Inadequate Monitoring and Inappropriate Project Goals: A Case Study on the Determination of Success for the Forester Creek Improvement Project

Loflen, Chad L.; Hettesheimer, Hannah; Busse, Lilian; Watanabe, Kayo; Gersberg, Richard M.; Lüderitz, Volker

doi:10.3368/er.34.2.124

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the results remained below reference site conditions, indicating that "restoration" to natural conditions is unlikely, corroborating the idea that return to the natural state in an urbanized area is an unrealistic goal (Hughes et al, 2014b;da Silva and Porto, 2021). In this regard, it is important to align ecological expectations with reality (Loflen et al, 2016). The impacts of urban areas on streams result from multiple, complex, point-and diffusesources combined with natural annual and seasonal variability.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 59%

“…However, total dissolved solids and water temperature, despite improvement, still exceed the desired limits. Water temperature and total dissolved solids concentrations are linked to surface runoff from the entire catchment, which is difficult to control without stormwater collection and treatment (Paul and Meyer, 2008;Loflen et al, 2016). Because of sewage collection, Escherichia coli and total dissolved solids now are related to surface runoff, which was not controlled in the rehabilitated sites, and which therefore lowered WQI scores.…”

Section: Water Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our physical habitat data indicate that the interventions only resulted in improvement from impaired to altered-but well below reference condition (Callisto et al, 2002). It is noteworthy that some parameters related to the surroundings or the hydrological regime could not undergo major recovery because of the characteristics of consolidated urban areas (Hughes et al, 2014b;Loflen et al, 2016) and the markedly greater time usually required for recovering physical-habitat and flow-regime (which was not considered) than for water quality recovery (Hughes et al, 2014b).…”

Section: Stream and Riparian Physical Habitatmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Urban stream rehabilitation in a densely populated Brazilian metropolis

Macedo

Callisto²,

Linares³

et al. 2022

Front. Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental rehabilitation of urban streams has been widely applied in Global North countries, at least since the 1970s, but it is a recent approach in Global South countries. The objective of this paper is to evaluate whether the rehabilitation experience carried out since 2006 in three urban stream sites in the third-largest Brazilian metropolis (c. 5.5 million inhabitants) was and continues to be effective in terms of socio-environmental improvement after 10 years of interventions. These interventions included the rehabilitation of watercourses (e.g., improvement of water quality through the management of sewage and garbage, stabilization of riverbanks, revegetation of riparian zones, riverbed naturalization, removal of riverbank housing). We evaluated water quality, physical habitat structure, and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in three test sites in three sampling periods: pre-intervention (2004–2005), early post-intervention (2008–2011) and late post-intervention (2018–2019). Additionally, three reference-stream sites (2018–2019) were assessed to compare the conditions of the three tested sites versus the reference sites. We also assessed citizen perceptions concerning the interventions through questionnaires given to urban stream residents at the three tested sites in early and late post-rehabilitation (215 in 2008, 180 in 2019). The results of water quality monitoring showed a significant improvement in most parameters used to calculate the Water Quality Index (WQI) in the early intervention phase, and WQI scores have improved since. The physical habitat and macroinvertebrate indicators indicated moderate improvements. The residents indicated increased appreciation of the environmental improvements over 10 years. Given the results in Belo Horizonte, we believe that implementation and evaluation of similar projects and programs aimed at rehabilitating urban streams are technically viable using our approaches throughout the Global South.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 59%

Section: Water Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Stream and Riparian Physical Habitatmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Urban stream rehabilitation in a densely populated Brazilian metropolis

Macedo

Callisto²,

Linares³

et al. 2022

Front. Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Restoring streams in urban or agricultural settings can be costly; success is not universally defined, and achieving regionallydefined reference-like conditions may be difficult (Bernhardt et al 2007, Kenney et al 2012, Shoredits and Clayton 2013. Conventional approaches to protect and restore biological integrity have commonly focused on both direct improvements at the site level to mitigate instream stressors (Carline and Walsh 2007, Lester and Boulton 2008, Roni and Beechi 2012, Loflen et al 2016) and implementation of upstream preventive measures. These approaches can lead to improvements in ecological condition (e.g., Bernhardt et al 2007), but there is no universal remedy for achieving biological integrity in streams.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritizing management goals for stream biological integrity within the developed landscape context

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stream management goals for biological integrity may be difficult to achieve in developed landscapes where channel modification and other factors constrain in-stream conditions. To evaluate potential constraints on biological integrity, we developed a statewide landscape model for California that estimates ranges of likely scores for a macroinvertebrate-based index that are typical at a site with the observed level of landscape alteration. This context can support prioritization decisions for stream management, like identifying reaches for restoration or enhanced protection based on how observed scores relate to model predictions. Median scores were accurately predicted by the model for all sites in California with bioassessment data (Pearson correlation r 5 0.75 between observed and predicted for calibration data, r 5 0.72 for validation). The model also predicted that 15% of streams statewide are constrained for biological integrity within their present developed landscape, particularly for urban and agricultural areas in the South Coast, Central Valley, and Bay Area regions. We worked with a local stakeholder group from the San Gabriel River watershed (Los Angeles County, California) to evaluate how the statewide model could support local management decisions. To achieve this purpose, we created an interactive application, the Stream Classification and Priority Explorer, that compares observed scores with predictions from the landscape model to assign priorities. We observed model predictions consistent with the land-use gradient from the upper to lower watershed, where potential limits to achieving biological integrity were more common in the heavilyurbanized lower watershed. However, most of the sites in the lower watershed scored within their predicted ranges, and were therefore given a low priority for restoration. In contrast, 2 low-scoring sites in the undeveloped upper watershed were prioritized for causal assessment and possible future restoration, whereas 3 high-scoring sites were prioritized for protection. The availability of geospatial and bioassessment data at the national level suggests that these tools can easily be applied to inform management decisions at other locations where altered landscapes may limit biological integrity.

show abstract