URBAN RIPARIAN RESTORATION: AN OUTDOOR CLASSROOM FOR COLLEGE AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS COLLABORATING IN CONSERVATION

2007·8.1 MB·English

by  Alison H Purcell

Madrono, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 258-267, 2007
URBAN RIPARIAN RESTORATION: AN OUTDOOR CLASSROOM FOR
COLLEGE AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS COLLABORATING
IN CONSERVATION
Alison H. Purcell
Department of Environmental Science, Policy, & Management, University of California,
Berkeley, 137 Mulford Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-3114
[email protected]
Jeffrey D. Corbin
NY
Department of Biological Sciences, Union College, Schenectady, 12308
[email protected]
Karl E. Hans
&
Office ofEnvironment, Health Safety, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, University Hall,
CA
3rd Fl #1150, Berkeley, 94720
[email protected]
Abstract
Despite the biological, social, and physical challenges that exist in urban creek restorations, there
are opportunities to effectively involve local residents in ecological rehabilitation projects. An urban
riparian restoration project along Strawberry Creek (Berkeley, CA) began with the goal ofremoving
exoticvegetationand restoringnativeplantcoverage. However, through theinvolvementoflocalhigh
school and college students, the project accomplished an additional goal of educating the local
community about restoration and conservation. Undergraduate students at the University of
California, Berkeley conducted pre-restoration vegetation surveys of species richness and cover in
ordertoassessinitial speciescompositionattherestorationsite. BerkeleyHighSchoolstudents, under
the guidance ofUC Berkeley graduate student mentors, removed exotic vegetation from an 800 m-^
area oftheriparian zone and replacedexotics with over 500 individual nativeplants. Post-restoration
vegetation surveys found that this project succeeded in reducing the cover ofexotic vegetation and
increasing native species richness. A smaller area adjacent to the student plantings was more
intensively maintained by the University of California, Berkeley Office of Environment, Health &
Safetyand had a highersurvivalrateamongthenativesplanted. Studentattitudinal surveysindicated
that students' involvement in the restoration activities increased their awareness and appreciation of
thecreek'svalueandeducated themabout scientificconceptsofrestorationandconservation. Inspite
ofthevariouschallengesofcoordinatingseveral interestgroups, theinvolvement oflocalstudentshas
the potential to increase the likelihood that theproject will succeedin thelong term, especially ifsuch
involvement signals greater appreciation for the creek habitat.
Key Words: exotic vegetation removal, riparian, restoration, students, urban.
Urban creeks present tremendous challenges in successfully achieve important conservation goals
efforts to reduce exotic riparian vegetation and (Kondolf 1998). The high visibility and proximity
maintain native biodiversity. Some of the chal- of urban creeks to local residents can serve the
lenges associated with restoring urban areas vital purpose of encouraging conservation and
include: high frequency of disturbance, hydro- restoration (Riley 1998). Furthermore, the in-
logic alterations, exotic plants used in landscap- volvement oflocal citizens, particularly students,
ing, bank erosion, increased levels of nutrients, can educate the local community about the
and the presence ofpollutants in runoffand litter benefits of riparian restoration and lead to
(Walsh et al. 2005; Paul and Meyer 2001). improved attitudes towards restoration and
Another challenge in urban restoration is the conservation (Purcell et al. 2002). However,
potential for negative public opinion towards the building local interest and involving amateur
project, such as concerns about poor aesthetics, conservationists can be time-consuming, compli-
decreased safety, or a perception that the cate the planning process, and affect the scope
landscape appears to be too ''wild" (Schroeder and intensity of a project (Morris and Moses
1982; Gobster 1999; Bright et al. 2002). Such 1999).
negative opinions can hamper the support for, This study explores several elements involved
and implementation of, a restoration project. in a riparian restoration project along Strawberry
Despite the challenges involved in urban creek Creek in Berkeley, California. The objectives of
restorations, there are many opportunities to this study were to: (1) compare pre- and post-
2007] PURCELL ET AL.: RESTORATION AS A CLASSROOM 259
StrawberryCreek
(Berkeley)
Fig. 1. Location map ofthe Strawberry Creek in Berkeley, California.
restoration vegetative cover (native versus exotic) plant species including Vinca major (blue peri-
at the restoration site, (2) evaluate the benefits winkle), Hedera helix (English ivy), and Eucalyp-
and challenges of involving local students in the tus globulus (blue gum) (Nomenclature follows
restoration project, and (3) examine the advan- Hickman 1993.)
tages and disadvantages of planning and imple- Previous restoration projects on Strawberry
menting the restoration project through a collab- Creek include a management plan in 1987 that
oration involving several interest groups. focused on improving water quality and reducing
erosion and downcutting in the channel (Char-
Methods bonneau 2000). Instream water quality was
improved by eliminating direct discharges or
cross-connections of the sanitary sewer system
Site Description. Strawberry Creek (37 52'N; into the creek. Bank erosion and channel down-
122°15'W) is located in Berkeley, California cutting were addressed by implementing several
(Alameda County, USA) (Fig. 1). The Strawber- erosion-control measures including the installa-
ry Creek watershed (4.7 km-) is composed oftwo tion of a redwood cribwall and check-dams to
majorbranches: the north and south forks, which reduce channel incision (Charbonneau and Resh
run in open channels through the University of
1992).
California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley) campus
(Charbonneau and Resh 1992) (Fig. 2). Down- Project Description. The Strawberry Creek
UC
stream of the Berkeley campus. Strawberry restoration (hereafter referred to as restoration
Creek is primarily in underground culverts project) was a native plant revegetation project in
through the city of Berkeley until it discharges which the goals were to remove exotic vegetation
into the San Francisco Bay. While the upper in the riparian corridor, increase abundance and
Strawberry Creek watershed (Strawberry and diversity of native species, and incorporate an
Blackberry canyons) is composed largely of educational component through the participation
relatively undisturbed vegetation and intact of local high school and college students.
riparian zones, the downstream watershed is Several steps were involved in the restoration
urbanized with high levels of impervious surface project (an overview is presented in Table 1). A
including concrete and other channel alterations. small planning committee met periodically to
The restoration site is located at the very coordinate the organizational and logistical
downstream end ofthe UC Berkeley campusjust aspects oftheproject. Members ofthiscommittee
before Strawberry Creek runs into an under- represented several interest groups within UC
ground culvert (Fig. 3). This area is known as the Berkeley including staff, faculty, and students.
"Grinnell Natural Area'' (named after the In March 2005, UC Berkeley graduate students
famous Berkeley naturalist Joseph Grinnell) and involved in the Berkeley Natural History Mu-
is relatively less developed compared to the rest of seums' "Exploring California Biodiversity" pro-
the campus. Despite its designation, the vegeta- ject (funded by the National Science Founda-
tion in this area is heavily dominated by exotic tion's GK-12 program) worked with an
MADRONO
260 [Vol. 54
Fig. 2. Aerial photograph of the upper Strawberry Creek watershed as it runs through the University of
California, Berkeleycampus (white line represents segmentsofcreek that areaboveground). Therestorationsiteis
located at the downstream end ofthe campus on the left bank ofStrawberry Creek.
undergraduate plant ecology course at UC seedlings from flats into individual Conetainers®
Berkeley to conduct initial weeding of the (Stewe and Sons, Corvallis, OR). The Conetain-
restoration site. The exotic plants removed ers, 2.5 cm diameter cylindrical cones, were in
consisted primarily of H. helix and V. major. held in plastic flats (100 Containers per flat) for
Approximately 95 UC Berkeley students weeded planting individual seedlings. The six native
an 800 m- area within the Strawberry Creek species planted {Achillea millefolium, Bromus
riparian zone and nearby upland areas within the carinatus (California brome), Grindelia sp., Ely-
Grinnell Natural Area. In addition to the initial miis glaucus (blue wildrye), Ranunculus californi-
weeding conducted in March 2005, weeding of cus (California buttercup), and Aster chilensis)
exotics was done periodically throughout the were donated by a local non-profit organization
project and on all the planting days. (The Watershed Project). Once transplanted into
In October 2005, approximately 80 high school the Conetainers, the seedlings were watered
students enrolled in an Environmental Science regularly until they developed sufficient root
class at Berkeley High School transplanted native mass for planting into the ground.
Intensively S*"^®"*P'^"*®^
maintained area (150sqm)
(100sq m)
Fig. 3. Thetwo areasofthe Strawberry Creek restoration sitewithin theGrinnellNaturalArea: 1) an intensively
maintained area and 2) a student planted area located on the left bank ofStrawberry Creekjust beforeitentersan
underground culvert.
2007] PURCELL ET AL.: RESTORATION AS A CLASSROOM 261
Table 1. Timelineof Tasks Completedand Groups Involvedinthe Strawberry Creek Restoration
Projectduring2004—06. Abbreviations: BHS = Berkeley High School; EH&S = Office ofEnvironment, Health
& Safety; SCB = UC Berkeley chapter of Society for Conservation Biology; UCB = University of California,
Berkeley; NSF = National Science Foundation.
Date Task Groups involved
2004-06 Periodic planning meetings to arrange UCB faculty, staff(EH&S), graduate, and
logistical and organizational details undergraduate students
2005
March Pre-restoration vegetation survey UCB Plant Ecology class (undergraduate students)
(established baseline conditions)
April Initial weeding ofsite UCrJ riant tcology class, ari^ students, and NJ>r
GK-12 graduate students
September Acquired supplies (seeds, seedlings, soil. EH&S staff, UCB faculty, and graduate students
Conetainers etc.)
October Fall weeding; transplanted seedlings Local non-profit organization (The Watershed
from flats to Conetainers Project), BHS students, and SCB members
Oct-Jan Watered seedlings and allowed time for EH&S staffand UCB graduate students
sufficient root mass to develop
October Collected cuttings for rooting, purchased EH&S staffand UCB graduate students
plants from local nursery
Oct/Nov Installed informational signs and fencing EH&S staff, UCB graduate students, and SCB
at site chapter
2006
January Planted native seedlings into the ground BHS students, EH&S staff, UCB graduate
students, and SCB
Mar-June Periodic spring weeding EH&S staff, UCB graduate students, and SCB
May/June Seed collection for fall planting EH&S staff
June Post-restoration vegetation survey Authors (Purcell/Corbin)
In January 2006, approximately 100 high removal of exotic species) and June 2006 (six
school students (from the same Environmental months after replanting natives). At each sam-
m
Science class at Berkeley High School that pling time, one 10 transect was established
transplanted the seedlings in October 2005) perpendiculartothestreamchannelfromtheedge
planted the native seedlings from the Conetainers ofstream. The transect included the riparian area
into the ground when soil moisture levels were nearthestreambankandextendedouttotheedge
adequate for seedhng survival without watering. oftherestoredarea. Presenceandpercentcoverof
The seedlings were planted in a 150 m^ "student all plant species within a 0.25 m- quadrat was
m
planting area" (Fig. 3). In order to plant this recorded every 0.5 along the transect. Cover
area, the Berkeley High School students first was estimated using cover classes (0-2, 2-5, 5-10,
weeded a circular plot (1-m diameter) and then 10-25, 25-50, 50-75, and75-100%). Thenumbers
planted several native seedlings species at evenly ofexoticandnativeplant species in the 2005 (pre-
spaced intervals within the circular plot. The restoration) and 2006 (post-restoration) were
planted area was roped offto discourage human compared using ANOVA (SAS 2000).
disturbance of the newly planted seedlings and Berkeley High School students in the Environ-
informational signs were installed to explain the mental Science class mapped the location and
project to the public. species of each seedling planted in January 2006
In contrast to the student planted area, a few using graph paper to maintain a consistent scale.
staff members of UC Berkeley's Office of Envi- Landmarks such as fences and trees were docu-
ronment, Health & Safety (EH&S) worked on an mented todeterminetheproximity oftheplanting
"intensively maintained area" (Fig. 3). Larger, circles to specific features at the site. These maps
more mature plants in 10 cm to 4 L pots were were used to determine survival rates of the
planted in this smaller area (100 m^) and received student planting area by comparing the initial
more frequent maintenance (i.e., weeding, mulch- maps with the surviving plants in June 2006.
ing, and watering). Approximately 300 individual
plants consisting of46 species were planted in the Student and Leader Surveys. In order to gauge
"intensively maintained area" (Table 2). the educational and attitudinal impacts of in-
volving students in the restoration project,
Vegetation Cover. In order to compare the a survey was given to 69 of the approximately
vegetation cover before and after the restoration, 100 Berkeley High School students in the
species composition was sampled in the intensive- Environmental Science class who participated in
ly maintained area in March 2005 (prior to restoration activities during 2005-06. The student
)
MADRONO
262 [Vol. 54
Table 2. Native Species Plantedat Strawberry Creek Restoration Site.
Potted Conetainer
Scientific Name Common Name Plants Seedlings
Grasses, sedges, and rushes
Agrostispallens Bent grass
Bronms carinatus var. carinatus Brome, California 100
Carex obnupta Slough sedge 3
Careypraegracilis Deer-bed sedge 13
Elynius glauciis ssp. glaucus Blue wild rye 7 100
Elymus trachycaiilus (RFS Slender wheatgrass 6
Festuca californica California fescue 1
Hordeum brachyantherum California meadow barley 4
Jiincus balticus Baltic wire rush 4
Jujicuspatens Spreading rush 5
Koeleria macrantha June grass 1
Melica californica California melic grass 10
N
assella lepida Foothill needle grass 10
Nassellapulchra Purple needle grass 10
Forbs and shrubs
Achil/ea millefolium Yarrow 100
Aristolochia californica California pipevine
Aster chileusis California aster 100
Baccharispilularis Coyote bush 3
Chlorogalumpomeridianum var. pomeridianum Soap Plant 36
Delphinium californicum California delphinium 8
Esclioltzia californica California poppy 1
Fragaria vesca Woodland strawberry 10
Gnaphaliumpalustre Western marsh cudweed 2
Grindelia hirsutula var. hirsutula Hairy gumplant 14 50
Heleniumpuberulum Rosilla, Sneezeweed 16
Heracleum lanatum Cow parsnip 2
Heuchera micrantha Alumroot 10
Iris douglasiana Douglas iris 19
Lonicera hispidula Honeysuckle 20
Lotus scoparius var. scoparius Deerweed 2
Lupinus sp. Lupine 7
Mimulus guttatus Yellow monkey flower 2
Physocarpus capitatus Ninebark 2
Prunella vulgaris Common selfheal 4
Ranunculus californica California buttercup 50
Rhamnus californica ssp. californica Coffeeberry 2
Ribes menziesu Canyon gooseberry 3
Ribes sanguineum var. glutinosum Red-flowered currant 3
Prubusparviflorus Thimbleberry 1
Scrophularia ccdifornica ssp. californica California Figwort, Beeplant 11
Sisvrinchiuni belluni Blue-eyed grass 1
Stachys ajugoides var. rigida Hedge Nettle 3
Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry, Bush 3
Tellima grandiflora Fringe cups 13
Veronica americana American brooklime 10
TOTAL 46 species 294 500
survey consisted of six questions in which that arose, and whether the project had been
students were asked to evaluatewhat they learned a success (Appendix II). The leader survey also
and their resulting attitude towards the creek and asked respondents to list the positive and
restoration (Appendix I). negative aspects of the collaborative nature of
A survey was also given to a variety of the project.
individuals involved in planning, coordinating,
and leading the Strawberry Creek restoration
Results
activities in order to evaluate their overall I
impression of the restoration. Questions focused
on their involvement in the project, the motiva- Vegetation Cover. In March 2005, the plant t
tion that kept them involved overtime, challenges community in the pre-restoration vegetation
:(
2007] PURCELL ET AL.: RESTORATION AS A CLASSROOM 263
a) 2005 (pre-restoration)
/
J?
i
o 1^^
^^^^
b) 2006 (post-restoration)
30
9"
Fig. 4. Mean percent cover of species in 0.25 m- quadrats sampled along 10 m transects in: a) 2005 (pre-
restoration) and b) 2006 (post-restoration). All species in Fig. 4a are exotics. Note the difference in scale between
the two graphs.
survey was dominated by the exotic species V. along the transect. Seven species were recorded
major (mean cover = 62%) and no native species along the entire transect; the average species
were recorded (Fig. 4a). Vincamajorwas the only richness in each quadrat was 2.0 (SE = 0.4)
species with a percent cover that exceeded 5% species 0.25 m
—
MADRONO
264 [Vol. 54
Table 3. Survivalof Student Plantings. their attitude towards the creek, such as an
increasein awareness orappreciation ofthecreek.
Scientific Name Common Name Survival rate Lastly, when students were asked: "Do you think
AGcrhiinldleelaiamislp.lefolium YGaurmropwlant 7315%% ytiooun'dprboejeicnttseriensttehdeifnuwtuorrek?i"ng42o%n sotfrreeasmproensdteonrtas-
Elymus glaucus Blue wild rye 28% answered "yes" or "maybe."
Aster chilensis Aster 9% When project leaders were asked about the
Bromus carinatus California brome 8% advantages and disadvantages of the collabora-
Rammculus California buttercup 0% tive nature of this project, the common advan-
californicus Total Overall Survival: 30% itangveoslvilinsgtesdtuwdeernet:s,(1()2)tthheeecdoumcmaititotneadllaesapdeecrtshiopf
with a large breadth of expertise that shared
responsibility, and (3) the cost effectiveness of
Following removal of V. major and subsequent using volunteers and donated materials. Some
planting of native species, species composition disadvantages mentioned were: (1) uneven enthu-
and prevalence of native species changed dra- siasm from Berkeley High students, (2) quality
matically. In the post-restoration vegetation control of plantings, and (3) difficulty of co-
survey (June 2006), V. major was observed in ordinating everyone's schedule. Overall, the
only 5 of 20 points along the transect, and its positive aspects of the collaboration were men-
cover was never greater than 2% (Fig. 4b). The tioned more often than the negative aspects.
richness of native species increased significantly
post-restoration; 19 native species were recorded Discussion
along the transect, with a mean native richness of \
1.7 species 0.25 m - (SE = 0.3; significant
difference in native species richness between Restoration of Native Plant Biodiversity. The
pre- and post-restoration: F128 = 1^.2, p < results ofthe pre- and post-restorationvegetation j
0.002). Post-restoration mean native cover in- surveys indicated that the restoration project
creased to 23.5% (SE = 6.1) per 0.25 m-, while goals to remove exotics and replant natives were
cover ofexotics was reduced to 6.2% (SE = 4.3). successfully achieved. The goal to remove exotic
The difference between pre- and post-restoration species was achieved through manual removal of
native cover was also statistically significant the exotic plant species in the restoration area .j
= < and was sustained over a one-year period (F.
(F,T,3h8e su2r.0v,ivpal o0f.05t)h.e student plantings was majorcover decreased from 62% in 2005 to 1% in
hbliegh3l)y. Fvoarrieaxblaempldee,peAn.diminlgleofonlituhmehasdpeaciseusrv(iTvaa-l T2r0eh0de6u)c.geodaMlutlhtceohnirnuegmpblaaenrrtouotnfhdeextrohetesitcnosartatithviaeotnprlaearenemtaesrgwaeildts.ho I|j
rate of 71%, yet none of the R. californicus
survived. The overall survival rate ofthe student native species was successfully achieved in both |;
mpluacnthinghsigwhears fsauirrvliyvallowra(t3e0%o)f ctohmepa"rinetdentsoivtehlye tthaeinesdtuadreenat wpiltahntisnugrviavnadl rtahtee ivnatreynisnigvelbyympaliann-t j|
maintained area" (—90%). Approximately 30 speTchieestawnodrleesvteolraotfiomnaianrteeansa(nscteu.dent planted and \
maturepotted plants were planted in the "student
planting area" and had a higher survival rate the intensively maintained) varied in the effort to
compared to the smaller Conetainer seedhngs. establish native species. The student plantings
were completed at little to no cost (e.g., volunteer
Student and Leader Surveys. The results ofthe labor, donated supplies, no transportationcosts
student survey (n = 69) provided some insight on walking distance from high school campus) and
how much the students learned and their attitude covered a larger area (150 m-). The low survival
toward stream restoration after their involvement rate (30%) of the student plantings may be
intherestorationproject. Whenasked: "Whatwas attributed to the small size of the seedlings
the overall goal ofthe Strawberry Creek Restora- planted and the low frequency of weeding and
tion?" 91% of students were able to accurately other maintenance over the spring season.
state the goal of the restoration in their own Weeding and maintenance are known factors i\
words. Whenstudentsweregivena seriesofwords that influence the survival of plantings in
to choose from that described their experience restoration projects (e.g., Washitani 2001). Dur-
working on the restoration (i.e., fun, educational, ing March and April of2006, the small plants in
boring, pointless) 49% ofstudents responded that the student planted area were rapidly outcom- ;
itwasfun, 57% responded that itwaseducational, peted by exotic weeds such as Malva neglecta 1
while only 32% responded that it was boring, and (common mallow), Stellaria media (common i
12% responded that it was pointless. In addition, chickweed), Hordeum murinum (hare barley), '
55% of students remarked that working on the Avena fatua (wild oat), Medicago polymorpha
restoration project had a positive influence on (Californiaburclover), and Ehrhartaerecta(panic I
2007] PURCELL ET AL.: RESTORATION AS A CLASSROOM 265
veldt grass). A few larger potted plants in the previous year with a few modifications made
student planted area had a higher survival rate basedonthefindingsofthefirstphaseofplanting.
and were easier to locate during maintenance The modifications included using larger four inch
weeding. In contrast, the smaller intensively containers rather than Conetainers for September
maintained area (100 m^) was completed at transplants by Berkeley High School students and
a higher cost (--$1500), but had higher survival intensive weeding in March and April 2007 by
rates among the native plantings (—90%). The University staffand volunteers from a local creek
reasons behind this success may be attributed to restoration group (Friends of Five Creeks). The
the larger size ofthe seedlings planted and higher second phase of planting was accomplished with
frequency of weeding. A mulch path was also theassistanceofapproximately 100 Berkeley High
installed toprevent tramplingofthenativeplants. School students in an Environmental Scienceclass
Overall, a higher level of care and cost led to and 30 students from Kensington Hilltop Elemen-
increased plant survival and a more aesthetically tary School. As ofJune 2007, the results appear to
pleasing result. be satisfactory with high plant survival in the
The tradeoffs between cost, plant survivorship, student planting area.
aesthetics, and public involvement were impor-
tant considerations in this project, as has been Restoration asan EducationalandCollaborative
reported in other studies (e.g., Morris and Moses Exercise. The goal to incorporate an educational
1999). The competing goals of maximizing component in the restoration project was also
establishment of native species compared to successfully achieved through the involvement of
keeping costs low required tradeoffs, but we local students from Berkeley High School. The
believe that there were benefits ofadopting both students learned several scientific concepts from
strategies within a single project. The intensively their involvement in the project including the
maintained area served as a "showcase" area importance of native biodiversity, differences
with large native plants and low return ofexotic between native and exotic species, and principles
plants. In contrast, the student planting area of ecology, plant physiology, and restoration
served aneducational (andexperimental) purpose science. An overview of these topics was in-
while covering a larger area. Both purposes were troduced to the students at the beginning ofeach
ofequal importance to this project. restoration activity to provide an educational
Previous restoration projects have found that context. Several ofthese topics were in agreement
follow-up work is needed to ensure long-term with the California State Board of Education
success of a restoration project (e.g., Davies and Science Content Standards (California State
Christie 2001). Higgs (1997) emphasized that in Board of Education 2006). Students not only
order for a restoration project to be successful it learned educational concepts, but also received
must exhibit durabihty (abiUty to persist for hands-on experience in native plant restoration
a long period). It has been suggested that such as transplanting, weeding, planting, mulch-
a timescale of 15-20 yr is often a suitable timeline ing, mapping, and determining where to plant
for evaluating the success ofa restoration project each native species within the riparian zone.
(Mitsch and Wilson 1996). Therefore, despite the While the initial purpose ofinvolving students
drastic decrease ofexotic species abundance and was purely educational, there were some other
cover at the restoration site during the first year, unexpected outcomes. In particular, it was
active management (such as weeding and mulch- compelling to see that 42% ofstudents responded
ing) will certainly beneeded to prevent reinvasion they were interested in working on restoration
of exotic species in the future (Berger 1993; projects in thefuture. This suggests that involving
Davies and Christie 2001; Washitani 2001). The students in restoration projects can serve not only
urban location of the restoration site makes it an educational purpose, but can also inspire
more susceptible to reinvasion because of the individuals to volunteer for other restoration
large source ofexotic propagules in surrounding projects in the future or perhaps even pursue
areas. Active management of this project in the careers in fields such as conservation biology,
future will consist ofmanual weeding ofexotics, environmental science, or restoration ecology.
additional planting of natives, and mulching When considering the advantages and disad-
around the native plants. EH&S staff are co- vantages of the collaborative nature of this
ordinating with Berkeley High School staff and restoration project, those involved in the leader-
student groups at UC Berkeley to carry out these ship of the restoration project responded that
efforts over the next few years. strong and dynamic leadership was the key to
Duringthewinterof2006-07, asecondphaseof a successful collaboration. The individuals in-
restoration was completed with the primary goal volved in the planning and implementation of
of establishing native vegetation cover in the this project were motivated and committed to
2005-06 student planting area that had poor stay involved throughout the duration of the
survival in the previous year. The methodology project and theirbreadth ofexperience resulted in
for 2006-07 plantings was equivalent to the a group dynamic where no single person was
MADRONO
266 [Vol. 54
solely responsible for getting the work done. Services. We thank A. Rissman, T. Doherty, B.
Many ofthe leaders remarked that their passion Mitchell, and S. Gennet fortime, energy, and construe-
for working with youth and environmental tiveinput into therestoration project. Thankyoutothe |
UC
education kept them motivated, inspired, and nine Berkeley students in IB154 (Plant Ecology)
involved in the project over the long-term. who initiated site restoration in 2005 by performing
Additional positive outcomes ofthe collabora- sinpietciiaels.plAantspceocmiamluntihatnykssatmopltihnegBaenrdkerleemyovHailghofSecxhootoilc
tive planning process were the connections students and their teacher, M. Mertens, for their
formed between the many groups that worked participation in the restoration activities. Finally, we
on this project and the links to the community. thank P. Gobster, V. Resh, and M. Vasey for editorial
The relationship established between the EH&S comments and reviews. The National Science Founda-
staff and the Berkeley High School teacher will tion's GK-12 program (grant #DGE-0231877) pro-
ensure student involvement in the future. In- vided funding and support for graduate student I
terpretive signs describing the goals and progress mentors. Additional funding was provided by the UC
of the project provided a link to the community Berkeley Chancellor's Green Fund and Alameda
Countywide Clean Water Program Community Stew-
to keep people informed ofthe changes occurring
ardship Grant.
at the site. The student planting days were
featured in the local news and the UC Berkeley Literature Cited
campus website, furthering the connection be-
tween the University and the community. Ongo- Berger, J. J. 1993. Ecological restoration and non-
ing updates and news about the restoration were indigenous plant species: a review. Restoration
Ecology 1:74-82.
made available online (University of CaUfornia Bright, A. D., S. C. Barro, and R. T. Burtz. 2002.
Berkeley 2006). Public attitudes toward ecological restoration in |'
This project was also useful as a model of the Chicago Metropolitan Region. Society and
a restored ecosystem on the UC Berkeley campus Natural Resources 15:763-785.
and should serve to inspire future projects. The California State Bo—ard of Education. 2006.
flowering and seed production ofseveral planted Biology/life sciences Grades 9 through 12 science
I
native species in the spring of 2006 was an content standards. Available at: www.cde.ca.gov/
indication that the site may be able to sustain be/st/ss/scbiology.asp. Accessed on November 16, |
a new native plant community in the long term. 2006.
However, weeding and maintenance over time Charbonneau, R. 2000. Strawberry Creek I: the
making ofan urban stream, 1860-1960. Chronicle
will be crucial to keep the exotics from re-
ofthe University ofCalifornia 3:1-19.
invading the site (Washitani 2001). AND V. H. Resh. 1992. Strawberry Creek on
Recommendations. Upon reflection of the the University of California, Berkeley campus:
lessons gleaned from this project, we propose a case history ofurban streamrestoration. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
a series of recommendations for urban stream
2:293-307.
restoration projects. As mentioned previously, Davies, R. AND J. Christie. 2001. Rehabilitating
motivated and committed leadership was crucial western Sydney's bushland: processes needed for
for a successful collaboration and allowed the sustained recovery. Ecological Management and
project to continue and flourish over time. Thus, Restoration 2:167-178.
we recommend that similar projects have at least GoBSTER, p. H. 1999. An ecological aestheticforforest
one or two committed leaders who will oversee landscape management. Landscape Journal
i
the other collaborators. Second, successful in- 18:54-64.
corporation of students into restoration projects Hickman, J. C. 1993. The Jepson manual: higher
requires the enthusiastic participation of a class- plantsofCalifornia. UniversityofCaliforniaPress,
rreosotomratteiaocnheirntwohotheiisrwcillalsisn'g ctuorriinccuolrupmo.ratTehirtdh,e HiGGCBSeo,rnksEee.lreSvy.a,t1i9C9oA7n..BWihoalotgyis1g1o:o3d38e-c3o4l8o.gical restoration? ^;
seed money and/or institutional support is re- KONDOLF, G. M. 1998. Lessons learned from river i
quired to acquire supplies (e.g., plants, potting restoration projects in California. Aquatic Conser- |
soil, Conetainers) and maximize the efficiency of vation: marine and freshwater ecosystems 8:39-
volunteer labor. Lastly, site location should take 52.
into account the proximity ofthe project to likely MiTSCH,W. J. ANDR. F. Wilson. 1996. Improvingthe ;
volunteers, to increase both numbers of volun- success of wetland creation and restoration with
teers and also participants' appreciation of the know-how, time, and self-design. Ecological Ap- \i
site. We hope that the lessons learned from this plications 6:77 83.
projectcan serve as a guide for similarrestoration Morris, S. and T. Moses. 1999. Urban stream Ij
restoration: a design and construction case study.
projects in urban areas. Environmental Management 23:165-177. |
Acknowledgments Paul, M. J. and J. L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the
urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and
We thank T. Pine and S. Maranzana from the UC Systematics 32:333-365.
TB.erKkleolseyfrOoffmicteheoUfCEnBveirrkoenlmeeyntPh,ysHiecaalltPhla&ntS—afCeatympaunsd Purc2e0l0l2., Aa.n Ha.s,seCs.smFenrtiedorficah,smaalnl,d uVr.baHn. sRterseha.m ;
2007] PURCELL ET AL.: RESTORATION AS A CLASSROOM 267
restoration project in northern California. Resto- 4. Do you think you'd be interested in working on
ration Ecology 10:685-694. stream restoration projects in the future?
Riley, A. L. 1998. Restoring streams in cities: a guide Y / N
for planners, policymakers, and citizens. Island Why?
Press, Washington, D.C. 5. Ingeneral,what doyou think aretheprimarygoals
SAS. 2000. SAS/STAT user's guide. Version 8, vol- ofany creek restoration? (rank below)
umes 1, 2, and 3. SAS Institute, Cary, NC. Improvement ofwater quality
SCHROEDER, H. W. 1982. Preferred features of urban Flood control
parks and forests. Journal ofArboriculture 8:317- Improvement of Aesthetics / Beauty of the
322. neighborhood
Universityof California, Berkeley. 2006. Straw- Rejuvenation ofnative biology/landscape
berry Creek. Available at: http://strawberrycreek. Recreational uses
berkeley.edu/index.html.
Walsh, C. J., A. H. Roy, J. W. Feminella, P. D. Eednuvciartoinomneanlt tool for learning about nature/
COTTINGHAM, P. M. GrOFFMAN, AND R. P.
Morgan. 2005. The urban stream syndrome: Other:
current knowledge and the search for a cure.
Appendix
Journal of North American Benthological Society II.
Strawberry Creek Restoration
24:706-723.
Leader Survey Questions
Washitani, I. 2001. Plant conservation ecology for
managementand restorationofriparianhabitatsof 1. How and when did you first become involved in the
lowland Japan. Population Ecology 43:189-195. Strawberry Creek restoration project?
2. Please describe your role/involvement in the
Appendix I. Strawberry Creek restoration project.
Strawberry Creek Restoration
3. In your opinion, has this project been a success so
Student Survey Questions
far? (choose one)
1. What activitiesdidyouparticipate in as part ofthe Y / N
Strawberry Creek Restoration on the UC Berkeley Why or why not?
campus? 4. What were some of the challenges faced in this
2. What was the overall goal ofthe Strawberry Creek project?
Restoration? 5. Looking back on how things have gone, what
3. Workingon the StrawberryCreekRestorationwas would you have done differently (ifanything)?
(circle all that apply): 6. What has kept you motivated and involved in this
fun educational boring hard work pointless project over time?
7. Please list some of the pros and cons of the
Other: COLLABORATIVE nature of this restoration (i.e.
HasyourattitudetowardsStrawberryCreekchanged involving Berkeley High School students, undergrads,
since your involvement in the restoration? (circle one) grads, faculty, staff, non-profit organizations etc.).
Y / N 8. What are your visions/hopes for the future of this
How has your attitude changed? project?