A Tale of Two Streams Lessons Learned and Applied on the Central Oregon Coast Enchanted Valley Stream Restoration Karnowsky Creek Stream Restoration Johan Hogervorst and Barbara Ellis-Sugai, PhD Siuslaw National Forest Project site locations SIUSLAW NATIONAL FOREST Tillamook $T Portland Hebo Lincoln City Salem Enchanted Valley Newport Waldport Alsea Corvallis Florence Reedsport Mapleton Eugene Karnowsky Cr.
Channelized Bailey Creek, near Florence Oregon
Enchanted Valley Project Controversial: perceived conflict between elk and salmon habitat. Concern about sediment in Mercer Lake High cost: $250K for 1.1 miles of channel Mix of funding sources, third OWEB, third DSL, third Forest Service Difficult permit process
Lower Bailey Creek after construction in 1999. 5500 feet of meandering channel 2000 plugged old ditch to create ponds (yellow) and diverted water into new channel (red). 2002 added wood to pools and built better connections to ponds (blue). 2000-present willows and riparian planting 1999-present - monitoring cross sections, water quality, delta in lake, fish counts, vegetation surveys Cross-section 13, 1999
Cross-section 13-2000 Cross-section 13-2001
Cross-section 13-2002 Enchanted Valley Project: Results five-fold increase in Coho juvenile numbers in first year (2001); slightly less for 2002. Design feedback overdependence on flow modeling and bank erosion concerns may have caused us to oversize our cross section.
Karnowsky Creek, Lower Siuslaw Watershed Mapleton Florence Siuslaw Estuary Karnowsky Watershed How was the Karnowsky Project Different? 1. Built on partnerships. 2. Leveraging of funds 3. More flexible permit process 4. Cost effective due to use of equipment rental. 5. Design University Student Design Team; incorporation of more reference conditions 6. Planning window 10 months
Karnowsky Creek Restoration Partners Siuslaw SWCD Siuslaw Watershed Council Siuslaw National Forest Siuslaw Institute National Forest Foundation Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board The Local Community Project Chronology Forest Service Land Acquisition, 1992 Project Site Visioning, Fall 2000 Summer Intern Plan Development, Summer 2001 Partnership and Funding Development, Fall 2001 Planning, Winter, 2001-Summer, 2002 Implementation, 2002 2003 Monitoring, 2002 2006 and beyond Funding Development for Phases II & III, 2002 and beyond
Pre-project Conditions USFS Private Head of tide Lower Karnowsky Estuarine Habitat
Pre-project conditions Karnowsky Valley Severe Down Cutting Karnowsky Creek Stream Restoration Final channel design, 2002.1%.65% Maintain Existing Spawning - Varied radius of curvature - Meander cutoff potential - Gradient stepped up - Hummocks in floodplain - Whole trees in channel and floodplain - Ponds and connections created where streams come in 1.5%
Spyder digging new channel in tidal Influence zone Photo Hummock shaping
Excavator Work Photos Excavator riffle Pool Construction Position Tracking Grade on the Ground Digging a pool
Stockpiling material for next year s plugs Pulling trees into new channel
Seeding and Riparian Planting - All open ground seeded - Vegetation Plan done by U of O graduate student - Hummocks are being planted - Mapleton Schools providing plants from native nursery New Karnowsky channel at high tide Photo December, 2002
New channel above tidal zone Photo December 2002 Karnowsky Creek Monitoring A Community Partnership Approach Groundwater wells Water Quality Fish numbers Planting surveys
2003 Karnowsky Construction - Ditch plugs - Divert water into new channel - Additional wood - Pull all pipes and roads - Connect all tributaries Future Work - Side tributary reconstruction - Estuary Acquisition & Restoration - Upland road decommission Lessons learned: These projects are a lot of fun. Excavator is cheaper and faster Placing material as hummocks in lower valley saved cost of haul. Hummocks created planting spots above reed canary grass. Time-and-equipment contract can reduce costs.
Why do it? Immediate benefits and for future generations.