EPA 600/R-15/305 I December 2015 I www.epa.gov/ada
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Sustainable Urban Waters:
Opportunities to Integrate Environmental
Protection in Multi-objective Projects
•*,
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research L
Ada, Oklahi
-------
Cover photo: Westerly Creek Restoration, Denver, Colorado. Permission from ©Forest City Staplcton; photographer: Ken Redding.
-------
Opportunities to Integrate Environmental
Protection in Multi-objective Projects
Hu
Council
U.S. Protect/on
of
U.S. Protect/on Agency
of
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma 74820
-------
-------
Contents
Executive Summary 9
1 Introduction [[[ 11
2 Methods 15
3 Findings 21
3.1 Summary of project practices and performance benefits ,..,..,..,.......,..,..,..,... .21
3.1.1 Project practices [[[ .21
3.1.2 Project performance benefits. ............................................ .21
Environmental benefits 21
Economic benefits [[[ .21
Social benefits[[[ 22
3.2 Projects categorized by site context.............................................. 23
3.2.1 Downtown restoration and redevelopment projects 25
Cheonggyecheon (downtown, small stream, population >1,000,000) ................. .25
Buffalo Bayou (downtown, large stream, population >1,000,000) ................... .27
Yuma East (downtown, large stream, population 10,000-100,000) .................. .28
3.2.2 Urban stream restoration and redevelopment 29
Thornton Creek (Urban, small stream, population 100,000-1,000,000)............... .30
Gilkey Creek (Urban, small stream, population 100,000-1,000,000)................. .31
The Dell (Urban, small stream, population 10,000-100,000) ..................... .32
Boneyard Creek (Urban, small stream, population 10,000-100,000) 32
Tassajara Creek (Urban, small stream, population 10,000-100,000) ................. .33
Menomonee Valley (Urban, large stream, population 100,000-1,000,000)............. .34
Napa River (Urban, large stream, population 10,000-100,000) .................... .36
63"1 Street Beach (Urban, large water body, population >1,000,000) 37
3.2.3 Suburban restoration and redevelopment .................................... .38
Westerly Creek (Suburban, small stream, population 100,000-1,000,000)............. .38
Wissahickon Creek (Suburban, small stream, population 10,000-100,000). ............ .40
Blue Hole (suburban, small stream, population <10,000) 41
3.2.4 Rural restoration and redevelopment ....................................... .41
-------
Figures
Figure 3-1. Different settings of environmental, economic, and social benefits created by projects
based on their context of development density 22
Figure 3-2, Cheonggyecheon, Seoul, South Korea 24
Figure 3-3. Buffalo Bayou, Houston, Texas. ......................................... 26
Figure 3-4. Yuma East Wetlands, Yuma, Arizona. . .................................... 27
Figure 3-5. Thornton Creek, Seattle, Washington 29
Figure 3-6. The Dell, Charlottesville, Virginia 30
Figure 3-7. Boneyard Creek, Champaign, Illinois 31
Figure 3-8. Tassajara Creek, Dublin, California 32
Figure 3-9. Menomonee Valley, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. ................................. 34
Figure 3-10. Napa River, Napa, California 35
Figure 3-11. 63rd Street Beach, Chicago, Illinois 36
Figure 3-12. Westerly Creek, Denver, Colorado. ...................................... 37
Figure 3-13. Comparison of project benefits between projects that reported performance benefits
on water quality protection and those did not, using percentage of projects that provided
benefits 41
Figure 4-1. Relationships among environmental policy, public education, and sustainability
considerations on urban waters. ......................................... 42
Figure 4-2. Considerations of water quality protection for landscape projects in different context 44
-------
Tables
Table 1-1. Chronological phases of river use and management measures used ,.,,..,,.,,..,..,, 12
Table 1-2. Potential benefits of stream restoration 13
Table 2-1. Project names and brief summaries 16
Table 2-2. List of sources on designs and performances of 15 projects ....................... 17
Table 2-3. Sorting of projects based on density of development 19
Table 2-4. Precipitation and water quality information of municipalities projects located. ......... 20
Table 3-1. Project design techniques 22
Table 3-2. Performance of projects 22
Table 3-4. Buffalo Bayou project.................................................. 27
Table 3-5. Yuma East project 28
Table 3-6. Thornton Creek project................................................. 30
Table 3-7. Gil key Creek project[[[ 31
Table 3-8. The Dell project 32
Table 3-9. Boneyard Creek project. ................................................ 33
Table 3-10. Tassajara Creek project 33
Table 3-11. Menomonee Valley project 34
Table 3-12. Napa River project[[[ 36
Table 3-13. 63ld Street Beach project 37
Table 3-14. Westerly Creek project ................................................ 38
Table 3-15. Wissahickon Creek project 40
Table 3-16. Blue Hole project 40
Table 3-17. Riverside Ranch project ............................................... 41
-------
-------
Summary
Nonpoint source pollution is an ongoing challenge for environmental agencies who seek to protect
waters of the United States. The objective of water quality protection is increasingly needed to
be incorporated in landscape projects throughout a watershed. Urban stream and waterfront
redevelopment projects present opportunities to achieve integrated environmental, economic, and
social benefits in urban waters. This report explores opportunities to incorporate environmental
protection objectives into multi-objective landscape projects to create sustainable urban waters.
Based on available project performance information and representativeness of different site
contexts, 15 stream restoration and waterfront redevelopment projects were selected and
synthesized in this study. These projects include 14 U.S. projects (in 10 states) and one
international project (in South Korea). Project information was retrieved from case study reports,
project summaries, and journal articles, from sources including the websites of Landscape
Architecture Foundation, American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), design firms, project
partnerships, and local government. The projects in this study provided a variety of landscape
performance benefits including: 1) environmental benefits of flood control, water quality protection,
habitat creation, air quality control, carbon sequestration, enhanced urban microclimate, and soil
protection and remediation, 2) economic benefits of increased property value, investment, retail
sales, and local employment, and 3) social benefits of promoting public environmental education,
increased recreational activities, and enhanced aesthetics. Projects in different context (downtown,
urban, suburban, and rural) have different environmental, economic, and social benefits. In this
study projects in downtown contexts provided the most comprehensive sets of benefits: perhaps
because of increased economic and social needs in urban cores compared to less developed areas.
There are possibilities to incorporate water quality protection into multi-benefit stream restoration
and waterfront redevelopment projects in urban waters. Strong partnerships are needed in project
planning, implementation, and long-term management. Project outcomes should be pre-determined
to integrate or reduce competing interests. Achieving water quality protection and urban economic
development simultaneously can be challenging. A broader meaning of water quality protection
should also be considered in decision making, such as public environmental education, sustainable
storrnwater management, and brownfield remediation.
-------
-------
1 Introduction
Humans have been changing stream channels
for more than 4,000 years (Gregory, 2006),
Many of today's streams share little similarities
with streams that existed before human
influence (Vought & Lacoursiere, 2010),
Stream ecosystems are affected by human
activities in both direct and indirect ways and
the impacts are complex (Allan, 2004). In
urban areas, streams have been greatly affected
by urban expansion. Urbanization increases the
loading of water and pollutants simultaneously
while reducing a stream's ability to function
as a natural ecosystem (Bernhardt & Palmer,
2007), Urbanization has created large amounts
of impervious areas and greatly modified
original natural hydrological regimes of many
stream systems. The use of engineered water
conveyance facilities in urban areas has altered
or eliminated many important natural processes
associated with water quality and water cycles
(e g, sedimentation, plant uptake of nutrients,
and groundwater recharge). Urbanized
watersheds also create flashy streams, a
condition of low base flows and high peak
flows. Expanded impervious areas, increased
pollutant loads, and changed hydrological flow
path, can all contribute to decreased water
quality in urban streams (Cadenasso et al.,
2008).
For rural streams, agricultural activities
in the past one and a half centuries have
decoupled streams and their floodplains. Many
agricultural lands in temperate North America
were developed from floodplains. To maintain
efficient water drainage, drainage-tile networks
were constructed and stream channels had
to be lowered. Many rural streams became
simple drainage ditches, channelized and
deeply incised. Natural nutrient filtering
systems were thus bypassed, contributing
to nutrient pollution in downstream waters
(Vought & Lacoursiere, 2010). Studies showed
that decreased water quality in watersheds is
attributed to increased agricultural and urban
land use. (Allan, 2004; Johnson, Richards,
Host, & Arthur, 1997; Roy, Rosemond, Paul,
Leigh, & Wallace, 2003).
Nonpoint source pollution from urban lands
is an ongoing challenge for environmental
agencies who seek to protect waters of
the United States. Restoration of natural
hydrological regime is needed to protect water
quality of many urban streams. However,
in-channel restoration alone should not be
advocated as a compensatory mitigation
measure, considering the limited evidence to
date on its nitrogen (N) removal performance
(Bernhardt, Band, Walsh, & Berke, 2008). In
this report N removal denotes the reduction
of N pollutants (reactive N). A holistic
view is needed for N pollutant control in
urban watersheds, recognizing the spatially
distributed nature of urban land-water
boundaries (Cadenasso et al., 2008). One
possible strategy to control nonpoint source
pollution is to promote the integration of water
quality objectives into various multi-objective
landscape projects in stream catchments,
Bernhardt et al. (2008), suggest integrating
N reduction strategies in urban land use and
development objectives in urban areas. New
urban projects and public investment should
be evaluated according to their effects on
N loading: ecological, economic, and social
impacts of land-use and development decisions
on N reduction are issues which need to be
considered (Bernhardt et al., 2008).
quality protection and multi-purpose
In recent years there has been an increased
recognition of the inter-connected benefits
provided by restored stream ecosystems
(Everard & Moggridge, 2012). In post-industrial
societies, streams are increasingly viewed
as ecosystems with multiple values instead
of simply viewed as water resources (Graf,
1996), and sustainable stream management
projects are conducted (Downs & Gregory,
2004) (Table 2-1). Stream restoration is an
increasingly popular measure to improve the
physical and ecological conditions of urban
streams (Bernhardt & Palmer, 2007). But
restorations are rarely about restoring sites back
-------
to historical natural conditions (Smith, 2013).
To gain local support, raise project funds, and
ensure long-term success, multiple objectives
need to be addressed in restorations of stream
ecosystems, including economic and social
(aesthetic and recreational values) objectives
(Everard & Moggridge, 2012; Graf, 1996;
Tjallingii, 2012). To achieve water quality
protection in sustainable ways, comprehensive
and integrated restoration approaches are
needed and synergies among the environmental,
economic, and social aspects should be
explored (National Research Council, 2011).
Table 1-1. Chronological phases of river use and management measures used
Chronological Characteristic
Pre-industrial era
Industrial era
Post-industrial era
Flow regulation
Irrigation
Drainage schemes
Fish weirs
Water mills
Navigation
Flow regulation
Irrigation
Water supply
Power generation
Flood control
Integrated use river projects
Conservation management
Conservation management
Re-management of rivers
Sustainable use river projects
River diversions
Ditch, canal construction
Dredging
Dam construction
Land drainage
In-channel structures
Large dam construction
River diversions
Channelization
Canal construction
Structural and bioengineered revetments
River basin planning
Mitigation and restoration techniques
Integrated river basin planning
Hybrid and bioengineered revetments
Mitigation and restoration techniques
(Adapted from Downs and Gregory (2004))
Stream restoration practices seek to enhance
the quality and function of streams. A large
scale stream restoration project could include
the entire floodplain area, restoring more
natural processes and recreating natural
channel forms. Using green infrastructure
can help restore stream systems by promoting
sustainable drainage and biodiversity
(RESTORE Partnership, 2013). Although
ecosystem restoration has not traditionally
been a practice to address water quality, the
U.S. EPA is interested in its potential for
water quality improvement. Restoration may
be conducted on landscape components (e g.
soil and plants) of watersheds to meet the goal
of water quality protection in indirect ways
(Jorgensen & Yarbrough, 2003). Therefore,
this study proposes that stream restoration
and waterfront redevelopment projects may be
opportunities to restore natural site hydrology
and protect water quality in watersheds by
modifying landscape components of stream
systems.
Creating sustainable stream systems that
provide quality protection
Water quality protection is one of many benefits
that could be provided by stream restoration
projects (Table 1-2). In this writing the term
sustainable stream landscape system denotes
stream systems that promote optimized multiple
environmental, economic, and social benefits,
under appropriate human management. Water
quality protection is a requisite component
of a sustainable stream system; a sustainable
stream system promotes the protection and
appropriate use of waters. This report explores
the opportunities of integrating environmental
objectives in urban waters. A systematic water
quality control scheme could be integrated into
various urban stream restoration and waterfront
redevelopment projects to promote sustainable
stormwater systems in municipalities.
The projects may better be promoted in
communities if environmental, economic, and
social benefits are balanced and optimized.
-------
Table 1-2, Potential benefits of stream restoration
Environmental
Economic
Social
Flood control
Erosion control
Sustainable drainage systems
Water quality protection
Improved soil quality
Wildlife habitat
Water temperature control
Reduced cost of flood protection
Increased land and property value
Urban regeneration
Employment and professional training
Cost-saving stormwater management (use of
natural systems)
Attractive waterfronts
Sense of place
Open space
Engagement of local communities
in decision-making about their
environment
(Adapted from (J. Campbell eta!., 2010; RESTORE Partnership, 2013))
The Urban Waters Federal Partnership,
established in June 2011, to revitalize
the nation's urban waters and waterfront
municipalities, suggests ways to enhance the
value and health of urban waters: 1) promote
clean urban waters at watershed scales
(including rural areas), 2) reconnect people to
water landscapes (for environmental education
and as a catalyst for economic development), 3)
conserve water (by using design techniques and
public education on water saving), 4) promote
economic revitalization in urban waters (attract
urban investment, increase employment), and 5)
Encourage community involvement by forming
partnerships (cross-agency at different levels of
government, and with local stakeholders) (Urban
Waters Federal Partnership, 2011).
By conducting a stream restoration or waterfront
redevelopment, ecosystem processes and
functions could be modified, along with the
change in composition and organization of
landscape elements (e g. stream channel,
riparian wetlands, floodplain, and bank
vegetation) in the systems. Therefore, there
might be opportunities to integrate water
quality protection in various landscape projects,
including restoration and redevelopment
projects. Environmental restorations are
context-embedded, influenced by the historical,
present, and projected future uses of lands
(Smith, 2013). The natural processes and
functions of urban streams may vary in
different geological, hydrological, and social
contexts. To explore using restorations to
sustainably manage nutrient in watersheds,
there is a need to look for project performance
patterns according to project specifications
and practices, performance benefits, and site
context. The possible result may help to develop
site prioritization to support decision making for
watershed water quality protection. Therefore,
there is a need to collect project information
to learn: 1) how did the projects differ in
their environmental, economic, and social
performance, considering project specifications
and practices, performance benefits, and site
context? 2) How did these projects vary in
their benefits on water quality protection, if
we consider broader issues that relate to water
quality (e g, enhanced stormwater management,
increased riparian vegetation, and public
appreciation of stream landscapes)? Restoration
and redevelopment projects in different contexts
could have different priorities on environmental,
economic, and social objectives. A holistic view
is needed and site context should be considered,
when exploring ways to achieve sustainable
water quality protection in urban waters.
-------
2
The projects included in this analysis (Table 2-1)
were selected based on availability of project
information and representativeness of diverse site
contexts, A total of 15 projects were analyzed.
Project information was retrieved from a range
of sources, including case study reports, project
summaries, and journal articles. This study
primarily uses online sources that include the
websites of Landscape Architecture Foundation,
American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA),
design firms, project partnerships, and local
government (Table 2-2).
The data collected was organized into categories
of: project specifications and practices, project
performance benefits, and project context
information (eg. municipality demographics,
stream order, and stream type). Based on a
preliminary review of project data, we speculated
that site context of development density (downtown,
urban, suburban, and rural) is potentially an
important factor influencing the environmental,
economic, and social performance benefits of
restoration projects. Therefore, it was used to group
the projects in individual project descriptions
in this report. The 15 projects were sorted into
4 categories based on density of development:
1) downtown, 2) urban (refers to municipal areas
excluding downtown and suburban, in this study),
3) suburban (or peri-urban, urban areas close to
municipal boundary), and 4) rural. There were three
downtown, eight urban, three suburban, and one
rural project (Figure 2-1).
Background information on the projects collected
are provided as follows. Ten restored small streams
(stream order <=3), four restored large streams
(stream order >3), and one lakefront project. The
stream classification method used was: the smallest
headwater tributaries are Ist-order streams; a 2nd-
order stream is created where two Ist-order streams
meet; a 3rd-order stream is created where two 2nd-
order streams meet; and so on (Ward, D'arnbrosio,
& Mecklenburg, 2008), Among the projects located
in the U.S., municipal population of 2010 census
ranged from 2,626 (Blue Hole, Wimberley, TX) to
2,695,598 (63rd Street Beach, Chicago, ID. Five
of these projects involved stream daylighting. All
projects were located in municipalities with diverse
income levels, with 2008-2012 median household
income (from U. S. Census Bureau, 5-Year
Estimates) ranged from $26,339 (Gilkey Creek,
Flint, Ml) to $112,679 (Tassajara Creek, Dublin,
CA). But the majority of these municipalities in this
study had household incomes between $40,000-
60,000. The project sites had land use types of
park, mixed-use, institutional, and residential. Five
projects were constructed on greyfields and four on
brownfield sites. The sizes of the projects varied
from 2.7 acres (Thornton Creek) to 1,011 acres
(Napa River). The budget of these projects varied
from $0.78 million (Wissahickon Creek) to $550
million (Napa River).
Nine of the projects are located in that
receive, on average, more than 30 inches of
annual rainfall, and five projects receive below 30
inches (1981-2010 Climate Normals Annual rain
totals, NOAA national climatic center). And,
the streams in these projects cover diverse stream
types: three on streams of Western Mountains,
three on Xeric, three on Temperate Plains, two
on Southern Appalachians, two on Southern
Plains, and one on Upper Midwest (stream types
determined by mapping project locations, using the
Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution Data Access
Tool (NPDAT) by USEPA).
-------
Winnipeg
smul
Montana
Oregon
Idaho Wyoming
North
Dakou
South
Dakota
Minnesota
Otta
Wisconsin
Michigan) Tor2ntc
South Korea
Gwangju
o o
Busan
Fukuc
o
Neva*
^^ahfornia .
Los
Angeles
Nebraska
nited States
Kansas Missouri
- New
Brunswick
Montreal
Ottawa o _o No*
- Maine , scot
'Vermont
New York •—^, New
Hampshire
llllno^" Ohio POTnsylvaic, A^Massachusetts
• ndiana
Kentucky virg"
San Di
New
Mexico
Tennessee North
Arkansas Carolina
Atlanta „„,„,, Maryland
Dallas Mississippi Carolina District of
Alabama Columbia
Texas Georgia
1 V Rhode Island
New Jersey
GvHo!
- San
Antonio
Monterrey
Mexico
Louisiana
Florida
Gulf of
Figure 2-1. Location of projects collected. Purple circle marks represent projects in downtown context, blue square in
urban, green star in suburban, and yellow balloon in rural. Basemap from Google Maps.
Table 2-1, Project names and brief summaries
Project name
Simplified
project name
Brief summary
Cheonggyecheon Stream
Restoration
Buffalo Bayou Promenade
Yuma East Wetlands, Phases
1 and 2
Thornton Creek Water Quality
Channel
Ruth Mott Foundation Gilkey
Creek
The Dell at the University of
Virginia
Boneyard Creek Restoration,
Scott Park and the Second
Street Detention Basin
Tassajara Creek Restoration
Menomonee Valley
Redevelopment
Napa River Flood Protection
63rd Street Beach, Jackson
Park
Westerly Creek at Stapleton
Wissahickon Creek Park
Blue Hole Regional Park
Riverside Ranch
Cheonggyecheon
Buffalo Bayou
Yuma East
Thornton Creek
Gilkey Creek
The Dell
Boneyard Creek
Tassajara Creek
Menomonee Valley
Napa River
63rd Street Beach
Westerly Creek
Wissahickon Creek
Blue Hole
Riverside Ranch
Daylighted a downtown stream, with an elevated freeway
removed
Transformed an urban greyfield under freeways into an inviting
waterfront
Restored a 350-acre wasteland with invasive plants and high
salinity soils along Colorado River.
Daylighted a stream once covered by a parking lot, serving as
public open space
Restored and daylighted a stream portion for flood control and
environmental education
Daylighted a buried stream to create a recreational and
educatonal campus amenity
Restored an once channelized stream, providing stormwater
holding and recreational benefits.
Restored a stream for flood control and as an amenity for
residents of adjacent neighobhroods.
Restored and remediated an former industrial land along
Menomonee River for redevelopment.
Restoration and remediation of a stream riparian system for
flood and pollution control.
Created a dune grassland landscape on lakefront as public
open space.
Restored and remediated a stream landscape for flood control
and recreational purposes.
Restored a stream in a commmunity park for stormwater
management and recreational values.
Restored a stream landscape in a park where economic
sustainability is emphasized.
Restored a riparian residential landscape for aesthetics and
on-site stormwater management.
-------
Table 2-2, List of sources on designs and performances of 15 projects
Project
Literature
Cheonggyecheon
Buffalo Bayou
Yuma East
Thornton Creek
Gilkey Creek
The Del!
Boneyard Creek
Tassajara Creek
Menomonee Valley
Napa River
63rd Street Beach
Westerly Creek
Wissahickon Creek
Blue Hole
Riverside Ranch
Robinson, A,, & Hopton, M. (2011), Cheonggyecheon Stream Restoration Project.
Ozdil, T. R., Modi, S., Stewart, D., & Dolejs, M. (2013). Buffalo Bayou Promenade.
Kondolf, G. M., Rubin, Z. K., Atherton, S. L, 2013. Yuma East Wetlands, Phases 1 and 2.
Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area, 2013. Yuma East Wetlands Progress Report.
Phillips, R, Flynn, C., & Kloppel, H. (2009). At the end of the line: restoring Yuma east
wetlands, Arizona. Ecological Restoration, 27(4), 398-406.
Sorvig, K., (2009). The same river twice. Landscape Architecture, 99(11), 42-53.
Landscape Architecture Foundation, (n.d.). Thornton Creek Water Quality Channel.
SvR Design Company, (2009). Thornton Creek Water Quality Channel: Final Report. Seattle
Public Utilities.
Landscape Architecture Foundation, (n.d.). Ruth Mott Foundation Gilkey Creek Relocation and
Restoration.
SmithGroupJJR, (n.d.). Gilkey Creek Restoration; 8 Keys to Successful Urban Ecological Design.
ASLA Michigan Chapter, (2010). SITES: Winter 2010.
Thatcher, E., Hughes, M., (2011). The Dell at the University of Virginia.
American Society of Landscape Architects(ASLA), (2009). Honor Award: The Dell at the
University of Virginia, Charlottsville, VA.
University of Virginia, (n.d.). The Dell: Day-lighting Meadow Creek.
ASLA Virginia Chapter, (2007). The Dell at the University of Virginia.
Kim, J., Whalen 1, Farnsworth C., Underwood M., (2014). Boneyard Creek Restoration, Scott
Park and the Second Street Detention Basin.
Wenk Associates, & HNTB. (2008). Boneyard Creek Master Plan.
Kondolf, G. M., Atherton, S. L., Cook, S., (2013). Tassajara Creek Restoration Project.
Landscape Architecture Foundation, (n.d.). Menomonee Valley Redevelopment and Community
Park.
Menomonee Valley Partners, (n.d.). Menomonee Valley History; Menomonee Valley: A Decade of
Transformation.
Landscapes of Place, (n.d.). Menomonee Valley Landscape Restoration; Making a Wild Place in
Milwaukee's Urban Menomonee Valley.
Kondolf, G. M., Atherton, S. L., lacofano, D., 2013. Napa River Flood Protection Project
(1998-2012).
Campbell, B. (n.d.). EPA Clean Water State Revolving Fund: Napa County "Living Riving
Strategy" to Provide Flood Protection.
Mattson, M. P., Guinn, R., & Horinko, K., 2013. 63rd Street Beach, Jackson Park.
Canfield, J., Koehler, K., & Cunningham, K. (2011). Westerly Creek at Stapleton.
American Society of Landscape Architects, (n.d.). Wissahickon Creek Park Infiltration Basins
and Riparian Corridor.
Montgomery County, (2009). Lansdale Borough Wissahickon Project.
Metz Engineers, (2014). Wissahickon Creek: Infiltration Basins and Riparian Corridor.
Canfield, J., Fagan, E., Mendenhall, A., Spears, S., Risinger, & E. 2013. Blue Hole Regional
Park.
Yang, B., Blackmore, P., Binder, C., Mendenhall, A., Callaway, D., & Shaw, R., (n.d.). Riverside
Ranch.
American Society of Landscape Architects, (n.d.). Sustainable Landscapes: Transformative
Water.
American Society of Landscape Architects, (2010). Honor Award: Transformative Water.
-------
Table 2-3. Sorting of projects based on density of development (downtown to rural), stream order category
(small to large), and population (large to small).
Project
Cheonggyecheon
Buffalo Bayou
Yuma East
Thornton Creek
Gilkey Creek
The Dell
Boneyard Creek
Tassajara Creek
Menomonee
Valley
Napa River
63rd Street
Beach
Westerly Creek
Wissahickon
Creek
Blue Hole
Riverside Ranch
Location
Seoul, South
Korea
Houston, TX
Yuma, AZ
Seattle, WA
Flint, Ml
Charlottesville,
VA
Champaign, IL
Dublin, CA
Milwaukee, Wl
Napa, CA
Chicago, IL
Denver, CO
Lansdale, PA
Wimberley, TX
Pitkin County,
CO
ment
Downtown
Downtown
Downtown
Urban
Urban
Urban
Urban
Urban
Urban
Urban
Urban
Suburban
Suburban
Suburban
Rural
" £?•
Small
(daylighted)
Large
Large
Small
(daylighted)
Small
(daylighted)
Small
(daylighted)
Small
Small
Large
Large
Large4
Small
(daylighted)
Small
Small
Small
Population
>1, 000,000
>1, 000,000
10,000-
100,000
100,000-
1,000,000
100,000-
1,000,000
10,000-
100,000
10,000-
100,000
10,000-
100,000
100,000-
1,000,000
10,000-
100,000
>1, 000,000
100,000-
1,000,000
10,000-
100,000
<10,000
10,000-
100,000
1: Large stream: stream order >3, small stream: stream order <=3.
2: Based on data from 2010 US Census and Korea Tourism Organization, 2014,
3: Median household income (2008-2012) in dollars, from http://quickfacts.cen;
2 "ncoml?1
Not known
40,000-
60,000
40,000-
60,000
60,000-
100,000
<40,000
40,000-
60,000
40,000-
60,000
>100,000
<40,000
60,000-
100,000
40,000-
60,000
40,000-
60,000
40,000-
60,000
40,000-
60,000
60,000-
100,000
http://enelish.
'Land use
Transportation,
Park
Size
(acres)
,100
Greyfield, Park23
Greyfield, Park350
Greyfield,
Mixed-use
Greyfield,
Institutional
Greyfield,
Institutional
Park
Park
Brownfield,
Park
Brownfield,
Park
Park
Brownfield,
Park
Park
Park
Brownfield,
residential
2.7
16
11
10
35
140
1011
3 (2004)
75
6.7
126
-
visitkorea.or.kr/enu/AK/AK EN
Completion
date
2005
2006
2010
2009
2008
2004
2010
1999
2006
(phase
1, ID
2015
expected
2004,
2004
2009
2011,
2006
1 4 3.
2010
2012
sus.gov/qfd/index.html.
4: Lake Michigan.
-------
Table 2-4. Precipitation and water quality information of municipalities projects located.
Project
Cheonggyecheon
Buffalo Bayou
Yuma East
Thornton Creek
Gilkey Creek
The Dell
Boneyard Creek
Tassajara Creek
Menomonee Valley
Napa River
63rd Street Beach
Westerly Creek
Wissahickon Creek
Blue Hole
Riverside Ranch
Location
Seoul, South Korea
Houston, TX
Yuma, AZ
Seattle, WA
Flint, Ml
Charlottesville, VA
Champaign, IL
Dublin, CA
Milwaukee, Wl
Napa, CA
Chicago, IL
Denver, CO
Lansdale, PA
Wimberley, TX
Pitkin County, CO
Annual
rainfall1
-
>=30
<30
>=30
>=30
>=30
>=30
<30
>=30
<30
>=30
<30
>=30
>=30
<30
Stream type2
-
Western Mountains
Xeric
Western Mountains
Upper Midwest
Southern Appalachians
Temperate Plains
Xeric
Temperate Plains
Xeric
Temperate Plains
Southern Plains
Southern Appalachians
Southern Plains
Western Mountains
N incremental
yield3
-
>1500
-
>2000
<500
1500-2000
>2000
-
500-1000
-
>2000
1000-1500
>2000
<500
-
Drinking
water4
-
S, G
S, G
S, G
G
S, G
G
G
S, G
S, G
S, G
S, G
G
G
S, G
1: Using 1981-2010 Climate Normals Annual rain totals (in) of the municipalities where projects located, from NOAA national climatic
data center,
2: Stream types determined by mapping project locations using the Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution Data Access Tool (NPDAT),
http://gispub2.epa.gov/npdat/.
3; SPARROW Total Nitrogen Incremental Yield 2002 for Major River Basins (kg/km2/yr), based on project location, using NPDAT,
http://eisDub2. epa.gov/nDdat/.
4: S: surface water as drinking water in municipal boundary; G: ground water as drinking water in municipal boundary, using NPDAT,
http://gispub2.epa.gov/npdat/.
-------
3 Findings
The projects in this study provided a variety of
environmental, economic, and social benefits.
Environmental benefits included flood control,
water quality protection, habitat creation, air
quality control, carbon sequestration, enhance
urban microclimate, and soil remediation;
economic benefits included increased property
value, investment, retail sales, and local
employment; and social benefits included
promoting public environmental education,
increased recreational activities, and enhanced
aesthetics.
3.1 Summary of project and
performance
3. /. /
Restoration of riparian vegetation was found to
be the most commonly used practice. Seven
projects integrated Green infrastructure, five
restored stream meander, three conducted
soil pollutant remediation, and one utilized
sediment removal (Table 3-1). All projects
used native plant species. More than half of
the projects emphasized site connectivity for
enhanced public access and use of the sites (e
g. constructing trails and pedestrian bridges).
A few projects went through a public process
(communication and collaboration among
stakeholders) on project design.
3.1.2
Based on information available, flood control
was a frequently addressed environmental
consideration in both the stream restoration
and waterfront redevelopment projects (Table
3-2). Project performance on flood control
ranged from 1-year storm event (Wissahickon
Creek, small stream) to 200-year flood
(Cheonggyecheon, small, day-lighted stream).
Many projects also attempted to address water
quality, but there was limited data on water
quality improvement. Projects that specifically
addressed water quality goals were mostly
small streams and one exception is the project
on Chicago's lakefront (63rd Street Beach).
Habitat value was also a consideration for many
projects; some projects greatly improved habitat
value and biodiversity based on data available
(Yuma East, 350 acres, created habitat for
330 species of wildlife; Cheonggyecheon, 100
acres, increased overall biodiversity by 639%
during 2003-2008). There were two restoration
projects that measured carbon sequestration.
One project showed air quality improvement and
reduction of urban heat island effect.
Economic
Based on information available, 12 of the
15 projects included economic performance.
Eight projects produced economic benefits
from increased property value, investment,
or employment. Two projects increased
retail sales or attracted tourists. Seven used
design techniques to reduce project cost or
maintenance expenses. All three Projects in the
downtown context increased local investment
and two projects in cities with population
of more than 1 million (Seoul, South Korea,
and Houston, TX) also increased retail sales
and employment. Projects that used design
techniques to reduce project or maintenance
costs were all in urban, suburban, and rural
contexts, and all were on small streams (except
the 63rd Street Beach project on a lakefront).
Also, the cost of these projects that adopted
practices to reduce project or maintenance
costs were under half million dollar per acre
(Riverside Ranch data not available).
Social
Ten projects addressed public education (e
g. engaging volunteers in restoration and
education activities, taking educational tours,
using informational signs educating people
on project design, site history, and wildlife).
Eight projects promoted recreation values (for
users of pedestrians, bikers, and boaters) and
two showed increased visits after restoration.
Aesthetics of the projects were rarely measured
and only a survey of one project showed
improved site aesthetics.
-------
Table 3-1, Project design techniques (based on information available)
Project
Restored riparian
vegetation
Green
infrastructure
used
Daylighting
Restored
meander
Remediation
Pumping
water to Sediment
sustain removal
water flow
Cheonggyecheon
Buffalo Bayou
Yuma East
Thornton Creek
Gilkey Creek
The Dell
Boneyard Creek
Tassajara Creek
Menomonee Valley
Napa River
63rd Street Beach
Westerly Creek
Wissahickon Creek
Blue Hole
Riverside Ranch
*1
1: Restored lakefront dune ecosystem.
Table 3-2, Performance of projects (based on information available)
Environmental Economic
D^;««» r, j ... * Property value/ Retail
Project Flood Water „,.-..-.., , ,
Habitat investment/ sales/
control quality
employment tourists
Cheonggyecheon * * * *
Buffalo Bayou * * *
Yuma East * * *
Thornton Creek * * *
Gilkey Creek * *
The Dell
Boneyard Creek * *
Tassajara Creek * *
Menomonee Valley * * *
Napa River * * *
63rd Street Beach * *
Westerly Creek * * *
Wissahickon Creek * * *
Blue Hole * *
Riverside Ranch * *
Social
Project eosl/ Public _ . Cost1
Recreation
maintenance education
* 3.8
0.65
0.03
5.44
0.07
* * * 0.09
1 .07
0.14
0.29
* * 0.54
0.40
* * * 0.21
0.12
0.03
*
1 -. Million dollar per acre.
-------
3.2 Projects by site
The 15 projects were grouped into four
categories, by project context: 1) downtown,
2) urban (in this study, it denotes municipal
areas excluding downtown and suburban), 3)
suburban (or peri-urban, urban areas close
to municipal boundary), and rural contexts.
The study finds that different context types
tend to be associated with different sets of
environmental, economic, and social benefits.
Figure 3-1 shows different sets of
environmental, economic, and social
benefits provided by these projects, based
on their context of development density
(downtown, urban, suburban, and rural).
As the development density increases, the
variety of benefits provided increase. Projects
in downtown context provided the most
comprehensive settings of benefits. However,
downtown projects did not cover all benefits,
such as water quality protection or maintenance
cost saving provided by projects in lower density
areas.
-------
-
:
• _
•
:= c
I 8
CD °
y g
••
,
"
Flood conti
••
Water qual
Habitat
c
.
in
Soil remed
•
Property v<
Investmen
Employme
Maintenam
U)
o
£
c
o
ffl
u
b
5 o to
3 CD CD
LL LL <
IS
3 S K
-o .2 o
^ B ^
:::
u
S
*
I
ra
1
CO
D)
-------
3.2.1 and
Projects in a downtown context had the
most comprehensive set of environmental,
economic, and social benefits, as compared
to projects in a lower density context. The
three downtown projects included in this study
were Cheonggyecheon (Seoul, South Korea),
Buffalo Bayou (Houston, TX), and Yuma East
(Yuma, AZ). Cheonggyecheon, as a project
in a city with population of more than 1
million and on a small stream, was a relatively
"engineered" stream, Buffalo Bayou, in a city
with a population of more than 1 million and
on a large stream, was more "naturalistic"
compared to Cheonggyecheon. Yuma East, in
a municipality with population of less than
100,000 and on the Colorado River, restored a
large area of "wild" landscape. Economic and
social values were of great concerns for all three
projects in downtown context.
Cheonggyecheon (downtown, small stream,
population >1,000,000)
Cheonggyecheon project (Figure 3-2)
demonstrated the complexity of restoration
work in a high density area. Prior to restoration
the stream was hidden under highways and
the stream water did not flow year-round. The
elevated freeway was aging and needed to be
repaired or removed. The local government
wanted to enhance connectivity between
areas divided by the freeway. Reducing
traffic congestion was a challenge when
removing the freeways to daylight the stream,
so public transportation was enhanced and
car use discouraged in the area. Water was
pumped from adjacent sources to keep water
flow in channel. Business owners on stream
sides initially opposed the project and there
were vendors who had to move out due to
construction work, so economic support was
provided and special agreements made. More
than 4,200 meetings were held by the Seoul
Metropolitan Government to build consensus
during the design process. This project provided
economic benefits (including increased
property values, number of businesses, and
local employment), environmental benefits
(flood control, increased biodiversity, and air
quality protection), and social (recreation and
aesthetics) benefits (Table 3-3) (Robinson &
Hopton, 2011).
Table 3-3. Cheonggyecheon project
Design
Stream restoration measures
Plant material used
Site connectivity
Public process in project
development
Performance
Stream daylighted by removing elevated freeway; Pumping water from adja-
cent sources to maintain water flow; restoration of riparian wetlands.
Native willow swamps, shallows and marshes were constructed in 29 loca-
tions along the restored stream
Created a 3.6-mile green corridor for pedestrians and bicyclists. Added 22
bridges (12 pedestrian, 10 for automobiles and pedestrians), connections
with 5 nearby subway lines, and 18 bus lines to improve site connectivity.
Local government held -4,200 meetings to build consensus with business
owners. Economic support was given to businesses which had to move due to
project construction.
Environmental Flood control
Habitat
Air quality
Microclimate
Accommodate 200-year flood event
Increased overall biodiversity by 639% during 2003-2008: plant species
from 62 to 308, fish species from 4 to 25, and bird species from 6 to 36.
Protected air quality through reducing small-particle air pollution by 35%
from 74 to 48 ug/m3,
Reduces the heat island effect due to the removal of freeway above the
stream and increased plantings: site temperatures were 3.3° to 5.9°C cooler
than on a parallel road 4-7 blocks away.
-------
Economic
Economic benefits
Social
Recreation
Aesthetics
Increased land price by 30-50% for properties within 50 meters of the
project, doubling the rate of business growth in downtown during 2002-2003;
Attracted $1.98 billion investment; Increased the number of working people
in project area by 0.8%, versus a decrease in downtown; Attracted 1,408
foreign tourists daily who contributed ~$1.9 million in visitor spending to the
city.
Attracted -64,000 visitors daily.
Created consistent water flow as urban visual amenity by engineering
measures.
(Project information from (Robinson & Hopton, 2011))
Figure 3-2. Cheonggyecheon, Seoul, South Korea. A) Birds-eye view of restored stream landscape (visitors
can walk on boulders in channel, which are for flow control), B) Riparian vegetation and flow
control structures (create habitat area for wildlife), C) Terraced stream bank for art work display
and pedestrian walkway (stream accessible when water fluctuates). Permission from ©Alexander
Robinson.
-------
Buffalo Bayou (downtown, large stream,
population >1,000,000)
Buffalo Bayou Promenade project (Figure 3-3)
restored a waterfront greyfield to an inviting 23-
acre open space. Unlike the Cheonggyecheon
project that removed elevated highways as
part of the restoration project, Buffalo Bayou
restored riparian areas located under highways,
To resolve the shade issue created by the
highways, plant species that grow in low-light
Table 3-4, Buffalo Bayou project
conditions were selected and a lighting system
constructed for night time public use. Invasive
species were removed and replaced with native
and naturalized plants. Together with gabion
sacks and cages, installed plantings were used
to stabilize stream banks and control erosion.
The plantings were also used to soften harsh
urban structures and improve stream landscape
aesthetics (Table 3-4) (Ozdil, Modi, Stewart, &
Dolejs, 2013).
Design
Stream restoration measures
Plant material used
Site connectivity
Performance
Stream bank stabilization; restoration of riparian plantings
Native plants
Constructed a new pedestrian bridge connects the north and south stream
banks, 12 street-to-bayou entryways, and 1.4 miles of paved trails linking more
than 20 miles for the entire Bayou area.
Environmental
Economic
Social
Flood control
C02 sequestration
Economic
benefits
Recreation
Public education
Trees intercept 337,411 gallons of stormwater run-off.
Tree plantings could sequester 29.74 tons of C02 annually.
The number of establishments increased from 54 to 236; Employment
increased during 2008-2012; Retail sales increased from $10,467,000 to
$57,281,000.
Provides recreational and education opportunities for -22,500 visitors per
year. Used by pedestrians, bikers and boaters. Improves the quality of life for
99% of 108 park users surveyed and increases outdoor activity for 88% of the
respondents.
One of its goals is educating and serving citizens living along the stream;
interpretative signage used.
(Project information from (Ozdil et a/., 2013)
-------
Figure 3-3. Buffalo Bayou, Houston, Texas. A) Stream landscape under freeways, B) Stream riparian as public
open space, C) Riparian landscape promote recreation activities and provide water view, D) Light-
ing for park use during evening hours. Photographs by Tom Fox, courtesy of @SWA.
Yuma East (downtown, large stream, population
10,000-100,000)
Yuma East Wetlands project (Figure 3-4) sought
to restore the ecological function and public
value to a large wetland area near the historic
downtown of Yuma, Arizona. As compared with
the previously mentioned downtown projects,
the project area is larger while the municipality
population is much smaller (Table 2-3). It
should be noted that Yuma East covered a
continuum of lands, including downtown and
less developed areas. Yuma, AZ is on one side of
the Colorado River, which is different from the
other two projects with stream sections located
within municipality boundary. The project faced
Table 3-5, Yuma East project
many challenges including invasive species,
high salinity soils, and intitial opposition from
local farmers who were concerned about water
rights. Invasive plants were removed and the
site replanted. Water from water treatment
plants were reused to feed the wetland (rather
than draw water from the stream). A partnership
among a diversity of stakeholders was created
and this cooperation among local tribes, farmers,
property owners, and government contributed
to the project accomplishment (Table 3-5)
(Kondolf, Rubin, & Atherton, 2013; Phillips,
Flynn, & Kloppel, 2009; Sorvig, 2009; Yuma
Crossing National Heritage Area, 2013).
Design
Stream restoration measures
Plant material used
Site connectivity
Public process in project
development
Modification of site hydrology: reused water to feed wetlands; transformation
of fallow agricultural land to sheet-irrigated habitat; invasive species removal
(350 acres cleared); sediment removal.
Native, local plants; over 300,000 native plantings in restored wetland provide
plant material for other restorations.
Over 2.5 miles of pedestrian trails connect to the Gateway Park to facilitate
hiking, jogging, and birding activities.
The Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area (YCNHA ) Corporation (a partner-
ship among government agencies, nonprofit groups and civic organizations) is
instrumental in project development.
-------
Performance
Environmental Flood control
Economic
Social
Reduced flows: 22,000 average annual cfs at Yuma before the dams to 300-
600 average annual cfs after.
Created habitat for 330 species of wildlife, including 2 federally threatened
and endangered species and 4 additional species of concern. Bird density and
diversity have increased.
More than $50 million has been found for the city's riverfront by YCNHA;
Training skilled workers for a projected $500 million lower-Colorado restoration
industry.
Attracted -220 visitors per day during the summer (90% people swim each
day) and 130 people per day during the rest of the year (76% people swim
each day).
Engages and educates over 200 volunteers annually (1,600 volunteer hours);
Hosts 100-150 people annually to celebrate the region's biodiversity through
the Yuma Birding and Nature festival.
Restored wetlands enhance cultural heritage for stakeholders (e g. Quechan
Tribe).
(Project information from (Kondo/f, Rubin, et a/., 2013; Phi/lips et a/., 2009; Sorvig, 2009; Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area,
2013))
Habitat
Economic benefits
Recreation
Public education
Culture
Figure 3-4. Yuma East Wetlands, Yuma, Arizona. A) Site birds-eye view (wetlands on top, downtown Yuma
on right of the Colorado River), B) Wetlands during flooding, C) Rparian vegetation and visitors
on bank. Permission from ©Fred Phillips.
3.2.2 Urban stream restoration and
redevelopment
Projects in the urban context provided a similar
set of benefits to the downtown projects. But
maintenance became a consideration in project
designs. Project summaries are organized
first by those that included daylighting of
small streams (Thornton Creek project), then
those that restored large streams (Napa River
project), and lastly one that restored a large
water body (63rd Street Beach project). Large
stream projects showed more consideration
for flood control and the landscapes were
closer to natural systems (less "garden" look).
Also, projects in the mixed-use land use area
(Thornton Creek project) and institutional area
(The Dell project) were smaller-sized; park
projects both had small size (Tassajara Creek)
and large size ones (Menomonee Valley project).
-------
Thornton Creek (Urban, small stream, population
100,000-1,000,000)
Thornton Creek project (Figure 3-5) showed
how to improve stormwater management in a
high density urban area. The project sought
to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff,
provide public open space, and facilitate local
economic development. The design team
worked with a group of environmental, business,
and local community stakeholders and created
a channel design integrating environmental
and commercial purposes. Once covered by
an asphalt parking lot, the stream channel
Table 3-6. Thornton Creek project
was created to filter stormwater (runoff of both
site area and adjacent lands) and serve as a
neighborhood amenity. To achieve water quality
control, a system of conveyance and detention
features were built and plantings installed.
Due to land space limitation in urban areas,
the project used engineering methods to mimic
natural flows in a systematic way (rather than
restoring it to a natural system) for water quality
purpose (Table 3-6) (Landscape Architecture
Foundation, n.d.-c; SvR Design Company,
2009).
Design
Stream restoration measures
Green infrastructure
Plant material used
Site connectivity
Public process in project
development
Performance
Stream daylighted from an abandoned parking lot. Constructed meander channels
and vegetated riparian landscapes. Restored channel to allow deep flows through wide
densely vegetated terraces to control water quality.
A system of channels, pools, and terraces
Used native plant species. Native volunteer plants found onsite. Plantings and stream
channel allowed to evolve over time
Provided pedestrian walkways from adjacent commercial and residential areas.
Shortened walking distance by 50%.
The design team worked with local stakeholders, developers, and Seattle Public
Utilities to meet economic and water quality needs.
Environmental Water
quality
Habitat
Economic
Economic
benefits
Designed to remove -40-80% of total suspended solids from 91% of the average
volume of annual runoff from the drainage basin of 680 acres.
Within one month after opening, native birds were observed at the project.
Catalyzed $200 million in residential and commercial development.
(Project information from (Landscape Architecture Foundation, n.d.-c; SvR Design Company, 2009))
-------
D E
Figure 3-5. Thornton Creek, Seattle, Washington. A) Birds-eye view of previous site, B) Birds-eye view of
stream channel after project completion, C) Stream channel during rain event, D) Vegetated
bioswale, E) View access of stream channel in residential neighborhood. Permission from
©SvR Design Company.
Gilkey Creek (Urban, small stream, population
100,000-1,000,000)
Previously a stream portion that was
enclosed in a culvert pipe, the natural flow
of the stream was restricted during flood
events. Through stream daylighting, riparian
restoration, and wetland construction, the
Gilkey Creek project sought to resolve flooding
issues while achieving diverse performance
Table 3-7. Gilkey Creek project
benefits. Stormwater management and
filtering, habitat, and public environmental
education are among the benefits of this
project. It reflected the mission of Ruth Mott
Foundation on community vitality and served
as a demonstration project that promotes
sustainability and environmental education
(Table 3-7) (ASIA Michigan Chapter, 2010;
Landscape Architecture Foundation, n.d.-b;
SmithGroupJJR, n.d.-a, n.d.-b).
Design
Stream restoration measures
Green infrastructure
Plant material used
Performance
Restoration of stream riparian corridor and wetland
Pond with wetland fringe constructed for stormwater management
Native seed mix, along with 200 trees, 300 shrubs, and 1,200 aquatic plants.
Environmental Flood control
Economic
Social
Economic benefits
Public education
Accommodate 100-year flood event. Reduced impervious surfaces and storm-
water runoff by 22% and used natural landscapes for runoff detention.
Costs for flood-related restoration and cleanup dropped more than 95%,
saving $10,000-$15,000 annually. Utilizing contractors from the surrounding
region for 80% of work. Reduced maintenance costs by 50% using native
landscapes.
Environmental education outreach through the development of program-
ming with a focus on habitat restoration, wetland ecology, and stormwater
management.
(Project information from (ASLA Michigan Chapter, 2010; Landscape Architecture Foundation, n.d.-b))
The Dell (Urban, small stream, population
10,000-100,000)
The Dell project (Figure 3-6) is located in the
center of the University of Virginia campus.
Project goals were to restore the piped stream
to provide enhanced ecological value, more
efficient stormwater management, and public
amenity. The buried stream was day-lighted
and a stormwater pond and sediment forebay
was constructed to manage stormwater for
-------
several downstream projects. This project
provided various benefits including stormwater
management and water quality improvement
(Table 3-8) (American Society of Landscape
Table 3-8. The Dell project
Architects, 2009; ASIA Virginia Chapter,
2007; Thatcher & Hughes, 2011; University of
Virginia, n.d.).
Design
Stream restoration measures
Green infrastructure
Plant material used
Performance
Restoration of stream meander and riparian wetland
Rain gardens
Native plants (99%)
Environmental
Economic
Social
Flood control
Water quality
Habitat
Economic benefits
Recreation
Public education
Aesthetics
Accommodate 2-year storm event, larger storm diverted by a flow-splitter
Reduces total suspended solids by 30-92%, phosphate by 23-100%, and
nitrate by 50-89%.
There was increase in wildlife (e g. deer, red fox, turtles, songbirds, and great
blue heron) sightings since the project completion.
A cost-effective way to mitigate downstream stormwater run-off.
Provides recreational opportunities for -10,000 users (university members,
local residents, and visitors) each year.
It has been the subject of research and outdoor classroom year-round.
Designed to enhance visual appearance in a highly visible site.
(Project information from (American Society of Landscape Architects, 2009; ASLA Virginia Chapter, 2007; Thatcher & Hughes, 2011;
University of Virginia, n.d.)
Figure 3-6. The Dell, Charlottesville, Virginia. A) Stream meander, B) Flowering plants in pond. Permission
from ©Nelson Byrd Woltz.
Boneyard Creek (Urban, small stream, population
10,000-100,000)
Boneyard Creek was once a channelized and
engineered stream that drained runoff from
the central business district of the city and
campus area of the University of Illinois. To
resolve poor water quality and flooding issues,
the City and University developed a multi-
phase redevelopment plan for Boneyard Creek.
As Phase 2 of the master plan, the project on
the second street detention basin enhanced
stormwater management and served recreation
purposes. Stream meander was restored and
stream bank stabilized with natural stones
(Figure 3-7). Vantage view-points were created
throughout the basin. Bioswales and rain
gardens were used for detention and filtering of
stormwater runoff. Several environmental and
social benefits were provided by this project
(Table 3-9) (Kim, J., C., & M., 2014; Wenk
Associates & HNTB, 2008).
-------
Table 3-9. Boneyard Creek project
Design
Stream restoration measures
Green infrastructure
Plant material used
Performance
Restoration of stream meander and riparian vegetated landscapes.
Bioswale, rain garden.
Established a native plant species-dominated culture; used 250 shade trees,
100 shrubs, and -2,000 perennials.
Accommodate 100-year flood event, could collect 15 million gallons of storm-
water generated during the event.
Reduces Water pH from 7.93 to 6.96 in Scott Park and 7.54 to 6.89 in the
North Basin.
A rise from 58 and 69 (2008) to 133 and 135 (2012) in USEPA Rapid
Bioassessment habitat scores for the basin and stream.
The annual Boneyard Creek Community Day attracts -300 volunteers to remove
litter and invasive plants. Since 2010, over 150 professionals, students and
senior citizens have taken educational tours.
Visual appearance is one of the main considerations of the project, techniques
enhance aesthetics include restoring meanders and bank stabilization.
(Project information from (Kim et a/., 2014; Wenk Associates & HNTB, 2008))
Environmental Flood control
Water quality
Habitat
Social Public education
Aesthetics
Figure 3-7. Boneyard Creek, Champaign, Illinois. Permission from Hitchcock Design Group, ©Foth Infra-
structure & Environment, LLC.
Tassajara Creek (Urban, small stream,
population 10,000-100,000)
The Tassajara Creek (Figure 3-8) was incised
and hydraulically disconnected from its
floodplain. Proposed developments adjacent
to the stream necessitated a way to control
erosion and flooding. A constructed floodplain
terrace was created to reduce channel flow
velocities and bed-shear stresses during high
flows. The project provided easy access to the
creek and pedestrian steps were integrated
into a grade control structure. The restored
stream landscape serves as an amenity for local
residents (Table 3-10) (Kondolf, Atherton, &
Cook, 2013).
-------
Table 3-10. Tassajara Creek project
Design
Stream restoration measures
Plant material used
Site
connectivity
Performance
Restored stream meander and floodplain
Terrace was planted with native species; 18 native plant species were planted
and 3 volunteer plant species (2 native, one invasive) appeared in riparian
corridor.
Paved, multi-use trails were added on both sides of the creek, connecting the
new residential neighborhoods to adjacent parks.
Environmental Flood control Accommodate 100-year flood event (peak flows of 5,200 cfs)
Economic Economic During 2004-2013, adjacent homes had estimated market values 135-158%
benefits (4- and 5-bedroom homes) and 111-126% (2-and 3-bedroom homes) of the city
median; Saves $5,000-$42,000 on annual channel maintenance comparing to
a traditional trapezoidal channel.
(Project information from (Kondo/f, Atherton, & Cook, 2013))
Figure 3-8. Tassajara Creek, Dublin, California. A) Site plan view, B) A pedestrian pathway through the
stream channel. From Google Maps.
Menomonee Valley (Urban, large stream,
population 100,000-1,000,000)
Historically a wetland area home to the Native
Indians, the Menomonee Valley experienced
extensive development during industrial
development that transformed the stream
landscapes. Milwaukee was once home to many
industrial giants during the early 20th century.
After the decline of the manufacturing sector,
the valley was left with abandoned brownfields.
The redevelopment project (Figure 3-9) sought
to revitalize the valley, by promoting economic
development, providing recreation benefits, and
creating environmental values (Table 3-11).
Local partnerships played an important role
in project planning; the project was promoted
as a model of economic and environmental
sustainability (Landscape Architecture
Foundation, n.d.-a; Landscapes of Place, n.d.-a,
n.d.-b; Menomonee Valley Partners, n.d.-a,
n.d.-b).
-------
Table 3-11, Menomonee Valley project
Design
Stream restoration measures
Plant material used
Site connectivity
Public process in project development
Performance
Restoration and remediation of stream floodplain from an industrial brown-
field; Contaminated soil managed on site.
Native (-500 trees), drought-tolerant plants.
The first Wisconsin state trail in urban setting was built on site. Added 3
pedestrian/bicycle bridges and 7 miles of multi-use trails, linking communi-
ties to the park and Menomonee River.
Menomonee Valley Partners was critical in project development.
Environmental Flood control
Habitat
Economic
Social
Economic benefits
Public education
Accommodate 100-year flood event
Over 3,000 feet of the riverbank restored serve as habitat areas.
Thirty-nine firms have moved to or expanded in the Valley and 5,200 jobs
created in the past 10 years. Increased developer yield by 10-12% more
than conventional development by clustering development and consolidating
stormwater management. Increased site property values by 1,400% during
2002-2009. Created 2,000 jobs by 2006.
Uses river valley as an outdoor classroom, receiving 10,000 student visits
annually. About 70% of the 500 native trees added were planted by local
student, community and advocacy groups. The involvement of Urban
Ecology Center is key to the project plan, to promote participatory education
in restorations.
(Project information from (Landscape Architecture Foundation, n.d.-a; Landscapes of Place, n.d.-a, n.d.-b; Menomonee Valley Partners,
n.d.-a, n.d.-b))
-------
H
Figure 3-9. Menomonee Valley, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. A) stormwater park in dry condition, B) stormwater
park collects stormwater runoff, C) Stream riparian during low flow (provides sitting area), D)
Stream riparian during high flow (designed to allow floods to pass), E) Riparian flowing plants, F)
Wildlife on site, G) Educational signs, H) Children playing on streamside. Permission from Nancy
M. Aten, ©Landscapes of Place.
Napa River (Urban, large stream, population
10,000-100,000)
The Napa River project (Figure 3-10) integrated
waterfront redevelopment with wetland
restoration. Stakeholder collaboration was
critical in project planning and development.
Flood control was the primary goal of the Napa
River project due to flooding issues in the City
of Napa. The restored site area increased water
conveyance capacity, enhanced ecological
health of the stream, and provided social and
economic benefits (Table 3-12) (B. Campbell,
n.d.; Kondolf, Atherton, & lacofano, 2013).
-------
Table 3-12. Napa River project
Design
Stream restoration measures
Plant material used
Site connectivity
Public process in project
development
Performance
Restoration of stream riparian system (include brackish marsh 289 acres,
seasonal wetland 112 acres, mudflat 324 acres, tidal channel 28 acres,
woodland 84 acres, and grasslands 165 acres); Channel widening; Removal
of contaminated soil; Construction of a bypass channel allows water to move
safely through downtown during high flows.
About 120 acres of terracing were hydro-seeded or drill seeded with native
grasses and trees
Integrated 2.5 miles of trail along the east bank of the Napa River into the
developing San Francisco Bay Trail network (a continuous 500-mile recre-
ational corridor). Along the western bank, a 1.25-mile paved trail connects
Trancas Crossing Park. Installed 3 pedestrian bridges.
The project was designed by a coalition included 27 local organizations, the
Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, and 25 other environmental agencies.
Environmental Flood control
Habitat
Economic Economic benefits
Social
Recreation
Public education
Accommodate 100-year flood event, increased capacity from 13,000 cfs to
43,000 cfs.
After restored the historic wetlands, it resulted in 71 species of migratory and
resident birds observed on-site.
The project reduces flood damage in city and downstream communities. Floods
caused $26 million in property damage annually in Napa County previously.
Created an estimated 1,373 temporary jobs and 1,248 permanent jobs.
A 0.5-acre terraced park, designed to flood during significant rain events,
provides space for social gatherings.
Engages -575 volunteers annually in restoration and education projects on
site.
(Project information from (B. Campbell, n.d.; Kondolf, Atherton, & lacofano, 2013))
Figure 3-10. Napa River, Napa, California. A) Meander stream and the city,
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
i Wetland habitat. Permission from ©Napa
63rd Street Beach (Urban, large water body,
population >1,000,000)
The 63rd Street Beach project (Figure 3-11)
was a part of urban redevelopment efforts along
Chicago's shoreline. Instead of restoring the
original wetland system to a pre-settlement
condition, this project sought to create a
stable native dune grassland landscape that
serves several purposes, including: stormwater
management, shoreline protection, and urban
amenity. It also demonstrated that waterfront
redevelopment projects can be opportunities to
rebuild urban infrastructure for water quality
protection. The project rerouted the most
polluted runoff (that previously went directly
into Lake Michigan) to a sewer system. By
creating a dune grassland landscape with native
trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (found in
-------
remnant shorelines south of the city), irrigation
was minimized and erosion control better
achieved compared to conventional design.
Public access was enhanced to encourage
Table 3-13. 63rd Street Beach project
recreational activities in this public open space
(Table 3-13) (Mattson, Guinn, & Horinko,
2013).
Design
Stream restoration measures
Plant material used
Site connectivity
Performance
Created a native dune grassland system at the beachfront of Lake Michigan to
sustain wave and wind action.
Native trees, shrubs, and grasses found in local remnant shorelines; pre-grown
regionally occurring plants used.
Pedestrian access was enhanced with the addition new underpasses. Chicago's
only beach boardwalk was installed to provide a separate path for beach-goers.
Environmental Water quality
Habitat
Economic Economic benefits
Social
Recreation
Public education
Reroutes the most polluted runoff to the city sewer system (originally went
directly to the lake).
Provides habitat for over 200 species of birds. Increased the Biomass Density
Index by-150%.
Construction costs for the project being significantly less than a conventional
design approach, less than $10/SF; Saves -450,000 gallons of potable water
and over $1,300 annually using native species (2004 Restoration).
Helped to reduce the number of swim ban days and swim advisory days by
72% and 62% by 2010, respectively. A pedestrian underpass provides access
to beach from Jackson Park.
The Great Lakes Action Days program conducts monthly stewardship days,
engaging -200 volunteers a year since 2005.
(Project information from (Mattson et a!., 2013))
Figure 3-11.63rd Street Beach, Chicago, Illinois. A) Pedestrian underpass enhances site connectivity, B)
Beachfront dune grassland landscape created. Photo source: Google Maps Street View.
3.2.3 Suburban restoration and redevelopment
Suburban projects in this study were generally
low cost by acreage (Table 3-2). They had
similar setting of environmental and social
benefits while lower performance on economics
compared to projects in higher density context.
Westerly Creek (Suburban, small stream,
population 100,000-1,000,000)
The Westerly Creek project (Figure 3-12)
included the integration of stormwater and
flood management into redevelopment on
a brownfield site. Stapleton, a suburban
neighborhood of Denver, is located on the
site of a former airport. This suburban project
sought to provide stormwater management
and serve residents of adjacent communities
-------
as an open space. The project integrated
stream daylighting, brownfield remediation,
and habitat restoration and provided various
benefits including stormwater management,
flood control, and recreational value. To protect
stream water quality stormwater flows through
a runoff treatment train that includes forebay
basins and vegetated ponds, before entering
the creek. By using native prairie vegetation
Table 3-14, Westerly Creek project
and applying adaptive management schemes,
the park conserves water, saves fuel, and
reduces fertilizer and herbicides application
compared to conventional parks. Aesthetic
and recreational benefits were provided by
this suburban project, allowing local residents
to have more contact with restored stream
landscape (Table 3-14) (Canfield, Koehler, &
Cunningham, 2011).
Design
Stream restoration measures
Green infrastructure
Plant material used
Site connectivity
Performance
Stream daylighted from an abandoned airfield; Restored stream meander and
riparian vegetation
Vegetated water quality ponds
Native (locally grown) and naturalized species 85%. Uses a pre-vegetated mix
of contract-grown woody and herbaceous species to promote immediate habitat
establishement and visual appeal. Prairie seed mixes include at least three
species of forbs for blooming in different seasons.
Provides over 3 miles of ADA walking trails, 1.3 miles of jogging trails, and a
connection to Denver's regional trail system.
Environmental Flood control
Water quality
Habitat
C02 sequestration
Economic
Social
Economic benefits
Recreation
Public education
Aesthetics
Accommodate 100-year flood event. Flood flows were reduced by an average
of 44%, Reduced water velocities to -1-5 fps at low flow, and -3-5 fps at
peak flow.
Improves downstream water quality by increasing dissolved oxygen and reduc-
ing suspended sediment.
The variety and abundance of wildlife found onsite increased.
Native prairie vegetation of 50 acres can sequester -240 tons of carbon
annually (24 times more than using bluegrass sod).
Saves -27.9 million gallons of water and -$72,000 in annual irrigation;
saves -$2,240 per acre per year over the cost of maintaining a traditional
Denver park.
Survey showed 67% of 262 Stapleton residents use the park at least once a
week and 22% every day.
Informational signs were installed to educate residents about cohabiting with
wildlife and minimize potential conflicts.
Several design measures were used for enhanced visual appeal, include using
gentle channel meanders and vegetated banks, pre-vegetated plants, and
diversity of plants.
(Project information from (Canfield et a!., 2011))
-------
c
Figure 3-12. Westerly Creek, Denver, Colorado. A) Site prior to restoration, B) Site after restoration, C) Bridge
designed to withstand flooding, C) Bridge promotes site connectivity when flood recedes. Per-
mission from ©Jessica Canfield. (A, B adapted from Google Earth).
Wissahickon Creek (Suburban, small stream,
population 10,000-100,000)
The Wissahickon Creek project is located in
Lansdale, Pennsylvania, a borough close to the
City of Philadelphia. Compared to projects in
high density areas or large municipalities that
promoted urban investments or retail sales, this
project provided limited economic benefits. The
project was to restore the stream landscape
for stormwater management and recreation
Table 3-15. Wissahickon Creek project
purposes in this suburban community park,
in a municipality with population less than
20,000. Vegetated swales, ponds, and riparian
landscape were constructed to regulate
stormwater runoff hydrology, protect stream
water quality, recharge groundwater, and
enhance habitat value (Table 3-15) (American
Society of Landscape Architects, n.d.; Metz
Engineers, 2014; Montgomery County, 2009).
Design
Stream restoration measures
Green infrastructure
Plant material used
Performance
Restored riparian vegetation
Bioswale, infiltration basins
Native plants
Environmental Flood control
Water quality
Habitat
Accommodate 1-year storm event, three infiltration basins collect stormwater
runoff from 28.4 acres of drainage area
Basins and swales designed to filter sediment and other pollutants from both
sheet flow and stormwater outfalls.
Stream corridor system was restored to serve as ecological habitat.
(Project information from (American Society of Landscape Architects, n.d.; Metz Engineers, 2014; Montgomery County, 2009))
-------
Blue Hole (suburban, small stream, population
<10,000)
The Blue Hole project, with the smallest
budget by acreage among the 15 projects
(Table 3-2), is located in a municipality with
population less than 3,000. The project
sought to increase recreational benefits while
protecting local ecosystems. By reducing
impervious surfaces and installing storrnwater
control measures, natural hydrology of the site
could be restored and water quality protected.
Plantings (quick establishing, deep-rooted
species) and structures were designed to be
resilient to high flows. All trees and paving
areas remained intact during flooding events
right after project implementation. The project
enhanced park visual appeal and increased the
number of annual visitors. Increased visitation
helps sustains park operations economically,
since park entrance revenue is its major
budget source (Table 3-16) (Canfield, Pagan,
Mendenhall, Spears, & Risinger, 2013).
Table 3-16, Blue Hole project
Design
Stream restoration measures
Green infrastructure
Plant material used
Public process in project development
Performance
Restored riparian vegetation
Bioswale, stormwater pond
Native (100%), deep-rooted plants; added 31 hardwood, prairie grass, and forb
species.
Community members and stakeholders provided design input.
Environmental Water quality
Habitat
Economic
Economic benefits
Social Recreation
Public education
Aesthetics
Reduces impervious surfaces to less than 8% of the site.
Protects 96% (93 acres) of the undisturbed area of the site that identified as poten-
tial habitat for 19 endangered, threatened, or species of concern.
Increased visitation by 60% in the first year with ~ $112,000 in entry fee revenue.
Visitation nearly doubled and generated -$217,000 in the second year. Saves
-600,000 gallons of potable water per month, saves annual cost of $25,500.
Increased visitation by 60% in the first year. Visitation nearly doubled in the second
year.
Interpretive signs were used to educate visitors on sustainable designs, local geology,
site history, and native plant species.
Increased park visual appeal by 75%.
(Project information from (Canfield et a!., 2013))
3.2.4 and
There is limited published information on the
performance benefits of rural projects, and
only one rural project is included in this study.
Compared to projects in cities, the rural project
still served environmental, economic, and
social purposes, but the variety of performance
benefits was more limited.
Riwerside (rural, small stream, population
[county] 10,000-100,000)
As a redevelopment project on rural brownfield,
the Riverside Ranch project did not incorporate
the recreational or economic goals of the
urban projects. Historically the site has been
through a series of transitions from a homestead
built in the 1880s, to a rail road stop, and an
asphalt plant in the mid-twentieth century. The
project sought to transform the brownfield site
into a private residential property. Aesthetics
was a major consideration in the project
design. Installed plantings provide a buffer to
unpleasant noise and views associated with
the adjacent highway. The historical hint of
the site was preserved through preservation
of old building structures on the property. A
riparian wetland system was created to manage
storrnwater runoff on-site (Table 3-17) (Yang et
al., n.d.).
-------
Table 3-17, Riverside Ranch project
Design
Stream restoration measures
Plant material used
Performance
Restoration of riparian wetland
Native, naturally occurring plants; considered survivability, aesthetics, habitat,
and availability.
Environmental Water quality
Economic
Social
Habitat
Economic benefits
Aesthetics
Temperature, pH, and alkalinity to be within suitable ranges, according to
water quality testing.
A series of constructed ponds and wetlands provide habitat for two trout
species.
Saves ~$9,485 in annual maintenance compared to site fully covered by lawn.
Vegetation and subtle berming are designed to function as a visual buffer to
unpleasant noise and views associated with nearby highway while maintaining
the pastoral feel the open space parcels required to preserve.
(Project information from (Yang et a!,, n.d.)
3.3 had
on quality
Table 3-18 shows the comparison of project
specifications, site context, and benefits
provided between projects reported performance
benefits on water quality protection (either
showed water quality improvement results
or applied design practices for water quality
control) and those that did not. Compared to
those with no reported performance benefits on
water quality protection, projects with reported
benefits showed much smaller average project
size and budget, and were located in less
developed urban areas, on smaller streams,
while the population and income figures
between the two groups were fairly close.
The finding that projects which addressed water
quality tend to be on small streams concurred
with Craig et al. (2008) that restoration work
should put priority on small streams (1st- to
3rd- order) to reduce stream N loads. Stream
type also needs to be considered when
integrating water quality objective into projects
in urban waters. All three projects on xeric
streams did not address water quality. Xeric
streams in southwestern areas are often flashy
(Batzer & Sharitz, 2006) and therefore present
challenges to stream N reduction (Craig et al.,
2008).
-------
Table 3-18. Comparison of project specifications, context, and benefits between projects that reported per-
formance benefits on water quality protection and those did not
Projects with reported performance
benefits on water quality protection
Projects with no reported
performance benefits on
water quality protection
Project
specifications
Average size (acres) 38.61
Average project budget 6.71
(million dollars)
239.3
142.9
Project context
Density of development
Average municipal
population2
Average municipal median
household income3
Stream size
Stream type
4 urban, 3 suburban, 1 rural
508,124
$53,113
7 small4
2 Western Mountains, 2 Southern
Appalachians, 2 Southern Plains,
2 Temperate Plains
3 downtown, 4 urban
502,122
$54,340
4 large, 3 small
3 Xeric, 1 Upper Midwest,
1 Western Mountains, 1
Temperate Plains5
Environmental
benefits
Flood control
Habitat
4/8 (4 out of 8 projects)
7/8
7/7
4/7
Economic
benefits
Social benefits
Property value/ investment/
employment
Retail sales/ tourists
Project cost/ maintenance
Public education
Recreation
1/8
0/8
5/8
5/8
4/8
7/7
2/7
2/7
4/7
4/7
1: One project not included: Riverside Ranch project size unknown.
2: Based on data from 2010 US Census. Cheonggyecheon project excluded (otherwise the figure for projects did not address water
quality will be 1,878,552 instead of 502,122, with data from Korea Tourism Organization, 2014, http://english.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/AK/
AK EN 1 4 3.jsp).
3: Caculated by dividing the sum of the median household incomes in each set by their number. Cheonggyecheon project excluded.
Median household income (2008-2012) in dollars from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html.
4: Excluded 63rd Street Beach project on Lake Michigan.
5: Cheonggyecheon project not applicable.
As for project benefits, there were not very
apparent differences on social benefits for the
two groups. The differences were mainly on
environmental and economic aspects (Figure
3-13). It should be noted that for the projects
with no reported performance benefits on
water quality protection, they all provided flood
control. The most significant difference between
those two categories was on economics,
especially on "Property value/ investment/
employment" aspect. Among the projects
with reported performance benefits on water
quality protection, only 1 project addressed
it (catalyzed urban development); all projects
with no reported benefits on water quality
protection provided this benefit (attracted
urban investment, increased property value, or
improved employment). This result may indicate
the potential conflicts between the objectives of
water quality protection and urban development
in projects of urban waters. Site development
density might play a role in project outcomes:
projects that did not address water quality tend
to be located in high density areas and therefore
-------
economic benefits (especially property values
and urban investments) were important project
objectives. Higher density might also explain
why these projects were less likely to promote
habitat value. In addition, projects with reported
performance benefits on water quality protection
were more likely to integrate project cost-saving
and low maintenance design techniques. Lower
density, smaller stream size, project size, and
project budget might explain why.
Habitat Environmental
10Q:/o
Recreation
Social
Public
education
Flood control
Project cost/
maintenance
Property value/
investment/
employment
Retail sales/ Economic
tourists
• Projects with reported
performance benefits
on water quality
protection
• Projects with no
reported performance
benefits on water
quality protection
Figure 3-13. Comparison of project benefits between projects that reported performance benefits on water
quality protection and those did not, using percentage of projects that provided benefits
-------
4 Discussions and Suggestions
Results from this study on project performance
benefits were found to be in line with the
principles of the Urban Waters Federal
Partnership, such as to promote clean urban
waters and reconnect people to urban waters
(Urban Waters Federal Partnership, 2011).
The study results agreed with Everard and
Moggridge (2012) that restored urban water
ecosystems could provide environmental,
economic, and social values. Integrated
thinking is needed, to achieve simultaneous
environmental, economic and social progress
in urban waters (Dufour & Piegay, 2009;
Everard & Moggridge, 2012). Based on study
results, the suggested relationships among
environmental policy, public education, and
sustainability considerations (environmental,
economic, and social aspects) were illustrated
in Figure 4-1. The inter-related environmental,
economic, and social considerations
contribute to sustainable urban waters.
These considerations should be optimized
according to site geological, hydrological, and
social context. Public education should be a
key component of future project designs to
promote people's environmental knowledge on
urban water systems and public appreciation
of restorations. To address water quality
protection, policies need to be set to address
all these aspects (environmental, economic,
social, and public education on environmental
topics), for sustainable water quality protection
in watersheds.
(
\
Social
Public education
Recreation
Aesthetics
Partnerships
Environmental
Flood control
Water quality
Habitat
Economic Air quality
Property value c sequestration
Investment Urban microclimate
Retail sales Soil remediation
Employment
aintenance
-------
to be added to public meetings during project
design process for enhanced understanding
of ecological benefits (Mattson et al., 2013).
Setting appropriate expectations for project
outcomes is important. Urban projects in
different context need different sets of
functions and benefits associated with water
quality. Although urban stream projects in high
density context could have limited direct effect
on water quality improvement (Beem, 2014),
there are many aspects of project benefits
associated with water quality protection,
such as sustainable stormwater management,
low-maintenance design, soil remediation,
and public environmental education. Those
aspects should be considered in project designs
and management, if effective water quality
protection in urban stream systems is to be
achieved.
Urban water projects vary in their considerations
of water quality protection, due to different
contexts such as development density, stream
size, and municipal population (Figure 4-2).
The associations between site context and N
control were discussed. In extreme scenarios
such as projects with higher density, smaller
stream size, and larger municipal population
context, human influence is dominant in
landscape creation and management. Water
quality improvement might not be a primary
objective however there are opportunities to
create high performance stream landscapes.
Improvement in this context, even on a small-
scale, could potentially have considerable
social benefits associated with environmental
protection. These projects offer opportunities
for the integration of natural and social
sciences in designs of urban stream landscapes.
Aesthetics and public attitudes toward stream
landscapes should be considered (Paul &
Meyer, 2001). In comparison, projects in lower
density, larger stream, and smaller municipal
population context are the other side of the
scenario: the force of nature is dominant. There
are opportunities to restore stream landscapes
to a more natural status. While they were less
expensive, there might not be much economic
returns (therefore potentially less incentives to
fund the projects). Low maintenance is key in
project designs. By restoring stream riparian
wetlands, floodplains, and riparian buffers, they
could potentially better restore site hydrological
regimes and protect stream water quality.
-------
Density
Municipal
population
•Emphasis on economics
•Costly
•Land limitation
•Need significant stakeholder collaboration
•More impervious area
•Modified hydrologic regime
•Less flooding concern
•Easierto modify
•Potential to use manmade elements
•Potentially less nutrient load
•Priority on small streams for N
removal1
•Less land constraints
•Less disturbed and more wild
•Limited Human modification on
hydrologic regime
•More opportunities to use wetlands,
flood plains and bank vegetation to
enhance denitrification and promote
N retention
•Flooding concern, especially
downstream or high/intense
precipitation areas
•Need riparian wetland/floodplain
•Promote wild landscape systems
•Potentially more nutrient load
carried, from local or distant
upstream sources
•More economic incentives
•More people could Pe benefited
from increased publicopen space
•More pollution sources,
especially for large streams
•Typically are areas with high N
incremental yield2
•Serve small communities
•Budget constraints
•Low maintenance
•Less pollution sources
•Could still have high N yield if
adjacent to large cities
Figure 4-2. Considerations of water quality protection for landscape projects in different context (develop-
ment density, stream size, and municipal population). Photo sources: Alexander Robinson, Fred
Phillips, Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and Google Maps.
1: Craig, L. S., Palmer, M. A., Richardson, D. C., Filoso, S., Bernhardt, E. S., Bledsoe, B. P., ... & Wilcock, P. R. (2008). Stream resto-
ration strategies for reducing river nitrogen loads. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(10), 529-538.
2: SPARROW Total Nitrogen Incremental Yield 2002 for Major River Basins, based on project location (kg/km2/yr), from http://eispub2.
epa.gov/npdat/.
This study recognizes the potential effect
of project context on the variations in
environmental, economic, and social
performances of stream restoration and
waterfront redevelopment projects. The
results of this study suggest that the following
strategies be integrated into water quality
protection goals for urban waters:
1) In high density areas, underscore social
aspect of water quality protection in
projects. Projects in high density areas
often emphasize economic and social
benefits and these restoration works
tend to have more "engineered" style
(limited natural features for water
quality protection) compared to projects
in low density areas, especially for
small stream projects. For sustainable
water quality protection in watersheds,
public environmental education on
stream protections should be promoted.
This might better be achieved if stream
aesthetics are enhanced and public
visitation increased, especially for
children. Many kids first encounter
nature playing in streams (Paul &
Meyer, 2001). Restored streams can
offer recreational opportunities for
children to interact with the water's
edge (Figure 3-9H) (J. Canfield,
personal conversation, June 3, 2014)
and their environmental stewardship
could be cultivated. Streams are also
outdoor classrooms for students to
-------
conduct water monitoring and testing
(Thatcher & Hughes, 2011).
2) Explore how to promote a healthy
relationship between streams and
urban infrastructures in high density,
large population situations. Two
important factors in the project
design include light and public
transportation. Light is particularly
crucial for stream landscape sections
under urban infrastructures. If budget
allows, waterfront infrastructure
should be reshaped to promote
public transportation, which in turn
reduces emissions of gaseous N. If N
deposition in urban areas decreased,
its loading in stream catchments might
be reduced accordingly (Bernhardt
et al., 2008). Sustainability should
also be implemented in development
of every project to provide adequate
options with respect to transportation
infrastructure (buses and subways) and
to promote self compliance of people
to change their transportation behavior
(Chung, Kee, & Yun, 2012).
3) Utilize the opportunities of
redevelopment in urban greyfield
or brownfield sites, to integrate
design techniques that restore
natural hydrology and help with
water quality control. Different
environmental objectives (associated
with water quality protection) could
be achieved simultaneously, such
as soil remediation and air quality
improvement. In addition, recycling of
site material for project construction
should be promoted to reduce project
cost and minimize environmental
impact.
4) In low density or small municipal
population areas, explore opportunities
to restore stream-wetland systems and
focus on small streams, for optimized
water quality improvement. Projects
of this context type could potentially
function better in improving natural
hydrologic regime and protecting water
quality using natural mechanisms,
compared to projects in high density
or large municipality context. The
restoration of stream, riparian wetlands,
and floodplains is increasingly a critical
part of water quality improvement
strategies (Bernhardt et al., 2008).
The creation of managed "wild" stream
landscapes could also provide valuable
habitat for wildlife favored by local
communities (Canfield & Gibson,
2014). Public observation of natural
waters and understanding of their
natural mechanisms could better be
promoted, as social aspects of water
quality protection.
5) Implement environmentally-friendly
landscaping practices for water
quality protection. Plant species
that require intensive fertilizer use
should be restricted and the use of
native and naturalized plant species
should be promoted, for reduced N
loads in urban streams (Bernhardt et
al., 2008). It should be noted that
project benefits should be balanced
and conflicts minimized for projects
in high density urban areas: they tend
to demand larger variety of benefits
(and therefore might result in conflicts
among the benefits) than in low density
areas. When native plant species
were installed to replace turf in the
63rd Street Beach project in Chicago,
local community opposed the design
insisting the lawns were essential social
gathering spaces. The newly restored
landscapes were then replanted with
turf. The public meeting process is not
always effective in balancing ecological
and social considerations in project
designs (Mattson et al., 2013). When
promoting environmental benefits
in project designs, it is important
to minimize the adverse effects of
conflicts among three sustainability
dimensions (environmental, economic,
and social considerations).
-------
5 Conclusions
This review showed possibilities to incorporate
water quality protection into restoration
and redevelopment projects in watersheds.
The projects in this study provided various
environmental, economic, and social benefits,
Development density was associated with
a variety of benefits: the variety of project
benefits increase with development density.
Projects in downtown context provided the
most comprehensive set of benefits. Also, to
achieve integrated benefits, strong partnerships
are needed in project planning, development,
and perhaps more importantly, long-term
management (to sustain integrated benefits).
To resolve the competing interests of different
stakeholders, setting appropriate expectations
for project outcomes is needed. A broader
meaning of water quality protection should also
be considered (such as public environmental
education, sustainable stormwater management,
and brownfield remediation), when developing
strategies to improve water quality by means of
restoration and redevelopment projects in urban
waters.
Quality Assurance Statement
All research projects making conclusions or
recommendations based on environmentally
related measurements and funded by the
Environmental Protection Agency are required
to participate in the Agency Quality Assurance
Program. This project did not involve any
physical measurements and relied solely on
evaluating the secondary data. It should be
noted that evaluating secondary data with
respect to their "original intended application"
could be a difficult task to accomplish
especially without having access to all the QA/
QC requirements collected with the original
data and the data quality objectives, which are
usually not available. However, it is not always
necessary to make this determination. In this
regard, the project QAPP proposed the following
disclaimer: the data and information used in
this report have not been evaluated by the
EPA for "their original intended application."
Neither EPA, EPA contractors nor any other
organizations cooperating with EPA are
responsible for inaccuracies in the original data
that may be present.
This report reviewed a large number of
published case studies that incorporated
water quality protection into restoration and
redevelopment in various settings. In terms of
"completeness," the sites under this report
varied significantly in scope and size, and
as expected, in few cases information was
lacking for some sites, which was appropriately
identified with each study. Furthermore,
this did not have an impact on the report's
conclusions as we relied on factors shared by all
studies and relevant to water quality protection
in terms of pillars of sustainability, which
included environmental, economic and social
benefits.
Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
through its Office of Research and Development
funded the research described here. It has
been subjected to the Agency's peer and
administrative review and has been approved
for publication as an EPA document. The
perspectives, information and conclusions
conveyed in research report convey the
viewpoints of the principal investigators 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.
-------
References
Allan, J. D. (2004). Landscapes and riverscapes:
The influence of land use on stream ecosystems.
Annual review of ecology, evolution, and
systematics, 257-284.
American Society of Landscape Architects. (2009).
Honor Award: The Dell at the University of
Virginia, Charlottsville, VA. from http://www.asla.
org/2009awards/567. htm I
American Society of Landscape Architects, (n.d.).
Wissahickon Creek Park Infiltration Basins
and Riparian Corridor, from http://www.
asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/Government
Affairs/Stormwater%20Case%20230%20
Wissachickon%20Creek%20Park%20
lnfiltration%20Basins%20and%20Riparian%20
Corridor.%20Mongtomerv%20Countv.%20PA.
£df
ASLA Michigan Chapter. (2010). SITES: Winter
2010. from http://www.michiganasla.org/chapter/
documents/SITES/SITES Winterl0.pdf
ASLA Virginia Chapter. (2007). Honor Award: The
Dell at the University of Virginia, from http://
www.vaasla.org/component/option,com joomnik/
album, 7/task,photo/id,4/ltemid, 82
Batzer, D. P., & Sharitz, R. R. (2006). Ecology of
freshwater and estuarine wetlands: Univ of
California Press.
Beem, L. A. (2014). Connecting Urban Residents
to Their Watershed with Green Stormwater
Infrastructure: A case study of Thornton Creek
in Seattle, Washington, Scripps Senior Theses.
Retrieved from http://scholarship.claremont.edu/
scripps theses/339
Bernhardt, E. S., Band, L. E., Walsh, C. J., & Berke,
P. E. (2008). Understanding, managing, and
minimizing urban impacts on surface water
nitrogen loading. Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences, 1134(1), 61-96.
Bernhardt, E. S., & Palmer, M. A. (2007). Restoring
streams in an urbanizing world. Freshwater
biology, 52(4), 738-751.
Cadenasso, M. L., Pickett, S. T. A., Groffman, P.
M., Band, L. E., Brush, G. S., Galvin, M. R, .
. . McGrath, B. P. (2008). Exchanges across
Land-Water-Scape Boundaries in Urban Systems.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
1134(1), 213-232.
Campbell, B. (n.d.). Clean Water State Revolving
Fund: Napa County "Living Riving Strategy" to
Provide Flood Protection, from http://water.epa.
gov/grants funding/cwsrf/upload/2002 06 28
cwfinance cwsrf napariv.pdf
Campbell, J., Heijs, J., Wilson, D., Haslam,
H., Dalziell, D., Miguel, T Ockleston,
G. (2010). Urban stream restoration and
community engagement: examples from New
Zealand, Paper presented at the Proceedings
from the 2010 Stormwater conference.
Canfield, J., Fagan, E., Mendenhall, A., Spears,
S., & Risinger, E. (2013). Blue Hole Regional
Park, from http://www.lafoundation.org/research/
landscape-performance-series/case-studies/case-
studv/541/
Canfield, J., & Gibson, H. (2014). Resident Attitudes
Toward Stapleton's Stormwater Parks, Paper
presented at the Council of Educators in
Landscape Architecture Conference Proceedings,
Austin, TX.
Canfield, J., Koehler, K., & Cunningham, K. (2011).
Westerly Creek at Stapleton. from http://
www.lafoundation.org/research/landscape-
performance-series/case-studies/case-studv/357/
Cho, M. R. (2010). The politics of urban nature
restoration: The case of Cheonggyecheon
restoration in Seoul, Korea. International
Development Planning Review, 32(2), 145-165.
Chung, J. H., Kee, Y. H., & Yun, K. B. (2012).
The loss of road capacity and self-compliance:
Lessons from the Cheonggyecheon stream
restoration. Transport Policy, 21, 165-178.
Craig, L. S., Palmer, M. A., Richardson, D. C., Filoso,
S., Bernhardt, E. S., Bledsoe, B. P Wilcock,
P. R. (2008). Stream restoration strategies
for reducing river nitrogen loads. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment, 6(10), 529-538.
doi: 10.1890/070080
Downs, P. W., & Gregory, K. J. (2004). River channel
management: towards sustainable catchment
hydrosystems: Arnold, Hodder Headline Group.
Dufour, S., & Piegay, H. (2009). From the myth of a
lost paradise to targeted river restoration: forget
natural references and focus on human benefits.
River Research and Applications, 25(5), 568-
581.
Everard, M., & Moggridge, H. L. (2012).
Rediscovering the value of urban rivers. Urban
Ecosystems, 15(2), 293-314.
Graf, W. L. (1996). Geomorphology and policy
for restoration of impounded American rivers:
What is' natural?'. Paper presented at the The
-------
scientific nature of geomorphology: proceedings
of the 27th Binghamton Symposium in
Geomorphology, held 27-29 September, 1996.
Gregory, K. J. (2006). The human role in changing
river channels. Geomorphology, 79(3-4), 172-
191. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.06.018
Johnson, L, Richards, C., Host, G., & Arthur,
J. (1997). Landscape influences on water
chemistry in Midwestern stream ecosystems.
Freshwater biology, 37(1), 193-208.
Jorgensen, E. E., & Yarbrough, S. L. (2003).
Ecosystem restoration to restore water quality:
An unrealized opportunity for practitioners and
researchers. EPA/600/R-03/144.
Kim, J., J., W., C., R, & M., U. (2014). Boneyard
Creek Restoration, Scott Park and the
Second Street Detention Basin, from http://
www.lafoundation.org/research/landscape-
performance-series/case-studies/case-studv/613/
Kondolf, G. M., Atherton, S. L., & Cook, S. (2013).
Tassajara Creek Restoration Project, from http://
www.lafoundation.org/research/landscape-
performance-series/case-studies/case-studv/626/
Kondolf, G. M., Atherton, S. L., & lacofano, D.
(2013). Napa River Flood Protection Project
(1998-2012). from http://www.lafoundation.org/
research/landscape-performance-series/case-
studies/case-study/625/
Kondolf, G. M., Rubin, Z. K., & Atherton, S. L.
(2013). Yuma East Wetlands, Phases 1 and
2. from http://www.lafoundation.org/research/
landscape-performance-series/case-studies/case-
studv/632/
Landscape Architecture Foundation, (n.d.-a).
Menomonee Valley Redevelopment and
community park, from http://www.lafoundation.
org/research/landscape-performance-series/case-
studies/case-studv/135/
Landscape Architecture Foundation, (n.d.-b). Ruth
Mott Foundation Gilkey Creek Relocation and
Restoration, from http://www.lafoundation.org/
research/landscape-performance-series/case-
studies/case-studv/134/
Landscape Architecture Foundation, (n.d.-c).
Thornton Creek Water Quality Channel, from
http://www.lafoundation.org/research/landscape-
performance-series/case-studies/case-study/137/
Landscapes of Place, (n.d.-a). Making a Wild Place
in Milwaukee's Urban Menomonee Valley, from
http://www.asla.org/2011awards/436.html
Landscapes of Place, (n.d.-b). Menomonee Valley
Landscape Restoration, from http://www.
landscapesofplace.com/landscapes.html
Mattson, M. P., Guinn, R., & Horinko, K. (2013).
63rd Street Beach, Jackson Park, from http://
www.lafoundation.org/research/landscape-
performance-series/case-studies/case-studv/614/
Menomonee Valley Partners, (n.d.-a). Menomonee
Valley History.
Menomonee Valley Partners, (n.d.-b). Menomonee
Valley: A Decade of Transformation.
Metz Engineers. (2014). Wissahickon Creek:
Infiltration Basins and Riparian Corridor, from
http://www.metzinc.com/news/stormwater-
infiltration-basins-riparian-corridor-project-
nwmft IS.aspx
Montgomery County. (2009). Lansdale Borough
Wissahickon Project, from http://www.montcopa.
org/DocumentCenter/View/1251
National Research Council. (2011). Sustainability
and the U.S. EPA: The National Academies
Press.
Ozdil, T. R., Modi, S., Stewart, D., & Dolejs, M.
(2013). Buffalo Bayou Promenade, from http://
www.lafoundation.org/research/landscape-
performance-series/case-studies/case-studv/623/
Paul, M. J., & Meyer, J. L. (2001). Streams in the
urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics, 333-365.
Phillips, F., Flynn, C., & Kloppel, H. (2009). At the
end of the line: restoring Yuma east wetlands,
Arizona. Ecological Restoration, 27(4), 398-
406.
RESTORE Partnership. (2013). Rivers by Design:
Rethinking development and river restoration.
Bristol, UK: Environment Agency (UK).
Robinson, A., & Hopton, M. (2011).
Cheonggyecheon Stream Restoration Project.
from http://www.lafoundation.org/research/
landscape-performance-series/case-studies/case-
studv/382/
Roy, A., Rosemond, A., Paul, M., Leigh, D., &
Wallace, J. (2003). Stream macroinvertebrate
response to catchment urbanisation (Georgia,
USA). Freshwater biology, 48(2), 329-346.
Smith, L. (2013). Geographies of environmental
restoration: A human geography critique of
restored nature. Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers, 38(2), 354-358.
SmithGroupJJR. (n.d.-a). 8 Keys to Successful
Urban Ecological Design, from http://
-------
s3.amazonaws.com/smithgroup/related
contents/pdfs/000/000/504/original/8Kevs.
pdf?1366821245
SmithGroupJJR. (n.d.-b). Gilkey Creek Restoration.
from http://www.smithgroupjjr.com/projects/
gi I kev-creek-restoration
Sorvig, K. (2009). The same river twice. Landscape
Architecture, 99(11), 42-53.
SvR Design Company. (2009). Thornton Creek Water
Quality Channel: Final Report.
Thatcher, E., & Hughes, M. (2011). The Dell
at the University of Virginia, from http://
www.lafoundation.org/research/landscape-
perf orm a n ce-seri es/case-st u d i es/case-st u d v/ 1 807
Tjallingii, S. (2012). Water flows and urban planning
Sustainable Urban Environments (pp. 91-111):
Springer.
University of Virginia, (n.d.). The Dell: Day-lighting
Meadow Creek, from http://www.off icearch itect.
virginia.edu/GroundsPlanWebsite/GPNEW/
CaseStudies7GPCaseStudiesTheDell.html
Urban Waters Federal Partnership. (2011). Urban
Waters Federal Partnership: Vision, mission &
principles, from http://www.urbanwaters.gov/pdf/
urbanwaters-visionv2.pdf
Vought, L. B.-M., & Lacoursiere, J. 0. (2010).
Restoration of Streams in the Agricultural
Landscape. In M. Eiseltova (Ed.), Restoration
of Lakes, Streams, Floodplains, and Bogs in
Europe: Principles and Case Studies (Vol. 3, pp.
225-242).
Ward, A., D'ambrosio, J. L., & Mecklenburg, D.
(2008). Stream Classification, from Ohio State
University Extension http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-
fact/pdf/AEX44501StreamClassification.pdf
Wenk Associates, & HNTB. (2008). Boneyard Creek
Master Plan, from http://urbanaillinois.us/sites/
default/files/attachments/Boneyard masterplan.
Yang, B., Blackmore, P., Binder, C., Mendenhall, A.,
Callaway, D., & Shaw, R. (n.d.). Riverside Ranch.
from http://www.lafoundation.org/research/
landscape-performance-series/case-studies/case-
studv/629/
Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area. (2013).
Yuma East Wetlands Progress Report, from
http://www.fredphillipsconsulting.com/pdfs/
YEW Progress Report.pdf
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGES FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free
------- |