A long-term post-project evaluation of an urban stream restoration project in northern Baxter Creek El Cerrito, California

Alison Purcell UC Berkeley

Overview

• Background on Baxter Creek and Restorations

• Sampling and assessment methods

• Results (1999 vs 2004)

• What does this tell us?

1 Short-term vs. Long-term Monitoring

• What are the goals of the project?

• How do you know when these goals are met?

• What is the timeline?

Baxter Creek (El Cerrito) San Francisco

2 Upstream reaches • eroding banks, little/no vegetation •degraded

Through backyards…

3 Restoration area – Poinsett Park

… under the freeway …

4 … and out to the .

The Baxter Creek Restoration • 1992: City of El Cerrito determined it was more economically feasible to open and restore 70-meter section of underground culvert than to repair over time.

• “Daylighted” creek in Poinsett Park, adding sinuosity and riparian vegetation.

5 Before (1995)

Immediately after completion (1997)

One year after completion (1998)

6 During construction – 1997 (looking upstream)

During construction (1996)

1 year after completion (1998)

7 years after completion (2004)

7 Baxter Creek (El Cerrito)

San Francisco Strawberry Creek (Berkeley)

Strawberry Canyon today

8 Strawberry Creek Restoration (1987)

• Focused on:

–water quality

–erosion-control measures

Redwood cribwall (installation)

9 Redwood cribwall (vegetation established)

Check dams installed to prevent further downcutting of channel

10 Sites

Restored Unrestored (1997) Baxter Creek

Strawberry Creek

Previously restored (1987)

Compare

1999

Versus

2004

11 Methods Used to Evaluate Restoration Projects

• Biological assessment

• Habitat assessment

• Sociological assessment

Biological Assessment

• Benthic macroinvertebrates • Varying tolerance levels to perturbations in the stream • Indicates conditions in the stream over time (not a snapshot)

12 Habitat Assessment

• Examines physical habitat features of instream and riparian area

• 10 parameters (scale 1-20; Total possible score = 170)

• Ex: embeddedness

Sociological Assessment

• Door-to-door resident surveys in Poinsett Park area (n=45)

• Opinions and perceptions of restoration

• Important component in urban stream restoration

13 Biological Assessment Results

• No temporal improvements between 1999 and 2004.

• Spatial differences between sites.

Family Biotic Index (FBI) 10 poor 8 fair 6

1999 4

2

0

10

8 6 2004 4 Family Biotic Index (FBI) 2

0 Previously Unrestored Restored Restored (Baxter Ck) (Baxter Ck) (Strawberry Ck) Sites

14 Family Biotic Index for Strawberry Creek, UC Berkeley Campus

10 very poor 8 fair 6 FBI 4 good 2 Restoration 0 1986 1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 2001 2003 Year

EPT Richness

6

5

4 1999 3 2

1

0

6

5

EPT Richness 4

3

2004 2

1

0 Previously Unrestored Restored Restored (Baxter Ck) (Baxter Ck) (Strawberry Ck) Sites

15 Habitat Assessment Results Unrestored Restored Previously Baxter Creek (1997) Restored (1987) Baxter Creek Strawberry Creek

Year 1999 2004 1999 2004 1999 2004 Total 79 77 119 127 144 142 Score Point -2 points +8 points -2 points change

• No difference between years at the unrestored and previously restored sites. • Slight improvement at the restored site because more vegetative protection in from growth of willows.

Increased vegetative protection at the Restored Site

1999 2004

16 Sociological Assessment Results

• 48% of “new” residents were unaware that creek was previously underground

• Most residents enjoyed living near a creek (84% in ’99 and 95% in ’04)

• Concerns: – trees “overgrown” (not maintained by City)

What does it all mean?

• Restored site reached its biological potential in a short time (2 years); monitoring after 7 years showed no further improvement.

•Other limiting factors in urban watershed.

17 Acknowledgements

• Dr. Vince Resh and Dr. Matt Kondolf (UC Berkeley) • Residents of Poinsett Park • Ann Riley

18