PULSE OF THE CHATTAHOOCHEE: RAISING WATERSHED AWARENESS IN THE CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NAT'L REC. AREA

PULSE OF THE CHATTAHOOCHEE: RAISING WATERSHED AWARENESS IN THE CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Landscape Architecture

by Bryan David Harrison May 2013

CORNELL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL APPROVAL OF THESIS/DISSERTATION

Name of candidate:

Bryan

David

First Name

Middle Name

Harrison Family Name

Graduate Field: Landscape Architecture Graduate Field: Degree: MLA II M.L.A.

Degree:

Title of Thesis/Dissertation: Pulse of the Chattahoochee: raising watershed awareness in the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area

COMMITTEE SIGNATURES: Chairperson: _________________________________________

Date: _________

Member: ____________________________________________

Date: _________

Member: ____________________________________________

Date: _________

Member: ____________________________________________

Date: _________

Member: ____________________________________________

Date: _________

LICENSE TO USE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL I do hereby give license to Cornell University and all its faculty and staff to use the above-mentioned copyrighted material in any manner consonant with, or pursuant to, the scholarly purposes of Cornell University, including lending such materials to students or others through its library services or through interlibrary services or through interlibrary loan, and delivering copies to sponsors of my research, but excluding any commercial use of such material. This license shall remain valid throughout the full duration of my copyright.

____________________________________ (Student Signature)

ii

ABSTRACT Atlanta’s rapidly growing metropolitan area is home to the dynamic, active, and diverse Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (CRNRA). In addition to meeting the needs of Greater Atlanta, the Chattahoochee River also simultaneously supports a rich ecosystem. Many demands are placed on this precious resource and it cannot support the needs of the greater Atlanta community when its waters are impaired by stormwater runoff. Comprehensive data sets about the quality and condition of the Chattahoochee and its tributaries are necessary to better understand the urban ecology of this watershed.

If a network of river monitoring stations could be created on national park land, data could be generated that could be used by the park to make informed management decisions and implement best practices that contribute to improved watershed health and water quality. The park can also use this network as a tool to educate the Chattahoochee River community. A site in the CRNRA was selected for a design intervention. The design proposal in this thesis mitigates stormwater effects within the Upper Chattahoochee watershed to improve water quality in the Chattahoochee River. It seeks to increase awareness of the watershed among Upper Chattahoochee watershed residents to promote watershed stewardship. It stresses prevention of watershed disease by demonstrating good watershed management practices that could be used throughout the highly developed Upper Chattahoochee watershed. It engages the public by making the watershed visible and interactive. These actions are necessary to maintain water quality and other ecosystem services that the Chattahoochee River watershed provides and which Atlanta and its environs depend upon.

iii

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Bryan earned his undergraduate degree in landscape architecture (BLA), summa cum laude, from

The completion of this thesis and the research presented herein was made possible through the

the University of Rhode Island (URI) in 2010. There he worked for the Coastal Landscapes Program and

assistance and support of a number ofindividuals and institutions.

designed coastal buffers, native plantings, and public outreach materials. He was also an undergraduate research assistant for publications of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT). His

Thank you to Josh Cerra for all of his help as my thesis adviser and for agreeing to take me on as a

illustrations have been published in Native Plant Site Solutions for Backyard Habitat (2011) and research

thesis student in his first year at Cornell and his insight into ecology and design. Thank you to Marc

for RIDOT in RIDOT Salt-Tolerant Tree and Shrub Guide (2010). He is a twice nominated Landscape

Miller for a full year of daily office visits and mentorship in the Parks for the People competition and for

Architecture Foundation Olmsted Scholar for URI.

expanding my theoretical view of the disciplines of landscape and architecture. Thank you to all of those professors and mentors that helped me form my initial research questions when I was still concentrating

While at Cornell his concentrations in the department of landscape architecture were ecology and

on landscape history, especially Daniel Krall and Dr. Kathryn Gleason. Special thanks to Dr. Thomas

landscape history. Studying at Cornell University enabled Bryan to travel to Italy to study ancient Roman

Whitlow of the department of horticulture. Your mentorship, insight, wisdom, and occasional prose have

villas and gardens, specifically the Villa di Pollio Felice in Sorrento, Italy. He was also able to travel to the

inspired my dedication to the field of restoration ecology and the human experience.

Baltimore, MD area to study urban ecology and restoration ecology.

I am grateful to the Baltimore Ecosystem Study, all of the researchers and practitioners that took time to tour my classmates and myself around various restoration projects, and especially Dr. Richard Pouyat for his hospitality. Thank you to the staff of the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area for your help and for giving our troop the full Chattahoochee experience.

Thank you to my friends and family who were there to support me through my writing and there to celebrate me when I finished.

And a big thank you to my fellow Parks for the People Peeps: Erik Jones, Christina Twomey, Chelsea Miller, and Rebecca Montross.

iv

For Planet Water

“Water is the most critical resource issue of our lifetime and our children’s lifetime.

The health of our waters is the principle measure of how we live on the land.”

-Luna Leopold.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract

iii

Biographical Sketch

iv

Aknowledgements

iv

List of Figures

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

21

Aquatic Community Effects

22

2.2 DESIGN AND ECOLOGY

viii

List of Acronyms

Pollutants in Urban Streams

Restoration Practice Informs Design

23

Applying Scientific Findings in Design Applications

25

2.3 CASE STUDIES

1

.............................................................................................................. 23

........................................................................................................................................

26

1

Landscape Urbanism

26

.................................................................................................

3

Experimental Landscapes

26

1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT .................................................................................................

3

Emergent Landscapes

27

Inspiration

3

Monitoring Landscapes

29

It’s a Complex System, and It’s Complicated

4

CHAPTER THREE: DESIGN APPROACH

A National Park Identity

4

3.2 THE APPROACH

..............................................................................................................

CHAPTER ONE: A DESIGN THESIS

1.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

.................................................................................................

1.3 A HEAVILY MANAGED SYSTEM

................................................................................................. 10

8

..................

31

........................................................................................................................... 31

Step 1. Set Project Parameters and Goals

31

Step 2. Identify Precedents, and Supporting Research

31

Management of the Chattahoochee’s Waters

10

Step 3. Identify Sampling Locations and Propose Data Collection Variables

31

Buford Dam and Other Management Agencies and Partners

11

Step 4. Implement Treatment Measures

33

The Chattahoochee Riverkeeper

12

Step 5. Demonstrate, Interpret, and Connect

35

The Tri-State Water War, Politics Surrounding the Chattahoochee

12

1.4 THE CHATTAHOOCHEE AS AN URBAN SYSTEM

.........................................................

CHAPTER FOUR: THE DESIGN PROPOSAL

...................................................................................

37

13

Site Selection

37

The Growth of Atlanta

13

Suwanee Creek

37

Threats to the Chattahoochee

13

Johnson Ferry

37

Peachtree Creek

37

Vickery Creek

37

................................................................................................. 19

Taking the Pulse: The P.O.D.S.

38

The Urban Ecological Movement

19

Reconnecting the Floodplain

38

Urban Watersheds

19

Mitigating Stormwater Inputs

38

Physical Effects of Imperviousness

20

Site Experience

39

1.5 RATIONAL FOR PROJECT & ROLE OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND AND DESIGN INFLUENCES 2.1 THE SCIENCE TO BE APPLIED

.................. 17

............................................

19

vi

Encouraging Life

39

Design Achievements & Future of the Proposal

39

AUTHOR NOTES

........................................................................................................................................

47

BIBLIOGRAPHY

........................................................................................................................................

48

APPENDIX A: DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES PROPOSAL

52

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

2-8. Lehigh Gap Nature Center restoration site.

28

1-1. Inspiration for the thesis: The Practice of Watershed Protection

4

2-9. The Gwynns Falls watershed in Baltimore, MD.

29

1.2. Location of the study site within Georgia.

5

2-10. In the Air, a project by Nerea Calvillo.

30

1-3. Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area within the Upper Chattahoochee watershed.

5

2-11. Adascent’s mobile app for the Chattahoochee.

30

1-4. Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area base map.

6

2-12. Traditional Research vs the Designed Experiment approach to adaptive management.

30

1-5. Overlay of many complex natural, engineered, and cultural systems in the U.C. watershed.

7

3-1. Concept for river sampling metrics within the CRNRA to derive architectural (landscape) form.

32

1-6. Groundwater recharge areas in the Upper Chattahoochee watershed.

8

3-2. Cycle of monitoring and management with public outreach.

32

1-7. Diagram of water flow at the Brevard Fault Zone with fractured bedrock geology.

8

3-3 Functional diagram of the Upper Chattahoochee Watershed.

34

1-8. The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Basin.

9

3-4. Cover percentages of Upper Chattahoochee catchments.

34

1-9. Flow regime of an urban hydrograph and a pre-development hydrograph.

10

3-5. Sampling locations within the CRNRA.

36

1-10. River gauge reading for Big Creek in 2005, 2007, 2009.

10

4-1. Site selection matrix used to evaluate criteria for pilot site.

40

1-11. Control structure on the Chattahoochee. Photograph of Buford Dam.

11

4-2. Local park network surrounding Vickery Creek.

40

1-12. Control structure on the Chattahoochee. Photograph of Morgan Falls Dam.

11

4-3. Vickery Creek unit of the CRNRA.

41

1-13. Snapshot of cleared land in the Upper Chattahoochee watershed in 1999.

14

4-4. Vickery Creek site aerial image.

42

1-14. Extent of land area considered “urbanized” within the Upper Chattahoochee watershed.

14

4-5. Existing conditions at the 2.4 acre site of Vickery Creek and adjacent lands.

43

1-15. EPA Water Quality Assessment (2010) for the Upper Chattahoochee watershed.

15

4-6. Design for the new Watershed Exploration Park within the CRNRA owned parcel.

43

1-16. Summary of impaired waters of Georgia.

15

4-7. P.O.D.S. locations on the site.

44

1-17. The CRNRA with surrounding network of roads.

16

4-8. Monitoring stations on the P.O.D.S.

44

1-18. Municiple water intake on the Chattahoochee River.

18

4-9. “Sweep The Hooch” volunteers on the Chattahoochee River.

45

1-19. CRNRA is a visible urban park.

18

4-10. The “Pulse” of Big Creek at Vickery Creek Park

45

2-1. Rottenwood Creek watershed and Marietta Air Force Base.

19

4-11. Floodplains are reconstructed in three elevation zones.

45

2-2. Effects of impervious surface cover: Stream stability.

20

4-12. Section through the Watershed Exploration Park.

2-3. Symptoms generally associated with urban stream syndrome.

20

4-13. Student-scientists, visitors, and active river users can all enjoy the P.O.D.S.

2-4. Example of “first flush” pollutants.

21

4-14. Early concept graphics.

2-5. Effects of imperviousness: quality of observed fish habitat.

22

2-6. Common fishes of the Chattahoochee.

22

2-7. The AMD&ART Park In Vintondale, Pennsylvania.

28 viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Parks for the People competition was a joint venture between the Van Alen Institute in New York and the National Park Service to reimagine the national parks for the 21st century. As part of this competition participants were asked to incorporate six design principles from Designing the Parks: 1) reverence for place; 2) engagement of all people; 3) expansion beyond traditional boundaries; 4) advancement of sustainability; 5) informed decision-making; and 6) an integrated research, planning, design, and review process (Designing the Parks, 2010). This thesis (also referred to as the design thesis, or design proposal) details and discusses my individual site design and supporting research as a portion of the Cornell University Landscape Architecture Department’s entry for the competition. The group’s entry, nominated as a finalist in the competition, is entitled “(Re)Create Flux: The Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area As Park Prototype.”

This thesis examines the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (CRNRA) at the

List of Acronyms ACOE - Army Corps of Engineers ARC - Atlanta Regional Commission CRNRA - Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area CRK - Chattahoochee Riverkeeper (formerly Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper) FSDRIP - First San Diego River Improvement Project MRPA - (Atlanta) Metropolitan River Protection Act NGO - non-governmental organization NPS - National Park Service PAH - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons RBMP - (Georgia) River Basin Management Planning UCR - Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper (see CRK)

watershed level. Chapter One introduces the river, the national park contained within its watershed and the influential city of Atlanta in whose suburbs the river flows. The Chattahoochee River is a complex and complicated system which requires expounding of many sets of information to comprehend. Some of the major topics are discussed here, such as the geography and physiography which define the river and the politics around the fresh water and services the river provides. There are many stakeholders that want to have a say in the fate of the waters of the Chattahoochee. There are also many buried assumptions of how the river functions and how people relate to it. The people are a very important part of the equation. The river does not exist on its own, unperturbed, in a natural environment. As an outsider and a designer these assumptions must be brought to the surface and tested so as to construe the most faithful representation of the system and make good judgments.

In Chapter Two I present some foundation material: research findings laid to explain some of the science of urban rivers and the ecology that operates within an urban watershed. This information is critical to understanding the interrelationship of people with the waters of the river and supports the approach presented in Chapter Three and design concept in Chapter Four. This section also reviews several precedent projects as support for the design proposal and for their role in providing inspiration or important lessons.

Chapter Three explains the approach for tackling this project. The project objectives are to mitigate stormwater effects within the Upper Chattahoochee watershed to improve water quality in the Chattahoochee River and to increase awareness of the watershed among Upper Chattahoochee watershed residents to promote watershed stewardship. The angle that I approached the river from was that of principles four and five of Designing the Parks: advancement of sustainability and informed decisionmaking. I also used the concept of disruptive technology to create a framework of changing the existing mental image of what a national park is and what it can be. A case for data collection and assigning metrics to natural phenomena in the national parks is made and ways of how that data can be applied is 1

proposed.

Lastly, in Chapter Four the design for a parcel within the CRNRA, called Vickery Creek, is presented. The design uses stormwater treatment measures to mitigate runoff as the primary source of pollution to the river and reconnects floodplains to increase flood capacity and improve water quality.

It makes the existing connection of people to the river obvious and compelling and in the process generate pathos for the river’s condition. The design identifies user groups, key points of influence, and potential partners. It also shows metric points and provides future uses for data collection in the park.

The design of the park parcel is the application of the researched science and the ideas of precedent projects. Execution of the design should create an educational opportunity and an ecological benefit to the CRNRA and to the Chattahoochee River.

2

CHAPTER ONE: A DESIGN THESIS

us gain a greater insight into the park, its user groups and neighbors, its management, and relevant legislation. Notes, photographs, and memories from the trip were used to develop the design proposal for the CRNRA site.

1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT Pulse of the Chattahoochee is structured as a design thesis. It started with research into urban ecology as an area of inquiry and practice which spans disciplines of both design and science. As the science of urban ecology is holistic in its approach so too had to be the engagement of the research. I sought advisers in multiple departments within Cornell University’s faculty as well as in the Baltimore, Maryland area to learn more about the Long Term Ecological Research happening within the Baltimore Ecosystem Study. This involved three trips to the Anne Arundel and Baltimore County region to see urban watershed and urban stream restoration efforts, including both installations and ongoing research.

Parallel to this research into urban ecology I participated in the 2011-2012 Van Alen Institute’s Parks for the People competition (Van Alen Institute, 2012). Our team started with a semester

Inspiration In the year 2000 Thomas R. Schueler and Heather K. Holland published a book called The Practice of Watershed Protection (*see figure 1-1). In the book’s introduction they related both watershed health and “watershed disease” to that of coronary health and heart disease. A watershed refers to all of the geographic area that drains into a stream or river; small streams make up large drainage networks of sub-watersheds or subcatchments that form a larger watershed draining to an inland sea, lake or to the ocean. For purposes of this discussion the term stream shall refer to any surface water conveyance, including headwater rivulets to rivers, and urban gutters, streets and swales. Watershed disease refers

long inquiry into large urban parks. Along with the four other team members for the Van Alen proposal I investigated six topics which make parks a form of disruptive technology. In this context disruptive technology describes landscapes that create emergent social and economic benefits. The topics explored were Park as Curation, Park as Lab, The Emergent Park, Park as Economic Incubator, Park as Network and Parkitecture. (*see Appendix A). Of the national parks available for the competition, the group chose the CRNRA. Our preliminary proposal “Disruptive Technologies: The Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area as National Park Model” was selected by the Van Alen Institute as a finalist to compete in the next competition phase. The Spring 2012 semester was centered on creating a design proposal for the CRNRA. I chose to focus on Park as Lab. It looks at techniques and theories that align the research science with landscape-scale experimentation. Within the park system it has the potential to change the perceived role of the National Park Service. The Chattahoochee River is an urban river; it flows through Atlanta and its suburbs. My research was devoted to understanding how urban river systems function as ecological entities, the ecosystem services they provide and the landscape effects of development on water quality and quantity. I also supplemented my independent research with course work in restoration ecology and forest ecology. I felt this coursework was necessary to provide a firm scientific grounding to communicate across the traditional disciplinary silos that can hinder an informed and rationally grounded design process.

Our team had a site visit to the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area during the Cornell University Spring Break in March 2012. To be physically present in the park was critical to understanding the CRNRA. It’s a public park, a national park, a local resource, a highly engineered piece of infrastructure, and a unique geological and hydrological entity. These qualities can be superficially analyzed from afar but there is no substitute for on-the-ground exploration. The experience also allowed us to meet with the managers and rangers that keep the park in running order. The site visit helped

to the symptoms of a watershed impacted by urbanization: rapid stormwater runoff; increased peak flows; greater volume of stormwater runoff contributing to floods and property damage; changes to the physical, chemical and biological character and quality of streams; and a decline in watershed services like clean drinking water and in-stream and floodplain habitat.

Both heart disease and watershed disease are caused by behaviors which impact the system over time. Both are preventable, but difficult to treat once they’ve taken hold. The metaphor is very useful for understanding how to address watershed health. In terms of heart disease, patient behavior was much more difficult to change and an aggressive advocacy and marketing campaign towards prevention was required, “to educate the public, shape public policy, and apply greater social, economic and political pressure for change.” ((Schueler, Holland, & Center for Watershed, 2000)) A similar, strong advocacy and marketing campaign is necessary to change behaviors which cause watershed disease.

Watershed disease later became known as “urban stream syndrome.” Its primary cause was and is development within a watershed. In our practice of watershed protection, the landscape architect has the obligation to be both an advocate as well as a surgeon that repairs damaged watersheds. The project presented in this thesis, Pulse of the Chattahoochee, presents stormwater management and watershed protection to the community of the upper Chattahoochee watershed. It is about making the watershed visible and interactive through applied metrics, site activation, and engaging the watershed community.

It stresses prevention of “watershed disease” by promoting the good watershed management practices outlined by Schueler and Holland: watershed planning, land conservation, aquatic buffers, better site design, erosion control, stormwater treatment practices, control of non-stormwater discharges and watershed stewardship. These basic management tools are necessary in the upper Chattahoochee watershed, which has been highly developed, to maintain water quality and quantity and the other ecosystem services that the Chattahoochee provides and upon which Atlanta and its environs depend.

3

It’s a Complex System, and It’s Complicated.

Just north and west of Atlanta, Georgia is where the mighty Chattahoochee River runs (*see figures 1-2 and 1-3). It’s home to the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, a national park in the midst of an expanding urban-suburban complex (see figure 1-4). It has also been recently named the first “National Water Trail,” a designation that classifies certain recreational waterways accessible in or near urban areas as national recreation trails (NPS, 2012; Salazar, 2012). As a national recreation area, the CRNRA is the major green space and open space for the greater Atlanta population. It also serves as a unique urban trout fishing location, a diverse habitat location, and source of the Atlanta region’s drinking water (both from the reservoir and from points along the river). It is a culturally and historically rich region of the southeastern United States (*see figure 1-5). These resources make the Chattahoochee a special place and worthy of investment and protection.

The area of inquiry for the purposes of this study is the Upper Chattahoochee watershed from

The Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area in the State of Georgia is a nationally significant resource; The Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area has been adversely affected by land use changes occurring inside and outside the recreation area” (NPS, 2008)

Buford Dam on Lake Sidney-Lanier to Peachtree Creek and the forty-eight miles of river between them (*see figure 1-4). This is the current geographic region of the CRNRA. The park itself is comprised of sixteen park units encompassing over 5000 acres with an additional 2000+ acres of streambed and floodplain area. Two impoundments, one at Lake Lanier and another at Bull Sluice, regulate flow levels within the river.

The subcatchments for this forty-eight mile river reach (a reach being defined as any section of river between two points) spread across six counties in north central Georgia: Fulton, Duluth, Gwinnett, Forsyth, Cobb, and DeKalb. Atlanta city limits fall in Fulton County. The watershed of the Chattahoochee River is sensitive to development like any other watershed, but it also has environmental sensitivities due to its unique geologic and hydrologic conditions. The CRNRA is examined in the context of urban ecology and the park’s relationship to greater Atlanta. The threats to the Chattahoochee’s waters are addressed through this design thesis.

A National Park Identity The U.S. Congress established the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area in 1978, and determined that the “natural, scenic, recreation, historic, and other values of a forty-eight-mile segment of the Chattahoochee River and certain adjoining lands in the State of Georgia from Buford Dam downstream to Peachtree Creek are of special national significance, and that such values should be preserved and protected from developments and uses which would substantially impair or destroy them”(NPS, 2008). After the initial act of Congress established the national recreation area, development encroachments on the park increased, and it was realized that the protected boundary needed to be increased.

“Legislation passed on December 9, 1999 (Pub. L. 106-154, Sec. 1, 106 Stat. 1736) expanded the park to 10,000 acres (Appendix E). This law stated among other things:

Figure 1-1. Inspiration for the thesis: The Practice of Watershed Protection

4

Lake Lanier Lake Sidney Lanier (Army Corps of Engineers) Buford Dam

e

e ch

Atlanta

34

Buford Trout Hatchery 34

Chatt a

ho

o ho a t at Ch ver Ri

34

8

Bowmans Island Shoals

o c h ee River 34

Bridge closed

34

34

7

6

Fish Weir Shoals

ORRS FERRY

5

(Georgia Department of Natural Resources)

4

3

SETTLES BRIDGE 34

34

2

1

34

33

Abbotts Bridge

ABBOTTS BRIDGE

Waller Park (City of Roswell)

33

VICKERY CREEK Chattahoochee Nature Center 31

5

GOLD BRANCH

Allenbrook

31

31

4

3

Hyde Farm (Cobb County)

Morgan Falls Park (Fulton County)

HYDE FARM

2

8

Morgan Falls Dam

Don White Memorial Park (City of Roswell)

31

JONES BRIDGE

9

CREEC

Island Ford Shoals 32 0

Chattahoochee River Environmental Education Center 32

1

32

ISLAND FORD

Park Headquarters Information

2

32

Garrard Landing (City3 of Roswell)

6

Bridge (closed)

32

32

7

32

9

33

Jones Bridge Park (Gwinnett County)

33

Bridge (closed)

33

6

9

8

7

5

SUWANEE CREEK

4

McClure Bridge

0

33

Jones Bridge Shoals

8

33

33

1

33

3

2

MEDLOCK BRIDGE

24

32

3

32

5

Holcomb Bridge

HOLCOMB BRIDGE

Ruins

31

COCHRAN SHOALS

30 30

30

7

1

o ho

c

at

ta

31

Ch

JOHNSON FERRY COLUMNS Paper DRIVE SOPE CREEK Mill

he

e

Ri v

er

31

31

Riverside 31 Park (City 7 31 6 of Roswell) Chattahoochee River Park (Fulton County and City of Roswell)

33

0

McGINNIS FERRY

ROGERS BRIDGE

0

9

8

POWERS ISLAND

Cochran Shoals

INTERSTATE PARKWAY NORTH AKERS MILL

30

6

Long Island Shoals

30

PACES MILL

30

30

30

INDIAN TRAIL

5

WHITEWATER CREEK

3

2

30 30

4

Devils Race Course Shoals Overlook

PALISADES

Thornton Shoals

1

0

PEACHTREE CREEK

0 0 LEGEND

1

2 Kilometers 1

N

2 Miles

30

NPS Property

0

Private Property within Authorized Boundary Other Public Area Army Corps of Engineers BLACK NPS Property

Figure 1-2. Location of the study site, and the Upper Chattahoochee watershed in Georgia.

Figure 1-3. The Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area within the Upper Chattahoochee watershed.

5

River Mile Post Hiking Trail

Cochran Shoals

GREY Non-NPS Property

BOWMANS ISLAND

Shoal Area

Lake Sidney Lanier (Army Corps of Engineers) Buford Dam 34

8

Bowmans Island Shoals

34

Buford Trout Hatchery

CHEROKEE

FORSYTH

34

Chatt a

ho o c h ee River 34

Bridge closed

34

34

6

ORRS FERRY

5

(Georgia Department of Natural Resources) 4

SETTLES BRIDGE

34

2

1

34

FULTON

ROGERS BRIDGE

McGINNIS FERRY 33 33

Bridge (closed) Abbotts Bridge

ABBOTTS BRIDGE

Waller Park (City of Roswell)

33

VICKERY CREEK Chattahoochee Nature Center

Allenbrook

COBB

5

GOLD BRANCH

31

31

Don White Memorial Park (City of Roswell)

8

Riverside Park (City of Roswell) Chattahoochee River Park (Fulton County and City of Roswell) 31

31

31

31

6

7

31

9

CREEC

Island Ford Shoals 32 0

32

1

Park Headquarters Information

2

32

Garrard Landing (City3 of Roswell)

32

6

32

9

33

33

Jones Bridge Shoals

8

Jones Bridge Park (Gwinnett County)

33

1

33

3

MEDLOCK BRIDGE

7

24

32

3

32

5

Holcomb Bridge

GWINNETT

er Ri v 31

COCHRAN SHOALS

30 30

30

7

he

ta

at

oc ho

0

9

8

POWERS ISLAND

Cochran Shoals

INTERSTATE PARKWAY NORTH AKERS MILL

30

6 Devils Race Course Shoals Overlook

PALISADES

Thornton Shoals Long Island Shoals

30

PACES MILL

30

30

Figure 1-4. Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area base map. (Graphic produced with Erik Jones with National Park Service data.)

INDIAN TRAIL

5

DEKALB

WHITEWATER CREEK

3

FULTON 2

30 30

4

30

LEGEND

1

0

PEACHTREE CREEK 0 0

1

2 Kilometers 1

2 Miles

N

Ranger Station

Hiking Trail

NPS Property

Parking

Canoe/Raft Launch

Private Property within Authorized Boundary

Restrooms

Boat/Canoe/Raft Launch

Other Public Area

Picnic Area

Barrier Free

Army Corps of Engineers

Bicycle Trail BLACK NPS Property

6

7

SUWANEE CREEK

e Ruins

1

33

4

Ch

JOHNSON FERRY COLUMNS Paper DRIVE SOPE CREEK Mill

31

6

2

Morgan Falls Dam

2

33

5

McClure Bridge

0

HOLCOMB BRIDGE

Morgan Falls Park (Fulton County) 31

32

ISLAND FORD

4

Bridge (closed)

32

Chattahoochee River Environmental Education Center

3

Hyde Farm (Cobb County)

HYDE FARM

JONES BRIDGE

33

8

Horseback Riding Trail GREY Non-NPS Property

30

0

River Mile Post Hiking Trail

Cochran Shoals

Shoal Area

9

BOWMANS ISLAND

Fish Weir Shoals

3

34

7

0

CHEROKEE M

TI A EV EL

FORSYTH

O

ET RI A

R

N

RO YD H

RI

HEE OC HO TA

UPP

IO RV PE IM

BR E

G IN LY ER D N

U

Y G

RD VA

ER

LO

CH AT

G N TI LS A U VE CT LE U E FL AK L

L

A N

TO ED ER IR W U O Q P RE TE L RA VE E LE GEN

71

IO G RE

10

TA

VE

Figure 1-5. The Upper Chattahoochee watershed is a mosaic of history and many complex natural, engineered, and cultural phenomena. (Graphic produced with Erik Jones, Chelsea Miller and Christina Twomey for the 2012 Van Alen Institute Parks for the People Competition.)

F

LT AU

NE ZO

S

U RO D BE

LAKE SYDNEY LANIER

CK

EK RE

SUWANE E

C

RD FO M BU DA

CE W A LO RF F SU ER T A W

RH ILL

SU GA

A

EV EL

KE LA E IC 6 U 87 L SL N VE LL O LE TI E BU A LAK EV N ELMEA

FISH WIER

N

O

TI

SETTLES BRIDGE

EE

H

CR BIG

W

LO

H

IG

I MPA

NS

C

OR

DULUT H

IMPAIR ED

O

AN F G

N

TT

S

IN G

VININGS

CK

RO

D BE

D

TH SOU

EE

L

CH O

VE LE

O

W

H

A

O FL

TT

A

SE

CH

BA

1890

C

POPULATION 65,500

1970

POPULATION CORE: 497,000 44% NON-WHITE METRO: 2,360,000

LE

PO SED

BR EV A RD

4

FA

RI VE R

S

LU T

N

ZO

FO R

NE

RN

RA

R

VE

RI

ATLANTA

O TI EC

0

2

4 miles

N

2000

RO

ER

POPULATION CORE: 431,00 67% NON-WHITE METRO: 4,548,000

DEKALB

V CHEE R I HOO TTA HA RC WE LO

FULTON 7

CLAYTON

L VE LE EL R V TE LE A W TER R SE A VE A W RI LE W O EE CH O O H A

A

S

IRE PA IM

RE

FL

CH

U

IO

RV

K EE CR

M

SE

TA

N

A

PE

IM

AKERS MILL

N IO NT TE EX

P

TL

G IN LY

K EE

H RT O N

I MPAIRED

MI

A

ER

CR

NATIVE AMERICAN OUTCROPPINGS

PEACHT RE E

8

GWINNETT

D

R SP

N

Y D

U

N SA

N A RG S O LL M FA AM D

PA IRE RO D TT ON WOOD

COBB

MORGAN FALLS

R

SS

CR

HYDE FARM

EK

IM

PAULDING

O

BA

M

A

SOPE CR E

ED

D

JONES BRIDGE

LS AL

SOPE CREEK MILL

IR

RD E A ON EV Z BR LT U FA

REEK

JO H

WILL EO

CRE EK

K

0

87

G N TI LS A U VE CT LE U E FL AK L

FULTON

1.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The hydrological conditions of the Chattahoochee watershed are created from the Southern Piedmont geology of the northwestern Georgia Uplands region. This region is characterized by southwest-northeast parallel ridges and valleys. The Chattahoochee River watershed is relatively narrow and contained within this ridge and valley system. The river itself flows along the Brevard Fault Zone, a geological region associated with the Southern Piedmont and which produced the Palisades section of the CRNRA (*see figure 1-5). The Palisades are rocky cliffs and escarpments which overlook the river, and their recognition as a unique geological feature was important in designating the area as a national recreation area (NPS, 2008). The course of the river has remained roughly unchanged for 300 years as a result of its containment in the fault.

The river’s hydrological conditions are heavily modified by two dams along the forty-eight mile stretch managed by the CRNRA. Buford Dam at the mouth of Lake Lanier is operated by the Army Corps of Engineers. A second dam, Morgan Falls is operated by Georgia Power and is located at the end of Bull Sluice Lake. These dams have regular controlled releases to produce power, provide flood control, and maintain downstream minimum flow levels. Releases from Buford Dam significantly change the flow and character of the upper portion of the Chattahoochee with rapid water level rises. Cold hypoliminal waters from the bottom of Lake Lanier are released into the Chattahoochee. These cold waters are what allow game trout, a cold freshwater species, to flourish in the Chattahoochee. (Thermal stratification in deep water bodies creates an upper epilimnion of mixed warmer waters and a steep gradient to cold unmixed waters, the hypolimnion, below (Slotta, Mercier, & Terry, 1969).)

Fractured bedrock geology (also called crystalline rock aquifers) along with limited groundwater recharge areas limit the amount of well water available within the Chattahoochee river watershed (*see figures 1-6 and 1-7) (Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 1997). The major water source for the Atlanta Metropolitan Region is Lake Sidney-Lanier Reservoir (also referenced as Lake Lanier or Lanier Reservoir). Municipalities also withdraw water from other intake points along the river. This watershed supplies 3.5 million people with their drinking water, with a surface area of only slightly larger than 1000 square miles (UCR, 2011). In Southwestern Georgia near the borders of Alabama and Florida, the Chattahoochee joins with the Flint River and becomes the Apalachicola River which flows into the Apalachicola Estuary in the Gulf of Mexico. These three watersheds form the ApalachicolaChattahoochee-Flint basin (a drainage basin is a term used interchangeably with watershed) (*see figure 1-8). The waters of the ACF are part of an ongoing “Tri-State Water War” (discussed later) between Alabama, Georgia, and Florida and the basin is subject to multiple management plans from a variety of governmental agencies.

The highly urbanized and developed lands within the Chattahoochee watershed, along with shallow bedrock geology, create higher than average stream heights and higher than average flow rates during rainfall events (*see figure 1-9). Widespread impervious and developed land increases overland

0

8

5

10 miles

N

Figure 1-6 (top). Groundwater recharge areas in the Upper Chattahoochee watershed. Data from Atlanta Regional Commission.

Figure 1-7 (bottom). Diagram of water flow at the Brevard Fault Zone with fractured bedrock geology and the Chattahoochee River.

flows and reduces the landscape’s ability to infiltrate water and recharge aquifers. The water is quickly channeled into the Chattahoochee. Graphs of stream gauge data resembles a stream which is exhibiting urban stream syndrome, with a high degree of flashiness (rapid and higher than normal peak flows (*see figure 1-10) (EPA, 2013).

For precipitation, Northern Georgia is a region that can average fifty inches of rain a year (TWC, 2012). However the region experiences droughts every five to six years with recent droughts on record for 1980-1982, 1985-1989, 1998-2000, 2005-2007 (NPS, 2008; UCR, 2011, 2012 b). In 2007 Georgia experienced a record drought year. In December lake levels reached their lowest-ever recorded datum.

Atlanta’s water shortfall brought about national-level discussion on water management issues in the Southeast United States as well as a spate of news stories. In contrast to the claims of record drought raised during the 2007 event, a recently published paper looks at historic drought patterns in tree ring data for this region and shows that prolonged and severe droughts are not uncommon in the ACF basin.

The current period is actually the some of the wettest in a 347 year survey (Pederson et al., 2012). This is news to consider for the developing metropolitan region which has based its water planning on limited data available in the 1960s from wetter climate trends.

The river experiences a cyclic rise and fall over the course of the year associated both with rainfall events and from flow control by Buford Dam and Morgan Falls Dam on the river. Plotting water levels from USGS stream gauge data creates lines resembling a pulse. As the body has multiple pulses within its circulatory systems, the Chattahoochee also has multiple pulses along its hydrological system. These create different rhythms within the river and impact the river as an ecological and hydrological system with its many tributaries as its arteries and capillaries. Like the body’s circulatory system it both brings life to the body of the watershed and carries its waste and toxins. This metaphor has inspired my design visualization for watershed health and further emphasizes the metaphor stated by Schueler and Holland relating cardiac health and watershed health.

9

Figure 1-8. The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Basin, subject of much debate in the Tri State Water Wars. (New York Times)

1.3 A HEAVILY MANAGED SYSTEM Management of the Chattahoochee’s Waters Several overlapping management plans influence development and conservation along the Chattahoochee River corridor and within the watershed: The 1973 Atlanta Metropolitan River Protection Act (MRPA), the Chattahoochee River Corridor Plan, the Georgia River Basin Planning Act, and the CRNRA General Management Plan (GMP). The MRPA establishes a 2000’ buffer on either side of the river from Buford Dam 84 miles south to the edge of the Atlanta metropolitan region. The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) is charged with establishing a management plan for this zone, and municipalities are required to consult ARC and seek permits for development activities within the buffer.

ARC developed the Chattahoochee River Corridor Plan which establishes vegetated buffer zones on the river and stream edges, regulates development in floodplains, and categorizes land within the buffer for limits of disturbance and maximum impervious surface cover.

In 1993 the Georgia River Basin Planning Act generated the Chattahoochee River Basin Plan as “an effort to facilitate the protection and enhancement of rivers, streams, lakes estuaries, and ground water through comprehensive and integrated regulatory and non-regulatory water resources management,” (Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 1997). Through this management plan water quality samples are taken to determine whether the stream, reservoir, or portion of the Chattahoochee is supporting its designated use. The plan also recognizes the impact of nonpoint sources of water pollution on the river and the implications of continued development in the river basin. Two laws, the Federal Clean Water Act and the State Water Quality Control Act also regulate water quality of the Chattahoochee.

A final important management document for the Chattahoochee River is the CRNRA’s General Management Plan. This 2008 document identifies key management issues such as encroachment by development and park parcel continuity, with strategies and alternatives for the CRNRA to address them.

The document is primarily concerned with protection of open spaces, visitor experience and maintaining the quality of the park in a manner representative of a national recreation area. As a federal agency the CRNRA also identifies environmental consequences of its actions: impacts on water and aquatic resources, wetlands, floodplains, terrestrial ecology, rare and endangered species, and identifies cultural and archeological resources.

Figure 1-9. (Top) Flow regime of an urban hydrograph and a pre-development hydrograph. (USGS) Figure 1-10. (Bottom) River gauge reading for Big Creek in 2005, 2007, 2009. The large spike is from a 2009 flood event.

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

10

O

N

D

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

Buford Dam and Other Management Agencies and Partners Operated by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), the management effects of Buford Dam strongly influence the Chattahoochee River. At the northernmost portion of the CRNRA, Buford Dam impounds the Chattahoochee to form Lake Lanier Reservoir (*see figure 1-11). The dam was constructed in the late 1950s and generates power from reservoir releases - which the Corps controls to maintain downstream flow levels. The reservoir also provides flood protection, navigable waterways, and recreational opportunities in its own right. Most importantly the reservoir serves as Atlanta’s and the surrounding regions’ water supply. However, that designation was not included in its original Congressauthorized purpose. This has raised legal challenges and flared tensions in an ongoing Tri-State Water War (discussed below). In 2009 a federal judge ruled that Atlanta had no right to the water in Lake Lanier. As a result of the ruling the Corps talked of removing water supply from its manual of the Dam’s operation (Redmon, 2009, 2009 b).

After much debate about the “draconian” mandate of the courts, in June of 2012 the ACOE released documents saying that it could grant Georgia’s request for 705 million gallons per day to meet projected 2030 demands. The ACOE would still be required to maintain minimum flow requirements while providing for this volume of drinking water. Presently the ACOE is working to update its water control manual to provide guidance for operating the dam to include drinking water, waste water assimilation, hydropower, flood control, navigation, recreation, fish and wildlife (AP, 2012, 2012 b; Fielding, 2012).

Thirty-two miles downstream of Buford Dam at Bull Sluice Lake is a second impoundment, the Morgan Falls Dam (*see figure 1-12). The lake is an important recreation place for tubers and kayakers within the CRNRA. Excessive sediment deposition has occurred in the water body because of the dam, and lake temperatures are higher than in the main river due to the resulting shallow water depth. The higher temperatures change dissolved oxygen content and the community of organisms that can thrive there. Morgan Falls Dam is operated by Georgia Power and produces an average of 3,900 to 5,500 MWh per month of electricity. This dam must also maintain minimum flow levels downstream at 750 cubic feet per second which is necessary for dilution of treated wastewaters being pumped back into the Chattahoochee. The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) therefore takes measures of streamflow at its intake point just above the confluence with Peachtree Creek and determines release rates for Morgan Falls Dam.

11

Figure 1-11. (Top) Control structure on the Chattahoochee. Photograph of Buford Dam. (Personal Photograph, 2012) Figure 1-12. (Bottom) Control structure on the Chattahoochee. Photograph of Morgan Falls Dam and three other Cornell Parks for the People team members. (Personal Photograph, 2012)

The Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Another important partner organization is the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper (UCR; recently renamed Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, CRK) an active environmental advocacy organization. This nongovernmental organization’s (NGO) mission revolves around protecting and restoring the Chattahoochee River Basin. The organization collects water samples along the river to keep track of water quality. CRK has created public outreach presentations and materials about Atlanta’s water use, water conservation and the water crisis. Notable publications include 2011’s Filling the Water Gap: Conservation Successes and Missed Opportunities in Metro Atlanta which serves as a scorecard for Atlanta’s water management track. As an environmental watchdog organization, CRK has legally challenged other entities such as the ACOE, the City of Atlanta, other municipalities, and Georgia Power on environmental issues affecting the water quality of the Chattahoochee. One such challenge resulted in the court decision denying Georgia Power’s permit to withdraw additional water from the Chattahoochee on the grounds that their

War’s history see Filling The Water Gap, a 2011 report created by the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper (UCR, 2011)and Chattahoochee: From Water War to Water Vision, a production for broadcast on Georgia Public Television (Turner & Wickham, 2010).

requested amount was in excess of their demonstrated need (AP, 2002).

The Tri-State Water War, Politics Surrounding the Chattahoochee Water is a sensitive issue in this region which has some of the highest municipal water costs in the nation. Atlanta is wondering how it can continue drawing its only source of water while Alabama and Florida both stake claims on the waters that flow into their borders. The river is a system that transcends political, municipal, and neighborhood boundaries. As stated earlier, the Chattahoochee River is a part of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint watershed system which drains from Georgia, Alabama, and Florida into the Gulf of Mexico at the Apalachicola Bay estuary in Florida. Each state has claimed rights to the waters that flow through the Chattahoochee. Interestingly it was the humble and endangered freshwater mussel that caused minimum flow levels to be set (Turner & Wickham, 2010). The 2007 drought created waves of political discussion and environmental discussion to a national level (Copeland, 2008; Goodman, 2007). In Florida’s Apalachicola Bay the low levels badly hurt oyster production when the reduced flow caused salinity levels to rise (Turner & Wickham, 2010).

Many people saw Atlanta’s withdrawals from the Chattahoochee as excessive and blamed the city for their ills. “Alabama and Florida cannot be expected to bear the brunt of Georgia’s poor lack of planning for Atlanta’s expanding drinking water use,” said Alabama Senator Richard Shelby (RAL) (Redmon, 2009). Dean Naujoks of the Neuse River Foundation said, “Up here, [in Raleigh, NC] we constantly point to Atlanta as the failed example of what happens when you don’t plan.” However, Graeme Lockaby, director of the Auburn University Water Resources Center in Alabama believes the problem is not to be saddled on Atlanta alone. “I would not just point the finger at Atlanta. All of us in the Southeast are probably guilty of that. Until the last 10, 15, 20 years, we always had plenty of water.

Then we had this acceleration of people and development,” (Copeland, 2008). The issue has been ongoing in court since 1990 and is presently still in dispute. For a more detailed account of the Tri-State Water 12

1.4 THE CHATTAHOOCHEE AS AN URBAN SYSTEM The Growth of Atlanta Atlanta and its suburban metropolitan region has seen tremendous growth from 1960 through the last decade (*see figures 1-13, and 1-14). The sprawling suburban and urban region places many demands on the river. From 1990 to 2000 alone there was a 60% additional increase in population in the counties surrounding Atlanta and the Upper Chattahoochee (Census, 2012). This area has grown faster than the city of Atlanta with a corresponding development boom and urbanization of the Upper Chattahoochee watershed. Population estimates from 1980 to 1993 show a 43 percent increase in population and 50 percent increase in wastewater inputs (USGS, 1997). Even before the last drought, Atlanta’s water use had already been on people’s minds. “Even in the last 10 years, as greater Atlanta’s population soared nearly 40 percent, the withdrawals from the Chattahoochee have kept pace, with more than 400 million gallons now sucked from the river and a reservoir every day, helping to keep countless

On May 15th, 2012, the Washington-based environmental organization American Rivers announced that the Chattahoochee was the 3rd most endangered river in the United States due to development pressure to build new dams and reservoirs (American Rivers, 2012; Joyner, 2012). The Chattahoochee River must contend with continued threats from development, urban stormwater pollution, excess nutrient flows, excessive water withdrawals (AP, 2002), withdrawals to cool energy production (Fielding, 2010) and violations of critical minimum flow levels (Fox, 2012).

The Chattahoochee’s waters have however been steadily improving overall from their degraded state. They were in much worse shape not too long ago. In 1995 the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper sued the city of Atlanta in court for violations of its Environmental Protection Department wastewater treatment facility permits and the Clean Water Act. These violations were primarily due to aging infrastructure and untreated sewage spillovers from combined sewer overflows (CSOs) (UCR, 2005; USCOURTS, 1998). UCR won the court ruling and as a result Atlanta had to implement major overhauls

suburban lawns green,”(Jehl, 2002). From 1970 to 1990 water withdrawals for public use tripled (USGS, 1997). Today the river must also assimilate 250 million gallons per day of treated wastewater from about 100 treatment plants (UCR, 2012 c).

to its infrastructure (Turner & Wickham, 2010). Major droughts in the region have also brought to the metropolitan area’s attention that it needs to think not just about water quality, but also water quantity, both for Atlanta and for all of the downstream users of the river (Turner & Wickham, 2010).

Threats to the Chattahoochee According to the 2010 Water Quality Assessment (WQA) report issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) several reaches within the Upper Chattahoochee watershed were listed as impaired (*see figures 1-15). 623 miles of 769 miles of the streams in the Upper Chattahoochee watershed were listed as impaired for their designated use (this does not include lakes and reservoirs such as Lake Lanier). 56 miles of the 96 miles of the Chattahoochee River itself were listed as impaired in 2010 (EPA, 2010). The WQA report identifies nonpoint sources and urban stormwater as the major sources of impairment for the Chattahoochee River (*see figure 1-16) (EPA, 2010) and CRNRA’s General Management Plan identified that “the majority of these tributaries flow through urban or suburban areas subject to excessive amounts of nonpoint runoff ” (*see figure 1-17) (NPS, 2008).

As an urban river the Chattahoochee is also subject to multiple baseline stress events that occur regularly or frequently. These include: - pollutant discharges into streams from urban runoff and nonpoint sources (a nonpoint source is without a discrete input point such as a discharge pipe), - withdrawals for various public uses including drinking water, (*see figure 1-18) - sewage leaks and treated wastewater inputs, and - damming of water (NPS, 2008).

13

0

5

Figure 1-13. Snapshot of cleared land in the Upper Chattahoochee watershed in 1999. Digitized from Google Earth imagery.

10mi

0

14

5

10mi

Figure 1-14. Extent of land area considered “urbanized” within the Upper Chattahoochee watershed in 1999 (light gray) and 2009 (darker gray). Data from Atlanta Regional Commission.

Summary of Impaired Water Assessments for Georgia Rivers and Streams for Reporting Year 2010

(Georgia Department of Natural Resources)

4

3

SETTLES BRIDGE 34

34

2

1

34

ROGERS BRIDGE 33

Abbotts Bridge

ABBOTTS BRIDGE

Waller Park (City of Roswell)

33

VICKERY CREEK Chattahoochee Nature Center 31

5

GOLD BRANCH

Allenbrook

31

31

4

3

Hyde Farm (Cobb County)

Morgan Falls Park (Fulton County)

HYDE FARM

2

8

Morgan Falls Dam

Don White Memorial Park (City of Roswell)

31

JONES BRIDGE

9

CREEC

Island Ford Shoals 32 0

Chattahoochee River Environmental Education Center 32

1

32

ISLAND FORD

Park Headquarters Information

2

32

Garrard Landing (City3 of Roswell)

6

Bridge (closed)

32

32

7

32

9

33

Jones Bridge Park (Gwinnett County)

33

6

9

8

7

5

SUWANEE CREEK

4

McClure Bridge

0

33

Jones Bridge Shoals

8

33 33

Bridge (closed)

33

1

33

pH

3

2

6,000

MEDLOCK BRIDGE

24

32

3

32

5

Holcomb Bridge

HOLCOMB BRIDGE

miles impaired / miles assessed for designated use

31

COCHRAN SHOALS

30 30

30

7

o ho

c

Fishing

at

ta

1

0

Drinking Water

9

Recreation

POWERS ISLAND 30

6

Long Island Shoals

30

PACES MILL

30

30

4

30

263 / 500

(52.6% impaired)

105.9 / 211

(50.2% impaired)

4,000

Devils Race Course Shoals Overlook

PALISADES

Thornton Shoals

(58.6% impaired)

8

Cochran Shoals

INTERSTATE PARKWAY NORTH AKERS MILL

7621.5 / 13006

INDIAN TRAIL

5

WHITEWATER CREEK

3

LEGEND

2

EPA Listed Impaired Waters 2010 30 30

1

EPA Reporting Point Source Discharge 0

PEACHTREE CREEK

0 0

1

2 Kilometers 1

N

2 Miles

2,000

Figure 1-15. (Left) EPA Water Quality Assessment (2010) for the Upper Chattahoochee watershed from Buford Dam to Peachtree Creek showing impaired reaches and EPA regulated point sources of discharge into the river.

Figure 1-16. (Right) Summary of Impaired Water Assessments for Georgia. EPA 2010.

15

miles of impaired waters ----------------------------->

Ruins

31

Ch

JOHNSON FERRY COLUMNS Paper DRIVE SOPE CREEK Mill

he

e

Ri v

er

31

31

Riverside Park (City 7 31 6 of Roswell) Chattahoochee River Park (Fulton County and City of Roswell) 31

33

0

McGINNIS FERRY

Municipal & Industrial Discharges/Sewage

o c h ee River

ORRS FERRY

5

Urban-Related Runoff/Stormwater

ho 34

6

Fish Weir Shoals

Unspecified Nonpoint Source

Chatt a 34

Bridge closed

34

BOWMANS ISLAND

Other Cause

34

7

PCB(s) in Fish Tissue

34

Buford Trout Hatchery

Probable Sources Impaired Benthic Macroinvertebrate Biota

8

Mercury in Fish Tissue

34

Dissolved Oxygen-enrichment/depletion

Fecal Coliform

Buford Dam

Bowmans Island Shoals

Impaired Biota-Unknown Cause

Causes of Impairment

Lake Sidney Lanier (Army Corps of Engineers)

Figure 1-17. The CRNRA with surrounding network of major roads. Almost all of the park units are accessible by car, however suburban traffic extends travel time between destinations. Density of development is highlighted by showing the local road network near the river. Water which flows into the Chattahoochee passes through this urbanized area. (Graphic produced with Erik Jones from ARC and NPS data.)

Lake Sidney Lanier (Army Corps of Engineers) Buford Dam 34

8

Bowmans Island Shoals

34

Buford Trout Hatchery

CHEROKEE

FORSYTH

34

Chatt a

ho o c h ee River 34

Bridge closed

34

3

(Georgia Department of Natural Resources)

4

1

34

FULTON

ROGERS BRIDGE Abbotts Bridge

ABBOTTS BRIDGE

Waller Park (City of Roswell)

33

VICKERY CREEK Chattahoochee Nature Center 31

COBB

5

31

31

Hyde Farm (Cobb County)

8

6

31

7

Don White Memorial Park (City of Roswell)

31

JONES BRIDGE

9

CREEC

Island Ford Shoals 32 0

32

Chattahoochee River Environmental Education Center 32

1

ISLAND FORD

4

Park Headquarters Information

3

32

32

Garrard Landing (City3 of Roswell)

6

32

32

8

7

3

32

COCHRAN SHOALS

30 30

30

7

he

at

ta

oc ho

0

9

8

POWERS ISLAND

Cochran Shoals

INTERSTATE PARKWAY NORTH AKERS MILL

30

6

30

PACES MILL

30

30

Long Island Shoals

4

Devils Race Course Shoals Overlook

PALISADES

Thornton Shoals

30

INDIAN TRAIL

5

DEKALB

WHITEWATER CREEK

3

FULTON

2

LEGEND NPS Property

30 30

0

Private Property within Authorized Boundary

1

PEACHTREE CREEK 0 0

16

Other Public Area 1

2 Kilometers 1

2 Miles

N

33

7

SUWANEE CREEK

4

McClure Bridge

0

33

Jones Bridge Shoals

33

1

33

3

2

MEDLOCK BRIDGE

GWINNETT

Ri v 31

33

6

5

Holcomb Bridge

5

e Ruins

1

9

33

8

24

Ch

JOHNSON FERRY COLUMNS Paper DRIVE SOPE CREEK Mill

31

32

Jones Bridge Park (Gwinnett County)

HOLCOMB BRIDGE

Morgan Falls Park (Fulton County) Morgan Falls Dam

2

2

Bridge (closed)

er

31

31

Riverside Park (City of Roswell) Chattahoochee River Park (Fulton County and City of Roswell) 31

GOLD BRANCH

HYDE FARM

Allenbrook

33

33 33

Bridge (closed)

Army Corps of Engineers

30

0

River Mile Post Hiking Trail

Cochran Shoals

Shoal Area

6

ORRS FERRY

5

2

McGINNIS FERRY 9

BOWMANS ISLAND

Fish Weir Shoals

SETTLES BRIDGE

34

34

34

7

0

1.5 RATIONALE FOR PROJECT & ROLE OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE In the Chattahoochee River watershed the future of the local ecology, habitat and environment, and the water supply of greater Atlanta are at stake. Can the CRNRA serve as a disruptive technology by physically mitigating the harmful effects of intense development while engaging the public to create a sense of ownership and respect for place within the Chattahoochee watershed? This is the driving question behind the design proposal. It is coupled with considerations of what methodologies are best for improving watershed health within the CRNRA. It also provides a way to promote a message of stewardship which includes the neighborhoods surrounding the park in a model of the river’s ecological system. The CRNRA can be a leader in implementing a network of stream monitoring to increase overall watershed health. The data generated by the project can be used to guide both municipal and park policy regarding water treatment by prioritizing watersheds that are in the greatest need of remediation.

CRNRA can make programmatic choices about education and outreach for those communities in

The designations overlaid on the river of national recreation area give the park a high value status in the public attention (*see figure 1-19). Additionally, state and municipal management plans provide the river with protected waterway status. The park’s newest designation, the first “national water trail,” gives an additional level of visibility to the river by placing it in the national spotlight. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced in 2012 the creation of the National Water Trails System: “Rivers, lakes, and other waterways are the lifeblood of our communities, connecting us to our environment, our culture, our economy, and our way of life,” Salazar said. “The new National Water Trail System will help fulfill President Obama’s vision for healthy and accessible rivers as we work to restore and conserve our nation’s treasured waterways.” (NPS, 2012). Both national recreation areas and national water trails have as a key part of their definition proximity and accessibility to an urban area. The Chattahoochee’s influence reaches a significant portion of the urban population.

This design proposal at CRNRA has the potential to spearhead a movement which could

impaired watersheds. Healthy watershed planning can be implemented for those watersheds still in good condition so that their waters do not degrade.

The CRNRA’s GMP recognizes Atlanta’s rapid growth and encroachment on the park as problematic. Each subcatchment of the Chattahoochee River collects the rain water along with the oils, salts and pollutants from roads and driveways. Any rain from rooftops or paved surfaces often does not infiltrate into the ground and is channeled into gutters, pipes, and sewers where it flows into local streams, affecting the local creek’s health and ecology. Often this results in erosion and lowering of the groundwater table through stream downcutting (Downs, Skinner, & Kondolf, 2002; Groffman et al., 2003), increases the likelihood and severity of floods, and degrades water quality and aquatic habitat.

The land use of the Chattahoochee basin and its associated communities, cities and towns has a direct impact on the water quality and quantity of the Chattahoochee River and by association, the CRNRA. If parts of the Chattahoochee are impaired then the river cannot serve its primary designations for fishing, recreation, or providing drinking water, and the CRNRA is hindered in providing those opportunities and services as part of its mission.

The CRNRA can serve as the infrastructure in a network of public green spaces along the river capable of engaging and educating the community while simultaneously monitoring and improving the river health. It’s distributed presence along the river allows it to leverage the location of its parcels at critical river confluences. Each identified parcel would have a site-based installation which doubles as a monitoring station and a stormwater mitigation feature. Their presence would influence park visitors towards greater watershed stewardship. This network of park interventions could also engage Atlanta’s community colleges, its primary education institutions, and non-governmental organizations, like the Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, to collect data while providing hands-on educational experience. The potential impact of this collaboration could be a model for other national park units and other urban park systems. In this capacity the park becomes disruptive technology.

reinterpret the role of the national parks as community partners, citizen science resources and enhance the NPS mission as natural resource stewards. Applied across the United States, NPS has an opportunity to serve as a model for an engaged and activated community around a shared public infrastructure and resource. The park service has a long history of engendering an attitude of public resource protection and attitudes of conservation and ecological stewardship. Now in the 21st century NPS can step up to the challenge of going beyond this role into one of active regeneration of the ecological services provided to us by our natural areas.

A national network of parks and recreation areas could incorporate ecological monitoring and experimentation which would aid in the understanding of ecology. Our urban national parks and recreation area could further add to our knowledge of urban ecology. Their size potentially allows them to conduct large-scale experiments within their jurisdiction. As a national network they can gather information across a range of ecosystems with urban and natural conditions with a single overseeing management agency.

In summary, the design proposal outlined in this thesis is a step towards creating a model for a systematic monitoring and stormwater mitigation network in the CRNRA of the Chattahoochee River watershed. This specific model could be applied to other national parks or national recreation areas with urban rivers, and has the potential to transform the image of the National Park Service. It identifies key monitoring locations and makes suggestions on the types of data that would be most useful to track over the long term. The design also acts as a demonstration site of best management practices.

Most importantly, because it engages local visitors, it may positively impact the behaviors of watershed residents and create a sense of stewardship and of community. The benefits of this action have long term potential for greater resource resilience, a healthier stream ecosystem, and cleaner waters for CRNRA users.

17

Figure 1-18. Municiple water intake on the Chattahoochee River. (Personal photograph, 2012)

Figure 1-19. The Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area is a visible urban park. (Personal photograph, 2012)

18

CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND AND DESIGN INFLUENCES 2.1 THE SCIENCE TO BE APPLIED The Urban Ecological Movement In the last decade an increased interest in understanding the ecological structure and function of cities has led to rapid growth in the field of urban ecology (Alberti, 2008). Ecology is the study of fluxes of energy, matter or genetic information and the interaction of biotic (living) and abiotic (non-living) elements in a given environment. Until recently the study of ecology has been predominantly focused on natural or naturalistic environments; however, the urban environment is comprised of complex biotic and abiotic interactions which can also be studied using ecological principles and models. Historically research had been focused on studying ecology within cities: how existing principles of ecology functioned within the urban context. This past decade has seen an increase in the number of publications which research the ecology of cities (Niemelä, 2011); studying the unique fluxes and interactions of the distinct socio-ecological urban system.

The study of urban ecology also acknowledges that humans cannot be excluded from their environments; human agency and interactions are included within its research models. These interactions have been termed biophysical-social complexes or coupled human-natural systems (S. T. A. Pickett et al., 2008). Unlike most of the other organisms in the system, humans have the ability to modify their environments on landscape and regional scales (Niemelä, 2011).

The majority of our growing population on this planet inhabit urban areas (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division, 2011; United Nations Development Programme, 2010) and urban areas are known to disproportionately affect regional and global environments compared to their rural counterparts (Collins et al., 2000). As the MIT director of the SENSEable City Lab, Carlo Ratti put it, “...cities are only two percent of the earth’s crust, but they are fifty percent of the world’s population. They are seventy percent of the energy consumption. Up to eighty percent of CO2 emissions. So if you are able to do something with cities that’s a big deal,” (MIT, 2011).

0 0

1

2 Kilometers 1

2 Miles

Better understanding of our urban ecological systems could change how we manage our cities and how we form our policies which impact our ecosystem services.

Urban Watersheds A watershed is a bounded geographical region in which all of the water within it or under it

drains to a common location. The health of the watershed is linked to the network of small headwater streams and their surrounding lands. Alteration or development of these headwater lands will degrade the natural ability of this ecosystem to provide the services that are relied upon from our waterways (*see figure 2-1). One of the Chattahoochee River’s ecosystem services is provision of inexpensive, clean drinking water. The CRNRA General Management Plan recognizes that development surrounding the 19

Figure 2-1. The watershed occupied by Marietta Air Force Base is highly developed with impervious surfaces. The stream Rottenwood Creek (in red) was tested as impaired in 2010.

N

Chattahoochee River is one of the greatest threats to the park and its waters (NPS, 2008). In an urban context an engineered system of gutters, drains, and pipes can move all of the precipitation that falls within a neighborhood into a receiving waterway or waterbody, effectively acting as the urban area’s headwaters (Belt et al., 2011).

Due to their highly altered hydrology, these constructed headwaters have detrimental effects on their receiving streams and aquatic habitat and create dramatic reduction of the ecosystem services provided by a natural system. An urban stream is often characterized by channelized flows, a high degree of flashiness, higher temperatures, lower dissolved oxygen content, different communities of macroinvertebrates and fish populations (often stress tolerant and non-native), higher levels of nutrients including nitrates, higher sediments, higher salinity levels, trace metals, petroleum hydrocarbons and fecal coliform counts, and higher amounts of other pollutants than would be found in a comparatively natural stream. These characteristics together often describe what is called “urban stream syndrome” (Emily S. Bernhardt & Palmer, 2007; Schueler et al., 2000; Walsh et al., 2005). High levels of development in a watershed contribute to these urban stream syndrome effects. Unfortunately damaging urban growth patterns continue as our cities grow; sprawling development of housing and retail locations exceeds population growth (van Metre, Mahler, & Furlong, 2000).

Physical Effects of Imperviousness The most common metric to assess urbanization’s impact on the watershed is through impervious surface cover (Booth & Jackson, 1997; Groffman et al., 2003; Schueler, 2000). Impervious surfaces limit or completely restrict water from infiltrating into the soil and the groundwater table. Instead a portion of the precipitation which falls on the surface during a storm event runs off to a new location, usually into a sewer system that outfalls directly into a stream. This prevents recharging of groundwater aquifers and increases volume and velocity of water in receiving streams .

The physical effects of imperviousness are readily measured and supported by numerous studies.

Thresholds for impacts to the environment are actually quite low. For stream stability, thresholds become apparent around 10% imperviousness (*see figure 2-2) (Schueler et al., 2000). Increases in runoff volume and velocity from developed lands can be seen in hydrographs of urbanized waterways.

A typical urban stream hydrograph will have a higher peak flow over a shorter time span than a natural channel. (EPA, 2013; Walsh et al., 2005). This results in changes in stream geomorphology: destabilized banks, downcutting and removal of bed material, nick points (rapid erosion along a section of bank), sediment transfer, and disconnection from the groundwater table. Significant erosion events can take place following development and many ecological services of riparian zones are lost (*see figure 2-3) (Groffman et al., 2003).

Traditional pipe-and-gutter systems associated with development rapidly convey flows and remove sediments and soil-building materials from the watershed (MCDEP, 2011). Stream instability

Figure 2-2. (Top) Effects of impervious surface cover: Stream stability. (Booth & Jackson, 1997) Figure 2-3. (Bottom) Symptoms generally associated with urban stream syndrome. (Walsh et al., 2005)

20

associated with these physical effects manifests in stream bank incision and degradation of in-stream habitat. Encroachment of urban areas on riparian zones often eliminates deep-rooted streambank vegetation resulting in erosion (Booth & Jackson, 1997; Galli, 1990; Schueler et al., 2000). A dramatic example of this type of erosion could be seen in the Wilelinor development in Ann Arundel County, Maryland before stream restoration was performed. A new road interchange channeled runoff into a stream and the resulting wash out lowered the groundwater table and moved a large amount of sediment into the Chesapeake Bay (Bowen & McMonigle, 2010).

Urban development often removes vegetation and cooling tree canopy along a water’s edge, and water temperature increases in stream. The greatest temperature increases are linked to amount of impervious coverage (Galli, 1990) as heated rooftops, concrete sidewalks, and asphalt roads warm stormwater. An indirect effect of impervious surfaces related to temperature is reduction of dissolved oxygen content. Dissolved oxygen is inversely linked to water temperature, when temperatures rise the oxygen content of the water is reduced. Low dissolved oxygen can change the composition of macroinvertebrates and fish communities that can survive in these waters (Mettee, O’Neil, & Pierson, 1996; Moore & Palmer, 2005; Nelson et al., 2009; Roy, Faust, Freeman, & Meyer, 2005; Sawyer, Stewart, Mullen, Simon, & Bennett, 2004).

Pollutants in Urban Streams Impervious urban surfaces also contribute to pollutant loading in streams. The National Water Quality Inventory lists urban runoff as the greatest source of impairment to our nations estuaries and third in impairment to lakes (EPA, 2008). Impervious surfaces accumulate pollutants like sediments and automotive chemicals which are washed off in the “first flush” of a storm and rapidly carried into downstream waters (Schueler et al., 2000). Urban stormwater infrastructure, including streets, gutters and sewers, acts as an artificial stream system: it moves water throughout an urban watershed and even recharges groundwater through leaks in the system (Belt et al., 2011). It’s an efficient transport mechanism of water and for pollutants.

Nutrient loading of phosphorous and nitrogen is a problem in urban rivers. Phosphorous loads will exceed background levels when impervious surface exceeds 20 to 25% (Schueler, 2000). Nitrate and phosphorus loading is one of the prime contributors to eutrophication. (Eutrophication is an environmental response to nutrient loads which creates a phytoplankton or algal bloom and a resulting bacterial bloom which depletes oxygen in the water.) Urban riparian zones are not nitrate sinks like their more rural counterparts and may even be sources of nitrate (Groffman et al., 2003; Newcomer, Kaushal, Mayer, Groffman, & Grese, 2011; S. T. A. Pickett et al., 2008). Additional sources of nitrogen into urban streams come from individual sewage disposal systems (UCR, 2012 b; Weise, 2005) and leaks from aging sewer pipes (Belt et al., 2011). E. coli concentrations from these sewage leaks and discharges pose a health risk and can shut down public recreation areas.

Figure 2-4. Example of “first flush” pollutants. Herbicide concentrations and discharge in the Flint River at Newton.

Lawns, as the most irrigated crop in the United States (UCR, 2011), are thought to contribute nutrients and pesticides to the water (Schueler et al., 2000). Urban waters contain higher herbicide and insecticide concentrations than their agricultural counterparts (*see figure 2-4); insecticide concentrations in urban waters of the Chattahoochee exceed guidelines for the protection of aquatic life (USGS, 1997). Research into the role of organic pollutants in urban streams from car combustion is beginning to be explored. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in waters have increased as automobile use has increased even without substantial change in urban land use (Kaushal et al., 2011; Pitt, T., S., & Williamson, 2004; van Metre et al., 2000). These are pollutants known to have long-term health consequences. Other stormwater pollutants include sediments and suspended solids, and in watersheds associated with northern climates, chloride concentrations from road salts.

21

Aquatic Community Effects Impervious surface cover has many negative ecological effects (*see figure 2-5). Macroinvertebrate diversity in streams with impervious cover of 10 to 15% was consistently rated as poor among many research papers (Schueler, 2000). The threshold is sharp for the drop in diversity. Other studies show strong negative linear trends in diversity and richness associated with degree of imperviousness (Moore & Palmer, 2005). Several reaches of the Chattahoochee basin are listed as having impaired benthic macroinvertebrate communities (EPA, 2010). Macroinvertebrate diversity affects the food web and impervious surface cover also affects fish populations in urban streams. A survey of fish populations of the Chattahoochee show largely non-native species (up to 91% non-native fish caught in urban reaches) and less than half the number of fish compared to a forested reference basin (*see figure 2-6) (USGS, 1993, 1997). The watershed does have several native species including the endemic grayfin redhorse.

Fish are an important economic resource for the CRNRA and the Chattahoochee River sustains a unique urban trout fishery. Trout are sensitive to water temperature. The cold water releases of Buford Dam create a condition in an otherwise urbanized river which is favorable to stocked rainbow trout. Brown trout populations were reported to have naturalized without restocking (Carter, 2011).

In urban situations trout typically do not fare as well. Stress tolerant non-native fish, like the Black Bullhead, tend to be ubiquitous in urban waters. Some fish assemblages may be correlated with impacted sediment transport systems and fish life history strategies (Kemp, 2011) other fish communities and macroinvertebrates may be negatively correlated with suspended sediments (Sawyer et al., 2004).

The degree of harm to urban streams is demonstrably significant. My concern for the health of our waterways is my reason to approach the design of the CRNRA from the angle of watershed improvement. Clean water is necessary for CRNRA to achieve its mission as a recreation area. Enough clean water is essential to Atlanta for its continued existence in this watershed without having to import water and pay exorbitant prices for its treatment and transportation. There is a sense of justice as well, that all residents of the Chattahoochee, Apalachicola and Flint basins, along with the native ecosystems that inhabit these places, deserve to have access to clean and unpolluted water.

Figure 2-5 Effects of imperviousness: quality of observed fish habitat. (Booth & Jackson, 1997)

Figure 2-6. Common fishes of the Chattahoochee (T0p)Brown Trout Salmo trutta (Cornell.edu) (bottom) Ubiquitous urban tolerant fish, the Black Bullhead Ictalurus melas (Edmonson & Chrisp, 1940)

22

2.2 DESIGN AND ECOLOGY Restoration Practice Informs Design My investigation of urban streams found that the approach to river restoration practice can be applied to restoring watershed health in the urban environment. The urban environment can be thought of as a network of degraded headwater streams. Low impact development and restoration practice are both needed for watershed health in the urban condition. There are multiple resources on riparian restoration which can be utilized by the landscape architect seeking to create not only aesthetically or commercially successful spaces, but ones which are ecologically successful as well. Restoration ecologist Joan Ehrenfeld states that ecological goals, when established early in a project, can create a richer design proposal and a more realistic vision of achievable outcomes (Ehrenfeld, 2000). The following research and publications can inform design applications with scientific grounding.

Peter Downs, Kevin Skinner and Mathias Kondolf provide a helpful primer on river and stream

Project (FSDRIP), Providence Rhode Island’s Waterfront Park, and Thornton Creek in Seattle are a few of these high visibility and high publicity sites. Many more project case studies for daylighting projects can be found in Daylighting: New Life for Buried Streams (Pinkham, 2000). Some of these seek to revitalize urban areas as their main goal, a few seek solely to restore ecological function. Most fall somewhere along this spectrum with varying success as to what ecological functions actually function as intended.

River restorations, with urban river restorations in particular (Emily S. Bernhardt & Palmer, 2007), are expensive. Bernhardt et al. have synthesized data on over 37,000 stream and river restoration projects in the U.S. and estimated that over $14 to $15 billion was spent between 1990 and 2003 (E. S. Bernhardt et al., 2005).

This led Matt MacLeod to investigate whether restorations and designed best management practices actually function in his MLA thesis, Ultra-Urban Stormwater Retrofits. He argues that there is a need for evaluation to ensure that money is well spent and not just well-intentioned (MacLeod, 2008).

restoration including functional aspects, a variety of approaches and common fallacies in a chapter of the Handbook of Ecological Restoration (Downs et al., 2002). A 2005 article in the Journal of Applied Ecology co authored by Margaret Palmer called Standards for ecologically successful river restoration attempts to codify criteria for measuring the success these types of projects (M. A. Palmer et al., 2005). Schueler and Holland’s The Practice of Watershed Protection provides numerous case studies and science behind watershed ailments from which designers can take cues (Schueler et al., 2000). A board of scientists, practitioners, and public works managers have also created the Center for Watershed Protection. This online resource database has abundant articles and resources addressing urban subcatchment restoration, watershed protection techniques, stormwater management and articles on wetlands and watersheds as well as all 150 articles from The Practice of Watershed Protection book (Center for Watershed Protection, 2012).

A number of stormwater treatment practices are available to watershed managers, however when used alone they cannot wholly offset impairment to water quality (Schueler et al., 2000). The LID or stormwater best management practices available to the designer-practitioner should not be construed as the only solutions for a given stormwater problem. Every site has unique constraints and opportunities and new approaches to stormwater treatment should be explored and evaluated. A Cornell professor once remarked to me, “There is a danger that a few iterations become the standard and that the established methodology subverts the thought process,” (Whitlow, 2011). Steward Pickett made a similar comment at the 2011 BES Annual Meeting, saying that bad outcomes [of policy] can become resilient to change (S. T. Pickett, 2011).

Several urban river restoration and daylighting projects have received public attention and could be considered ‘high profile’ insofar as that applies to public awareness of river restoration. A daylighting project excavates a portion of a buried stream, once beneath feet or vehicles and often unseen by urban residents. The design for the Lower Don Lands Park by MVVA, the First San Diego River Improvement

Similarly, graduate student Maura Browning chose to investigate the efficacy of urban stream restoration in three sites in Maryland to evaluate their ability to influence water quality in terms of nitrogen and total suspended solids (Browning, 2008). For some types of BMPs there is a proven record. “Performance monitoring data indicates that stormwater practices can reduce phosphorous loads by as much as 40 to 60% depending on the practice selected” (Schueler, 2000). For habitat creation there are numerous examples of river corridors which draw in and support bird species and research to support the optimum parameters necessary (Fontana, Sattler, Bontadina, & Moretti, 2011; Pennington, 2003, 2008). The FSDRIP is one of those success stories (Jost, 2011). Unfortunately Bernhardt et al. found that “while river restoration efforts are implemented for ecological reasons, they are often evaluated based on geomorphic or aesthetic attributes,” (Emily S. Bernhardt & Palmer, 2007; Emily S. Bernhardt et al., 2007).

Still others would argue that exposing people to the beauty of nature and having them interact with riparian areas is enough to promote change. The Gwynns Falls Trail is cited as increasing awareness of the stream and riparian zone in urban Baltimore, Maryland and used to support the idea that humans are “functioning as a regulatory feedback mechanism in the ecosystem” (Groffman et al., 2003).

Margaret Palmer et al. point out in the article “Ecology for a Crowded Planet” that “though restoration is fundamentally a human-directed enterprise, theoretical, and empirical treatment of these concepts with humans as integral components of ecosystems is seriously underdeveloped (M. Palmer et al., 2004; Margaret A. Palmer, 2009). Taking these ideas to the table, the director of the Baltimore Ecosystem Study, Steward Pickett, advocates that an evolutionary processes model and integrated human-natural systems be considered for all urban ecological research projects; biological outcomes are tied to social and management actions (S. T. Pickett, 2011).

The question remains, though, “Are practitioners doing enough?” Unfortunately the short answer is no. A recent article in Landscape Architecture Magazine by Mike Singer, “Are We Done Yet,” argues that designers need to conduct “post occupancy” surveys for their projects. Designs should come with 23

longer contracts that include performance metrics which should contribute to a greater number of successful design projects and allow evaluation to influence a project’s lifespan (Singer, 2012). Margaret Palmer and Lars Brudvig argue that science has performed an inadequate role in informing restoration practice and that practitioners have implemented science that has not been sufficiently tested (Brudvig, 2011; Margaret A. Palmer, 2009). Some concepts of restoration science have become so firmly entrenched in popular mindset that their application is rotely applied with the intention that ecosystem function will be enhanced or restored. Examples of this include equilibrium view which relies on reference sites to guide restoration efforts with the notion that following a period of disturbance the site will return to a state of equilibrium (Margaret A. Palmer, 2009). Another example, closely related, has to do with the “field of dreams” concept of restoration. If the physical parameters of a site, say the geomorphology of the stream channel configuration or the elevations within a floodplain, are established then the plants and fauna desired will return to a location (Hilderbrand, Watts, & Randle, 2005).

3. Identify a probabilistic range of possible outcomes instead of a reference condition.

Multiple restoration targets or end states are possible and should be identified to prevent giving a false sense of a single ecological end state or equilibrium. This may include variability in flow rates, habitat types, and community assemblages. Ranges of variables rather than set levels also reduce homogenization of naturally diverse ecosystems.

4. Expand the spatial scale of restoration implementation.

In practice this requires large scale coordination of experimentation and management.

Managing agencies must share data resources and cross jurisdictional boundaries to operate within the geography of the watershed.

5. Apply a hierarchical approach to prioritize sites and choose restoration method.

Sites should be identified by their scientific need for restoration efforts before social and political priorities. External and temporal impacts such as future urbanization or sea-level rise

It is easy to critique what is being missed but more constructive to suggest and implement potential actions. Kondolf, Wenger et al., Palmer et al., Ehrenfeld and more all recommend establishing goals and objectives with quantitative metrics for evaluation at the onset (Beechie, Pess, & Roni, 2008; Emily S. Bernhardt & Palmer, 2007; Ehrenfeld, 2000; Kondolf, 1995; Margaret A. Palmer, 2009; Wenger et al., 2009). This includes defining the desired state of the reach to be modified or managed (Wenger et al., 2009). It is essential that external landscape-scale influences on site outcomes need to be considered in site planning (Brudvig, 2011; Margaret A. Palmer, 2009; Wenger et al., 2009). Wenger et al. goes on to stress that adaptive management should be considered from the outset as well, and that all managers and policy makers should be prepared and informed that management policies may have to change (Wenger et al., 2009). Communication between scientists, managers and stake-holders needs to be effective (Green, 2011; Wenger et al., 2009). Acquiring baseline data, good study design, commitment to the long term (Kondolf, 1995) and willingness to acknowledge and document failures (Kondolf, 1995; Margaret A. Palmer, 2009) are all essential tasks which practitioners must strive towards. To paraphrase Schueler: ‘the acid test is whether the end result is better than doing nothing at all.’ (Schueler et al., 2000) In terms of actual application, Palmer states several concepts which are scientifically well accepted but not being used with enough frequency in restoration: 1. Focus on processes and limiting factors not structures or single species.

In river restoration terms this means that hydrologic and geologic processes (flow paths and regimes, sediment transport) should be restored before habitat.

2. Add ecological insurance to all projects.

Be conservative when using high risk approaches, liberal in incorporating a range of techniques which may provide benefit but will do no harm. Examples include restoring a full suite of diverse native species to buffer against functional loss, and prioritizing sites to identify risk of ecological failure.

should be considered when prioritizing sites.

(Margaret A. Palmer, 2009)

Additional watershed scale management practices can be found in “The Tools of Watershed Protection,” article 27 of the Practice of Watershed Protection. Eight tools are presented to protect and restore aquatic resources: 1) land use planning, 2) land conservation, 3) aquatic buffers, 4) better site design 5) erosion and sediment control 6) stormwater treatment practices 7) non-stormwater discharges 8) watershed stewardship programs (Schueler et al., 2000). Landscape Architects are typically involved at the scale of better site design. Suggested design applications in this section of the book mainly focus on reducing impervious surface cover and include open space or cluster development, greener parking lots and classifying streets as headwater streets to revise development codes and design (Schueler et al., 2000).

The authors note that too much development even with good site design will degrade a watershed. We face a conflict of desiring both development and ecosystem services from a healthy watershed.

Schueler and Holland introduce The Practice of Watershed Protection with this idea: “Given the limits of watershed restoration, we are clearly shifting our sights from treatment towards prevention. It is generally acknowledged that it is easier to protect a healthy watershed from development than to try to restore an unhealthy watershed that has already been degraded by it.” “...it takes many years before a watershed crisis actually develops, and when it does, it is difficult and sometimes impossible to treat with our current practice,” (Schueler et al., 2000). The recourse then, is to take action now and to change our current methods of operating at all levels of planning and management. Some studies are looking at laying out cost-benefit comparisons of restoration efforts of riparian zones versus conventional urban water treatment facilities and finding that restoring riparian zones has a smaller price tag with greater benefits (Riley, 2009). A famous example of this is New York City’s decision to invest in watershed protection rather than build a new water treatment facility (National Research Council, 2004; Tran et 24

al., 2012; Windhager, Simmons, Steiner, & Heymann, 2010). Practitioners and scientists must continue working together to research, plan, manage and monitor any BMP or restoration design in order to provide valuable data and feedback for adaptive management or future design improvement.

the internet has made access to some articles much easier. Google Scholar has made many publications available to read in recent years and some institutions have PDF versions of specific papers available free of charge.

Applying Scientific Findings in Design Applications Integrating science into design is sometimes a challenge for designers. The published knowledge base is large and sometimes conflicting in the information presented. I encountered several papers providing contrary views when researching urban ecology. I also felt overwhelmed trying to synthesize all the varied techniques for stormwater mitigation and watershed improvement into a holistic project while trying to follow the advice of ecologists to achieve an ecologically successful project. An article by Lovell and Johnston called this “an ecosystem approach that emphasizes multifunctionality” (Lovell & Johnston, 2009). The inherent risk for the designer creating an ecological project is to fall into the trap of spending all one’s time trying to get the parameters correct. I felt like design could easily end up taking second place to ecological concerns, though we should aspire to fulfill the needs of ecosystems while creating compelling projects.

An article in ASLA’s The Dirt blog argued for a process that involves educating designers and working with multiple disciplines to create integrated design (Green, 2011). Lovell and Johnston and landscape ecologist Richard Forman also state that ecological education is necessary in the design field (Forman, 2002). Alex Felson, professor at Yale University exercises simultaneous studying and reshaping of the human environments in the Urban Ecology and Design Lab (Felson, 2012). Whenever ecological systems are being modified to achieve specific goals designers could collaborate with specialists in other disciplines.

There is an added difficulty in trying to synthesize a body of scientific knowledge both in terms of sheer volume of papers to assess and of prior knowledge needed to critically evaluate studies. In terms of volume the number of journals for ecology has exploded since the 1970s as interest in the environment has increased. As for prior knowledge, some papers require a firm understanding of statistics and the underlying science in order to make sense of the information being provided. In recent years journals such as Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment have added summary boxes on the front page with a few bullet points to quickly assess what the paper is trying to present. In fewer words than the abstract these “In a Nutshell” points make unpacking complicated information much easier. The journal Ecology is calling for an increase in shorter articles having found that they generate more interest and can publish more content per page and a large number of diverse subjects (ESA, 2012).

Another barrier is having access to major scientific publications. Without a university affiliation accessing any large quantity of studies is cost-prohibitive. Even for a university library the costs are high.

This trend of journal pricing has led to criticism within the ecological field in an article titled, “The economics of ecology journals,” (Bergstrom & Bergstrom, 2006). The trend of information sharing and 25

2.3 CASE STUDIES Landscape Urbanism There are many design precedents and theories of design and landscape architecture beyond the science of urban ecology which I explored in deriving the driving concepts behind my design proposal.

Landscape Urbanism (Waldheim, 2006) as a theoretical approach and essays presented in Large Parks (Czerniak & Hargreaves, 2007) informed my process of how to handle such a large and complex system as a 7000 acre, sixteen parcel national recreation area in an urban watershed. In the Landscape Urbanism Reader, Charles Waldheim argues that approaching the contemporary city from a landscape perspective affords designers strategies to resolve complexity; the contemporary city emulates natural systems (Waldheim, 2006 c). In a passage relevant to this design thesis, he quotes Rem Koolhaas on the tendency of Atlanta to resemble a landscape: “Atlanta does not have the classical symptoms of the city; it is not dense; it is a sparse, thin carpet

To discuss the Park as a Laboratory is to open the discipline of design to criticism from experts in scientific fields which adhere to rigorous experimental methods. Parks, as manipulated and changed environments, already allow humans to exert a level of control which allows for experimental methodology to be expressed. The benefit of this somewhat unorthodox approach to placemaking is to provide a platform to test ecological principles at a variety of scales. Data collection and monitoring will expand the body of knowledge related to ecology and park design and inform future scientific investigation with the knowledge that large parks in urban environments are idiosyncratic (Lister, 2007).

Lister argues that it is time to move away from McHargian (McHarg & American Museum of Natural History, 1969) deterministic approach and implement designs and experiments which are “safe to fail.”

As noted earlier our ecological collaborators are inclined to agree. We should also be monitoring our projects before, during, and after their installation to see if they do fail. In the process we could discover how and why they succeed or fail and inform our future efforts.

of habitation, a kind of suprematist composition of little fields. Its strongest contextual givens are vegetal and infrastructural: forests and roads. Atlanta is not a city; it is a landscape,” (Waldheim, 2006 c) My critique of the landscape urbanist view, in the light of my understanding of urban ecology, is that though the pattern may resemble a natural system, the impacts of the city fabric as it exists are highly disruptive to the very systems that support its existence. It is unsustainable. But the description does put into perspective that Atlanta as an entity exists beyond the borders of Atlanta city limits; its suburbs meld and blend with each other in gradients of wealth and in a network of car-centric travel.

An approach of large scale landscape experimentation can be seen in the design for the Pontine Marshes. The Pontine Marshes are an urbanized and highly manipulated and developed piece of landscape infrastructure that was once an undevelopable and malaria-plagued swampland. The site is host to a long history of human intervention attempting to drain and reclaim marshland for agricultural production. Located just outside of Rome, much of the 1500 years worth of attempts ended in failure. It was undevelopable until in Mussolini’s rule a modernist undertaking of resource mobilization was made to alter the landscape. The present day condition is that of mass pollution entering into the waterways from the nearby urban areas and ultimately into the Tyrrhenian Sea, where the water quality along the coast is severely degraded.

Alan Berger’s design for the marshes is an experimental look at water treatment in a degraded system. The plan for the region is to build a massive “wetland machine” which is intended to clean the upstream water before it enters into the system of channels. His methodology and testing models are rigorously applied in an office laboratory setting and will then be pilot tested on a grand scale in the creation of a park which should be able to remedy some of the ailments of the current state of the marshes. There is anticipation of creating a recreational aspect within the park, however its primary function will be to restore ecological function and services. Questions have arisen regarding the sustainability of experimental parks like the Pontine Marshes: the degree and cost of inputs required for the parks’ continuing existence must be examined up front, as well as the social sustainability or viability of the park’s existence long term.

At the CRNRA creating a wetland treatment system like the Pontine Marshes may not be possible. There is a large cost associated with excavation of material, particularly since the elevation of the Chattahoochee’s banks and floodplains is high above the river in many places. Floodplain reconnection may be sought as a treatment method, and it may also be possible to create treatment areas in overflow channels. Another possible experimental method is to use a “floating wetland” type of in-stream

Experimental Landscapes Experimental landscapes for the purpose of this discussion shall refer to lands or landscape interventions that have indefinite outcomes. They can be planned interventions with a hypothesized trajectory or intentionally imagined as “zero order” interventions - left to progress on their own without intensive (or any) maintenance. The idea is supported in restoration practice: outcomes of restoration efforts do not necessarily have a fixed end state (Hilderbrand et al., 2005; Lockwood, 1997). In thinking of a park as a laboratory in which large-scale experiments can be conducted there is potential for both great positive and negative outcomes. The amount of space in a large park allows for variation and experimentation on a grand scale, something approaching the watershed-level scale and landscape scale experiments sought by the ecological field (Brudvig, 2011; Margaret A. Palmer, 2009; Wenger et al., 2009). Large parks can be utilized to contribute to the body of scientific knowledge in ecology, restoration, and human impacts on the environment, while serving the needs of the public in the land’s capacity as park. There is a need for analysis of the interventions that designers make upon the land.

This knowledge will add to our ability to create adaptive ecological designs, which can be resilient to the changes that are both natural and human-induced.

26

treatment where plants are grown on rafts with their root systems in the stream channel. There is some precedence for these “living machines” which could be used to design an in-stream treatment for the park (Headly & Tanner, 2006; Todd & Josephson, 1996; Yaron et al., 2000).

There are two more examples of working landscape scale experiments to offer as precedents: AMD&ART Park and Lehigh Gap Nature Center, both in Pennsylvania. The first deals with water treatment. This is the site of an abandoned quarry in Vintondale, PA. AMD refers to Acid Mine Drainage, a condition where surface or groundwater is chemically acidified upon contact with coal or mineral mining deposits. It is degrading to stream habitat and can carry dissolved heavy metals. A multidisciplinary team of scientists and artists, led by Julie Bargmann of DIRT Studio, came together and self-defined as a “sustainable partnership.” The artful design is fairly simple train of treatment ponds which are supposed to remediate the highly acidic water that flows out of the quarry (*see figure 2-7).

Volunteers test water quality ensuring that it is a “working art park.” So far, the park is successful both in

seen as such a park. The public uses the spaces of the park as they choose, certain activities being more suitable in areas than others, without the place being designed or programmed (FASLANYC, 2010).

An example of the “emergent park” is Park Downsview Park (PDP) in Toronto, Ontario. Formerly Downsview Airport, site of Canadian Forces base Downsview, this site has been largely converted into an urban park known as Downsview Park. PDP is a self-financing community (no governmental or taxpayer money funds construction, maintenance or programming), self-owned by a few small partnerships and is declared to be a prototype for sustainable communities. PDP proclaims that the Park is first (in priority) and that all other lands exist to support the Park. This project was first brought to attention through a design competition, which was won by the group OMA (Office of Metropolitan Architecture).

Another example of an “emergent park” is Freshkills, a former landfill site near New York City. The landfill was shut down long ago and re-opened to hold debris from the wreckage of the twin towers after September 11th. Nearly a decade ago, the designer James Corner re-envisioned the site as a reclamation

engaging the community and remediating an ecological concern (AMD&ART, 2007; Ziger/Snead, 2007).

The second project involves remediation on a very large scale. Lehigh Gap in Palmerton, PA is a river valley landscape of the Kittatinny Ridge that once hosted the American Zinc company. Decades of smelting smoke turned the hillsides of the valley into a zinc-poisoned Superfund site. The Lehigh River had decreased fish populations from erosion of exposed soil and zinc deposits. Years of expensive and ineffective remediation could not wholly clean up the site. A Pennsylvania resident science teacher took on the task of organizing a not-for-profit to purchase 750 acres of Kittatinny Ridge. Collaborating with ecologists the group developed a restoration strategy using native warm-season grasses and an innovative compost-seed application (*see figure 2-8). Since 2002 the site has had a dramatic change of character and is now supporting productive habitat and functions as a wildlife refuge while hosting researchers from the nature center and from local universities. Trails attract hikers and birders and it is well known in the post-industrial community. Is the site a complete “restoration” back to its original condition? No, but it now supports vegetation where there was bare rock and zinc-laden soils which had before eroded into the river. If we consult the acid test of the Center for Watershed Protection, it certainly has produced a better outcome than doing nothing and has succeeded where past efforts had failed.

park. Though still a work in progress, Freshkills is now the foremost example of a reclaimed landfill, heralded as an example for generations to come. Both of these example are also frequently cited as being implementations of Landscape Urbanism (Corner, 2005; Waldheim, 2006 b).

The CRNRA is certainly large (7000+ acres), and its fragmented nature make it an ideal candidate for an emergent park approach. The park is too understaffed to manage all portions of the park equally and transportation from one end of the park to another is very time consuming in the Atlanta suburban traffic. Certain parcels of the park are not extensively developed beyond a nominal hiking trail, others do not have paved access roads. The park lands themselves are not necessarily degraded, though its main resource, the Chattahoochee River, is adversely affected by the surrounding development. When selecting sites to implement an emergent approach parcels should be examined to see if they are likely to evolve into productive ecosystems without intensive management.

Emergent Landscapes In the emergent park, self-organizing systems and ecologies (both social and natural) are allowed to emerge out of the landscape. These landscapes can occur in climates with severely restricted budgets or appear in landscapes that are too large to cost-efficiently manage. Master planning efforts which reclaim or repurpose a previously underutilized site could qualify as emergent park design. A combination of uncertainty and adaptive management are incorporated into this park strategy in such a way that the park evolves from the landscape. It is an organic process, developing from identifying informal uses of unprogrammed spaces claimed for public or semi-public use. In New York, the Floyd Bennett Airfield is 27

Figure 2-7.The AMD&ART Park In Vintondale, Pennsylvania. (AMD&ART Photo Archive)

28

Figure 2-8. Lehigh Gap Nature Center restoration site. Warm season grasses and deer fence around young oak trees.

Palmerton, PA (Personal photo, 2010)

Monitoring Landscapes For examples of systematic watershed measurements I looked to several Baltimore Ecosystem Study research papers and research-in-progress. There have been numerous studies of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, particularly the Gwynns Falls watershed which flows through metropolitan Baltimore and into the Chesapeake Bay (*see figure 2-9) (USFS, 1999). Data is available on land cover type changes, population changes, flow rates and nutrients. Studies have been conducted to measure sediment dynamics, population structure changes, temperature fluctuations, nutrient cycling, organic pollutants from atmospheric contaminants, and changes in water quality along rural to urban gradients (Baltimore Ecosystem Study, 2012). During an annual meeting of the BES I learned of a pilot deployment of high resolution temperature sensing equipment. The sometimes costly and time-consuming logistics of the setup were discussed but preliminary results showed promise for the future of real time data collection (Welty, 2011).

analysis and alteration as an alternative to the traditional adaptive management approach which analyzes first, then alters a site (*see figure 2-12). Real time data feedback, like the projects outlined above, will allow us to make interventions on site and quickly see the results of our actions in a designed experiment.

Water Quality in the Gwynns Falls Watershed Upper Gwynns Falls

Real-time data collection which is interactive has been attempted in major metropolitan areas (MIT, 2011) and is working its way into daily life. An example project called Urban Air visualizes these types of invisible metrics in Madrid, Spain (*see figure 2-10). The mechanism for this type of data collection can be accomplished in more than one way. In a citizen-science approach public-space users can take measurements of environmental variables and report findings via a mobile device. The Chattahoochee Riverkeeper supports an iPhone app which is an example of this kind of real time data collection (*see figure 2-11). Properly equipped and trained, citizens can collect more robust types of information as well as engage in an interactive experience if the appropriate physical and technological infrastructure is created.

The ability to learn about the data via mobile devices is also important. In 2011 in Amsterdam Mac Oosthuizen and Josh Noble piloted an urban sensor project which empowers people to be curious about their environment (Oosthuizen & Noble, 2011). Plaques with computer readable barcode allow users to learn about the types of information being collected in their environment and access that data.

In an installation called “Amphibious Architecture” in New York City’s East River an experiment in interaction had LED equipped tubes detect dissolved oxygen content and the presence of fish and could relay this information via text message and the color of the LED (Benjamin, Yang, & Jeremijenko, 2011).

The design at CRNRA is inspired by these real-time data collection sampling stations. The actual application of these types of sensing systems are only limited by imagination and technology engineering.

Processing speeds, data broadcasting, and accessibility are all increasing at exponential rates. I believe that a future of these types of systems is rapidly approaching, and even if the proposal of the watershed wide system in this thesis is not yet feasible it will not be long before it can be implemented.

Last, we need to be able to modify our landscapes with our acquired data. It is not sufficient to collect information alone. Alex Felson, an ecologist and landscape architect at the Yale University School of Forestry, advocates a designed experiment approach (Felson, 2012). He proposes a system of combined

N Red Run 1

0

1

2 Miles

Horsehead Branch

Baltimore County Baltimore City

Scotts Level Run

Middle Gwynns Falls

Powder Mill Branch

Gwynns Run

Fair Mostly Fair Fair to Poor

Dead Run

Mostly Poor

Maiden's Choice

Poor No Data

Rivers/Streams

Midd le h anc Br

Lower Gwynns Falls

Subwatersheds

Source: Revitalizing Baltimore; Author: Mitch Jones and Kevin Moore; Date: June 1998

29

Figure 2-9. The Gwynns Falls watershed in Baltimore, MD is an example monitoring project for an urban watershed.

(USFS, 1999). k

26

k

Figure 2-10. In the Air, a project by Nerea Calvillo which visualizes the metrics of invisible agents (pollen, gases, particles) in Madrid’s air. (In The Air, 2011[?])

Figure 2-11. Adascent’s mobile app for the Chattahoochee. Screen captures from Report Problems page, and Park Map page.

30

Figure 2-12. Traditional Research vs the Designed Experiment approach to adaptive management. The designed experiment is adapting to inputs even as it is being measured. A step is removed from the traditional process allowing for resilience and faster response time to change. Adapted from Alexander Felson (2010).

CHAPTER THREE: DESIGN APPROACH

downstream.

To further aid the Chattahoochee River, this design thesis proposes addressing one of the major ailments to the watershed: urban stormwater runoff. It’s something that can be remedied with good design, policy, and public awareness. To do this, I propose a five step approach.

Step 2. Identify Precedents, and Supporting Research.

Scientific research supporting the rationale for making interventions is discussed in Chapter Two. The impacts of impervious surface cover on stream degradation is highly correlated. However there are areas of the science and application that need further study (Margaret A. Palmer, 2009). For example, stormwater mitigation’s effects on hydrologic regimes is not well documented and it is not known whether retrofitted, dispersed stormwater treatment systems can mimic ecological and hydrological processes of headwater streams(Wenger et al., 2009). It is also not known which management actions are likely to achieve improved ecological condition under different levels of impervious cover and stream conditions (Wenger et al., 2009). Therefore, to assist in making design decisions for this thesis proposal, projects with similar goals to Pulse of the Chattahoochee are presented for precedence of success or

Step 1. Set Project Parameters and Goals.

The project is limited to the existing parcels of the CRNRA between Buford Dam and Peachtree Creek. This is a theoretical design, but it is also being explored in the interest of the client, the CRNRA. For this project I did not establish a specific target metric of water quality or quantity. As part of the project implementation, baseline data will need to be collected to determine where to establish targets. I am looking for a site to achieve “the greatest good.” As this is a research-based project, much information will be needed to be discovered about the feasibility of the intervention in the process of building it.

It will be a learn-as-you-go approach. The need to improve watershed health drives the design for the proposal both in terms of what types of interventions (floodplain reconnection, in-line water treatment, interactive monitoring stations) and what locations are selected.

lessons learned in Chapter Two. Step 3. Identify Sampling Locations and Propose Data Collection Variables.

By isolating sections of the river by subcatchment, neighborhoods or developments can be identified as nonpoint sources of pollutants. The hierarchical nature of streams can be used to locate confluences of lower order tributaries to a larger branch of the river. These junctions serve as hydrological “pinch points” and can guide the placement of critical sampling and intervention locations.

All of the water from a subcatchment, barring a short circuit of the system by engineered water conveyance, flows through these points. Water quality and quantity variables should be measured within the intercepting creek and in the Chattahoochee River before and after the junction for comparative analysis. The deployment of a monitoring network in the Upper Chattahoochee watershed will serve the objective of improving water quality by contributing to the urban ecology knowledge base of urban watersheds, and it will assist adaptive management in this watershed.

Each subcatchment is a geographic region with different property types. The degree of development within a particular subcatchment may influence how quickly water is received into the river. Larger volumes of water entering the Chattahoochee will have a greater impact on the river. For this reason the selection of sampling pinch points are ranked by the volume of water intercepted in each subcatchment. The information gained from this monitoring can be used to implement targeted interventions within each basin management unit.

An organized approach to data collection is critical to the proposal. Assigning metrics to the river accomplishes two main tasks. First it establishes a baseline of condition which can then be used to assess changes in that condition, and it can be used for project evaluation. The 19th century physicist Lord Kelvin stated “If you can not measure it, you can not improve it;” good data sets are necessary for informed decision-making, one of the principles of Designing the Parks (Designing the Parks, 2010).

Project objectives are: 1. mitigate stormwater effects within the Upper Chattahoochee watershed to improve water quality in the Chattahoochee River.

2. increase awareness of the watershed among Upper Chattahoochee watershed residents to promote watershed stewardship Design goals are: 1. reduce urban stormwater inputs to the Chattahoochee River 2. reconnect floodplains to increase flood capacity and improve water quality 3. increase awareness of the watershed through site demonstrations 4. set up network in the CRNRA to monitor water quantity and quality variables in the Upper Chattahoochee watershed It is also prudent to envision where the design proposal, and the park, may expand in the future.

Presently the CRNRA occupies the Upper Chattahoochee watershed. Any expansion of the CRNRA south of Peachtree Creek will place the park into the Middle Chattahoochee-Lake Harding watershed, downstream of Atlanta. These waters receive Atlanta’s wastewater and are greatly affected by Atlanta’s management and policy in regards to stormwater inputs. In the event that the park expands south, the CRNRA will then have an opportunity to monitor and mitigate the effects of the city’s inputs to the river 31

Second, data collection contributes to the body of knowledge on urban ecology. Lord Kelvin also said, “To measure is to know” and this adage can serve as a basis for scientific understanding. My research into urban ecology showed that data collection is critical to understanding complex systems (Wenger et al., 2009).

Data variables to collect will be established at the identified pinch points. Examples of these metrics include nutrient levels, temperature, turbidity, bacterial counts, specific conductivity and flow rates. These variables are based upon the papers I researched, and the metrics presented here are only a sample of appropriate variables to monitor (*see figure 3-1). As with other experimental projects, collaborating with ecologists and other disciplines will allow variable selection to be fine tuned. Where possible these variables should be monitored at a consistent sample rate to related to an axis in time and so can be correlated with storm events. The types of data collected can be adjusted based on site influences. Specific types of development such as the Marietta Air Force Base (*see figure 2-1) or EPA point source discharges may influence nutrient levels or increase the likelihood of certain pollutants in a waterway, monitoring near water treatment outflows may have a greater emphasis on bacterial counts and temperature of waters entering the Chattahoochee, and those which have a high level of impervious surfaces or industry should measure for organic pollutants and heavy metals.

In addition to data collection proposed in this thesis, other related data sets are available. For example, USGS monitoring stations exist at various points along the Chattahoochee River. These stations record water elevation, discharge, and in some places temperature of the water. They are placed with consideration for easy access and along major tributaries of the river, usually at bridge crossings. The EPA keeps records of point source discharge permits and the water quality of associated water bodies.

Data can be found for violations of the Clean Water Act and for quality standards for turbidity, nutrient levels, pH, impairments of macro-invertebrates and fish populations, heavy metal contamination, and heavy metals in fish (EPA, 2012). Sampling for these data sets are taken for major reaches along the Chattahoochee and its tributaries. Reports are produced on these waterbodies every two years stating whether or not there have been impairments and whether those impairments have been resolved or had action taken towards resolution. Water quality reports are also available for the whole state.

Other data sets for the Chattahoochee exist also, though not all are as systematic as the USGS stations. Data on E. coli counts, dissolved oxygen, and algae counts are taken by a non-governmental organization, the Upper Chattahoochee River Keeper (UCR). The Upper Chattahoochee River Keeper has also launched a mobile app which allows users to report problems on the river such as fish kills, construction site runoff, sewage spills or other types of spills, stream buffer destruction or land use planning conflicts (Adascent Inc, 2009). The report is geotagged using the location of the user’s mobile phone so that there can be a follow-up investigation. This crowd-sourced data gathering application is a great precedent of a non-localized management tool and one that will likely be more common in the future.

(LANDSCAPE FORM) Figure 3-1. Concept for river sampling metrics within the CRNRA to derive architectural (landscape) form.

monitoring public outreach

Chattahoochee River

management 32

Figure 3-2. Cycle of monitoring and management with public outreach.

Though measurements of the Chattahoochee are already being taken in some areas, there is a gap present between available data and what I believe is necessary for a comprehensive monitoring system for the health of the river. Shared data sets from all agencies are critical for planning efforts. The stormwater management goals I have set out to address in this proposal require data sampling locations to be more rigorously defined based on the watershed as a system and the spectrum of existing sampling types needs to be expanded. The CRNRA park units will become a testing ground for impacts of the surrounding community on the Chattahoochee River. Innovative uses of technology and collaboration with educational and nongovernmental organizations will be used to collect, analyze and interpret these data. This thesis proposal envisions an ideal situation where the river’s vital signs can be monitored at a continuous rate. A cycle of monitoring and management response to monitoring results with public outreach will serve to improve the river’s health while providing a vibrant and valuable CRNRA park amenity (*see figure 3-2).

treat surface stormwater runoff. Second, in-stream treatment technologies could mitigate water flowing through a stream channel. Third, floodplains could be reconnected to rivers to help absorb floodwaters during peak flows, provide water quality improvement and provide habitat. Not every intervention type can be implemented at all the testing sites. Local site conditions will determine which options are viable to mitigate stormwater effects on the river.

Both the EPA and the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper have identified urban stormwater runoff as a major pollutant to the Chattahoochee River’s tributaries. Urban stormwater runoff also raises water temperatures and contributes to a flashy flow regime. The design proposal should use LID to reduce impervious surfaces or intercept and treat runoff from rainfall events. Examples of LID are bioretention facilities, vegetated buffers, infiltration trenches, rain gardens, and permeable pavements. Possible treatment sites for LID include roadsides, parking lots, and rooftops as well as compacted soils such as heavily used turf or compacted subgrades around new construction. The site selected for this design

There are practical and technological limitations to such a set up. First, any equipment that is to be installed needs to be accessible to data collectors or maintenance personnel. The amount of time, personnel and funding needed for the initial installation may be considerable depending on the physical components and deployment of the equipment and sensing instruments. Certain variables may require sample collection and regular access for laboratory testing of samples. Ideally the system would be able to transmit data in real time from all the variables. Equipment installed should be properly calibrated to assure that data is collected consistently across sampling sites.

My analysis of the Upper Chattahoochee watershed was developed into an abstraction of the functional characteristics of the watershed (*see figure 3-3). Individual subcatchments are identified by their tributary stream or neighborhood if they are adjacent to the Chattahoochee River. Cover types and percentages are given which were digitized and aggregated from Atlanta Regional Commission data (*see figure 3-4). This process allows for a weighted visual reading of watershed composition. From this abstraction I prioritized the placement of treatment sites. A plan view also identifies treatment sites in the Upper Chattahoochee watershed that relates to the geography of the watershed (*see figure 3-5). At these testing sites real-time data will be sampled and sent to a database for analysis and to allow for informed management decisions. These sampling units can take many forms, but in this pilot site they are called P.O.D.S. stations: Portable On-Demand Science. They can be moved from place to place and should be flexible for flood conditions or if conditions on the site change. Their specific design will be tailored to the site’s needs.

proposal had little impervious surface to reduce but could intercept runoff from adjacent roadways.

Stormwater runoff is collected from roads and parking lots and filtered through vegetated areas so that flow is slowed, allowed to infiltrate, and sediments will drop out before reaching the river.

In-stream treatment refers to improving the water quality of a waterway within the waterway itself. This is contrasted with off-line treatment, which diverts a portion of the waterway to be treated by engineered means: for example, by creating an artificial wetland which slows flow and allows biological activity to break down pollutants and nutrients in the water. In-stream treatment technology can take the form of floating mats in which biological processes interact at the surface and just below the surface of the water. Other in-stream treatments can happen at the water’s edge - interactions between land and water produce biological activity, and can be naturalistic or structurally engineered. An example of this is partially submerged gabions (wire mesh cages filled with stone) that collect organic matter inside (Francis & Hoggart, 2008; Francis, Hoggart, Gurnell, & Coode, 2008). Another form of in-stream treatment involves creating changes in the substrate (bed material) of the riverbed. Particle size and arrangement can change organic matter accumulation and benthic (river bottom) flow. For this project I chose to use in-stream treatment systems consisting of floating “Living Machines” are used which are integrated with the P.O.D.S. Floodplains provide significant economic value to the region in the form of flood control in addition to their recreational and aesthetic values (Tockner & Stanford, 2002). However, the capacity of the Chattahoochee River to mitigate flooding is limited when development encroaches on the river’s floodplains or creates impervious surfaces. In the wake of such events as the 2009 Atlanta metro floods which caused extensive damage to the city and its suburbs (Turner & Wickham, 2010; USGS, 2009), it is an important goal of the proposal to find potential sites where floodplains can be reconnected to the river to provide storage for rising waters. Floodplains also improve water quality by reducing nutrient levels in infiltrated waters (Tockner & Stanford, 2002). While it is not a direct goal of the proposal, floodplain

Step 4. Implement Treatment Measures.

There are three design interventions proposed for stormwater treatment in this project. Each was selected to address a specific symptom of urban stream syndrome identified in the project research phase. First, Low Impact Development (LID) techniques could be used to capture, detain or retain, and 33

Legend

Impaired waters

Dam

A : 21.9 SQ MI L : 8.8 MI

A : 13.1 SQ MI L : 6.6 MI

A : 103.7 SQ MI L : 21.6 MI

A : 43.2 SQ MI L : 11.9 MI

Figure 3-4. (Bottom) Cover percentages of Upper Chattahoochee catchments.

Data of derived Direction waterfrom flowGIS obtained from the Atlanta Regional Commision. The four cover types were synthesized from 23 defined landcover types to simplify data 17% 21% 16% 25% 21% 30% Urban communication.

2% 4% SUWANEE 36% CREEK

A : 51.5 SQ MI : 13.5 MI Open Space L31% Urban

30%

High Res

3%

Low-Med Res

36%

Open Space 31%

6%

47% RIVER: SUGAR HILL A : 64.5 SQ MI L35% : 10.3 MI 16% 2% 47%

35%

RIVER: 46% DULUTH

A : 21.9 SQ MI L : 8.8 MI 27% 21% 6% 46%

27%

6%

8%

JOHNS CREEK 68%

BIG 42%CREEK

RIVER: 57% NORCROSS

A : 13.1 SQ MI L : 6.6 MI

A : 103.7 SQ MI L : 21.6 MI 27% 25%

A : 43.2 SQ MI L : 11.9 MI 14% 21%

6%

8%

11% 17% 4%

68%

11%

42%

27%

57%

14%

A : 25.0 SQ MI L : 8.8 MI 12% 10%

RIVER: 58% MORGAN FALLS A : 25.0 SQ MI L : 8.8 MI 20% 12% 10%

CREEK

A : 16.7 SQ MI L : 5.3 MI 7% 2% Big Creek (Vickery Creek)

A : 130.7 SQ MI L : 16.4 MI 31%

13% PEACHTREE CREEK 49% A : 130.7 SQ MI L : 16.4 MI 7% 31%

SOPE CREEK

RIVER:

A : 35.2 SQ MI L : 8.8 MI

SANDY SPRINGS A : 16.1 SQ MI L : 4.4 MI

16% 3%

15%

Test Site

7%

Study Area WILLEO CREEK 86%

SOPE CREEK 72%

A : 16.7 SQ MI L : 5.3 MI 7% 5% 2%

A : 35.2 SQ MI L : 8.8 MI 16% 9% 3%

RIVER: 62% SANDY SPRINGS A : 16.1 SQ MI L : 4.4 MI 16% 15% 7%

13% 58%

86%

72%

62%

20%

34

7%

5%

9%

16%

Urban

Vinings

Sandy Springs

Vinings ROTTONWOOD CREEK

RIVER: VININGS

A : 19.8 SQ MI L : 7.8 MI

A : 9.0 SQ MI L : 3.9 MI 21%

59%

20%

ROTTONWOOD CREEK 17% A : 19.8 SQ MI L18% : 7.8 MI

RIVER: VININGS 42%

59%

20%

6%

17%

49%

High Res Rottenwood Creek

Test Site Willeo Creek

A : 64.5 SQ MI L : 10.3 MI

MORGAN FALLS

25%

A : 51.5 SQ MI L : 13.5 MI

Sugar Hill-Shake Rag PEACHTREE RIVER: Johns CreekWILLEO CREEK

6%

RIVER: NORCROSS

42%

BIG CREEK

27%

JOHNS CREEK

Buford Dam

RIVER:

Low-Med Res

Morgan Falls Reservoir

Study Area

RIVER: SUGAR HILL

3%

6%

Berkeley LakeDunwoody-Norcross Duluth Big Creek (Vickery Creek)

Direction of water flow

SUWANEE CREEK

High Res

25%

42%

27%

Dam

(Insufficient data on watershed cover)

DULUTH

Impaired waters

Rottenwood Creek

Buford Dam

North Upper Chattahoochee Watershed and Lake Lanier

Tributary Johns Creek

Sope Creek

Suwanee Creek Sugar Hill-Shake Rag

Subcatchment

Sope Creek

Chattahoochee River

(Insufficient data on watershed cover)

Morgan Falls Sandy Springs Reservoir Peachtree Creek

Dunwoody-Norcross

Willeo Creek

Berkeley LakeDuluth Legend

North Upper Chattahoochee Watershed and Lake Lanier

Urban

Tributary

High Res

Subcatchment

M.F. Dam Low-Med Res M.F. Dam Low-Med Res

Chattahoochee River

Open Space

Suwanee Creek

Peachtree Creek

Open Space

Figure 3-3. (Top) Functional diagram of the Upper Chattahoochee Watershed. Each box represents the area of the catchment with the length of the box proportional to the length of the primary tributary of that catchment. Cover types in four categories (urban area development, high-density residential development, low- and medium-density residential development and open space) show the surface composition of the catchment. Catchments with impaired waters are oulined in red.

18% 6%

A : 9.0 SQ MI L : 3.9 MI 16% 21%

42%

16%

reconnection also presents a great opportunity for habitat creation. The floodplain is an especially rich and diverse region because of its gradient of hydrological connectivity (King, Sharitz, Groninger, & Battaglia, 2009; Paillex, Dolédec, Castella, & Mérigoux, 2009; Tockner & Stanford, 2002). In this design proposal, floodplain areas are identified and their grading changed to accommodate storms of higher frequency. Flood waters will be stored more often, sediments will be slowed and drop out of the flow, and hydrological connectivity in the floodplain will increase biological uptake of nutrients.

Streams” campaign and argued that citizen involvement was necessary for the health of our waters (van der Gagg, 2011). The community that lives in the actual headwaters of the watershed have an impact on the Chattahoochee River. A series of small actions by individual property owners can add up to a big change in total rain water volume being sent into these streams.

The most high-minded goal of a successful interpretive design should ultimately be to create long-term changes in behaviors so that the situations that caused the damages in the first place will not occur again. Hopefully the park visitors will be able to see the monitoring and interpretive elements proposed and make a mental connection of their own lives to the park and to the river. This is engaging the “head-waters” of the mind as the Director of Occidental Arts and Ecology’s WATER Institute, Brock Dolman, has said in his Basins of Relations presentation (Dolman, 2010).

Step 5. Demonstrate, Interpret, and Connect.

This thesis proposes that good watershed practices can be demonstrated on CRNRA property to interpret stormwater issues to visitors. In the network proposed, each pinch point occupied by a park parcel would have a monitoring station and low impact designed space. Interpretation of these site scale interventions and the watershed’s ecology could increase public awareness of the river (Wagner, 2008) and its services to them. Establishing a campaign message through these sites can aid the residents of the watershed form a mental connection of their homes and lives to the health of the river.

A connection must be emphasized between the neighborhoods and the creeks and parcels of the CRNRA. The Chattahoochee is the receiving water body of their treated wastewater and untreated stormwater. The Chattahoochee is also their water source, cultural heritage, green space corridor, a property value asset, recreation area, and a habitat support network. The residents of the Upper Chattahoochee watershed rely on the river to provide these ecosystem services. By providing a visible design intervention and interpretation, it should catalyze a sense of stewardship and responsibility from the community members to their local creek and its contribution to the greater watershed. How strongly this message is received will depend upon good design and interpretation of these park installations.

In this design the P.O.D.S. transmit data either to a cell phone or to an interactive element such as a touch-screen display or LED display. By collecting runoff through vegetated areas, Low Impact Development is demonstrated as a way to address stream health locally. Interpretive elements on site such as signs and the interactive displays also teach about watershed health and show where residents live in the watershed.

There is a challenge to overcome in building this mental connection. Road networks and neighborhood boundaries do not always correspond to the watershed boundaries. Planning and development of subdivisions typically do not include watershed issues into their schemes. The result is to have two neighbors living in different subcatchments in a watershed and sometimes in different watersheds altogether. Interpretive elements of site installations should make clear where watershed delineations exist so that residents can understand how their home fits into the watershed ecology.

Outside of the park, the public outreach component needs a campaign to change how people think about the watershed. This is beyond the scope of this thesis, but partnerships with local NGOs like the Chattahoochee Riverkeeper can achieve this. Blue Water Baltimore had an “Our Streets Are Our 35

Figure 3-5. Sampling locations within the CRNRA. Red circles indicate relative size of intersecting watershed. Red triangles indicate EPA point source discharge points. Red tributaries or sections of the river indicate waters listed as impaired in 2010.

Lake Sidney Lanier (Army Corps of Engineers) Buford Dam 34

8

Bowmans Island Shoals

34

Buford Trout Hatchery 34

Chatt a

ho o c h ee River 34

Bridge closed

34

34

6

ORRS FERRY

5

(Georgia Department of Natural Resources)

4

SETTLES BRIDGE

34

2

1

34

McGINNIS FERRY

ROGERS BRIDGE 33

Abbotts Bridge

ABBOTTS BRIDGE

Waller Park (City of Roswell)

33

VICKERY CREEK Chattahoochee Nature Center 31

5

GOLD BRANCH

Allenbrook

31

31

4

3

Hyde Farm (Cobb County)

Morgan Falls Park (Fulton County)

HYDE FARM

2

8

Morgan Falls Dam

Don White Memorial Park (City of Roswell)

31

JONES BRIDGE

9

CREEC

Island Ford Shoals 32 0

Chattahoochee River Environmental Education Center 32

1

32

ISLAND FORD

Park Headquarters Information

2

32

Garrard Landing (City3 of Roswell)

6

Bridge (closed)

32

32

7

32

9

33

Jones Bridge Park (Gwinnett County)

7

5

SUWANEE CREEK

4

McClure Bridge

0

33

Jones Bridge Shoals

8

33

6

8

33

1

33

3

2

MEDLOCK BRIDGE

24

32

3

32

5

Holcomb Bridge

HOLCOMB BRIDGE

Ruins

31

COCHRAN SHOALS

30 30

30

7

1

o ho

c

at

ta

31

Ch

JOHNSON FERRY COLUMNS Paper DRIVE SOPE CREEK Mill

he

e

Ri v

er

31

31

Riverside 31 Park (City 7 31 6 of Roswell) Chattahoochee River Park (Fulton County and City of Roswell)

33

33 33

Bridge (closed)

0

9

8

POWERS ISLAND

Cochran Shoals

INTERSTATE PARKWAY NORTH AKERS MILL

30

6

Long Island Shoals

30

PACES MILL

30

30

4

Devils Race Course Shoals Overlook

PALISADES

Thornton Shoals

30

INDIAN TRAIL

5

WHITEWATER CREEK

3

LEGEND

Testing Location

2

EPA Listed Impaired Waters 2010 30 30

1

EPA Reporting Point Source Discharge 0

PEACHTREE CREEK

0 0

36

1

2 Kilometers 1

2 Miles

N

9

BOWMANS ISLAND

Fish Weir Shoals

3

34

7

0

CHAPTER FOUR: SITE SELECTION & THE DESIGN PROPOSAL Site Selection Within the Chattahoochee River National Recreation a pilot site will be needed to test this approach outlined in Chapter Three. Potential test sites were prioritized based on ecological impact and interpretive potential: Questions of Ecological Impact: + Does the park unit occupy a “pinch point” at a subcatchment of the Chattahoochee? + Is there an opportunity to reconnect a floodplain at the site? + Are there areas that can mitigate runoff from impervious surfaces?

Questions of Interpretive Potential: + What can this unit expect or accommodate for visitorship? + Are there connections to other nearby parks?

establishing connectivity with the river close to the urban condition. Much of the park is situated within the river’s floodplain. Overflow parking is located within the designated floodplain as well. The site is well suited for floodplain reconnection and for creating visible demonstrations of green infrastructure and best management practices. However the site is not on a pinch point to intercept a local watersheds before it enters the Chattahoochee, and so for a metric-based network it doesn’t serve well as a pilot site.

Peachtree Creek This critical confluence at the terminus of the CRNRA is an essential site in the proposed monitoring network. This particular pinch point receives the largest area subcatchment in the CRNRA portion of the Upper Chattahoochee watershed. It also receives the stormwater inputs of metropolitan Atlanta and two tributary creeks, the North Branch and South Branch of Peachtree Creek are listed as impaired in 2010. An adjacent wastewater treatment plant discharges into the

+ How are the surrounding neighborhoods connected to the park parcel?

waters of the Chattahoochee here. In terms of mitigation this site presents a red flag for immediate address. Unfortunately the CRNRA does not have a park parcel at this location, though they do have authorization to purchase a small area of land in the area. For a pilot site it does not have the visibility needed to be successful. Following construction of a pilot project, this would be my highest priority based on ecological need.

The process of site selection was not straightforward. Several sites presented themselves as compelling opportunities to create interventions and are presented here (*see figure 4-1). In the end, interpretive potential led me to choose Vickery Creek over the others. At this site I designed a “Watershed Exploration Park” for the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area.

Vickery Creek The Vickery Creek site has the potential to serve the largest number of purposes set forth by the initial design and research questions of this design thesis. Because of its relatively high visitorship, presence of a floodplain, and occupying a pinch point, Vickery Creek was chosen. As this is a watershed based design project, it is important to note that this parcel is located at a confluence of the large Big Creek watershed (103 square miles) and the Chattahoochee River. Though the site is named Vickery Creek for the land’s historic owner, the current name in use for the stream is Big Creek. The Big Creek watershed runs parallel to the main channel of the Chattahoochee River for a distance of 21 miles before intersecting the river. Just upstream of this confluence, Hog Wallow Creek joins with Big Creek where it flows through an old mill structure before winding it’s way through the Vickery Creek parcel. There are several steep escarpments and places where the river channel suddenly widens into floodplains, a phenomenon caused by the geology of the Brevard Fault Zone at this place.

The park has a potentially large visibility to local residents within the Big Creek watershed. This will be the site’s main user group. According to a 2010 visitor study Vickery Creek, Sope Creek, and Johnson Ferry had the highest visitorship numbers (Blotkamp, Holmes, Morse, & Hollenhorst, 2011), but the other sites were not as compelling for the pilot project. Vickery Creek is adjacent to several other highly used local parks and is connected by a system of multi-use trails (MUTs) which link it to local neighborhoods (*see figure 4-2). Its main vehicle entrance is located in Roswell, Georgia on Riverside

Suwanee Creek The Suwanee Creek parcel of the CRNRA is located at a confluence of the Chattahoochee River and the Suwanee Creek watershed. The Suwanee Creek watershed has high levels of development (30% urban, 3% high density residential, 36% low-medium density residential) and is the third largest tributary subcatchment in the CRNRA’s jurisdiction at 51.5 square miles. On site is a meandering channel with some remnant oxbow pools. There is potential to reconnect the Suwanee Creek to the floodplain to create floodplain storage and to create a treatment wetland on site before the stream enters the waters of the Chattahoochee River. The site is undeveloped except for some rugged trails. It has a lot of unprogrammed potential to serve multiple purposes for the park service. However, its undeveloped state is also problematic when considering potential visitor impact, and it is located far from the main units of the CRNRA. For an initial proposal a site which is located closer to Atlanta and already receives large numbers of visitors is more desirable.

Johnson Ferry Johnson Ferry by contrast has a potential to accommodate large numbers of users. In the 1990s it was one of the busier units of the CRNRA, very popular as a picnic and fishing destination close to an urban population. Its large size and geometry as a linear corridor along the river make it ideal for 37

Drive near the Georgia Highway 9 bridge on Roswell Road. The park is also accessible on foot from the Old Roswell Mill from Mill Street in Roswell. The entire parcel is 144 acres but portions of it are discontiguous, separated by Big Creek and Riverside Road (*see figure 4-3).

The southern section of Vickery Creek is within the floodplains of Big Creek and the Chattahoochee River (Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2012) and is accessible only through the multi-use trails which cross this parcel from Riverside Park to Azalea Drive (*see figure 4-5). This situation has created a blend of federal and local management interests for a 2.4 acre portion of the site. The existing MUT crosses Big Creek with a painted black steel trestle bridge from Riverside Park.

It then traverses the floodplain portion of the park with an elevated boardwalk, passes the foundation remains of an old mill building on the site, and crosses under the Roswell Road bridge with views to the Chattahoochee River. There are also opportunities to capture and treat runoff from the Georgia Highway 9 bridge and from Azalea Drive which is otherwise channeled, untreated, directly into the creek or river.

the community. The Chattahoochee Riverkeeper organization may be willing to partner with the CRNRA to monitor these additional stations in conjunction with their existing water quality monitoring program.

At the CRNRA there is a volunteer base that can be tapped for interpretation of these sites for the general public. They can also facilitate water testing of additional sites on CRNRA property, in their back yard creeks or other reaches and creeks along the Chattahoochee Rivers.

A database can be set up for online input of information collected much like Project Budburst (NEON & Chicago Botanic Garden, 2012) or the Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s “Great Backyard Bird Count” that generate large datasets which are later analyzed and interpreted (The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Audubon, & Bird Studies Canada, 2012). Other potential partners include local grade schools to conduct research for curriculum based local learning, and with local community colleges interested in research sites for urban ecology. Both types of partnerships and the CRNRA could seek Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM) or other grants in order to fund research activities

This small island of Vickery Creek is ideal for a pilot water monitoring and mitigation project (*see figure 4-6). It occupies a pinch point. There is opportunity to reconnect a floodplain. There are areas to mitigate runoff from impervious surfaces. The site can expect a decent level of visitorship. It is integrated into a local park network and it is directly adjacent to a local watershed neighborhood.

and equipment.

Reconnecting the Floodplain Within the park are two areas within the floodplain which can be reconnected to the river. The Vickery Creek site has floodplains along Big Creek and the Chattahoochee River. These floodplains are delineated at ten feet above baseflow for 10-year storms and up to twenty feet for 100-year storms (Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2012; USGS, 2012). The new floodplain area on the site is divided into three zones (*see figure 4-11). Zone 3 is the existing floodplain elevation and will remain unchanged. Zone 2 brings down the elevation of the floodplain by one foot. Zone 1 brings down the elevation of the floodplain by two feet. During high flow events when the Chattahoochee and Big Creek flood, this design will be able to store a large capacity of water in these stepped inundation zones. The estimated increase in storage capacity will be 53,500 cubic feet following design construction in Zone 1 and 2. Together with existing floodplain storage capacity the parcel can accommodate an estimated 182,000 cubic feet of water for a ten-year storm event (Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2012; USGS, 2012). This will achieve the design goal of mitigating flood water intensity downstream.

Taking the Pulse: The P.O.D.S. At the heart of the project is the “Pulse Monitoring” units of the Chattahoochee’s health: a floating mat monitoring and treatment system called P.O.D.S.: Portable On-Demand Science stations.

They are Portable so that they can be moved for maintenance or in the event of extreme surges be relocated (though monitoring through an extreme event would provide valuable information). They are On-Demand Science because these stations will take real-time measurements of a suite of water quality variables and are able to transmit these data to interactive stations, to a smart phone application, and to a central database. A user could request a reading at any time and receive information on water temperature, streamflow, or dissolved oxygen for example.

Within the stream channel of Big Creek and of the Chattahoochee these in-line systems can also potentially intercept bacterial and nutrient laden waters from the local wastewater treatment substation or treat some small amount of water within the waterways (*see figures 4-6 and 4-7). The vegetated systems use species of plants with thick root mats to encourage microbial processes which will be able to break down a portion of the nitrogen and hydrocarbon compounds in the waterway. Each of these places are viewable and accessible via an expanded boardwalk/multi-use trail.

Ideally the monitoring systems would be able to make all of their measurements using real-time data collection and transmission (*see figure 4-8). If not, then periodic sampling can be done by park staff or volunteers (*see figures 4-9 and 4-10). Partnerships and volunteer programs would have the twofold benefit of saving the park’s resources and engendering positive attitudes and engagement from

Mitigating Stormwater Inputs There is an opportunity to intercept runoff from the roads adjacent to the site. From Riverside road and part of Roswell Road (*area 7 in figures 4-6 and 4-7) water will be filtered through a vegetated swale and move into the floodplain where it will infiltrate into the soils (*see figure 4-12). The nearby bridges can have their downspouts channeled into a vegetative swale to remove particulates and a host of urban runoff pollutants, reduce runoff volumes and increase infiltration. The swale operates by slowing water and allowing sediments to drop out. Many pollutants adsorp to these sediment particles.

Additionally an experimental set up can be created to measure particulates and pollutants from the 38

untreated water and compare to the water which has passed through the treatment system. This treatment system would be integrated with the floodplain reconnection zone which wraps around the park.

established breeding populations in the river (NPS, 2008). Freshwater bivalves, including federally listed endangered species are known to occur in or near the CRNRA as well(NPS, 2008). The CRNRA General Management plan states that “as many as 189 bird species, including neotropical migrant songbirds, raptors, waterfowl, and shorebirds use diverse wetland and upland habitats in the park,” (NPS, 2008).

Additionally the federally endangered whooping crane and federally threatened bald eagle have been seen in the park(NPS, 2008). (We saw a Bald Eagle on our site visit in March 2012.) A variety of common mammal species are also found within the park.

Site Experience The Watershed Exploration Park is designed to set up a narrative interpretation of the watershed.

If one is to travel along the MUT from Riverside Park you can experience a sequence of events that lends itself to interpretation of the proposed design. Visitors arrive from their homes in the local watershed and park in the lot on Riverside Park. On the Riverside Park side there is a wastewater treatment substation (*area 1 in figures 4-6 and 4-7) that accepts wastewater from the local neighborhood. This is their own wastewater from washing dishes, showering, and flushing the toilet. It doesn’t go “somewhere else,” it goes here. In this area of Georgia the sewer line utility access points are elevated and also visible (*area 2 in

Design Achievements & Future of the Proposal Through the implementation of this design proposal and strategy the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area will become a leader in the realm of urban ecological research. Though this is only a pilot project, the strategy can be applied to other critical pinch points on the Chattahoochee River.

figures 4-6 and 4-7). Walking along the MUT the visitor can trace the line to the water.

The treated wastewater is then reintroduced to the Chattahoochee at (*area 6 in figures 4-6 and 4-7). (As a caveat, wastewater may not actually be reintroduced at this exact location. For purposes of this thought experiment and the information I was able to gather, this location was chosen based on the line of visible utility accesses.) The local users can see how the water from their homes directly connect to the Chattahoochee. The site clearly presents opportunities to mitigate water quality issues. The bridge that crosses Big Creek has views to the first set of monitoring and treatment P.O.D.S. (*area 3 in figures 4-6 and 4-7). These devices can show water quality through nutrient levels, temperature, and dissolved oxygen of the stream before and after the wastewater is introduced.

Moving across the bridge will bring you into the newly reconnected scrub-shrub vegetated floodplain (*area 4 in figures 4-6 and 4-7; see also figure 4-13). An existing multi-use trail and boardwalk traverses through this area and visitors can see the vegetated area which will hold floodwaters during storm events. Visitors can also see how runoff is channeled into vegetated swales from the roads which are adjacent to the park and from the bridge which passes over the Chattahoochee. An extension of the trail also allows closer interpretive access to the Mill ruins, connecting visitors to a historic use of the river.

Two prime candidates for ecological monitoring and remediation are the confluence at Suwanee Creek (*see figure 4-14) and at Peachtree Creek. If we are to follow the advice of Dr. Margaret Palmer, “Sites should be identified by their scientific need for restoration efforts before social and political priorities,” (Margaret A. Palmer, 2009) then these places are in serious need of attention, even if there is negligible or no visitorship at present. Another candidate would be Rottenwood Creek which receives the waters of Marietta Air Force Base and has been listed as impaired in 2010.

The experimental aspects of this proposal: floodplain reconnection, swales to accept stormwater runoff from the roads, and the P.O.D.S. need to be critically evaluated, post-occupancy, to see if there is actual improvement in water quality by their implementation. The monitoring system will be able to The results of the study need to be added to the body of ecological knowledge: designers cannot keep applying best practices that are not proven. Experiments however, need to continue to try new things in the quest for greater ecological stewardship.

The intense use of the lands around the park can be mitigated in part only by the infrastructure of the park itself. It will take public action and policy change, further watershed restoration and time to bring the Chattahoochee watershed back into health. The CRNRA will engender stewardship in local communities by providing demonstration installations of green infrastructure and best management of urban runoff, and introduction to the public’s mind their connection to their river. Through these interventions, CRNRA will be able to further its mission to serve the people as a recreation area in clean waters. In these ways the CRNRA can be a model for the rest of the National Park Service to follow.

Encouraging Life Although it is not a primary goal of this design thesis, the vegetated floodplain will also serve as habitat for many species of birds, reptiles and small mammals indigenous to this area in Georgia.

The park currently supports sixty-three species of reptiles and amphibians with another species, the Timber Rattlesnake, likely in the park, but not confirmed (NPS, 2008). At least seventy species of fish potentially occur within the tributaries and reaches of the Chattahoochee within the CRNRA(NPS, 2008). In particular Brook, Brown, and Rainbow Trout are stocked in the park with Brown Trout having 39

Bowmans Island

Sites

Stormwater

Floodplain

Visitorship

Big Creek Greenway

Lake Charles Park

(City of Alpharetta)

(City of Roswell)

Pinch Point

Roswell Area Park (City of Roswell)

Woodstock Park (City of Roswell)

Heart of Roswell Park (City of Roswell)

Waller Park

(City of Roswell)

Old Mill Park

VICKERY CREEK

(City of Roswell)

Town Square Park (City of Roswell)

Suwanee Creek

Chattahoochee Nature Center

Willeo Park

(City of Roswell)

Vickery Creek

GOLD BRANCH

Sope Creek

Allenbrook 31

31

5

31

6

31

7 Chattahoochee River Park

Don White Memorial Park

8

(City of Roswell)

31

Riverside Park (City

of Roswell)

9

E. Roswell Recreation Center (City of Roswell)

(Fulton County and City of Roswell)

Bull Sluice Lake 31 4

32

0

32

1

ISLAND FORD

Park Headquarters Information

Morgan Falls Park (Fulton County)

Big Trees Forest Preserve Sandy Springs Dog Park

(City of Sandy Springs)

Johnson Ferry

(Fulton County)

Dunwoody Nature Center (Fulton County)

0

Peachtree Creek

40

Figure 4-1. (Left) Site selection matrix used to evaluate criteria for pilot site.

Figure 4-2. (Right) Local park network surrounding Vickery Creek. Circle indicates a 2.5 mile radius.

N

0.5

1 miles

Figure 4-3. Vickery Creek unit of the CRNRA. The red units are a residential neighborhood which has its sewage treated at a substation located adjacent to Riverside Park. The catchment that the homes occupy drains directly into the Chattahoochee River. The study site is outlined.

Residents of the Watershed

OLD MILL PARK, TOWN OF ROSWELL

VICKERY CREEK, CRNRA

B

IG

C R

EE

K

Wastewater Treatment Substation RIVERSIDE PARK, TOWN OF ROSWELL

CHATT

AHOOCHEE

0

Design Site for Watershed Exploration Park

R I VER 0.1

0.2

41

0.3 miles

N

Figure 4-4. Vickery Creek site aerial image. The parcel which is the subject of the design proposal is at the center of the image, where Big Creek flows from the north to its confluence with the Chattahoochee River.

(Image from Microsoft Bing Maps 2012)

42

Low/Med Density Residential

Low/Med Density Residential

Water Treatment Facility

Vickery Creek, CRNRA

Riverside Park, Town of Roswell

Old mill ruins

Water Treatment Facility

Vickery Creek, CRNRA

Old mill ruins

1

3 4

7

EE BIG CR K

EE BIG CR K

Zone 3

Riverside Park, Town of Roswell

2

Runoff treatment area Tree cover Scrub-shrub growth Shrub layer under canopy Observation deck Boardwalk/MUT Path under bridge

Zone 2

6 Water Treatment Discharge

AHOOCHEE RIVER CHATT

8

Zone 1

5

Treatment & Monitoring P. O.D.S.

AHOOCHEE RIVER CHATT

N

N 0

0.05

Figure 4-5. Existing conditions at the 2.4 acre site of Vickery Creek and adjacent lands.

0

0.1 miles

43

0.05

0.1 miles

Figure 4-6. Design for the new Watershed Exploration Park within the CRNRA owned parcel. The floodplain has been graded to increase its hydrologic gradient. The 10 year flood plain, Zone 1, now has additional water receiving capacity. Runoff from the adacent roadway and bridge are now directed onto the site to be treated in a vegetated buffer. P.O.D.S. (Portable OnDemand Science) testing and treatment stations are located along the main brance of the Chattahoochee River, within Big Creek and at the outflow of the water treatment facility.

Water Treatment Facility

reek, CRNRA

Water Treatment Facility

Vickery Creek, CRNRA

Old mill ruins

1

3 4

3

2 Zone 3

4

7

Zone 2 Zone 1 Runoff treatment area

Riverside Park, Town of Roswell

1

2

EE BIG CR K

EE BIG CR K

Zone 3

Riverside Park, Town of Roswell

8 Zone 2

Zone 1

5

5

6 Water Treatment Discharge

8

AHOOCHEE RIVER CHATT AHOOCHEE RIVER CHATT

N 0

0.1 miles

0.05

N 0

Figure 4-7. P.O.D.S. locations on the site. (red circles)

0.1 miles

0.05

44

Figure 4-8. Monitoring stations on the P.O.D.S. transmit collected stream data to a central database. The information is accessible via mobile devices.

Vickery Creek, CRNRA

Water T

Vickery Creek, CRNRA Old mill ruins

1

3

7

4

2

EE BIG CR K

Old mill ruins Zone 3

Riverside Park, Town of Roswell

3 4

Zone 2

Zone 1 Runoff 5 treatment area

6

Figure 4-9. “Sweep The Hooch” volunteers on the Chattahoochee River. Volunteers and citizen scientists can collect data on water quality in the Chattahoochee watershed. (www.chattahoochee.org.)Water Treatment

Discharge

6 Water Treatment Discharge

8.0

7.0

0

6.0

2

EE BIG CR K

Zone 3 7

Runoff treatment area

1

8 Zone 2

Zone 1 5

8

AHOOCHEE RIVER CHATT

N 0.1 miles

0.05

5.0

0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

O

N

D

J

F

M

Figure 4-10. The Pulse of Big Creek at Vickery Creek Park

A

M

J

J

A

S

45

Figure 4-11. Floodplains are reconstructed in three elevation zones.

0.05

AHO CHATT

Figure 4-12. (Above) Section through the Watershed Exploration Park. Surface runoff from the bridge is captured and then treated and infiltrated through the floodplain.

Figure 4-13. (Below) Student-scientists, visitors, and active river users can all enjoy the P.O.D.S. which measure water quality and transmit data and treat a portion of the water flowing from Big Creek into the Chattahoochee.

46

AUTHOR NOTES Taking on a site, far away and unknown for a thesis or for a design project presents many challenges. All of the analysis leg-work done early on led to a fair number of false assumptions about how the park operated within the greater Atlanta landscape. This was not surprising in retrospect, given the complexity of the site. At the CRNRA, the intricacies of management of the properties contained along a 48 mile stretch of river and across multiple municipal and county boundaries were not apparent until the site visit in March. I am also approaching this cultural resource as an outsider unfamiliar with daily life around the Chattahoochee River.

As a new researcher the project grew too complex for my ideal execution. I attempted to integrate all of the scientific research recommendations made to me both by authors and mentors, but I discovered that the scope of the project kept growing beyond my initial project and design goals. There is a lot to be learned to effectively execute a large-scale ecological experiment. I would need the help and planning guidance of an ecological scientist throughout the project. This thesis attempts to capture what I felt were the most important aspects of science in design: taking measurements and evaluating projects after they have been completed.

My advice to future thesis students, if they want to do a competition for a design thesis, is to have the competition done, completely, before the semester they start to write the thesis. The reality of a design competition is a need to create succinct and high quality graphic communication package in a short time frame. Critical thesis deadlines and taking time to thoroughly research your subject are time-consuming and add stress to academic life that does not need to be compounded by a competition. This particular competition had its end date extend beyond graduation. I chose to use the completed information for the thesis and delay completion of my MLA rather than use earlier versions of the design.

Figure 4-14. Early concept graphics when contemplating the complicated Chattahoochee River system, and how to monitor it.

47

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adascent Inc (Producer). (2009). UCR (mobile app). Retrieved from http://www.chattahoochee.org/ iphone/ http://itunes.apple.com Alberti, M. (2008). Advances in urban ecology : integrating humans and ecological processes in urban ecosystems. New York: Springer.

AMD&ART. (2007). Welcome to the AMD&ART Project in Vintondale, Pennsylvania. Retrieved 10/04/2011, 2012, from http://www.amdandart.org/projectindex.html American Rivers. (2012). Chattahoochee River among America’s most endangered rivers: costly new dams, reservoirs not the solution to Georgia’s water needs. Retrieved 07/10/2012, 2012, from http://www.ucriverkeeper.org/documents/ChattahoocheePressRelease.pdf AP, A. P. (2002, 02/12/2002). Georgia Power loses bid to draw water from Chattahoochee, Florida TimesUnion. Retrieved from http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/apnews/stories/021202/D7HKBM184. html AP, A. P. (2012, 06/26/2012). Corps Claims Authority Over Drinking Water, GPB News. Retrieved from http://www.gpb.org/news/2012/06/26/corps-claims-authority-over-drinking-water AP, A. P. (2012 b, 06/26/2012). Corps says it can grant Georgia’s water request, Atlanta JournalConstitution. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/corps-says-it-can-1465006.html Baltimore Ecosystem Study. (2012). Baltimore Ecosystem Study. from http://www.beslter.org/index.html Beechie, T., Pess, G., & Roni, P. (2008). Setting River Restoration Priorities: a Review of Approaches and a General Protocol for Identifying and Prioritizing Actions. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 28, 15.

Belt, K. T., Stack, W. P., Pouyat, R. V., Burgess, K., Groffman, P. M., & Kaushal, S. S. (2011). Ultra-urban baseflow and stormflow concentrations and fluxes in a watershed undergoing watershed restoration (WS263). Paper presented at the Baltimore Ecosystem Study Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD. Benjamin, D., Yang, S.-i., & Jeremijenko, N. (2011). New Interaction Partners for Environmental Governance. In M. Shepard (Ed.), Sentient City: ubiquitous computing, architecture, and the future of urban space. Hong Kong: The Architectural League of New York The MIT Press.

Bergstrom, C. T., & Bergstrom, T. C. (2006). The Economics of Ecology Journals. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4(9), 488-495.

Bernhardt, E. S., & Palmer, M. A. (2007). Restoring streams in an urbanizing world. Freshwater Biology, 52(4), 738-751.

Bernhardt, E. S., Palmer, M. A., Allan, J. D., Alexander, G., Barnas, K., Brooks, S., . . . Sudduth, E. (2005).

Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration Efforts. Science, 308(5722), 636-637. doi: 10.2307/3841978 Bernhardt, E. S., Sudduth, E. B., Palmer, M. A., Allan, J. D., Meyer, J. L., Alexander, G., . . . Pagano, L. (2007). Restoring Rivers One Reach at a Time: Results from a Survey of U.S. River Restoration Practitioners. Restoration Ecology, 15(3), 482-493.

Blotkamp, A., Holmes, N. C., Morse, W., & Hollenhorst, S. J. (2011). Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area: Summer 2011. Fort Collins, Colorado.: National Park Service.

Booth, D. B., & Jackson, C. R. (1997). Urbanization of aquatic systems: degradation thresholds, stormwater detection, and the limits of mitigation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 33(5), 14.

Bowen, R., & McMonigle, D. (2010, October 28, 2010). [Personal communication with Ron Bowen,

48

the Anne Arundel County director of public works and Dennis McMonigle, a civil engineer at Coastal Resources, Inc, during a tour of the Wilelinor Seepage Wetland in Edgewater, MD].

Browning, M. (2008). The efficacy of urban stream restorations to improve water quality across a spectrum of design approaches. (MS Environmental Science and Policy), George Mason University, Fairfax, VA. Brudvig, L. A. (2011). The restoration of biodiversity: where has research been and where does it need to go? Am J Bot, 98(3), 10.

Carter, N. (2011). Chattahoochee River Brown Trout Stocking to Cease Permanently. Georgia Outdoor News. Retrieved from Georgia Outdoor News website: http://www.gon.com/article. php?id=2692&cid=158 Census, U. S. C. B. (2012). State and County QuickFacts [Georgia]. Retrieved 05/14/2012, 2012 Center for Watershed Protection. (2012). Center for Watershed Protection, Solutions for Clean Water and Healthy Natural Resources. Retrieved 07/12/2012, 2012, from http://www.cwp.org/ Collins, J., Kinzig, A., Grimm, N., Fagan, W., Hope, D., Wu, J., & Borer, E. (2000). A New Urban Ecology.

Am.Sci.American Scientist, 88(5).

Copeland, L. (2008, 02/12/2008). Drought spreading in Southeast, USA Today. Retrieved from http:// www.usatoday.com/weather/drought/2008-02-11-drought_N.htm Corner, J. (2005). Terra Fluxus. In C. Waldheim (Ed.), The Landscape Urbanism Reader (pp. 295). New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.

Czerniak, J., & Hargreaves, G. (Eds.). (2007). Large Parks. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Designing the Parks. (2010). Designing the Parks. 2011, from http://www.designingtheparks.org/ Dolman, B. (2010). Basins of Relations: Thinking Like A Watershed, Santa Barbara City College Center for Sustainability.

Downs, P. W., Skinner, K. S., & Kondolf, G. M. (2002). Rivers and Streams. In M. R. Perrow & A. J. Davy (Eds.), Handbook of ecological restoration (Vol. 2, pp. 267-296). Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ehrenfeld, J. G. (2000). Defining the Limits of Restoration: The Need for Realistic Goals. Restoration Ecology, 8(1).

EPA, U. S. E. P. A. (2008). Managing Urban Runoff. (EPA841-F-96-004G). Retrieved from http://water. epa.gov/polwaste/nps/outreach/point7.cfm.

EPA, U. S. E. P. A. (2010). Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results. Watershed Quality Assessment Report. Retrieved 03/12/2012, 2012, from http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/ attains_watershed.control?p_huc=03130001&p_cycle=&p_report_type=T EPA, U. S. E. P. A. (2012). STORET - Watershed Summary Report. Retrieved 03/12/2012, 2012, from http://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/STORETSummary/f?p=WatershedUI:1:0::::P1_ORG_CHAR,P1_ HUC:1,03130001 EPA, U. S. E. P. A. (2013). Flow Alteration. CADDIS Volume 2: Sources, Stressors & Responses. Retrieved 03/13/2013, 2013, from http://www.epa.gov/caddis/ssr_flow_wtm.html ESA. (2012). WANTED: short, concise submissions to Ecology. Retrieved 11/25/2012, 2012, from http:// esapubs.org/esapubs/EcolTypes.htm FASLANYC. (2010). Floyd Bennett Field: Recreation in the Wasteland. Retrieved from http:// urbanomnibus.net/2010/05/floyd-bennett-field-recreation-in-the-wasteland/ Felson, A. (2012). Bridging Ecology and Design to Construct, Monitor and Adapt Urban Ecosystems.

Cornell University.

Fielding, A. (2010, 06/21/2010). Chattahoochee’s job: producing power, Union Recorder. Retrieved from

http://unionrecorder.com/local/x657339412/Chattahoochees-job-producing-power Fielding, A. (2012, 06/26/2012). Corps claims authority to pull more water from Lanier; Agency to resume water manual update, Gainesville Times. Retrieved from http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/ archives/69319/ Fontana, S., Sattler, T., Bontadina, F., & Moretti, M. (2011). How to manage the urban green to improve bird diversity and community structure. Landscape and Urban Planning, 101(3), 278-285.

Forman, R. T. T. (2002). The missing catalyst: design and planning with ecology roots. In B. R. Johnson & K. Hill (Eds.), Ecology and design - frameworks for learning. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Fox, P. (2012, 08/03/2012). Corps snafu dries up lake, unsettles environmentalists, Atlanta JournalConstitution. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/corps-snafu-dries-up-lakeunsettles-environmentali/nQXjw/ Francis, R. A., & Hoggart, S. P. G. (2008). Waste Not, Want Not: The Need to Utilize Existing Artificial Structures for Habitat Improvement Along Urban Rivers. Restoration Ecology, 16(3), 373-381. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00434.x Francis, R. A., Hoggart, S. P. G., Gurnell, A. M., & Coode, C. (2008). Meeting the challenges of urban river habitat restoration: developing a methodology for the River Thames through central London. Area, 40(4), 435-445. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2008.00826.x Galli, J. (1990). Thermal Impacts Associated With Urbanization and Stormwater Management Best Management Practices: Department of Environmental Programs, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources. (1997). Chattahoochee River Basin Management Plan 1997.

Atlanta, GA. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. (2012). Georgia Flood M.A.P. Flood Risk Snapshot. from http://www.georgiadfirm.com/ Goodman, B. (2007, 10/16/2007). Drought-Stricken South Facing Tough Choices, The New York Times.

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/us/16drought.html Green, J. (2011). How to Integrate Design. Retrieved from http://dirt.asla.org/2011/12/14/how-tointegrate-design/ Groffman, P. M., Bain, D. J., Band, L. E., Belt, K. T., Brush, G. S., Grove, J. M., . . . Zipperer, W. C. (2003).

Down by the Riverside: Urban Riparian Ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(6), 315-321.

Headly, T. R., & Tanner, C. C. (2006). Application of Floating Wetlands for Enhanced Stormwater Treatment: A Review. Hamilton, New Zealand: National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd. Hilderbrand, R. H., Watts, A. C., & Randle, A. M. (2005). The Myths of Restoration Ecology. Ecology and Society, 10(1).

Jehl, D. (2002, 05/27/2002). Atlanta’s Growing Thirst Creates Water War, The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/27/us/atlanta-s-growing-thirst-creates-water-war. html?pagewanted=all&src=pm Jost, D. (2011). The Soft Solution: First San Diego River Improvement Project. Landscape Architecture Magazine, 101, 170-179.

Joyner, C. (2012, 05/15/2012). Chattahoochee makes ‘most endangered’ list, Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/news/chattahoochee-makes-most-endangered-1437666.html Kaushal, S. S., Duan, S., Grese, M., Pennino, M., Belt, K. T., Findlay, S. E. G., . . . Blomquist, J. (2011).

Land use and climate alter carbon dynamics in watersheds of Chesapeake Bay. Paper presented at

49

the Baltimore Ecosystem Study Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD. Kemp, S. (2011). What’s missing from Baltimore’s urban fish communities and why?: A preliminary comparative analysis of fish assemblage data. Paper presented at the Baltimore Ecosystem Study Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD. King, S. L., Sharitz, R. R., Groninger, J. W., & Battaglia, L. L. (2009). The Ecology, Restoration, and Management of Southeastern Floodplain Ecosystems: A Synthesis. Wetlands, 29(2), 624-634. doi: 10.1672/08-223.1 Kondolf, G. M. (1995). Five Elements for Effective Evaluation of Stream Restoration. Restor Ecology Restoration Ecology, 3(2), 133-136.

Lister, N.-M. (2007). Sustainable Large Parks: Ecological Design or Designer Ecology? In J. Czerniak & G. Hargreaves (Eds.), Large Parks (pp. 255). New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.

Lockwood, J. L. (1997). An Alternative to Succession: Assembly Rules Offer Guide to Restoration Efforts.

RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT NOTES, 15(1), 45-50.

Lovell, S. T., & Johnston, D. M. (2009). Creating multifunctional landscapes: How can the field of ecology inform the design of the landscape? Frontiers Ecol.Envir.Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(4), 212-220.

MacLeod, M. V. (2008). Ultra-urban stormwater retrofits : a design and testing methodology for pollution abatement by landscape architects. (MLA), Cornell University. Available from http://worldcat.org /z-wcorg/ database.

MCDEP, M. C. D. o. E. P. (2011). MCDEP Task Order #6 - Subtask B White Oak Stormwater Management Retrofits Final Report. Montgomery County, Maryland: Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection.

McHarg, I. L., & American Museum of Natural History. (1969). Design with nature. Garden City, N.Y.: Published for the American Museum of Natural History [by] the Natural History Press.

Mettee, M. F., O’Neil, P. E., & Pierson, J. M. (1996). Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Birmingham, Ala.: Oxmoor House.

MIT. (2011). SENSEable City Lab. Retrieved 02/15/2012, from http://senseable.mit.edu/ Moore, A. A., & Palmer, M. A. (2005). Invertebrate Biodiversity in Agricultural and Urban Headwater Streams: Implications for Conservation and Management. Ecological Applications, 15(4), 11691177. doi: 10.2307/4543427 National Research Council, C. o. A. V. t. t. S. o. A. R. T. E. (2004). Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental Decision-Making: The National Academies Press.

Nelson, K. C., Palmer, M. A., Pizzuto, J. E., Moglen, G. E., Angermeier, P. L., Hilderbrand, R. H., . . .

Hayhoe, K. (2009). Forecasting the Combined Effects of Urbanization and Climate Change on Stream Ecosystems: From Impacts to Management Options. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46(1), 154-163. doi: 10.2307/27695931 NEON, & Chicago Botanic Garden. (2012). Project Budburst. Retrieved 07/14/2012, 2012, from http:// neoninc.org/budburst/phenology.php Newcomer, T., Kaushal, S. S., Mayer, P. M., Groffman, P. M., & Grese, M. (2011). Effects of stormwater management and stream engineering on nitrogen uptake and denitrification in streams. Paper presented at the Baltimore Ecosystem Study Annual Meeting.

Niemelä, J. (2011). Urban ecology : patterns, processes, and applications. Oxford [England]; New York: Oxford University Press.

NPS, U. S. D. o. t. I. (2008). Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area: Supplemental Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Atlanta, Georgia.

NPS, U. S. D. o. t. I. (2012, February 29, 2012). Atlanta’s Chattahoochee River Designated America’s First National Water Trail.

Oosthuizen, M., & Noble, J. (Producer). (2011). Urban Sensor ISO Presentation. Retrieved from www. emeasee.com/urban-sensor-iso-presentation Paillex, A., Dolédec, S., Castella, E., & Mérigoux, S. (2009). Large river floodplain restoration: predicting species richness and trait responses to the restoration of hydrological connectivity. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46(1), 250-258. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01593.x Palmer, M., Bernhardt, E., Chornesky, E., Collins, S., Dobson, A., Duke, C., . . . Townsend, A. (2004).

Ecology for a Crowded Planet. Science, 304(5675), 1251-1252.

Palmer, M. A. (2009). Reforming Watershed Restoration: Science in Need of Application and Applications in Need of Science. Estuaries and Coasts, 32(1), 1-17. doi: 10.2307/40663515 Palmer, M. A., Bernhardt, E. S., Allan, J. D., Lake, P. S., Alexander, G., Brooks, S., . . . Sudduth, E. (2005).

Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42(2), 208-217.

Pederson, N., Bell, A. R., Knight, T. A., Leland, C., Malcomb, N., Anchukaitis, K. J., . . . Riddle, J. (2012).

A long-term perspective on a modern drought in the American Southeast. Environmental Research Letters, 7(1).

Pennington, D. N. (2003). Land use effects on urban riparian bird communities during the migratory and breeding season in the greater Cincinnati metropolitan area. (Dissertation/Thesis), Miami University. Retrieved from http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=miami1071084848 Pennington, D. N. (2008). Riparian bird communities along an urban gradient: effects of local vegetation, landscape biophysical heterogeneity, and spatial scale. (PhD), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Pickett, S. T. (2011). Welcome and Introduction, Presentation of Director’s Award. Paper presented at the Baltimore Ecosystem Study Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD. Pickett, S. T. A., Cadenasso, M. L., Grove, J. M., Groffman, P. M., Band, L. E., Boone, C. G., . . . Wilson, M. A. (2008). Beyond Urban Legends: An Emerging Framework of Urban Ecology, as Illustrated by the Baltimore Ecosystem Study. American Institute of Biological Sciences BioScience, 58(2), 139150.

Pinkham, R. (2000). Daylighting: New Life for Buried Streams (First ed., pp. 73). Snowmass, CO: Rocky Mountain Institute.

Pitt, R. E., T., B. R., S., C., & Williamson, D. G. (2004). Sources of pollutants in urban areas, part 1: older monitoring projects. In W. James, K. N. Irvine, M. E. A. & R. E. Pitt (Eds.), Effective modeling of urban water systems. Guelph, Ontario: Computational Hydraulics International.

Redmon, J. (2009, 07/26/2009). Lake Lanier blame game brews, Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/lake-lanier-blame-game-brews/nQJKH/ Redmon, J. (2009 b, 11/18/2009). Corps to tighten spigot at Lake Lanier in wake of judge’s ruling, Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/corps-to-tightenspigot-at-lake-lanier-in-wake-of-/nQZLL/ Riley, A. L. (2009). Putting a Price on Riparian Corridors as Water Treatment Facilities. Oakland, CA: California Regional Water Quality Control Board: San Francisco Bay Region.

Roy, A., Faust, C., Freeman, M., & Meyer, J. (2005). Reach-scale effects of riparian forest cover on urban stream ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 62, 2312-2329.

Establishment of a National Water Trails System, 3319 C.F.R. (2012).

Sawyer, J., Stewart, P., Mullen, M., Simon, T., & Bennett, H. (2004). Influence of habitat, water quality, and land use on macro-invertebrate and fish assemblages of a southeastern coastal plain watershed,

50

USA. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 7(1), 85-99.

Schueler, T. R. (2000). The Importance of Imperviousness. In T. R. Schueler & H. K. Holland (Eds.), The Practice of Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD: The Center for Watershed Protection.

Schueler, T. R., Holland, H. K., & Center for Watershed, P. (2000). The practice of watershed protection.

Ellicott City, MD (8391 Main St., Ellicott City, 21043): Center for Watershed Protection.

Singer, M. (2012). Are We Done Yet? Landscape Architecture Magazine, 102, 56-62.

Slotta, L. S., Mercier, H. T., & Terry, M. D. (1969). Stratified Reservoir Currents. (44). Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University.

The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Audubon, & Bird Studies Canada. (2012). The Great Backyard Bird Count. Retrieved 07/14/2012, 2012, from http://www.birdsource.org/gbbc/ Tockner, K., & Stanford, J. A. (2002). Riverine flood plains: present state and future trends. Environmental Conservation, 29(03), 308-330. doi: doi:10.1017/S037689290200022X Todd, J., & Josephson, B. (1996). The design of living technologies for waste treatment. ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, 6(1/3), 109-136.

Tran, C. P., Doan, A. C., Grieser, J. M., Skalda, C. H., Weyeneth, L., & Maglio, M. (2012). Riparian Restoration Activities in the New York City Watershed. Paper presented at the AWRA 2012 Summer Specialty Conference, Riparian Ecosystems IV: Advancing Science, Economics and Policy, Denver, CO. Turner, R., & Wickham, J. (Writers). (2010). Chattahoochee: From Water War to Water Vision. In R. S. Productions & ZoëTV (Producer). Georgia.

TWC, T. W. C. (2012). Average Monthly Precipitation. 2012, from http://www.weather.com/weather/ wxclimatology/monthly/graph/30326 UCR, U. C. R. (2005). Tons of debris, grease removed from Atlanta’s clogged sewers. RiverCHAT. UCR, U. C. R. (2011). Filling the Water Gap: Conservation Successes and Missed Opportunities in Metro Atlanta (pp. 60). Atlanta, GA. UCR, U. C. R. (2012). Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper. from http://chattahoochee.org UCR, U. C. R. (Producer). (2012 b, 07/05/2012). Tapped Out: The Drying Up of Atlanta. Retrieved from http://www.chattahoochee.org/tappedout/slideshow.php UCR, U. C. R. (2012 c). River Uses. Retrieved 05/14/2012, 2012, from http://www.chattahoochee.org/ river-uses.php United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. (2011). Population Distribution, Urbanization, Internal Migration and Development: An International Perspective: United Nations.

United Nations Development Programme. (2010). Human Development Report 2010, The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Development Human Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press.

Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Fund, Inc; The Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, Inc; and W. Robert Hancock, Jr. v. The City of Atlanta: Consent Decree, 1:95-CV-2550-TWT C.F.R. (1998).

USFS. (1999). The Gwynns Falls Watershed Ecological Resource Atlas. Baltimore, MD: Revitalizing Baltimore Project.

USGS. (1993). What fish live in the streams of Metropolitan Atlanta. Georgia Water Science Center Publications. Retrieved 03/31/2013, 2013, from http://ga.water.usgs.gov/publications/factsheets/ fs091-95/ USGS. (1997). Georgia Fact Sheet. Retrieved 05/14/2012, 2012, from http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/FS-010-96/ USGS. (2009). Atlanta Floods Extremely Rare. USGS Newsroom. Retrieved from U. S. Geological Survey

website: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2343#.UVirYVdbx8E USGS. (2012). Upper Chattahoochee Watershed FloodTracking.

Van Alen Institute. (2012). Parks for the People: A Student Competition to Reimagine America’s National Parks. 2012, from http://www.vanalen.org/parksforthepeople van der Gagg, H. (2011, 08/30/2011). Blue Water Baltimore: Developing a Regional/Citizen Based Water Quality and Stream Restoration Strategy. Paper presented at the EMECS9, Baltimore, MD. van Metre, P. C., Mahler, B. J., & Furlong, E. T. (2000). Urban Sprawl Leaves Its PAH Signature.

Environmental science & technology., 34(19), 4064.

Wagner, M. (2008). Acceptance by Knowing? The Social Context of Urban Riparian Buffers as a Stormwater Best Management Practice. Society &; Natural Resources, 21(10), 908-920.

Waldheim, C. (2006 b). A Reference Manifesto. In C. Waldheim (Ed.), The Landscape Urbanism Reader (pp. 295). New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.

Waldheim, C. (2006 c). Landscape as Urbanism. In C. Waldheim (Ed.), The Landscape Urbanism Reader (pp. 36-53). New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.

Waldheim, C. (Ed.). (2006). The Landscape Urbanism Reader. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Walsh, C. J., Roy, A. H., Feminella, J. W., Cottingham, P. D., Groffman, P. M., & Morgan, R. P. (2005).

The Urban Stream Syndrome: Current Knowledge and the Search for a Cure. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24(3).

Weise, E. (2005, 12/27/2005). As suburbs grow, so do environmental fears, USA Today.

Welty, C. (2011). Pilot testing of distributed temperature sensing in Dead Run. Paper presented at the Baltimore Ecosystem Study Annual Meeting, Cylburn Arboretum, Baltimore, MD. Wenger, S. J., Roy, A. H., Jackson, C. R., Bernhardt, E. S., Carter, T. L., Filoso, S., . . . Walsh, C. J. (2009).

Twenty-six key research questions in urban stream ecology: an assessment of the state of the science. jnbs Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 28(4), 1080-1098.

Whitlow, T. (2011). [Personal communication regarding current restoration practice. ].

Windhager, S., Simmons, M. T., Steiner, F., & Heymann, D. (2010). Toward ecosystem services as a basis for design. Landsc. J. Landscape Journal, 29(2), 107-123.

Yaron, P., Walsh, M., Sazama, C., Bozek, R., Burdette, C., Farrand, A., . . . Kangas, P. (2000). Design and construction of a floating Living Machine (N. R. Management, Trans.). College Park, MD: University of Maryland.

Ziger/Snead. (2007). AMD&ART - Scientists, Designers, Artists, Historians and Community Team Up to Tackle Environmental Degradation. Retrieved from http://www.zigersnead.com/current/blog/ post/amdart/

51

APPENDIX A

Disruptive Technologies: The Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area as National Park Model

Studio Thesis Over the course of the past fifteen years public parks have garnered increasing interest by design professionals.

This can be attributed to the tangible impacts of rapid development that has manifested itself through economic opportunities in the form of public, private and shared landscape-scaled initiatives. Despite growing interest surrounding large parks in particular, the National Parks of America have been overlooked and in some cases are in jeopardy of losing relevance to the contemporary American public. As an example, during the current economic decline, the parks system has seen a decrease in overall attendance. This is inconsistent with their conventional model, which shows that attendance increases during times of economic downturn.

Socially and economically, the development of open space has resulted in unique partnerships, spatial hybrids and design strategies that leverage time as well as context. Contemporary parks have developed in parallel with the transformation of ecological thought from a science that embraces steady state logic to one that accepts change as an integral part of ecological fitness. Typically applied within urban contexts, these new design frameworks such as landscape and ecological urbanism elevate open space to the level of importance of the architectural object with respect to both spatial and performative qualities.

It is important to note that these contemporary conceptions of landscape and urbanism build on the foundation of significantly older agendas attempting to describe ecological sustainability. These ideas exemplify an evolving land ethic born out of the mid 20th century writings of visionaries such as Aldo Leopold and Rachel Carson, and were concerned with the protection of natural areas and wildlife for the benefit of people. The core principles of the National Park Service were established in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with a similar set of values. This approach to treating the American Landscape as something that requires protection has become an almost sacrosanct part of the National Park Service mission, and continues to be a theme central to the National Parks’ role as a public amenity. However, this strategy is not in alignment with many aspects of contemporary park practices, social attitudes towards sustainability and the federal park system, as well as realities of financial operations, nor does it address many of the sites acquired by the National Park Service during the last 40 years.

Arguably, the National Recreation Areas are the most problematic of the National Parks sites. Typically these sites embody the Park principals of engagement and expansion, but do not visibly support sustainability, research, and reverence for place. “Reverence” in particular demonstrates the disconnect between the intended role of the National Park Service and the public’s perceived role of recreation areas. This asynchronous relationship of a park site relative to a park paradigm is demonstrated in sites such as the Presidio of San Francisco, Gateway National Recreation Area in New York and the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, near Atlanta, Georgia. All three of these sites exhibit urban adjacencies, operational issues, site development patterns, and public usage that would be more in alignment with contemporary large parks than with the historic mission statement of the National Park Service.

Therefore, understanding the historic uses and contemporary imperatives of the National Recreation Area including sustainability, economic viability, regional demographics, user groups, materiality and network legibility is of value to the entire system as it presents an opportunity to create landscapes that engage the public in a dynamic manner. Our research and design process will investigate the following questions: “What is a National Park today?”

“What distinguishes a National Park from a National Recreation Area?” and “How will National Parks be interpreted in the future?” Through this investigation we will address the needs of present and future generations.

Most importantly, we will consider the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area as a test bed to address and update the core values and initiatives of the Parks Service through strategies that are designed to enhance future site operations, land management, and planning while maintaining active public interfaces. We seek to create a dynamic model, or set of adaptable rules that can be used in a variety of contexts and settings to create both relevant and successful parks.

52

Van Alen Parks for the People | Cornell Landscape Architecture Thesis Studio Spring 2012 Page 1 1 November 2011

Thesis Studio Description The Design Thesis Studio is a collaborative studio in which students will share a common project site to investigate individual thesis topics. This studio environment will differ from other studios as participants have created their own design topics through research and discussion during the fall semester. The site will be investigated from multiple perspectives versus that of a single agenda described in a standard studio brief. The strength of this approach lies in the production of multiple solutions that will initiate new dialogues regarding the future of the National Park. In this manner the thesis studio emulates the goals of the thesis, creating a platform in which hybrid ideas emerge that will transform the manner in which a park is perceived and used.

Therefore, we will not approach the park as an object, but as a dynamic system with multiple connections and networks. We will address the park at multiple scales both in its surrounding region and beyond. We will consider the park not as an amenity but as disruptive technology. Typically used to describe innovative business models or products, disruptive technologies are those that create landscapes with emergent social and economic benefits.

Relative to the National Recreation Areas, the term is applied to describe a physical landscape capable of transforming how park visitors perceive the National Park system, the role of sustainability in contemporary land management practice, and how multiple user groups may engage the landscape and have shared experiences. We intend to create a transformative platform in a manner that creates new social networks based on how people engage the site.

The Site: The Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Located north of Atlanta, the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area is one of twenty National Recreation Areas managed by the National Park Service. The Chattahoochee serves the region as a recreation site, historic landscape, infrastructural network, and green corridor that connects Atlanta to three suburban communities and Lake Sidney Lanier. The differences between these three juxtaposed conditions are amplified by the lack of legibility of the site as part of the National Park system. Having become federally managed in the 1970s the site predates contemporary Atlanta. This designation, prior to Atlanta’s development boom and its proximity to the growing city made it a territory ideal for occupation by relatively affluent suburbanites while those persons with lower incomes remained in the city proper. As a result, the site hosts a series of programmed activities that are place-based, serving the needs of certain user groups while ignoring the needs of others.

The park is a byproduct of efforts by the US Army Corps of Engineers to manage floodwaters to protect Atlanta.

Built in the 1950s, the dam itself has multiple public, infrastructural and revenue-generating programs embedded in its use and operations, which may potentially serve as a precedent for future management of the Recreation Area.

The resulting landscape that is the National Recreation Area benefits from a level of control extending 50 miles south to Atlanta from the dam. This site is a very active landscape, existing within flood control systems located at multiple points. The hydrological landscape is one that is under constant observation, with data reported in the form of water level mapping at the flood control locations and data sent by phone reports to ensure boater safety.

The river and reservoir also serve as the water supply for Atlanta, transforming what is seen as a passive amenity into an active resource. The layered and sometimes conflicting uses of the river and surrounding landscape presents an ideal test bed to explore the role of contemporary National Park sites in urban areas and to create transitions across urban mosaics and gradients.

Goals and Intentions 1.

Create a problematic in which thesis students may evaluate individual topics related to the same project site. Multiple strategies will be engaged to analyze and design the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area.

The designs generated by each student will be layered to create a park strategy that is functional using a variety of metrics. This collaborative process will generate opportunities for cross-fertilization of projects, and for hybrid solutions to manifest themselves across multiple thesis topics.

2.

Create a platform in which the design principles of the Parks Service may be critically examined. The studio will initially approach the design of the park space using the six design principles set forth by Designing The Parks: reverence for place; engagement of all people; expansion beyond traditional boundaries; sustainability; informed decision-making; an integrated research, planning, design, and review process. The six topics discussed in the fall semester will serve as an overlay to evaluate these principles.

3.

Create a context in which thesis students and advisors have the opportunity to discuss issues across multiple projects. Typically the thesis project is an isolated process, wherein a small set of advisors play a specific role in the development of a single project. It is hoped that the open reviews and dialogue between students will engender discussions between individual advisors and thesis groups, creating opportunities for interdisciplinary discourse across the campus that may have not happened without the studio.

Van Alen Parks for the People | Cornell Landscape Architecture Thesis Studio Spring 2012 Page 2 1 November 2011

53

Van Alen Parks for the People | Cornell Landscape Architecture Thesis Studio Spring 2012 Page 3 1 November 2011

Thesis Investigations With an understanding of the problematic role of the National Recreation Area and the Chattahoochee River Recreation Area serving as a foundation, each student will address thesis questions they have generated during the research phase of the project. The thesis topics are as follows:

Phases: The studio is structured around six phases. Phases one and two occur prior to the beginning of the spring 2012 semester, allowing students time to develop their topics and collect relevant content. Thesis students will identify their own methods of investigation based on the deliverables described in the schedule. The following phases are intended to serve as a framework for the development of their projects.

1) The National Park Service is recognized for its ability to attract diverse groups of visitors from all over the country, and the world, to a select number of iconic parks. These prominent parks, while popular with “tourists” are often not utilized heavily by the local or regional community. In contrast, recreation areas tend to be more for use by locals. How can a recreation area such as the Chattahoochee Recreation Area become perceived as more of a destination for national and international tourists, while remaining a point of interest for the local and regional users? What are the social spaces that need to be constructed on-site in order to engage these multiple user types?

1- Competition/Thesis Preparation: Students shall develop thesis topics related to their personal interests and the Van Alen competition and developed within a seminar to discuss the National Park. We will use six topics, which are as follows: -Park as Curation: -Park as Lab:

What is the role of the park and what determines its legibility?

Can the park be seen as an experimental space, a field in flux and/or painterly space?

-The Emergent Park: How are uncertainty and adaptive management incorporated into park planning?

-Park as Economic Incubator: Can the park be a revenue generating entity and/or self-sustaining?

-Park as Network: How does the park incorporate technology and create social, infrastructural, and natural networks?

-Parkitecture: How does architecture influence park experience, legibility, and identity and is it the sole means to designate place?

2) The National Park Service is typically seen as a public amenity serving the needs of the people by providing protected open space. However, if revenue is dependent on visitorship and federal funding, a consistent economic stream for necessary operations is uncertain. The Chattahoochee River, Buford Dam, and Lake Sidney Lanier already generate revenue in the form of electricity and water for the residents of Atlanta. Would it be possible to create new economic opportunities related to not only the river, but also to the recreation area as a whole, independent of visitorship? In essence, can the park be designed to be economically sustainable regardless of visitor volume?

As part of the preparation course, the students will have identified the site through discussion and consensus.

Finally, students shall identify the members of their thesis committee. Ideally, at least one committee member shall be a person outside of the student’s home department.

Deliverables: preliminary site maps, pre-thesis summary reports, revised thesis questions

3) In the past, parks that are considered to have historic significance have monumentalized historic elements and thus have frozen the park in a specific moment in time, keeping it isolated from the contemporary context. This limits park identity, therefore excluding a range of uses and users. A recreation area responds to the changing desires of its user population and therefore is constantly evolving, potentially erasing any historic significance. How can history be leveraged to create a model for recreation areas that is dynamic, but grounded in the historic events that define it as a place? How is it that multiple periods of time and types of use may be overlapped in order to create a vibrant landscape? How can the historic legacy of the Chattahoochee Recreation Area be incorporated into the visitor experience while responding to the current desired uses of the site?

2- Thesis Prep/Remote Mapping and Site research: Students shall continue to develop their thesis topics and research. In addition, students will be revising their investigations based on comments from members of the committee to include preliminary metrics.

Deliverables: preliminary site maps, thesis questions, preliminary research metrics and/or matrix 3- Mapping/Investigations: Thesis students shall be responsible for mapping and representation methods that best convey the nature of the problematic embedded in their respective topic. As the first phase within the spring semester, students shall be required to respond to their research in a manner that generates agendas to be investigated once on site.

Deliverables: research metrics and matrix applied site to generate site mapping and analysis.

4) The viability and vibrancy of recreation in any waterbody is directly dependent upon the ecological health of the system. Urban rivers can provide functions in the form of nutrient cycling, migratory bird stops, and fish habitat, as well as services such as flood attenuation, water quality enhancement, recreational opportunity, urban cooling, and water supply. Surrounding development can have an impact on the health of that system, and there is a need to investigate the interrelationship with adjacent conditions and across the urban mosaic. How can enhanced legibility engage local stakeholders and the greater Atlanta community in the environmental health of its waterway? How can public engagement fuel ongoing stewardship efforts? How can the ecological services of the Chattahoochee be enhanced through design for greater user safety, economic output and long-term sustainability for the City of Atlanta?

4- Investigations/Preliminary Strategies: This is the testing phase of thesis projects. Students shall be responsible for identifying methods of representation that present opportunities for design solutions. Once this is complete, students shall present a set of potential scenarios that may be further developed.

Deliverables: initial site strategies and proposals applied to sites as identified through the matrix

5) The Chattahoochee River is a natural transect that connects Atlanta to its greater regional context. This is an important connection to register, enabling area residents to make social connections with adjacent communities in a regional setting. Would it be possible to enhance the role of the river as a network corridor and create opportunities for greater social interactions? Can the recreation area itself serve as a node in a larger corridor network? What role will technology play in facilitating networking opportunities and how can it enhance user safety?

5- Strategies/Proposals: During this phase one of the scenarios from phase four is developed as a design proposal. The scenario selected for further proposal shall be chosen based on its ability to best reveal the problem embedded in the thesis proposal.

Deliverables: revised site strategies and proposals with one site addressed in detail.

6) One of the goals of the National Parks Service is to provide visitors with a memorable experience though image. The aesthetic inspiration provided by natural systems is extremely important for a park's success and popularity and, like the technical workings of a park, is a primarily anthropocentric system. Within the context of the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area, what imaged experience should the Parks Service seek to provide?

How should the vernacular qualities of the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area be expressed and exposed through design, in terms of landscape architecture and architecture? Can virtual interfaces create effective methods of experiencing the site?

Van Alen Parks for the People | Cornell Landscape Architecture Thesis Studio Spring 2012 Page 4 1 November 2011

6- Findings and Documentation: Open reviews will be announced within the home departments of participating students and all departments within their respective graduate fields of study. Copies of the thesis shall be made available in the home departments, and within the Cornell Library System. A round table will be scheduled with faculty members who also served as thesis advisors, to support continued collaborative projects across the Cornell Campus. Finally, a document shall be prepared for the Van Alen Institute, and all other presentation materials as requested.

Deliverables: compiled drawings and text to accurately document the projects.

54

Van Alen Parks for the People | Cornell Landscape Architecture Thesis Studio Spring 2012 Page 5 1 November 2011

Calendar

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

18 19

12-Sep

Phase

Tues

Wed.

Thu

Fri

Sat

Pre Thesis Research Seminar begins

2-Oct 31-Oct

Entry Deadline

Thesis Prep Pecha Kucha

27-Nov 4-Dec 11-Dec 18-Dec 25-Dec 1-Jan

Selection Announced Site research begins. Remote Mapping (Maps, G.I.S., etc.)

Thesis Prep Presentations Winter Break/ Independent Research and respond to Advisor comments

8-Jan 15-Jan 22-Jan 29-Jan

Instruction Begins / Meet with Advisors

5-Feb 12-Feb

Group Pin-up number 1 Internal Thesis Reviews

19-Feb

Site Visit

Name

Department

Contributing Role

Richard Booth, JD

City and Regional Planning

Environmental Conservation, Park Advocacy

Shorna Broussard Allred, PhD.

Natural Resources

Natural Resources and Human Behavior

Josh Cerra, MLA

Landscape Architecture

Ecology and Design

Dr. Ann Forsyth, PhD.

City and Regional Planning

Planning and Land Use policy

Jeremy Foster, PhD.

Landscape Architecture

Human Geography, Urbanism, and Design

Gustavo Furtado, PhD.

Romance Studies

Cultural Geography, History

Kathy Gleason, PhD.

Landscape Architecture

Archeology, History and Design

Dan Krall, MLA

Landscape Architecture

Landscape Preservation and Design

Yehre Suh, MARCH

Architecture

Architecture and Urbanism

Peter Trowbridge, MLA

Landscape Architecture

Construction Technology and Design

Tom Whitlow , PhD.

Horticulture

Restoration Ecology and Human Health & the Environment

Group Pin-up number 2

4-Mar 11-Mar 18-Mar 25-Mar

6-Findings and Documentation

17

Mon

26-Feb

15 16

Sun

4Investigations/ Preliminary Strategies

2

5- Strategies /Proposals

1

3- Mapping/ Investigations

2- Thesis Prep/ Remote Mapping and Site research

1-Comp /Thesis prep

Wk

Advisers

Preparation Adviser/ Competition Coordinator

Spring Break (Optional Supplemental Site visit) Internal Thesis Reviews

Marc Miller, MLA, March, Lecturer, Department of Landscape Architecture 440 Kennedy Hall Cornell University Ithaca Ny 14850 607.255.9552

1-Apr 8-Apr 15-Apr 22-Apr

Group Pin-up number 3 Final Reviews Scheduled and Announced/ Final Internal Thesis Reviews

29-Apr

Final Thesis Reviews

6-May

Adviser Roundtable Final Thesis document compiled

13May 20May

Final individual thesis book revisions

mlm78@cornell.edu

Compendium Compilation for the Van Alen Institute/ digital formatting completed

27-May Graduation

Van Alen Parks for the People | Cornell Landscape Architecture Thesis Studio Spring 2012 Page 6 1 November 2011

55

Van Alen Parks for the People | Cornell Landscape Architecture Thesis Studio Spring 2012 Page 7 1 November 2011

Annotated Bibliography Carr, Ethan. Mission 66: Modernism and the National Park Dilemma. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2007. Print.

Carr, Ethan. Wilderness by Design: Landscape Architecture and the National Park Service. Lincoln, Neb: University of Nebraska Press, 1998. Print.

Czerniak, Julia. Case--downsview Park Toronto. Munich: Prestel, 2001. Print.

Czerniak, Julia. "Challenging the Pictorial: Recent Landscape Practice." Assemblage. (1997): 110-120. Print.

Czerniak, Julia. “Speculating on Site,” in Large Parks. Julia Czerniak; George Hargreaves; ed. New York: Princeton Architectural Press ; Cambridge, Mass. : In Association with the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, 2007 Easterling, Keller. Organization Space: Landscapes, Highways, and Houses in America. Cambridge, Massachusetts [etc.: MIT Press, 1999.

Print.

Easterling, Keller. "Siting Protocols." Suburban Discipline. Ed. Peter Lang and Tam Miller. New York: Princeton Architectural, 1997. Print.

Farr, Douglas. Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley, 2008. Print.

Gandy, Matthew. “The Ecological Facades of Patrick Blanc” in Architectural Design: A.D. Vol. 80, no. 3, May 2010.

Gandy, Matthew. Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in New York City. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2002. Print.

Gissen, David. "APE." Design Ecologies: Essays on the Nature of Design. Ed. Beth Blostein and Jane Amidon. New York: Princeton Architectural, 2010. Print.

Leatherbarrow, David. Topographical Stories: Studies in Landscape and Architecture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.

Print.

Leatherbarrow, David. "Chapter 5, In and Outside Architecture." Uncommon Ground: Architecture, Technology, and Topography.

Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2000. Print.

Lister, Nina Marie. “Sustainable Sites Ecological Design or Designer Ecology?” in Large Parks. Julia Czerniak; George Hargreaves; ed.

New York : Princeton Architectural Press ; Cambridge, Mass. : In Association with the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, 2007 Marco, Daniel, and Giordano Tiroi. "The Territory versus the City: Origins of an Anti-urban Condition." Suburban Discipline. Ed. Peter Lang and Tam Miller. New York: Princeton Architectural, 1997. Print.

Meyer, Elizabeth. “Uncertain Parks: Disturbed sites, Citizens and Risk Society,” in Large Parks. Julia Czerniak; George Hargreaves; ed.

New York : Princeton Architectural Press ; Cambridge, Mass. : In Association with the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, 2007 Mosaics. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2008. Print.

Mostafavi, Mohsen, and Gareth Doherty. Ecological Urbanism. Baden, Switzerland: Lars Müller Publishers, 2010. Print.

Mostafavi, Mohsen, and Ciro Najle. Landscape Urbanism: A Manual for the Machinic Landscape. London: Architectural Association, 2003.

Print.

National Park Service. "Parkitecture in Western National Parks: Early Twentieth Century Rustic Design and Naturalism." National Park Service Cultural Resources Discover History. Web. 02 Oct. 2011. <http://www.cr.nps.gov/hdp/exhibits/parkitect/>.

Nye, David E. American Technological Sublime. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1994. Print.

Rowe, Peter G. Civic Realism. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1997. Print.

Tiberghien, Gilles A, Michel Desvigne, and James Corner. Intermediate Natures: The Landscapes of Michel Desvigne. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2009. Print.

Van Alen Parks for the People | Cornell Landscape Architecture Thesis Studio Spring 2012 Page 8 1 November 2011

56