2019 Goose Creek Native Revegetation and Restoration

Written by: Joe Dahlke, Katie Fischer, Michaela Fishback, Marissa Lane-Masse, and Steven Pearlman

Riparian Restoration Environmental Leadership Program Conducted by the University of Oregon’s 2019 Environmental Leadership Program

Website: https://blogs.uoregon.edu/2019riparianrestoration/

Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………….....2 2.0 Introduction: About the Project…….……………………………………………...……….2 2.1 History and Background of Whitewater Ranch…………………………….…………2 2.2 Study Area…………………………………………………………………………….3 3.0 Stewardship Summary……………………………………………………………………....4 4.0 Monitoring Summary………………………………………………………………………..5 4.1 Photopoint Monitoring………………………………………………………………...5 4.2 Individual Plant Monitoring…………………………………………………………...8 4.3 Turtle Monitoring……....…………………………………………………………….12 4.4 Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring…………..………………………………….12 4.5 Stream Temperature Monitoring……………………………………………………..14 4.6 Pollinator Monitoring……………………………………………………..………….17 4.7 Spotted Wing Drosophila Monitoring….…………...…….…………………………19 5.0 Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………..20 5.1 General……………………………………………………………………………….20 5.2 Photopoint Monitoring……………………………………………………………….20 5.3 Individual Plant Monitoring………………………………………………………….20 5.4 Turtle Monitoring…....……………………………………………………………….21 5.5 Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring………………………………..…………….21 5.6 Stream Temperature Monitoring……………………………………………………..21 5.7 Pollinator Monitoring….…………………….…………………………………….....22 5.8 Spotted Wing Drosophila Monitoring…….……………...………………………….22 5.9 Planting Plan…….….………………………………………………………………..22 6.0 Future Plant Health and Concerns……………………………………………………...... 22 6.1 Potential management action………………………………………………………...24 7.0 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...……...24 8.0 Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………....25 9.0 References…………………………………………………………………………………...25 10.0 Appendices………………………………...……………………………………………….27 A. Individual Plant Monitoring Plot Map………………………….....……………..27 B. Plant Species List…………….………………………....………………………..27 C. Plant Maps………………….…………………………..…………………….….29 D. Map of Pollinator Transects……………………………………………………...31 E. Stream Temperature UTM and Description of Locations……………...………..32 F. Photopoint UTM Log………………...…………………………………………..34 G. Photopoint Monitoring Archive…………..……………………………………...36 H. Macroinvertebrate collection chart………………………………………………43

1.0 Executive Summary

This report details the progress of a restoration project carried out at the riparian zone of Goose Creek, a tributary of the McKenzie River, in Leaburg, Oregon. The creek runs through Whitewater Ranch (WWR), a small farm that grows different varieties of blueberries organically, and uses sustainable practices to annually harvest Douglas fir timber. Due to pollution of the creek caused by previous land-owners, the creek was an unstable habitat for native plants and animals. Restoration was first implemented in 2014 and has been monitored and expanded each year since. Monitoring tasks have included tracking the growth of native plantings, resident pollinator populations, temperature changes in the creek, and relative degree of sensitivity of resident macroinvertebrates. Overall, the restoration work has been successful. Native plants have exhibited healthy growth around the creek, providing shade and habitat, and pollinator populations have increased. Other indications of stream health are slower in their progression (such as stream temperature), and are yet to appear to a significant degree. Going forward, restoration tasks should continue to expand down the creek and monitoring should continue to be carried out following any changes to the work currently being done. Fencing should continue to be installed to a greater extent in order to protect the plots, and plantings should be further filled in.

2.0 Introduction: About the Project

2.1 History and Background of Whitewater Ranch

Over the past 100 years, alterations to the landscape such as urbanization, intensive agriculture, livestock grazing, building of dams, and the intentional change of stream and river paths by humans have all led to compromised stream banks and ecosystems in riparian zones in the McKenzie River watershed. Before 1885, when the area of land was first inhabited by white settlers, the Kalapuya and Molala peoples inhabited the land near what is now Goose Creek and Leaburg. They used the region as a corridor of travel between the mountains, valley, and the coast, as well as a site of other daily activities until the late 1770s. Over time, the property changed hands a number of times until purchased by the Oregon and California Railroad, where it was then sold to various settlers who raised a variety of different crops, such as wheat and carrots. The earliest record of a settler- colonialist to purchase the property for homesteading was in 1885. The property was first used for dairy production in 1935. In 1949, a change in ownership resulted in the harvest of lumber from the surrounding foothills and grazing of cattle around the lowlands and riparian area. After a number of different sales of the property, 1,800 acres of WWR was finally purchased in 1983 as a family partnership farm growing Christmas trees, raising cattle, and harvesting timber. For a few years the owners tried olive production, but ultimately turned to blueberries as olives did not survive a hard freeze one year. The ranch currently raises 83 acres of organic blueberries, a few dozen acres of Christmas trees, and 1,600 acres of harvestable timber,

while replanting the harvested sections of forest. Much of the cattle grazing during WWR’s history removed native vegetation from around Goose Creek, reducing the biodiversity of plants, which ultimately led to the decline in fauna, flora, and the overall stream health of Goose Creek. The current owners of WWR, Jane and Jim Russell, promote and encourage the sustainability and mitigation of impacts of commercial agriculture on their land by not only participating in various certifications fostering sustainability and stewardship, but also by sponsoring a partnership with the University of Oregon’s Environmental Leadership Program. This partnership enables teams of student leaders to restore the riparian zone of Goose Creek that runs through the center of the property adjacent the blueberry fields, which in turn provides habitat for a number of native species (Russell et al. 2018).

2.2 Study Area

Figure 1: Map of the study area and surrounding area.

Located 5 miles outside of Leaburg, Oregon and 25 miles outside of Eugene, WWR is an 1,800-acre portion of privately-owned land (Figure 1). According to the Köppen climate classification system, it is part of the Western Oregon Cascades lowlands and valleys ecoregion and occupies a warm-summer Mediterranean climate, where the climate is characterized by rainy winters and dry summers (Arnfield, 2009). WWR lies at an elevation of 700 feet above sea level to around 1400 feet above sea level, average summer temperatures range from 48º to 83º F, and average winter temperatures range from 34º to 55º F (Western Regional Climate Center 2016). Average annual precipitation totals 65 inches across an average of 165 days of the year.

The farm itself is located on the banks of the McKenzie River, a tributary of the Willamette River. The river drains over a watershed basin of 1,300 square miles, of which 96% is forested, and under 4% is occupied by agricultural or residential use (McKenzie Watershed Council 2010). Goose Creek, the site of our team’s focus, is a stream-fed creek originating in the foothills above the blueberry fields. This portion of the creek provides habitat for native fauna such as cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii), western pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata), beaver (Castor canadensis), mink (Neovison vison), brook lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus), and several species of macroinvertebrates. The soil at the study area is 84.3% Jimbo silt loam, which is composed of coarse-loamy isotic and mesic soil. This soil type forms in low stream terraces and high floodplains. It possesses a dark, rich color due to the high volume of organic material and its porous composition that allows for drainage and water storage (SoilWeb). Soil such as this aids in the survival and vigor of both native and non-native species. Restoration work at WWR aims to regenerate the native plant species population in order to establish a biodiverse natural environment to support habitat for native species of fauna and flora, and the Russell’s organic farming practices. Plants introduced by past teams to the riparian area include Douglas spiraea (Spiraea douglasii), tall Oregon grape (Berberis aquifolium), Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), clustered wild rose (Rosa pisocarpa), mock orange (Philadelphus lewisii), oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), sitka willow (Salix sitchenis), Red-twig dogwood (Cornus sericea), Snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) and red-flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum). Other plants historically native to the area include Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), red alder (Alnus rubra), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), vine maple (Acer circinatum), trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus), and Western sword fern (Polystichum munitum). In order to manage the aggressive invasive species that currently dominate the creek, including reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), planting native riparian species is, and will continue to be, one of the main goals for the Environmental Leadership’s restoration project on WWR.

3.0 Stewardship Summary

The University of Oregon’s Environmental Leadership Program first began working with WWR in 2014. The primary mission of ELP’s work with WWR is to foster the natural environment along Goose Creek that is optimal for native pollinators, stream hydrology, and continues to support the ecosystem on an ongoing basis. The goals of WWR in this collaboration have been to preserve and maintain stream health and support a biodiverse ecosystem on their land. The initial University of Oregon 2014 ELP team at WWR conducted site analysis and created a fundamental management plan. Successive teams implemented these stewardship protocols, which included supplemental plantings and maintenance (i.e. mowing and weed wacking). We planted a variety of native trees and shrubs including Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), Red-flowering currant (Ribes

sanguineum), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), Mock orange (Philadelphus lewisii), Oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), Douglas spiraea (Spiraea douglasii), and Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus). Other ELP teams assisted us in the winter of 2019 in planting these trees and shrubs, which were planted in random order inside of previously laid out rows to the west of our plots on the northern side of the Creek. To increase the survival rate of our implemented native plants, we staked down weed mats around certain plantings to suppress the problematic, invasive Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Every week we maintained the plots by mowing, weed wacking, and hand-pulling any areas where Reed canary grass or Himalayan blackberry posed potential competition to our plantings. Additionally, we removed some of the weed mats around plants that were in close proximity to the Creek for three primary reasons. One, many of these plants have reached maturity and can outcompete Reed canary grass. Second, the mats are now partially in the stream and the stream banks are being slowly eroded to where the mats have fallen into the stream or will do so very soon. Lastly, if we do not remove the mats, they will slowly integrate themselves into the geologic layer. Unfortunately, we did not have the time nor resources to remove all of the weed mats around the willows near the creek. For some of the creekside plantings, sediment has accumulated up to approximately 6” above the weed mats. We tagged plants with purple flagging tape to indicate to future teams where weed mats still need to be removed. The 2017 and 2018 teams put up fencing around certain perimeters of the plots to discourage grazing and browsing from elk. The 2019 team extended this fencing along the south side of the creek to the end of our plots at the red-osier dogwood. We also installed a gate to allow for easy access to the plots.

4.0 Monitoring Summary

Determining the success of our restoration efforts and ensuring positive change is best done when using previous and current ELP protocols that have been consistent throughout the years. Ecological monitoring allows researchers to identify problems and potential management solutions, as well as reveal short and long-term change. Our monitoring focused on individual plant and overall species prosperity, changes in stream health, and pollinator abundance which influences farm productivity. Collecting this data and comparing it to previous years can be utilized by future management during decision making and contribute to the success of riparian restoration at WWR.

4.1 Photopoint Monitoring

Goals: We use photopoints as a reference to visually record the stream morphology as well as the landscape and vegetation. We focus on establishing and recording highly specific photopoints and camera angles while maintaining records of equipment used to allow for repetition for years to come (U.S. Forest Service). Our goal for photopoint monitoring is to develop a comprehensive

record of each year of restoration progress in the form of comparable images that will represent the successful transformation of the riparian zone.

Methods: Based on a record of 14 key locations along the creek that have been established over the past five years, we used global positioning system (GPS) locations to match these areas to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). We used visual land features such as the horizon line, position of mature trees, and various roads to ensure the photos were as close to the same as in past years as possible. All photos for one year were taken by the same photographer, with the same camera, and within one day of exactly one year after the last photopoints, to ensure consistency. Each photo also includes a record card with the photopoint identification number and date so that they can be easily referenced in the future. Note that photopoints 3, 7, and 9 are no longer in use. ELP teams have concluded they are repetitive and close together. Teams then added photopoints near McKenzie Watershed Council’s restoration area.

Results: Overall, the photopoints show substantial improvement in the annual growth of shrubs and trees planted on the banks of Goose Creek. In other areas of the creek outside of the planting zone, there is less of a drastic visible change. The banks as a whole are in a good state from a visual standpoint based on the extent of the plantings and their growth. A complete archive of 2019 photopoints (Appendix G), along with the UTM and description of each photopoint location (Appendix F) can be found in the appendices.

Figure 2: Photopoint 2, picture of Plot #4 on the north side of Goose Creek in 2018, featuring primarily Douglas spiraea, Pacific ninebark, Red-osier dogwood, willows, and a few other native trees and shrubs. Refer to Appendix C for more information on plants in Plot #4.

Figure 3: Photopoint 2, picture of Plot #4 on the north side of Goose Creek in 2019, featuring primarily Douglas spiraea, Pacific ninebark, Red-osier dogwood, willows, and a few other native trees and shrubs. Refer to Appendix C for more information on plants in Plot #4.

Figure 4: Photopoint 5, picture of Plot #1 on the south side of Goose Creek in 2016, featuring Pacific ninebark, Red- flowering current, Douglas spiraea, Oceanspray, Oregon ash, and many other native trees and shrubs. Refer to Appendix C for more information on plants in Plot #1.

Figure 5: Photopoint 5, picture of Plot #1 on the south side of Goose Creek in 2019, featuring Pacific ninebark, Red- flowering current, Douglas spiraea, Oceanspray, Oregon ash, and many other native trees and shrubs. Refer to Appendix C for more information on plants in Plot #1.

Discussion: As can be seen in the photos above, the willows in particular showed great improvement from 2016-2019 on both the south side of the bank and the north side. This was likely due to the extension of fencing to prevent elk from grazing on the plants. Protecting them allowed them to grow taller and establish stronger roots. Plant growth is particularly noticeable when comparing Figure 4 with Figure 5, revealing a drastic change in height among the majority of shrubs such as Douglas spiraea, Oceanspray, Pacific ninebark, etc. When comparing Figure 2 to Figure 3 and Figure 4 to Figure 5, the maintenance of Reed canary grass becomes very discernable. In both comparisons, photopoint pictures were taken before maintenance in 2016 and after maintenance in 2019. If not regularly mowed and maintained, it is clear that the Reed canary grass could grow to outcompete our native shrubs. Photopoints have provided ELP teams with visual evidence of individual plant growth and plot development over the course of the study.

4.2 Individual Plant Monitoring

Goals: Our team used vegetation monitoring in the riparian area around Goose Creek as a way to collect and analyze data regarding survival, growth, and vigor of riparian plantings. The methods implemented for monitoring individual plants are based on the original ELP team’s protocols from 2015. The protocol tracks multiple individual plants over time, including plants from past years. ELP uses these methods to track how individual species are growing, what types of damages are most common near Goose Creek and how they affect plant growth, and which plants have been capable of surviving in this habitat. Our goals with this data were to determine species-specific survival rates of plantings along Goose Creek, evaluate vigor of planted stock by identifying problems like competition, browsing damage, and disease, estimate growth rates of plants, and

estimate the time until the “free to grow” status. Note that “free to grow” is the point at which plants are grown enough that damaging factors such as wildlife do not significantly affect future growth. Ultimately, we used all of the information gathered to provide maintenance and management recommendations for future ELP teams and the landowners.

Methods: The 2019 Riparian Restoration team returned to four circular, non-overlapping, 8-m radius plots established by 2015 ELP team. Two of these plots are on the north side of Goose Creek and two plots are on the south side (Appendix A, Figure 15). We located the plots using GPS units to find the stake marking the center of each plot. We recorded the data inside of these plots, which to an extent act as representatives of the overall planting areas and reflect the diversity of plants as well as the site conditions of Goose Creek. Past teams, including ours, marked plants within plots with a numbered metal tag. We recorded each plant number on a spreadsheet that indicates type of species and year planted, what hydrologic zone it is planted in, whether it was a hardwood cutting or container stock, the height class of shrubs (1 = <0.3 m, 2 = 0.3-0.6 m, 3 = 0.6-1.2 m, 4 = 1.2-1.8 m, 5 = 1.8- 2.4 m, 6 = 2.4+ m) and trees (measured to the highest living part of the plant), live crown height (the lowest living limb measured to the top of the tallest living limb), and stem class. To determine stem class, we used the following (Winward 2000) categories: sprout (1 stem), young (2-10 stems), mature (>10 stems, >½ stems alive), decadent (>10 stems, <½ alive), or dead (0 stems alive). When recording, we indicated the amount (none, low, medium, high, or dead) and location (roots, stems, branches, leaves, top, or no apparent damage) of damage and whether the cause was wildlife, disease, insects, drought, physical damage, growth form, unknown, or no damage. For every tree and shrub inside of the plots, the team evaluated grass competition and brush competition, and indicated whether the trees have had a protection method used around the base (cage, mulch, tube, plastic, etc.). In addition, we described anything about the individual plant that did not pertain to the other categories, was odd or out of the ordinary, or was important for the rest of the team to know.

Results: The data we collected for 2019 shows continuous or steady growth from nearly every species (Figure 6). The major source of plant damage came from a combination of frost damage and drought wilting which would be due to the shifting weather from hot dry weather to wet and frigid (Figure 7). Overall plant mortality is low, however there is a heavy loss of the willows (Figure 8).

Figure 6: Average height class for species from 2015-2019 (for species codes refer to Appendix B).

Figure 7: Of the plants found to be damaged throughout the four plots, this chart depicts what portions of damaged plants were damaged by drought, wildlife, frost, “other” sources of damage such as maintenance damage, or simply dead or missing.

Figure 8: Number of individual plants that are alive compared to those that have died or gone missing from 2018 to 2019 within our plots. It is worth noting that a large portion of willows have died or gone missing (for species codes refer to Appendix B).

Discussion: Monitoring individual plants allows us to make inferences about growth issues, weather surprises, and forms of damage, which can be utilized for future management efforts. We saw a dramatic decrease in the amount of elk damage that previous years have dealt with, but saw a dramatic infestation of Willow Borer in the willow species along the banks of Goose Creek (section 6.0, Future Plant Health and Concerns). WWR is home to herds of elk that would periodically graze on the new growth within our plots. Previous years’ teams had implemented fencing to deter the elk from grazing, and these fences are most likely the reason why we see a decrease in elk based damage. Our team continued building up more fencing along the South side of the plots in hope that future teams will continue to see a decrease in animal grazing (Figure 7). With extremely variable weather, shifting from moist and frigid, to hot and dry, we saw a mixture of frost damage and severe drought damage affecting new growth (Figure 7). In particular, weather stresses, eroding banks, and the arrival of a new resident beaver fond of eating young willow have caused significant damage to many willows (Figure 7). We have also seen evidence of willow borer activity on the vast majority of willows in our plots. For more information about the beaver and borer, refer to section 6.0. It is important to know that dead plants are replaced with new plantings in the winter by future teams and that these studies are used for our adaptive management approach to restoration. It is also worth noting that a few of the plants have been mis-identified or gone missing. While a few mis-identifications over the years is unfortunate, it has very little effect on entire species trends.

4.3 Turtle Monitoring

Goals: Like Western pond turtles, certain species serve as an indication of ecosystem health due to their inherent sensitivity to environmental conditions. As a result, the presence of Western pond turtles in Goose Creek serves as a tangible indicator of stream health. Our goal with turtle monitoring is to determine stream health based on the abundance of a sensitive species that relies on clean water to thrive. In addition, we use this data to determine the likely abundance of turtle species in Goose Creek.

Methods: We collected data on Western pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata) and Red-eared sliders (Trachemys scripta elegans) using a similar protocol to the 2017 version. However, after the big February snow storm, the giant log in Goose Creek moved and the downstream pool it created is no longer there. Because of this, we used only the log as an observation point to conduct our 20 minute surveys, once in early April and again in mid May. These surveys entailed a 10 minute period of silence to calm our environment and avoid disturbance, followed by a 20 minute period of quiet observation. Sitting 25 meters away from the log, we scanned our surroundings (in particular the creek) in search of turtles and other wildlife.

Results: During our two turtle monitoring surveys, we recorded no sightings of any species of turtle. However, we did record sightings of other non-survey species, such as nutria, turkey vultures, osprey, and song birds.

Discussion: The change in stream morphology (log and water height) may have driven turtles to a different location in Goose Creek or completely moved the population elsewhere. While doing the surveys, both groups encountered problematic man-made noise disturbances (such as loud farming machinery) and had to sit closer to the monitoring log due to the abundance of stinging nettle on the banks surrounding the old viewpoint that was designated in 2017.

4.4 Macroinvertebrate monitoring

Goals: The goal of this protocol is to examine the health of Goose creek through the presence and absence of macroinvertebrate species. Some aquatic macroinvertebrates are more tolerant to pollutants in the water and others are more sensitive. By examining the composition of species we can gain a better understanding of the overall creek health and have a data set to show the change in species composition over time.

Methods: Following the methods described by the 2015 ELP Riparian Restoration team, our team tested one site in Goose Creek below the culvert near plot one. Two team members waded into the creek, downstream of the collection site and faced upstream. We used two separate collection techniques. First, we placed the D-net on the bottom of the creek and used it to disturb a 1ft2 area

directly in front of the net opening. Team members then poked and prodded in the gravel to release macroinvertebrates from the substrate. We also brushed off rocks inside of the 1ft2 area with the intention of collecting more macroinvertebrates. Second, a netting method comprised of placing the D-net at the bottom of the creek beneath submerged Reed canary grass and walking the net up the bank, coming into contact with Canary grass, and displacing species in and around it. The other group member removed specimens from the net and placed them into ice cube trays. Other team members identified each organism using the dichotomous key from Murdoch et al. 1999. We then assigned the specimen collected from the creek into three classes using the McKenzie Watershed Council Index: Class 3 was “tolerant”, class 2 was “somewhat tolerant” and class 1 was “sensitive”. Specimens in class 3 were worth 1 point, class 2 was worth 2 points and specimen in class 1 were worth 3 points. Each species was counted once and the score for all species was totaled to determine the overall water quality. A score greater than 22 indicated excellent water quality, a score of 17-22 indicates good water quality, a score of 11-16 indicates a fair water quality, and a score less than 11 indicates poor water conditions.

Results: Between 2015 and 2017, the water quality of Goose Creek stayed constant, except for 2016, when there was a sharp decline in overall water quality. The water quality rating of 2015 and 2017 fell under the ‘good water quality’ rating and 2016 fell under ‘poor water quality’. The 2018 water quality rating also fell below the overall average, but stayed within the water quality index of ‘good stream quality’ similar to 2015 and 2017. In 2019, we found fairly sensitive species, such as Caddisfly larvae, gilled snails and Mayfly larvae (Appendix H, Table 5). The majority of organisms caught fell under the category of “sensitive” and puts the stream health rating at the higher end of the good quality range with a rating substantially higher than previous years (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Average water quality rating of Goose Creek from 2015-2019 using the MWC water quality index. The average water quality rating has increased from 6 to 20 from 2016 to 2019.

Discussion: It is important that we note the water quality described above does not represent the true health of Goose Creek. Instead, it is an educational insight to the health of the creek through the species observed, along with their relative pollution tolerance. Compared to previous years, the 2019 Goose Creek’s quality score is substantially higher. This score difference can be attributed to two different stream collection methods that our team used contrary to the methods used in the previous years. First, we only collected below the culvert near plot #1, instead of different areas along Goose Creek. This area’s substrate is mostly gravel and we believe would have the highest biodiversity. This change also means that our water quality score is not averaged throughout the whole creek, but a sum that we used to infer water quality in the rest of the creek as a whole. Second, we used the described method of collection from the protocol, while also applying a modified method described above. By walking the net up the creek along the banks, we saw the collection of fish and crayfish which have not ever been collected by previous teams.

4.5 Stream Temperature Monitoring

Goals: With the goal of restoring biodiversity and promoting a healthy native ecosystem at WWR, it is critical to monitor stream temperature. Variation of stream temperature in river systems has implications for fish populations and is influenced by planting native species with the capacity to provide shade and other ecological services (Chang and Psaris 2013). Shade, runoff, and creek depth all influence stream temperature. Monitoring temperature change is often an advantageous way to determine the effectiveness of riparian restoration projects on stream health (Rutherford et al. 2014). If water temperatures are unusually high or low, native species are hindered by alterations to their metabolic and developmental rates (Braun et al. 2015). Certain aquatic organisms, such as salmonids, are more dramatically affected by warmer temperatures - such as decreased swimming performance and juvenile size, increased disease prevalence, and decreased survival rates (Braun et al. 2015). In the Pacific Northwest, specifically at Goose Creek, local animals such as skunk, crayfish, and native fish species are critically dependent on cold stream temperatures (Rutherford et al. 2014). In an effort to stabilize stream temperatures and maintain a relatively cold baseline, it is important to plant native vegetation that provides significant shade and absorbs incoming shortwave radiation (Rutherford et al. 2004). The correlation between water temperature and the prosperity of aquatic species highlights the need for temperature monitoring, which can be used to understand changes in riparian ecosystems and the effectiveness of restoration efforts (Braun et al. 2015). As different features of the stream hydrology shift in response to external factors, the aquatic macroinvertebrate inhabitants have varying degrees of adaptability to rely upon. Some species have wider ranges of livable habitat conditions than others; in other words, some species are more ‘sensitive’ compared with those that are more ‘tolerant’. By comparing the observed amount of sensitive species with the amount of tolerant species, we will be able to extrapolate the health condition of the creek ecosystem overall. (Kakouei et al. 2017)

Methods: We repeated the protocol utilized by the 2015-18 ELP teams. We recorded water temperature at five locations, four along Goose Creek (A, B, C, D) and one at Trout Creek. The UTM and description of each location can be found in the appendices (Appendix E, Table 2). The location at Trout Creek was used as a control for our studies, allowing us to compare and gauge the effectiveness of our restoration efforts along Goose Creek. At each location we recorded water temperature, observers, UTM coordinates, stream depth, time of day, weather conditions at the time of measurement, and weather conditions 48 hours prior to our measurements. We recorded data between 12pm-3pm, which is generally the hottest time of the day. We made these measurements twice throughout the term, once during the beginning of May and again during the last week of May. By collecting more data and comparing it to that of previous ELP teams, we were able to infer certain trends within our restoration area across multiple years.

Worth Noting: Our figures only represent measurements taken at Trout Creek, Goose Creek A, and Goose Creek D. For various reasons, there have been uncertainties about where locations were throughout the years. Previous ELP teams added a site further upstream of Goose Creek A, but did not communicate this properly in their report or to future ELP teams. The point of adding another site upstream of Goose Creek A was to collect data near the duck pond and widen the scope of their study. However, improper communication and lack of consistent data collection have led to some complexities and misunderstandings. Refer to Appendix E.

Results: In 2019, stream temperature ranged from 50.2 - 54.3 ℉ between the surveys taken in early and late May (Figure 10, Figure 11). Figure 10 depicts temperatures measured along Goose Creek and Trout Creek in early May (survey A), whereas Figure 11 depicts temperatures at the same locations in late May (survey B). The lowest temperature, 50.2 ℉, was recorded at Trout Creek in May, whereas the highest temperature, 53.6 ℉, was recorded at Goose Creek D in May. For the past four years, water temperature has been generally increasing at all five sites. Water temperature increased from early May to late May at Goose Creek A, B, and C, but decreased at Goose Creek D and Trout Creek (Figure 10, Figure 11).

Figure 10::Water temperature measurements of Goose Creek (sites A and D) and Trout Creek between 2015 and 2019 from early May measurements (survey A).

Figure 11: Water temperature measurements of Goose Creek (sites A and D) and Trout Creek between 2015 and 2019 from the second survey conducted in late May (survey B).

Discussion: The general increase in water temperature from early to late May was to be expected as spring went on and air temperature increased. Goose Creek D was higher than Goose Creek A during early May, which is most likely because of the lack of shading the creek receives after our restoration area. However, Figure 10 depicts that these two sites have become more similar over the past few years, showing prospective success from our restoration in reducing stream temperature. Aside from the first measurement taken in late April/early May during 2017, Trout Creek has continually been colder than any point in Goose Creek, because of the intensive shading it receives in such a densely forested area. Trout Creek represents an ideal model with a stabilized stream temperature that we hope Goose Creek will replicate in the future. We would theoretically like to see parallelisms between stream temperature data collected at Trout Creek and after our restoration in Goose Creek. It is difficult to make any certain conclusions about stream temperature data collected over the years for a variety of reasons. Variables and externalities that influence this data are weather, season variability, potential observer bias, when the survey was conducted during the day, and some misinterpretation as to exact site location. Fortunately, the digital thermometer was very effective in providing us with accurate data. Future ELP teams are advised to consider our recommendations (5.6), and Appendix E explaining the ambiguities and changes of site locations across the years.

4.6 Pollinator Monitoring

Goals: Our goal is to monitor pollinator abundance and diversity within the blueberry fields at WWR using the pollinator monitoring protocol. By doing so, we track if the planting of flowering species and the overall restoration efforts along Goose Creek have a positive relationship with pollinator diversity and abundance. On a broader level, we hope our efforts negate the overall trend in declining pollinator populations, especially native pollinator populations, as that is a concern with climate change, habitat loss, and invasive agricultural practices. Reversing this trend is especially vital since pollinator shortages can greatly impact plant reproduction, and as a result, food production (Cameron et al. 2011).

Methods: In order to measure change in pollinator abundance and diversity over time, we followed the 2015 Blueberry Pollination by Native Pollinators Protocol, which is modified from Ullmann et al. 2010, also known as the Citizen Scientist Pollinator Monitoring Guide. Pollinator species we monitored include: European honey bee (Apis mellifera), bumblebee (Bombus sp.), orchard mason bee (Osmia lignaria), flies (flies or bee-flies), carpenter bee (Xylocopa sp.), and other pollinators (such as hummingbirds, beetles, and wasps). During the blueberry flowering season, we conducted two surveys, one on 5/3/2019 and another on 5/10/2019. For both surveys, wind speeds ranged from 3 to 8 mph, cloud cover was clear with enough sunlight to see a shadow, and temperatures were above 15 °C. We surveyed between 11 A.M. and 2 P.M. Before surveying, we recorded if blueberry flowers are in early, mid, or late bloom.

The same four 60 m transects from previous data collection years were used for both surveys (Appendix D, Figure 20). For monitoring, a pollinator surveyor and a data recorder walked at a pace of 3 m per minute. While the pollinator surveyor identifies and counts pollinators that are visiting flower stigmas, the data recorder will write down the actual pace used, the transect location and side traversed (left or right), as well as the number and description of pollinators that the surveyor observes. The pollinator surveyor used a pollinator identification guide to increase the chances of positive pollinator identification, and the recorder records the surveyor’s confidence level of their pollinator identification, ranked on a scale from high to low. With the resulting data, we aim to track changes in pollinator abundance and diversity from previous years.

Results: Compared to 2017 and 2018, abundance in mason and honey bees increased slightly in 2019, and the abundance in bumblebees increased noticeably. Fly abundance noticeably declined after 2015, then has remained relatively constant since 2016. Similar to 2018, we recorded no carpenter bees in 2019. Since the beginning of ELP restoration, 2019 illustrates the greatest overall pollinator abundance (Figure 12).

Figure 12: The types and numbers of pollinators observed at the blueberry fields adjacent to Goose Creek from 2015 to 2019.

Discussion: The slight increase in honey bee abundance from 2018 to 2019 was most likely due to WWR bringing in more honey bee hives. In 2019 there were 180 hives compared to 48 hives in 2018. Hives were placed at various points along the border of the field where we monitored, which could have skewed where the most honey bee foraging was occurring, and thus our results. The noticeable increase in bumblebee abundance was a particularly positive finding, since bumblebees

are an effective, efficient, and hardy native pollinator. In previous years, lower bumblebee abundances could have been due to competition with honey bee hives introduced in 2018 (Goulson and Sparrow 2009). The slight increase in mason bee abundance from 2018 to 2019 was likely due to the over 200 mason bee hives installed on the fencing surrounding the blueberry fields, which contributed to this year’s native pollinator diversity and abundance. The high abundance in flies in 2015 could result from data collection errors, where other pollinators were accidentally identified as flies. In general, it is important to note that the weather conditions, the confidence of observers in pollinator identification, what stage of bloom the blueberries were in, and time of day all influence pollinator abundance and diversity. To a certain extent, each year’s data reflects these variables.

4.7 Spotted Wing Drosophila Monitoring

Goals: For the benefit of Jim and Jane Russell, and ranch manager Seth Morgan, we continued to monitor for the presence of Spotted Wing Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) (SWD), an invasive fruit fly (Figure 13). These flies pose an immense threat to agriculture, especially in an organic setting where the use of pesticides is controversial. As a preemptive measure to mitigate the use of organic-approved pesticides, we monitored weekly SWD levels. Our team used the same protocol established by the 2018 team. While the 2018 team started collecting data in early May, we have been routinely conducting these surveys since April 5th.

Figure 13: Female and male Spotted Wing Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii). Note the spots present on the wings of the male SWD (Image: E. LaGasa, WSDA).

Methods: We created fly traps by filling cups with apple cider vinegar (a fly attractant), and positioned them along the perimeter of the blueberry fields. Each week two students walked around the perimeter and collectively determined if there were SWDs present in the traps and how many there were. We primarily looked for a golden body, red eyes, and other key characteristics that distinguished them from similar looking insects. Students carried a magnifying glass and an identification sheet to assist them in their verifications.

Results: Throughout the eight week study no Spotted Wing Drosophila were found in the 40 vinegar cup traps, despite early misidentification.

Discussion: With no SWD present in the traps, there is no immediate threat to the blueberry crop, and no management action will need to be taken. There are other species of fruit flies that look remarkably similar to SWD, which makes proper identification more challenging. Refer to section 5.8 for more details on this. While we observed no SWD during our study, their population should continue to be monitored until the blueberry crop has been harvested.

5.0 Recommendations

5.1 General

For the overall project and site, we recommend continuing to collect data, so that land managers and future teams can study long-term trends in WWR’s riparian restoration. For the creek specifically, we recommend surveying the creek next year, so that stream ecology (i.e. bank vegetation and species abundance) can be compared to the 2014 team’s survey results, before and after restoration efforts.

5.2 Photopoint monitoring

For photopoint monitoring, we suggest trying to match previous photopoints as well as possible, but to keep in mind of safety hazards (such as stinging nettle) that hinder attempts to match the frame of the photo.

5.3 Individual Plant Monitoring

For individual plant monitoring, students should have at least a foundational knowledge of plant identification, beyond what is learned from the winter term field guide. Moreover, future students should move tags higher up the stems and branches of plants so that tag numbers are more accessible for monitoring. We have started this process, but there are still more tags that should be moved for future observations in the field. We also suggest removing the weed matting from plants that are mature and from plants along the banks of the creek, to avoid the possibility of weed

matting falling into the creek or buried deeply under sediment. To aid in this effort, we have tagged plants where weed matting should be removed with purple tape. Finally, for rhizomerous plants that newly emerge between already established plants and rows, we advise tagging and recording the presence of these new plants. We additionally advise that students should modify plant maps while in the field. It has become increasingly ambiguous when translating our maps and modifying those from previous years. Plants have gone missing and plants have died, both of which have not been properly communicated through the maps over the years. While our plant maps most accurately represent the current state of the plots as opposed to those from previous years, they would be greatly improved if modified at WWR.

5.4 Turtle Monitoring

We recommend that teams be aware of weather when monitoring turtles, as that will affect when or if turtles are basking. In addition, students should be aware of loud farming machinery potentially scaring away turtles. When monitoring, students should consider bringing binoculars, which will allow them to monitor from farther away. Finally, teams should approach the monitoring area as quietly as possible to avoid scaring away turtles.

5.5 Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring

To comprehensively survey aquatic macroinvertebrates, future teams should use the modified sampling technique explained where not only the bottom of the creek is sampled, but also along the banks as well. This will provide a more complete picture of the aquatic macroinvertebrate ecosystem present in and around the creek.

5.6 Stream Temperature Monitoring

It is critical that future teams pay close attention to the UTM coordinates. The colloquial site descriptions differ throughout the years, leading to some ambiguity (Appendix D). Though these descriptions are not consistent, the UTM coordinates have remained the same and should be the basis of where future teams conduct their research. We recommend the development of a new data collection site above the duck pond to supplement the data taken from below the duck pond. We also recommend that the site at the dogwood tree is relocated further downstream to the end of the plantings near the ash tree. It is additionally important to be patient when collecting temperature data to allow the probe to fully calibrate.

5.7 Pollinator Monitoring

For pollinator monitoring, we recommend that students practice pollinator identification and pacing before monitoring. We also recommend placing flags not only at the start and end of the transects, but to also place them at the halfway and quarter points of the transect to aid in pacing. If possible, teams should also talk to Jim Russell about blueberry phenology, since he can provide valuable information on the current and future timeline of blueberry flower bloom stages. Overall, we highly recommend planting more flowering vegetation to increase pollinator foraging resources and habitats.

5.8 Spotted Wing Drosophila Monitoring

Future teams should spend significant time becoming familiar with SWD identification to ensure accurate data collection in the field. There are other fruit flies that look very similar, nearly identical to SWDs except for some very minor differences such as eye color, body color, and completeness of black bands around the abdomen. Most fruit flies are roughly the same size, making these definitive characteristics imperative to acknowledge. Though this protocol may be time consuming and tedious, it is critical that teams are meticulous and patient with their identification for the reliability of our data and the well-being of the blueberry crops at WWR.

5.9 Planting Plan

We have three general recommendations for future Riparian Restoration Teams. First, we recommend planting a wider variety of native riparian plants to increase vegetative biodiversity. Second, to assist vegetation in reaching the “free-to-grow” stage, we encourage future teams to expand on the fencing we added this year. Lastly, on the upper south bank of the riparian zone we suggest planting pollinator-friendly native vegetation.

6.0 Future Plant Health and Concerns

Considerable ecological changes have occurred at the creek this following year. There is now an established population of willow borers and a resident bank beaver that have greatly affected the willow plantings along Goose creek.

Willow Borer: Poplar and Willow Borer, Cryptorhynchus lapathi, can infest in high numbers in hosts causing extremely high levels of mortality (OSU IPM, 2019). The preferred hosts of this borer are typically various species of willow, poplar, alder, and birch. While the borer favors young, smaller willows and poplars, its presence has been noted in mature willows. It is unsure if the species was introduced into North America from Europe or if it is a Holarctic species (BugGuide, 2011). Eggs are laid along the axis of a stem and are capable of overwintering while

most oviposition occurs in late summer with peak emergence in mid-summer (Broberg et al. 2002). Eggs are typically laid either in March and April by overwintering adults, or later in July through October from the newly emerged adults. Adult weevils generally emerge late summer to fall, which are capable of flying from host to host, but rarely do so as they are primarily sedentary (OSU IPM, 2019). A pulpy frass or wet, sawdust-like wood is the indigestible material excreted from the borer, sometimes containing eggs laid by females (OSU IPM, 2019). The most damaging life stage of this species is during the larvae stage, in which they mine the phloem and lead to drastic weakening of stems. Larvae additionally reduce protection of new stems and hinder further plant growth (Doom, 1966). Affected stems usually die because of breakage, girdling, or disease, the latter of which is likely catalyzed by openings on the bole or increased plant stress (Broberg et al. 2002). Mature larvae are typically 8 mm long, cream-colored, legless, and C-shaped grubs, as seen below in Figure 14. Adults are stout weevils, which emerge in spring and feed on the phloem of new shoots. As adults they are approximately 8-10 mm long with long curved snouts (IPM, 2013). If there are no weevils or larvae visible, any holes in the lower part of stems with sawdust-like frass emerging could be potential evidence of this borer (IPM, 2013).

Figure 14: On the left is an image of frass left behind from the willow borer, most commonly seen near new stem shoots. On the right is an image of a poplar and willow borer larvae.

Bank Beaver: Goose creek is now home to a Bank Beaver that has begun to feed heavily on willows planted along the bank. These native ecosystem engineers play a large role in creating fish habitat by damming streams and rivers, but have the potential of damaging riparian vegetation.

6.1 Potential management action

There are generally only three methods of management for the Willow Borer: manage trees to improve or maintain overall health, remove and destroy infested plant material, or apply an insecticide (such as carbamate or pyrethroid) to the main stem during late spring or early summer (Utah Pests, 2019; Plantwise 2019). Considering the integrity of WWR as an organic blueberry farm, insecticide as a form of management is ill-advised. There are four ways to deal with the damage caused by beavers. First, is the removal of the food source, in this case the Willows which would also remove the Willow Borer. Second, would be the removal of the beaver through trapping or live capture and release to another body of water. Third, is placing wire cages around the base of the willows to deter the beaver from feeding on the plant. Lastly, we could take no action and allow for the beaver to consume all the willows, which would also exterminate the Willow Borer. Future ELP teams must seriously consider the benefits and costs of removing infected willows. Willows at Goose Creek are paramount in providing shade and reducing stream temperature in addition to their various other ecological services. Removing the willows would be detrimental in many ways, but provide an opportunity to both rid the plots of the weevil and clear the area of deteriorating weed mats. Furthermore, ridding the site of the willows and weed mats creates an area for opportunity. By opening up such optimal space, future teams can plant other species equally effective at creating shade and providing ecological services similar to the willows. Species to consider planting in lieu of the willows are Red twig dogwood, Ninebark, and Douglas Spirea, which are all incorporated in other portions of our plots.

7.0 Conclusion

From our time in the Environmental Leadership Program, as a team we learned to take annual monitoring data while following a given set of protocols, implement restoration and monitoring techniques specific to riparian areas, and apply our maintenance and stewardship goals to the banks of Goose Creek. Through the use of these protocols, restoration, monitoring techniques, and working as a team, we gained specific skills such as communication, time management, problem solving and decision making, organization, and planning skills. Along with past years’ efforts, our contributions to WWR show Goose Creek being progressively restored and improved. Native vegetation is growing, vital fauna is coming back, the creek is becoming healthier, and pollinator diversity and abundance is improving. However, it is extremely important that future teams continue to collect significant, reliable data in order to show the long-term trends and progress of the riparian restoration being done in and around Goose Creek. By continuing work done on WWR, future teams can adapt to the changing restoration needs, evaluate these changes, and provide future information to following teams to give and improve recommendations.

8.0 Acknowledgements

First, we would like to thank Jim and Jane Russell, the owners of WWR, for providing us with this amazing opportunity. They have been extremely kind, accommodating, and enthusiastic towards our efforts, and without them this project would not have been possible. We would also like to thank Seth Morgan, the new manager at WWR, who assisted us with reviewing and maintaining SWD monitoring. Of course, we would like to thank Peg Boulay, whose hard work, guidance, experience, and passion have not only made this project possible, but the Environmental Leadership Program possible as well. We would also like to thank Brooke Hunter, our GE extraordinar and project manager, who provided valuable insight and problem-solving skills. Finally, we would like to thank the Environmental Leadership Program, the Environmental Studies Program, and the generous support of a private donor for allowing us to learn valuable skills in environmental restoration and working as a team to make the world a better place.

9.0 References

Addicott, L., B. Ashley, E. Baach, E. Bork, B. Catt, M. Cowen, D. Donahue, H. Gilliland, A. Gregg, P. Hou, and H. Satterthwaite. 2018. Native Revegetation and Restoration at Goose Creek. Unpublished report. Braun, D. C., J. D. Reynolds, and D. A. Patterson. 2015. Using watershed characteristics to inform cost-effective stream temperature monitoring. Aquatic Ecology 49:373–388. Broberg, C. L., J. H. Borden, and L. M. Humble. 2002. Distribution and Abundance of Cryptorhynchus Lapathi on Salix spp. in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32:561–68. Cameron, S. A., J. D. Lozier, J. P. Strange, J. B. Koch, N. Cordes, L. F. Solter, and T. L. Griswold. 2011. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:662–667. Chang, H., and M. Psaris. 2013. Local landscape predictors of maximum stream temperature and thermal sensitivity in the Columbia River Basin, USA. Science of The Total Environment 461-462:587–600. Doom, D. 1966. The biology, damage and control of the poplar and willow borer, Cryptorrhynchus lapathi. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology 72: 233–40. Fierke, M. K., and J. B. Kauffman. 2006. Invasive species influence riparian plant diversity along a successional gradient, Willamette River, Oregon. Natural Areas Journal 26:376– 382. Goulson, D., and K. R. Sparrow. 2009. Evidence for competition between honeybees and bumblebees; effects on bumblebee worker size. Journal of Insect Conservation 13:177–181. “IPM of Midwest Landscapes.” 2018. http://cues.cfans.umn.edu/old/ipmbook.htm [accessed June 2019]. Kakouei, K., J. Kiesel, J. Kail, M. Pusch, and S. C. Jähnig. 2017. Quantitative hydrological preferences of benthic stream invertebrates in Germany. Ecological Indicators 79:163- 172.

Murdoch, T., M. Cheo, and K. O’Laughlin. 1999. The streamkeeper’s field guide: Watershed inventory and stream monitoring methods. 5th ed. Adopt-a-Stream Foundation, Everett, Wash. “Poplar and Willow Borer.” 2019. https://www.plantwise.org/knowledgebank/datasheet/16433 [accessed June 2019]. “Poplar and Willow Borer.” 2008. OSU Pacific Northwest Nursery IPM. http://oregonstate.edu/dept/nurspest/poplar_and_willow_borer.htm [accessed June 2019]. “Poplar and Willow Borer Weevil.” 2019. Utah Pests. https://utahpests.usu.edu/ipm/ornamental- pest-guide/arthropods/leaf-beetles-weevils/poplAr-willow-borer-weevil [accessed June 2019]. Russell, J., J. Russell, and M. Haake. 2018. About Whitewater Ranch. http://www.whitewaterranch.com/about [accessed March 2019]. Rutherford, J. C, N. A. Marsh, P. M. Davies, and S. E. Bunn. Effects of patchy shade on stream water temperature: how quickly do small streams heat and cool? 2004. Marine and Freshwater Research 55:737. SoilWeb. https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/ [accessed March 2019]. “Species Cryptorhynchus lapathi - Poplar-and-Willow Borer.” BugGuide, 23 October 2011. https://bugguide.net/node/view/17054 [accessed June 2019]. Ullmann, K., M. Vaughn, C. Kremen, T. Shih, and M. Shepherd. 2010. California Pollinator Project: Citizen Scientist Pollinator Monitoring Guide. U.S. Forest Service. Photo Point Monitoring, https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/rsac/invasivespecies/documents/Photopoint_monitoring.pdf, [accessed March 2019]. Western Regional Climate Center. 2016. Leaburg 1 SW, Oregon Monthly Climate Summary. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?or4811 [accessed March 2019]. Weybright, J. 2015. McKenzie Watershed Council. 2015. About the McKenzie Watershed. https://ww.mckenziewc.org/ [accessed March 2019].

10.0 Appendices

A.Individual Plant Monitoring Plot Maps

Figure 15: Map of plot planting areas and plant monitoring zones within the riparian area.

B. Plant Species List Common Name Scientific Name Species Code Tree/Shrub/Vine Native/ Invasive

Vine-maple Acer circinatum ACCI Shrub Native

Tall Oregon Mahonia MAAQ Shrub Native grape aquifolium

Red-osier Cornus sericea COSE Shrub Native dogwood

Pacific ninebark Physocarpus PHCA Shrub Native capitatus

Red-flowering Ribes sanguineum RISA Shrub Native currant

Clustered rose Rosa pisocarpa ROPI Shrub Native

Willow species Salix spp. SALI Shrub Native

Douglas spiraea Spiraea douglasii SPDO Shrub Native

Common Symphoricarpos SYAL Shrub Native snowberry albus

Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia FRLA Tree Native

Western Malus fusca MAFU Shrub/Tree Native crabapple

Red alder Alnus rubra ALRU Tree Native

Oceanspray Holodiscus HODI Shrub Native discolor

Nootka rose Rosa nutkana RONU Shrub Native

Twinberry Lonicera LOIN Shrub Native involucrata

Mock orange Philadelphus PHLE Shrub Native lewisii

Old man in the Marah oreganus MAOR Vine Native ground/ Oregon manroot

All Invasive Rubus sp. RUXX Vine Invasive Blackberry

Pacific Trailing Rubus ursinus RUUR Vine Native Blackberry

Previously-Used Codes for Reference Himalayan Rubus armeniacus RUAR/ RUDI Vine Invasive blackberry

Trailing Rubus ursinus RUUR/ RUVI Vine Native Blackberry

Stinging nettle Urtica dioica URDI Vine Native

Twinberry Lonicera LOINI Shrub Native involucrata

Table 1: Table depicting common name, scientific name, species code, tree/shrub/vine status, and native/invasive status of plants that could be found in riparian zone.

C. Plant Maps Individual plant map #1

Figure 16: Plot #1 Planting Area on the south side of Goose Creek closest to the access road (Appendix A, Figure 15).

Individual plant map #2

Figure 17: Plot #2 Planting Area on the south side of Goose Creek just west of Plot #1 (Appendix A, Figure 15).

Individual planting plot #3

Figure 18: Plot #3 Planting Area on the north side of Goose Creek just west of Plot #4 (Appendix A, Figure 15).

Individual planting plot #4

Figure 19: Plot #3 Planting Area on the north side of Goose Creek closest to the access road (Appendix A, Figure 15).

D. Map of Pollinator Transects

Figure 20: Map depicting the four transects used for pollinator surveys.

E. Stream Temperature Location UTMs

Location UTM Description

Trout Creek 0531.053 E, 4885.939 N Roughly 1-2 meters upstream from the bridge (should be a flat / calm area)

Goose Creek A 0530.207 E, 4885.171 N Directly downstream of planted culvert located between the pond with the small white shed, and the flowing creek in the forested area, alongside the first blueberry field.

Goose Creek B 530.273 E, 4885.520 N In the primary planting site directly downstream of the culvert

Goose Creek C 529.784 E, 4885.366 N ~50 m below culvert

Goose Creek D 529.228 E, 4884.710 N ~250 m upstream from the confluence with McKenzie River

Table 2: Table depicting the names, UTMs, descriptions of the five stream temperature monitoring locations.

Figure 21: Map depicting stream temperature monitoring locations.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Label A A

UTM E0529326 / N E 0529838 / E 0529838 / E 0530.207 / N E 0530054 / N 4884771 N 4885406 N 4885406 4885.171 4885445

Description Culvert Culvert by Culvert at Northern riparian riparian culvert near plantings planting forest

Label C B B

UTM E 0529784 / E 0530054 / E 0530054 / E 0530.264 / N E 0529784 / N N 4885366 N 4885455 N 4885455 4885.533 4885366

Description Culvert Culvert At culvert Culvert below duck below duck above duck below duck pond pond pond pond

Label C C C C

UTM E 0529733 / E 0529784 / E 0529784 / E 0529.795 / N E 0529733 / N N 4885315 N 4885366 N 4885366 4885.273 4885315

Description End of Mature Dogwood planting area dogwood tree

Label D D D D D

UTM E 0529227 / E 0529222 / E 0529224 / E 0529.229 / N E 0529224 / N N 4884714 N 4884710 N 4884716 4884.714 4884716

Description McKenzie Culvert before McKenzie Culvert McKenzie

Label Trout Creek Trout Creek Trout Creek Trout Creek D Trout Creek A A A

UTM E 0531043 / E 0531043 / E 0531043 / E 0531.061 / E 0531043 / N N 4885943 N 4885943 N 4885943 N4885.933 4885943

Description Trout Creek Trout Creek

Label

UTM E 0529733 / N 4885315

Description End of planting area near t- post

Table 3: Table depicting changes in label, UTM, and description of stream temperature monitoring sites between 2015 and 2019.

F. Photopoint UTM Log

Photopoint UTM Description / Comments Years Observed

1 529.781 E Looking downstream from the north side of 2014, 2015, 4885.373 N the bank near the red twig dogwood 2016, 2017

2 529.781 E Same location, looking upstream towards the 2014 - 2019 4885.373 N equipment shed

4 529.789 E Overlooking creek around the dogwood from 2014 - 2019 4885.355 N the south bank

5 529.822 E Looking downstream from between rows on 2014 - 2019 4885.405 N the south bank in the main planting area

6 529.801 E Looking downstream at the ash trees and 2015 - 2019 4885.386 N willows from the south bank

8 529.839 E Similar to photopoint 5, but with a wider 2015 - 2019 4885.406 N view

10 529.740 E Down the road between plots and blueberry 2014, 2015, 4885.326 N fields on the north bank, view of plot there 2017 - 2019

11 529.563 E View of creek past plots with footbridge in 2015 - 2019 4885.162 N the background, from the north bank

12 529.631 E View of creek from under the shade of a big 2016 - 2019 4885.268 N tree on the north bank

13 529.681 E Looking back upstream from north bank -- 2016 - 2019 4885.297 N aim to line up the falcon perch with the tall tree on the ride slope of the distant hill peak

14 529.542 E View of bend in creek, looking downstream 2016 - 2019 4885.070 N from the south bank

15 529.469 E Looking into the creek basin from the south 2017 - 2019 4884.956 N bank - caution: stinging nettle here!

16 529.397 E View of riparian flora at the end of the creek 2017 - 2019 4884.887 N from the south bank

17 529.322 E View into creek basin before it runs into the 2017 - 2019 484.737 N McKenzie from the south bank Table 4: Table depicting the photopoint number, UTM, description, and years observed for the fourteen photopoints.

G. Photopoint Monitoring Archive

Figure 22: Photopoint #1

Figure 23: Photopoint #2

Figure 24: Photopoint #4

Figure 25: Photopoint #5

Figure 26: Photopoint #6

Figure 27: Photopoint #8

Figure 28: Photopoint #10

Figure 29: Photopoint #11

Figure 30: Photopoint #12

Figure 31: Photopoint #13

Figure 32: Photopoint #14

Figure 33: Photopoint #15

Figure 34: Photopoint #16

Figure 35: Photopoint #17

H. Macroinvertebrate organism collection

Macroinvertebrate type Pollution tolerance Individuals observed

Caddisfly Larvae (Order - Sensitive 5 Trichoptera)

Fish & other Sensitive 2 invertebrates

Gilled snails (Family - Sensitive 5 Pleuroceridae)

Mayfly larvae (Order - Sensitive 9 Ephemeroptera)

Stonefly nymph (Order - Sensitive 2 Plecoptera)

Crayfish (Infraorder - Somewhat tolerant 3 Astacidea)

Dragonfly nymph Somewhat tolerant 1 (Infraorder - Anisoptera

Aquatic worms Tolerant 3

Table 5: Table depicting the macroinvertebrate type, pollution tolerance, and number observed for each kind of macroinvertebrate found during the 2019 survey.