| |
by Richard Gienger of Restoration Leadership Project
April 5, 2006
When I was asked a few weeks ago to "write up" some watershed restoration projects--how they worked, how they didn't work, problems, processes, successes, lessons--I immediately started to weigh the comparative merits of a dozen or so projects that might be good examples to evaluate. By yesterday I'd pared it down to three or so possibilities for this edition of Branching Out. But then, tossing and turning at various times during the night, my mind mulled over the broader context and approaches of "watershed restoration" rather than the myriad of details in any particular example of a current restoration or rehabilitation project. For a person involved in watershed restoration, like any number of people carrying out projects for years along the North Coast, there's a whole lot of background that gets "jumped over" by focusing judgment on a particular project.
 | Upper Dream Stream where roads and landings have been excavated to the original channel. Dream Stream is an important source of cold, clear water to the upper Mattole River. | ![]() | | Photo: Richard Gienger |
| | |
I think it's more valuable for me to try and give an overview of "watershed restoration" from my life experience and contemplation before delving into the particulars of a given project. There are plenty of projects that I'd love to describe and critique--and that will come. This "restoration addendum" will include photos of a small set of a general range of projects from the last thirty years in coastal Mendocino and Humboldt counties.
My early experiences of watersheds included the Genesee River Gorge in upstate New York with its history of Iroquois, then European settlement, flour mills, the Erie Canal, and further impacts of the industrial revolution and population increase. Canoe tripping in Ontario, Canada, as a teen revealed lake after lake showing signs of former Indian and settler habitation, and logging boom and bust. Time spent in northern Pennsylvania showed me resilient populations of beaver and deer in a land heavily impacted by mining, logging, and agriculture. Working on relatives' farms in the Piedmont of Virginia brought more awareness of waves of cultures and exploitation--the red earth scarred and depleted, forests converted to farms, farms converted to pine plantations, pine plantations cut and sold to wealthy immigrants for estates and mansions.
| |  | Redwood Creek fish weir and trap, a Redwood Creek Renewal Project. Redwood Creek is a South Fork Eel River Tributary near Redway. | ![]() | | Photo: Richard Gienger |
| |
In the fall of 1971, I was the male half of a couple--we were two idealistic and eager immigrants (or reinhabitors or hippies) to the golden hills and blue skies of California--to the upper Mattole River Valley. I was to apprentice myself to a house builder and put my education and skills to work. I worked with a local company for several months, and then I was on my own. For seven years or so, we eked out a living through carpentry and homesteading. All during this time education was taking place as to the past and current condition of the land around us: the past abundance, the current depleted condition, and the positive potential for the future. This happened through walking and observing the land, voraciously searching out people and literature that added to understanding, and trying to work with others to earn a living and improve conditions. This general experience happened to hundreds and thousands all up and down the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere in North America.
 | Looking upstream from inside the `natural bottom' Ravasoni Creek Plate Arch. Ravasoni Creek contains significant Coho Salmon and Steelhead rearing and spawning habitat. | ![]() | | Photo: Richard Gienger |
| | |
| |  | Looking downstream at the Ravasoni Creek Plate Arch under construction. Notice the concrete footing, the bolted plate arch, and soil compaction equipment. Ravasoni Creek is a tributary of the upper Mattole River. | ![]() | | Photo: Richard Gienger |
| |
Locally all this manifested in the Mattole, Eel River, and other coastal watersheds with friends, families, and groups forming to earn a living in various forms of what was called watershed restoration or watershed rehabilitation. In the Briceland area the Redwood Creek Renewal Project organization was formed; in the general Mateel area there was the Forest Lands and Products Cooperative (FLAPCO); along the coast and upper Mattole it was Coastal Headwaters Association, and later the Mattole Salmon Support Group (later known as the Mattole Salmon Group or MSG) was founded. Early work was also done in northern Mendocino by the Center for Education Manpower Resources (CEMR). Later, other groups such as the Mattole Restoration Council (MRC) and the Eel River Watershed Improvement Group (ERWIG) played an important and continuing role in regional restoration efforts. There are many more groups that need to be mentioned and commended.
There was quite a range of activity early on, from tree planting contracts, to log jam removal and modification, to stream surveys and habitat evaluation, to bank stabilization and habitat improvement, to salmon population maintenance and enhancement through local spawning and hatchboxes. Much of the early work was done "on a shoestring"--volunteers along with some private and public funding. The Redwood Creek Renewal Project was able to get some state funding in the early `70s. In the late '70s and early '80s, through state legislators like Doug Bosco and Barry Keene, funding for fisheries and habitat restoration (especially for non-profits) became available and the amount of work it was now possible to accomplish jumped considerably. It should be mentioned and emphasized that the California Conservation Corps (CCC) was an integral and essential part of the early efforts--and that continues to this day.
 | Road decommissioning and stream crossing removal site, part of mitigations for a Timber Harvest Plan. Location unknown. | ![]() | | Photo: Dave Hope |
| |
The ebb and flow of funding, philosophies, styles, successes and failures in restoration practices is very interesting and complex--and much too convoluted to describe here. A couple of examples will have to suffice for now: (1) The overzealous and actually destructive practice of removal of large wood (often erroneously considered barrier to fish passage) from salmonid streams. This went on from WW II (and earlier) up to the early '80s, when studies showed that no large wood present, no Coho Salmon; large wood present, Coho Salmon present. (2) The emphasis in recent years on road decommissioning and upgrading--especially to remove large volumes of earth that had been placed in watercourses for road crossings--with a fair amount of debate as to the style and efficacy of various approaches to decommissioning and upgrading.
| |  | Instream fish habitat and channel stabilization structure in Bull Creek. Bull Creek is a major tributary of the South Fork Eel River a short distance above the South Fork's confluence with the Main Stem Eel River. | ![]() | | Photo: Richard Gienger |
| |
In general the goals for watershed restoration as applied to protection and recovery of salmonid habitat and populations are the same for all projects: (1) reduce sedimentation of habitat, which can include upslope and bank/channel stabilization and road treatments; (2) increase riparian quality to lower water temperatures, increase food sources, and increase the quality and quantity of large wood in stream channels; and (3) provide for adequate passage for salmonids at all life
stages. The included photos and captions give some general examples of these approaches.
More Information About
Restoration Leadership Project
More Articles...
TOC for Forest & River News, Spring 2006
Home /
Publications /
Forest & River News /
Spring 2006 /
|
