2013 uplift report: quantifying ecological uplift

12
1 The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013 Uplift Report 2013

Upload: the-freshwater-trust

Post on 21-Jan-2015

84 views

Category:

Environment


3 download

DESCRIPTION

Chaning the Course of Conservation Contents: Shade-a-lator Water Temperature Tracking Tool (W3T) Nutrient Tracking Tool (NTT) Stream Function Assessment Method Case Study: Rudio Creek Uplift from 2013 Projects Why quantify?: The application of new tools and methods to accurately quantify the ecological benefits of conservation actions provides numerous benefits to practitioners, landowners, regulators, conservation grant makers and policy makers charged with managing our natural resources and environment. - Grants and other investments can be targeted based on modeled ecological benefits (outcome-based) – potentially a more precise method than the traditional evaluation of proposed actions (process-based). - Landowners, particularly farmers, ranchers and foresters, can better determine current (pre-project) conditions and accurately track uplift (post-project) from conservation on their lands. - Practitioners can improve project design and associated monitoring efforts. - Regulators could better track performance towards water quality or species targets within a watershed, by accumulating quantified results from projects over time. - Lawmakers and other policy leaders could use quantified results from projects on the ground to better guide public investment in conservation. http://www.thefreshwatertrust.org/

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 2013 Uplift Report: Quantifying Ecological Uplift

1 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013

Uplift Report 2013

Page 2: 2013 Uplift Report: Quantifying Ecological Uplift

2 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013

Using LiDAR data and GIS technology to determine a site’s potential ecological uplift, prior to committing significant resources to a restoration project, allows us to best focus and prioritize our restoration assets in order to achieve the most ecological gain on the ground.

Table of Contents Shade-a-lator .....................................................................................................................................................................4

Nutrient Tracking Tool ......................................................................................................................................................5

Water Temperature Tracking Tool ...................................................................................................................................6

Stream Function Assessment Methodology .................................................................................................................. 7

Salmon Calculator ............................................................................................................................................................8

Case Study: Rudio Creek .................................................................................................................................................9

Uplift from 2013 Projects .............................................................................................................................................. 10

Using recently developed — and in some cases, still developing — tools for calculating the ecological uplift of restoration projects, we are advancing a new framework for communicating the value of our work.

Using this new framework, we quantified most of our work in 2012 with regard to ecological uplift and issued our first Uplift Report. In 2013 we quantified new projects with the calculators, and evaluated a new method to determine river health. The process of calculating the uplift benefit of our actions helps hone our organization’s focus on delivering the best ecosystem outcomes for our invested dollars and provides collaboration with the restoration community to evaluate and test chosen quantification tools. We understand that for these uplift measurements to be used on a

Since the passage of the Endangered Species and Clean Water Acts, there have been many successful river restoration projects along with great leaps in the engineering

and design of river restoration solutions — all driving toward improving water quality and aquatic habitat. Over the last decade, the restoration community has been working to develop and implement methods for economically and physically quantifying the effects of long-term restoration actions within a more accountable framework.

The Freshwater Trust has traditionally evaluated and reported on projects in terms of dollars spent, trees planted, gallons of water restored instream or acres of floodplain reconnected. In 2012, our approach evolved to measuring ecological benefit.

Quantifying Ecological Uplift: Why it is Important

Front Cover Images Clockwise From Top Left: SkyriS imaging;Sean O’COnnOr, FreeSOlO COlleCtive; narrativelab COmmuniCatiOnS; Hanmi meyer;Sean O’COnnOr

Back Cover Images Clockwise From Top Left: levi SCHmidt;Sean O’COnnOr;levi SCHmidt

John Doe SanD & Gravel Company

Owner: John Doe

ADDreSS: 1234 a Street

AcreS: 1.12

KcAL: 10,600,000

KcAL/Acre: 9,500,000

JOhn DOe SAnD & GrAveL cOmpAny

Key: Uplift Potential

High

Medium

Low

Page 3: 2013 Uplift Report: Quantifying Ecological Uplift

3 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013

Why quantify?: The application of new tools and methods to accurately quantify the ecological benefits of conservation actions provides numerous benefits to practitioners, landowners, regulators, conservation grant makers and policy makers charged with managing our natural resources and environment.

Grants and other investments can be targeted based on modeled ecological benefits (outcome-based) – potentially a more precise method than the traditional evaluation of proposed actions (process-based).

Landowners, particularly farmers, ranchers and foresters, can better determine current (pre-project) conditions and accurately track uplift (post-project) from conservation on their lands.

Practitioners can improve project design and associated monitoring efforts.

Regulators could better track performance towards water quality or species targets within a watershed, by accumulating quantified results from projects over time.

Lawmakers and other policy leaders could use quantified results from projects on the ground to better guide public investment in conservation.

national scale to predict the effects of our actions on true river restoration, we require the buy-in and support of the regulatory, restoration and regulated communities. Sometimes this involves automation of the calculations we use regularly for efficiencies of scale, and sometimes this involves evaluation of new methods of measuring impact in a holistic manner.

What do we mean by ecological uplift? Simply put, “uplift” refers to the environmental gain of a project — the quantifiable environmental benefit of the restoration actions we take. For example, consider planting trees next to a stream. In the past, we have focused on restoration inputs —trees planted or habitat structures created. But not all parts of a stream are created equal in the amount of ecosystem services they provide. Using new tools and science, we now employ an outcome-based process for our actions (focusing on where the planting of trees has the most benefit and the value of this benefit). For example, we can now model the solar radiation that will be blocked by mature trees, preventing river waters from heating up to the detriment of cold water species like salmon and steelhead.

Quantifying the benefits of restoration projects in this way can provide a more robust picture of a project’s ecological value. In fact, we are now doing these calculations on projects before implementation to determine potential ecological uplift prior to committing significant resources to a project. We do this to ensure we implement restoration actions that achieve the most benefit for the freshwater ecosystem.

SkyriS imaging

Sean O’COnnOr, FreeSOlO COlleCtive

ACKNoWLedgeMeNTS

The Freshwater Trust would like to thank the following partners who developed the tools & calculators to measure the ecological uplift in this report.

Counting on the Environment

ESA Vigil-Agrimis, Inc.

National Fish & Wildlife Foundation

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Oregon Department of Transportation

Oregon State University

Parametrix, Inc.

Skidmore Restoration Consulting, LLC

Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research

United States Department of Agriculture

Watercourse Engineering, Inc.

Willamette Partnership

The Freshwater Trust is a non-profit organization with a mission to preserve and restore freshwater ecosystems.

With nearly 30 years of on-the-ground experience, we continue to look for innovative ways to fix imperiled rivers and streams. With the latest tools and methods, we can attain efficiencies that facilitate real environmental gains with less cost, in less time.

Page 4: 2013 Uplift Report: Quantifying Ecological Uplift

4 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013

Field staff maintain a freshly planted riparian site in the Rogue Basin of southern Oregon.

Shade-a-lator Quantifying solar load avoided through riparian restoration

ModeL INPUTS Upstream & downstream boundaries of the stream reach

Stream aspect (azimuth)

Wetted width of the stream

Bank slope

Distribution of existing riparian trees & plants

Modeling time period, including the time of year the model is run & the number of days the model is run

Surrounding topography

Riparian shade provided by streamside vegetation blocks the sun’s rays from reaching the surface of the water, reducing the amount of thermal energy entering

the river. In effect, this shade prevents the water from heating up. Anadromous fish, such as salmon and steelhead, are extremely sensitive to water temperature; therefore, healthy riparian buffers help ensure healthy fish habitat.

Shade-a-lator is a module of Heat Source, a stream assessment tool used by Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality (ODEQ). It was developed in 1996 at Oregon State University in the Departments of Bioresource Engineering and Civil Engineering. ODEQ currently maintains the Heat Source methodology and software development.

Using pre-project data (see sidebar for model inputs), Shade-a-lator calculates the current load of solar radiation reaching the surface of a stream. Once vegetation is planted, Shade-a-lator predicts the new load of solar radiation reaching the stream based on the new vegetation’s shading capacity at

maturity. The difference between pre-project and post-project solar loading represents a project’s uplift in terms of solar radiation avoided by streamside riparian vegetation. Shade-a-lator expresses this uplift in energy units of kilocalories per day. Once we have this calculation, we can determine which restoration sites will most benefit from riparian restoration.

Shade-a-lator has been in use and ongoing development for more than a decade. With The Freshwater Trust’s projects, its refinement will continue.

Projections based

on tree maturity

BeFoRe Restoration AFTeR Restoration

HoW IT WoRKS: Calculating Uplift for Solar Load Avoided

UpliFT = Change in kilocalories per day (a measurement of energy)

Solar Load Avoided

Tool used Shade-a-lator

Units of measure kilocalories per day (kcals/day)

Before (pre-project) 10,000,000

After (post-project) 4,500,000

UPLIFT 5,500,000 kcals/day

Sample restoration actions

• Plant streamside vegetation

Solar Load Solar Load Avoided

dOn JaCObSOn

Page 5: 2013 Uplift Report: Quantifying Ecological Uplift

5 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013

of conservation actions — from riparian actions like fence building to exclude livestock, to changed farm practices like improving irrigation methods.

Sean O’COnnOr, FreeSOlO COlleCtive

major water quality concern across the United States is the abundance of nutrients

such as nitrogen and phosphorus in our freshwater systems. Too much nitrogen

and phosphorus promotes excessive plant and algae growth, choking out other aquatic species.

Large sediment loads that carry these nutrients can also harm aquatic systems. They can settle into streambeds and fill in the spaces between the rocks and gravel — spaces that are essential for salmonid spawning.

Nationwide, runoff from farming and ranching operations contribute large loads of nitrogen and phosphorus. The Freshwater Trust is working to measure the benefit of conservation actions that limit these inputs while maintaining productive agricultural lands.

The Nutrient Tracking Tool (NTT) is a sophisticated modeling tool that allows the user to create a detailed scenario of on-field agricultural practices (see sidebar for model inputs). NTT models the agricultural practices and then estimates the annual nutrient and sediment loads that occur as a result of these actions. NTT can model a wide assortment

Nutrient Tracking Tool (NTT) Quantifying reduced nitrogen, phosphorus and sediments from riparian improvements and changes to agricultural practices

ModeL INPUTS Crop type & livestock type

Crop rotations

Fertilizer application rates

Irrigation practices

Livestock access to streams

Pesticide application rates

Tillage practices

Field size & slope

Geographic location

Local weather data

Soil type

Soil phosphorus concentration

BeFoRe Restoration AFTeR Restoration

HoW IT WoRKS: Calculating Uplift for decreased Nutrient & Sediment Loads

UpliFT = Change in pounds per year of phosphorus, nitrogen and/or sediment load

BEFORE Restoration AFTER Restoration

Agricultural runo� drains into stream

Vegetation filters runo�

Nutrient & Sediment Reduction

Tool used Nutrient Tracking Tool (NTT)

Units of measure Pounds per year (lbs/year)

Phosphorus Nitrogen Sediments

Before (pre-project) 10 100 2,000

After (post-project) 5 25 100

UPLIFT 5 lbs/year 75 1,900

Sample conservation actions

• Plant streamside vegetation• Implement cover crops• Livestock exclusion

NTT calculates uplift in terms of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment load reductions by comparing pre-project conditions of a field to modeled conditions after restoration or changed farm practices. The difference represents the uplift from conservation actions. Once we have this calculation, we can assess the impact of site-level restoration as a component of a basin-scale water quality problem.

NTT was designed and developed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service, the USDA Agricultural Research Service and Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research.

The Freshwater Trust uses elevation data and geoprocessing to delineate micro-drainage areas of riparian planting sites, as shown in this image.

Key:

Riparian Planting Area

Drainage Basins

Project Area Drainage Basins

Flow Accumulation:

High

Low

Page 6: 2013 Uplift Report: Quantifying Ecological Uplift

6 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013

Field staff take a flow measurement to help determine the temperature benefit for restored flow.

ncreasing river flow can buffer water temperature and increase velocity through a stream reach. Higher velocity can limit the water’s exposure to local solar impact, keeping

the water from warming. Additional temperature benefits can be achieved if the increased flow is cooler than the water in the existing stream reach.

The Water Temperature Transaction Tool (W3T) uses river and landscape characteristics to estimate hourly solar radiation and overall heat loss or gain from a water body. W3T also incorporates temperature and flow inputs provided by tributaries

ModeL INPUTS River length, width & depth

Stream bed roughness

Topographical & vegetation features: surrounding zones of vegetation that provide shade & inhibit solar radiation

Inflow water temperatures

Flow volumes

Atmospheric heat exchange, air-water interface & bed-water interface

Tributary inputs

River velocity

Water Temperature Transaction Tool (W3T) Quantifying decreased water temperature through flow restoration

terry StrOH

and meteorological information. From these inputs, W3T calculates temperature changes in a river reach.

W3T is based on a steady flow approach requiring pre-project data (see sidebar for model inputs). W3T models water temperature based on energy transfer to and from the water across the air-water interface and bed-water interface. W3T also accounts for transport of heat energy in the downstream direction.

Water temperature reduction from increased flow can be determined by subtracting pre-project conditions from modeled conditions after flow has been

restored. The difference in water temperature represents the temperature improvement (uplift) from restoring flow to that reach. Once the temperature impacts of flow are quantified, flow restoration can be used as a tool to directly address and account for water temperature as a limiting factor that affects the survival of threatened and endangered fish species.

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation contracted with Watercourse Engineering to develop the W3T model, with funding from USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

HoW IT WoRKS: Calculating Uplift for decreased Water Temperature

Water Temperature decreased (daily Max)

Tool used Water Temperature

Transaction Tool (W3T)

Units of measure Cubic feet per second (cfs)

Degrees Celsius (oC)

Before (baseline) 1 20

After (post-project) 2 18

UPLIFT 1 cfs 2 oC

Sample restoration actions

• Introduce cooler water• Increase stream velocity• Deepen channel

Be

FoR

e

Res

tora

tio

nA

FT

eR

R

esto

rati

on

UpliFT = Change in cubic feet per second/degrees Celsius

1,000 feet stream reach

2 cfs (cubic feet per second)

18oC(stream temperature)

1,000 feet stream reach

1 cfs (cubic feet per second)

20oC(stream temperature)

–1 cfs

–2 cfs

Page 7: 2013 Uplift Report: Quantifying Ecological Uplift

7 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013

after restoration actions, users are able to quantify uplift from restoration actions. Once we have this calculation, we can track the progress of our habitat restoration projects against restoration goals, over time.

The Stream Function Assessment Methodology is being developed for Oregon by ESA Vigil-Agrimis and Skidmore Restoration Consulting, LLC with funding from US Environmental Protection Agency. The tool is designed for use in Oregon’s stream compensatory mitigation program being developed by Oregon Department of State Lands, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency and Willamette Partnership.

The Stream Function Assessment Methodology is undergoing beta testing, including extensive field testing throughout Oregon in 2014. While the tool is still under development, early adoption enables The Freshwater Trust to calculate the 2013 level of function for our stream restoration sites.

The Stream Function Assessment Methodology was designed as a rapid assessment that evaluates stream functions and values. Stream functions

are the processes that create and support healthy stream ecosystems; functions include flow variation, sediment mobility and nutrient cycling. The Stream Function Assessment Methodology defines stream values as the ecological and societal benefits that the stream functions provide. The Excel-based calculator generates scores for hydrologic, geomorphic, biologic and water quality (chemical, nutrient and thermal) functions as well as the importance of each of those functions.

Inputs for the tool are collected both in the field and using online resources (see sidebar for model inputs). The methodology considers stream and riparian area characteristics along with the ecological and societal benefits of that stream in generating the functional assessment. The output of the tool is a score between 0% and 100%, rating the function and the value of the stream. This score is multiplied by the linear feet of stream affected to generate functioning linear feet of stream. By calculating the difference between functioning linear feet of stream before and

A Chinook helicopter places large wood instream to build large wood habitat structure, a restoration action that supports healthy habitat for wild fish and other aquatic species.

Sean O’COnnOr, FreeSOlO COlleCtive

Stream Function Assessment Methodology Quantifying improvements in stream function through instream and riparian restoration

ModeL INPUTS Aquatic species structure and composition

Distribution of ESA-listed fish species

Distribution of rare species

Riparian structure and composition

Flow characteristics and depth

Floodplain connectivity

Water quality information

Sediment characteristics and mobility

Stream order, gradient and permeability

Geomorphic stability

Presence of off-channel habitat

Aquatic features such as riffles, runs and pools

Presence of rare plants and animals

Proximity to intact ecosystems

Presence of irrigation withdrawals

HoW IT WoRKS: Calculating Uplift for Increased Stream Function

Be

FoR

e

Res

tora

tio

nA

FT

eR

R

esto

rati

on

UpliFT = Change in functional linear feet of stream

SCOtt WrigHt

Increased Stream Function

Tool used Stream Functional

Assessment Methodology

Units of measure Functional linear feet (FLF) of stream

Before (pre-project) 100

After (post-project) 400

UPLIFT 300 FLF

Sample restoration actions

• Large wood habitat placement• Plant streamside vegetation• Create off-channel habitat

Stream function disrupted

Stream function restored

Page 8: 2013 Uplift Report: Quantifying Ecological Uplift

8 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013

The Salmon Calculator is designed to quantify ecological changes that directly impact salmon habitat through modeling, on average, how well a given stream reach

supports salmon. Based on the inputs of physical characteristics of the stream and terrestrial areas (see sidebar for model inputs), the Salmon Calculator measures the ecological functions of a stream with regard to its ability to create and maintain salmon habitat. The Salmon Calculator then consolidates those ecological functions into one salmon habitat score. The score is a percentage of functional habitat per linear foot of stream, which is recorded as weighted linear feet. Once we have

this calculation, we can understand the impact of our projects on the habitat needs of listed salmonids.

The Salmon Calculator was developed as part of Counting on the Environment, a USDA Natural Resources

Field staff collect hydrologic, geomorphologic, biological and water quality data on Rudio Creek for stream habitat assessments.

Sean O’COnnOr, FreeSOlO COlleCtive

Salmon Calculator Quantifying increased salmon habitat through stream restoration

Conservation Service grant project managed by Willamette Partnership. The development of the Salmon Calculator began as part of the Oregon Department of Transportation bridges project and was further refined by Parametrix, Inc.

The Salmon Calculator has been valuable in helping us improve our understanding of how instream actions affect species health, but a more robust stream assessment tool is being developed that will further improve our ability to estimate stream function for salmon. (See Stream Function Assessment Methodology, previous page.) To enable ongoing evaluation of the uplift of our prior actions, however, we continue to use the Salmon Calculator into 2013. As demonstrated by the shift from the Salmon Calculator to the Stream Function Assessment, the restoration community is still determining the best measure of stream ecosystem health for salmon. In Oregon right now, three standards of measurement are used: NOAA’s Habitat Equivalency Analysis, the Columbia River Basin Federal Caucus’ Survival Benefit Unit and the Stream Function Assessment. In 2014, The Trust is engaging with this community to evaluate and adopt the most practical measure of stream health for salmon.

ModeL INPUTSDistribution & abundance of aquatic & riparian native & nonnative vegetation

Stream width & depth

Substrate characteristics

Flow & depth characteristics

Aquatic features such as log jams, pools, riffles, glides, alcoves, gravel bars & cascades

Floodplain connectivity

Barriers to fish movement

Land use

Floodplain slope, width & soil type

Amount of large wood

Historical frequency & duration of flooding

HoW IT WoRKS: Calculating Uplift for Increased Salmon Habitat

Increased Salmon Habitat

Tool used Salmon Calculator

Units of measure Weighted linear feet (WLF)

of salmon habitat

Before (pre-project) 100

After (post-project) 400

UPLIFT 300 WLF

Sample restoration actions

• Construct large wood habitat structures

• Plant streamside vegetation• Reconnect floodplains• Increase pools & riffles

Be

FoR

e

Res

tora

tio

nA

FT

eR

R

esto

rati

on

UpliFT = Change in weighted linear feet of salmon habitat

functional habitat 150 + 50 = 400 WLF (40%) of 50 + 150 +

functional habitat 50 +25 + 25 = 100 WLF (10%) of

1,000 feet stream reach

1,000 feet stream reach

mary edWardS PHOtOgraPHy

Page 9: 2013 Uplift Report: Quantifying Ecological Uplift

9 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013

1

2

The newly re-meandered channel of Rudio Creek in central Oregon restores this stream to its historical floodplain.

ReTURNINg A STReAM To ITS NATURAL STATe: Historic land use practices moved Rudio Creek to the edge of its floodplain to facilitate agriculture. The shorter, straightened channel increased stream energy which disconnected the channel from its floodplain, increased substrate size and reduced the number and complexity of pools. Returning Rudio Creek to its 1946 historical alignment will, over time, restore self sustaining habitat conditions that benefit salmon and steelhead.

fish during high winter flows or cold water refugia during warm summer periods. These features were designed to emulate the beaver dam ponds that were historically present at the project area. 2013 activities consisted of constructing four off-channel ponds with associated side channel complexes.

Increase instream flow. The Freshwater Trust entered an agreement with the landowners on Rudio Creek that requires their diversions from Rudio Creek to stop when flows at the mouth drop below 2 cubic feet per second or on July 1, whichever occurs first. This contractual obligation protects late-summer flows to the mouth of Rudio Creek, which historically ran dry.

n 2012, The Freshwater Trust reconstructed the historic channel of Rudio Creek to restore its natural flow and habitat. In 2013, The Freshwater Trust implemented several

additional restoration elements complementary to the major restoration activities completed in 2012. These elements are designed to ensure the site continues on its restoration trajectory and increases habitat for juvenile spring Chinook and summer steelhead. 2013 work included construction of off-channel ponds with side channel connections to Rudio Creek, and livestock exclusion fencing and hardwood plantings to promote riparian recovery.

Promote riparian vegetation via hardwood planting and livestock exclusion fencing. Riparian vegetation is intended to provide channel stability, shade, cover and dam building material for beaver. 2013 activities consisted of planting native, rooted cottonwoods along the banks of Rudio Creek.

Construct side channels and ponds. Side channels and ponds provide a diversity of habitats for juvenile spring Chinook salmon and summer steelhead. These floodplain habitats often derive a major portion of their flow from either groundwater or seepage from the adjacent stream. Side channel and pond features can provide velocity refugia for

Case Study: Rudio Creek

Sean O’COnnOr, FreeSOlO COlleCtive

3

1946

1965

1984

2001

Base Image 1946 Aerial Photo, PrePared by river design grouP

Page 10: 2013 Uplift Report: Quantifying Ecological Uplift

Up

lift

fro

m 2

013

Pro

ject

s

So

lar

Load

A

void

edP

ho

sph

oru

s R

edu

ced

Nit

rog

en

Red

uce

dS

edim

ents

R

edu

ced

Incr

ease

d

Str

eam

Fu

nct

ion

Wat

er T

emp

erat

ure

d

ecre

ased

(d

aily

Max

)

Incr

ease

d

Sal

mo

n H

abit

at

Too

l use

d

Sh

ade-

a-la

tor

Nu

trie

nt

Trac

kin

g T

oo

l (N

TT

)S

trea

m F

un

ctio

n

Ass

essm

ent

M

eth

od

olo

gy

Wat

er T

emp

erat

ure

T

ran

sact

ion

To

ol

(W3

T)

Sal

mo

n C

alcu

lato

r

Uni

ts o

f mea

sure

K

iloca

lori

es p

er d

ay

(kca

ls/d

ay)

Pou

nd

s p

er y

ear

(lb

s/ye

ar)

Pou

nd

s p

er y

ear

(lb

s/ye

ar)

Pou

nd

s p

er y

ear

(lb

s/ye

ar)

Fun

ctio

nal

lin

ear

feet

(FL

F)D

egre

es C

elsi

us

C)

Wei

ghte

d li

nea

r fe

et

(WLF

)

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

16,7

48

,26

00

.06

.657

62

,14

91,

48

9

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

7,0

40

,46

90

.05.

420

42

,376

1,5

11

UP

LIF

T9

,70

7,79

10

.01.

23

722

27

22

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

7,59

9 fe

et o

f str

eam

pro

tect

ed, 7

0.2

acr

es o

f rip

aria

n ar

ea p

rote

cted

, 50

0 n

ativ

e tr

ees

inst

alle

d, 1

7,16

4 s

quar

e fe

et o

f off

cha

nnel

hab

itat c

reat

ed

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

77,6

26

,46

70

.00

.41

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

36

,18

7,73

00

.00

.30

UP

LIF

T4

1,4

38

,73

7*0

.0*

0.1

*1*

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

4,5

25

nat

ive

tree

s an

d s

hru

bs

inst

alle

d

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

3,12

0,6

05

5.0

44

.54

,918

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

66

7,9

87

4.3

30

.53,

130

UP

LIF

T2

,45

2,6

180

.714

.01,

788

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

3,6

00

nat

ive

tree

s an

d s

hru

bs

inst

alle

d

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

63,

88

5,3

51

69.

44

47.6

34

,30

0

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

45,

35

6,1

00

66

.34

18.2

33,

54

4

UP

LIF

T18

,52

9,2

51

3.1

29

.475

6

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

8,4

50

nat

ive

tree

s an

d s

hru

bs

inst

alle

d

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

15,4

77,5

63

0.3

1.4

163

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

6,5

50

,69

40

.00

.875

UP

LIF

T8

,92

6,8

69

0.3

0.6

88

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

5,6

00

nat

ive

tree

s an

d s

hru

bs

inst

alle

d

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

50

,074

,310

27.2

136

.14

1,2

31

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

8,2

64

,710

2.8

15.0

1,11

4

UP

LIF

T4

1,8

09

,60

02

4.4

121.

14

0,1

17

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

5,4

41

nat

ive

tree

s an

d s

hru

bs

inst

alle

d

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

33,

09

3,24

71.

812

.62

,717

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

9,5

21,

147

1.4

8.8

1,4

68

UP

LIF

T2

3,5

72,1

00

0.4

3.8

1,2

49

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

2,8

80

nat

ive

tree

s an

d s

hru

bs

inst

alle

d

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

66

,637

,29

32

.312

.32

,15

2

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

9,71

5,3

68

1.9

8.6

1,3

44

UP

LIF

T5

6,9

21,

92

50

.43

.78

08

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

3,3

60

nat

ive

tree

s an

d s

hru

bs

inst

alle

d

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

0.0

0.0

96

0

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

0.0

0.0

54

0

UP

LIF

T0

.00

.04

20

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

8,4

48

feet

of s

trea

m p

rote

cted

, 15

0.5

acr

es o

f rip

aria

n a

rea

pro

tect

ed

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

15.1

92

.314

,84

22

1.6

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

5.7

17.1

6,7

34

21.

5

UP

LIF

T9

.475

.28

,10

80

.1

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

0.5

2 c

fs r

esto

red

inst

ream

(10

% o

f tot

al fl

ow)

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

11.4

39.

510

,78

619

.8

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

0.4

6.1

798

19.7

UP

LIF

T11

.03

3.4

9,9

88

0.1

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

0.8

0 c

fs r

esto

red

inst

ream

(3

1% o

f tot

al fl

ow)

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

1,2

88

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

2,0

00

UP

LIF

T71

2

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

62

9 fe

et o

f sid

e ch

ann

el h

abit

at r

esto

red

, 5 la

rge

woo

d h

abit

at s

tru

ctu

res,

2,7

46

feet

of s

trea

m r

esto

red

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

1,13

0

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

5,19

2

UP

LIF

T4

,06

2

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

5,0

67

feet

of s

ide

chan

nel

hab

itat

res

tore

d, 1

6 la

rge

woo

d h

abit

at s

tru

ctu

res,

2,6

40

feet

of s

trea

m r

esto

red

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

60

0

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

1,5

48

UP

LIF

T9

48

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

1,0

05

feet

of s

ide

chan

nel

hab

itat

res

tore

d, 3

larg

e w

ood

hab

itat

str

uct

ure

s, 7

63

feet

of s

trea

m r

esto

red

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

90

1

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

1,4

86

UP

LIF

T5

85

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

63

1 fe

et o

f sid

e ch

ann

el h

abit

at r

esto

red

, 1 la

rge

woo

d h

abit

at s

tru

ctu

re, 1

,40

4 fe

et o

f str

eam

res

tore

d

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

28

.8

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

26

.9

UP

LIF

T1.

9

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

1.3

9 c

fs r

esto

red

inst

ream

(8

5%

of t

otal

flow

)

Qu

anti

fied

Up

lift

fo

r 2

013

Pro

ject

s20

3,3

58,8

91

kcal

s/d

ay

49

.7 lb

s/ye

ar2

82

.5 lb

s/ye

ar6

3,6

95

lbs/

year

6,5

34

FL

F2

.1 °

C

22

WL

F

Qu

anti

fied

Up

lift

fo

r 2

012

Pro

ject

s8

0,4

22

,82

2 k

cals

/day

5.

5 lb

s/ye

ar8

2.6

lbs/

year

1,5

79 lb

s/ye

arN

/A**

1.0

°C

7,

170

WL

F

CU

MU

LA

TIv

e Q

UA

NT

IFIe

d U

PL

IFT

(2

012

+ 2

013

)2

83

,78

1,71

3 k

cals

/day

(s

olar

load

avo

ided

)5

5.2

lbs/

year

(

redu

ced

phos

phor

us)

36

5.1

lbs/

year

(

red

uce

d n

itro

gen

)6

5,2

74 lb

s/ye

ar

(re

duce

d se

dim

ents

)

6,5

34

FL

F

(inc

reas

ed

stre

am fu

nctio

n)

3.1

°C

(red

uce

d m

ax d

aily

w

ater

tem

per

atu

re)

7,19

2 W

LF

(

incr

ease

d

salm

on h

abit

at)

10 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013

In a

dd

itio

n t

o t

he

pro

ject

s

liste

d in

th

is U

plif

t R

epo

rt,

Th

e Fr

esh

wat

er T

rust

als

o pr

otec

ted

15.6

2 b

illi

on

gal

lon

s

(113

mill

ion

gallo

ns o

f wat

er p

er

day

) in

stre

am a

cros

s th

e st

ate.

Ro

gu

e R

iver

M

ile

128

P

has

e 2

Rogu

e Ba

sin

Ru

dio

Ran

chJo

hn D

ay B

asin

Mill

Rac

e R

iver

M

ile

2W

illam

ette

Bas

in

Lew

is &

Cla

rk

Riv

er M

ile

9N

orth

Coa

st B

asin

Mid

dle

Fo

rk

Joh

n d

ay R

iver

M

ile

50

John

Day

Bas

in

Ap

ple

gat

e R

iver

Mil

e 2

8.5

Rogu

e Ba

sin

Ap

ple

gat

e R

iver

Mil

e 2

9.5

Rogu

e Ba

sin

Ap

ple

gat

e R

iver

Mil

e 3

0Ro

gue

Basi

n

Page 11: 2013 Uplift Report: Quantifying Ecological Uplift

11 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013

Up

lift

fro

m 2

013

Pro

ject

s

So

lar

Load

A

void

edP

ho

sph

oru

s R

edu

ced

Nit

rog

en

Red

uce

dS

edim

ents

R

edu

ced

Incr

ease

d

Str

eam

Fu

nct

ion

Wat

er T

emp

erat

ure

d

ecre

ased

(d

aily

Max

)

Incr

ease

d

Sal

mo

n H

abit

at

Too

l use

d

Sh

ade-

a-la

tor

Nu

trie

nt

Trac

kin

g T

oo

l (N

TT

)S

trea

m F

un

ctio

n

Ass

essm

ent

M

eth

od

olo

gy

Wat

er T

emp

erat

ure

T

ran

sact

ion

To

ol

(W3

T)

Sal

mo

n C

alcu

lato

r

Uni

ts o

f mea

sure

K

iloca

lori

es p

er d

ay

(kca

ls/d

ay)

Pou

nd

s p

er y

ear

(lb

s/ye

ar)

Pou

nd

s p

er y

ear

(lb

s/ye

ar)

Pou

nd

s p

er y

ear

(lb

s/ye

ar)

Fun

ctio

nal

lin

ear

feet

(FL

F)D

egre

es C

elsi

us

C)

Wei

ghte

d li

nea

r fe

et

(WLF

)

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

16,7

48

,26

00

.06

.657

62

,14

91,

48

9

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

7,0

40

,46

90

.05.

420

42

,376

1,5

11

UP

LIF

T9

,70

7,79

10

.01.

23

722

27

22

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

7,59

9 fe

et o

f str

eam

pro

tect

ed, 7

0.2

acr

es o

f rip

aria

n ar

ea p

rote

cted

, 50

0 n

ativ

e tr

ees

inst

alle

d, 1

7,16

4 s

quar

e fe

et o

f off

cha

nnel

hab

itat c

reat

ed

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

77,6

26

,46

70

.00

.41

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

36

,18

7,73

00

.00

.30

UP

LIF

T4

1,4

38

,73

7*0

.0*

0.1

*1*

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

4,5

25

nat

ive

tree

s an

d s

hru

bs

inst

alle

d

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

3,12

0,6

05

5.0

44

.54

,918

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

66

7,9

87

4.3

30

.53,

130

UP

LIF

T2

,45

2,6

180

.714

.01,

788

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

3,6

00

nat

ive

tree

s an

d s

hru

bs

inst

alle

d

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

63,

88

5,3

51

69.

44

47.6

34

,30

0

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

45,

35

6,1

00

66

.34

18.2

33,

54

4

UP

LIF

T18

,52

9,2

51

3.1

29

.475

6

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

8,4

50

nat

ive

tree

s an

d s

hru

bs

inst

alle

d

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

15,4

77,5

63

0.3

1.4

163

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

6,5

50

,69

40

.00

.875

UP

LIF

T8

,92

6,8

69

0.3

0.6

88

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

5,6

00

nat

ive

tree

s an

d s

hru

bs

inst

alle

d

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

50

,074

,310

27.2

136

.14

1,2

31

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

8,2

64

,710

2.8

15.0

1,11

4

UP

LIF

T4

1,8

09

,60

02

4.4

121.

14

0,1

17

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

5,4

41

nat

ive

tree

s an

d s

hru

bs

inst

alle

d

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

33,

09

3,24

71.

812

.62

,717

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

9,5

21,

147

1.4

8.8

1,4

68

UP

LIF

T2

3,5

72,1

00

0.4

3.8

1,2

49

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

2,8

80

nat

ive

tree

s an

d s

hru

bs

inst

alle

d

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

66

,637

,29

32

.312

.32

,15

2

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

9,71

5,3

68

1.9

8.6

1,3

44

UP

LIF

T5

6,9

21,

92

50

.43

.78

08

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

3,3

60

nat

ive

tree

s an

d s

hru

bs

inst

alle

d

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

0.0

0.0

96

0

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

0.0

0.0

54

0

UP

LIF

T0

.00

.04

20

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

8,4

48

feet

of s

trea

m p

rote

cted

, 15

0.5

acr

es o

f rip

aria

n a

rea

pro

tect

ed

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

15.1

92

.314

,84

22

1.6

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

5.7

17.1

6,7

34

21.

5

UP

LIF

T9

.475

.28

,10

80

.1

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

0.5

2 c

fs r

esto

red

inst

ream

(10

% o

f tot

al fl

ow)

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

11.4

39.

510

,78

619

.8

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

0.4

6.1

798

19.7

UP

LIF

T11

.03

3.4

9,9

88

0.1

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

0.8

0 c

fs r

esto

red

inst

ream

(3

1% o

f tot

al fl

ow)

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

1,2

88

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

2,0

00

UP

LIF

T71

2

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

62

9 fe

et o

f sid

e ch

ann

el h

abit

at r

esto

red

, 5 la

rge

woo

d h

abit

at s

tru

ctu

res,

2,7

46

feet

of s

trea

m r

esto

red

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

1,13

0

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

5,19

2

UP

LIF

T4

,06

2

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

5,0

67

feet

of s

ide

chan

nel

hab

itat

res

tore

d, 1

6 la

rge

woo

d h

abit

at s

tru

ctu

res,

2,6

40

feet

of s

trea

m r

esto

red

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

60

0

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

1,5

48

UP

LIF

T9

48

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

1,0

05

feet

of s

ide

chan

nel

hab

itat

res

tore

d, 3

larg

e w

ood

hab

itat

str

uct

ure

s, 7

63

feet

of s

trea

m r

esto

red

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

90

1

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

1,4

86

UP

LIF

T5

85

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

63

1 fe

et o

f sid

e ch

ann

el h

abit

at r

esto

red

, 1 la

rge

woo

d h

abit

at s

tru

ctu

re, 1

,40

4 fe

et o

f str

eam

res

tore

d

Bef

ore

(p

re-p

roje

ct)

28

.8

Aft

er (

pos

t-p

roje

ct)

26

.9

UP

LIF

T1.

9

Res

tora

tio

n A

ctio

ns

1.3

9 c

fs r

esto

red

inst

ream

(8

5%

of t

otal

flow

)

Qu

anti

fied

Up

lift

fo

r 2

013

Pro

ject

s20

3,3

58,8

91

kcal

s/d

ay

49

.7 lb

s/ye

ar2

82

.5 lb

s/ye

ar6

3,6

95

lbs/

year

6,5

34

FL

F2

.1 °

C

22

WL

F

Qu

anti

fied

Up

lift

fo

r 2

012

Pro

ject

s8

0,4

22

,82

2 k

cals

/day

5.

5 lb

s/ye

ar8

2.6

lbs/

year

1,5

79 lb

s/ye

arN

/A**

1.0

°C

7,

170

WL

F

CU

MU

LA

TIv

e Q

UA

NT

IFIe

d U

PL

IFT

(2

012

+ 2

013

)2

83

,78

1,71

3 k

cals

/day

(s

olar

load

avo

ided

)5

5.2

lbs/

year

(

redu

ced

phos

phor

us)

36

5.1

lbs/

year

(

red

uce

d n

itro

gen

)6

5,2

74 lb

s/ye

ar

(re

duce

d se

dim

ents

)

6,5

34

FL

F

(inc

reas

ed

stre

am fu

nctio

n)

3.1

°C

(red

uce

d m

ax d

aily

w

ater

tem

per

atu

re)

7,19

2 W

LF

(

incr

ease

d

salm

on h

abit

at)

*

The

se n

umb

ers

are

from

the

Pha

se 2

pla

ntin

g of

Rog

ue R

iver

. The

20

13 p

lant

ing

augm

ente

d t

he p

lant

ing

in 2

012

.**

The

Str

eam

Fun

ctio

nal A

sses

smen

t M

etho

dol

ogy

was

not

ava

ilab

le in

20

12.

No

Te

S T

o T

AB

Le

The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013 — 11

Mid

dle

Fo

rk

Joh

n d

ay R

iver

R

each

1Jo

hn D

ay B

asin

Cat

her

ine

Cre

ekGr

ande

Ron

de B

asin

Fif

teen

mil

e C

reek

Hoo

d Ba

sin

Sal

mo

n R

iver

M

ile

0.9

1–1.

43

Sand

y Ba

sin

Sti

ll C

reek

R

each

1

(Pu

mp

kin

Pat

ch)

Sand

y Ba

sin

Sti

ll C

reek

R

each

2(S

trai

gh

ts)

Sand

y Ba

sin

Sti

ll C

reek

R

each

3(C

om

pre

ssio

n)

Sand

y Ba

sin

Ru

dio

Cre

ekJo

hn D

ay B

asin

Page 12: 2013 Uplift Report: Quantifying Ecological Uplift

NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONU.S. PoSTAge

PAIdPORTLAND, OR

PERMIT No. 431365 SW Yamhill Street, Suite 200Portland, OR 97204

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED