The Oregon Watershed Council Model AWRA Webinar, April 28, 2015

Tara Davis, Executive Director Calapooia Watershed Council

Presentation Outline

� Oregon’s Watershed Council Model & Funding � Watershed Council Example � Willamette Case Study � Discussion- 15 minutes

Oregon Watershed Councils �Watershed Councils & Oregon Plan � The 1995 Legislature unanimously passed House Bill

3441 providing guidance in establishing watershed councils but making it clear that formation of a council is a local government decision, with no state approval required.

� State statute declares “The long-term protection of the water resources of the Oregon, including sustainable watershed function, is an essential component of Oregon’s environmental and economic stability and growth.” –ORS 541.350

Oregon Watershed Councils

� Locally organized, voluntary, non-regulatory groups recognized and approved by a local government group (ex. County)

� Represent a balance of interested and affected persons within the watershed

� Typically use consensus decision making �Guided by Oregon Plan

Data Source: OWEB

Oregon Watershed Restoration Funding

� Ballot Measure 76, passed in 2010 � Directs 7.5% of all state lottery dollars to Oregon

Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) �OWEB awards grants to watershed councils and other

conservation organizations (ex. SWCD’s and land trusts)

� Directs 7.5% to Oregon State Parks

� Federal and Foundation funding � Federal land base � Long-term foundation initiatives

Oregon Funding Model � Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board � Diverse state board representation � State lottery dollars- leveraged at 25% minimum � Capacity support

Data Source: OWEB, 2013-2014 Reporting

OWEB Grant Opportunities

� Assessment � Landowner recruitment and outreach � Design � Implementation of restoration projects � Effectiveness monitoring � Plant establishment

� Monitoring

Restoration Project & Program Types

� Restoration � Habitat enhancement (instream and upland) � River connectivity and fish passage (salmonids and several other

ESA species) � Riparian corridor, floodplain vegetation restoration � Temperature and sedimentation

� Private landowner education and outreach � Small acreage to large scale industrial farming/timber

� Youth education � Community engagement � Monitoring- WQ, GW, Flows

Source: OWEB

Data Source: OWEB, 2012-2013

Calapooia Watershed Council Example

� Formed in 1999, Linn & Benton County resolutions � ESA listed spring Chinook salmon and winter steelhead � DEQ 303 (d) listed streams (temperature) � 501(c)3 non-profit status in 2008 � Rural, few municipalities, 95% private, industrial field crops

and timber � 10 board members: Weyerhaeuser, Cascade Timber, industrial

grass seed farmers, agency staff, education, Albany, recreation, citizens-at-large

� 7 staff: Executive Director, Project Managers (2), Operations, Youth Education, Community Engagement, Monitoring

Calapooia Watershed Assessment 2004

Calapooia Assessment & Planning

Before/After

2008

2011

Calapooia Fish Passage Restored November 2011

Former dam site

Riffle 1

Calapooia inlet

Large wood

Riffle 3

Riffle 2

Large wood Large wood

Large wood

Large wood

Floodplain bench

• 8 mile section of river

• 145 acres

• 17 landowners

Calapooia Floodplain Restoration

Calapooia-Santiam Riparian Revegetation Program

Mechanics � Strategic recruitment

� Pooled funding from diverse sources

� Shared staff & contractors

� Contract grow & storage facility

Accomplishments Approach

Year Acres # Sites # plants planted

2011 43.2 16 56,111

2012 86.3 21 166,369

2013 121.6 17 300,000

2014 107 14 299,985

2015 72.7 9 211,750

Totals 430.8 77 1,034,215

Private Landowner Partnership

Willamette River Basin

Oregon’s Willamette Valley � Little of Willamette Valley in conservation ownership. Overall less than 4% of

the WV is permanently protected, with only 1-2% considered “effectively conserved”- among the lowest rates in the western U.S.

� More than 70% of Oregonians live in the WV. Nearly 70% of Oregonians live within 20 miles of the Willamette River.

� In the next 30 years (by 2040) the population will increase by 1 million- and that this is equal to the cities of Eugene, Salem, Hillsboro, Albany and Corvallis combined – twice over.

� Less than one percent of the native upland and wet prairies still remain, making them among the rarest of North American ecosystems.

� 55 species are recognized by USFWS as Species of Concern, Candidates for Listing, Proposed for Listing, Listed as Threatened, or Listed as Endangered.

Ecoregional Planning: The “Willamette Synthesis” Project

Willamette Initiative Partners

Watershed Councils

NGOs

Land Trusts

Local, State and Federal

Agencies

Obstacle: Scale vs. Capacity

Problem: The restoration challenge far outsizes the capacity of individual organizations to address it.

Solution: Scale vs. Capacity

Solution: Provide flexible, long-term funding to help increase organizational capacity & connect groups to each other and the big picture.

Progress: Mainstem & Tributaries

Willamette Initiative- Statistics

Mainstem Willamette Protection and Restoration

Year Implemented Acquistion Floodplain

Reconnection Floodplain

Reforestation Invasive Species

EDRR Land Assessments

Acres River Miles Acres River Miles Acres River Miles Acres

River Miles Acres

River Miles

2010 1495.5 6.7 3.7 0.1 239.9 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2011 375.7 1.2 3.1 0.2 89.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 92.1 0.9

2012 287.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 332.0 2.1 0.1 0.0 2110.7 20.5

2013 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 124.6 0.8 7.8 0.1 361.6 3.4

2014 75.5 1.0 132.7 1.2 164.9 0.2 294.1 1.7 455.0 0.9

Totals 2234.5 10.1 139.5 1.9 950.4 5.8 302.0 1.8 3019.4 25.7

$38,351,715 Spent on Projects on the river by MMT, BPA,OWEB

$1,381,827 Spent on support efforts for River monitoring, projects by funders (85% from MMT)

Willamette Tributaries- Council Stats

Tributary Protection and Restoration Efforts

Riparian Restoration Activities

Fencing Site Prep Planting Planting Interplant Interplant Invasive Invasive Maintenance

Year Impl Miles Acres Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres

2009 0.3 8.8 15.9 1.9 0.1 2.8 23.9

2010 1.2 69.3 15.8 2.7 1.6 0.4 28.2

2011 9.2 80.9 54.6 6.1 1.1 0.2 0.6 11.8 68.9

2012 0.3 122.0 169.8 18.4 7.2 1.5 179.4 39.4 291.4

2013 8.4 168.2 177.3 15.9 7.3 2.1 124.1 4.7 358.7

2014 1.0 105.9 227.9 18.2 5.2 0.5 137.5 1.4 545.0

Totals 20.4 555.1 661.3 63.3 22.4 4.8 441.7 60.0 1316.1

1000 landowners engaged, 977 activiely working with Councils

700 acres planted/interplanted, 1300 acres maintained along 70 miles of streams

440 acres of Invasives EDRR along 60 miles of streams, and 380 acres of upland priarie and oak restoration

70 barriers removed, 31 miles of instream work, 210 structures and almost 12 acres of reconnections

2.15 2.81 5.80

19.74 17.61 18.24

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Miles of Riparian Revegetation

24.75 17.38 53.59

162.70 189.32

251.97

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Acres of Riparian Revegetation

0

10000000

20000000

30000000

40000000

50000000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Estimated Kcal Load Reductions

Total Miles Model Watersheds = 66.36 (Single line calculated)

Total Acres = 699.71 Polygon delineated and measured

Estimated Kcal = 141,280,040 Represents only 71.2% of sites, based

on Shade_D in DEQ TMDL model

Source: Bonneville Environmental Foundation, 2014

Beyond the Numbers � Promote and support

“collective impact” - � A common vision or goals � Shared metrics � Mutually reinforcing

activities � Continuous communication � “Backbone” services

� Funder collaboration � Conferences � Peer-to-peer learning

Learn from Other Watershed Initiatives

� Increase participation by landowners and business interests

� Support and undertake local official outreach � Sustained Outputs � Sustain acres and miles of stream banks restored

(outputs) � Translate outputs into long-term watershed

improvements (outcomes)

Coos Watershed-Willanch Creek � Fish Passage � Stream Complexity � Riparian Corridors (temperature) � Sedimentation Reduction (roads)

Presentation Wrap-Up � Several merits of watershed council model �Non-regulatory, non-advocacy, private landowner

support, nimble, small capacity with big impacts, creating local restoration economies.

�Collaborative by foundation and design � Published papers for reference

� Treatment effectiveness Roni, P., T. J. Beechie, G. R. Pess, K. Hanson. 2014. Fact and fiction regarding wood placement

in streams.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. doi:10.1139/cjfas-2014-0344 Roni, P., G. R. Pess, T. J. Beechie, K. Hanson. 2014. Fish-habitat relationships and the

effectiveness of habitat restoration. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS-NWFSC-127, 154 p.

� Watershed Council Model Lurie and Hibbard, Community-Based Natural Resource Management: Ideals and Realities for

Oregon Watershed Councils, 2008 Bidwell and Ryan, Collaborative Partnership Design: The Implications of Organizational

Affiliation for Watershed Partnerships, 2006

More information � Tara Davis: tdavis@calapooia.org

� Calapooia Watershed Council

� www.calapooia.org

� Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

� www.oregon.gov/oweb/

� Network of Oregon Watershed Councils

� www.oregonwatersheds/org

� Meyer Memorial Trust- Willamette Initiative

� www.mmt.org

� Coos Watershed Association

� http://www.cooswatershed.org/home.html

� Upper Deschutes Watershed Council

� http://www.upperdeschuteswatershedcouncil.org/