assessing societal impacts when planning …...2006/03/02 · restoration of large alluvial rivers:...

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAssessing Societal Impacts When PlanningRestoration of Large Alluvial Rivers: A Case Study ofthe Sacramento River Project, California

GREGORY H. GOLET*

MICHAEL D. ROBERTS

RYAN A. LUSTER

GREGG WERNER

The Nature ConservancyNorthern Central Valley OfficeChico, California 95928, USA

ERIC W. LARSEN

Department of GeologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavis, California 95616, USA

RON UNGER

EDAW, Sacramento, California 95814, USA

GREGORY G. WHITE

Archaeological Research ProgramCalifornia State UniversityChico, California 95929, USA

ABSTRACT / Studies have shown that ecological restorationprojects are more likely to gain public support if theysimultaneously increase important human services that nat-ural resources provide to people. River restoration projectshave 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 man-ner. Most river restoration projects also fail to take into ac-count opportunities for revitalization of large-scale riverprocesses, focusing instead on opportunities presented atindividual parcels. In an effort to avoid these pitfalls whileplanning restoration of the Sacramento River, we conducteda set of coordinated studies to evaluate societal impacts ofalternative restoration actions over a large geographic area.Our studies were designed to identify restoration actions thatoffer benefits to both society and the ecosystem and to meetthe information needs of agency planning teams focusing onthe area. We worked with local partners and public stake-holders to design and implement studies that assessed theeffects of alternative restoration actions on flooding anderosion patterns, socioeconomics, cultural resources, andpublic access and recreation. We found that by explicitlyand scientifically melding societal and ecosystem perspec-tives, it was possible to identify restoration actions thatsimultaneously improve both ecosystem health and the ser-vices (e.g., flood protection and recreation) that the Sacra-mento River and its floodplain provide to people. Further, wefound that by directly engaging with local stakeholders toformulate, implement, and interpret the studies, we wereable to develop a high level of trust that ultimately translatedinto widespread support for the project.

The aquatic biodiversity of North American rivers isin dire straits. Extinction rates in the continent�sfreshwater ecosystems are as high as those in tropicalforests (Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1999). Centuries ofextractive uses have left rivers in the developed worldin a degraded condition—denuded of their forests,disconnected from their floodplains, and severely al-tered in both their flow and sediment regimes(Dynesius and Nilsson 1994; Richter and others 1997).

If we are to avert further aquatic extinctions and eco-system degradation, river restoration must be imple-mented soon, and on a large scale.

Restoring the underlying physical processes andnatural flow regimes that have shaped rivers over themillennia will help sustain aquatic biodiversity (Goreand Shields 1995; Stanford and others 1996; Poff andothers 1997). However, it is unlikely that most rivers willever be completely returned to their natural states.Floodplains will continue to be managed to maximizeeconomic prosperity, river flow patterns will beregulated to protect important human infrastructure(e.g., bridges, roads, floodplain farmlands), and largequantities of water will continue to be appropriated foragriculture and drinking. River restoration willnecessarily entail a delicate balancing act—ideally by

KEY WORDS: Floodplain; Resource management planning; Riverrestoration; Sacramento River; Societal impacts;Stakeholder

Published online March 2, 2006.

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; email:

[email protected]

Environmental Management Vol. 37, No. 6, pp. 862–879 ª 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

DOI: 10.1007/s00267-004-0167-x

enhancing natural ecosystem processes without com-promising important human services that rivers provide.

Although there are numerous general discussions ofhow to balance human and biodiversity needs in riv-erine systems (e.g., Gleick 1998; Baron and others2002; Richter and others 2003), there are few examplesof how to advance river restoration in specific situa-tions amid local skepticism or misunderstanding (butsee Rhoads and others 1999; Whalen and others 2002;Postel and Richter 2003). To be effective, river resto-rationists need access to more information about thespecific issues that arise during public involvement andmore examples of ways in which stakeholders havebeen positively engaged in restoration planning.Additionally, as river restorationists are increasinglyadopting a watershed approach when planning resto-ration projects (Stanford and others 1996; Ward andothers 2001), the demand for comprehensive, large-scale assessments is greater than ever before. Finally,the need to develop appropriate tools for addressingstakeholder concerns cannot be underestimated, aslarge-scale restoration projects typically require broad-based and local support before funds are awarded fortheir implementation.

We have been involved with restoration of theSacramento River since 1988, working with partners tobalance human and biodiversity needs. This approachhas helped us deal with heterogeneous and, at times,stubborn opposition and build a collective vision forrestoration of the river. Drawing on these experiences,in this article, we (1) discuss those issues that were ofgreatest concern to local stakeholders, (2) describe thestudies that were performed to address these issues (3)identify stakeholder reactions to the studies and howthey were addressed to build trust and advance resto-ration planning (4) examine remaining uncertaintiesthat should be addressed through additional investi-gations and (5) provide guidance on integratingstakeholders into river restoration science and plan-ning studies.

Background

The Sacramento River is the largest and mostimportant river in California. The river drainsapproximately 6.2 million hectares of the northernCentral Valley and supplies �80% of the freshwaterflowing into the Sacramento–San Joaquin Bay-Delta(California State Lands Commission 1993). Histori-cally, the river was lined by approximately 324,000 haof riparian habitat; however, over 95% of this habitathas been lost to logging, agriculture, urban develop-ment, and flood control and power generation pro-

jects (Katibah 1984). Two-thirds of the linear extentof the river�s banks have been modified and confinedby levees and riprap (bank revetment), and ShastaDam has degraded the remaining natural habitats byrestricting flow regimes that promote riparian habitatsuccession and regeneration (Kondolf and others2000).

Cumulatively, these changes have greatly stressedthe natural communities and species associated withthe Sacramento River. The loss and degradation ofriparian habitat has diminished the river�s ability tosupport viable wildlife populations and encouraged theinvasion and proliferation of non-native invasive spe-cies. At-risk special-status taxa in the region includediverse species of fish [e.g., Sacramento splittail(Pogonichthys macrolepidotus), green sturgeon (Acipensermedirostris), chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha),steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)], birds [e.g.,Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occi-dentalis), Swainson�s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), bankswallow (Riparia riparia)], mammals {e.g., westernmastiff bat (Eumops perotis)], Yuma myotis (Myotis yu-manensis)], and insects [e.g., valley elderberry long-horn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus)](CALFED 2000a).

A History of Planning Efforts

In 1986, state and federal agencies and nongov-ernment organizations began to implement manage-ment programs aimed at improving the health of theriver. The California legislature passed Senate Bill1086, which called for the formation of the UpperSacramento River Fisheries and Riparian HabitatCouncil, and in 1989, by the authority provided underthe Endangered Species Act, the US Fish and WildlifeService (USFWS) Sacramento River National WildlifeRefuge (the Refuge) was established. The CALFEDBay-Delta Program has furthered these efforts. CAL-FED�s 30-year mission is ‘‘to develop and implement along-term comprehensive plan that will restore eco-logical health and improve water management forbeneficial uses of the Bay-Delta System’’ (CALFED2000b). At a more local level, four other major gov-ernment agency planning efforts similarly seek to bal-ance human use with ecosystem heath and restorationon the Sacramento River. Key attributes of each arepresented in Table 1.

To advance these planning efforts, The NatureConservancy (TNC), in 1988, launched the Sacra-mento River Project (the Project). Key Project partnersinclude the Sacramento River Conservation Area For-um, the USFWS, the US Army Corps of Engineers

Assessing Societal Impacts of River Restoration 863

Table1.

KeyattributesofmajornaturalresourceplanningeffortsintheSacramentoRiverProjectAreathatseektobalancehumanuseand

ecosystemconservation/restoration

Pla

nn

ing

effo

rtG

eogr

aph

icfo

cus

area

To

tal

area

aR

eso

urc

em

anag

emen

tgo

als

Ass

oci

ated

do

cum

ents

Co

mp

leti

on

dat

e

CA

LF

ED

bB

ayD

elta

Pro

gram

Sacr

amen

toan

dSa

nJo

a-q

uin

Val

leys

,Sa

nF

ran

-ci

sco

Bay

Del

ta,

and

Sou

ther

nC

alif

orn

ia

>23

mil

lio

nh

a�

Wat

ersu

pp

lyre

liab

ilit

y�

Lev

eesy

stem

inte

grit

y�

Wat

erq

ual

ity

�E

cosy

stem

rest

ora

tio

n

CA

LF

ED

2000

b,

2001

2030

(200

8fo

rco

mp

le-

tio

no

fst

age

1)

US

Arm

yC

orp

so

fE

ngi

-n

eers

Sacr

amen

toan

dSa

nJo

aqu

inR

iver

Bas

ins

Co

mp

reh

ensi

veSt

ud

yc,d

En

tire

Sacr

amen

toan

dSa

nJo

aqu

inR

iver

Bas

ins

>10

mil

lio

nh

a�

Flo

od

man

agem

ent

�E

cosy

stem

rest

ora

tio

nU

SA

rmy

Co

rps

of

En

gi-

nee

rs20

02,

2003

No

ne

spec

ifie

d

US

Fis

han

dW

ild

life

Ser-

vice

Sacr

amen

toR

iver

Nat

ion

alW

ild

life

Ref

uge

(th

eR

efu

ge)

Co

mp

reh

ensi

veC

on

serv

atio

nP

lan

124-

kmst

retc

ho

fth

eSa

cram

ento

Riv

erb

etw

een

Red

Blu

ffan

dP

rin

ceto

n

�36

66h

aat

22u

nit

su

nd

erfe

eti

tlee

,�46

3h

au

nd

erco

nse

rvat

ion

ease

men

t

�L

on

g-te

rmco

nse

rva-

tio

no

ffi

sh,

wil

dli

fe,

pla

nts

,an

dth

eir

hab

itat

s�

Co

mp

atib

lew

ild

life

-d

epen

den

tre

crea

tio

n�

Cu

ltu

ral

reso

urc

ep

res-

erva

tio

n

US

Fis

han

dW

ild

life

Serv

ice

1997

Fin

aliz

edJu

ne

2005

Cal

ifo

rnia

Dep

artm

ent

of

Fis

han

dG

ame

Sacr

a-m

ento

Riv

erW

ild

life

Are

aC

om

pre

hen

sive

Man

agem

ent

Pla

n

113-

kmst

retc

ho

fth

eSa

cram

ento

Riv

erb

etw

een

Co

rnin

gan

dC

olu

sa

�14

67h

aat

13u

nit

su

nd

erfe

eti

tle

�P

rote

ctan

den

han

ceh

abit

atfo

rw

ild

life

spec

ies

�P

rovi

de

pu

bli

cw

ith

com

pat

ible

wil

dli

fe-

rela

ted

recr

eati

on

.

Cal

ifo

rnia

Dep

artm

ent

of

Fis

han

dG

ame

2002

Fin

aliz

edA

pri

l20

04

Cal

ifo

rnia

Dep

artm

ent

of

Par

ksan

dR

ecre

atio

nB

idw

ell-S

acra

men

toR

iver

Stat

eP

ark

Gen

eral

Pla

n

Bid

wel

l–Sa

cram

ento

Riv

erSt

ate

Par

k�

97h

a�

Pro

tect

ion

and

lon

g-te

rmm

anag

emen

to

fcu

ltu

ral

and

nat

ura

lre

sou

rces

�C

om

pat

ible

recr

eati

on

Cal

ifo

rnia

Dep

artm

ent

of

Par

ksan

dR

ecre

atio

n19

91

2006

Not

e:T

he

stu

die

sp

rofi

led

inth

isar

ticl

ew

ere

des

ign

edto

pro

vid

ein

form

atio

nfo

rth

ese

effo

rts.

aA

so

fJu

ne

2003

.bF

or

furt

her

info

rmat

ion

,se

eh

ttp

://

calw

ater

.ca.

gov.

c Fo

rfu

rth

erin

form

atio

n,

see

htt

p:/

/w

ww

.co

mp

stu

dy.

org

/in

dex

.htm

l.dO

fp

arti

cula

rre

leva

nce

toco

nse

rvat

ion

and

rest

ora

tio

np

lan

nin

gef

fort

sin

the

Sacr

amen

toR

iver

Pro

ject

area

isth

ecu

rren

tH

amil

ton

Cit

yF

loo

dD

amag

eR

edu

ctio

nan

dE

cosy

stem

Res

tora

tio

n

Fea

sib

ilit

ySt

ud

y.A

dd

itio

nal

info

rmat

ion

on

this

pro

ject

of

the

USA

CE

Co

mp

reh

ensi

veSt

ud

yca

nb

efo

un

dat

htt

p:/

/w

ww

.co

mp

stu

dy.

org

/h

amil

ton

.htm

l.eT

he

Ref

uge

has

the

spec

ific

goal

of

con

serv

ing

7284

ha

of

flo

od

pla

inh

abit

ats

infe

eti

tle.

864 G. H. Golet and others

(USACE), the California Department of Fish andGame (DFG), the California Department of Parks andRecreation (DPR), and the California Department ofWater Resources (DWR). The main goal of the Projectis to develop and implement a ‘‘single blueprint’’ forthe restoration and management on the main stem ofthe Sacramento River, so that different efforts alongthe river collectively support a unified vision for thefuture and do not work at odds with one another. Ourstrategies include the following: (1) conserving flood-prone lands, giving priority to those that contain and/or border remnant riparian habitats (�5424 ha thus faracquired in fee title), (2) revegetating land with nativetrees, shrubs, and understory species (�1457 ha thusfar replanted, �1228 ha planned), and (3) restoringnatural river processes (Golet and others 2003).

TNC�s Sacramento River Project Area

The Nature Conservancy has focused restorationefforts on the meandering reach of the SacramentoRiver, between the towns of Red Bluff and Colusa(�161 river km, inset in Figure 1), because this areapresents unparalleled opportunities for restoration ofgeomorphic processes and natural habitats. Althoughthis stretch of the river is severely compromised relativeto its historical condition, much of the degradation isreversible. Farms (as opposed to cities) have replacedfloodplain forests, and levees, where present, are oftenset back from the river by appreciable distances. Insome areas, bank revetment is absent and the naturalprocesses of bank erosion and point-bar deposition arestill intact. This meandering reach is very differentfrom the reaches upstream that are confined by resis-tant geologic formations and the reaches downstreamthat are completely confined by revetted levees. Formore through geomorphic descriptions of the Sacra-mento River, see Buer and others (1989) and Singerand Dunne (2001, 2004).

Increasing the Scale of Planning to IdentifyOpportunities for Simultaneously ImprovingEcosystem Health and Societal Condition

Although restoring natural riverine processes ismost effectively achieved by planning at large scales(Stanford and others 1996; Harper and others 1999),the vast majority of river restoration projects areplanned and implemented on one small section of ariver at a time (Gore and Shields 1995). Suchpiecemeal planning often leads to projects that areboth uncoordinated and ineffectual. In an effort to

avoid these pitfalls, we initiated studies that focusedon large geographic areas and that met some of thecentral information needs of the agencies that weredeveloping management plans for river. In addition,we looked for focal areas where we could advancerestoration through large-scale, on-the-ground pro-jects, where we could offer technical information tocharacterize project feasibility. One such focal areawas found near the town of Hamilton City, where weworked with stakeholders to comprehensively assess asuite of proposed actions aimed at improving man-agement of the river over a 13-km reach (Figure 1).

Hamilton City (estimated population: 2,500) andthe adjoining agricultural lands have been threatenedby floodwaters of the Sacramento River several timesin the past decade. All that currently protects theseareas from flooding during high water events is an old(circa 1904), degraded private levee (the ‘‘J’’ levee)(Figure 1). The ‘‘J’’ levee was not constructed to meetany formal engineering standards and is largely com-posed of silty sand soils (US Army Corps of Engineers2003). The USACE estimates that the ‘‘J’’ levee hasonly a 66% probability of containing a 10-year flood,and this probability assumes significant flood-fightingactivities. In fact, extensive flood fighting was neces-sary and the town was evacuated in 1974, 1983, 1986,1995, 1997, and 1998. Locals have attempted to per-suade the USACE to repair and reengineer the levee,but they have never been able to meet required cost/benefit ratios. Despite this, locals initiated fund-rais-ing efforts, including levee festivals (Bernardini 2002),to generate the required local cost share match inhopes that a future feasibility study would somedayproduce a project design that would qualify for fed-eral participation.

In 2000, a diverse group of stakeholders (includingfarmers, conservationists, and citizens from the localcommunity) came together to form the Hamilton CityWorking Group (hereafter the ‘‘Working Group’’).The group recognized that a project to fix the ‘‘J’’ le-vee problem would only be supported if it offeredmultiple benefits and was the product of coordinatedplanning. One of the Working Group�s main objectiveswas to develop recommendations for restoration of theHamilton City area for the Army Corps of Engineer�sComprehensive Study team (see Table 1).

Alternative solutions to the ‘‘J’’ levee problem hadthe potential to affect the ecosystem of the Sacra-mento River in profoundly different ways. We wereinterested in exploring solutions that could recon-nect floodplain lands owned by several conservationgroups with the natural processes of flooding, ero-sion, and sediment deposition. A significant ‘‘J’’


levee setback in the vicinity of Hamilton City couldhelp revitalize the Sacramento River ecosystem,reduce flooding impacts on the local community,and better protect agricultural lands from flooding,thus creating a highly desirable, multiple-benefit sit-uation for Hamilton City, local agricultural interests,and the conservation community.

Forming partnerships to design multiple-benefitprojects is frequently referred to in concept, butinfrequently implemented on the ground. We view the

collaborative and science-based process of addressingHamilton City�s problem with the ‘‘J’’ levee as a modelfor increasing the scope, scale, and effectiveness ofrestoration on the Sacramento River.

Profiles of Component Studies for HamiltonCity and the Larger Project Area

We conducted five studies to forecast societal im-pacts of a set of potential river restoration activities.

Figure 1. Existing levees, riprap, and conservation land ownership patterns in the vicinity of Hamilton City on the SacramentoRiver, California, USA. Inset map shows the Sacramento River Project area and the location of the Project area within California.


The studies focused on flood and erosion patterns,socioeconomics, cultural resources, and public accessand recreation. Impacts of these types are important toconsider, as they influence the extent to which naturalriverine processes and habitats might be restored whilemaintaining the important societal benefits that riversystems provide to local communities. In the following,we present the rationale for, and major findings of,these studies. We also report how stakeholders reactedto the information derived and the ways in which theinformation was applied to ongoing planning efforts.Most of the studies focused at the scale of the entireSacramento River Project area (�161 river km); how-ever, some were specific to the ‘‘J’’ levee focal area(�13 river km).

Hydraulic Modeling of Flood Impacts

Rationale. Landowners in the Hamilton City area,many of whom are farmers, expressed concern[through the Working Group and area newspapers

(Sutton 2001; Hacking 2003)] that habitat restorationactivities on neighboring conservation lands mightexacerbate problems of flooding on their properties.These worries were shared by public agencies respon-sible for maintaining travel corridors and associatedinfrastructure (e.g., roads and bridges), as well asimportant Sacramento River Flood Control Project(FCP) features such as levees and weirs (US ArmyCorps of Engineers 2002, 2003).

Methods. To address these questions, we contractedwith a consulting firm to calibrate and run a two-dimensional hydraulic model (RMA-2V; US ArmyCorps of Engineers 1997) for the Hamilton City area(river km 312–325). The model quantified the effectsthat proposed land-use changes (replacement ofagricultural lands with native vegetation plantings),altered levee alignments, and removal of small privatelevees would have on floodwater surface elevation,velocity, and flow patterns. As the output of themodeling is dependent on both the accurate charac-

Figure 2. Two-dimensional hydraulic modeling output for Sacramento River water surface elevation differential derived bycomparing existing conditions to a scenario that includes a setback ‘‘J’’ levee and the removal of several small levees on theUSFWS�s Pine Creek Unit. [Modified and reprinted from Ayres Associates (2002) with permission.]


terization of existing conditions and detailed fore-casting of future conditions, we worked with theconsulting firm, researchers, agency representatives,and stakeholder groups to derive appropriate inputparameters. Most importantly, local landowners ac-tively participated in all meetings during the calibra-tion exercise by supplying aerial photography andpersonal observation records from a recent floodevent and by reviewing preliminary model output.

Because different types of riparian vegetation (e.g.,forest, grassland) impede the passage of floodwaters tovarying degrees (Mount 1995), we needed to supplythe hydraulic modelers with a map depicting futureland-cover patterns at the restoration area. To generatethe map, we applied a simple model that relates plantcommunity types to physical site characteristics such assoil stratigraphy and depth to groundwater (The Nat-ure Conservancy 2003). We defined other inputparameters, including the alignment of the setback ‘‘J’’levee and the removal of levees on the USFWS PineCreek Unit (Figure 2) by working with local stake-holders and agency representatives.

Results. The analysis predicted that by setting backthe ‘‘J’’ levee, removing private levees on the Refuge�sPine Creek Unit, and revegetating the landscape withappropriate native communities, significant improve-ments can be made in both flood damage reductionand ecosystem restoration. Hydraulic changes pre-dicted to result from the proposed levee setback arealso expected to be beneficial to human infrastructurein the area. The model predicted a reduction in watersurface elevation both in the main river channel andon the Highway 32 floodplain area (Figure 2). Alocalized area of water surface elevations increase(0.15–0.61 m) is predicted, but only for one parcel(owned by TNC). Some changes in velocity areexpected due to changes in vegetation density; how-ever, no significant increase in floodplain erosion isexpected. These results suggest that conservationlands can be utilized as floodplain storage and con-veyance areas, thereby reducing flood pressure onneighboring private lands. Further results of thehydraulic modeling are detailed in Ayres Associates(2002).

Reactions and Applications. Although controversial atfirst, the assessments of flood impacts were eventuallywell received by stakeholders, especially after they sawthat their input and personal observations were directlyincorporated into the model. Essentially, we did notfinalize the calibration process until stakeholders weresatisfied that the model accurately predicted the flowpatterns they had witnessed during their years ofobservation on the river. Stakeholder acceptance of the

modeling results was also bolstered by our willingnessto model the magnitudes of flooding in which theymost interested.

Information from both the hydraulic modelingstudy and the geomorphic modeling study (discussedlater) was shared with the USACE and incorporatedinto the Hamilton City Feasibility Study to help solvethe existing flooding problem (Table 1). In fact, theFeasibility Study team selected a scenario for ‘‘J’’ leveerealignment within their final report (US Army Corpsof Engineers 2004) that closely approximates thestakeholder-preferred alternative that was developedand evaluated during the course of our studies (com-pare setback levee alignments in Figures 2 and 3).Importantly, this scenario will reconnect an estimated731 ha of floodplain habitat to the river and restorenatural processes of flooding and sediment depositionover a 13-km reach, in one of the largest levee setbackprojects ever undertaken on the Sacramento River.

Geomorphic Modeling of Meander Migration

Rationale. Meandering rivers often have their bankslined with rock revetment (riprap) to protect bridges,levees, and other infrastructure from erosion (Mount1995). In the Hamilton City area, >90% of the outerbends of the river are lined. However, riprap is highlydetrimental to the ecological health of rivers (Na-tional Research Council 2002), including the Sacra-mento (DeHaven 2000). Riprap prevents active lateralchannel migration, or meandering, which is essentialin maintaining the structure of riparian landscapes(Bravard and Gilvear 1996) and the proper function-ing of river ecosystems (Malanson 1993). Yet, onmodern river systems it is often difficult to identifylocations where riprap can be removed to restoreecosystem function without impacting human infra-structure. Conservation lands might offer locationswhere riprap can be removed. Before such decisionsare made, however, it is prudent to evaluate the ef-fects that such actions will have on nearby erosionpatterns.

Methods. To address the issue of riprap removal inthe context of the restoration of the Sacramento River,we applied a meander migration model that predictsmigration patterns on alluvial rivers (Johannesson andParker 1989; Larsen 1995). The migration model isbased on physical algorithms for flow and sedimentflux—two of the main driving forces of meandermigration. The model accommodates changes in inputparameters, such as flow regime or bank stabilizationmeasures, and unlike previous models, it effectivelyintegrates the effects of local morphology and up-stream conditions (Larsen and Greco 2002).


More specifically, we predicted migration patternsthat would result under several different riprap re-moval scenarios in the vicinity of Hamilton City. Wemodeled this reach of the river because we wanted toexplore the potential to remove riprap on conservationlands in the vicinity of Hamilton City and needed to

determine whether this would endanger local infra-structure, including the Gianella Bridge and severaloverflow structures of the FCP (Figure 3). The mod-eling exercise forecasted meander patterns in three 25-year time steps to simulate meander patterns 75 yearsinto the future.

Figure 3. Future predictions of channel location modeled based on a scenario of all riprap being removed. Other scenarios(including a stakeholder preferred alternative) were also modeled. Depicted are the current and future (as determined by theUS Army Corps of Engineers) alignments of the ‘‘J’’ levee. The setback depicted would reconnect �731 ha of floodplain habitatto the river and produce significant benefits in terms of flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration. [Modified andreprinted from Larsen and others (2002) with permission.]


As with the hydraulic modeling study, we workedclosely with stakeholders and agency partners to defineappropriate locations for potential restoration actions.Locations selected for riprap removal were based onexpert opinion of where revetment might be able to beremoved to permit erosion and limited meanderwithout causing harm to local infrastructure. Geo-morphic modeling was then used to predict the out-come of these removals.

Results. Our analysis suggested that the flood controlinfrastructure is not likely to be damaged in the fore-seeable future from the removal of riprap (Figure 3).Specifically, partial removal of riprap in the HamiltonCity area is unlikely to lead to major changes in chan-nel alignment over the next 75 years, nor is it expectedto impact either the Gianella Bridge or a setback ‘‘J’’levee. Additional results are detailed in Larsen andothers (2002).

Reactions and Applications. The geomorphic model-ing study did not receive the same amount of attentionas the hydraulic modeling study. This was likely due tothe fact that riprap removal did not end up being in-cluded in the USACE�s Hamilton City ‘‘J’’ levee setbackproject plan. It was left out of the plan because itsinclusion caused an increase in the cost of the projectthat was not offset by sufficient benefit (as determinedby the USACE). Removal of bank protection on theSacramento River is a contentious issue that is cur-rently being discussed in other forums.

In addition to hydraulic modeling, geomorphicanalyses are proving to be useful for addressingstakeholder concerns and advancing river restorationprojects, as shown by our studies and those conductedelsewhere. For example, in the Midwest, where farm-ers were concerned that lateral migration of meanderbends would remove precious topsoil and threatenfields, restorationists conducted a detailed geographicinformation system (GIS)-based analysis of channelchange using historical aerial photography. Theanalysis showed that past rates of lateral movementtoward adjacent farmland were negligible, as thedirection of meander bend movement was down-stream along the riparian axis (Rhodes and others1999). Although our approach of using a mathema-tical migration model to investigate meander migra-tion was more sophisticated, both approaches weresuccessful, in that they helped stakeholders visualizelikely future channel changes.

Socioeconomic Assessment

Rationale. Changes in land-use patterns associatedwith habitat protection and restoration have the po-tential to affect local and regional economies in com-

plex ways (Sutherland 2002), but these concerns arerarely considered quantitatively. In reaction to TNCand its partner�s efforts to restore agricultural landsalong the Sacramento River, agricultural advocacygroups worried that there would be losses of revenuesto the local taxing agencies and the local economy withthe conversion of land from agriculture to habitat(Sutton 2001; Hacking 2003). To address these con-cerns, we initiated a socioeconomic assessment toquantify potential third-party impacts (both positiveand negative) to counties, landowners, and the generalpublic that might result from acquiring and restoringlands in the Project area.

Methods. The socioeconomic assessment evaluatedimpacts on all four counties (1.8 million total hectares)that border the Project area. It built upon two previousstudies of similar focus that were limited to ButteCounty (Adams and Gallo 1999, 2001). Prior to con-ducting the technical analyses, a future condition sce-nario was defined based on habitat restoration goalsdefined by a series of meetings with stakeholders. Thescenario assumed that riparian vegetation would ex-pand by �45% (to 12,140 ha) over a 30-year period, sothat, in total, 71% of the area along the river would bein riparian habitat. The remainder (29%) was assumedto remain in agriculture or other uses. Of the land tobe converted to riparian habitat, �48% was already inconservation ownership, and the remainder was pri-vately owned agricultural land that would be purchasedfrom willing sellers.

The analysis estimated changes in regional eco-nomic activity and fiscal conditions and changes inresource costs and benefits. These effects were esti-mated by analyzing changes in spending for agricul-ture, recreation, and habitat restoration usingIMPLAN, a regional economic software model thatdescribes flows from producers to intermediate andfinal consumers using a series of economic multipliers(Rickman and Schwer 1993; Miller and Blair 1985).The fiscal study modeled how restoration wouldchange revenue flows to the counties, estimatingchanges in property tax revenues, federal revenuesharing payments, state in-lieu payments, andWilliamson Act subvention payments.

Results. Overall, the socioeconomic assessmentsuggested that adverse impacts of the modeled acqui-sition and restoration program would be relativelyminor and localized. It was also noted that it should bepossible to partially offset these impacts through stateand federal in-lieu payments and by further developingsustainable recreational opportunities. Results of theassessment are summarized below in terms of effectson agricultural resources, recreation spending, site


monitoring, the regional economy, and county reve-nues (fiscal effects). Percentage changes are reportedrelative to the year 2000.

Agricultural Resources Effects: The principal effect ofestablishing a riparian corridor along the riverwould be a reduction in agricultural production andassociated reductions in farmer income and agri-cultural jobs. The economic losses to the agricul-tural sector would increase gradually as land is takenout of production over a 30-year period, such that by2030, annual losses could be as much as $11.5 mil-lion. Although this is a substantial amount, it is rel-atively small (�1%) when taken in the context of thecombined annual value of agricultural productionin the four-county economy.

Recreation Spending Effects: The increase in riparianhabitats along the river would improve conditions forfish and wildlife and cause increases in recreation-related spending. With a doubling of anadromousfish populations by the end of the 30-year period (aCALFED goal), recreation-related spending wouldincrease by $948,400 annually in the four-county area.Additional significant revenue increases would likelyoccur from other recreational activities (e.g., wildlifeobservation, hunting), but these were not predictedbecause of a lack of available data to quantify theserelationships.

Site-Monitoring Effects: During the 30-year time frame, ariparian adaptive management research and moni-toring program would be in place. The programwould assess vegetation and wildlife populations tomonitor the status of targets of restoration efforts.The program would stimulate local spending for sal-aries and equipment estimated at $187,800 annually.

Regional Economic Effects: The changes in agricul-tural production anticipated by 2030 would havedirect, indirect, and induced effects on the econ-omy. The total losses are estimated to be 228 jobsand $7.5 million in personal income. The loss injobs represents less than 0.15% of the four-countytotal employment base, and the reduction in per-sonal income is 0.09% of the four county average.

Fiscal Effects: The analysis suggested that there wouldbe minimal impacts on county revenues relative tononrestoration conditions. Three counties wouldexperience a minor decrease (<1%) in revenues asproperty taxes are replaced by in-lieu payments fromthe state and revenue sharing from the federalgovernment, and the remaining is expected to see aminor increase. Additional results from the socio-economic assessment are presented in Jones andStokes (2003).

Reactions and Applications. Although widely recog-nized as generating much useful information, thesocioeconomic study was met with criticism fromboth the conservation community and opponents ofconservation. A common criticism was that the studywas deficient in quantifying the full range ofeconomic outcomes expected to result from themodeled land-use changes. Additional outcomes(e.g., economic returns from increased ecosystemservices) could have been estimated; however, doingso would have increased the uncertainty of the re-sults, as quantitative relationships for effects not in-cluded in the study are ill-defined (Jones and Stokes2003). In retrospect, more attention could have beengiven in stakeholder meetings to discussing theadvantages and disadvantages of including additionalelements in the analysis. Doing so would have en-abled stakeholders to better define what they wantedfrom the study in terms of how it balanced uncer-tainty and comprehensiveness.

Although assessments of socioeconomic impacts aretypically not as comprehensive as is desired, they mightbe useful in identifying strategies that can effectivelyminimize costs and maximize benefits associated withchanging land management practices. For example,this study demonstrated that there is great potential tooffset the relatively small (when viewed on a county-wide basis) agricultural production losses that are ex-pected to occur as a result of land use changes bypromoting recreation-related spending (Jones andStokes 2003). One strategy to accomplish this is to ex-pand public access and recreation-related facilitiesalong the river (EDAW 2003). A similar result wasfound in an economic analysis of the Colorado River,where local, state, and federal agencies were seen ashaving great potential to improve the local recreation-based economy by increasing access to riparian corri-dors and updating and expanding existing recreationalfacilities and infrastructure (Bayley 1995).

Public Recreation Access Study

Rationale. Recreational opportunities are consis-tently identified as one of the most important param-eters in defining quality of life for Americans (Cordelland others 1999). Yet, prior to our conducting thisstudy, there was no centralized location to obtainpublic access and recreation information for the Sac-ramento River. Stakeholders were unsatisfied with thesituation and felt it was being made worse by conser-vation entities, such as TNC, that were purchasingprivate agricultural land (often with public funds) andkeeping it closed to the public (Ellena 2000). We thus


conducted a study to characterize current public accessand recreation use patterns along the river and toidentify opportunities for improvements.

Methods. The study focused on the entire Project areaand was coordinated with USFWS, DFG, and otherpublic and private land management entities. In addi-tion to characterizing existing public access opportuni-ties and needs, the study identified how changes in landmanagement patterns were expected to influence pub-lic recreation and access opportunities in the context ofongoing management planning efforts (Table 1).Information was gathered from available demographicdata, previous and ongoing recreation and access stud-ies (listed in EDAW 2003), site visits, interviews with landand facility managers, selected interest group repre-sentatives, and public scoping meetings.

Results. Our study confirmed that many of the sitesin conservation ownership were closed to the public(e.g., those that are actively being restored or that arepart of the Refuge). However, this has changed, as theUSFWS has recently finalized it�s management plan(Table 1), which identifies a broad range of permissi-ble recreational activities and permits access to 79% ofRefuge lands (USFWS personal communication). In-creased opportunities for recreation have been wel-comed along the river. Regional trends indicate acontinued interest in the traditional recreationalactivities of boating, fishing and hunting, and suggestthat nonconsumptive recreational pursuits such as birdwatching, nature observation, and hiking will increaseby 65% over the next 40 years (California Departmentof Water Resources 1982; California Department ofParks and Recreation 1998; Cordell and others 1999).Additional results of the public recreation access studyare detailed in EDAW (2003).

Reactions and Applications. This study was receivedwell by all stakeholders, although many saw the effortas long overdue. The study made a number of generaland specific recommendations for improving publicaccess and recreational opportunities and their asso-ciated management and infrastructure in the Projectarea (see Appendix A). These recommendations havebeen instrumental in developing management plansfor those public agencies that manage lands along theriver (Table 1). Importantly, however, the study alsoconfirmed that public knowledge of existing recreationopportunities along the river was limited by a lack ofreadily accessible, centrally located information. Toimprove the situation, DWR recently partnered withthe Geographic Information Center at California StateUniversity, Chico to produce a popular new websitededicated to this very purpose (http://www.sacramen-toriver.org).

As awareness of the Sacramento River corridor hasgrown, the river has become an increasingly popularrecreation destination. Continued conservation andrestoration along the river will likely draw even morepeople to this area, as Californians indicate that natu-ral areas are highly sought after as recreational settings(California Department of Parks and Recreation 1998).Moreover, as the population in the region grows, de-mand for public recreational opportunities areexpected to increase (Cordell and others 1999).Continuing with and building upon efforts to increasecompatible public recreation opportunities along theSacramento River is important to achieve successful,community-supported restoration of the dynamic riverecosystem as well as benefiting the region�s economicand social well-being. Increases in recreational activi-ties such as wildlife viewing, hunting, and fishing oftentranslate to increases in support for conservation ac-tions (Theodori and others 1998).

Cultural Resource Study

Rationale. Archaeological sites, with their historic,cultural, and educational value, should be protectedfrom land management activities that can lead to theirdegradation. Because rivers and floodplains are typi-cally rich in natural resources (e.g., fish and game),they often harbor significant archaeological sites. It isunderstandable therefore that significant legal man-dates exist to ensure that care is taken when planningmanagement activities (including restoration) onfloodplain lands (King 1998; King 2000). To fulfillsuch a mandate for a close agency partner (USFWS),we conducted a comprehensive archaeological over-view of the entire Project area.

Methods. We synthesized all available informationfor the entire Project area, surveyed and mappedarchaeological sites on 4654 ha of the Refuge, andestablished the significance of all known sites. Signifi-cance was determined by evaluating individual re-sources present at a site relative to the nature, extent,and distribution of archaeological resources at othersites across the region. Assessments of significance areneeded to determine whether or not sites are placedon the National Register of Historic Places of the Na-tional Historic Preservation Act (King 2000). We alsoprovided administration and coordination recom-mendations for management activities that have thepotential to affect cultural resources. Activitiesincluded in the cultural resource study are furtherdetailed in Appendix B.

Results. The results of this and previous studies(listed in White 2003) demonstrate that the Projectarea hosts a number of significant archaeological


sites with high research potential. Our study identi-fied 51 previously conducted cultural resource sur-veys that collectively documented 104 archaeologicalsites. In addition, our study established 46 new sites.The majority of documented sites are concentratedin close proximity to the Sacramento River and alongthe banks of the major tributaries in the region.Throughout the span of cultural use, occupationsites probably clustered along areas of high elevationon the floodplain. This and previous surveys suggestthat archaeological resources are more likely to befound on sites that have floodplain soils than thosethat have basin soils.

Importantly, three archaeological sites in the Pro-ject area are considered eligible for the National Reg-ister of Historic Places in that they ‘‘have yielded ormay be likely to yield, information important in pre-history or history’’ (Criterion [d], Federal Register, Vol.65, No. 239, pp: 77,728–77,729). These sites areimportant for a variety of reasons, including thepotential they have to provide valuable information onchanging environmental conditions that prehistoricpopulations faced. Such changes could be documentedthrough analysis of food resource remains and byconducting plant macrofossil and zooarchaeologicalstudies (Brown 2002).

Reactions and Applications. Reactions to the culturalresources study by stakeholders were uniformly posi-tive. The study findings did not result in new restric-tions placed on private landowners, and thosemanagement entities that need to consider impacts tocultural resources before proceeding with manage-ment operations now have the information they needto guide management actions. In fact, informationgathered in the cultural resources study was directlyincorporated into the USFWS�s Comprehensive Con-servation Plan for the Refuge (Table 1) to assist theUSFWS in meeting cultural resource inventory man-dates as specified in Sections 106 and 110 of the Na-tional Historic Preservation Act (King 2000). The studywas also used to inform the USACE Hamilton CityFeasibility Study (Table 1).

Any efforts to develop facilities for recreation orother human uses should be considered in the contextof the impacts that they might have to important cul-tural resources (King 1998; Balsom 1999; King 2000).Restoration activities should also be viewed in thiscontext. On the Sacramento River, restoration activitiesnow include recontouring natural distributary chan-nels, an activity that has obvious potential to impactcultural resource sites. Only by making detailedassessments of archaeological resources can adverseimpacts to archaeological sites be avoided.

Discussion

River management issues have always been highlycontentious in California (Kelly 1989; Mount 1995),and as human populations continue to grow, we canexpect them to become even more so in the future(Gleick 1998; Baron and others 2002). Water andfloodplain management decisions face intense scru-tiny, such that typically only those restoration projectsthat provide demonstrable benefits to society, as well asthe ecosystem, are supported. Our effort to develop arestoration project that offered benefits to both theecosystem and society was advanced by a series ofstudies that predicted the outcomes of proposed res-toration actions. The particular topics we studied(flooding, meander migration, socioeconomics, publicrecreation and access, and cultural resources) repre-sent typical issues of concern to stakeholders involvedin restoration projects on large alluvial rivers whererestoration involves shifting land-use patterns. Ourexperiences have shown that successful river restora-tion requires getting the technical detail ‘‘right’’;however, just as important is communication of thescience and transparency. Perhaps even more impor-tant is inclusiveness and stakeholder involvement.

Using Science to Achieve Multiple Benefits in RiverRestoration Projects

The Sacramento River Hamilton City ‘‘J’’ leveeproject provides a good example of what it takes toadvance a large-scale river restoration project for alowland alluvial river in the face of stakeholder oppo-sition. Ultimately, what allowed this project to moveforward, when others have not, is the fact that it isvirtually certain to provide increased flood protectionto a local community that currently faces high floodrisks. Without a direct and easy-to-understand tie toimproving human conditions, groups that are opposedon principle to replacing agricultural lands with habi-tat are often successful in eroding local support forprojects to the point that restoration funding programsare unwilling to allocate funds for implementation.Restorationists, therefore, need to look for opportuni-ties for ecosystem revitalization that can go hand inhand with projects that have as a central goal the bet-terment of some aspect of societal condition.

The results of our studies conducted on the Sacra-mento River support an emerging paradigm shift inriver management. Increasingly, on lowland alluvialrivers where agriculture has encroached on floodplainhabitats, managers are recognizing, and researchersare documenting, that providing rivers with greaterconnections to their historical floodplains can simul-


taneously revitalize impaired ecosystems and improveflood damage protection (Nienhuis and Leuven 2001;Larsen and Greco 2002). Hydrodynamic models, suchas those used in this study, are being used to identifysuch opportunities.

In the Central Valley, this paradigm shift is supportedby an increased awareness of the potential that rivershave to damage floodplain infrastructure. In 1997,flooding associated with a winter storm killed 6 peopleand drove 120,000 Central Valley citizens from theirhomes (Leavenworth 2004a), and future catastrophicflood impacts are possible (California Department ofWater Resources 2005). In recognition of this, floodmanagement discussions between the US Army Corps ofEngineers and the US Fish and Wildlife Service havebegun, with the goal of developing projects that canmeet the dual challenges of improving flood control andreviving ecological health. These projects are focusingless on riprap and channelization as river managementtools, and more on setting back levees and restoringhabitat (Leavenworth 2004b), similar to what is plannedfor the Sacramento River near Hamilton City.

A similar willingness to reconsider river managementstrategies is evident elsewhere. Following two large floodevents when huge impacts were narrowly averted(250,000 people were evacuated in 1993 and 1995) onthe Rhine and Meuse rivers in western Europe, multi-national discussions ensued to develop alternative rivermanagement strategies (Nienhuis and Leuven 2001).Resulting projects included setting levees back onchannelized sections of the Rhine to retain floodwatersin upstream floodplain storage areas and to retard riverdischarge, imitating the historical situation as much aspossible (Nienhuis and Leuven 2001).

Restoration projects on the Sacramento River mightalso offer benefits to society in the form of increasedrecreational opportunities and associated economicinputs. However, expectations of positive change alongthese lines have done less to earn stakeholder supportthan have expectations of gains in flood protection. Inpart, this might be because there is less of an assurancethat the economic benefits of recreation will come, asprojects sold to communities on economic groundshave not always provided the anticipated benefits (e.g.,damming the Feather River to form Lake Oroville;Gascoyne 2001). Nonetheless, as different outcomeswill resonate with different stakeholders, we suggestanalyzing and communicating restoration benefits inthe most comprehensive manner possible.

Future Research Needs

Several steps could be taken to improve the quality ofthe information derived from these studies. As with all

modeling, the accuracy with which input parameters aredefined limits the quality of the information that themodels produce. Hydraulic modeling studies couldmore accurately forecast anticipated changes in floodpatterns with better definition of natural vegetationcommunities occurring on the landscape and with moreaccurate floodplain roughness coefficients for eachvegetation type. Similarly, geomorphic modeling couldbe improved by applying finer-scale mapping of land-use coverages, as floodplain lands that are manageddifferently (e.g., as orchards vs. natural habitat) havesignificantly different rates of erosion (Micheli andothers 2003). Geomorphic modeling could also be im-proved by developing the capability to address the ef-fects of a variable hydrograph on meander migrationpatterns, as current modeling approaches (Larsen 1995;Imran and others 1999; Larsen and others 2002) predictmeander migration by assuming constant rates of flow.

Better quantification needs to be made of how res-toration affects recreational activity and flood damageexpenditures to improve existing socioecomic models.Additional studies could be conducted to better de-scribe the economic value citizens derive from pro-tecting, restoring, and maintaining wildlife habitats(Jones and Stokes 2003), as well as the wider range ofecosystem services that healthy rivers provide to society(Daily 1997; Wilson and Carpenter 1999). To aid inoffsetting any adverse economic impacts of lost farmrevenues, updated, comprehensive surveys of recrea-tionists should be conducted. These would increase ourunderstanding of the importance of existing and po-tential future recreational opportunities to the localcommunities, and help in the formation of develop-ment strategies (EDAW 2003).

Incorporating Stakeholders in Restoration Planning

Data analysis and model building are importantactivities for restorationists seeking to identify and ad-vance multiple-benefit river restoration projects. How-ever, because watershed management is largely a socialprocess (Rhoads and others 1999), it is imperative thatrestorationists also dedicate themselves to interactingwith stakeholders. Although a multitude of stakeholdergroups (e.g., local, state, and federal government agen-cies and nongovernmental organizations) might need tobe coordinated when planning river restoration, specialattention should be paid to working with local citizenstakeholders who live and work in the communities thatwill be affected by project activities. Fostering productivepartnerships with locals might be time-consuming andchallenging; however, much can be gained by doing so.Such partnerships force restorationists to focus on


community values in addition to science and technicalanalyses, which behavioral research has shown can leadto better decision-making (Gregory and others 1993).Also, local support is often required before funds areawarded to restoration projects.

Restorationists might experience a certain level ofmistrust in the early stages of the stakeholder engage-ment process. Citizens who are strong supporters ofprivate property rights can be hostile to outside inter-vention on land management issues (Reading andothers 1994) and often discount or ignore scientificinformation if they perceive the bearer of this infor-mation as an untrustworthy outsider (Rhoads andothers 1999). For these reasons, we recommend thatrestorationists integrate with the place-based socialworlds of local communities. In a practical sense, thispoints to the need to strike a balance between directingefforts to advancing scientific studies and interactingmore with stakeholders. Although both are important,ultimately it might be more the acts of engagementthan the information produced from the studies thatleads groups opposed to conservation activities toreconsider their viewpoints.

In the case of the Sacramento River, we found thatincluding stakeholder input in the early phases of theproject development was extremely beneficial. It al-lowed stakeholders to develop a sense of ownership ofthe process [as was also noted by Shindler and Cheek(1999)] and permitted flexibility in study design andfocus. Directly involving stakeholders early in theplanning stages both demystified the planning processand increased trust. Although partnering with citizenstakeholders increased uncertainty, time, and costspent on the project at the initial stages, doing so in aneffective manner and early on was essential to movingthe project forward.

The key to developing a restoration project that waswell received by locals was a lengthy process of directlyengaging stakeholders in the formation of technicalstudies and the evaluation of results. Although a will-ingness to accept stakeholder input will not guaranteeproject support, it will help develop trust, a pre-requisite to establishing effective partnerships. Forexample, we saw a local landowner�s appreciation ofthe hydraulic modeling results increase when he ob-served that his flood photos were incorporated into theanalyses. Simple acts of inclusion such as this can helpfoster a sense of trust and a belief that the planningprocess is fair, which helps promote conservation(Sullivan and others 1996; Peterson and Horton 1995).

Stakeholder involvement should not be a coerciveprocess in which particular values are intrinsicallyprivileged relative to others (Rhoads and others 1999).

True collaborations with shared power are needed, asthey rightfully confer some sense of control over thedecision-making process to stakeholders (Brook andothers 2003; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). In theHamilton City project, local citizen stakeholders exer-cised control over the project in numerous ways,including selecting the magnitude of the flood eventsto be modeled in the hydraulic analysis, choosing thesites to be modeled for riprap removal, and, perhapsmost significantly, recommending alternative align-ments for a setback ‘‘J’’ levee.

Being involved in the scenario creation process al-lowed stakeholders to test future conditions that rep-resented their values in a scientific risk assessmentprocess. In so doing, it helped generate a sense ofshared ownership in the products of the studies. Asnoted by others (Keeney 1992; Failing and others2004), what is ultimately deemed as acceptable bystakeholders is strongly influenced by their under-standing of the nature of the alternatives. It followsthen that much can be gained by allowing stakeholdersto define alternative future states that are the subject ofanalyses, as was recently demonstrated in planning ef-forts focusing on the Willamette River (Baker andothers 2004). Our experiences confirm that therequirement to go through a stakeholder processshould not preclude conducting analyses at the level ofsophistication warranted by the problem (Failing andothers 2004). In fact, we found that having stakehold-ers help guide rigorous studies was an effective way toshift the focus of discussions from the positions ofindividual participants to the alternative restorationscenarios.

Having local stakeholders become advocates forconservation can be extremely beneficial, as we foundwhen local community members stepped forth at keytimes as spokespersons. In our project, a local land-owner even traveled across the country to speak to USCongress and Senate staff to help build broad-basedpartisan support for the project. Although such a highlevel of commitment might not be possible for allprojects, it is worth noting that individual citizens cando much to advance conservation when they act asrepresentatives of their communities.

AcknowledgmentsWe are grateful to the CALFED Bay-Delta Program

and the US Fish and Wildlife Service for funding thestudies profiled in this article. We thank the WildlifeConservation Board, the California Department of Fishand Game, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and thevarious stakeholder groups that worked with us to help


define and implement these studies. We thank privateindividuals who made donations to The Nature Con-servancy, as their contributions supported the writingof this manuscript. We acknowledge Sam Lawson andDawit Zeleke for their support and skillful leadershipof the Sacramento River Project. We thank MarlyceMyers for strategic advice on planning and for man-aging the socioeconomic study, David Jukkola and SethPaine for making figures, Amy Hoss for assistance withoutreach, and Wendie Duron, Cori Ong and JanKarolyi for administrative assistance. This aricle wasimproved thanks to insightful comments from VirginiaDale, Mary Gleason, Karen Holl, Peter Kareiva, RichReiner, Stacey Solie, Andy Warner, and especially BillParris, a local stakeholder who helped us present abalanced perspective.

Literature Cited

Adams, R. G., and D. E. Gallo. 1999. The impact on GlennCounty property tax revenues of public land acquisitions inthe Sacramento River Conservation Area. Chico ResearchFoundation, Office of Sponsored Programs, CaliforniaState University, Chico. Prepared for the US Fish andWildlife Service, Sacramento, CA.

Adams, R. G., and D. E. Gallo. 2001. The economic impact onGlenn County of public land acquisition and habitat res-toration activities in the Sacramento River ConservationArea. Chico Research Foundation, Office of SponsoredPrograms, California State University, Chico. Prepared forthe US Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA.

Ayres Associates. 2002. Two-dimensional hydraulic modelingof the Upper Sacramento River, RM 194.0 TO RM 202.0,including riparian restoration, two setback levee alterna-tives, and east levee removal. Glenn and Butte Counties,California. Report to The Nature Conservancy. Availablefrom http://www.sacramentoriverportal.org.

Baker, J. P., D. W. Hulse, S. V. Gregory, D. White, J. VanSickle, P. A. Berger, D. Dole, and N. H. Schumaker. 2004.Alternative futures for the Willamette River basin, Oregon.Ecological Applications 14:313–324.

Balsom, J. R. 1999. Cultural resources and the Glen CanyonDam: Colorado River experimental flow of 1996. Pages183–194 in C. Van Riper III, and M. A. Stuart (eds.). Pro-ceeedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference of Researchon the Colorado Plateau. US Geologic Survey/FRESC Re-port 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, and A. D. Steinman. 2002. Meeting ecologi-cal and societal needs for freshwater. Ecological Applications12:1247–1260.

Bayley, P. B. 1995. Understanding large river-floodplainecosystems. Bioscience 45:153–158.

Bernardini, D. 2002 (June 24). Party with a purpose: Hamil-ton City residents do their part to help levee. Chico Enter-prise Record, p. A1.

Bravard, J. P., and D. J. Gilvear. 1996. Hydrological and geo-morphologic structure of hydrosystems. Pages 510–517 inC. M. Elliott. (ed.), Fluvial hydrosystems. Chapman & Hall,London.

Brook, A., M. Zint, and R. De Young. 2003. Landowners� re-sponses to an endangered species act listing and implica-tions for encouraging conservation. Conservation Biology17:1638–1649.

Brown, A. G. 2002. Learning from the past: Palaeohydrologyand palaeoecology. Freshwater Biology 47:817–827.

Buer, K., D. Forwalter, M. Kissel, and B. Stohler. 1989. Themiddle Sacramento River: Human impacts on physical andecological processes along a meandering river. In: D. L. Abell(ed.). Proceedings of the California riparian systems con-ference: Protection management and restoration for the1990s. General Technical Report PSW-110. Pacific SouthwestForest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U SDepartment of Agriculture, Berkeley, CA pp: 22–32.

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

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

CALFED. 2001. Ecosystem restoration program: Draft stage 1implementation plan. CALFED Bay Delta Program. Sacra-mento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2002. Guide andannotated outline for writing land management plans.California Department of Fish and Game, Lands andFacilities Branch, Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1991.Guidelines for resource documents. CDPR Resource Pro-tection Division. Sacramento, CA.

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

California Department of Water Resources. 1982. SacramentoRiver recreation survey, 1980. The California Departmentof Water Resources—Northern District. Red Bluff, CA.

California Department of Water Resources. 2005. Floodwarnings: Responding to California�s FLOOD CRISIS. TheResources 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 assessmentof demand and supply trends. Sagamore Inc., Champaign,IL.

Daily, G. C. (ed.). 1997. Nature�s services: Societal depen-dence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington,DC.

De Haven, R. 2000. Impacts of riprapping to ecosystemfunctioning, Lower Sacramento River California. US Fishand Wildlife Service Report to the US Army Corps ofEngineers. Sacramento, CA.

Dynesius, M., and C. Nilsson. 1994. Fragmentation and flowregulation of river systems in the northern third of theworld. Science 266:753–762.


EDAW. 2003. Sacramento River public recreation accessstudy. Report to The Nature Conservancy. Available fromhttp://www.sacramentoriverportal.org.

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

Failing, L., G. Horn, and P. Higgins. 2004. Using expertjudgement and stakeholder values to evaluate adaptivemanagement options. Ecology and Society 9(1):13 [on-line]; 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 wateruse. Ecological Applications 8:571–579.

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 restora-tion efforts and ecosystem health on the Sacramento RiverProject, California. Pages 368–385 in P. M. Faber (ed.).California riparian systems: Processes and floodplain man-agement, ecology, and restoration. 2001 Riparian Habitatand Floodplains Conference Proceedings, Riparian HabitatJoint Venture, Sacramento, CA.

Gore, J. A., and F. D. Shields. 1995. Can large rivers be re-stored? Bioscience 45:142–152.

Gregory, R., S. Lichenstein, and P. Slovic. 1993. Valuingenvironmental resources: A constructive approach. Journalof Risk and Uncertainty 7:177–197.

Hacking, H. 2003 (January 8). Discussion on habitat conver-sion permit may kill two land purchases. Chico EnterpriseRecord, p. 1A.

Harper, D. M., M. Ebrahimnezhad, E. Taylor, S. Dickinson,O. Decamp, G. Verniers, and T. Balbi. 1999. A catchment-scale approach to the physical restoration of lowland UKrivers. Aquatic Conservation. Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems9:141–157.

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

Johannesson, H., and G. Parker. 1989. Computer simulatedmigration of meandering rivers in Minnesota. Prepared forLegislative Commission on Minnesota Resources, State ofMinnesota, Project Report No. 242. Saint Anthony FallsHydraulic Laboratory of Civil Engineering, University ofMinnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

Jones and Stokes. 2003. Socioeconomic assessment of pro-posed habitat restoration within the riparian corridor ofthe Sacramento River conservation area. Report to TheNature Conservancy. Available from http://www.sacra-mentoriverportal.org.

Katibah, E. F. 1984. A brief history of riparian forests in theCentral Valley of California. Pages 23–29 in R. E. Warner,and K. M. Hendrix (eds.), California riparian systems:Ecology conservation and productive management. Uni-versity of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Keeney, R. L. 1992. Value-focused thinking: A path to creativedecision making. Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.

Kelly, R. 1989. Battling the inland sea. University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley, CA.

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

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

Kondolf, G. M., T. Griggs, E. Larsen, S. McBain, M. Tomp-kins, J. Williams, and J. Vick. 2000. Flow regime require-ments for habitat restoration along the Sacramento Riverbetween Colusa and Red Bluff. CALFED Bay Delta ProgramIntegrated Storage Investigation, Sacramento, CA.

Larsen, E. W. 1995. The mechanics and modeling of rivermeander migration. PhD dissertation. University of Cali-fornia, Berkeley.

Larsen, E. W., and S. E. Greco. 2002. Modeling channelmanagement impacts on river migration: A case studyof Woodson Bridge State Recreation Area, SacramentoRiver, California, USA. Environmental Management 30:209–224.

Larsen, E. W, E. Anderson, E. Avery, and K. Dole. 2002. Thecontrols on and evolution of channel morphology of theSacramento 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. De-fenses decayed: Neglected levees pushed past limits. TheSacramento Bee, p. A1.

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

Malanson, G. P. 1993. Riparian landscapes. Cambridge Uni-versity Press, New York.

Micheli, E. R., J. W. Kirchner, and E. W. Larsen. 2003.Quantifying the effect of riparian forest versus agriculturalvegetation on river meander migration rates, Central Sac-ramento River, California. River Research and Applications19:1–12.

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

Mount, J. F. 1995. California rivers and streams: The conflictbetween fluvial process and land use. University of Cali-fornia Press, Berkeley, CA.

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

Nienhuis, P. H., and R. S. E. W. Leuven. 2001. River resto-ration and flood protection: Controversy or synergy.Hydrobiologia 444:85–99.

Peterson, T. R., and C. Horton. 1995. Rooted in the soil: Howunderstanding the perspectives of landowners can enhancethe management of environmental disputes. QuarterlyJournal of Speech 81:139–166.

Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Presteg-aard, B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks, and J. C. Stromberg. 1997.The natural flow regime. Bioscience 47:769–784.


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

Reading, R. P., T. W. Clark, and S. R. Kellert. 1994. Attitudesand knowledge of people living in the greater Yellowstoneecosystem. Society and Natural Resources 7:349–365.

Rhoads, B. L., D. Wilson, M. Urban, and E. E. Herricks. 1999.Interaction between scientists and nonscientists in com-munity-based watershed management: Emergence of theconcept of stream naturalization. Environmental Manage-ment 24:297–308.

Ricciardi, A., and J. B. Rasmussen. 1999. Extinction rates ofNorth American freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology13:1220–1222.

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

Richter, B. D., R. Mathews, D. L. Harrison, and R. Wigington.2003. Ecologically sustainable water management: Manag-ing river flows for ecological integrity. Ecological Applications13:206–224.

Rickman, D. S., and R. K. Schwer. 1993. A systematic com-parison of REMI and IMPLAN models: The case of south-ern Nevada. Review of Regional Studies 23:129–161.

Shindler, B., and K. Aldred Cheek. 1999. Integrating citizensin adaptive management: A propositional analysis.Conservation Ecology 3(1):9 [online]; URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art9.

Singer, M. B., and T. Dunne. 2001. Identifying eroding anddepositional reaches of valley by analysis of suspendedsediment transport in the Sacramento River, California.Water Resources Research 37:3371–3381.

Singer, M. B., and T. Dunne. 2004. Modeling decadal bedmaterial sediment flux based on stochastic hydrology. WaterResources 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, and C. Coutant. 1996. A gen-eral protocol for restoration of regulated rivers. RegulatedRivers: Research and Management 12:391–413.

Sullivan, S., E. McMann, R. Young, and D. Erickson. 1996.Farmers� attitudes about farming and the environment: Asurvey of conventional and organic farmers. Journal ofAgricultural and Environmental Ethics 9:123–143.

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

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

The Nature Conservancy. 2003. Modeling plant communitytypes as a function of physical site characteristics. Report toCALFED. Available from http://www.sacramentoriverpor-tal.org.

Theodori, G. L., A. E. Luloff, and F. K. Willits. 1998. Theassociation of outdoor recreation and environmental con-cern: Reexamining the Dunlap-Heffernan thesis. Rural So-ciology 63: 94–108.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Users Guide to RMA2WES Version 4.3. Waterways Experiment Station HydraulicsLaboratory, US Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Sacramento and SanJoaquin basins comprehensive study: Technical Documen-tation. US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CA.Available from http://www.compstudy.org/reports.html.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Sacramento and SanJoaquin River basins comprehensive study Hamilton Cityflood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration factsheet. US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CA.Available from http://www.compstudy.org/hamilton.html.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Hamilton City flooddamage reduction and ecosystem restoration, California.Final feasibility report and environmental impact state-ment/environmental impact report. US Army Corps ofEngineers, Sacramento, CA. Available from http://www.compstudy.org/hamilton.html.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. National Wildlife RefugeSystem Improvement Act. Public Law 105-57, signed byPresident William J. Clinton on October 9, 1997.

Ward, J. V., K. Tockner, U. Uehlinger, and F. Mallard. 2001.Understanding natural patterns and processes in rivercorridors as the basis for effective river restoration. Regu-lated Rivers: Research and Management 17:311–323.

Whalen, P. J., L. A. Toth, J. W. Koebel, and P. K. Strayer. 2002.Kissimmee River restoration: A case study. Water Science andTechnology 45(11):55–62.

White, G. G. 2003. Cultural resource overview and manage-ment plan. Tehama, Glenn, Butte, and Colusa counties,California. California State University, Chico Archaeologi-cal Research Program Reports, No. 50. Report to TheNature Conservancy. Available from http://www.sacra-mentoriverportal.org.

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

Wondolleck, J. M., and S. Yaffee. 2000. Making collaborationwork: Lessons from innovation in natural resource man-agement. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Appendix A

General and Specific Recommendations forImproving Public Access and Recreational Opportuni-ties, Management, and Infrastructure in the Sacra-mento River Project Area, California.1

General Recommendations

� Improve the condition of boat ramps and otheraccess points

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

� Provide maps and signage to assist in finding river

1For further details, see EDAW (2003)


access and services and to reduce trespassing� Increase the number of facilities and amenities such

as trails, picnicking, and camping facilities, especiallyin the southern portion of the study area

� Minimize conflicts between different recreationaluses (e.g., hunting vs. hiking)

� Increase coordination and resource sharing amongmanagement entities, local landowners, and otherstakeholders

Specific Recommendations

� Establish a ‘‘Pine Creek Preserve’’ near the ‘‘J’’ leveesetback area with a public nature center and adynamic river research center: Over 1538 ha ofconservation land is currently held by governmentagencies and nonprofit organizations in the PineCreek/Hamilton City area (see Figure 1). Includedin this area is a complex matrix of habitat types,including riparian forest, grassland, and riverinewetland habitat, as well as a set of current and futurehorticultural restoration sites. The area offers tre-mendous research potential, as well as great oppor-tunities for high-quality wildlife-compatiblerecreational experiences. A concept plan and figurerepresenting a hypothetical ‘‘Pine Creek Preserve’’ isprovided in EDAW (2003).

� Establish facilities to support multiday boating tripson the river: No comprehensive assessment has beenmade of the recreational facility and access needs ofboaters (e.g., kayakers, canoeists) wishing to takemultiday trips down the river. Completing such anassessment and filling unmet needs should be apriority, as it would greatly enhance recreationalexperiences available on the river.

� Improve public information outreach: The Sacra-mento River Conservation Area Forum is encour-aged to spearhead an effort to widely communicateinformation on recreation access opportunities tothe public. The effort could include development ofa river signage program, updated maps and guides,and a public recreation access website (http://www.sacramentoriver).

� Establish a formalized management coordinationcommittee: The private, local, state, and federallandowner groups and agencies that manage land

with public access opportunities should shareresources and expertise and develop strategies toaddress a variety of issues (e.g., coordination ofmaintenance and law enforcement activities, devel-opment of a shared GIS database).

Appendix B

Components of the Cultural Resources Study ofFloodplain Lands of the Sacramento River ProjectArea, California.2

1. Overview of the paleoenvironment, prehistory,Native American cultures, history of contact, andpostcontact change in the study area

2. Review of documents included in the CaliforniaHistorical Resources Information System housed atthe California Office of Historic Preservation

3. Archaeological survey of selected Units of the Sac-ramento River National Wildlife Refuge (con-ducted to assist USFWS in meeting culturalresource inventory mandates as specified in Sec-tions 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preser-vation Act)

4. Characterization of previously identified and newlydiscovered cultural resources within the Projectarea. Includes information on resource location,age, composition, function, cultural affiliation,status, integrity, eligibility for the National Registerof Historic Places (NRHP), management concerns,and opportunities for immediate or long-termmitigation

5. Review of curation facilities required to furtheridentify and evaluate cultural materials collectedfrom the project area, including ethnographic,historical, and archaeological items

6. Development of research priorities for the studyarea; includes identification of pertinent historical,prehistoric and geoarchaeological researchthemes, and their relevance to specific cultural re-sources in the project area

7. Summary management plan including recommen-dations for future investigations, public interpre-tation of archaeological and paleoenvironmentalfindings, and administration and coordination forfuture actions which may affect cultural resources

2For further details, see White (2003).


assessing societal impacts when planning …...2006/03/02 · restoration of large alluvial rivers:...

Documents