The Steinitz framework is one of the most used environmental planning frameworks in practice. This framework includes 6 questions to ask at least 3 times during the course of any geodesign study. Answers to each question involve use of ‘Models’ which can be general, but data and model parameters are local to the people, place, time of the study as are the geodesigner actions whose consequences are being studied.
Six questions of the framework:
- How should the study area be described in content, space, and time? (representative models)
- How does the study area operate? (process models)
- Is the current study area working well? (evaluation models)
- How might the study area be altered? (change models)
- What differences might the changes cause? (impact models)
- How should the study area be changed? (decision models)
First iteration: treat as “WHY” questions
- Why is the study happening
- Past and present descriptions and representations of the region
- Understands problems, issues, opportunities, constraints, objectives, relevant content and scales of possible change
Second iteration: ask questions in reverse order from 6 to 1, “HOW”
- Clearly define methods of the study
- Decision driven rather than data driven
- Requirements for study must be understood and ranked by importance
- Decide how to assess evaluations of existing conditions and investigate the structural and functional processes of the study area, then specify appropriate models and their data needs
Third iteration: ask from 1 to 6 and address WHAT, WHERE, WHEN questions
- Carries out methodology designed by the geodesign team in the second iteration
- Data become a central concern
- Identify and gather the data necessary for the study, organize
- Design and simulate range of alternative future states of the study area, assess their impacts
All 6 questions must be satisfied throughout all three iterations of the framework of a geodesign study to be complete.
One of the major benefits of going through an iterative process like the Steinitz framework is to end up with a project that meet the design goals, and design goals that connect back to the pattern or process in need of change. When we evaluate river restoration projects, we ask ‘did this site need to be restored’. Sadly, sometimes the answer is ‘no’, and the project may have been avoided or drastically reduced if an iterative process to connect back to the root project goals had been in place. A recent river restoration project on the Upper Truckee River (UTR) Reach 5 serves as an appropriate example. The Upper Truckee River flows into Lake Tahoe, and Reach 5 is located at the mouth of the river, adjacent to a local airport. As stated in the UTR Environmental Impact Report, the objectives of the restoration project were to:
1. Restore properly functioning channel configuration based on geomorphic principles;
2. Improve water quality by improving functionality of floodplain and reducing erosion;
3. Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat;
4. Improve riparian and meadow vegetation;
5. Provide for appropriate and compatible public access opportunities;
6. Protect the natural environment of the UTR watershed;
7. Preserve and enhance the broad diversity of wildlife habitat in the Tahoe Basin; and
8. Provide aquatic habitat connectivity to upstream and downstream restoration projects.
While most of these stated objectives relate to restoring channel function and floodplain engagement, it is difficult to imaging that the project was not also largely driven by the risk associated with stream erosion adjacent to the airport, but this was not a stated objective.
Another influential driver and objective of the project, related to objective 2, is reduction of fine sediment loading to Lake Tahoe. The Environmental Impact Report states “The project is an important element of the Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation plan. The Final Lake Tahoe TMDL Report identifies stream channel erosion as contributing roughly 3.5% of the basin-wide fine sediment particle load to Lake Tahoe, and the UTR is identified as the source of 60% of this contribution”. An increase in fine sediment to a receiving water can result in eutrophication (excess nutrients) because inorganic compounds (such as nitrogen and phosphorus) bind to the fine sediment. Eutrophication causes algal blooms, which consume and deplete dissolved oxygen such that less dissolved oxygen is available to other aquatic species (e.g., fish).
While the project fine sediment reduction is a primary driver of the project, the post-project monitoring does not include monitoring of fine sediment discharging from the restored stream. The impact of fine sediment flush to the lake during construction could have also been significant, but no assessment of the project’s life-cycle fine sediment loading was considered.
Finally, though the project objectives clearly state ” Improve aquatic habitat”, “Preserve and enhance the broad diversity of wildlife habitat” and “Provide aquatic habitat connectivity”, the project resulted in a ‘surprise’ relocation of the last remaining 12,000 native species of river mussel (Western Pearlshell Mussel) to another part of the watershed. These are the only river mussels left in the Tahoe Basin.
So what’s the issue? Not only are the mussels now ‘down and out’ of a habitat, but mussels are filter feeders, and naturally filter fine sediment. Had the project followed an iterative process, and continually re-connected the physical processes with objectives and project design, a project with a much smaller budget (less than $8 million) could have been constructed that took advantage of this natural fine sediment filter. Or, if the project objective was really to protect the airport, perhaps a runway setback could have been implemented for less than $8million.
