76 



classic trapezoidal channelization project evolved, through local citizen advocacy and the 

 involvement of a committed group of urban waterway restorationists, into a multiobjective project 

 which incorporated restoration of the natural stream channel, reduction of sedimentation, 

 protection of endangered species, development of a regional trail, institution of an environmental 

 education program for an school adjacent to the channel and reduction in maintenance costs. 



The hallmark of both of these successful examples is the large number of cooperators and 

 the multiple benefits of each project. In the case of Johnson Creek cooperators include several 

 local businesses. Friends of Johnson Creek, numerous neighborhood associations, the cities of 

 Portland and Milwaukie, numerous conservation organizations, Multnomah and Clackamas 

 Counties, several state and federal agencies and the regional planning agency, Metro. The 

 Wildcat Creek project involved the Contra Costa Flood Control District, U. S. Army Corps of 

 Engineers, Richmond Neighborhoods Coordinating Council, Urban Creeks Council, Save San 

 Francisco Bay Association, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state legislators. Grizzly Peak 

 Flyfishers and numerous other organizations. Both of these projects have leveraged money 

 through these cooperative partnerships. 



By contrast, large-scale structural engineered projects are typically "top down", agency- 

 driven and costly to construct and maintain. While it is difficult to compare costs between 

 traditional, structural projects, it is estimated that highly engineered flood and bank stabilization 

 projects, on average, cost as much as $5 million per mile 6 . Non-structural engineering projects 

 and restoration can cost as little as $3,000 per mile in the case of volunteer-oriented snagging 

 and clearing projects to perhaps as much as $1 million per mile for extensive soil bioengineering 

 and bank modification projects 7 . The state of California's restoration grants program, after which 

 H.R. 4289 is modeled, has averaged $30,000 per project and has not exceeded $200,00 for any 

 single project in the ten years that program has existed. In addition to these cost savings, non- 

 structural projects typically incorporate improved fish and wildlife habitat, open space, 

 recreational features and are aesthetically more pleasing to the surrounding community. 



Another significant consideration in evaluation of the long term efficacy of structural vs 

 non-structural alternatives is the cost of maintaining the projects. Since the non-structural 

 projects typically rely on the functioning of natural systems, use of native vegetation and 

 returning streams and rivers to a more natural condition, their maintenance is low. We have 

 found that many federally funded cost-shared projects are not adequately maintained due to fiscal 

 constraints at the local level. Oftentimes these projects fall in disrepair and, as a consequence, 

 fail over time. H.R 4289 recognizes this fact by encouraging projects which are less costly to 

 build in the first place and which require a minimum of maintenance. 



ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AN ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS OF NON-TRADITIONAL RESTORATION 

 METHODS AS PROPOSED IN H.R. 4289 



I have already discussed the economic advantages of non-structural over the more 

 traditional structural alternatives. In addition to lower installation and maintenance costs, the 

 non-structural approaches provided for in H.R. 4289 yield many social and ecological benefits. 

 H.R. 4289 is as much about restoring communities as the waterways it seeks to restore. One of 

 the single most important elements of the legislation is that it recognizes the importance of 

 involving the community in the design, implementation and care of a stream restoration project. 

 H.R. 4289 also specifically addresses the need for these restoration projects in the inner city 

 where rivers, streams and wetlands are typically most degraded. The Wildcat Creek restoration 

 project in North Richmond, California, which I referred to earlier in my testimony is an example of 

 such a project. The citizens of North Richmond opposed the Corps proposal and became 



