2013 uplift report: quantifying ecological uplift
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
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 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
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 — 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONU.S. PoSTAge
PAIdPORTLAND, OR
PERMIT No. 431365 SW Yamhill Street, Suite 200Portland, OR 97204
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED