Grantee Research Project Results
1999 Progress Report: Urban Stream Rehabilitation in the Pacific Northwest: Physical, Biological, and Social Considerations
EPA Grant Number: R825284Title: Urban Stream Rehabilitation in the Pacific Northwest: Physical, Biological, and Social Considerations
Investigators: Burges, Stephen J. , Booth, Derek B. , Karr, James R. , Schauman, Sally
Institution: University of Washington
EPA Project Officer: Packard, Benjamin H
Project Period: April 1, 1997 through March 30, 2000
Project Period Covered by this Report: April 1, 1998 through March 30, 1999
Project Amount: $663,020
RFA: Water and Watersheds Research (1996) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Watersheds , Water
Objective:
The goal of this project is to document the consequences of urban development on urban streams and to use that knowledge to evaluate specific rehabilitation strategies.Progress Summary:
The benthic index of biological integrity (B-IBI) was used to characterize and examine within-basin variation in biological condition in two stream basins: Little Bear and Swamp Creek. B-IBI is a multimetric index that ranges from 10 (poor condition) to 50 (excellent condition). On Little Bear, biological condition was good in the headwaters with a B-IBI of 40, but this score rapidly dropped down to 16 over a distance of approximately 10 km. In contrast, B-IBI varied relatively little between a high of 32 and a low of 22 along a 14-km length of Swamp Creek. At the sub-basin scale, Swamp Creek was more urbanized than Little Bear, with 70 percent versus 54 percent urban land cover, respectively. But at the local scale, the reverse pattern was observed: all sample sites on Swamp Creek were less urbanized than the six sites on lower Little Bear. In Little Bear Creek, B-IBI variability was strongly related to local land cover change. In Swamp Creek, neither sub-basin nor local urban land cover varied substantially, an observation that is concordant with limited variability in B-IBI.Urban development in the Puget Lowland modifies stream flow patterns at annual and multiple-year time scales. The longer term stream flow changes resulting from urban development include reductions in: (1) the duration of time that mean discharge rate is exceeded (TQmean), (2) the cumulative duration that the discharge rate of frequent floods (e.g., median annual maximum flood) is exceeded, and (3) the coefficient of variation of annual maximum floods. The first of these two hydrologic measures represent the "flashiness" (i.e., the magnitude of flood peaks relative to wet-season base flow or the rate of storm flow recession) of a stream over annual and multiple-year time scales, while the second characterizes the range in relative magnitude of annual maximum floods. The "flashiness" of stream flow controls stream bed disturbance patterns such that more frequent and extensive disturbance was documented and, in general, can be expected for streams with "flashy" stream flow patterns. Most urban and some suburban streams have "flashy" stream flow patterns depending on physiographic conditions (e.g., surficial geology, topography, channel network) other than land use.
We investigated the landscaping practices of streamside residents in the Puget Lowland. We considered three possible motivations for people's behaviors: ecological care, personal space, and personal place. We hypothesized the first category, ecological care, would be the most favored choice because it represented both a biological connection to the environment and a regional mindset regarding a quality of life revolving around salmon. The control of personal space, the second category, represents a neighborhood cultural mind set for typical American suburbs in which a backyard is a place where an individual or a family could make unconstrained landscape choices. The third category, personal place, is an exploratory variable. We included this variable to see when personalized landscapes were created if these designs took the stream into consideration.
Our initial analysis shows ecological care did rate higher than personal space or personal place as measured by the mean for each category. This is true for each corridor studied and all the responses together from all corridors. However, the differences between the mean values for the three categories were not statistically significant. In response to the question?What are the three "most important considerations in the landscaping or gardening," less than 10 percent indicated that any ecological considerations were important. These minority responses included "planting native species, salmon habitat, creating song bird habitat and composting." The overwhelming response (>75%) to this "important consideration" question, was "low maintenance." Many respondents repeated this 3 times on their survey.
We also have completed the first round of accuracy assessment of a land cover classification algorithm. In this round, we evaluated 50 clusters of 9 cells each for each land cover class in the classified image (total number of 9-cell clusters = 50 x 8 classes = 400 clusters). The results are very encouraging. We appear to have very good accuracy overall, with a maximum of 100 percent for water and a minimum of 75 percent for the "grassy urban" land cover category.
Future Activities:
This was the final year of the project.Journal Articles on this Report : 1 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
Other project views: | All 65 publications | 35 publications in selected types | All 21 journal articles |
---|
Type | Citation | ||
---|---|---|---|
|
Morely SA, Karr JR. Urban streams in the Pacific Northwest: restoration with a biological focus. Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 81, 2000 Spring Meeting Supplement. |
R825284 (1999) |
not available |
Supplemental Keywords:
watershed, restoration, aquatic, stream, channel, urban, social science, hydrology., RFA, Scientific Discipline, Water, Ecosystem Protection/Environmental Exposure & Risk, Water & Watershed, Restoration, Ecological Risk Assessment, Ecology and Ecosystems, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Social Science, Watersheds, biocriteria, hydrologic alteration, watershed, stream ecosystems, ecological recovery, urban stream rehabilitation, aquatic ecosystems, water quality, urbanizing watersheds, biological indicators, environmentally stable landscape, landscape characterization, sociologicalRelevant Websites:
http://depts.washington.edu/cuwrm/Progress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.