Objective Setting and Metric Development: A Case Study on the Hypothetical Muddy River Riparian Restoration

Muddy River is a (hypothetical) perennial river with a broad floodplain consisting of cottonwood forests, riparian wetlands, oxbow ponds, and side channels. Over the past several decades, the river and floodplain have undergone significant changes due to urbanization and dam construction. The cumulative effect of these stressors is the disruption of the original hydrologic regime, main stem channelization, and reduced river-floodplain interaction, which has increased fire hazards, reduced wildlife habitat quality and quantity, and facilitated encroachment of harmful exotic trees. In partnership with state authorities, USACE is planning an ecosystem restoration project with the goal of restoring the structure and function of the Muddy River floodplain ecosystem.

A multi-agency (federal, state, and local agencies, academia, NGOs, and private consultants), multi-disciplinary (ecologists, geologists, engineers, economists) team was created to set objectives, develop a conceptual model, identify an approach for assessing environmental benefits, and formulate alternatives to address degradation of Muddy River floodplain.

Objective Setting
Multiple objective setting techniques were applied for the Muddy River floodplain restoration. Generally speaking, the project team iterated through the following four-step objective setting process. Each successive application engaged a larger audience, i.e., USACE planners, USACE planning, project management, design, and operations teams, combined USACE-State team, resource agencies and pertinent stakeholder groups, and the public. With iteration, objectives were added, refined, and greater buy-in was obtained.

Step 1. Write down the concerns you want to address. This step involves brainstorming all of the potential elements that may influence the decision and allowing ideas to flow freely amongst team members. In this process, the team benefitted from the development of a conceptual model which helped structure thinking about the drivers, stressors, and expected response of the ecosystem. The team also examined the structure and function of a reference ecosystem in a neighboring, undeveloped watershed to identify what magnitude of change and range of variability would be appropriate to restore a healthy ecosystem. Lastly, the project team drew heavily from existing and ongoing assessments of imperiled taxa and impacted habitat types conducted by state and federal resource agencies (e.g., US Fish and Wildlife Service, State Department of Natural Resources) and non-profit groups (e.g., Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy).

Step 2. Convert the general concerns into succinct objectives. This step requires a project team to synthesize a potentially long list of elements from Step 1 into the verb-object format of objectives. For instance, protection of cottonwood forests was identified as a project concern (Step 1). However, this was restated as “Increase floodplain inundation frequency and duration for native cottonwood seed dispersal” (Obj-1.1) to capture the element of cottonwood health most threatened (i.e., seed dispersal).

Step 3. Structure objectives. This step focuses on the process of separating ends (fundamental goals) from means (waypoints to achieving goals). Objectives are often structured hierarchically to explain how means contribute to ends. This study structured objective into the categories of hydrogeomorphology, biogeochemistry, biological systems, socio-economics, and cultural-personal values to clarify the primary elements of the ecosystem being restored (i.e., the ends). Although socio-economic and cultural-personal values are outside of the USACE authorities of the project, each categorical objective was, at very least, considered and stated in a qualitative sense because the imbalance of one category could override the benefits of another or inhibit communication between planning, funding, and stakeholder groups. Lastly, objectives associated with the restoration planning process were separated from those measuring project benefits.

Step 4. Clarify what is meant by each objective. By iteratively developing objectives with multiple internal and external groups, the objective set became more focused, clear, and complete as the planning progressed. The table below shows the objective statements reached after application of this iterative, four-step process.

Metric Development
Metric development will be illustrated for floodplain inundation metrics associated with Objective 1.1. Numerous floodplain inundation metrics could be developed ranging from areal inundation associated with a particular river stage to flow velocity during inundation events required for seed dispersal. Based on local knowledge of the system, the project team selected a number of potential metrics for evaluation: maximum acreage of inundation during 1-yr, 2-yr, 10-yr, and 100-yr flood events, duration of inundation during 1-yr, 2-yr, 10-yr, and 100-yr flood events, and frequency of overbank flows of any magnitude. Evaluating these metrics against specified criteria (relevant, unambiguous, comprehensive, direct, operational, and understandable), the project team narrowed to the three metrics specified in the Table below because cottonwood seed banks are dislodged at stages near 2-year flood events and banks are overtopped and dropped seeds are transported during 1-year events. Metric selection and evaluation was documented in the project report and utilized peer-reviewed plant biology literature as well as studies of local hydrology and hydraulics. The report was archived in the local District library and website as well as on the Ecosystem Restoration Gateway.

Objectives and metrics for Muddy River floodplain restoration.
Objectives	Metrics
HYDROGEOMORPHIC: Re-establish river-floodplain connectivity. 1.1 Increase floodplain inundation frequency and duration for native cottonwood seed dispersal.	1.1 Total acreage of inundation during 1-yr event. 1.2 Total acreage of inundation during 2-yr event. 1.3 Duration of inundation during 2-yr event.
BIOGEOCHEMICAL: Increase water quality. 2.1 Promote floodplain denitrification.	2.1 Acreage of wetland inundation during 2-yr event. 2.2 Duration of inundation during 2-yr event.
BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS: Promote a healthy and resilient biological community. 3.1 Increase floodplain breeding habitat for imperiled Songbird-X. 3.2 Increase side channel refuge habitat for threatened Fish-Y. 3.3 Decrease extent of exotic riparian plants.	3.1 Habitat units (quantity and quality) for Songbird-X as specified in Habitat Evaluation Procedure handbook (i.e., bluebook). 3.2 Habitat units for Fish-Y as specified in Habitat Evaluation Procedure handbook (i.e., bluebook). 3.3 Acreage with more exotic than native trees.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC: Provide recreational opportunities. 4.1 Expand existing floodplain recreational trails.	4.1 Linear feet of paved trails in study area. 4.2 Linear feet of unpaved trails in study area.
CULTURAL-PERSONAL VALUES: Promote interaction of the local community with the ecosystem. 5.1 Create educational opportunities addressing the unique flood-driven floodplain ecosystem. 5.2 Provide subsistence fishing access.	5.1 Number of educational booths, posters, websites, and media outlets (e.g., magazine articles). 5.2 Linear feet of trails from the historically-disenfranchised neighborhood near the study area.
PROCESS: Collaboratively develop restoration plans. 6.1 Increase frequency of coordination efforts.	6.2 Increase information exchange with public. 6.1 Number of days between public meetings. 6.2 Number of days between stakeholder meetings. 6.3 Number of outlets for disseminating project updates (i.e., print media, websites, meetings).

EBA Resources

• Objectives & Metrics