Integrated Riparian Management

The PFC concept is: Based on the fact that systems need to be functional before they can produce aquatic or riparian values – or desired conditions

Desired Future Conditions 6/19/2018 Desired Future Conditions Current Conditions Every PowerPoint presentation has to have some “cute” graphics and here’s mine! Basically, what we’ve had before is a wall between where we are now and where we want to go. Using techniques we’ve typically used to-date we can’t see over the wall and by the time we’ve laboriously crawled over the wall much valuable time has been lost and many species don’t have all that much time.

Desired Future Conditions 6/19/2018 PFC Desired Future Conditions Current Conditions A properly completed PFC assessment can provide a door through which we can only get an early peek at what is actually possible in the way of desired conditions but also allows us to more quickly move from current conditions to desired conditions without expensive dead ends.

Why PFC (Prichard et al. 1998)? PFC Provides necessary broad scale perspective Triage: Assign priority order to projects where resources can be best used, are most needed, or are most likely to achieve success Focus on FAR reaches w/high values (to avoid loss of function & values) Focus management & monitoring on “no answers” Appropriate time for experienced IDT to locate representative DMAs

WHY PFC? Broad scale assessments provide landscape scale overview of existing conditions… define the scope of the issues/problem… develop solutions that become alternatives)… Focusing on physical functioning helps communicate among stakeholders

Step 1: Assess riparian resource function using PFC Integrated Riparian Management Step 1: Assess riparian resource function using PFC   Identify assessment area and assemble an ID team Review existing information and delineate and stratify reaches Determine reach potential Complete PFC assessment (validate with monitoring data if necessary)

Modify Objectives if Necessary Step 5: Design and implement management and restoration actions Step 7: Implement adaptive actions   Modify Objectives if Necessary Monitor Adaptive Actions Step 2: Identify riparian resource values and complete additional assessments  Step 6: Monitor and analyze effectiveness of actions & update resource condition ratings (PFC)  Step 1: Assess riparian area function using PFC    Step 3: Prioritize reaches for management, restoration or monitoring actions   Step 4: Identify issues and establish goals & objectives

Step 2: Identify Riparian Resource Values and Complete Additional Assessments Values include: Fish and wildlife habitat, Recreational opportunities, Livestock forage, Sensitive plants, Water quality, Endangered Species Act requirements, Species of concern, Special interest areas, etc.

Step 3: Prioritize reaches for management, restoration or monitoring actions Priorities include: Restoring function, especially to FAR reaches Restoring values Legal requirements Well timed restoration projects or management actions Causal factors of watershed health Low cost and effective remediations

6/19/2018 Degradation Rates This data was put together by Erv Cowley BLM Boise State office from some streams in southern Idaho. As things degrade, channel and water quality are the last attributes to show change. Again this shows that these two attributes are not the best items to determine whether management is working on a short term basis. 11

Recovery Rates Non-Functional 6/19/2018 Recovery Rates Non-Functional This graph presents some information of interest when choosing appropriate indicators. This graph doesn’t depict data from any one particular place but rather represents a compilation of the experience of Erv Cowley of the BLM Idaho State Office and several colleagues. As such, the time frames are general rather than specific but they are pretty close. Notice that if our management is going to be successful then herbaceous vegetation should begin showing an upward trend in about 3-5 years. Woody vegetation, if within the site potential, should begin to show an upward trend in 5 – 15 years. The slower responding channel features and water quality won’t begin to show change for about 20-25 years – and then if you’ll recall the Power Curve I showed you earlier, we still can’t prove it’s actually on an upward trend this early! But, it will be and we can prove it by watching these quicker responding indicators.

01 Bear Creek Presentation 1_18_2008 P N http://md.water.usgs.gov/publications/wsp-2400/de-html.html http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs06303/images/LAKESFSfig05_opt.gif Hourly, Seasonal, and Flow related variation Bear Creek was grazed season long for 100+ years. The photo point is located at RM 4.75, elevation is 3500 feet, gradient is < 1%, soils are primarily sandy loam with inclusions of loam and clay loam, and vegetation along the channel is primarily upland species on the gravel/cobble bars and a mix of Kentucky bluegrass and baltic rush with some remnant sedges. Potential is willow/water birch/sedge/rush/grass. Precipitation is 11 inches per year with 80% coming from snow. In the 1950’s, the willows were sprayed under a Soil Conservation Service (SCS) program to reduce water use. In 1964, there was a 100+ year event (rain on snow December 24, 1964), the stream downcut, and by the time of this photo had eroded laterally and widened out. The livestock use in 1977 was 25 cows/calves for three months (June, July, Aug), or 75 animal unit months (AUMs). The vegetation is mostly upland species with some Baltic rush (dark green in center of picture). Uplands are dominated by basin big sagebrush and western juniper. Reference points for future photos are the plump juniper on the right and the snag on the left indicated by the red arrows. The management was changed initially to two years of rest, then followed by a late winter (mid Feb) to early spring (mid April) grazing system. Temp. Turbidity http://id.water.usgs.gov/grapher/tutorial/examples.html http://md.water.usgs.gov/posters/mont/paint1.gif

01 Bear Creek Presentation 1_18_2008 Bear Creek was grazed season long for 100+ years. The photo point is located at RM 4.75, elevation is 3500 feet, gradient is < 1%, soils are primarily sandy loam with inclusions of loam and clay loam, and vegetation along the channel is primarily upland species on the gravel/cobble bars and a mix of Kentucky bluegrass and baltic rush with some remnant sedges. Potential is willow/water birch/sedge/rush/grass. Precipitation is 11 inches per year with 80% coming from snow. In the 1950’s, the willows were sprayed under a Soil Conservation Service (SCS) program to reduce water use. In 1964, there was a 100+ year event (rain on snow December 24, 1964), the stream downcut, and by the time of this photo had eroded laterally and widened out. The livestock use in 1977 was 25 cows/calves for three months (June, July, Aug), or 75 animal unit months (AUMs). The vegetation is mostly upland species with some Baltic rush (dark green in center of picture). Uplands are dominated by basin big sagebrush and western juniper. Reference points for future photos are the plump juniper on the right and the snag on the left indicated by the red arrows. The management was changed initially to two years of rest, then followed by a late winter (mid Feb) to early spring (mid April) grazing system. Bear Creek May 1977

01 Bear Creek Presentation 1_18_2008 In September of 1997 a moderate event brought sediment into the system, but was not large enough to lay down the vegetation. These small events are important for helping to shape the channel. 20 years Bear Creek Sept 1997

01 Bear Creek Presentation Difference in Air & Water Temperatures 1_18_2008 Bear Creek - Central Oregon 1976 100 80 Air 60 Water 40 Difference Temperature (Degrees F) 20 -20 -40 8-Aug 12-Aug 16-Aug 20-Aug 24-Aug 28-Aug In 1977 - Red is air, blue is water, and purple is the difference. Notice that these temperatures fluctuate from day to day and show varied correlation between the two. Date

01 Bear Creek Presentation 1_18_2008 Difference in Air & Water Temperatures Bear Creek - Central Oregon 1998 120 Air 100 Water 80 Difference Temperature Degrees F 60 40 20 7-Aug In 1998, maximum water temperatures (blue lines) no longer wildly fluctuate up and down with changes in air temperature (red line), but had become flattened. The flat line on the air (red line) in early August is due to the 100 degree F upper limits of the thermograph. The difference between the water and air (purple line) now resembled the fluctuation in the air temperature and not the water. However, on some days the maximum August temperature is above 64 degrees F and does not meet OR Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Standards for trout. The important point is the trend has been upward for 30 years and temperatures, along with other value based goals, will continue to improve over time. The point is not that we haven’t achieved our goal for fish, but that we have a steady improvement through the restoration of stream function. 11-Aug 15-Aug 19-Aug 23-Aug 27-Aug 31-Aug Date

01 Bear Creek Presentation 1_18_2008 Bear Creek (3.5 Miles) 1978 1994 Riparian Area 3.8 acres 12 acres Bank Erosion 12,448 feet 799 feet Water Storage 500,000 gal/mi 2,096,000 gal/mi Production 200 lbs/acre 2000 lbs/acre Additional data: AUMs increased from 75 AUM’s in 1977 (25 cows for three months-June, July, August) to 250 AUMs during February, March and April in 1994. The plots have not been clipped since 1994, but professors from Oregon State University Range Science Department estimate that production is now over 3,000 pounds per acre and bank erosion is less than 100 feet. Data from C. Rasmussen (1996) and W. Elmore

Management needs change Continue what works Focus on risks: Trampling - season of use Weak plants - duration of use Up or Downstream - water, sediment, ___? Focus on recovery: Willows - season of use, rest Sedges - rotation, duration F. Continue what works

Step 4: Identify issues and establish goals & objectives No items and impaired values identify issues Priority reaches need objectives Baseline data helps quantify resource objectives

Good Resource Objectives Describe the continuing resource attributes to be achieved by management Achievable, Measurable, Worthy

Good objectives should be: 1. Specific (e.g. % stabilizing species on greenline) 2. Measurable (e.g. with MIM) 3. Achievable (known to be within potential) 4. Results-oriented (Relevant to management) 5. Time-fixed (later recovery (e.g. fish habitat) depends on early plant recovery (stabilizers)) (Adamcik et al. 2004):

A Management Chain Reaction 6/19/2018 A Management Chain Reaction Rotation grazing for three weeks (or other strategy) leads to A four inch stubble height and 85% growing season recovery leads to An increase in colonizers leads to Deposition there of fine sediments leads to An increase in stabilizers leads to Narrowing a stream leads to Increased floodplain access & aquifer recharge leads to Improved base flow leads to Improved water and habitat quality leads to Increased fish populations leads to Increased recreationist satisfaction So, which of these provides the best focus for an objective? By learning about riparian areas people, especially those who have worked in interdisciplinary teams, can often see a chain reaction of management effects. Thinking through this chain reaction, helps a person think about the time scale and the important attributes for setting objectives. There is nothing sacred about the % numbers used in this list. After taking time for some discussion of this, the next slide offers some help in answering the question.

A Management Chain Reaction Where is the objective? 6/19/2018 A Management Chain Reaction Where is the objective? Efficiently Monitored Actions or tools Rotation grazing A four inch stubble height and 85% growing season recovery An increase in colonizers Deposition there of fine sediments An increase in stabilizers Narrowing a stream Increased floodplain access & aquifer recharge Improved base flow etc. Improved habitat quality Improved water quality Increased fish populations Increased recreationist satisfaction Efficiently Monitored (MIM) Objectives Short term monitoring often focuses on the management actions. While these considerations are not objectives for the resource, they often trigger management actions or provide an indication of relative success in implementing a management action plan. Resource objectives describe an attribute of the resource that results from the planned management. Generally these attributes are easily measured even if the goal is more complex. Selection of the best attribute for an objective depends on the time frame for adaptive management. While riparian proper functioning condition (PFC) is considered the foundation for the values-based desired future condition, PFC is not a monitoring protocol because it is not quantitative. Once management has progressed the riparian area to proper functioning condition, the desired future condition becomes the focus for selecting attributes for monitoring as objectives. Try to select attributes that do not vary widely especially for reasons not related to management. PFC Values (difficult to monitor)

At the Designated Monitoring Area 2 on Bear Camp Creek: Objectives should be quantified for a specific location using baseline data and experience For example: At the Designated Monitoring Area 2 on Bear Camp Creek: Increase colonizers by X % Increase stabilizers by Y % Narrow the greenline to greenline width by Z %

Match Objectives to Planning Timeline 6/19/2018 Match Objectives to Planning Timeline ANNUAL = End-of-season condition INDICATORS OF T residual vegetation bank alteration Recovery period e.g. MANAGEMENT I 3 - 5 - YEARS = Vegetative INDICATORS OF e.g. greenline M RECOVERY 5 - 10 YEARS = Vegetative/Physical E INDICATORS OF e.g. X-section composition Woody recruitment Greenline to Greenline Width Bank Stability Management can adapt whenever sufficient knowledge motivates a change. In the short term, immediate effects are a key to interpret whether the management that year resulted in what was expected. With time vegetation begins to recover through reproduction and expansion, especially on the greenline where water is available. The vegetation leads to sediment deposition and to more vegetation. The combination of vegetation and channel form ultimately lead to additional changes such as water quality, fish habitat, etc. RECOVERY DECADES = Water and Habitat Quality INDICATORS OF Temp Pools e.g. RECOVERY

Match Objectives to Planning Timeline 6/19/2018 Match Objectives to Planning Timeline ANNUAL = End-of-season condition INDICATORS OF T residual vegetation bank alteration Recovery period e.g. MANAGEMENT I 3 - 5 - YEARS = Vegetative INDICATORS OF e.g. Greenline composition M RECOVERY 5 - 10 YEARS = Vegetative/Physical E INDICATORS OF e.g. X-section composition Woody recruitment Greenline to Greenline Width Bank Stability Management can adapt whenever sufficient knowledge motivates a change. In the short term, immediate effects are a key to interpret whether the management that year resulted in what was expected. With time vegetation begins to recover through reproduction and expansion, especially on the greenline where water is available. The vegetation leads to sediment deposition and to more vegetation. The combination of vegetation and channel form ultimately lead to additional changes such as water quality, fish habitat, etc. RECOVERY DECADES = Water and Habitat Quality INDICATORS OF Temp pools e.g. RECOVERY

Match Objectives to Planning Timeline 6/19/2018 Match Objectives to Planning Timeline ANNUAL = End-of-season condition INDICATORS OF residual vegetation bank alteration Recovery period T e.g. MANAGEMENT I 3 – 5+ - YEARS = Vegetative INDICATORS OF e.g. Greenline composition M RECOVERY 5 – 10+ YEARS = Vegetative/Physical E INDICATORS OF e.g. X-section composition Woody recruitment Greenline to greenline width Bank Stability Management can adapt whenever sufficient knowledge motivates a change. In the short term, immediate effects are a key to interpret whether the management that year resulted in what was expected. With time vegetation begins to recover through reproduction and expansion, especially on the greenline where water is available. The vegetation leads to sediment deposition and to more vegetation. The combination of vegetation and channel form ultimately lead to additional changes such as water quality, fish habitat, etc. RECOVERY DECADES = Water and Habitat Quality INDICATORS OF Temp pools e.g. RECOVERY

Match Objectives to Planning Timeline 6/19/2018 Match Objectives to Planning Timeline ANNUAL = End-of-season condition INDICATORS OF T residual vegetation bank alteration Recovery period e.g. MANAGEMENT I 3 – 5+ - YEARS = Vegetative INDICATORS OF e.g. Greenline Composition M RECOVERY 5 – 10+ YEARS = Vegetative/Physical E INDICATORS OF e.g. X-section composition Woody recruitment Greenline to greenline width Bank Stability Management can adapt whenever sufficient knowledge motivates a change. In the short term, immediate effects are a key to interpret whether the management that year resulted in what was expected. With time vegetation begins to recover through reproduction and expansion, especially on the greenline where water is available. The vegetation leads to sediment deposition and to more vegetation. The combination of vegetation and channel form ultimately lead to additional changes such as water quality, fish habitat, etc. RECOVERY DECADES = Water and Habitat Quality INDICATORS OF Temp. or width Pool quality e.g. RECOVERY

6/19/2018 NON-LINEAR TIMELINES The power of drought – For allowing vegetation to encroach into a stream The power of Floods – For moving sediment, building banks, forming channels The power of disturbance – for reinitiating succession Management can adapt whenever sufficient knowledge motivates a change. In the short term, immediate effects are a key to interpret whether the management that year resulted in what was expected. With time vegetation begins to recover through reproduction and expansion, especially on the greenline where water is available. The vegetation leads to sediment deposition and to more vegetation. The combination of vegetation and channel form ultimately lead to additional changes such as water quality, fish habitat, etc.

Bottom Line - More good than bad - Season, duration, rotation, recovery Often Precluding Riparian Functions and Recovery Often Allowing and Supporting Riparian Functions Long season of use Short duration Little time for regrowth Long recovery periods Late use Regrowth before winter Consistent timing of use Mix up the timing year to year Selective use Even use Annual growing season use Occasional rest No woody recovery Stutter deferred Large pasture Riparian pasture Stragglers Cleaned pastures No riding or stockmanship Riding, herding, and stockmanship

Bottom Line - More good than bad - Distribution and Intensity Often Precluding Riparian Functions and Recovery Often Allowing and Supporting Riparian Functions Sustained Heavy use Moderate-light intensity Hot or dry growing season use Cool season use Season-long use Graze early No riding or stockmanship Riding, herding, and stockmanship Riparian water only Off-stream waters Salt on the creeks Scattered salt/supplement Retain riparian dwellers Select for hill climbers Cow-calf pairs Yearling cattle, steers, and or sheep

Core Grazing Management Principles Avoid stress on important forage plants Moderate or lower utilization OR Graze for only a short period when plants are growing (shorter when growing faster) Provide long growing season recovery with no grazing before next use Graze in a different season at next use

Step 6: Monitor and Analyze the Effectiveness of Actions and Update Resource Condition Ratings (PFC) Implementation monitoring (short-term monitoring) records the management applied, immediate effects, and other events (e.g. actual use with dates, floods, etc.). Effectiveness monitoring (long-term monitoring) evaluates progress toward objectives (e.g. % greenline stabilizers after 3-5 years)

Riparian (MIM) Multiple Indicator Monitoring (Burton et al. 2011) At a designated monitoring area (DMA) Short-term monitoring: Stubble height Woody utilization Streambank alteration Long-term monitoring Greenline comp. (wetland and stability rating) Bank cover Bank stability Greenline to greenline distance Woody height & cover

6 – Monitor and Analyze the Effectiveness of Actions Three common types of monitoring areas: Representative DMA: Reach chosen to be representative of a riparian complex – typifies a larger area – PFC Assessment is an ideal foundation for selecting representative DMAs Critical DMA: Reach is not representative but important enough that specific data are needed at the site Reference DMA: Reach chosen to obtain data for use in helping to establish initial desired conditions for a similar area/complex (see Burton et al. 2011, pp. 7-10 for selecting DMAs) The MIM protocol uses fixed locations, or Designated Monitoring Areas (DMAs), to determine condition and track change over time. There are three common types of DMAs: Representative DMA: A monitoring site in a riparian complex that is representative of a larger area. This is the most common type of DMA used by land managers. Representative DMAs should be located within a single riparian complex. Criteria for locating representative DMAs include: Riparian complex for monitoring should be selected by an experienced interdisciplinary team—preferably the same one that conducted the PFC assessment DMA should be located in the riparian complex that is most sensitive to the management activity of interest The DMA is located outisde of a livestock concentration area (e.g., water gaps, fence lines, etc.) The DMA should be free of compounding activities, not livestock, plus camps, plus boat launches, plus…) DMA has the potential to respond to management and can achieve objectives. Critical DMA: Is NOT representative of a larger area but is important enough that specific information is needed at that particular site to address site-specific questions for highly localized purposes (e.g., small critical spawning reach in an area of concentrated livestock use). Reference DMA: A DMA chosen to obtain reference data useful for identifying potential conditions and for establishing initial desired condition objectives for a similar riparian complex (e.g., a grazing exclosure).

Update PFC Assessment with Quantitative Monitoring -- Examples A - PFC as FAR Selected DMA & collected baseline MIM data 65% greenline stabilizers Management then provided more recovery time 5-years later 85% greenline stabilizers ID Team considered 85% adequate Validated the rest of the reach, and Rated the reach PFC B – PFC as FAR Air photo monitoring shows adequate expansion of willows, spot checking validated new rating of PFC

Step 7: Implement Adaptive Actions If monitoring shows inadequate progress or unexpected results: A - Analyze short-term monitoring to understand why Adjust management Continue monitoring B - Learn from monitoring information Adjust objectives if needed Adjust management if needed

PFC in Documents Communicating with stakeholders Purpose and need 6/19/2018 PFC in Documents Communicating with stakeholders Purpose and need Description of the existing environment Selection of alternatives Effects of proposed actions Planning monitoring Criteria for adapting management Management can adapt whenever sufficient knowledge motivates a change. In the short term, immediate effects are a key to interpret whether the management that year resulted in what was expected. With time vegetation begins to recover through reproduction and expansion, especially on the greenline where water is available. The vegetation leads to sediment deposition and to more vegetation. The combination of vegetation and channel form ultimately lead to additional changes such as water quality, fish habitat, etc.

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout CH Listed Snails Spring-fed brooks (perennial) Axial stream (perennial) Tributary stream (intermittent) Critical Habitat Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Seen-better-times Allotment Herd Management Area Group exercise. Consider the functional ratings and the local values. Come up with a short list of 2 or 3 priority reaches for management or restoration and explain why. Describe other reaches that would be low priority and explain why. Functional Ratings PFC FAR-U FAR-NA FAR-D NF

PFC does not equal Supports PFC does not replace 6/19/2018 Supports PFC does not equal Desired Future Condition (DFC) PFC does not replace Just remember PFC does not equal desired future conditions nor does it replace legal requirements. What it is, is a very valuable tool which supports and facilitates meeting all of these. Legal Requirements, e.g., ESA, CWA

PFC Helps Understand what can be achieved 6/19/2018 PFC Helps Understand what can be achieved Define/prioritize issues to address Select appropriate management practices Provide linkage between reach/watershed processes and habitat/water quality conditions I’ve just shown vegetation as an example of potential indicators and many times it is very useful. However, other indicators such as mechanical bank damage, upstream watershed conditions, etc, may also be useful and necessary indicators. A properly done PFC assessment will help immensely in the task of choosing appropriate indicators rather than just monitoring everything and then digging for the pony at the bottom of the pile. Strategize appropriate monitoring Communicate among stakeholders