Assessing societal impacts when planning restoration of large alluvial rivers: A case study of the Sacramento River Project, California

Environmental Management

Volumn 37, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 862-879

  Golet, Gregory H ^a   Roberts, Michael D ^a   Luster, Ryan A ^a   Werner, Gregg ^a   Larsen, Eric W ^b   Unger, Ron ^c   White, Gregory G ^d  

^a THE NATURE CONSERVANCY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c EDAW Inc   (United States)

^d CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

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

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGY; EROSION; FLOOD CONTROL; PLANNING; SOCIAL ASPECTS;

FLOODPLAIN; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING; RIVER RESTORATION; SACRAMENTO RIVER; SOCIETAL IMPACTS; STAKEHOLDER;

RIVER BASIN PROJECTS;

EROSION; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; RIVER; RIVER MANAGEMENT; WATER QUALITY;

ARTICLE; ECOSYSTEM; ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; RIVER ECOSYSTEM; SOCIAL ASPECT; SOCIETY; UNITED STATES;

ANIMALS; CALIFORNIA; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; HUMANS; NATURAL DISASTERS; PUBLIC FACILITIES; PUBLIC OPINION; RIVERS; WATER MOVEMENTS; WATER SUPPLY;

CALIFORNIA; NORTH AMERICA; SACRAMENTO RIVER; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33646023420     PISSN: 0364152X     EISSN: 14321009     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-004-0167-x     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Adams, R. G., and D. E. Gallo. 1999. The impact on Glenn County property tax revenues of public land acquisitions in the Sacramento River Conservation Area. Chico Research Foundation, Office of Sponsored Programs, California State University, Chico. Prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA.
2. Adams, R. G., and D. E. Gallo. 2001. The economic impact on Glenn County of public land acquisition and habitat restoration activities in the Sacramento River Conservation Area. Chico Research Foundation, Office of Sponsored Programs, California State University, Chico. Prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA.
3. Ayres Associates. 2002. Two-dimensional hydraulic modeling of the Upper Sacramento River, RM 194.0 TO RM 202.0, including riparian restoration, two setback levee alternatives, and east levee removal. Glenn and Butte Counties, California. Report to The Nature Conservancy. Available from http://www.sacramentoriverportal.org.
4. Baker, J. P., D. W. Hulse, S. V. Gregory, D. White, J. Van Sickle, P. A. Berger, D. Dole, and N. H. Schumaker. 2004. Alternative futures for the Willamette River basin, Oregon. Ecological Applications 14:313-324.
5. Balsom, J. R. 1999. Cultural resources and the Glen Canyon Dam: Colorado River experimental flow of 1996. Pages 183-194 in C. Van Riper III, and M. A. Stuart (eds.). Proceeedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference of Research on the Colorado Plateau. US Geologic Survey/FRESC Report Series USGSFRESC/COPL/1999/16.
6. 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 ecological and societal needs for freshwater. Ecological Applications 12:1247-1260.
7. Bayley, P. B. 1995. Understanding large river-floodplain ecosystems. Bioscience 45:153-158.
8. Bernardini, D. 2002 (June 24). Party with a purpose: Hamilton City residents do their part to help levee. Chico Enterprise Record, p. A1.
9. Bravard, J. P., and D. J. Gilvear. 1996. Hydrological and geomorphologic structure of hydrosystems. Pages 510-517 in C. M. Elliott. (ed.), Fluvial hydrosystems. Chapman &: Hall, London.
10. Brook, A., M. Zint, and R. De Young. 2003. Landowners' responses to an endangered species act listing and implications for encouraging conservation. Conservation Biology 17:1638-1649.
11. Brown, A. G. 2002. Learning from the past: Palaeohydrology and palaeoecology. Freshwater Biology 47:817-827.
12. Buer, K., D. Forwalter, M. Kissel, and B. Stohler. 1989. The middle Sacramento River: Human impacts on physical and ecological processes along a meandering river. In: D. L. Abell (ed.). Proceedings of the California riparian systems conference: Protection management and restoration for the 1990s. General Technical Report PSW-110. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U S Department of Agriculture, Berkeley, CA pp: 22-32.
13. CALFED. 2000a. Multi-species conservation strategy. CALFED Bay Delta Program. Sacramento, CA.
14. CALFED. 2000b. Strategic plan for ecosystem restoration. CALFED Bay Delta Program. Sacramento, CA.
15. CALFED. 2001. Ecosystem restoration program: Draft stage 1 implementation plan. CALFED Bay Delta Program. Sacramento, CA.
16. California Department of Fish and Game. 2002. Guide and annotated outline for writing land management plans. California Department of Fish and Game, Lands and Facilities Branch, Sacramento, CA.
17. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1991. Guidelines for resource documents. CDPR Resource Protection Division. Sacramento, CA.
18. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1998. Public opinions and attitudes on outdoor recreation in California, 1997. CDPR, Sacramento, CA.
19. California Department of Water Resources. 1982. Sacramento River recreation survey, 1980. The California Department of Water Resources - Northern District. Red Bluff, CA.
20. California Department of Water Resources. 2005. Flood warnings: Responding to California's FLOOD CRISIS. The Resources Agency. Sacramento, CA.
21. California State Lands Commission. 1993. California's rivers: A public trust report. Sacramento, CA.
22. Cordell, H. K., C. Betz, J. M. Boker, D. English, S. Mou, J. Bergstrom, R. J. Teasley, M. Tarrant, and J. Loomis. 1999. Outdoor recreation in American life: A national assessment of demand and supply trends. Sagamore Inc., Champaign, IL.
23. Daily, G. C. (ed.). 1997. Nature's services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC.
24. De Haven, R. 2000. Impacts of riprapping to ecosystem functioning, Lower Sacramento River California. US Fish and Wildlife Service Report to the US Army Corps of Engineers. Sacramento, CA.
25. Dynesius, M., and C. Nilsson. 1994. Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems in the northern third of the world. Science 266:753-762.
26. EDAW. 2003. Sacramento River public recreation access study. Report to The Nature Conservancy. Available from http://www.sacramentoriverportal.org.
27. Ellena, N. 2000. (April 30). Will these lands be available to only a select few people? Chico Enterprise Record, p. 9A.
28. Failing, L., G. Horn, and P. Higgins. 2004. Using expert judgement and stakeholder values to evaluate adaptive management options. Ecology and Society 9(1):13 [online]; URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art13.
29. 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.
30. Gleick, P. H. 1998. Water in crisis: Paths to sustainable water use. Ecological Applications 8:571-579.
31. Golet, G. H., D. L. Brown, E. E. Crone, G. R. Geupel, S. E. Greco, K. D. Holl, D. E. Jukkola, G. M. Kondolf, E. W. Larsen, F. K. Ligon, R. A. Luster, M. P. Marchetti, N. Nur, B. K. Orr, D. R. Peterson, M. E. Power, W. E. Rainey, M. D. Roberts, J. G. Silveira, S. L. Small, J. C. Vick, D. S. Wilson, and D. M. Wood. 2003. Using science to evaluate restoration efforts and ecosystem health on the Sacramento River Project, California. Pages 368-385 in P. M. Faber (ed.). California riparian systems: Processes and floodplain management, ecology, and restoration. 2001 Riparian Habitat and Floodplains Conference Proceedings, Riparian Habitat Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA.
32. Gore, J. A., and F. D. Shields. 1995. Can large rivers be restored? Bioscience 45:142-152.
33. Gregory, R., S. Lichenstein, and P. Slovic. 1993. Valuing environmental resources: A constructive approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7:177-197.
34. Hacking, H. 2003 (January 8). Discussion on habitat conversion permit may kill two land purchases. Chico Enterprise Record, p. 1A.
35. 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 UK rivers. Aquatic Conservation. Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 9:141-157.
36. Imran, J., G. Parker, and C. Pirmez. 1999. A nonlinear model of flow in meandering submarine and subaerial channels. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 400:295-331.
37. Johannesson, H., and G. Parker. 1989. Computer simulated migration of meandering rivers in Minnesota. Prepared for Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources, State of Minnesota, Project Report No. 242. Saint Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
38. Jones and Stokes. 2003. Socioeconomic assessment of proposed habitat restoration within the riparian corridor of the Sacramento River conservation area. Report to The Nature Conservancy. Available from http://www.sacramentoriverportal.org.
39. Katibah, E. F. 1984. A brief history of riparian forests in the Central Valley of California. Pages 23-29 in R. E. Warner, and K. M. Hendrix (eds.), California riparian systems: Ecology conservation and productive management. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
40. Keeney, R. L. 1992. Value-focused thinking: A path to creative decision making. Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.
41. Kelly, R. 1989. Battling the inland sea. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
42. King, T. F. 1998. Cultural resource laws and practice: An introductory guide. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
43. King, T. F. 2000. Federal planning and historic places: The Section 106 process. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
44. Kondolf, G. M., T. Griggs, E. Larsen, S. McBain, M. Tompkins, J. Williams, and J. Vick. 2000. Flow regime requirements for habitat restoration along the Sacramento River between Colusa and Red Bluff. CALFED Bay Delta Program Integrated Storage Investigation, Sacramento, CA.
45. Larsen, E. W. 1995. The mechanics and modeling of river meander migration. PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.
46. Larsen, E. W., and S. E. Greco. 2002. Modeling channel management impacts on river migration: A case study of Woodson Bridge State Recreation Area, Sacramento River, California, USA. Environmental Management 30:209-224.
47. Larsen, E. W, E. Anderson, E. Avery, and K. Dole. 2002. The controls on and evolution of channel morphology of the Sacramento River: A case study of River Miles 201-185. Report to The Nature Conservancy. Available from http://www.sacramentoriverportal.org.
48. Leavenworth, S. 2004a (March 28). Rising risk, Part 1. Defenses decayed: Neglected levees pushed past limits. The Sacramento Bee, p. A1.
49. Leavenworth, S. 2004b (April 2). Logjam may break on mending levees. The Sacramento Bee, p. A1.
50. Malanson, G. P. 1993. Riparian landscapes. Cambridge University Press, New York.
51. Micheli, E. R., J. W. Kirchner, and E. W. Larsen. 2003. Quantifying the effect of riparian forest versus agricultural vegetation on river meander migration rates, Central Sacramento River, California. River Research and Applications 19:1-12.
52. Miller, R. E., and P. D. Blair. 1985. Input-output analysis: Foundations and extensions. Prentice-Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ.
53. Mount, J. F. 1995. California rivers and streams: The conflict between fluvial process and land use. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
54. National Research Council. 2002. Riparian areas: Functions and strategies for management. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
55. Nienhuis, P. H., and R. S. E. W. Leuven. 2001. River restoration and flood protection: Controversy or synergy. Hydrobiologia 444:85-99.
56. Peterson, T. R., and C. Horton. 1995. Rooted in the soil: How understanding the perspectives of landowners can enhance the management of environmental disputes. Quarterly Journal of Speech 81:139-166.
57. Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks, and J. C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime. Bioscience 47:769-784.
58. Postel, S., and B. D. Richter. 2003. Rivers for life: Managing water for people and nature. Island Press, Washington, DC.
59. Reading, R. P., T. W. Clark, and S. R. Kellert. 1994. Attitudes and knowledge of people living in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Society and Natural Resources 7:349-365.
60. Rhoads, B. L., D. Wilson, M. Urban, and E. E. Herricks. 1999. Interaction between scientists and nonscientists in community-based watershed management: Emergence of the concept of stream naturalization. Environmental Management 24:297-308.
61. Ricciardi, A., and J. B. Rasmussen. 1999. Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology 13:1220-1222.
62. Richter, B. D., D. P. Braun, M. A. Mendelson, and L. Master. 1997. Threats to imperiled freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology 11:1081-1093.
63. Richter, B. D., R. Mathews, D. L. Harrison, and R. Wigington. 2003. Ecologically sustainable water management: Managing river flows for ecological integrity. Ecological Applications 13:206-224.
64. Rickman, D. S., and R. K. Schwer. 1993. A systematic comparison of REMI and IMPLAN models: The case of southern Nevada. Review of Regional Studies 23:129-161.
65. Shindler, B., and K. Aldred Cheek. 1999. Integrating citizens in adaptive management: A propositional analysis. Conservation Ecology 3(1):9 [online]; URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art9.
66. Singer, M. B., and T. Dunne. 2001. Identifying eroding and depositional reaches of valley by analysis of suspended sediment transport in the Sacramento River, California. Water Resources Research 37:3371-3381.
67. Singer, M. B., and T. Dunne. 2004. Modeling decadal bed material sediment flux based on stochastic hydrology. Water Resources Research 40 40, W03302, doi: 10.1029/2003WR002723.
68. Stanford, J. A., J. V. Ward, W. J. Liss, C. A. Frissell, R. N. Williams, J. A. Lichatowich, and C. Coutant. 1996. A general protocol for restoration of regulated rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 12:391-413.
69. Sullivan, S., E. McMann, R. Young, and D. Erickson. 1996. Farmers' attitudes about farming and the environment: A survey of conventional and organic farmers. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 9:123-143.
70. Sutherland, W. J. 2002. Restoring a sustainable countryside. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17:148-150.
71. Sutton, S. 2001 (August 2). Sac River plan harmful to humans. Chico News and Review, p. 4.
72. The Nature Conservancy. 2003. Modeling plant community types as a function of physical site characteristics. Report to CALFED. Available from http://www.sacramentoriverportal.org.
73. Theodori, G. L., A. E. Luloff, and F. K. Willits. 1998. The association of outdoor recreation and environmental concern: Reexamining the Dunlap-Heffernan thesis. Rural Sociology 63: 94-108.
74. US Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Users Guide to RMA2 WES Version 4.3. Waterways Experiment Station Hydraulics Laboratory, US Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.
75. US Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Sacramento and San Joaquin basins comprehensive study: Technical Documentation. US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CA. Available from http://www.compstudy.org/reports.html.
76. US Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins comprehensive study Hamilton City flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration fact sheet. US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CA. Available from http://www.compstudy.org/hamilton.html.
77. US Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Hamilton City flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, California. Final feasibility report and environmental impact statement/environmental impact report. US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CA. Available from http://www.compstudy.org/hamilton.html.
78. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Public Law 105-57, signed by President William J. Clinton on October 9, 1997.
79. Ward, J. V., K. Tockner, U. Uehlinger, and F. Mallard. 2001. Understanding natural patterns and processes in river corridors as the basis for effective river restoration. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 17:311-323.
80. Whalen, P. J., L. A. Toth, J. W. Koebel, and P. K. Strayer. 2002. Kissimmee River restoration: A case study. Water Science and Technology 45 (11):55-62.
81. White, G. G. 2003. Cultural resource overview and management plan. Tehama, Glenn, Butte, and Colusa counties, California. California State University, Chico Archaeological Research Program Reports, No. 50. Report to The Nature Conservancy. Available from http://www.sacramentoriverportal.org.
82. Wilson, M. A., and S. R. Carpenter. 1999. Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystem services in the United States: 1971-1997. Ecological Applications 9:772-783.
83. Wondolleck, J. M., and S. Yaffee. 2000. Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington, DC.