# Presentation: 311778

## A Continuing Strategy for Accelerating Cooperative Riparian Restoration and Management

- A Continuing Strategy for Accelerating Cooperative Riparian Restoration and Management

- Creeks and Communities

**Notes:**
To restore streams and riparian areas at the landscape scale we must work with the all the interests in the communities that are dependent on the resources produced by those area.

## Water – A World Wide Problem

- Use has tripled since 1950
- Severing of ecological connectivity
- No more Water today than 100 million years ago
- Loss of Continental Storage

**Notes:**
When it comes to streams and rivers, people are currently focusing on many issues, but in the end its all about water.  Per capita water use just in the U.S. has tripled since tripled since 1950 and the population has also dramatically increased the last 54 years.  No other landscape feature links ecosystems and people as effectively as streams and riparian areas.  Poor conditions have severed this ecological connectivity.  We are recycling the same number of water drops today as we were millions of years ago.  Seventy five percent of the earth’s surface is water and 75% of that is salt water.  Seventy five percent of the remaining 25% that is fresh water is locked up in ice caps and glaciers.  This leaves .003% of all the water on earth that is fresh water and available for our use.  Vorsmarty and Sahagain published a paper in Bio Science (2000) titled Anthropogenic Disturbances to the Terrestrial Water Cycle where they show that the worlds oceans have risen 1.5-2.0 mm per year for the last 100 years.  They attribute 30% of that rise to the loss in continental water storage.  We have drained, channelized, over used, and increased runoff to the ocean – we are no longer storing water in the largest aquifer on earth, the soil.      

## Solutions

**Water Treaties**
**Dams**
**Conservation**
**Water Productivity**
**Environmental Reserves**
**Education**

**Notes:**
World policy groups, the United Nations, and most countries are focusing on the above six areas for solving the water shortage problem.
Water Treaties-  Several countries are currently fighting over water and demanding their fair share.
Dams-  We have built on virtually all the best places.  The last in Three Rivers in China.  Largest ever built.
Conservation-  This is important but will not resolve the problem.
Water Productivity-  Bio-engineering, better irrigation systems, better crop selection, etc.
Environmental Reserves-  Protecting the remaining catchments in good condition.  Few are left.
Education-  Vitally important and is tied to all of the above to secure future support for change.  

## Catchment Restoration

**Luna Leopold – View of the River**
**US Water Budget**
**30” Average Precipitation**
**Debit 9” runoff**
**3” or 1/3 from overland flow**
**6” or 2/3 from groundwater**
**Debit 21” evaporation/transpiration **

**Notes:**
The one thing we are not focusing on at a world wide scale is Catchment Restoration.  One reason is this is the most controversial because it requires the largest commitment for personal change.  The way we manage the land.  There is opportunity to increase water availability by changing how fast water leaves the land, or changing the hydrograph.  The areas we have opportunities are reduction in overland flow by restoring vegetation on the uplands and allowing more water to soak in, reduce the speed, that water leaves the aquifer by restoration of riparian areas, increase storage areas by reducing erosion and increase sediment filtering and floodplain restoration, and reducing evaporation by changing the width depth ratio and shading of streams. 

## Opportunity 

**Decrease runoff**
**Increase Water Storage**
**Keep Water on the Land Longer**

**Notes:**
The answer seems simple.  Improve streams and riparian areas to Decrease runoff, increase water storage by putting more in the ground, and the result will be “Keeping water on the lad longer” so we have more opportunity to use it.

## ? Riparian Health?

**? Riparian Health?**

**Notes:**
The problem is there are many definitions of “Health” and most are based on values.  This generally increases conflict between user groups, decreases communication, and many times results in litigation.  I have arranged the major philosophical differences into five major categories.

## Pre-European Influence

**Notes:**
This philosophy believes streams and riparian areas are not healthy if they are not in the same condition they were before pre-European influence.  

## Fisheries and Wildlife Habitat

**Varies by species**
**Varies by Site**

**Notes:**
The value system driven by wildlife and fisheries habitat is based on an individual preference for a species or species group.  The condition of the riparian area is based solely on the needs of the preferred species and condition quality can change with the people doing the surveys.  It also varies by site, for instance if a stream is a low gradient system with 30% clay soils it will generally not have willows.  If you are a neo-tropical bird enthusiast this is not good riparian condition but if you like waterfowl and their nesting habitat it is good condition.  

## Slide 9

**Notes:**
SF Crooked River, OR  1976
Season long use

## Slide 10

**Notes:**
S. Fork Cr. River 1984 after two years of rest followed by early season grazing.  

## Native Species and Height of Vegetation

**Notes:**
Condition is based on strictly on whether native species make up the dominant plant communities and have they been allowed to reach their potential growth that growing season.

## Slide 12

**Notes:**
Bear Creek 1977.  Primary vegetation is Kentucky bluegrass and redtop with Baltic rush, spike rush, and some Nebraska sedge but because of the height of the vegetation some people would consider this good condition.  Others would not because of the non-native species. 

## Slide 13

**Notes:**
Bear Creek 1983 after six years of no grazing.  Stream channel has narrowed, vegetation species are now dominated by Nebraska sedge, beaked sedge, Baltic rush, three square bullrush, with Kentucky bluegrass and redtop.  The stream is in better condition from all values. 

## Slide 14

**Notes:**
Bear Creek 2003 after 26 years of no livestock grazing.  Plant communities have changed to Reed Canarygrass from native sedges and rushes.  Vegetation is actually dominated by a taller species and some think this reflects a better condition while others do not like the non native reed grass.

## Native Ungulates

**Notes:**
Number 4 is based on the animal present.  If a native animal is using the area  and degradation occurs then it is acceptable.

**Notes:**
One example is Buffalo in Yellowstone park.  These animals do a lot of bank damage and over grazing in areas but because they are native and in a park it is accepted.  

**Notes:**
Another is Elk.  Competition between elk and livestock is a big issue in many parts of the western US.

## Inclusion of Humans and Their Lifestyles

**Notes:**
The last one I want to talk about is Humans in the ecosystem equation.  Some believe that if humans and their life style, needs, and abilities to make a living are not a part of the ecosystem then the stream can not be in good condition.  For example exclosures.  If cows can’t graze an area then the area will not be healthy.

**Notes:**
In cases cattle grazing is compatible with stream condition and sometimes it is not.

## Stream Function

**Notes:**
What do I think healthy means?  One definition in the Webster dictionary say health is normality of function and function is the interaction of soil, water, and vegetation.  I think that a stream is healthy when it is able to sustain its self in a moderately high event and still maintain it dimension, pattern, and profile on the landscape.  We must remember that values do not produce sustainable streams, physical function does.  A stream must be able to filter sediments, protect banks, store water, capture nutrients, and reduce erosion. 

## Bear Creek  May 1977

**Bear Creek  May 1977**

**Notes:**
Bear Creek was season long grazed for 100+ years.  In the 1950’s the willows were sprayed to reduce water use and in 1964 there was a 100+ year event (rain on snow 12-24-64) and the stream downcut and in this photo has widened out.  The current livestock use is 25 cows/calves for three months (June, July, Aug) or 75 AUM’s.  The vegetation is mostly upland species with some Baltic rush (dark green in center of picture).  Uplands are dominated by basin big sagebrush and western juniper.  Reference points are the plump juniper on the right and the snag on the left.  The juniper in the foreground will be cut before the next photo was taken.  The following is 27 years of change on this stream.  The management was changed initially  to two years of rest, followed by late winter (mid Feb) to early spring (mid April) grazing.

## Bear Creek  May 1983

**Bear Creek  May 1983**

**6 years**

**Notes:**
Observed changes.  Plant communities are changing to more rush/sedge (dark green veg along the edge).  Sediments are being deposited in the residual vegetation (foreground).  Vertical bank is starting to naturally lay back and vegetation is establishing at the toe.  Channel appears to be narrowing.

## Bear Creek  Aug 1986

**Bear Creek  Aug 1986**

**9 years**

**Notes:**
A flood plain is developing on both sides of the stream and vegetation has changed to a more mesic (water loving) mix of plants that includes Nebraska sedge, Small-fruit bulrush, beaked sedge, spike rush, brook grass, three square bulrush, and some reed canarygrass.

## Bear Creek  June 1987

**Bear Creek  June 1987**

**9.8 years**

**Notes:**
A large rain event occurred depositing sediment on the floodplain.  Most people are depressed because of the apparent degradation that has occurred.  This is the way streams function.  Sediment Is deposited to form a new floodplain.  Organic matter increases productivity and improves water storage.  People must understand the importance of floods instead of being disgusted by the sight of deposition.  Our biggest enemy is the news media.

## Bear Creek  Aug 1987

**Bear Creek  Aug 1987**

**10 years**

**Notes:**
Two months later vegetation is beginning to stabilize the newly deposited sediments with new roots and surface vegetation.  

## Bear Creek  Oct 1988

**Bear Creek  Oct 1988**

**11 years**

**Notes:**
One year later the effects of the flood are now incorporated into the flood plain which is now capable of storing more water, producing more forage, dissipating more stream energy (because it is larger) than it was prior to the event.  Floods are essential for stream recovery but the systems must be in the proper condition to take advantage of the event.

## Bear Creek  Aug 1993

**Bear Creek  Aug 1993**

**16 years**

**Notes:**
Droughts are also essential for stream recovery, especially in alluvial channels (<2% gradient).  As water tables drop, roots from rhizomatous vegetation follow the dropping water table and develop a mat under the channel bottom.  The leaf matter produces food for increased root development to retard erosive forces of water and tendency for the channel to downcut in  finer substrates.  

## Bear Creek  Nov 1995

**Bear Creek  Nov 1995**

**18 years**

**Notes:**
Beaver moved into this section and built a loose dam made from juniper limbs that they collected from the 1982 tree removal.  The photo point is 100 feet up stream but the photo was taken on the dam to show the effects of the water storage at the photo point.  Beaver dams can be important hydrologic modifiers, however here they are not.  Dams generally wash out with each years high flows but during the summer can provide extra water storage.

## Bear Creek  Feb 1996

**Bear Creek  Feb 1996**

**18.5 years**

**Notes:**
In February 1996 there was a rain on snow event that was estimated to be a 75 year event.  Flows were up into the uplands as evidenced by the Great Basin wildrye plant on the right side of the photo.  The question is will the channel have retained its dimension, pattern, and profile after the water recedes and used the flood for positive improvement in floodplain development.  

## Bear Creek  April 1996

**Bear Creek  April 1996**

**18.7 years**

**Notes:**
Approximately two and a half months after the previous photo we can see remnants of the sediment deposited during the flow which is already being visually obscured by vegetation colonizing and stabilizing the site.  Beaver have moved back in to attempt to re-establish their lost dam.  Note the shape and width of the floodplain on both sides of the creek and the lack of the vertical banks that existed in 1977.  The reference trees are visible in the background (fat tree and the snag). 

## Bear Creek  Oct 1996

**Bear Creek  Oct 1996**

**19 years**

**Notes:**
After the summer growing season the beaver dam is still intact and providing some water storage.  The banks are now fully vegetated and ready for the next flood event. 

## Bear Creek  Sept 1997

**Bear Creek  Sept 1997**

**20 years**

**Notes:**
In September of 1997 a moderate event brought sediment into the system but was not large enough to lay down the vegetation.  These small events are important for helping to shape the near channel floodplain. 

## Bear Creek  Dec. 2000

**Bear Creek  Dec. 2000**

**22.5 years**

**Notes:**
As the channel narrows, vegetation communities increase, floodplains develop, and water storage increases, we see changes in the aquatic thermal environment both in the summer and in winter.  The temperature the day this picture was taken was 15 degrees Fahrenheit yet no ice was seen in the stream.  Water stored in the banks is warmer and the insulation of the standing vegetation ameliorates the temperature fluctuations.  This reduces the diurnal temperature fluctuations and helps maintain cooler temperatures in the summer and warmer temperatures in the winter.  

## Bear Creek  July 2001

**Bear Creek  July 2001**

**24 years**

**Notes:**
2001 was the beginning of four years of drought as seen in this July photo.

## Bear Creek  July 2002

**Bear Creek  July 2002**

**25 years**

**Notes:**
The drought was worse in 2002.

## Bear Creek  May 2003

**Bear Creek  May 2003**

**26 years**

**Notes:**
The drought continued in 2003 and by may water levels were at July flows.

## Bear Creek  March 2004

**Bear Creek  March 2004**

**27 years**

**Notes:**
In March 2004 we had a water spout on Bear Creek.  The photo point is up stream approximately 150 feet above the fence.  You can see the flood flows were once again in upland vegetation on both banks.  The shrubby vegetation on the banks is Basin big sagebrush.  Photo was taken from here to get a better perspective of the size of the flow. 

**Bear Creek May 2004**

**27 years**

**Notes:**
Two months after the flood it is easy to see the extent of the flooded area.

**Bear Creek  May 2004**

**27 years**

**Notes:**
An above average snow pack presented promise for a good water year but the spring was warmer than normal.  In May of 2004 flows were still high and snow pack dwindled fast. 

**Bear Creek May 2004**

**27 years**

**Notes:**
Approximately two inches of sediment was deposited at the photo point.

**27 years**

**Bear Creek July 2004**

**Notes:**
On July 19 a heavy thunderstorm dumped several inches of rain in a short time that formed a dam across the creek downstream from the photo point. 

**27 years**

**Bear Creek July 2004**

**Notes:**
The photo point is now under approximately three feet of water.  Over the last 27 years we have seen major flood and droughts that have give us the stream system we have today.  What have been the measured changes?  

## 1983

- 1977

**Bear Creek : Change In Channel Profile  (1977 – 2001)**

-   88

-   90

-   92

-   94

-   96

-   98

- 100

- 102

- 104

- 110

- 120

- 130

- 140

- 150

- 160

- 170

- 180

- 190

- 105

- 115

- 125

- 135

- 145

- 100

- 155

- 175

- 185

- 195

- 200

- 205

- 210

- 215

- 220

- 225

- 165

- 230

- 235

- 240

***1983***

***2001***

**Notes:**
Since 1977 we have captured nearly 3 feet of sediment that is not in an irrigation reservoir.

## Difference in Air & Water Temperatures

**Date**

**-40**

**-20**

**0**

**20**

**40**

**60**

**80**

**100**

**8-Aug**

**12-Aug**

**16-Aug**

**20-Aug**

**24-Aug**

**28-Aug**

**Temperature (Degrees F)**

**Air**

**Water**

**Difference**

**Difference in Air & Water Temperatures**

**Bear Creek - Central Oregon**

**1976**

**Notes:**
Red is air, blue is water, and yellow is the difference.  Notice that temperatures fluctuate from day to day and show varied correlation.  

## Difference in Air & Water Temperatures

**Bear Creek - Central Oregon**

**1998**

**0**

**20**

**40**

**60**

**80**

**100**

**120**

- 7-Aug

- 11-Aug

- 15-Aug

- 19-Aug

- 23-Aug

- 27-Aug

- 31-Aug

**Date**

**Temperature Degrees F**

**Air**

**Water**

**Difference**

**Notes:**
In 1998 maximum temperatures no longer had any correlation to air temperature and the difference between the two resembled the air and not the water.  The thermograph only went to 100 degrees and thus the flat line on the air temperature scale. 

## Bear Creek(3.5 Miles)

- Data from C. Rasmussen (1996) and W. Elmore

|  | 1978 | 1994 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Wetted Area | 7.8 acres | 15.9 acres |
| Bank Erosion | 12,448 feet | 799 feet |
| Water Storage | 500,000 gal/mi | 1.5 mil gal/mi |
| Production | 200 lbs/acre | 2000 lbs/acre |

**Notes:**
Additional data:  Aum’s increased form 75 (25 cows for three months-June, July, August) to +-250 AUM’s in February, March and April.

## Winston Churchill

**Americans can always be trusted to do what is right after they have tried everything else.**

**Notes:**
No other landscape feature links people and ecosystems as effectively as streams and riparian areas.  This is one method that has proven to help form this link.