r
EPA 910/9-91-033
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Water Division
Nonpoint Sources Section
August 1991
Characteristics of Successful
Riparian Restoration Projects
In the Pacific Northwest
-------
CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL
RIPARIAN RESTORATION PROJECTS
IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
Sean Connin
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10, Water Division
August 1991
-------
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Mr. Elbert Moore, Region 10 Nonpoint
Source Coordinator for sponsoring this project, lending his
assistance whenever needed, providing technical review for the
study and final report, and allowing me to design this project. I
am equally indebted to the many land-managers who provided
information on riparian restoration projects and who hosted site
visits. In addition, I would like to express my appreciation to
the following people for their support, advice, and friendship,
which they so freely offered: Alan Smart, U.S. EPA Region 10
Headquarters, Rick Edwards, U.S. EPA Region 10 Headquarters,
Gerald Montgomery, U.S. EPA Region 10 Headquarters, Susan
Handley, U.S. EPA Region 10 Headquarters, Sharon Collman, U.S*
EPA Region 10 Headquarters, and Don Martin, U.S. EPA, Idaho
Operations Office. This project was supported by the U.S. EPA
National Network for Environmental Studies Program.
Disclaimer
This report .was developed through the U.S. EPA National
Network for Environmental Management Studies (NNEMS) program. The
program provides funding and opportunities for graduate students
to investigate topics of particular interest to U.S. EPA. This
project was administered from Region 10 in Seattle, Washington,
and monitored by Mr. Elbert Moore, Regional Nonpoint Source
Coordinator. The report has been reviewed by the: Region 10 Office
of Water Planning, and approved for copying and dissemination.
The contents and views expressed in this document are those of
the author and do not necessarily reflect the policies or
positions of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-or other
organizations named in this report, nor does the mention of trade
names for products constitute endorsement.
Sean L. Connin, the author, received a B.A. in Biology from
the University of Colorado. While there, he completed a senior
thesis on the effects of canopy shading on water temperatures in
Boulder Creek and worked as an intern for Aquatic and Wetland
Associates. He is currently a candidate for a Masters degree at
the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.
-------
CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Conclusions ... ....... ........ ..;. ii
Recommendations .......... ....... .
I. Introduction ............ .......... i
II. Study Objectives .......... .......... i
III. Background ..... . ...... .......... 3
Riparian Restoration ............... 3
Riparian Ecosystems . . . ... . . . . . .' .1 . . . 3
Riparian Vegetation and Terrestrial Wildlife ... 4
Riparian Vegetation and Aquatic Organisms ..... 4
Riparian Vegetation and Water Chemistry ...... 7
Riparian Vegetation and Stream Geomorphology . . . . 7
Riparian Ecosystems and Human Use ......... 8
Degraded Riparian Habitats ... ....... ; . . 8
Riparian Land-Use in the United States . . . .: . .9
Establishment of Best Management Practices For
Riparian Ecosystems ....... .......:. 10
IV. Methods .............. ..... .... 12
V. Conclusions and Recommendations . . ....... . is
VI. Project Descriptions ........... ..... ; 20
Alaska ..... .......... . ...... ... 20
Idaho . ..... ................. . 20
Oregon ............ .......... 29
Washington .... ......... .. ...... , 41
References ........... ......... ..... . si
Appendix A. Questionnaire
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Region 10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
recognizes the importance of healthy riparian ecosystems to the
maintenance of State Water Quality Standards. Consequently, the
EPA developed a Region 10 Riparian Management Policy designed to
protect, improve, and restore riparian areas - particularly thos.e
affected by non-point source (NPS) pollution. This policy
emphasizes the importance of riparian enhancement to control NPS
impacts and to enable states to meet water quality standards. In
addition, it establishes a high priority for EPA funding of
riparian restoration projects.
Riparian enhancement programs may incorporate* BMPs as
restorative methods designed to moderate the impacts of poor
land-use practices and to improve degraded areas; they may also
be designed to prevent or moderate water quality impacts. To
carry out the objectives of its Riparian Management Policy, the
EPA intends to identify common "key" characteristics of riparian
enhancement projects which promote successful design,
implementation, and monitoring of BMPs. By identifying these
attributes, the EPA and other federal, state, and local agencies
and groups will be better equipped to design and implement
successful restoration projects.
This report summarizes and evaluates thirteen successful
riparian enhancements in Region 10. Collectively, these projects
represent a wide range of geographic locations, : disturbance
histories, restoration techniques (ie. BMPs), and restoration
participants. Processes related to successful BMP design,
implementation, and monitoring were 'evaluated for effectiveness
and contribution to final project results. This analysis was
conducted through questionnaire surveys, personal interviews, and
site visits.
The evaluation identified various process oriented
characteristics which contributed to project success. Some of
these were common to several or all projects, regardless of
location and type of impact. These attributes appear to be "key"
components of success and should be acknowledged by land managers
and funding agencies as operational standards for riparian
restoration projects. These characteristics and recommendations
are summarized below.
-------
CONCLUSIONS IN SUMMARY
Strong leadership of a few designated leaders is required
to successfully complete a restoration project.
A political environment which promotes environmental
protection enables restoration practitioners to work :
creatively and as a result, effectively.
A watershed approach that incorporates structural
improvements with coordinated management plans is far more
effective than site specific treatments.
Recognition of natural watershed/riparian characteristics
enables planners to design a restoration project which
accounts for natural cycles or disturbances which might
influence project results.
i
Establishment of well defined goals at the onset of a
restoration project enables participants to focus on
critical problems and develop effective methods for
treatment. ,
Public awareness of proper land use practices is critical to
the preservation and conservation of riparian areas.
>
m Community involvement in project implementation increases
the chances of success.
Demonstration projects provide the most useful educational
tool for promotion of riparian restoration projects.
Support of individuals who use public lands is necessary to
effectively implement and maintain a restoration project on
those lands. ;
Close interaction and communication between government
agencies, local landowners, and permittees are necessary to
restore riparian areas on and adjacent to public lands.
Interagency participation on restoration projects
facilitates problem identification and development of
coordinated resource plans.
Pretreatment Inventories and surveys enable field staff to
identify critically degraded areas and habitat limiting
factors. :
ii
-------
Post-treatment monitoring enables land managers to
identify changes on the project site which meiy indicate
improvement.
Projects allotted adequate time and financial support to
develop have a greater chance of succeeding than those that
don't.
RECOMMENDATIONS IN SUMMARY
Agencies responsible for permitting instream work need to
provide better guidelines for permit applicants involved in
restoration projects.
In urban areas, attention should focus primarily on riparian
preservation, whenever this is a land-use option.
Demonstration projects should receive priority for restoration
funding.
Photodocumentation should always be utilized for monitoring
. restoration sites.
Private citizens involved in restoration projects should receive
recognition for their work and be provided a public forum for
discussing results.
On public lands, efforts should be made to include interested
and affected publics and permittees in the restoration process -
a sense of teamwork is essential.
Agencies must provide adequate resources to monitor and
maintain a project after completion - this should! planned in
initial project design.
Land and resource management agencies should be
supportive of restoration efforts, both financially and
philosophically.
Riparian restoration monitoring should include physical,
chemical, and biological parameters for assessing changes in
water quality.
iii
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
In an effort to preserve the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of our Nation's waters, the Clean Water Act
of 1987 (Section 319) designated the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) responsibility for review and approval of 1) state
assessments of water quality problems due to nonpoint source
(NPS) pollutants and 2) state programs designed to confront these
problems. In response to these duties, the EPA (Region 10) has
recently developed a policy for the management of ripariai>
ecosystems, particularly those impacted by NPS disturbances.
The EPA - Region 10 Riparian Area Management Policy promotes
protection of water quality from NPS pollutants through the
preservation and restoration of riparian habitats. In the;policy,
EPA promises to "assist the states in Region 10 with the
implementation of riparian area protection or improvement in
their NPS management programs" (Rasmussen 1991). In order to
encourage riparian enhancement, the EPA will be identifying
characteristics of successful restoration proj ects. These
characteristics promote successful design, implementation, and ,
monitoring of BMPs. This paper reviews a selection of riparian
restoration and protection projects in Region 10, and identifies
attributes which are fundamental to project success. Emphasis
will be placed on nonstructural and operational considerations
incorporated in project planning, design, and implementation.
II. STUDY OBJECTIVES
Healthy riparian habitats serve a variety of'ecological
functions including control and reduction of,NPS impacts on
aquatic ecosystems. As a result, riparian areas can help states
protect and maintain their water quality standards. .
Unfortunately, poor land-use practices and over development have
destroyed substantial portions of riparian areas in Region 10.
Similarly, much of the remaining riparian habitat has been
severely degraded.
The EPA - Region 10 Riparian Area Management Policy clearly
outlines the importance of riparian enhancement to controlling
NPS impacts and encourages the development and application of
BMPs to address site-specific problems in riparian management.
The success of this program depends upon appropriate planning,
design, and use of BMPs and may be handicapped by the application
of ineffective or inappropriate restoration practices and
procedures.
-------
The planning, design, and implementation of .BMPs for
riparian NFS control projects should be evaluated and compared
across a large cross-section of restoration sites. This will
allow identification of common characteristics which contribute
to project success, regardless of geographic location or type of
disturbance. By distinguishing and acknowledging these patterns,
land managers will be better equipped to design management plans
for riparian enhancement. This study evaluates the planning,
design, and implementation of BMPs employed in selected riparian
restoration projects in Region 10. Particular emphasis was placed
on nonstructural practices such as problem identification,
pretreatment inventories, interagency agreements and
communication, community education, and post-treatment monitoring
and evaluation.
Study objectives included:
1) Documentation and review of successful riparian
restoration projects in Region 10;
2) identification of design, implementation, and
monitoring practices that contribute to project
success;
3) a synthesis of these findings that represents the
experience and advice of riparian restoration
practitioners and;
4) the development of recommendations for the EPA that
will assist the agency in working with state and
federal land management agencies and others to
implement the Region 10 Riparian Area Policy.
-------
III. BACKGROUND
RIPARIAN RESTORATION
In addition to improved water quality, restoration of
riparian areas provides other benefits to adjacent ecosystems,
wildlife, and human beings. Many restoration projects have been
initiated to improve species habitat for reproduction or to
enhance community diversity. In such cases, improved water
quality is a secondary (yet substantial) benefit. Because
multiple benefits result from riparian restoration, it is
important to understand the characteristics of riparian
ecosystems and their significance to their local environment.
Only then can we truly appreciate the consequences of riparian
degradation and the full worth of their restoration.
RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS
Riparian habitats constitute an area of vegetation -that
exerts a direct biological, physical, and chemical influence on
(and are influenced by) an adjacent stream, river, or lalds
ecosystem, through both above- and below-ground interactions.
This area of association extends from the rooting systems!and
overhanging canopies of streamside flora outward to include all
vegetation reliant on the high capillary fringe characteristic of
soils surrounding aquatic environments. Riparian ecosystems can
vary greatly in both physical appearance and vegetative
complexity due to differences in local topography, stream:bottom,
soil type, water quality, elevation, climate, and surrounding
vegetation (Odum 1971). As a result, the composition and expanse
of riparian communities reflects site specific conditions.
Despite such differences, riparian habitats share many
common characteristics regardless of location. These include but
are not limited to: 1) high rates of energy, nutrients, and
species exchange, 2) high productivity, 3) a unique microclimate
with respect to upslope conditions, 4) high edge to area ratios -
characteristic of transition environments (ecotones), 5) they
support a diverse faunal assemblage that is unique within\ their
local environment, 6) they benefit from a relatively high water
table, and 7) they are subject to periodic flooding events
(Thomas et al. 1979). Because riparian ecosystems share these
common traits, they also share many common functions, independent
of location. These functions are summarized in Table 1. and
described in the text of the report. i
-------
RIPARIAN VEGETATION AND TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE
Because riparian zones support a diverse and highly
stratified vegetative community distinct from their surrounding
environment, their importance to terrestrial wildlife is often
disproportionately greater than other habitats (with respect to
total area). While riparian areas comprise less than one percent
of total land area in the western United States they are among
the most productive (Elmore and Platts 1990). In the Great basin
of Oregon, more than seventy five percent of terrestrial wildlife
species are dependent upon or use riparian habitats (Elmore and
Platts 1990).
As ecotones, riparian areas contain and support many
organisms associated with adjacent aquatic, wetland, and
terrestrial upland habitats. In addition, they support species
endemic (and limited) to the riparian zone. Riparian corridors
also create a vegetative continuum along streams and rivers which
serves as migration routes for wildlife such as birds, bats,
deer, and elk (Stevens et al. 1977). In many areas (particularly
in urban locales) these environments provide the only protected
pathways available to animals, and are essential to the continued
survival of many species. i
RIPARIAN VEGETATION AND AQUATIC ORGANISMS
Riparian ecosystems also influence the distribution,
composition, and diversity, of aquatic organisms by acting as a
food source, creating instream habitat, and by moderating water
temperature extremes. The origin of instream food resources
reflect changes in nutrient flux between terrestrial and aquatic
environments. For instance, entry of detrital material from
riparian vegetation often provides the primary energy base for
smaller streams and rivers (eg. stream orders 1-3}. These
oligotrophic ecosystems depend on such inputs ,to support the
metabolic and growth activities of aquatic consumers (Windell
1983). Organic debris entering a stream or river also provides a
nutrient source for downstream ecosystems. This flow of energy
may be water-borne or transported by aquatic organisms.
The energy base of higher order streams and rivers (which
tend to be wider and deeper than their headwaters), is typically
dependent on the primary production of algae and other aquatic
vegetation. As a result, they are less dependent on terrestrial
inputs of organic detritus for nutrients (Windell 1983).
-------
Table 1. Functions of Riparian Vegetation, (adapted from Swanson et
al. 1982)
site
aboveground/above
channel
Vegetative
Component
canopy and stems
in channel
large debris
derived from
riparian
vegetation
streambanks
roots
floodplain
stems and low-
lying canopy,
large woody debris
Function
1.
2.
3.
shade controls
temperature and
stream primary
production
source of large
and fine plant
detritus
wildlife
habitat i
controls
routing ofwater
and sediment
dissipates
stream energy
creates
habitat-pools,
riffles>' cover
substrate for
biological
activity
increases bank
stability
creates over-
hanging; bank
cover
nutrient uptake
and release
between ground
and surface
water
retards!
movement of
sediment,
water, and
organic debris
in floods
reduces erosion
from animal
trampling
-------
Rooting systems of riparian trees create protective cover
for fish and other organisms by protecting undercuts along stream
banks. Similarly, understory vegetation provide shade and cover
(when overhanging the water) which can hide instream fauna from
terrestrial predators.
Input of large woody debris (eg. trees and branches) from
riparian ecosystems also provides habitat for aquatic organisms.
In any body of water, woody material enhances structural
diversity, which in turn increases available space for foraging,
hiding, and breeding. Microorganisms which colonize woody debris
attract macroinvertebrates which feed on them. These in turn
attract secondary consumers such as crayfish, amphibians, and
fish. In time trophic interactions increase in both number and
complexity, creating a diverse and resilient food web. In
addition, habitat created by riparian debris may augment species
diversity due to increased niche partitioning.
Riparian vegetation often overhangs waterways, intercepting
incoming solar radiation and shading the water's surface. Water
temperatures are therefore greatly affected by riparian
vegetation, particularly along small order streeims and rivers. In
environments characterized by high annual or seasonal air
temperatures, riparian shading can buffer water temperatures
against excessive diurnal fluctuations and upper extremes. In
colder environments or during winter, riparian vegetation often
buffers water temperatures against minimum extremes resulting
from heat loss. The influence that riparian vegetation exerts on
instream temperatures varies with location and climate, stream
size, and vegetation density. Effects are typically greatest on
small streams and rivers subject to high annual or seasonal air
temperatures and which are surrounded by dense riparian borders.
The survival and life cycle events of many\aquatic organisms
are closely related (directly and indirectly) to water
temperatures. For instance, many fish maintain a very narrow
temperature optima or range in which to live and reproduce.
Suboptimal temperatures often inhibit normal growth and metabolic
activities, endangering both individuals and entire populations.
If unsuitable temperatures continue over time, species
composition and community structure may be altered. This may be
detrimental to the natural functioning and aesthetic appeal of
the ecosystem.
-------
a
RIPARIAN VEGETATION AND WATER CHEMISTRY
Many effects of temperature on aquatic organisms (and water
chemistry) are related to concentrations of dissolved oxygen.
Water holds less oxygen as it becomes warmer (Windell 1983). As
result, less is available for heterotrophic respiration. Elevated
temperatures also cause nutrients to attach to suspended solids,
reducing available soluble forms (Windell 1983). Under natural
conditions aquatic biotas' are adapted to the thermal regime
native to their environment. When these environments are
disturbed and temperatures altered (as might happen when riparian
vegetation is damaged or removed), the aquatic ecosystem suffers.
Riparian zones also influence water chemistry by retarding
the movement of sediment, water and organic debris into the
stream ecosystem. For instance, riparian areas (typically;
characterized by high surface roughness) may reduce the amount of
nitrogen and phosphorus entering into aquatic ecosystems from
agricultural soils by trapping erosional sediments. Once
deposited, these nutrients may be assimilated by riparian;flora.
Similarly, extensive rooting by riparian vegetation serves to
protect stream and riverbanks from the destabilizing forces of
flowing water - reducing instream sediment loads and turbidity.
RIPARIAN VEGETATION AND STREAM GEOMORPHOLOGY
Riparian vegetation influences stream and floodplain
geomorphology by trapping sediment, stabilizing streambanks, and
routing streamflow. Groundcover and understory in riparian
ecosystems create a highly, varied and rough surface area which
retards movement of sediment, water, and organic debris from
adjacent uplands into the aquatic environment, and^from these
ecosystems onto adjacent floodplains during overbank flows. As a
result, debris is deposited and retained within the riparian zone
without accumulating (to excess) in neighboring waterways -
sustaining natural flows and meander patterns. i
Rooting systems (particularly of woody plants) along stream-
banks increase bank stability by consolidating and improving the
structure of riparian soils. This reduces bank erosion arid
downcutting which might otherwise destroy valuable instream
habitat. Finally, input of detrital material (eg. large woody
debris) from riparian zones often influences stream flow ;by
routing the movement of water and sediment and by shaping pools
and riffles.
-------
RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS AND HUMAN USE
Riparian ecosystems also provide many services to humans.
Riparian areas furnish shade during hot summer days and scenic
resting spots to recreationists and artists. By supporting a
diversity of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, they provide
opportunities for birdwatching, hunting, and fishing. Similarly,
they are highly productive and diverse ecosystems with great
potential for scientific study and environmental education. Under
certain conditions, properly managed riparian areas provide
productive (and sustainable) livestock forage. Riparian areas
also help maintain the natural balance of sediment, transportation
and nutrient flow across the water/land interface. Consequently,
they help maintain water quality both onsite and in downstream
reservoirs.
DEGRADED RIPARIAN HABITATS
>
Healthy riparian ecosystems are character!35ed by high faunal
and floral diversity, structural complexity, productivity,
energy/nutrient exchange, and resilience to disturbance. When
degraded they cannot support a comparable variety of wildlife nor
can they maintain many of their physical functions.
For example, when riparian vegetation is removed terrestrial
and aquatic habitat available for shelter, forage, and
reproduction is destroyed. Organisms which are unable to adapt to
such intrusions must migrate to undisturbed habitat. When no
migration routes or adequate habitats exist, mortality is likely.
Community diversity will eventually decrease and non-native
species may emigrate into the area. As a result, natural trophic
interactions and nutrient exchanges will be altered.
Removal of the riparian canopy will expose additional stream
surface to incoming solar radiation. As a result, diurnal and
seasonal water temperature fluctuations and extremes may increase
-followed by a corresponding decrease in dissolved oxygen
concentrations. These changes will endanger aquaitic organisms.
As instream temperatures change, chemical reactions and
processing rates of organic material will also be modified. Water
quality may be degraded by these disruptions.
Removal of riparian vegetation and destruction of their
rooting systems will reduce the structural integrity and
stability of riparian soils, especially along streambanks. Bank
erosion may increase - boosting instream sediment loads and
disrupting natural flow patterns. Similarly, overland movement of
sediment and debris into the aquatic environment; may increase
instream sedimentation and pollutant loads (from pesticides,
8
-------
fertilizers, stormwater etc.)-. By increasing streambank erosion,
the hydraulic gradient between, land and water will steepen,
groundwater height will be lowered, and soil water storage
decreased.
In concert, these disruptions will diminish the aesthetic,
recreational, and educational appeal of aquatic/riparian !
ecosystems. In addition, effects of riparian degradation often
extend beyond the area of impact. As instream water quality is
degraded - downstream reservoirs maintained for municipal
drinking water may be impacted. .
!
RIPARIAN LAND-USE IN THE UNITED STATES
Historically, riparian areas have been among the most
intensively developed ecosystems in North America (Elmore!and
Platts 1990, Windell 1983). Native americans and european
settlers were attracted to riparian valleys and floodplains,
which provided shelter and flourished with plant and wildlife.
Because food resources and building materials were abundant in
riparian forests and groves, settlement and food gathering was
concentrated within these areas. Flowing waterways offered a
medium for transportation and communication between communities.
In addition, energy harnessed from flowing water was used'for
grinding grains and processing wood for building materials.
Fertile alluvial soils and access to dependable water supplies
(for irrigation) encouraged timber removal and tillage for
agricultural development and livestock grazing. Frequently,
croplands extended up to the very edge of streams and rivers.
Through time poor land-use practices and continued urban
expansion have greatly reduced the total area of riparian
ecosystems in the United states. For instance,, approximately 70
to 90 percent of the natural riparian ecosystems in the United
States have been lost to human activities (Windell 1983).
Furthermore, much of the remaining riparian habitat has been
degraded. Riparian deterioration has been especially pronounced
on rangelands of the American West. Estimates by the United
States Department of Agriculture in 1980 indicated that
vegetation on more than half of all western rangelands was
deteriorated to less than 40% of their potential productivity; on
85% of this land productivity was reduced to less than 60% of its
potential (Elmore and Platts 1990). Widespread destruction of
riparian habitats have now prompted many investigators to declare
these ecosystems endangered (Windell 1983).
-------
ESTABLISHMENT OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR
RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS
Pursuant to the 1987 Clean Water Act, states are required to
identify sources of NFS pollution and to develop and implement
methods to achieve state and national water quality goals. The
EPA recognizes that many important hydrologic and geologic
associations exist between riparian areas and adjacent upland and
aquatic ecosystems which influence water quality (eg. surface and
groundwater flow, nutrient cycling, sediment transport etc.). In
this context, healthy riparian ecosystems function as barriers
which buffer waterbodies from NPS impacts. .
Numerous field studies and observations indicate that the
capacity of degraded riparian areas to limit NPS impacts is
substantially reduced. As a result, the EPA places high priority
on the protection and improvement of riparian areas and the
abatement of NPS pollution affecting these ecosystems. The EPA
(acting in response to riparian initiatives established in the
1987 Clean Water Act, Section 319) encourages states to develop
and implement riparian protection policies by funding watershed
improvement programs which promote the preservation and
enhancement of riparian areas, which in turn will help states to
meet water quality standards.
The most effective method for riparian protection is to
eliminate poor land-use and development practices which impair or
destroy these ecosystems. Host riparian areas in Region 10 (and
throughout the United States) have already been disturbed by
human activity - either directly or indirectly. In an effort to
restore the natural condition of these areas, many land
management agencies, private landowners, and conservation groups
have adopted Best Management Practices (BMPs) to mitigate the
effects of past impacts and to provide protective measures for
the future.
Best Management Practices are "structural and non-structural
controls and operation and maintenance procedures'" designed to
meet NPS control needs (Code of Federal Regulations 1990).
In this context, they consist of controls and procedures adopted
to improve water quality by providing an economically feasible
means to reduce the impacts of NPS pollutants on eiquatic
environments. Best Management Practices are "process oriented in
that they initiate planning, field investigation, and
coordination activities prior to conducting a project, and
describe the evaluation and monitoring to be conducted during and
after project implementation" (Curry 1984).
10
-------
Figure 2. The Feedback Loop Process for Nonpoint Source Pollution
Management (from Bauer 1989).
This data is then evaluated
against the
INSTREAM CRITERIA, which
are developed to protect the
beneficial uses of water
or
t
are the basis for
development and
modification of
4. INSTREAM WATER
QUALITY MONITORING
Where there are presently
no criteria.
IMPACTS TO
BENEFICIAL USES
I
\
2. LAND MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES or Best
Management Practices (BMPs)
Voluntary for some NPS
activities, mandatory for others
The effectiveness of the BMPs
in protecting water quality
is evaluated through
The BMPs are
3. IMPLEMENTED
ON-SITE
The BMP implementation process may be broken into several
phases, which include: 1) planning and design, 2) implementation,
and 3) monitoring. When designed properly, BMPs can be evaluated
(for effectiveness) throughout the development of an enhancement
or management program and can be used to identify both problems
which deter success and components of the project which
contribute to success..In this capacity, BMPs allow for continual
"feedback" throughout the NPS management process - allowing for
adjustments and other controls as needed (Figure 2)
11
-------
IV. METHODS
Riparian restoration projects in EPA Region 10 were selected
for review and evaluation. Figure 1. displays the location of
these projects. Selection was restricted to projects which
demonstrated success upon completion. For the purpose of this
analysis successful projects were defined as those maintaining
sustained improvements over pretreatment conditions and those
meeting the majority of project goals. Criteria for project
selection and review are summarized as follows:
1. projects demonstrated improvement over pretreatment
conditions for at least two years following completion;
2. ongoing projects must have been initiated prior to 1988
and have demonstrated continued improvement since that
time;
3. projects designed to increase community appreciation
for riparian areas were considered - if project goals
were met. i
Identification of riparian restoration projects in Region 10
was conducted by reviewing case studies prepared by the Wildland
Resources Center (1990), the Environmental Protection Agency
(Cheney et al 1990), Oregon's Watershed Enhancement Program
(1987-90), American Fisheries Society - Excellence in Riparian
Habitat Management Contest, and through recommendations by land
management personnel in Region 10 (from such agencies as the U.S.
Forest Service (U.S.F.S.), the Bureau of Land Management
(B.L.M.), Soil Conservation Service (S.C.S), Washington State
Department of Ecology (D.E.C.), etc.).
After restoration sites were identified, questionnaires were
distributed to persons responsible for the design,, implementation,
and management of the projects. The questionnaire is in Appendix
A. Upon return, questionnaires were reviewed and individual
projects were chosen for further study and site review. Every
effort was made to assemble a diverse (with respect to
disturbance type, geographic location, land ownership, etc.) set
of projects for final study. These projects are summarized in
Section VI.
12
-------
Selected Riparian Restoration Projects In Region 10
Washington
1 Chimacum Creek
2 Burley-Minter Watersheds
3 Clover Creek
4 Lacamas Lake
10 Crooked River
11 Thorn Creek
12 Sublet! Creek
13 Sawmill Creek
-------
Table 2. Several Common Habitat Improvements Resulting From
Riparian Enhancement.
1. Increased streamflow
2. Increased water depth
3. Reduced instream sedimentation
4. Reduced channel width
5. Streambank stabilization
6. Increased faunal and floral diversity
7. Shift from more xeric to mesic plant species
7. Reduced soil compaction and increased infiltration
8. Elevated water-table height :
9. Decreased flooding frequency
Because quantitative post-treatment monitor-ing was absent on
many restorations, evaluation for success was based upon
recommendations from land management professionals, personal
visits to project sites, and photographic documentation. While
such interpretations are primarily qualitative, comparison
between initial project objectives and post-treatment results can
be used as a criterion for establishing success. For instance, in
a well planned project, post-treatment results should have been
identified and predicted prior to project implementation and
should have resulted in response to treatment application. Common
habitat improvements resulting from riparian enhancement are
listed in Table 2.
14
-------
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Riparian restoration provides a direct means to improve
degraded terrestrial and aquatic habitats and to restore natural
watershed functions. Other benefits include (but are not limited
to) improved water quality and increased public appreciation for
riparian areas. In EPA Region 10, many federal and state agencies
and private interest groups have initiated and supported riparian
enhancement programs. The success of these projects reflects the
use of effective approaches (to riparian restoration) by
participating groups.
This review evaluated nonstructural components of
restoration projects and determined that several characteristics
contributed to project success. Many of these were common' to
several or all projects, regardless of project location, pause of
disturbance, or participants, involved. These attributes appear to
be "key" components of success and should be acknowledged; by land
managers and funding agencies as standards for the design,
implementation, and monitoring of riparian restoration projects.
These "keys" and additional recommendations are summarized below.
Strong leadership of a few designated leaders is required
to successfully implement a restoration project. These
individuals should be recognized.by all restoration |
participants and should be generally.accessible to anyone
interested in the project.
A political environment which promotes environmental
protection enables restoration practitioners to work
creatively and as a result, effectively. Participants must
feel that they are supported by their superiors. Increased
environmental awareness.within land management agencies has
facilitated the success of many riparian restoration
projects.
A Watershed approach that incorporates both structural
and nonstructual improvements (as needed) with coordinated
management plans is far more effective than site specific
treatments. Riparian zones should be considered as integral
components of a larger drainage area - the condition of that
area determines the character and function of the
riparian/stream ecosystem.
15
-------
Recognition of natural watershed/riparian characteristics
enables planners to design a restoration project which
accounts for natural cycles or disturbances which might
influence project results. In addition, recognition of the
historical regulatory role environmental agents (eg. fire)
have played in the ecosystem will aid in restoring native
communities. In this context, restoration and management
plans must reflect a watershed approach to riparian
improvement.
Establishment of well defined goals at the onset of a
restoration project enables participants to focus on
critical problems and develop effective methods to treat
them. Goals should be realistic in respect to work time and
financial constraints.
Public awareness of proper land use practices is critical to
the preservation and conservation of riparian areas.
Communities that recognize deleterious effects of poor land
use practices are more likely to support restoration
projects and commit to a single coordinated management plan.
Similarly, landowners who understand the importance of
healthy ecosystems are more likely to consider their
property as a public trust. .
Community involvement in project implementation increases
the chances of success. Private citizens and interest groups
are often willing to donate time, supplies, and money to
restoration work in their area. This reduces costs to
government agencies involved in the project while increasing
public enthusiasm for land restoration. Participants are
likely to maintain the area after treatment completion since
they have an invested interest in the restorcition. In
addition, participants often increase community awareness in
environmental issues by discussing their involvement with
friends and neighbors.
Demonstration projects provide the most useful educational
tool for promotion of riparian restoration projects. When
physical proof of the benefits of land restoration is
available, people are more likely to support and adopt
restoration programs.
16
-------
Support of individuals who use public lands is necessary to
effectively implement and maintain a restoration project on
those lands. This is particularly important in the case of
public grazing where permittees are often required td adopt
new grazing strategies, construct structural treatments, and
maintain the area after project completion. The success of
restoration projects (on these lands) often depends |
primarily on permittee cooperation and participation.
Close interaction and communication between government
agencies, local landowners, and permittees is necessary to
restore riparian areas on public lands. Agencies should
recognize that landowners and permittees have an economic
tie to the land which determines the health and welfare of
their families. As a result, agencies may need,to convince
these individuals that proper land-use practices will
ultimately yield economic benefits. In sites (degraded by
grazing) evaluated for this review, permittees experienced
no reduction (and in some cases an increase) in AUMs
following revisions of grazing plans. Similar cooperation is
necessary when managing or restoring privately owned lands.
Interagency participation on restoration projects
facilitates problem identification and development of
coordinated resource plans. When resource specialists from
different agencies are involved in a project, the agencies
(as functioning units) are often more flexible and
supportive of changes that arise in project design. '-
Interagency participation also helps coordinate ;
requirements, expedite project permitting, and improve
political support.
Pretreatment inventories and surveys enable field staff to
identify critically degraded areas and habitat limiting
factors. Similarly, these activities may help delineate
historical conditions and communities that existed prior to
disturbance. Cumulatively, this information may be used to
determine'which BMPs will be effective and how to implement
them and to predict habitat potential - which will help land
managers formulate project goals. I
Post-treatment monitoring enables project participants to
identify changes on the project site which may indicate
improvement. This provides a means to document success and
garner additional support for restoration work. Knowledge of
an ecosystems' response to manipulation also provides
information useful for wildlife management and forage
production programs (Gregg 1991). Monitoring also identifies
trends in site recovery that may require land managers to
alter or fine tune restoration plans. ,
17 I
-------
Projects allotted adequate time and financial support to
develop have a greater chance of succeeding than those that
don't. Because ecosystems are dynamic entities, our
understanding of their variability and functional roles
requires extended periods of study (ie. years). As projects
develop over longer periods of time, land managers can adapt
treatments and management plans to address uriforseen
disturbances and habitat responses - maximizing project
effectiveness. Adequate financial backing is necessary to
support project development during this time.
The following recommendations are based upon personal
observations of the author and the advice and concerns of land
managers interviewed during this study.
Agencies responsible for permitting instream work need to
provide better guidelines for permit applicants involved in
restoration projects. Guidelines should be clearly established
so that the applicant understands the permitting
requirements. Requirements should be established by the
permitting agency in a timely manner.
In urban areas, attention should focus primarily on riparian
preservation; whenever this Is a land-use option. Restoration
efforts often fail in urban environments due to heavy human
use of the riparian zone. Because degraded areas require
adequate time to recover, restoration efforts are more
likely to succeed in areas of low human density.
Demonstration projects should receive priority for restoration
funding. These programs are one of the most effective
methods for increasing environmental awareness within a
community. Physical evidence of success provides people with
tangible proof that restoration can improve habitats. This
is particularly important in areas that have been disturbed
for several generations. In addition, when people witness
benefits derived from habitat restoration they are more
likely to support these efforts than when they are being
"educated" by paid professionals.
Photodocumentation should always be utili2iedl for monitoring
restoration Sites. Photodocumentation can provide visual
evidence of success (similar to demonstration projects).
This proof may be used to convince skeptics of the
restoration's merits and to secure future funding.
18
-------
Private citizens involved in restoration projects should receive
recognition for their work and be provided a public forum for
diSCUSSing results. These individuals can often "sell" a
project to their peers more effectively than an agency or
interest group. Similarly, a restoration project should
receive recognition - so that people feel that xt is
important. I
Efforts should be made to include landowners and permittees
In the restoration process - a sense of teamwork Is essential.
This often reduces conflicts which arise between private
citizens and government agencies in their area. Furthermore,
individuals who help plan and implement a restoration feel
(appropriately) they have an impact on the process. This
provides them with a sense of pride and accomplishment. As a
result, they will be more likely to support the project and
properly maintain the project site. In addition, such
individuals are more likely to persuade their peers to
restore damaged sites and adopt better land-use practices.
i
Agencies must provide adequate resources to monitor and
maintain a project after completion - this should be planned in
initial project design. The success or failure of many projects
depends upon continual maintenance of the restoration site.
Help from the local community is often critically important
in such efforts. ',
m Agencies should be supportive of restoration efforts, both
financially and philosophically, in this context, agency
employees must feel that they have the support of their
superiors. When employees have such support, they often feel
more empowered to make individual contributions which might
benefit the restoration effort.. ;
Riparian restoration monitoring should Include physical,
chemical, and biological parameters for assessing water quality.
Currently, most monitoring is limited to visual recordings
and general habitat surveys. If NFS pollution is the premise
for project funding, adequate sampling is imperative, for
evaluating water quality. Many sampling procedures are
expensive and may preclude adequate testing. The author
believes that sampling of macroinvertebrate communities may
provide an index to water quality that is inexpensive and
can be adopted by area schools for educational purposes.
Such bioassessment techniques have been developed (EPA
1989). ;
19
-------
IV. SELECTED RIPARIAN RESTORATION PROJECTS
Information for the following project descriptions was
gathered from questionnaires distributed to project participants.
Information gathered by other means has been referenced. Sites
that were field reviewed are denoted by an asterisk. At many
sites project implementation and monitoring is on-going.
Alaska
No riparian restorations were found (that met study
criteria) in time for inclusion in this report. A number of
projects (in the Alaskan interior) have been initiated to reclaim
placer mines. However, many of these have been unsuccessful due
to regional climate - which limits plant productivity and
encourages buildup of winter ice and heavy spring runoff. Recent
efforts by The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (in Fairbanks) to
restore the Independence Creek drainage have met some success and
results are encouraging (Masinton 1991). The U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) has launched several projects to improve fish habitat in
Alaska (Smart 1991). The majority of these have been initiated
within the past two years (Smart 1991).
I
* !
IDAHO
Crooked River Restoration Project
Location:
The Crooked River Watershed is located in the South Fork of
the Clear Water Drainage in the Nez Perce National Forest,
approximately 10 miles Southwest of Elk City, Idaho.
Reported By:
Bill Baer, Elk City Ranger District, P.O. Box 416, Elk City,
Idaho 83525. (208) 842-2245.
20
-------
Watershed Setting and Description: .
The Crooked River Watershed drains 42 acres of forest;
habitat dominated by Douglas fir and Lodgepdle pine (average
elevation is 4,000 feet). Local topography consists of rolling
hills and valleys. Soils are derived from a highly erodible
granitic base. The climate is temperate with 40 inches of
precipitation annually, 50 percent occurs as snow.
Problem Statement and Objectives: :
Intensive dredging (associated with gold mining) during the
1940's and 1950's eliminated riparian vegetation along Crooked
River. Instream complexity was impaired (ie. large boulders,
large woody debris, pooling etc. was reduced - if not ,
eliminated). Unconsolidated dredge spoils were left at the site.
All top soil was removed along the river. As a result of these
disturbances, valuable fish habitat was destroyed. In 1984 the
USFS initiated the Crooked River Restoration Project to restore
the anadromous fishery. Project goals included: 1) increasing
instream complexity and fish habitat, 2) reestablishing riparian
vegetation, and 3) Creating rearing habitat for coho and
steelhead by establishing side channels and ponds.
Treatments Implemented at the Site: :
The USFS surveyed and inventoried 10 sites along Crooked
River to identify areas of intense degradation and areas Vrtiich
limited fish production. The BMP plan included: 1) installation
of rock and log weirs to create downstream pools, 2) instream
boulder placement and addition of large woody debris to increase
instream complexity, 3) installation of boulder deflectors to
create eddies and backwater areas, 4) grading streambanks to
reduce slope, 5) removal of unconsolidated material to create a
floodplain, 6) planting riparian vegetation and seeding with
grasses, and 7) creation of side channels and pools.
Project Monitoring or Evaluations
Project monitoring consisted of visual surveys. Indices were
employed to determine habitat condition in and along the river.
In 1990 the USFS conducted a basin wide survey to classify
macrohabitat types and measure trends in improvement.
21
-------
Final Results of Treatment:
Construction of a river floodplain now allows overbank
flooding and sediment deposition (which is necessary for the
establishment of riparian vegetation). Seeding has stabilized
streambanks along the river. Instream treatments have created
greater stream complexity. Pool to riffle ratios have improved.
Side channels and pools (combined with improvements previously
mentioned) have augmented available fish habitat and rearing
grounds.
Project Participants:
Bonneville Power Company, U.S. Forest Service, Idaho
Division of Environmental Quality, Nez Perce indian tribe, and
the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
Funding Sources and Estimated Costs:
.The project cost approximately $500,000 and was funded
primarily by the Bonneville Power Administration. The USFS also
helped support this project.
Comments on Project Success:
Pretreatment inventories helped determine areas with the
greatest potential for rehabilitation and fish habitat
enhancement. In addition, they'provided information necessary for
treatment selection and project planning. Use of BMPs (by the
USFS) was flexible, allowing for modification as more was learned
about the site. Such practice increased treatment efficacy.
Strong interagency cooperation and agreement throughout the
project increased flexibility to plan modification and helped
coordinate resources. Development of several treatment plans (by
the USFS) and review of these plans by other agencies provided
the most effective restoration design possible. Adequate funding
and time allowed identification and avoidance of potential
problems.
i
The Sawmill Creek Restoration Project*
Location:
Sawmill Creek is located in the BLM's Big Butte Resource
Area, 37 miles N.W. of Howe, Idaho.
22
-------
Reported By:
Karen Aslett, Bureau of Land Management, 940 Lincoln Road,
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401. (208) 529-1020. :
Watershed Setting and Description:
Sawmill creek resides within a 200,000 acre watershed that
drains a high elevation (6,400 feet) desert valley surrounded by
mountains. Soils are derived from alluvial deposits consisting of
limestone and volcanic debris. The climate is semiarid consisting
of hot summers and cold winters. Annual precipitation averages
100-114 inches, 66 percent occurs as snow. Sawmill Creek resides
entirely on land administered by the BLM. Cattle grazing is the
primary land use activity along the creek; fishing and camping
are steadily increasing.
Problem Statement and objectives: . ;
Prior to 1986, the combined effects of flooding, wildfires,
channelization, and fall grazing had degraded the riparian area
along Sawmill Creek - causing bank instability, lateral
degradation of the stream channel, and reduced fish habitat. In
response, the BLM (Idaho falls District) and the Idaho Dept. of
Fish and Game (IDFG) initiated the Sawmill Creek Project to
restore the riparian zone and improve channel morphology.
Specific project objectives included: 1) improved growth, vigor,
and regeneration of the riparian zone, 2) increased bank
stability, 3) increased fish populations, and 4) improved channel
morphology. '
Treatments Implemented at the Site:
Approximately 8 miles of Sawmill Creek were treated in this
project. Best Management Practices included: 1) installation of
8.0 miles of fencing along the creek, creating two separate
riparian pastures; the upper 5 miles of the riparian pasture has
been allotted for spring grazing only, while the lower 3 miles
has been excluded from .grazing (for up to fifteen years); the
previous grazing plan allowed season long grazing throughout the
riparian zone, 2) establishment of upland troughs for off-site
livestock water, and 3) planting of willow and cottonwood
cuttings in the lower half of the riparian pasture. :
Project Monitoring or Evaluation:
Treatment monitoring includes: 1) established photopoints,
2) reconnaissance inventories (every 3 years), 3) a willow
survivability inventory, 4) infrared aerial photographs of the
site (to be repeated every ten years), and 5) water quality
sampling.
23
-------
Final Results of Treatment:
Bank stability has increased in both riparian pastures.
Survival of willow and cottonwood plantings has been poor.
However, riparian vegetation has expanded naturally (particularly
onto gravel bars). Beavers have moved back into the treatment
area (Aslett 1991). Fish habitat appears to have improved (this
has not been quantified). Post-treatment response has been slower
on the lower pasture (compared to the upstream pasture) due to
greater channel instability and pretreatment degradation.
Project Participants:
Soil Conservation Service, Bureau of Land Management, Little
Lost Watershed Improvement District, Idaho Dept. of Fish and
Game, Big Country Resource Conservation and Development Project,
and the Butte Soil and Water Conservation District.
Funding Sources and Estimated Costs: .
Funding was provided by mitigation money from the Little
Lost River Diversion Project (supplied by the Bureau of Land
Management, Soil Conservation Service, and Butte Soil and Water
Conservation District. Total project costs amounted to $90,000.
Comments on Project Success: - .
Pretreatment surveys conducted by the BLM and IDFG enabled
these agencies to identify critical areas and develop a riparian
restoration plan. Photodocumentation has been effectively used to
monitor habitat improvement in the treatment area. Cooperation by
grazing permittees has been central to project success.
Sublett Creek Restoration Project
Location:
Sublett Creek is located within the Burley Ranger District
on the Sublett Cattle Allotment in Sawtooth National Forest,
approximately 55 miles southwest of Bur ley, Ida.ho.
Reported By:
Jerry Green, USFS, 2621 South Overland Ave., Burley,
Idaho 83318. (208) 678-0430.
24
-------
Watershed Setting and Description:
The Sublett drainage encompasses approximately 917 acres of
high desert habitat (elevations range between 5,400 to 5,600
feet) and is intercepted at its base by an irrigation reservoir
(Sublett Reservoir). Local topography consists of moderately
dissected mountains; soils are derived from limestone. The local
climate is frigid with 17 inches of precipitation annually, 80
percent occurs as snow. Sublett Creek drains USFS land except
for the lower half mile above Sublett Reservoir, which resides on
private land. Because Sublett Creek maintains a popular cold
water fishery, use by recreationalists is heavy. ;
Problem statement and Objectives:
By 1979, impacts from cattle grazing and camping along
Sublett Creek had changed natural composition of streamside
vegetation from desireable riparian species to thistle, Kentucky
bluegrass, and other undesirable weeds. The creek had widened,
becoming more shallow. Willows were absent along several sections
of the creek. Streambank stability had decreased, increasing
instream sediment loads and reducing gravel beds available for
spawning trout. In addition, cattle were dying (from bloatling)
after grazing on watercress growing along Sublett Creek (Chard
1991). In response to these disturbances, the USFS and the Idaho
Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) surveyed the stream to
inventory fish habitat and developed measures to protect and
restore the riparian zone; the USFS conducted a riparian habitat
survey. Both surveys indicated that the drainage had been
severely damaged. To protect and enhance the creek, the USFS
initiated the Sublett Creek Restoration Project, Specific
project objectives included: 1) reducing cattle losses, 2)
reducing impact on canyon bottoms and riparian areas from ;cattle
grazing, 3) stabilizing the stream channel, 4) reducing siltation
and 5) improving fish habitat.
i
Treatments Implemented at the Site: :
A new grazing allotment management plan (AMP) was developed
(in 1983) in conjunction with grazing permittees. The old ;
allotment plan consisted of a rest rotation system in which
cattle were allowed to remain in a unit season long* The new AMP
consists of a modified four unit rest rotation system with a five
year rotation - each of the units is rested one ;
year out of five except along the north fork of Sublett Creek,
which is rested two out of five. Grazing on this section is now
permitted only in the spring. Other BMPs included: 1)
establishment of streambank protection structures along unstable
portions of the creek (willows were planted but survival has been
poor) 2) construction of several drift fences. 3) installation of
25
-------
log dams to create downstream pools, 4) installation of two
cattle troughs on upland sites, and 5) improvement of permittee
herding and salting practices.
Project Monitoring or Evaluation:
Post treatment monitoring (since 1987) by thi Sawtooth
National Forest Riparian Team includes: 1) sampling to obtain
cross section measurements, 2) green line measurement and 3)
woody-species regeneration measurements within the watershed.
Photopoints were established prior to treatment arid have been
monitored since.
Final Results of Treatment:
Since implementation of the new AMP,, Sublett Creek has
improved and looks better. Post-treatment improvements include:
1) improved quality and quantity of spawning gravels, 2)
increased streambank stability, 3) increased productivity of
riparian meadows and forage, 4) improved flow duration, 5)
narrower and deeper stream channels and, 6) decreased cattle
losses. Monitoring from 1987 to 1990 indicates that improvements
are not continuous throughout all portions of the creek (Chard
1991). Drought conditions over the past 5 years may have
contributed to the slow recovery on portions of Sublett Creek
during the last few years. ;
Project Participants:
Project participants included the U.S. Forest. Service and
the Sublett Cattle Allotment Grazing Association.
Funding Sources and Estimated Costs:
Funding was provided by the U.S. Forest Service and the
Sublett Cattle Allotment Grazing Association. Project costs were
split equally between these organizations; total costs amounted
to approximately $70,000, $10,000 of which was invested in the
riparian zone.
Comments on Project Success: i
Development and use of a riparian classification scheme
(based on relative value) and pretreatment stream and riparian
surveys enabled the USFS to identify critical riparian areas
and formulate project goals. Collection of baseline data allowed
project participants to estimate habitat potential of degraded
areas and to measure progress following treatment implementation.
Cooperation of permittees has been (and continues to be) central
to the projects success. Close interaction and continued
communication between the USFS and permittees heis facilitated
this cooperation. Adequate time and funding has allowed a greater
I
26
-------
knowledge of the Sublett Creek ecosystem and flexibility in
project planning and continued grazing management.
Thorn Creek Pilot Restoration Project*
Location:
The Thorn Creek Watershed is located in the Bennet Hills
Resource Area, approximately 17 miles northeast of Gooding,
Idaho.
Reported By: :
Floyd DeWitt, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 2B,
Shoshone, ID 83352. (208) 886-2206.
Watershed Setting and Description:
The project area consists of 6,300 acres of rangeland
habitat, located on public lands administered by the BLM. ;Local
topography consists of moderate hills and valleys, underlain by
highly weathered rhyolite. The climate is inland mediterranean
with hot dry summers and cold moist winters. Thirteen to 17
inches of precipitation .fall annually, fifty percent occurs as
snow (Shoshone District 1987). Primitive roads, fences, and
cattleguards are present on the site. i
Problem Statement and Objectives:
Prior to 1983, the Thorn Creek drainage was open for ;Fall
cattle grazing. This grazing strategy maintained populations of
upland plants but allowed degradation of riparian vegetation,
several typic species completely disappeared from the site. In
1983 the BLM acquired 1,000 acres within the drainage. This area
included riparian zones in the upper meadow, streams feeding
Thorn Creek, Thorn Creek, and the Thorn Creek Reservoir. Thorn
Creek was selected by the BLM (in 1987) to be a pilot riparian
management area and demonstration project - due to its
disturbance history and its high potential for improvement.
Project objectives included: 1) increased populations of native
upland and riparian plant species, 2) elevated groundwater levels
within the watershed, 3) reduced peak flows, 4) increased woody *
vegetation, 5) improved water quality, and 6) enhanced multiple-
use opportunities.
Treatments Implemented at the site:
The entire 6,300 acre pasture was rested from grazing and
allowed to recover naturally. This area will not be grazed before
27
-------
1993 (Dewitt 1991). Other BMPs included: 1) reestablishment of
3.5 miles of pasture boundary fence, 2) installation of two
rock gabions - to trap sediment and raise the stream bottom, and
3) construction of exlosures at selected locations along the
stream (for study of riparian improvement rates with, and without
grazing). Since a 1990 fire swept through the basin additional
treatments have been implemented. These include: 1) upland grass
seeding, 2) installation of instream rock dams, and 3)
construction of an earthen dam and .adjacent spillway at the head
of Thorn Creek. Interperative trails along Thorn Creek Reservoirs
are planned for the near future (Dewitt 1991).
Project Monitoring or Evaluation:
Post treatment monitoring included: 1) sight boards located
near individual shrubs to measure growth over time, and 2) ground
monitoring wells to measure groundwater levels, 3) Low level
color-infrared aerial photographs to inventory existing plant
communities, and 3) photopoints in pasture enclosures (Dewitt
1991).
Final Results of Treatment:
Sedge and rush communities have expanded within the riparian
and creek zone. Several near-stream springs flowed for longer
periods of time than previously. Sediment trapped behind an
upstream gabion raised the stream bottom approximately 18 inches.
The second gabion was installed below Thorn Creek Reservoir and
has been ineffective. Grazing Animal Unit Months have been
maintained at pretreatment levels. The Thorn Creek Restoration
has been used as a demonstration project for review by grazing
permittees and other land management agencies. An ongoing 5 year
drought has reduced stream flow and groundwater1 levels - which
have slowed the recovery process.
Project Participants:
The Thorn Creek restoration project was designed and
implemented by the BLM. Volunteers from the Boy Scouts, the Magic
Valley Fly Fisherman, the Committee for Idaho's High Desert, and
grazing permittees have also participated in the project.
Funding Sources and Estimated Costs:
Funding was provided by the BLM from grazing fees (Range
Betterment Fund) and from congressional appropriations (Wildlife
Fund, and Soil, Water and Air Fund). Initial costs were
approximately $35,319; continued maintenance costs amount to $880
annually.
28
-------
Comments on Project Success:
Cooperation from grazing permittees has been essential to
project success. Close communication between the BLM and the
permittees increased cooperation - a sense of teamwork was
important to this process. The BLM recognized permittee work by
giving them range excellence awards. Grazing permittees have
increased awareness of riparian values among their peers.,
Increased environmental awareness and commitment to riparian
conservation by the BLM was also important. Pretreatment surveys
helped the BLM locate critical areas and develop methods to
restore them. Use of the restoration project as a demonstration
project may persuade other individuals and agencies to restore
and protect riparian habitats in other areas.
Dedication of the area by area directors and cdngressman
increased peoples perception that the project was important.
OREGON
Bear Creek Restoration Project*
Location:
The Bear Creek watershed is located southeast of Prineville,
Oregon in Crook County. The watershed drains to the west .(into
Prineville Reservoir) from its origin in the Maury Mountains in
the Ochoco National Forest.
Reported By:
John Heilmeyer, P.O. Box 550 Prineville, Oregon, 97754.
(503) 447-4115.-
Watershed Setting and Description:
The Bear Creek watershed drains approximately 55,500 acres
of rangeland habitat (elevations range from 3400 to 5532 feet).
Local topography consists of rolling hills and valleys
intersected by steep basaltic ridges and incised drainages.
Soils are derived from Columbia River Basalt and volcanic ash.
The climate is semi-arid with 12 inches of precipitation
annually, 40 to 60 percent occurs as snow. Approximately 75
percent of the watershed resides on public lands managed by the
BLM (Prineville District), the remaining 25 percent is owned by
cattle ranchers. The primary land use activity is cattle ,grazing.
29
-------
Problem statement and Objectives:
Since the 1860's intensive cattle grazing in the Bear Creek
Watershed has degraded riparian areas along Bear Creek - reducing
woody riparian species, lowering the watertable,, destabilizing
streambanks, and increasing instreain sedimentation. Fire
suppression in upland sites (by humans) coupled with lowered
watertable levels permitted juniper to invade the watershed and
replace native herbaceous species, resulting in large areas of
bare erosive ground and reducing available forage. Subsequent to
these changes, heavy flooding and overland storm flow within the
watershed accelerated erosion and resulted in heavy sediment
deposition in Prineville Reservoir and the Crooked River. To
control and reduce these impacts, the BLM initiated the Bear
Creek Restoration Project. Project objectives included: 1)
reducing juniper populations and replacing them with herbaceous
species, 2) increasing infiltration of precipitation into the
soil, 3) stabilizing streambanks, 4) increasing native riparian
vegetation, raising the stream-bottom.
Treatments Implemented at the Site:
The Bear Creek Project involved 55,490 acres of which 41,260
acres were administered by the BLM and funded from 1972 to 1978.
Juniper trees were cut on upland sites (approximately 14,000
acres) . Following this: 1) prescribed burns were vised to inhibit
further juniper invasion and aid establishment of herbaceous
species, 2) 30 miles of pasture and enclosure fencing were
installed on both upland and riparian sites (approximately 2.25
miles of riparian area were enclosed) ,3) 16 miles; of juniper
rip-rap was placed along banks on Bear Creek and several of its
tributaries, 4) sediment catchment dams were instailled in the
creek to raise the creek, 5) springs were developed on upland
sites for livestock watering, 6) a new AMP was developed to
reduce the impacts of grazing on riparian areas. The old plan
allowed season long grazing on a rest rotation basis. Under the
new plan, allotments were divided into a greater number of
pastures and a deferred grazing system (20 day rotation period)
utilized. Grazing permittees and local landowners constructed the
pasture fencing and also installed some rip-rapping.
Project Monitoring or Evaluation:
Monitoring includes: 1) photo points on riparian and upland
sites, 2) soil surface factor transects (to rate erosive
potential), 3) macroinvertebrate analysis, 4) cross section
stream channel measurement, 5) riparian habitat inventories, 6)
stream channel evaluation, and 7) water quality sampling.
30
-------
Final Results of Treatment:
r
Upland juniper populations have been effectively reduced and
herbaceous species are more prevalent. As a result, less bare
ground now exists, erosion rates have declined, and water;
absorption has improved - as evidenced by the appearance of new
springs. Seventeen miles of stream now support vigorous riparian
growth (primarily herbaceous), bank erosion has declined, and
sediment deposition (behind catchments) has controlled stream
incision by elevating the stream bottom. The new AMP provided
sufficient protection of the riparian areas to allow their
regrowth. In addition, forage productivity increased from 70
AMU'S to 340 AMU's.
Project Participants:
The U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management, private landowners,
and livestock operators.
I
Funding Sources and Estimated Costs:
The Bureau of Land Management funded the project with
$650,000. Additional costs were borne by private land owners
and livestock grazers in the watershed. I
Comments on Project success:
Project successes resulted from the whole watershed approach
adopted by the BLM to reduce sedimentation and restore the health
of the entire drainage. Intensive inventory and study of the area
prior to treatment was essential for developing the project
design, and deciding how it should be implemented and monitored.
In addition, prior study helped the BLM identify critical sites
requiring the greatest attention and those with the greatest
potential for rehabilitation. Strong enthusiasm of BLM personnel
and cooperation of local landowners and grazing permittees also
aided the restoration process.
Camp Creek Restoration Project"
Location:
Camp Creek is located 40 miles southeast of Prineville in
Crook County, Oregon. It originates in the Maury Mountains of the
Ochoco National Forest and drains to the east.
31
-------
Reported By:
Dick Cosgriffe, U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box
550, Prineville, Oregon 97754. (503) 447-4115.
Watershed Setting and Description:
The Camp Creek Watershed drains approximately 110,710 acres
of rangeland (consisting of sagebrush, juniper, arid bunchgrass)
and coniferous forest habitat (elevations range between 3,665 to
6,121) feet. The drainage basin consists of fluvial valleys
surrounded by more resistant basalt buttes and hills. Soils
consist of highly erodible bentonitic and montmorillanitic clays.
The climate is semiarid with 12-14 inches of precipitation
annually, 20 percent occurs as snow. Approximately 59,000 acres
of the watershed resides on public land, the remainder is held by
private landowners. Land-use within the basin includes livestock
and hay production.
Problem statement and objectives:
Overgrazing, mismanagement of livestock, fire control, and
intensive road/logging development since the late 1800's have
accelerated streambank and upland erosion, channel incision,
dendritic gully spread, and riparian degradation - resulting in a
drop in the local watertable. As a result, sagebrush and
juniper have since invaded the area, replacing native grasses and
forbs and reducing available forage. In response to these
disturbances the BLM (Prineville District) initiated the Camp
Creek Restoration Project (which began in 1965 and is ongoing).
Project objectives included: 1) stabilizing the stream channel
and raising the watertable on 31.6 river miles and 383 acres of
riparian habitat, 2)improving stream water quality and reducing
sediment discharge, 4) restoring the Camp Creek channel to 60
percent of its potential condition, and 5) increasing the forage
resource base for wildlife and livestock.
- , i
Treatments Implemented at the Site:
In 1964 the BLM developed an initial Camp Creek watershed
plan. Following this: 1) several detention dams were constructed,
2) 2.7 miles of Camp Creek were fenced off, 3) 1000 russian olive
seedlings and willow cuttings were planted along the upper
portion of the creek, 4) severely disturbed areas were reseeded
with tall wheatgrass and sweetclover, 5) streambanks were rip-
rapped with juniper trees, 6) juniper and sagebrush were removed
from several upland sites by cutting, chaining, and burning, and
7) low-rock structures and gabions were installed in the creek to
trap sediment and raise the watertable. In 1978 an intensive
water quality and macroinvertebrate sampling survey was
initiated. Following continued watershed surveys, a revised
watershed plan was drafted (1985) which initiated a new rest-
32
-------
rotation grazing plan (prior to this grazing was year romji on
open range). Private land owners have also removed }unxper and
rip-rapped along the creek on their property.
Project Monitoring or Evaluation:
*
Monitoring of Camp Creek includes: 1) establishment of
permanent photopoints on riparian and upland sites, 2) stream
channel studies (initiated in 1978) which included water quality
and macroinvertebrate surveys, 3) permanent range
condition transects, 4) upland erosion study plots, and 5£ an
intensive riparian zone hydrology study (initiated in 1985).
Final Results of Treatment: ;
Two to eight feet of sediment has been deposited behind
instream structures. One livestock crossing has effectively acted
as a check dam. Beaver activity has also increased sediment
deposition. Collectively, these treatments have elevated the
stream bottom and raised the watertable within the floodplain.
Juniper removal and prescribed burning enabled grasses and forbs
to reestablish on upland sites - increasing available forage and
augmenting infiltration of precipitation into the soil. Juniper
rip-rapping stabilized streambanks and increased sediment
deposition - allowing reestablishment of riparian plant species.
Gabions were damaged by heavy flooding one year after ^
installation - three have been repaired. Russian olive and willow
plantings were unsuccessful; they were drowned out by the rising
watertable. Fenced enclosures have only been partially successful
in limiting access of livestock to the creek. Several grazing
permittees have failed to prevent their cattle from damaging
fencing and grazing within the enclosures. The new AMP pl^n has
not been fully implemented at this time. . : ,
Project Participants:
The U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State;
University students and professors, the Oregon Dept. of Fish and
Wildlife, Oregon Watershed Improvement Coalition, Oregon
Cattleman Association, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, and local
landowners. ;
I
Funding Sources and Estimated Costs:
Financial support was appropriated from congressional funds,
the Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon State University,
range improvement funds returned from grazing permits, and local
landowners.
33
-------
Comments on Project Success:
Juniper removal and reintroduction of fire!into the
ecosystem have been essential to the natural reestablishment of
herbaceous plant species. Post-treatment structural maintenance
has been necessary to achieve project objectives. Shift from year
round grazing to spring and late fall grazing adjacent to the
riparian zone will protect fencing from damage incurred as cattle
seek shade and water during the summer months. Greater
supervision of the site by the BLM and grazing permittees will be
necessary to keep cattle out of the riparian enclosures. Periodic
surveys and monitoring have revealed unexpected changes in the
riparian habitat - allowing the BLM to adopt new BMPs in response
to these changes (and discontinue ineffective treatments).
Chewaucan River Project
Location: ;
Chewaucan River is located in Lake County,jOregon
approximately 10 miles SW of Paisley.
Reported By:
Bill Schrader, Soil Conservation Service, 100 N. D. Street,
Lakeview, Oregon 97630. (503) 947-2202.
Watershed Setting and Description:
The Chewaucan River Watershed drains approximately 30 square
miles of grassland/forest habitat (average elevation is 6000
feet). The upper portion of the watershed is a grassland meadow -
in this area Dairy Creek and Elder. Creek -join..to .form. Chewaucan
River. Downstream, Chewaucan River drains several steep
sided canyons separated by open meadows. Soils consist of
alluvial material derived from adjacent highlands. The climate
is semiarid with 20 inches of precipitation annually, 50 percent
occurs as snow. The river basin is used for cattle grazing;
several instream irrigation structures are present in the upper
meadow (Schrader 1991).
Problem Statement and Objectives:
Overgrazing throughout the drainage basin degraded.riparian
habitat and reduced streambank stability. The confluence of Dairy
Creek and Elder Creek was very unstable and highly eroded. Spring
flooding accelerated bank erosion throughout much of the upper
basin. In 1964, a flood event deposited large trees in the lower
portion of the river which directed flow out of the main stream
i
34
-------
channel, causing bank blowouts. A new landowner recognized these
problems and enlisted the help of the SCS to obtain funding and
expertise to rehabilitate the area. Together they initiated the
Chewaucan River Project. Project goals included: 1) stabilizing
streambanks, 2) enhancing riparian vegetation, 3) improving fish
habitat, and 4) eliminating erosion caused by dead snags lodged
in the lower portion of the river.
Treatments Implemented at the Site:
In 1988, approximately 2 miles of riparian area in the upper
meadow (including portions of Dairy Creek and Elder Creek) and 1
mile in a downstream canyon were treated. Best Management
Practices included: 1) rip-rapping streambanks with juniper, 2)
rip-rapping the confluence of Dairy Creek and Elder Creek with
stone material, 3) placing boulders in the river to enhance fish
habitat, 4) removing dead snags from the lower portion of the
river, 5) treating one highly disturbed stream corner with
ENKAMAT (a geotextile) which was then seeded and watered,;6)
fencing .25 miles of riparian pasture in the upper meadow, 7)
planting willows throughout the basin, and 8), excluding the
lower pastures from cattle grazing for three years.
Project Monitoring or Evaluation:
Five photopoints have been established along the river; they
will be monitored annually for a period of 10 years. Willow
growth will also be monitored annually for 10 years.
Final Results of Treatment:
Sediment deposition has increased in back-eddies caused by
juniper rip-rap. Riparian .vegetation continues to colonize this
newly deposited sediment. Streambank stability has increased
throughout the treated portions of the river. Streambanks which
have sloughed onto rip-rapped sections are more sloped than
previously. The ENKEMAT material worked very well to stabilize
the adjacent streambank. However, it will not be used in the
future due to its expense. Removal of snags in the downstream ,
reach oriented the river back into the main thalweg, reducing
bank erosion. Willow plantings were not as successful as other
treatments. Survivorship in the upper meadow was approximately 10
percent (due to beaver cutting) and 40 percent in the lower
meadow (Schrader 1991). No immediate benefits to the fishery from
habitat enhancement have been recorded (Schrader 1991).
Project Participants: I
The Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Forest Service, Lakeview
Soil and Water Conservation District, J-Spear Ranch, Oregon
Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board, and the Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife.
35
-------
Funding sources and Estimated Costs:
The Chewaucan River Project cost in excess of $50,000.
Funding was provided primarily by the Governor's Watershed
Enhancement Board with additional help from - Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Forest
Service, and owners of the J-Spear Ranch.
Comments on Project Success:
Recognition of the degraded condition of the river basin by
the new landowners (coupled with their desire to operate their
ranch without harming the land) was necessary for the project's
conception and implementation. Interagency coordination was
important for funding acquisition and project administration.
Successful completion of the project was aided by cooperation and
communication between the agencies. Pretreatment surveys by the
SCS helped to locate degraded areas and design treatment methods.
A fishery survey by the Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
revealed that fish habitat was severely degraded and needed
improvement. Total exclusion of the lower riparian areas has
aided their recovery.
Wall Creek Watershed Rehabilitation Project
Location:
The Wall Creek Watershed is located on the Umatilla National
Forest in northeastern Oregon (Morrow and Grant County). The
headwaters begin 9 miles northwest of Spray, Oregon and drain
,into the North Fork of the John Day River, 6 miles north of
Monument.
Reported By:
Al Scott, Umatilla National Forest, Heppner Ranger District,
P.O. Box 7, Heppner, Oregon 97836. (503) 676-9187.
i
Watershed Setting and Description:
The Wall Creek watershed drains 58,870 acres of mixed
forest/ grassland habitat. Topography ranges from steeply sloped
forests at the upper elevations of the drainages basin to open
meadows at mid-elevations and deep canyons supporting, grass/shrub
habitat at lower elevations (elevations range from 2,000 to 6,000
feet). The climate is seasonal consisting of frigid winters and
dry hot summers. Annual precipitation averages 8 to 24 inches and
36
-------
is concentrated between November and March, 75% occurs as;snow.
Land use in the Wall Creek drainage consists of timber extractxon
(upper elevations) and livestock grazing.
Problem statement and Objectives:
Past land management practices such as grazing and timber
harvest on public and private lands within the Wall Creek Basin
have contributed to extensive degradation of riparian habitat and
reduced fish production. Some indicators of riparian resource
problems in the basin were low summer stream flows, loss of
hardwoods, poor riparian species composition, low pool/riffle
ratios, high water temperatures, streambank erosion and^sediment
loading, down-cutting in streams, and lack of fish rearing
habitat. Long-term monitoring and analysis of the Wall Creek
Basin led the USFS (Heppner District) to design and implement new
grazing management practices and stream restoration work to
initiate riparian recovery and reestablish anadromous fish runs.
Project goals included: 1) achieving an overall restoration of
watershed integrity and improvement of water quality, 2)
rehabilitation of anadromous fisheries and wildlife habitat, 3)
reestablishment of riparian vegetation, and 4) production of high
quality forage on upland pastures.
Treatments Implemented at the Site:
Implementations to date included efforts to improve the
whole watershed, to achieve a more uniform utilization of the
project area by livestock, and to maintain water storage capacity
in the uplands. Best Management Practices included: 1)
construction of riparian enclosures, 2) creation of 5 riparian
pastures, 3) planting of riparian hardwood and carex species, 4)
construction of 30 pool- forming structures and 1000 deflectors
and boulder clusters to provide fish habitat, increase channel
stabilization, and intercept cooler subsurface flows, 5) road
closures, 6) implementation of timber sale BMPs, 7) three; AMP's
to change grazing rotations, 8) construction of water holes on
upland sites, 9) extensive burning, fertilization, and seeding on
uplands to promote production of high quality forage away from
riparian areas. By 1995 approximately 16 miles of stream will
have been fenced and 15 miles of stream stabilization and habitat
enhancement completed.
Project Monitoring or Evaluation:
Project evaluation includes: 1) fish counts, 2) transect
monitoring for changes in riparian vegetation, 3) fixed closures
for comparison monitoring, 4) photopoints, 5) stream profile
monitoring sites, 6) water temperature measurement 7) turbidity
measurement, 8) review of grazing utilization. Enhancement
structures are inspected annually and repaired or removed when
necessary.
37
-------
Final Results of Treatment:
Complete riparian recovery will not be accomplished for many
years. However, signs of recovery are already apparent. Erosion
and stream siltation have been reduced and the pool:riffle ratio
has increased in reaches where instream structural work has been
completed. The riparian pastures show a 25-50 percent increase in
streambank vegetative cover. Establishment of willows, carex, and
other riparian species has stabilized streambanks along many
segments of the creek. Native anadromous smolt production has
increased. On average, 25 smdlts are found per pool forming
structure per year - where none occurred previously. Utilization
of riparian vegetation by livestock is now 40 Percent of total
production, compared to 80 percent before project initiation.
Instream water temperatures and diurnal fluctuations have
decreased where newly formed pools intercept subsurface
groundwater flow. Other resource values which are anticipated to
improve are visual quality, water quality, recreational
fisheries, and habitat capability for riparian dependent wildlife
and plant species.
Project Participants:
Specialists include: fisheries biologists, hydrologists,
range conservationists, fire personnel, wildlife biologists,
engineers, foresters, riparian ecologists, and botanists from the
USFS. Other agencies such as the Oregon Department: of Fish and
Wildlife and the Morrow and Grant County Soil and Water
Conservation Districts provided additional technical support. The
Bonneville Power Administration, Izaak Walton League, Youth
Conservation Corps, private contractors also participated in the
project. Planning and implementation of sound maneigement
practices have been coordinated with the help of grazing
permittees and private landowners in the basin.
I
Funding Sources and Estimated Costs:
Approximately $750,000 has been spent on the project to
date. Of this, $500,00 was provided by the Bonneville Power
Administration and the remainder from Forest Service KV funds.
Comments on Project Success:
Project implementation was aided by greater public
recognition and awareness of proper land management practices.
Pressure from environmental groups and political bodies concerned
with the depleted fishery in Wall Creek provided pressure and
opportunity to address the problems. Close cooperation and
communication between the Forest Service and grazing permittees
allowed successful adoption of the new grazing management plans.
Enthusiastic grazing permittees helped to convince other
permittees of the projects merit and economic benefits. Post
38
-------
treatment monitoring is allowing assessment of which "desired
future conditions" are being met and which ones are appropriate
for the site. Monitoring also allows assessment of the types,
timing, and rates of improvements in the basin. Post treatment
evaluation and maintenance of physical structures has helped
maintain optimum effect. Flexibility in the use of BMPs and
recognition of long term ecological trends has improved treatment
effectiveness. ;
Willow Creek Enhancement Project*
Location:
The Willow Creek Watershed drains. N.W. from the Ochoco
National Forest through the town of Madras, Oregon before
emptying into the Deschutes River.
Reported By?
Jesse Gregg, 6119 NW Columbia Drive, Madras, Oregon 97742,.
(503) 475-2758.
Watershed Setting and Description:
Willow Creek is located in the central part of Jefferson
County extending from Lake Simtustus to the east along the
Crooked River Drainage. The total watershed includes 116,000
acres. From Madras east to the upper end of the watershed lies
76,000 acres, of which 37,000 are publicly owned, the Crooked
River National Grassland comprises the major ownership (36,600
acres). Local topography consists of rolling hills and valleys
with some sharp relief in the form of deep canyons and buttes
(elevations range from 2,241 to 5.,634 feet).. Soils are derived
from Columbia River Basalt and lava rimrock. The climate is
moderate with 9.5 to 15 inches of precipitation annually, 25
percent occurs as snow. Land-use in the watershed includes,
commercial timber extraction, agriculture and livestock
production, irrigation, and urban/suburban development (ie.
Madras).
Problem Statement and Objectives:
In the upper portion of the watershed, Willow Creek was
badly damaged by violent storms (in 1964 and 1978). The stream
bottom dropped as much as 20 feet below its normal depth, bank
erosion increased and stream head-cutting moved up the drainage,
impacting upstream reaches. Grazing by wildlife and livestock
exacerbated this problem. Local landowners (whose property was
affected by stream degradation) contacted the Jefferson County
39
-------
Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) office and together
they initiated several public meetings to address these problems.
A Willow Creek task force formed'and drafted the Willow Creek
Watershed Improvement Plan - designed to enhance the creek and
manage the entire watershed. Specific objectives included: 1)
stopping the head-cutting, 2) stabilizing the streambanks, 3)
raising the stream-bottom, 4) reducing the impact of livestock
grazing along the creek, 5) increasing riparian vegetation at the
site. |
Treatments Implemented at the Site:
The SWCD surveyed Willow Creek and recommended a treatment
plan. This plan included: 1) installation of rock dams placed in
the creek bed to a 3 foot height (to increase sediment deposition
and raise the stream bottom), 2) planting willows along
streambanks, 4) fencing 1.4 miles of riparian habitat along the
stream to exclude livestock - approximately 0.5^ miles of riparian
corridor is still grazed during the spring and fall, 5)
completing a coordinated Resource Management Plan to address
land-use problems in the watershed.
Project Honitoring or Evaluation:
The SCS is responsible for project monitoring. Data gathered
(from 10 pre-selected sites) includes: photo-points, stream cross
section transects, water temperature, and timber and rangeland
activities. This information will be evaluated every 5 years.
Final Results of Treatment:
The stream bottom has risen up to 3 feet (from sediment
deposition) behind the rock dams. The areal extent of streamside
meadow has expanded - suggesting that the watertable is also
rising. Riparian vegetation has increased within the enclosures.
Willow plantings have helped stabilize the streambanks but
require more time to become established. Plantings along the
stream have been successful (approximately 80 percent survival)
while those further from the stream have died. The SWCD and local
cattleman provide tours of the area to show the benefits of
restoration.
Project Participants:
The Soil Conservation District, Oregon Dept. of Fish and
Wildlife, Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District,
and the Jefferson County U.S. Forest Service provided technical
consultation for the project. The Jefferson County Soil and Water
Conservation District (with help from local landowners) designed
the restoration plan. The rock dams were installed by private
contractors. Additional labor .was provided by the Youth
40
-------
Conservation Corps, the Madras High School Forestry Class, and
local citizens.
Funding Sources and Estimated costs:
The project cost approximately $85,000. The Governors
Watershed Enhancement Board was the major source of funding. The
city of Madras, Jefferson County Road Dept., Jefferson County
Soil and Water Conservation District, and .local landowners
provided additional support.
Comments on Project Success: !
Pretreatment surveys provided information on site status and
potential for rehabilitation. Public meetings allowed a diversity
of people (with different skills and knowledge of natural
ecosystems) to become involved in the restoration process.
Attendants developed project goals during public meetings.
Interagency coordination and cooperation throughout the
restoration process helped to develop a holistic management plan
for the watershed and avoid potential problems at the treatment
site. Cost sharing programs allowed local landowners to support
and contribute to work on their land. Post-treatment maintenance
is the responsibility .of these same landowners. Several people
who have reviewed the site have developed restoration projects in
other areas.
WASHINGTON
Burley/Minter Watershed Project*
Location:
The Burley and Minter Watersheds are located at the north
end of Henderson Bay, 10 miles N.W. of Tacoma, Washington (in
Kitsap and Pierce Counties).
Reported By: '
i
Joy Garitone, Kitsap County Conservation District, 817 South
Sidney, Port Orchard, Washington 98366. (206) 876-7171.
Watershed Setting and Description:
The Burley and Minter Watersheds drain approximately; 10,000
acres of forest land characterized by moderate hills and valleys
(local elevations seldom exceed 400 feet). Soils consist of
glacial tills 1 to 50 feet deep (Burley/Minter 1988); a shallow
41
-------
hardpan underlays much of the area. The climate is maritime
typified by dry summers and wet winters. Annual precipitation
averages 45 to 60 inches, 52 percent occurs as snow. Population
.growth in the watersheds has resulted in increased subdivision of
the land for housing development and agricultural use.
Problem Statement and Objectives:
Historically, Burley Lagoon and Minter Bay have provided
highly productive oyster beds for commercial harvesting and are
classified as AA Marine Waters (WAC 173-201-085(211)); the upland
drainage basins maintain sensitive area designation. In 1984, the
Department of Ecology (DOE) found that levels of fecal coliform
exceeded the maximum limit of applicable standards in Minter Bay
and Burley Lagoon by 58 and 20 percent, respectively
(Bur ley/Minter 1988). As a result, these waters wcsre closed to
oyster harvesting. The DOE identified NFS pollution from
agricultural development, poor land-use practices-, and septic
discharge into upland waterways as causes of poor water quality.
In response to the closures, Pierce and Kitsap Counties
established the Sensitive Area Technical Committee (SAC) to
develop management .plans for the protection of commercial
shellfish operations, and to bring water guality within acceptable
levels (Burley/Minter 1988). Agencies enlisted in SAC consisted
of: Pierce and Kitsap County Health, Public Works, and Planning
Departments, as well as the DOE, commercial oyster growers, the
Pierce-Kitsap Soil Conservation District, and the South Sound
Land Use Association. In response to these charges, SAC created
the Burley/Minter Drainage Basin water Quality Plan. Objectives
of this plan included the reclassification of shellfish growing
areas in Burley Lagoon and Minter Bay by eliminating poor land-
use practices and enhancing riparian habitat in upland drainages.
Treatments Implemented at this Site: j
The Kitsap County Conservation District has been responsible
for implementation of BMPs to reduce NPS pollutants originating
in upland drainages. These BMPs include: 1) exclusion of
livestock from wetland and riparian habitats, 2) installation of
riparian fencing, 3) riparian enhancements, 4) implementation
of pasture management plans, and 5) community education.
Project Monitoring or Evaluation:
The Dept. of Health is responsible for monitoring water
quality (ie. fecal coliform counts, dissolved oxygen, water
temperature, sedimentation etc.) in the two watersheds. Water
quality monitoring within the watersheds occur on a quarterly
basis. Monitoring of marine waters occurs semi-aniiually
(Burley/Minter 1988).
42
-------
Final Results of Treatment:
Results of BMPs implemented by the Kitsap County
Conservation District include: 1) decreased fecal coliform counts
in upland drainages where BMPs have been initiated, 2) decreased
bank erosion and instream sedimentation adjacent to project
sites, 3) decreased fecal coliform counts in Minter Bay and
Burley Lagoon, and 4) increased public sensitivity to water
quality issues.
Project Participants:
County Planning Divisions, County Health Departments> County
Public Works Departments, Soil Conservation Service, Conservation
Districts, Department of Social and Health Services, Department
of Ecology, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Department of
Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fisheries and
Washington Department of Game, and The Environmental Protection
Agency.
Funding Sources and Estimated Costs:
The Department Ecology is responsible for project funding.
Additional support has been provided by Pierce and KitsapiCounty
and volunteer groups. .Total project costs (to date) were not
available at the time of this report.
Comments on Project Success:
Interagency cooperation has been essential to project
initiation and implementation. Dedication of agency employees has
also been important. The DOE has been a reliable source of
funding. The Kitsap County Conservation District has worked
successfully with private landowners to effect better land-use
practices and riparian protection measures. However, compliance
has not been 100 percent. Community interest in water quality and
NPS has increased.
Chimicum Creek Restoration Project*
i
Location:
Chimicum Creek is located on the Olympic Peninsula several
miles east of Port Townsend, Washington in Jefferson County.
Reported By:
Kerry Perkins, Soil Conservation Service, HIE 3rd, Rm 213,
Port Angeles, Washington, 98362. (206) 457-5091. .
43
-------
Watershed Setting and Description: '
The Chimicum watershed encompasses 24,000 acres of forest
habitat in which valley floodplains have been developed for
agriculture and dairy and beef operations. Topography consists of
glacially derived hills and valleys; floodplain soils are
peatland histosols. The local climate is maritime with 24 inches
of precipitation annually, 5 percent occurring as snow. Chimicum
Creek is a third order stream which empties into Port Townsend
Bay, draining private lands except where county, roads pass over
the stream. '!
Problem Statement and Objectives:
During the 1900's heavy infestation of reed canary grass
along Chimicum Creek has reduced instream flow velocities,
limiting the sediment carrying capacity of the stream and
increasing the deposition of fine sands and silts,, In early 1980,
logging activity (by Pope Resources) in the upper portion of the
watershed resulted in landslides which deposited significant
amounts of sediment downstream. These impacts impeded
normal stream flow causing significant over-bank flooding during
the winter months. Floodplain surfaces often remained saturated
for several months after flood events, threatening spring
planting and crop production. In addition, increased
sedimentation reduced available habitat for salmon fry. Livestock
grazing along the stream has also accelerated streambank erosion
and reduced bank stability. In response to these impacts, local
landowners worked with the SCS, Washington Department of
Fisheries (WDOF), and the Jefferson County Conservation District,
to improve conditions along Chimicum Creek. Project objectives
included: 1) removing canary grass and sediment from the stream,
2) fencing the stream corridor to limit access to livestock, 3)
increasing woody vegetation on the site, and 4) improving fish
habitat.
Treatments Implemented at the Site:
In an effort to reduce winter flooding, local dairy farmers
asked officials from the SCS and Jefferson County Conservation
District to survey Chimicum Creek and to assist them in obtaining
a hydraulics permit to remove reed canary grass from the. stream.
Initial efforts to work with the WDOF to obtain a permit were
hindered by a failure on the part of the WDOF to develop and
communicate permit requirements. After meeting with a
representative from the governors office (whose help had been
requested by a local landowner), the WDOF developed permit
requirements, which the landowners complied with. The SCS worked
with the landowners to: l) fence portions of the riparian
corridor and create specific access sites for livestock, 2) plant
red alder along the stream (to shade out the reed canary grass),
3) install instream sediment basins, and 4) develop better
44 i .
-------
pasture management programs. In addition, the landowners dredged
Chimicum Creek along their property (to remove existing canary
grass) and convinced Pope Resources to seed areas (with lupine)
deforested by landslides. Seeding was carried out with help from
the Dept. of Natural Resources - Conservation Corps.
Project Monitoring or Evaluation:
No formal post-treatment monitoring has been conducted on
Chimicum Creek. Local landowners, the SCS, and the Conservation
District have periodically reviewed the project site to determine
need for sediment removal.
Final Results of Treatment:
Following treatment, winter flooding has been significantly
reduced. Large amounts of sediment have collected in the sediment
basins, increasing the relative percentage of pebble/cobble
substrate. In addition, fish now have deep holes in which to
feed and find protection. Riparian fencing has prevented
livestock from grazing along the creek, resulting in reduced bank
erosion and increased bank stability. Lupine has become well
established on the landslides and native woody species are now
occurring naturally at these sites. As a result, landslide areas
have been stabilized and no longer confer heavy sediment loads to
the stream. Dredging activity initially reduced reed canary grass
along the creek (resulting in increased stream flow). However,
the grass is beginning to invade the area again. i
Project Participants:
Local landowners, The U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service,,
the Jefferson County Conservation District, the Washington
Department of Fisheries, Department of Natural Resources r
Conservation Corps., and Pope Resources.
Funding Sources and Estimated Costs:
Total project costs amounted to approximately $15,000 and
were paid for by local landowners, Pope Resources, and the
Jefferson County Conservation District.
Comments on Project Success:
Initial project success resulted from: 1) landowner
recognition of poor land-use practices which led to excessive
winter flooding - prior community awareness and education
programs were implemented to address land-use and water quality
issues in the area, 2) willingness of landowners to become
involved in the restoration process and work in cooperatipn with
permitting agencies, 3) use of landowner designed sediment basins
45
-------
APPENDIX A
Riparian Restoration Inventory
Project name:.
Name, address, and telephone of person completing form:
Start date: Completion:.
Location: nearest town . , state
county or region ;
Type of Riparian Management Program: (check one)
A. Single structure/treatment
B. Multiple structures/treatments
C. Comprehensive structure/treatment/eclucation plan
Type of Riparian Ecosystem(s) involved: (circle)
Desert, grassland, forest, tundra, valley/riverine
Watershed description:
Watershed area: Elevation:
Aspect: Geology:
Topography: . __.
Climate:
Annual Precipitation; , percent as snow
Describe watershed setting (eg. landuse, physical structures etc.)
-------
Description of treatment site:
Treated area in relation to watershed:.
Stream gradient: stream order:_ j
Vegetation cover prior to and after treatment (type(s) and density):
Problem statement (cause(s) of disturbance):.
Objectives of Project:.
Activites:
Planning (why was this project selected):
-------
What actions were implemented at the site (or within the
drainage basin):
Project Monitoring or Evaluation (methods, duration, etc.)
Has the project site improved and have resource/public
benefits been achieved?
Project participants (agencies, groups, etc):.
-------
Sponsors and funding sources (agency or group):.
Estimated costs:
Land ownership (private vs public - explain) :.
Access restrictions due to weather or owner:.
Publications, reports, and photographs describing project (please
!
include if available); '.
Contacts: Name Name
Address Address
i
Phone Phone '
Please Hail completed form to: Sean Connin
Environmental Protection Agency
W.D. 139
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington
98101
Phone (206) 553-1601 !
-------
- which enabled the landowners to solve part of the problem and
feel that they had a significant role in the project, and 4)
continuous mutual cooperation between the landowners and
personnel at the SCS.
Clover Creek Restoration Project*
Location:
The Clover Creek watershed is located several, miles from
Tacoma, Washington in Pierce County.
j
Reported By:
Clair Denise, Washington State University Cooperative
Extension, 3049 South 36th St. Suite 300, Tacoma, Washington
98409., (206) 591-7180.
Watershed Setting and Description:
The Clover Creek Watershed drains a low relief
grassland/riverine ecosystem through both rural and suburban
environments before reaching Puget Sound. Local topography
consists of post-glacial landforms underlain by glacial till. The
climate is maritime with 35 inches of precipitation annually,
less than 2 percent occurs as snow. The watershed has been
heavily impacted by farming practices and modern development
during the past fifty years. Clover Creek itself has been
channelized in several places to reduce spring flood events and
diverted for agricultural and municiple uses.
Problem Statement and Objectives:
Poor land-use practices associated with farming and
municipal development have reduced riparian habitat along Clover
Creek, increasing bank erosion, sedimentation rates, and instream
temperatures while reducing valuable fish habitat. In addition,
invasion of reed canary grass has reduced instream flows and
accelerated sediment deposition. Other impacts include habitat
loss due to channelization, intermittent flow resulting from
disturbance of the stream seal (in selected areas), influx of
pollutants (into the stream) from nonpoint sources and dumping
of refuse within riparian areas, and diversion of flow by
landowners for private use. To address these disturbances and
enhance the stream ecosystem, local landowners and the Pierce
County Cooperative Extension initiated the Clover Creek
Restoration Project. Project objectives included: l)
reestablishing perennial flow throughout the stream basin,
46
-------
2) increasing riparian habitat 3) reintroducing fish runs, 3)
and increasing community awareness of stream/riparian ecosystems.
Treatments Implemented at the site:
In 1986 concerned landowners asked the Pierce County
Cooperative Extension to review impacts affecting Clover Creek
and devise methods to protect and enhance the stream environment.
Subsequently, the Cooperative Extension held meetings for groups
concerned with the health of Clover Creek - which resulted in the
Clover Creek Restoration Project. This project involved
private citizens, a school science club, and numerous interest
groups in an effort to restore Clover Creek by: 1) increasing
public awareness (through storm drain stenciling, public ;
meetings, and creation of a Clover Creek task Force), 2)
resealing sections of the stream bottom to reestablish natural
flow, 3) sandbagging heavily eroded banks - to increase bank
stability, 4) fencing selected areas to limit access of
livestock to the stream, 5) removing garbage and canary reed
grass along the stream, 6) planting woody vegetation, and 7)
developing a "no herbicide spray program" in the streams vicinity
(Dehise 1991). , .
Project Monitoring or Evaluation:
The Clover Creek Council monitors project development and
has established a Clover Creek hotline to support community
participation and address concerns. In addition, the Cooperative
Extension continues to support restoration efforts and may
monitor water quality in the future.
Final Results of Treatment:
Approximately 16 tons of refuse have been removed frt>m
riparian areas adjacent to Clover Creek. Efforts to create an
artificial stream seal have reestablished perennial flows; within
the treatment area. Plans to reseal additional segments of the
stream have been delayed due to changes in county permitting
requirements. Initially, sandbagging along streambanks and
riparian fencing increased bank stability and limited access of
livestock to the stream, respectively. However, refusal of one
local renter to prevent her horses from destroying fencing and
watering at the creek have undermined these efforts. Plantings in
1990 have been unsuccessful due to poor survival rates; Spring
1991 plantings do not appear healthy and may not survive.
Infestation of canary reed grass continues to alter natural
stream flow. Public awareness has increased, resulting in a
heightened sense of responsibility for the streams health. For
instance, development is no longer permitted within 50 feet of
the creek (Denise 1991).
47
-------
Project Participants:
The Boy Scouts, Clover Creek Highschool Science Club,
Parkland Lions Club, Pierce County Conservation District, W.S.U.
Cooperative Extension, Clover Creek Council, Puget Sound Bank,
Fly Fishers of Puget Sound, Department of Emergency Management,
Lemay Disposal Service, and local citizens.
Funding Sources and Estimated'Costs:
Project materials and labor were donated by: LeMay Disposal,
the Washington Department of Fisheries, Clover Park High School
Science Club, North Star Glove Co., Puget Sound Fly Fishers,
Puget Sound Bank, Isaak Walton League, and the Pierce County
Conservation District.
Comments on Project Success:
While several project treatments have been unsuccessful, the
restoration of Clover Creek is ongoing. Community education and
participation appear to be the cornerstones of project success.
Strong leadership from individuals associated with the WSU
Cooperative Extension and from several landowners was essential
to effect project initiation and development. Continued
participation by the Clover Park Highschool Science club and the
Parkland Lions Club has been important for successful project
implementation and community outreach. Post-treatment upkeep by
one local landowner has been necessary to prevent reinfestation
of canary reed grass on her property. Unless a shoreline
exemption permit can be obtained for future sealing efforts,
Clover Creek will continue to flow intermittently. Similarly,
greater attention to riparian plantings will be necessary to
establish woody species along the creek.
Lacamas Lake Restoration Project*
Location:
The Lacamas-Round Lake Watershed is located in Clark County,
Washington approximately 2 miles North of the city of Camas.
Reported By: .
Allan Moore. Washington State Department of Ecology. WQFAP,
M/S Pr-11 Olympia, Washington 98504-8711. (503) 459-6063
48
-------
Watershed Setting and Description:
The Lacamas-Round Lake Watershed drains 42,956 acres of
rural farmlands (elevations range from 182 to 2,225 feet). The
combined surface area of Lacamas and Round Lake is 315 acres
(Lafer 1991). Topography ranges from rolling foothills on the
eastern half of the watershed to low gradient valleys on the
western half. Soils consist of alluvium derived from adjacent
highlands. The climate is maritime with 45 to 80 inches of
precipitation annually. The watershed contains numerous dairy and
hobby farms; the city of Vancouver is fast becoming a bedroom
community for Portland, Oregon.
Problem statement and Objectives:
A diagnostic water quality analysis in Lacamas and Round
Lakes by the Intergovernmental Resource Center (IRC) (conducted
in 1985) indicated that the lakes were hypertrophic. The primary
nutrient affecting these lakes was phosphorus. Sources of
phosphorus were identified as failing septic systems and
agricultural operations within the Lacamas Creek drainage;basin.
The analysis also indicated that a watershed management plan
directed at controlling those sources would be the most
appropriate restoration strategy to pursue (Intergovernmental
Resource Center 1990). In 1987, IRC conducted a complete
watershed inventory to identify poor land-use practices on area
farms and to develop BMPs to reduce the input of phosphorus (and
other nutrients) from NFS sources. The IRC then, completed the
Lacamas Lake Restoration Plan and after receiving funds from the
DOE, began to implement BMPs. Project objectives included: 1)
reducing phosphorus loading in Lacamas Lake by at least 84
percent, 2) improving recreational opportunities within the lake,
3) Providing opportunities for involvement and participation in
the restoration process, and 4) addressing potential health
threats associated with the handling of domestic waste-water.
Specific BMP goals included: 1) enhancing and protecting riparian
habitat within the watershed, 2) increasing community awareness
of water quality and NPS pollution issues, and 3) improving farm
management practices. ;
Treatments Implemented at the site:
Best Management Practices included: 1) Extensive community
outreach (through public meetings, interaction between the IRC
and area farmers, and quarterly newsletters), 2) development of
pasture management plans for individual farms, 3) riparian
fencing, 4) creation of stream crossings, 5) installation of off-
site watering facilities, and 5) planting woody species in
riparian zones.
49
-------
Project Monitoring or Evaluation: .
The IRC monitors water quality throughout the watershed and
in Lacamas and Round Lakes. Maintenance of structural BMPs are
the responsibility of individual landowners (for a period of 10
years) as stipulated by contract.
Final Results of Treatments
Water quality measurements in Lacamas and Round Lakes do not
suggest improvement. However, water quality in several headwater
drainages has improved. Continued improvements are expected.
Riparian habitats have recovered rapidly in project areas and are
now providing adequate shade and bank stability. Overgrazing and
access of cattle to drainages on project sites has decreased.
Community awareness has increased. For instance, the local
community recently established the Lacamas Lake Protection Agency
(a watchdog group that provides support to the jIRC).
Project Participants: i
The Intergovernmental Resource Center, Clark County, City of
Camas, Southwest Washington Health District, Clark County
Conservation District, Washington Department of Ecology,
Washington Department of Wildlife, USDA Soil Conservation
Service, and individual landowners.
Funding Sources and Estimated Costs:
The Washington Department of Ecology has provided 2.2
million dollars to support the project. Approximately $855,136
has been allocated for BMP implementation. The IRC cost shares
with private landowners (75 to 25 percent, respectively) to
install BMPs on their property.
Comments on Project Success: j
I
Cooperation of local landowners has been fundamental to the
implementation of the Lacamas Lake Restoration Plan and use of
BMPs. Community outreach and education continues to be important
to this process. Interagency cooperation has enabled the IRC to
obtain project permits without delay and to carry out the
restoration plan effectively. A reliable funding source (ie. the
DOE) allowed the IRC to work without financial constraint.
Intensive water quality testing and inventorying by the IRC
enabled them to accurately estimate project costs and to produce
a very thorough restoration plan. ;
50
-------
REFERENCES
Bauer. S.B. 1989. Idaho Nonpoint Source Management Program.
Division of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Bureau.
Boise, Idaho, p 10. ;
Burley/Minter Drainage Basin Water Quality Plan. 1988. Prepared
by Pierce County Planning and Natural Resource Management
and Kitsap County Department of Community Development. Port
Orchard, Washington. ,
Chaney, E., Elmore W., and Platts, S. 1990. Livestock Grazing on
Western Riparian Areas. Northwest Resource Information
Center. Inc. Eagle, Idaho.
Chard, Jim. United States Forest Service. Burley, Idaho.
Personal Communication. July 1991.
Code of Federal Regulations. 1990. Vol. 40. Sec 130.2 (m)*
Curry, R.R. 1984. Water quality protection in forest management:
are best management practices working? In: (Hendrix K.M. and
R.E. Warner eds) California Riparian Systems: Ecology,
Conservation, and Productive Management. University of
California Press. Berkeley, California, pp 55-61.
Denise, Clair. W.S.U. Cooperative Extension. Everett, Washington.
Personal Communication. July 1991.
Dewitt, Floyd. Bureau of Land Management. Shoshone, Idaho.
Personal Communication. July 1991. ;
Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. "Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic j
Macroinvertebrates and Fish.EPA 444 4-89 001.
Garitone, Joy. Kitsap County Conservation District. Port prchard,
Washington. Personal Communication. July 1991. '
Gregg, Jesse. Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation
District. Madras, Oregon. Personal Communication. July 1991.
Intergovernmental Resources Center. 1990. Lacamas Lake
Restoration Project: Quality Assurance Project Plan for the
Water Quality Monitoring Program 1990-1995. Vancouver,
Washington.
Kauffman, J.B. and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on
riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications.
A review. Journal of Range Management 37:430-437.
51
-------
Lafer, Jeff. 1990. Lacamas Lake Restoration Project: Quality
Assurance Plan for the Water Quality Monitoring Program
1990-1995. Intergovernmental Resource Center. Vancouver,
Washington.
Masinton, Barbara. Bureau of Land Management. Fairbanks, Alaska.
Personal Communication. June 1991.
Odum, E.Po 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology, third eel. W.B. Saunders
Co., Philadelphia. Pennsylvania. 574 p.
Oregon's Watershed Enhancement Program. Program Status 1987-
1990. Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board. Salem, Oregon.
Rangeland Management: Some Riparian Areas Restored But Widespread
Improvement Will Be Slow. Government Accounting Office, June
1988. Report # RCED-88-105. i.
Rasmusen, D. 1991. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 10
Riparian Area Management Policy.
Schrader, Bill. Soil Conservation Service. Lakeview, Oregon.
Personal Communication. July 1991. i
Shoshone District. 1987. Pilot Management Grazing Plan. Thorn
Creek.
Smart, Alan. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 10
Headquarters. Seattle, Washington. Personal Communication.
June 1991.
Stevens, L.E., B.T. Brown, J.M. Simpson, and R.R. Johnson. 1977.
The importance of riparian habitat to migrating birds. Pp.
156-164 In R.R. Johnson and D.A. Jones (Tech. Coord.)
Importance, Preservation and Management of Riparian Habitat:
A Symposium. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43. Rocky
Mt'. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colorado.
i
Swanson, F. J., S.V. Gregory, J.R. Sedell, and A.G. Capbell.
1982. Land-water interactions: the riparian z;one. In:
Analysis of Coniferous Forest Ecosystems in the Western
United States. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co., Stroudsburg,
Pennsylvania, pp.267-291.
i
Thomas J.W., C. Maser, and J.E. Rodiek. 1979. Riparian zones. In:
J.W. Thomas (ed.) Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests-The
Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S. For. Serv.,
Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., Portland. Oregon.
52
-------
Wildland Resources Center. 1990. Case Studies and Catalog of
Watershed Projects in Western Provinces and States. Division
of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of
California. Berkeley, California. Report 22.
Windell, J.T. 1983. Stream, Riparian and Wetland Ecology.:
University of Colorado, Boulder Colorado. Unpublished, p 51-
65.
53
-------
-------
------- |