1 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013
Uplift Report 2013
2 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013
Using LiDAR data
and GIS technology
to determine a site’s
potential ecological...
3 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013
Why quantify?: The application of new tools and methods to
accurately quantify...
4 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013
Field staff maintain
a freshly planted riparian
site in the Rogue Basin of
sou...
5 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013
of conservation actions — from riparian actions like
fence building to exclude...
6 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013
Field staff take
a flow measurement
to help determine the
temperature benefit ...
7 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013
after restoration actions,
users are able to quantify
uplift from restoration
...
8 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013
T
he Salmon Calculator is designed to
quantify ecological changes that directl...
9 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013
1
2
The newly re-
meandered channel of
Rudio Creek in central
Oregon restores ...
Upliftfrom2013Projects
SolarLoad
Avoided
Phosphorus
Reduced
Nitrogen
Reduced
Sediments
Reduced
Increased
StreamFunction
Wa...
11 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013
Before(pre-project)0.00.0960
After(post-project)0.00.0540
Uplift0.00.0420
Res...
NON-PROFIT
ORGANIZATION
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
PORTLAND, OR
PERMIT No. 4313
65 SWYamhill Street, Suite 200
Portland, OR 97204
A...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

2013 Uplift Report: Quantifying Ecological Uplift

398 views

Published on

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/

Published in: Environment, Technology, Sports
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
398
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2013 Uplift Report: Quantifying Ecological Uplift

  1. 1. 1 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013 Uplift Report 2013
  2. 2. 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 S ince 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
  3. 3. 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.
  4. 4. 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 R iparian 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
  5. 5. 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 runoff drains into stream Vegetation filters runoff 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
  6. 6. 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 (o C) Before (baseline) 1 20 After (post-project) 2 18 UPLIFT 1 cfs 2 o C Sample restoration actions • Introduce cooler water • Increase stream velocity • Deepen channel BEFORE Restoration AFTER Restoration Uplift = Change in cubic feet per second/degrees Celsius 1,000 feet stream reach 2 cfs (cubic feet per second) 18o C (stream temperature) 1,000 feet stream reach 1 cfs (cubic feet per second) 20o C (stream temperature) –1 cfs –2 cfs
  7. 7. 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 ESAVigil-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. T he 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 BEFORE Restoration AFTER Restoration 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
  8. 8. 8 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013 T he 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 INPUTS Distribution & 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 BEFORE Restoration AFTER Restoration Uplift = Change in weighted linear feet of salmon habitat functional habitat 150+ 50= 400 WLF (40%) of50+ 150+ functional habitat 50+25+ 25= 100 WLF (10%) of 1,000 feet stream reach 1,000 feet stream reach Mary Edwards Photography
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. Upliftfrom2013Projects SolarLoad Avoided Phosphorus Reduced Nitrogen Reduced Sediments Reduced Increased StreamFunction WaterTemperature Decreased (DailyMax) Increased SalmonHabitat ToolusedShade-a-latorNutrientTrackingTool(NTT) StreamFunction Assessment Methodology WaterTemperature TransactionTool (W3T) SalmonCalculator Unitsofmeasure Kilocaloriesperday (kcals/day) Poundsperyear (lbs/year) Poundsperyear (lbs/year) Poundsperyear (lbs/year) Functionallinear feet(FLF) DegreesCelsius (°C) Weightedlinearfeet (WLF) Before(pre-project)16,748,2600.06.65762,1491,489 After(post-project)7,040,4690.05.42042,3761,511 Uplift9,707,7910.01.237222722 RestorationActions7,599feetofstreamprotected,70.2acresofriparianareaprotected,500nativetreesinstalled,17,164squarefeetofoffchannelhabitatcreated Before(pre-project)77,626,4670.00.41 After(post-project)36,187,7300.00.30 Uplift41,438,737*0.0*0.1*1* RestorationActions4,525nativetreesandshrubsinstalled Before(pre-project)3,120,6055.044.54,918 After(post-project)667,9874.330.53,130 Uplift2,452,6180.714.01,788 RestorationActions3,600nativetreesandshrubsinstalled Before(pre-project)63,885,35169.4447.634,300 After(post-project)45,356,10066.3418.233,544 Uplift18,529,2513.129.4756 RestorationActions8,450nativetreesandshrubsinstalled Before(pre-project)15,477,5630.31.4163 After(post-project)6,550,6940.00.875 Uplift8,926,8690.30.688 RestorationActions5,600nativetreesandshrubsinstalled Before(pre-project)50,074,31027.2136.141,231 After(post-project)8,264,7102.815.01,114 Uplift41,809,60024.4121.140,117 RestorationActions5,441nativetreesandshrubsinstalled Before(pre-project)33,093,2471.812.62,717 After(post-project)9,521,1471.48.81,468 Uplift23,572,1000.43.81,249 RestorationActions2,880nativetreesandshrubsinstalled Before(pre-project)66,637,2932.312.32,152 After(post-project)9,715,3681.98.61,344 Uplift56,921,9250.43.7808 RestorationActions3,360nativetreesandshrubsinstalled 10 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013 Inadditiontotheprojects listedinthisUpliftReport, TheFreshwaterTrustalso protected15.62billiongallons (113milliongallonsofwaterper day)instreamacrossthestate. RogueRiver Mile128 Phase2 RogueBasin RudioRanch JohnDayBasin MillRaceRiver Mile2 WillametteBasin Lewis&Clark RiverMile9 NorthCoastBasin MiddleFork JohnDayRiver Mile50 JohnDayBasin Applegate RiverMile28.5 RogueBasin Applegate RiverMile29.5 RogueBasin Applegate RiverMile30 RogueBasin
  11. 11. 11 — The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013 Before(pre-project)0.00.0960 After(post-project)0.00.0540 Uplift0.00.0420 RestorationActions8,448feetofstreamprotected,150.5acresofriparianareaprotected Before(pre-project)15.192.314,84221.6 After(post-project)5.717.16,73421.5 Uplift9.475.28,1080.1 RestorationActions0.52cfsrestoredinstream(10%oftotalflow) Before(pre-project)11.439.510,78619.8 After(post-project)0.46.179819.7 Uplift11.033.49,9880.1 RestorationActions0.80cfsrestoredinstream(31%oftotalflow) Before(pre-project)1,288 After(post-project)2,000 Uplift712 RestorationActions629feetofsidechannelhabitatrestored,5largewoodhabitatstructures,2,746feetofstreamrestored Before(pre-project)1,130 After(post-project)5,192 Uplift4,062 RestorationActions5,067feetofsidechannelhabitatrestored,16largewoodhabitatstructures,2,640feetofstreamrestored Before(pre-project)600 After(post-project)1,548 Uplift948 RestorationActions1,005feetofsidechannelhabitatrestored,3largewoodhabitatstructures,763feetofstreamrestored Before(pre-project)901 After(post-project)1,486 Uplift585 RestorationActions631feetofsidechannelhabitatrestored,1largewoodhabitatstructure,1,404feetofstreamrestored Before(pre-project)28.8 After(post-project)26.9 Uplift1.9 RestorationActions1.39cfsrestoredinstream(85%oftotalflow) QuantifiedUpliftfor2013Projects203,358,891kcals/day49.7lbs/year282.5lbs/year63,695lbs/year6,534FLF2.1°C22WLF QuantifiedUpliftfor2012Projects80,422,822kcals/day5.5lbs/year82.6lbs/year1,579lbs/yearn/a**1.0°C7,170WLF CumulativeQuantifiedUplift (2012+2013) 283,781,713kcals/day (solarloadavoided) 55.2lbs/year (reducedphosphorus) 365.1lbs/year (reducednitrogen) 65,274lbs/year (reducedsediments) 6,534FLF (increased streamfunction) 3.1°C (reducedmaxdaily watertemperature) 7,192WLF (increased salmonhabitat) *ThesenumbersarefromthePhase2plantingofRogueRiver.The2013plantingaugmentedtheplantingin2012. **TheStreamFunctionalAssessmentMethodologywasnotavailablein2012. NOTESTOTABLE The Freshwater Trust Uplift Report 2013 — 11 MiddleFork JohnDayRiver Reach1 JohnDayBasin Catherine Creek GrandeRondeBasin Fifteenmile Creek HoodBasin SalmonRiver Mile0.91–1.43 SandyBasin StillCreek Reach1 (PumpkinPatch) SandyBasin StillCreek Reach2 (Straights) SandyBasin StillCreek Reach3 (Compression) SandyBasin RudioCreek JohnDayBasin
  12. 12. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION U.S. POSTAGE PAID PORTLAND, OR PERMIT No. 4313 65 SWYamhill Street, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

×