community of plants and animals assembles itself in the new habitat.

Overall, it seems to me that this project has promise, and I'm glad that there's evidence that they are thinking of more than just one goal for this natural area, but I think there could certainly be more done to integrate human factors and ecological factors into this project. They aren't that far into the planning of the restoration project itself, but I'm hoping that they will do more with these aspects than they currently show evidence of doing.

Photo: from the project website, under maps and photos: photo gallery. (http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=2631) Sediment removal from interim measures project.

How New York City Used an Ecosystem Services Strategy Carried out Through an Urban-Rural Partnership to Preserve the Pristine Quality of It's Drinking Water and Save Billions of Dollars

Cornell Chronicle-- Cooperative Extension in Delaware County, NY

Appleton, Albert F. "How New York City Used an Ecosystem Services Strategy Carried out Through an Urban-Rural Partnership to Preserve the Pristine Quality of It's Drinking Water and Save Billions of Dollars." 5 Nov. 2002. ecosystemmarketplace.com. Web. 11 Oct. 2010.

As a disclaimer, this article is not a scientific one and has not been published anywhere of significance. The author, Albert Appleton is a Senior Fellow with the Regional Plan Association (RPA) of New York City, and also a Senior Fellow at the City University of New York Institute of Urban Systems (CIUS) and also served as the commissioner for New York City's Department of Environmental Protection. The author of the paper discusses the successful story New York City's watershed protection program and his involvement.

The history of New York City's drinking water supply is environmentally, socially, and economically extraordinary. Changes in upstate land use, a turn over of agricultural land to vacation homes and an increase in non-point source pollution in the 1980's brought upon the call for action for water resources between city and rural residents. Because farmers did not want non-point source regulation controlling their practice, a compromise was to develop Whole Farm Planning, a voluntary farmer program integrating environmental protection and business improvement. This program was designed to incorporate economic opportunities for all involved around an ecosystem services model and to simultaneously promote preservation, enhancing the natural ecosystem.

This example of a successful ecosystem service strategy benefits over nine million people, and is physically far reaching as well. This innovative program uses upstream and downstream protection and resulted in a financially successful model for both rural farmers and land owners, the water needs of the city, the protection of the ecosystem and resources and a strategic move which banks nearly a billion dollars of revenue a year by the city water supply.

The particular example of watershed protection in New York City and the integration of ecosystem service strategies worked in the favor of all parties and could not have been as functional had there not been the flexibility and commitment to develop a new program from the ground up, rather than implementing a standard policy or regulation of resource and ecosystem management. As a conclusion of New York City's success, the author suggests three elements that are critical to the widespread investment of ecosystem services for natural and human resources. Definitely a good read about a successful ecosystem service model.