Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment

Prepared by: William Beck, formerly with Kansas Forest Service; Charles Barden and Dalila Maradiaga, Department of Horticulture, Forestry, and Recreation Resources; and Jeff Neel, Kansas Alliance for Wetlands and Streams

Prepared for: Delaware River Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE)

Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service

Table of Contents

Figures, Tables, and Photos...... 2 Executive Summary...... 3 Introduction...... 4 GIS Methodology...... 5 Riparian Forest Inventory Methodology...... 7 GIS Results...... 9 Riparian Forest Field Inventory Results...... 11 Conclusions...... 17 Management Recommendations...... 19 A note on Emerald Ash Borer...... 21 Literature Cited...... 22 Acknowledgments...... 23 Appendix A: Tree Species List...... 24

Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 1 Figures, Tables, and Photos

Figure 1. Study Location...... 25 Figure 2. Riparian Forest Functioning Condition. Upper Main Stem Delaware River...... 26 Figure 3. Riparian Forest Functioning Condition. Lower Main Stem Delaware River...... 27 Figure 4. Riparian Forest Functioning Condition. Cedar Creek...... 28 Figure 5. Riparian Forest Functioning Condition. Muddy Creek...... 29 Figure 6. Riparian Forest Functioning Condition. Grasshopper Creek...... 30 Figure 7. Riparian Forest Functioning Condition. Otter Creek...... 31 Figure 8. Riparian Forest Functioning Condition. Little Grasshopper Creek...... 32 Figure 9. Riparian Forest Functioning Condition. Negro Creek...... 33 Figure 10. Riparian Forest Functioning Condition. Straight Creek...... 34 Figure 11. Riparian Forest Functioning Condition. Banner Creek...... 35 Figure 12. Forest Inventory Plot Layout ...... 7 Figure 13. Riparian Forest Functioning Class Acreage by Watershed...... 9 Figure 14. Basal Area and Trees per Acre (all species combined) by Watershed...... 11 Figure 15. Basal Area per Acre Species Breakdown. HUC 12 Watersheds...... 11 Figure 16. Basal Area per Acre Species Breakdown. Main Stem Delaware River...... 11 Figure 17. Trees per Acre Species Breakdown. HUC 12 Watersheds...... 13 Figure 18. Trees per Acre Species Breakdown. Main Stem Delaware River...... 13 Figure 19. Regeneration per Acre by Watershed...... 13 Figure 20. Regeneration per Acre Species Breakdown. HUC 12 Watersheds...... 13 Figure 21. Regeneration per Acre Species Breakdown. Main Stem Delaware River...... 14 Figure 22. Quadratic Mean Diameter by Species...... 14 Figure 23. Black Walnut and Oak Quadratic Mean Diameter...... 14 Figure 24. Black Walnut Quadratic Mean Diameter by Watershed...... 15 Figure 25. Basal Area per Acre by Species Value Group...... 15 Figure 26. Trees per Acres by Species Value Group...... 15 Figure 27. Regeneration per Acre by Species Value Group...... 16 Table 1. Assessment Hydrologic Unit Codes ...... 5 Table 2. Riparian Area (2 ACW) Acreage by Watershed...... 10 Table 3. Riparian Forest Acreage by Watershed...... 10 Table 4. Tree Species Basal Area and Trees per Acre Composition by Watershed...... 12 Table 5. Tree Species Regeneration per Acre Composition by Watershed...... 14 Table 6. Qualitative Data...... 16 Photo 1. Example of Forest in Need of Establishment Functioning Condition Class...... 6 Photo 2. Example of Forest in Need of Management Functioning Condition Class...... 6 Photo 3. Example of Forest in Need of Protection Functioning Condition Class...... 6 2 Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment Executive Summary

Research along the Kansas River following the 1993 classes. These areas that lacked riparian forest cover were flood suggests that riparian forests outperform other land classified as “forests in need of establishment,” and were cover types (i.e., grass, row crops) in stabilizing stream- found to represent 46 percent of the total riparian area banks and reducing downstream sediment delivery (Geyer (2ACW) within assessed watersheds. et al., 2003, 1997). Because of riparian forest correlation In general, riparian forests within assessed areas to reduced sediment loading, as well the ability to provide exhibited a lack of active forest management. This absence other ecological services such as stream shading/cooling, of management is evidenced by the current overstory forest increased soil infiltration, flood attenuation, carbon species composition, which was found to be dominated sequestration, and wildlife habitat, properly functioning by species with lower economic value such as hackberry riparian forests are a critical component of the watersheds (Celtis occidentalis), honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos), and above Kansas’ numerous surface water reservoirs. In addi- elm (Ulmus spp.). Interestingly, in many watersheds, black tion to ecological benefits, properly functioning riparian walnut (Juglans nigra), a species with high economic value, forests provide watershed landowners and residents with was the greatest single-species contributor to both basal a wide variety of sustainable income sources (e.g., quality area per acre (BA) and trees per acre (TA). However, in timber, fuel wood), increased recreational opportunities relation to the cumulative numbers of competing lower- (e.g., hunting, wildlife viewing), and aesthetics. value tree species, black walnut was in the minority for The goal of this assessment was to determine the overall canopy composition. location, extent, composition, functioning condition, and Regeneration composition (combination of seedlings ownership of riparian forests within the Delaware River and saplings) was even more dominated by lower-value Hydrologic Unit Code 8 (HUC 8) watershed (10270103). species, with elm and hackberry alone representing 73 The assessment did not cover the entire HUC 8, but percent of the total regeneration on average. Tree species focused specifically within eight smaller HUC 12 water- of high economic value (e.g., walnut, oak (Quercus spp.)) sheds as well as the riparian area along the main stem of represented only 4 percent of the overall regeneration, and the Delaware River (Figure 1). These nine assessment never represented more than 10 percent of the regenera- areas were selected with assistance from the Delaware tion present within a single watershed, again indicating an River Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy absence of management. Commonly observed threats to (WRAPS) group and represent WRAPS priority areas forest health/sustainability within on-the-ground riparian for sediment and streambank erosion. inventory plots included heavy livestock use, ice storm Using geographic information systems (GIS), remote damage, and lack of active forest management. sensing, and on-the-ground forest assessment and The assessment information will be compiled into a inventory, riparian forests in the assessment watersheds GIS database that will assist the Delaware River WRAPS were categorized into three functioning condition classes: achieve sediment and nutrient water quality goals outlined forests in need of protection (i.e., properly functioning), within their nine-element watershed plan. The database forests in need of management (i.e., functioning at risk), also will allow WRAPS to more effectively collaborate and forests in need of establishment (i.e., nonfunctioning). with project partners (e.g., Kansas Forest Service, K-State Functioning condition class was assigned by examining Research and Extension) and relevant natural resource the ratio of forest width (from top bank) to stream agencies (e.g., Natural Resources Conservation Service) active channel width (ACW) and percent forest canopy to promote riparian forestry practices and programs to coverage within the riparian area. Forest stand data and project-identified landowners in priority watersheds. qualitative riparian area observations (e.g., invasive species This study was associated with the Sediment Baseline presence, degradation evidence) were also collected from Research Study (SBRS), a Kansas Water Office-led inter- on-the-ground inventory plots within each watershed. agency effort investigating factors that influence sediment Field data and observations were used to validate GIS / loading within three northeast Kansas HUC 12 water- remote sensing data, as well as provide guidance for future sheds. Delaware assessment project partners contributed direction of voluntary forestry programs and technical riparian functioning condition data for Banner Creek and assistance aimed at achieving the greatest water quality Otter/Clear creeks (Atchison County Lake) HUC 12 impact for the Delaware River watershed. watersheds to the Kansas Water Office as part of their role Riparian areas with no trees are expected to generate in the study. More information on SBRS can be found in the highest amount of downstream sediment delivery the Projects section of the Kansas Water Office website to reservoirs, in comparison to the other two condition (www.kwo.org). Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 3 Introduction

Forests that line Kansas waterways are known as composition of riparian forests along the main stem riparian forests, and are vital for clean water. Riparian, of the Delaware River, and within eight hydrologic simply put, is an area where land meets water — exam- unit code 12 (HUC 12) sub-watersheds within the ples include riverbanks, lakeshores, and areas next to larger Delaware River HUC 8 watershed (10270103) wetlands. Riparian comes from the Latin word riparius, (Figure 1): Cedar Creek (0102), Muddy Creek (0109), meaning “frequenting riverbanks” or “the bank of a Grasshopper Creek (0202), Otter Creek (0203), Little river.” Riparian areas in Kansas have many different Grasshopper Creek (0204), Negro Creek (0205), appearances – from native tallgrass prairie meadows Straight Creek (0303), and Banner Creek (0305). This lining the headwater streams of the Flint Hills, to information has been compiled into a GIS database that big-timber floodplain forests along rivers such as the will be used by researchers, watershed stakeholders, and Republican, the Neosho, the Kansas, the Missouri, forestry professionals to allocate resources and guide and the Delaware. Riparian areas, and the forests they forestry cost-share and technical-assistance programs, support, provide tremendous benefits to both land- such as Environmental Quality Incentives Program owners and the environment. From a forestry perspec- (EQIP), and Continuous Conservation Reserve tive, certain riparian areas (with their rich soil and Program (CCRP), for water quality purposes. It also available water) are the prime sites for timber produc- will help the Delaware River WRAPS achieve specific tion in Kansas. Thus, properly functioning riparian pollutant reduction goals (e.g., sediment, phosphorus), forests provide watershed landowners and residents with and get best management practices (BMPs) imple- a diversity of sustainable income sources (e.g., quality mented on the landscape — in the form of riparian timber, fuelwood), and aesthetics. With trees, food, and forest buffers and riparian forest management. water all in one location, riparian areas also can provide Secondary goals of this project include gathering landowners with excellent wildlife habitat — leading baseline riparian forest information for the watershed to outstanding hunting, fishing, and other recreational and the region. Currently, detailed information on opportunities. From a water quality perspective, healthy riparian forests in Kansas simply does not exist. Thus, riparian areas buffer waterways by absorbing pollutants information gathered in studies such as this will help flowing off the landscape. Forested riparian areas also foresters answer the following critical questions: Where help to stabilize streambanks, which can prevent large are our riparian forests located; what condition are quantities of soil from entering streams. In Kansas, they in; how many acres exist; and what tree species are streambank stabilization may be the most important present? Answers to these questions will help natural role for riparian forests, in terms of water quality. resource managers more effectively care for our state’s Research along the Kansas River following the riparian forest resources for water quality improvement 1993 flood suggests that riparian forests outperform and protection. other land cover types (i.e., grass, row crop) in stabi- This study sets the stage for WRAPS-funded Kansas lizing streambanks and reducing downstream sediment Forest Service riparian forestry technical assistance over delivery (Geyer et al., 2003, 1997). By protecting the next 3 years (FY14-16). Using information gained streambanks, forests also act to reduce the loading from this project, Kansas Forest Service foresters will of sediment-associated nutrients (i.e., phosphate) to know “where is the most cost-effective area in the water- waterways. Because of their correlation to reduced shed to work in order to improve water quality”? sediment and nutrient loading, as well their ability to A smaller portion of the overall assessment project provide other ecological services such as stream shading/ focused on identifying the location of animal feeding cooling, increased soil infiltration, filtration of pollutants operations (AFOs), streambank erosion sites, and ephem- from surface runoff, carbon sequestration, flood attenu- eral gullies within the riparian area. This information, ation, and wildlife habitat, properly functioning riparian while relevant, was beyond the scope of this report, and forests are a critical component of the Delaware River thus not included. More information on this analysis is watershed. available from the Kansas Forest Service on request. The goal of this project was to determine the location, extent, functioning condition, and species

4 Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment GIS Methodology

Note: A highly detailed, technical GIS method- Why 2ACW was used: Active channel width ology is available from the Kansas Forest Service. (ACW) is also known as bankfull width, and can This project focused on eight Hydrologic Unit be described as the width of the water in a stream Code 12 (HUC-12) watersheds within the overall channel at bankfull discharge. In unaltered/natural Delaware River HUC 8 watershed (Table 1). In watersheds, bankfull discharge is defined as the volume addition to the eight HUC 12 watersheds, the project of water flowing through a channel just before it spills also focused on the main stem of the Delaware River. over onto its floodplain. However, in post-settlement Watersheds were selected for assessment by the Kansas watersheds, where extensive land cover alterations Forest Service in conjunction with the Delaware River have resulted in channel incision, streambank tops WRAPS and the Kansas Water Office. do not define the bankfull width. Again, because of incision, most modern bankfull width measurements Defining the riparian assessment area are taken between two points well within the channel This project focused on assessing riparian forests itself. Bankfull discharge is important, as it is the flow within the Delaware River watershed. Thus, the first level where most of the channel-forming activity takes step was to define the riparian area. For this project, the place. In Kansas, bankfull discharge typically occurs riparian area was defined as the intersection of: on a 1.2- to 1.7-year interval. Thus, taking a birds-eye • A 2 active channel width (ACW) distance from view of the Delaware River soon after one of these the top of the streambank, based on “Stream Visual runoff events, the observed width of the water would Assessment Protocol v.2” (SVAP2, USDA-NRCS be the ACW. The SVAP2 (a stream-assessment guide 2009) and the “Riparian Area Management: Process produced by the USDA) states that natural vegetation for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition” should extend at least 2ACW on each side of the guidance (USDI-BLM 1998). stream for the riparian area to function well. and… Why CTSG 1 and 2 soils were used: Groups 1 and 2 • Soils indexed to NRCS Conservation Tree and represent productive, floodplain soils. It is soils within Shrub Groups (CTSG) 1 and 2 based on the CTSG 1 & 2 that represent the greatest potential for Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) for forest/tree growth and management. In addition, these Kansas (USDA-NRCS 2009). soils, because of their proximity to waterways, represent Thus, the riparian area (we assessed) was defined as the area where trees would be most effective for water anywhere that the appropriate soils for tree and shrub quality enhancement. growth were found within a 2ACW zone from the top The riparian assessment area (i.e., the overlap of 2 of the streambank. ACW width and CTSG 1 and 2 soils) for the assessed watersheds can be viewed in Figures 1 through 11 (pages 25 – 35). Table 1. Assessment Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs). Watershed Name HUC 8 Code Determining riparian forest canopy cover Delaware River * 10270103 All forest located within the 2ACW target popula- Watershed Name HUC 12 Code tion was identified using an object-based classification of four-band, 2008 NAIP imagery with ENVI software. Cedar Creek 102701030102 After segmentation into polygons using a supervised Muddy Creek 102701030109 classification, forest polygon boundaries were overlaid Grasshopper Creek 102701030202 on Bing Maps imagery and edited to match observable Otter Creek 102701030203 boundary edges. LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) Little Grasshopper Creek 102701030204 data were used to identify land use other than forest Negro Creek 102701030205 which occurred within the 2ACW target population. Straight Creek 102701030303 Since riparian forest delineation was the goal of this Banner Creek 102701030305 project, only areas misidentified by EVT as forest were edited and assigned the correct land use (e.g., pasture *The riparian area along the main stem of the Delaware River was focused on, and not the entire HUC 8 watershed. rather than forest). EVT was allowed to stand-alone for non-forested areas. Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 5 Riparian forest canopy cover, which was essential for assigning functioning condition class, was accom- plished using Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). NDVI was calculated from the red and near infrared bands (NIR) of 2008 NAIP imagery according to the equation: NDVI = (NIR – Red) ÷ (NIR + Red). The values of NDVI ranged from “no cover” or “very low greenness” to “high cover” or “high greenness,” with “high greenness” assumed to be healthy forests exhibiting full canopy cover. NDVI was only calculated for the forest polygons extracted from object-based classification. Assigning riparian forest functioning condition class Photo 1. Riparian areas in need of establishment lack Using NDVI thresholds, the riparian forest target woody vegetation and are expected to generate the highest population was classified into three functioning condi- amount of downstream sediment delivery. tion classes for the 0.5 ACW, 1ACW, and 2ACW extents: forest in need of establishment, forest in need of management, and forest in need of protection. Classes were defined using the following NDVI thresholds: forest in need of establishment (NDVI 0-130), forest in need of management (NDVI 131-210), and forest in need of protection (NDVI 211-255). Thresholds were developed by correlating remote NDVI readings and a wide range of in-field canopy coverage measurements. Forest in need of establishment areas were cropland, developed areas (e.g., roads), pastures, native grasslands, bare patches, or “no cover” or “very low greenness” forest NDVI values that occurred where riparian forest should or could occur. Forest in need of management areas were “less dense” or “low to low-medium cover” forest NDVI values, and generally were comprised of stands of shrubs Photo 2. Riparian areas with sparse forest cover were and seedlings, less dense forest, or the outside perimeters classified as “areas in need of management,” and represented of riparian forests along pastures or crop fields. Finally, relatively low acreage within study watersheds. forest in need of protection areas represented “medium to high cover” forest NDVI values and corresponded with more densely wooded riparian areas. Examples of each functioning condition class can be seen in photos 1-3. It should be noted that within forest stands, water and sandbars associated with the stream were sometimes classified as areas in need of establishment. Water and wetland values from the EVT layer were not classified into a functional category.

Photo 3. Riparian areas with a significant forest cover were classified as “areas in need of protection,” and were most prevalent within the Banner Creek watershed. 6 Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment Riparian Forest Inventory Methodology

Sampling design the half of the main plot nearest the stream, and one Forest data were collected at a total 183 field sub-plot located in the half of the main plot furthest inventory plots spread across the assessed areas. Forest from the stream, on the opposite side of the transect data were collected to verify the GIS assumptions and line. Regeneration plots were randomly stratified. collect vital information on riparian forest composition Seedlings were classified as any small specimens of tree and structure. To collect the data, a selected represen- species present up to 4.5 feet tall and having a diameter tative sample design was used. Plots were located in of less than 1 inch. Saplings were recorded in the plots areas identified as forest in need of protection by GIS. A if they were more than 1 inch but less than 5 inches in landowner list was assembled, and contacts were made dbh. to seek access permission. It was difficult to randomly Stream ACW, forest width from the top of the distribute plots across the watersheds as landowner streambank, and forest canopy coverage were recorded permission was required for site access. at plots as well. Qualitative data also were recorded, such as evidence of livestock use, evidence of woodland Plot layout and forest data collection management (marking, harvesting, or planting trees), and Rectangular plots were established with a long dominant ground cover (grassy, broadleaved herbaceous, axis perpendicular to the stream of 50 feet or 1 ACW, brushy, woody debris). The second ACW beyond the whichever was greater, (Figure 12). The width of the plots was visually classified as forest, grass, or crop field. plot was 30 feet, resulting in a plot area of at least 1,500 Calculations square feet. Within this plot a number of individual tree measurements and observations were recorded, The collected forest data were used to calculate the including diameter at breast height (dbh), tree height, following, which provide a good estimation of forest and tree crown class by species. Crown class is essen- structure and composition for the three watersheds: tially a way to measure the “hierarchy” of the forest. The a. Basal area per acre (BA) amount of sunlight hitting the crown and tree height b. Trees per acre (TA) are the two factors that determine a tree’s crown class. c. Regeneration (seedlings and saplings) per acre (RA) General notes were recorded for each tree as well, and d. Quadratic mean diameter (QMD) included: disease presence, form, and degradation pres- Species BA is a key measure of dominance and ence (e.g., storm damage, vines, decay). Within plots, all defined as the cross-sectional area at breast height and is trees above 5 inches dbh were classified as mature trees computed through the formula by Avery and Burkhart and measured. Seedling and sapling regeneration was (1994): recorded from two circular sub-plots within the main π dbh2 BA(ft2) = 0.005454 dbh2 plot (Figure 12). Regeneration plots had a radius of 4 (144) 5.3 feet (1/500 acre), with one sub-plot located within where BA is the basal area of the tree, dbh is the Plan View diameter at breast height, and π is the mathematical constant 3.14159. For each plot, the sum of the total BA per tree species was multiplied by the appropriate expansion Plot Area factor (e.g., 29.04 for 1,500 square foot plots) to yield (30' swath) BA per acre. The same expansion factors were used to

Channel calculate estimates of TA. The expansion factor for RA was 500. QMD is defined as the diameter of the tree of average BA for that particular species. In less technical Plot Transect Line terms, it provides more weighting to trees of larger diameter. 1 ACW Figure 12. Forest inventory plot layout, with red circles representing regeneration sub-plots. Not to scale. Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 7 Categorization of tree species based on current timber market value. Group 1 (high according to timber value value) was composed of all oaks and walnut. Group 2 It was important to consider the tree species compo- (moderate value) was composed of ash (Fraxinus, spp.), sition from a commercial view point for the watersheds. black cherry (Prunis serotina), cottonwood (Populus Therefore, in consultation with Kansas Forest Service deltoides), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), hickory (Carya, District Forester David Bruton, the species found in the spp.), and silver maple (Acer saccharinum). Group 3 (low assessed watersheds were categorized into three groups, value) was composed of all other species.

8 Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment GIS Results

Riparian area acreage of protection represented between 27 and 45 percent of Within HUC 12 watersheds, the mean acreage of riparian areas, with a mean representation of 33 percent. the 2 Active Channel Width (2ACW) riparian area was Of the HUC 12 watersheds, Straight Creek exhib- 962 acres and ranged from 502 acres (Negro Creek) to ited the greatest total acreage of forest in need of estab- 1,344 acres (Straight Creek) (Table 2). The main stem lishment (596 acres), while Banner Creek exhibited the of the Delaware River had a total 2 ACW riparian area lowest total acreage of that condition class (126 acres). of 3,750 acres (Table 2). Within the Banner Creek riparian area, forest in need of establishment represented only 20 percent of the Total riparian forest acreage total acreage, lowest among the HUC 12 watersheds. Within HUC 12 watersheds, the mean acreage of The highest proportion of forest in need of establishment riparian forest (i.e., the sum of forest in need of manage- within the total riparian area occurred in the Negro ment acres and forest in need of protection acres) within the Creek watershed, where 48 percent of the riparian area 2ACW riparian area was 530 acres, and ranged between was classified as such. 253 acres (Negro Creek) and 713 acres (Straight The main stem of the Delaware River had Creek) (Table 3). The main stem of the Delaware River more acres classified as forest in need of establishment had a total 2 ACW riparian forest area of 1733 acres (1,981 acres) than any of the HUC 12 watersheds. (Table 3). Along the main stem, forest in need of establishment The percent riparian forest area within the 2 ACW represented 53 percent of the total riparian area also riparian area ranged between 46 percent (Main Stem greater than any of the HUC 12 watersheds. Delaware) and 62 percent (Grasshopper Creek), with a Within the HUC 12 watersheds, acres classified mean of 56 percent (Table 3). as forest in need of management ranged from 103 acres (Banner Creek) to 326 acres (Otter Creek), with a mean Riparian forest functioning condition class of 215 acres. For this condition class, representation Within all HUC 12 watersheds, as well as along within total watershed riparian areas ranged from the main stem of the Delaware River, the majority of 16 percent (Banner Creek) to 32 percent (Grasshopper the 2 ACW riparian area was comprised of forest in Creek). need of establishment and forest in need of management The main stem of the Delaware River had more functioning condition classes (Figure 13). Forest in need acres classified as forest in need of management than any of the HUC 12 watersheds, with 668 acres. This condi- 4,000 tion class represented 18 percent of the total riparian area along the main stem. Establishment Acres classified as forest in need of protection ranged 3,000 Management between 145 acres (Negro Creek) and 416 acres Protection (Straight Creek), with a mean of 316 acres within the 2,000 HUC 12 watersheds. Otter Creek exhibited the lowest

Acres 1,250 proportion of forest in need of protection within the total 1,000 riparian area (27 percent), while Banner Creek exhibited 750 the highest (45 percent). 500 As with all other functioning condition classes, the 250 main stem of the Delaware had more acres classified as 0 forest in need of protection (1,066 acres) than any of the HUC 12 watersheds. The proportion of forest in need of protection acres to the total riparian area along the Otter Creek Cedar Creek Muddy Creek Banner CreekNegro Creek Delaware RiverStraight Creek Delaware River (28 percent) was lower than the mean Grasshopper Creek L. Grasshopper Creek for the HUC 12 watersheds (33 percent), however. Riparian forest location and functioning condition Figure 13. Riparian forest functioning condition class class geographic distribution for each assessed watershed acreage by watershed. can be viewed in Figures 2 through 11.

Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 9 Table 2. Acreage of 2 ACW riparian area by watershed. Riparian Acreage Watershed (2 ACW) Main Stem Delaware River 3,750 (10270103)* Straight Creek (0303) 1,344 Little Grasshopper Creek (0204) 1,168 Cedar Creek (0102) 1,166 Otter Creek (0203) 1,163 Muddy Creek (0109) 925 Grasshopper Creek (0202) 795 Banner Creek (0305) 631 Negro Creek (0205) 502 HUC 12 Watershed Mean** 962

*Represents 2 ACW acreage along the main stem of the Delaware River, not entire watershed. ** HUC 12 watershed mean excludes the main stem of the Delaware River.

Table 3. Acreage of riparian forest by watershed, as well as riparian forest area as a percent of total riparian area. Riparian Area Forest Acreage Riparian Forest Area / Watershed (Management + Protection) Total Riparian Area (%) Main Stem Delaware River 1,733 46 (10270103)* Straight Creek (0303) 713 53 Otter Creek (0203) 644 55 Cedar Creek (0102) 628 54 Little Grasshopper Creek (0204) 606 52 Muddy Creek (0109) 524 57 Grasshopper Creek (0202) 490 62 Banner Creek (0305) 384 61 Negro Creek (0205) 253 50 Mean 530** 56*** *Represents riparian forest acreage along the main stem of the Delaware River, not entire watershed. **Mean excludes main stem of the Delaware River. ***Mean includes main stem of Delaware River.

10 Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment Riparian Forest Field Inventory Results

Basal area per acre (BA) and making similar, minor contributions (2 to 10 percent) trees per acre (TA) (Figure 15). Along the main stem of the Delaware, the combination of silver maple and hackberry made up the Field plots were only established on sites cate- majority (57 percent) of BA (Figure 16). A breakdown gorized as “forest in need of protection.” Within the of BA by species within individual watersheds, as well HUC 12 watersheds, Negro Creek was found to have as along the main stem of the Delaware River, can be the highest basal area per acre (BA) for all species found in Table 4. combined (172 square feet), while Muddy Creek was Similar to BA, the majority of HUC 12 TA found to have the lowest (108 square feet) (Figure 14). (67 percent) was again represented by hackberry, Mean BA for all HUC 12 watersheds was 138 square black walnut, honeylocust, and elm (Figure 17). Oak feet. The main stem of the Delaware was found to have a higher mean BA (185 square feet) than any of the HUC 12 watersheds. Trees per acre (TA) followed a similar trend, with Negro Creek once again exhibiting the highest mean Hackberry 22% Black Walnut 21% (237), and Muddy Creek exhibiting the lowest (162) (Figure 14). The mean TA for all HUC 12 watersheds was found to be 191. The main stem of the Delaware River exhibited a mean TA of 215, which was greater Honeylocust 12% Other 10% than the TA of all HUC 12 watersheds with the exception of Negro Creek. Hickory 2% Species composition (BA and Elm 10% TA) within watersheds Mulberry 3% For all HUC 12 watersheds combined, the majority Ash 5% Oak 8% (65 percent) of BA was comprised of the combination Osage Orange 7% of hackberry, black walnut, honeylocust, and elm. Oak represented 8 percent of total BA within HUC 12 Figure 15. Basal area per acre (BA) composition by species watersheds, with Osage orange (Maclura pomifera), ash, for all HUC 12 watersheds combined. mulberry (Morus spp.), hickory, and the “other” category

300 Black Walnut 6%

BA Honeylocust 5% 250 TA and TA ) and 2

t 200 f

( Elm 9% Hackberry 28% A B

Oak 3% l

a 150 t o T

100 Other 8%

50 Silver Maple 29%

Cedar Creek Otter Creek Black Willow 5% Muddy Creek Negro Creek Banner Creek Delaware River Straight Creek Grasshopper Creek Cottonwood 7% L. Grasshopper Creek

Figure 14. Total basal area per acre (BA) and trees per acre Figure 16. Basal area per acre (BA) species composition for (TA) (all species combined) by watershed. main stem Delaware River. Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 11 Table 4. Top three species (rank) that comprise basal area per acre (BA) and trees per acre (TA) by watershed. #1 Species #2 Species #3 Species Watershed (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Delaware River S. Maple (29) Hackberry (28) Elm (9) Cedar Creek H. Locust (28) Hackberry (22) B. Walnut / Oak (22) Muddy Creek B. Walnut (30) Hackberry (17) Elm (11) Grasshopper Creek B. Walnut (18) Oak / Hackberry (13) S. Maple (12) Otter Creek B. Walnut (31) Hackberry (16) H. Locust (15) L. Grasshopper Creek O. Orange (28) Hackberry (18) B. Walnut (15) Negro Creek Hackberry (38) B. Walnut (30) Ash (8) H. Locust / B. Walnut

Basal Area per Acre (BA) per Acre Basal Area Straight Creek Hackberry (26) (19) Elm (11) Banner Creek Oak (22) Hackberry (19) B. Walnut (13)

#1 Species #2 Species #3 Species Watershed (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Delaware River Hackberry (31) S. Maple (25) Elm (14) Cedar Creek Hackberry (28) Elm (27) H. Locust (15) Muddy Creek B. Walnut (23) Elm (20) Hackberry (15) Grasshopper Creek Elm (25) B. Walnut (16) Hackberry (14) Otter Creek B. Walnut (20) Hackberry (14) O. Orange (11) L. Grasshopper Creek O. Orange (29) Elm (25) H. Locust (15) Negro Creek Hackberry (41) B. Walnut (25) Elm (9) Trees per Acre (TA) per Acre Trees Straight Creek Hackberry (26) Elm (22) H. Locust (15) Banner Creek Elm (21) Hackberry (19) Hickory (12) represented 4 percent of total TA within HUC 12 black walnut) represented only 3 percent and 1 percent, watersheds, with Osage orange, ash, mulberry, hickory, respectively, of the total RA across all HUC 12 and “other” making similar, minor contributions (3 to watersheds. 8 percent) (Figure 17). Along the main stem of the A similar situation was found along the main stem Delaware River, hackberry, silver maple, and elm made of the Delaware River, where hackberry and elm alone up the majority (70 percent) of TA (Figure 18). A represented 71 percent of the total RA (Figure 21). breakdown of TA by species within individual water- High-value species (oak and black walnut) represented sheds and along the main stem of the Delaware River only 7 percent and 1 percent, respectively, of the total can be found in Table 4. RA along the main stem of the Delaware River. A breakdown of RA by species within individual water- Regeneration per acre (RA) (seedling sheds and along the main stem of the Delaware River and sapling combined) can be found in Table 5. Cedar Creek was found to have the highest RA Within all inventory plots, seedlings were found (5,387) of any HUC 12 watershed, while Muddy Creek to be far more prevalent than saplings, with the former was found to have the lowest (1,609) (Figure 19). The out-numbering the latter by a ratio of 10:1. mean RA for all HUC 12 watersheds was found to be QMD 3,680. The main stem of the Delaware River was found to have a mean RA of 3,113, which was higher than Quadratic Mean Diameter (QMD) is the diameter only three of the HUC 12 watersheds (Muddy, Negro, of the tree of average BA recorded during the project. and Banner Creeks). For this study, cottonwood, sycamore, and oak exhibited Two species alone (hackberry and elm) repre- the largest QMDs (26 inches, 23 inches, and 17 inches sented 74 percent of the total RA across all HUC 12 respectively), while black cherry and buckeye repre- watersheds (Figure 20). High-value species (oak and sented the smallest (7 inches and 6 inches respectively). 12 Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment Osage Orange 8% Honeylocust 3% Black Walnut 6% Black Willow 7% Other 9% Black Walnut 17%

Hackberry 22%

Honey Locust 10% Elm 14%

Other 3% Hackberry 31% Hickory 3% Elm 18% Mulberry 3% Silver Maple 25%

Ash 5% Oak 4% Mulberry 3% Ash 3% Figure 17. Trees per acre (TA) composition by species for all Figure 18. Trees per acre (TA) composition by species for HUC 12 watersheds combined. main stem of Delaware River.

7,000 Black Walnut 1%

6,000

5,000 Elm 20%

4,000

3,000 Hickory 4% Hackberry 54% Oak 3% 2,000

1,000 Other 18% 0

Cedar Creek Otter Creek Muddy Creek Negro Creek Banner Creek Delaware River Straight Creek Grasshopper Creek L. Grasshopper Creek Figure 20. Regeneration per acre (RA) composition by species for all HUC 12 watersheds combined. Figure 19. Total regeneration per acre (RA) (seedlings and saplings combined) by watershed. commonly in the form of TSI practices, where adjacent, competing, less-desirable tree species are removed to All other species recorded in the study exhibited QMDs enhance the growth of desired specimens. between 8 inches and 14 inches (Figure 22). The QMD of black walnut was found to be greatest QMD can assist land managers in developing in the Cedar Creek HUC 12 watershed (15 inches) effective strategies for forest management, including (Figure 24). the scheduling of Timber Stand Improvement (e.g., TSI thinning) and timber harvest. As an example, Categorization of overstory species consider the QMD of black walnut (the state’s most according to timber value commercially valuable timber species), which was found to be 13 inches for this study (Figure 23). This indicates It is important to consider tree species composition that black walnut trees are generally at a size that would from a commercial view point. Therefore, in consulta- receive the greatest benefit from a release. Releases are tion with Dave Bruton (Kansas Forest Service District Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 13 Black Walnut 1% 30

Elm 25% 20

Hackberry 46% QMD (in) 10 Silver Maple 9% 5

Oak 7% 0

Oak Ash Elm

S. Maple BoxelderHickory Buckeye Other 13% Sycamore B. WalnutH. LocustB. WillowBasswoodHackberryMulberryO. Orange B. Cherry Cottonwood K. Co eetree

Figure 21. Regeneration per acre (RA) composition by Figure 22. Quadratic mean diameter (QMD) for select species for main stem Delaware River. species documented in assessment.

Forester), the species recorded in the study were cate- 30 gorized into three groups, based on the timber market value. Group 1 (high value) was composed of all oaks 25 Financial Maturity and walnut. Group 2 (moderate value) was composed of ash, black cherry, cottonwood, hackberry, hickory, and 20 silver maple. Group 3 (low value) was composed of all Minimum Harvest Size other species. 15 QMD (in) Within all HUC 12 watersheds and along the Release main stem of the Delaware River, both BA and TA 10 Zone were heavily dominated by species value groups 2 and 3 (Figures 25 and 26). For the HUC 12 watersheds, 5 Species value group 1 BA was greatest within Negro Creek and Otter Creek watersheds (52 square feet), 0 and lowest within Little Grasshopper Creek (22 square B. Walnut Oak feet) (Figure 25). It is of note that Little Grasshopper Figure 23. Black walnut and oak quadratic mean diameter also exhibited the highest species value group 3 (lowest- for assessed areas. value) BA (83 square feet) of the assessment. The main

Table 5. Top three species (rank) that comprise regeneration (seedlings and saplings combined) by watershed. #1 Species #2 Species #3 Species Watershed (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Delaware River Hackberry (46) Cottonwood (25) S. Maple (9) Cedar Creek Hackberry (61) Elm (29) H. Locust (4) Muddy Creek Hackberry (70) Elm (9) Ash (7) Grasshopper Creek Hackberry (42) B. Cherry (15) Elm (13)

RA Otter Creek Hackberry (55) Elm (19) Ash (9) L. Grasshopper Creek Hackberry (78) Elm (14) H. Locust (4) Negro Creek Hackberry (79) Buckeye (11) Elm (3) Straight Creek Hackberry (49) Elm (32) Ash (6) Banner Creek Hickory (28) Hackberry (26) Elm (8) 14 Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 18 140 Value Group 1 BA 120 Value Group 2 BA Value Group 3 BA 16 100 ) 2 80 14 BA (ft BA 60

Black Walnut QMD (in) Walnut Black 12 20

0 10

Cedar Creek Otter Creek Negro Creek Otter Creek Muddy Creek Banner Creek Cedar Creek Negro Creek Delaware River Straight Creek Muddy Creek Straight CreekBanner Creek Delaware River Grasshopper Creek Grasshopper Creek L. Grasshopper Creek L. Grasshopper Creek Figure 25. Basal area per acre (BA) by species value group. Figure 24. Black walnut quadratic mean diameter (QMD) by HUC 12 watershed and main stem Delaware River. stem of the Delaware River exhibited a mean species 180 value group 1 BA of 17 square feet, which was less than 160 Group 1 TA Group 2 TA that of any HUC 12 watershed. 140 Group 3 TA For the HUC 12 watersheds, species value group 120 1 TA was greatest within Negro Creek (60) and lowest within the Little Grasshopper Creek watershed (25) 100 TA (Figure 26). It is of note that Little Grasshopper also 80 had the most species value group 3 (lowest-value) TA 60 (147) of the assessment. The main stem of the Delaware 40 River exhibited a mean species value group 1 TA of 16, which was less than that of any HUC 12 watershed. 20 Categorization of regeneration 0 species according to timber value Cedar Creek Otter Creek Muddy Creek Negro Creek Banner Creek Compared to both BA and TA, RA was clearly Delaware River Straight Creek Grasshopper Creek dominated by species value group 2 (Figure 27). Value L. Grasshopper Creek group 1 represented no greater than 7 percent of the Figure 26. Trees per acre (TA) by species value group. total RA within any HUC 12 watershed, or along the main stem of the Delaware River. Within the HUC 12 watersheds, value group 1 RA was greatest in Banner Creek (222), and lowest within Little Grasshopper (31). Qualitative data Little Grasshopper was also found to have the lowest Livestock use (e.g., manure, trails, visible livestock) value group 1 BA and TA of any HUC 12 (Figures 25 within plots ranged between 0 percent and 37 percent, and 26). The main stem of the Delaware River exhib- and was not as prevalent within current assessment ited a mean of 241 for species value group 1, greater field plots as other forest assessments performed within than that of any assessed HUC 12. This is interesting, Kansas (e.g., Tuttle Creek riparian forest assessment). because the main stem of the Delaware River had lower An exception would be Banner Creek, where 72 percent mean BA and TA for value group 1 species than any of field plots had evidence of livestock use (the highest assessed HUC 12. of the assessment) (Table 6). Livestock evidence was not recorded at all within Cedar Creek, Grasshopper Creek,

Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 15 5,000 and Negro Creek HUC 12 watersheds, as well as along the main stem of the Delaware River. 4,000 Forest management was most prevalent within the Negro Creek watershed, where 77 percent of field plots

3,000 exhibited some evidence of management (Table 6). It is of note that Negro Creek also exhibited the greatest BA RA and TA for species of value group 1 for any watershed. 2,000 Within the HUC 12 watersheds, Grasshopper Creek exhibited the least amount of forest management, only 1,000 being recorded within 5 percent of field plots. The only watershed where forest management was not evidenced 0 at all was along the main stem of the Delaware River. While in plots, foresters classified the land use

Cedar Creek Otter Creek present beyond the first ACW into three groups: Muddy Creek Negro Creek Banner Creek Delaware River Straight Creek forest, grass, or row-crop. Because all field plots were Grasshopper Creek L. Grasshopper Creek performed in areas identified by GIS as forest in need Value Group 1 RA of protection, it was not surprising that forest was the Value Group 2 RA Value Group 3 RA predominant land use within the 2ACW area beyond plots (Table 6). An exception was the main stem of Figure 27. Watershed RA by species value group. the Delaware, where cropland was the land use for 70 percent of the 2ACW inventory plots (Table 6).

Table 6. Qualitative Plot Data % Plots with % Plot Second ACW Land Use Forest Watershed # Plots Livestock Forest Grass Crop Management Delaware River 23 0 0 30 0 70 Cedar Creek 20 0 30 75 5 20 Muddy Creek 16 19 44 88 12 0 Grasshopper Creek 20 0 5 85 5 10 Otter Creek 30 20 23 90 0 10 L. Grasshopper Creek 16 31 25 81 19 0 Negro Creek 13 0 77 100 0 0 Straight Creek 27 37 26 82 7 11 Banner Creek 18 72 11 72 28 0

16 Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment Summary and Conclusions

Riparian forest functioning condition class dominated by Group 2 species, with two species alone A majority of the riparian area within HUC 12 (hackberry and elm) representing the vast majority of watersheds, as well as along the main stem of the RA within many watersheds. Species value Group 1 Delaware River, was found to be comprised of forest in represented no greater than 7 percent of the total RA need of establishment and forest in need of management. In within any HUC 12 watershed, or along the main stem most cases, the combination of forest in need of estab- of the Delaware River. lishment and forest in need of management acreage repre- It is of concern that Group 2 and Group 3 species sented approximately two thirds of the total riparian dominate RA, as these lower-value species represent the area, which indicates that a majority of waterways lack next generation of forest. Riparian forests that consis- an adequate wooded riparian corridor. The lone excep- tently lack Group 1 species (i.e., oak, black walnut) tion to this was the Banner Creek watershed, where the have a tendency to be viewed as “wasteland” areas by majority of the riparian acreage was classified as forest in landowners. Riparian forests with a larger component need of protection. of Group 1 species may encourage more active forest Of all project focus areas, the main stem of the management. Landowners who are actively engaged in Delaware River exhibited the largest percentage of managing their riparian woodlands may be less likely to riparian acres classified as forest in need of establishment. be degrade (e.g., allow excessive cattle use) or remove With the exception of Banner Creek, HUC 12 riparian these areas (e.g., convert to row crop). area acreages were fairly consistent in terms of classifi- QMD cation — with approximately 40 to 50 percent of their riparian areas classified as forest in need of establishment, Cottonwood and sycamore represented the largest 20 to 30 percent classified as forest in need of manage- species documented during the assessment, based on ment, and 30 to 40 percent classified as forest in need of QMD. Of interest to management potential is the protection. QMD of species value Group 1, especially that of black walnut. For the overall assessment, the QMD of BA, TA, RA black walnut was found to be 13”. This indicates that a Although 32 tree species were documented during majority of black walnut within assessed riparian areas the assessment, a handful of species consistently repre- is currently within the “zone of release” (Dave Bruton, sented the majority of the BA and TA within HUC 12 District Forester, Kansas Forest Service, personal watersheds. Of these, hackberry and black walnut were communication). This suggests crop-tree release and/ frequently the top two species making up both BA and or TSI efforts within the near future would be of great TA in HUC 12 watersheds. For the main stem of the benefit to black walnut within assessed watersheds. Delaware River, hackberry and silver maple were the These practices would reduce competition from less-de- two most prevalent species in terms of BA and TA. sirable species, increase growth of desired species, and Also commonly documented (though generally not shorten the time needed to reach harvestable size and as prevalent as hackberry and black walnut) were elm, financial maturity. honeylocust, ash, Osage orange, and oak. Qualitative data Within all HUC 12 watersheds, and along the main stem of the Delaware River, the ratio of BA to TA was With the exception of Banner Creek, evidence of consistently less than 1. cattle within riparian areas categorized at “forest in For all HUC 12 watersheds combined, as well as need of protection” was not very common (less than along the main stem of the Delaware River, two species 37 percent). Riparian cattle evidence was completely alone (hackberry and elm) represented approximately 73 absent within the plots of three HUC 12 watersheds percent of the total recorded regeneration. (Cedar Creek, Grasshopper Creek, Negro Creek), as well as the main stem of the Delaware River. Evidence Species value groups of forest management was documented more frequently. The combination of species value groups 2 and It should be noted that a majority of the observed 3 was found to heavily dominate both BA and TA forest management efforts were fairly old, and limited within HUC 12 watersheds, as well as along the main in scale (e.g., limited fuelwood cuttings). Current forest stem of the Delaware River. In general, RA was clearly management activities (e.g., recent harvest, thinning, Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 17 tree marking) were rare. It is of note that forest manage- Along the main stem of the Delaware River, however, ment evidence was not recorded in any plot along the the predominate land cover in the second ACW was main stem of the Delaware River. found to be cropland. It is of note that the main stem Within the riparian area of HUC 12 watersheds, Delaware River had the highest percentage of riparian forest was found to be the predominate landcover in area classified as forest in need of establishment. the second ACW adjacent to the field assessment plots.

18 Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment Management Recommendations

Main stem Delaware River streambank stabilization tool, warrant a proactive effort Because a majority of the riparian area associated to increase the adoption and installation of riparian with the Delaware River was classified as forest in need forest buffers. It is recommended that buffers be imple- of protection, it would seem logical that a large-scale mented to a width of at least 2 ACW, and existing (i.e., effort to promote the establishment of riparian forest in need of management) forests be widened to this 2 buffers would be beneficial. It should be noted, however, ACW mark. Thus focusing on HUC 12 watersheds for that the majority of streambanks adjacent to main stem buffer implementation is recommended. Delaware River riparian areas (especially those classi- The lone exception, once again, would be the fied as forest in need of establishment) are nearly vertical Banner Creek watershed, where only 25 percent of the and can range from 20 to 30 feet in height. Thus, riparian area was classified as forest in need of estab- simply planting forest buffers will not immediately lishment. Here, buffer promotion should be secondary reduce streambank erosion. Therefore, if buffers are to to protecting / enhancing existing riparian forest be promoted, they need to occur in association with through practices such as forest stand improvement, and streambank stabilization practices. reducing livestock use. Riparian forests along the main stem Delaware were Where channel dimensions are appropriate, cedar found to be relatively narrow (70 percent of plots were tree revetments may be used in combination with adjacent to row-crop). Thus, widening narrow areas of riparian forest buffers to stabilize highly erosive stream- existing forest to a width of at least 2 ACW should be bank sites. encouraged. However, this will be challenging due to Although the establishment of riparian forest the value of this area for annual crop production, and buffers is a priority, enhancement and protection of current high commodity prices. existing riparian forest should not be ignored. Thus, a Because of existing streambank characteristics, proactive effort to promote forest stand improvement it may be more effective to focus on the protection practices would work to accomplish the following: of existing riparian forest, rather than extensive tree 1. Increase the ratio of BA to TA, which was found planting for buffer establishment or augmentation of to be less than 1 in all HUC 12 watersheds. narrow areas. 2. Reduce the abundance of shade tolerant, lower- Adequate cost-share programs exist for landowners value species such as hackberry and elm. interested in the practice of forest stand improvement, 3. Create canopy gaps and encourage inter-planting which not only acts to protect existing forest from of Group 1 trees, to reduce the heavy regeneration degradation over a 10- to 15-year period, but also dominance of shade-tolerant, lower-value species engages landowners in forest management, allows such as hackberry and elm. landowners to place a value on riparian areas through 4. Release black walnut, to increase growth and sustainable timber harvest, and creates wildlife habitat reduce the time needed to reach financial maturity. and associated recreational opportunities (e.g., hunting). Although livestock evidence was not especially The main stem Delaware River exhibited the greatest common within most assessed HUC 12s, focusing on Group 1 species regeneration, yet some of the lowest BA riparian livestock exclusion in a number of watersheds and TA values for Group 1. Thus, forest stand improve- (Banner, Muddy, Otter, Little Grasshopper and Straight ment could act to hasten the recruitment of Group 1 Creeks) would be of benefit to riparian woodlands and regeneration into the overstory. water quality. Livestock exclusion should be considered a top priority to improve water quality and riparian HUC 12 watersheds forest health in Banner Creek, where livestock evidence In general, 40 to 50 percent of riparian acreage was present on 72 percent of plots. within assessed HUC 12 watersheds was classified Although cost-share dollars are available to land- as forest in need of establishment. This relatively owners for riparian forestry practices via programs such high percentage and the fact that these smaller as CCRP and EQIP, creation of an alternative “program” sub-watersheds have channel dimensions and bank and/or funding source may help to increase the adoption heights (especially in the headwater regions) that and success of riparian forestry practices. This program would allow riparian forest buffers to be an effective could be based on the ongoing Riparian Forest Buffer Restoration Initiative (a current Kansas Department of Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 19 Agriculture – Division of Conservation / Kansas Forest the needed three years of weed control. The initiative Service agreement). is currently limited in scope and is only available to The initiative provides adequate funding for land- landowners participating in large scale, rock-work owners to hire a turnkey forestry contractor to perform streambank stabilization practices. buffer site preparation, tree planting, and three years of To offer this amount of funding to a broader range buffer maintenance (e.g., weed control). The initiative of landowners, it is recommended to work with entities also provides a 10-year soil rental rate payment. The such as WRAPS, FSA, and NRCS, to investigate initiative has led to the successful establishment of whether WRAPS BMP dollars can be used to augment forest buffers by taking the time/labor burden off of current CCRP / EQIP payments. landowners, and ensuring that new plantings receive

20 Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment A Note on Emerald Ash Borer

Emerald ash borer (EAB) is an exotic invasive Thus, all watersheds are threatened to lose a portion beetle from eastern Russia and northeastern Asia that of their riparian timber composition in the near future, likely was brought to the United States in infested which may have implications for streambank stability, packing material. It was first detected in Kansas in stream temperature, and wildlife habitat. Landowners 2012, in Wyandotte County. This beetle threatens our may wish to remove a greater percentage of ash during urban and riparian forests by killing North American Forest Stand Improvement and harvesting efforts, ash species (Fraxinus spp.) and their cultivars. To date in and may wish to discontinue using ash in riparian tree the United States, emerald ash borer has destroyed more planting projects. More information on emerald ash than 25 million ash trees. Ash was found to be a compo- borer can be found online at www.kansasforests.org. nent of riparian forests within all assessed watersheds.

Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 21 Literature Cited

Avery, T.E., and H.E. Burkhart. 1994. Forest Measurement: Measuring standing trees. McGraw-Hill College, United States of America. 408 p.

Barrett, H., J. Cagney, R. Clark, J. Fogg, K. Gebhart, P.L. Hansen, B. Mitchell, D. Prichard, and D. Tippy. 1998. Riparian area management TR 1737-9: Process for assessing proper functioning condition. U.S. De- partment of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Service Center, Denver, CO. BLM/SC/ST- 93/003+1737+REV95+REV98. 57 p.

Emmert, B., and Hase, K. 2001. Geomorphic Assessment and Classification of Kansas Riparian Systems. Kansas Water Office. (pg 47).

Geyer, W., K Brooks, T. Nepple. 2003. Streambank stability of two Kansas river systems during the 1993 flood in Kansas, USA. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science, 106 (1/2):48-53.

Geyer, W.A. , T. Neppl, and K. Brooks. 1997. Riparian vegetation and channel position effects on streambank stability during a 500-year flood event. Arid Ecosystems, Russian Academy of Science. No. 5 p63-66

Jenson, S.K., and J.O. Domingue. 1988. Extracting Topographic Structure from Digital Elevation Data for Geograph- ic Information System Analysis. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 54(11): 1593-1600.

Kastens, J.H. 2008. Some New Developments on Two Separate Topics: Statistical Cross Validation and Floodplain Mapping. PhD dissertation, University of Kansas. Ann Arbor: ProQuest/UMI. (Publication No. AAT 3316068.)

Rasmussen, P.P., and C.A. Perry. 2000. Estimation of Peak Streamflows for Unregulated Rural Streams in Kansas: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4079.

State Conservation Commission and Tetra Tech EM, Inc. 2005. Assessment, Geomorphic Definition, and Documen- tation of Kansas Stream Corridor Reference Reaches.

USDA and NRCS. 2009. Stream visual assessment protocol version 2. Available online at ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/ NDCSMC/Stream/pubs/NBH_Part_614_Subpart_B_10_Dec_09.pdf; last accessed Oct.02, 2012.

USDI, 1998. Riparian Area Management. Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. Work Group: Barret, H., J. Cagney, R. Clark, J. Fogg, K. Gebhart, P.L. Hansen, B. Mitchell, D. Prichard and D. Tippy. United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver Colorado. 58 pp

22 Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the many individ- stakeholder leadership team; Wally Leander, and the uals whose assistance and dedication made this project AT, BR, JA, NM County Conservation Districts for possible: Bob Atchison, Dave Bruton, Rob Daniels, assistance with landowner contacts; Kory Nickell for John Bond, Harold Klaege, Andy Lister, Jude Kastens, assistance in field work; Darci Paull for overview map for assistance in methodology development; Marlene creation; and the many landowners that allowed data Bosworth, Gary Satter and the Delaware WRAPS collection on their properties.

Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 23 Appendix A: Tree Species List

Common Name Scientific Name Ash (includes Green, White) Fraxinus, spp. Black walnut Juglans nigra Cottonwood Populus deltoides Elm (includes American, Red) Ulmus, spp. Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Hickory (includes Mockernut, Bitternut, Shagbark) Carya, spp. Mulberry (includes Red, White) Morus, spp. Oak (includes Black, Bur, Chinkapin, N. Red, White) Quercus, spp. Osage Orange Maclura pomifera Silver Maple Acer saccharinum American Sycamore Platanus occidentalis *Basswood Tilia americana *Black Cherry Prunus serotina *Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia *Black Willow Salix nigra *Boxelder Acer negundo *Buckeye (Western) Aesculus glabra *Catalpa Catalpa speciosa *Eastern Redcedar Juniperus virginiana *Honeylocust Gleditsia triacanthos *Kentucky Coffeetree Gymnocladus dioicus *Paw Paw Asimina triloba *Redbud Cercis canadensis *Grouped as “Other”

24 Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment Pawnee Richardson Holt Delaware River Riparian Forest Assessment Study Area

!Sabetha

Cedar Creek !Hiawatha Brown Grasshopper Creek Doniphan

Sources: USGS National Hydrography Dataset Nemaha Otter Creek U.S. Census Bureau

Johnson Nemaha Atchison Horton Muddy Creek ! Nodaway Nebraska Study HUC 12 Boundary Gentry Richardson Pawnee Delaware River HUC 8 Boundary

Holt ° 0 10 Miles Little Straight Creek Andrew Atchison Grasshopper

Creek DeKalb

Brown

!Holton Nemaha Negro Creek St. Joseph D Doniphan ! e l D a e

w l Marshall a Jackson a r w Buchanan e a R re i R Clinton v i Banner Creek e v r e Atchison Missouri

! r Valley Atchison

!Falls Kansas

Pottawatomie Jackson Platte Jefferson Leavenworth Perry Lake ! Perry Lake Clay Liberty ! !Oskaloosa Leavenworth Jefferson !Gladstone

! Wabaunsee

Wyandotte !Kansas City Independence ! ! Rossville Kansas City ! Topeka Shawnee ! Merriam Shawnee ! Silver ! Prairie Village !Raytown Lake Shawnee ! ! Lenexa Lawrence ! Wabaunsee ! Overland Park Jackson ! Lee's Summit ! Leawood !

Douglas Olathe !Grandview Wabaunsee Joh!nson !Topeka Belton 0 5 10 Miles Osage ! Raymore Douglas ! Cass Figure 1. Delaware River Riparian Forest Assessment Study Area Study Assessment Riparian River Forest 1. Delaware Figure

Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 25 W " 0 ' 4 3 ° ¯ 5 9 t e e W F " 0 ' 0 5 0 3 ° 0 5 , 9 0 t 1 e e f

W 3 " 0 3 ' 6 3 , 3 ° 8 5

9 =

c h n W i 0 "

0 2 ' 1 6 7 K 3 3 ° S 5 9 U 0 W " 0 ' 8 3 ° 5 9 W " 0 ' 9 3 ° 9 5 9 K r e W " n 0 v ' 0 i o 4 ° i 5 R 9 t

a n e i W c r " i 0 ' s 1 a f 4 i ° a 5 9 w s B a s

l r W a " e 0 l ' e 2 4 ° D v C 5

9 t R m s

W " e e 0 e ' t 3 r r 4 ° 5 S o a 9

w n

5 7 S U i W " a 0 n ' a l 4 4 a ° e i 5 M 9 r

Y D r

T a

N W e " p 0 '

U i 5 p 4

O 6 ° 5 4 R p

C 9 2

K U

N W "

O 0 '

S 6 4 °

K 5 9

" Y T N U O C

N W O R 0 B ' 7 4 ° 5

s N E M A H A

C O U N T Y e f m f a u W e " r B 0 ' t

8 S 4

m ° s 5 a ) 9 y u I l e r r V P a t D d D S

W n r N s H " ( r h e 0 u ' t N o

g 9 x o f d 4 i a c t e ° o B

5 d a

m 9 W n I n F d

l y o

i e r P t e n I s k h a a i o n A i s W t n d t r R n i " N

t n 0 a n

f ' e a s t m n t s 0 e 8 u o r h e P

5 e a 0 o ° e d g n m v e t C n 5 0 M r e

e B m o 9 W y e h i o 2

u i V t e

p e B s a

t f D y i

8 a v

o t l C g i t c o - l r

w c t

h l i n b c e a t s e e f e h n C c a W i t u t n a n d " t e v i t o g n o 0 e A i i U o a r ' a n e

t r s r o 1 i W e o H H 2 C y e 5

D E M P W g f l d ° c a f F h I i i 5 e

e f 9 p n y D R n

r n a a s i d s e r i a a g r l h g z e s a W a a i s : " C o l C n

p ' m a e a i I 2 c e s t

r 5 v e K m G e R ° i g

r u r 5 n o E o c t i o 9 S F N A N B N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 2. Riparian Forest Classification Upper Main Stem Delaware River Basin River Delaware Upper Main Stem Classification 2. Riparian Forest Figure ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 26 ¯ W " t 0 ' e 5 e 2 ° F 5 9 0 0 0 , 0 t W " 1 e 0 ' e 6 f

2 ° 3 5 3 9 3 ,

Y 8

= W

" 0 '

U 7 c h 2 n °

O i

5 9 1

C 9

5 1

N 0 S W " Y

O 0 U ' E 8 R

S 2 K ° R

R 5 A 9 E

E L

F P

F W "

E 0 '

J 4 9 2 K ° 5 9 W r " 0 ' 0 e 3 ° n 5 v 9 i o i R t

W " 0 a ' e n 1 3 i r c ° 5 i 9 s a f

a 9 5 1 S U w s W " B a 0 ' s

6 l 2 1 3 r ° a K e 5 l 9 e D v C

W t " 0 ' R m 3 s

3 ° e 5 e e 9 t r r

Y T N U O C

N O S I H C T W A " F 0 ' n w

4 i

5 n J A C K S a O N

C O U N T Y l 9 a e i M

r W D " r 0 ' a 5 3 e ° p 5 i 9 w R o W " 0 L ' 6 3 ° 5 9 r e f f W " u 0 ' 7 B

3 ° 5 m 9 a y e r r a t s W d S " m

0 n ' a h 8 u t e 3 o ° r d t i 5 B 9 S

6 W d s

1 l y ) 1 u e r I l e K h a W V P n s " t s d 0 D r n D ' t

n P y 9 n e a r N n s H e 3 t ( r u M ° e h e N a d o 5 o

m g x n B 9 f C e m

a c t e h B o W y o t i p

e d a s e t m a i s y n I o l n 8 g F v c t

l r I

i - e o w

b a t i W e n e r P e t " t n I h t C a c n s k v u 0 t a o i ' o o g A a y i a A 0 e i U o s r n t

F R i 4 h N

° a

D E M P W H H 2 C f t 5 m 9 p n s 8 o r 9 e

K a a 0 e g i n r v e t 0 r r e o e g i 2 u a V t

f D o W a

p C " o

i e c 0

h l i ' c e t f n 1 a R i G n d t 4 i o n ° e i n t r o 5 i W e 9 e

g f l d c a f I i i e e f n y D R

r n W s i d s e " a a 0 g ' l h z e 2 s a a i s : C 4 l C n

m a a 5 I c e s t

9 r v e K m e i g

r u r n o E o c t i o S F N A N B N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 Figure 3. Riparian Forest Analysis Area: Second Cow Creek Watershed Creek Cow Second Area: Analysis 3. Riparian Forest Figure 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 27 W " 0 3 ' 9 3 ¯ ° 5 9 t e e W " F 0 3 t ' 0 0 e 4 0 ° e 5 0 f 9 ,

6 0 0 0 , 6

W " = 0

3 ' h 1 4 c ° 5 n 9 i

1 0 6 3 S W " 0 U 3 ' 2 4 ° 5 9 ) W " 0 2 3 ' 3 0 4 6 ° 5 4 1 9 2 0 K n 3 o 0 i W " t 1 0 3 ' 4 a 0 4 n ° i 5 c 7 9 i s 2 f i a 0 s 1 B s (

W "

0 r a 3 ' l 5 d e 4 ° 5 e v C 9 i

h t R s s

r e e W e " r r 0 t 5 3 ' o 7 a 6 a 4 ° S F 5

w 9 U

Y T N U O C

N W O R B a

n l k a e i e

e 0 N E M A H A

C O U N T 3 Y a ' r 7 4 ° p 5 C i 9

r R a d W " 0 e 3 ' r 8 e 4 C ° f f 5 9 u ) B

O m F y a r A e a ( r W

" d t n 0 n S 3 ' o e s

u i t 9 t i h 4 m o t ° a S a 5 r B d

i 9

e e n r d t p o W i e S

y O s h r

s y e l o s ) a u l g r r n I l s t d u n s e n V E P i t W t P n r

n " a G d D D n a k e 0

o u y h l M 3 e t r e N s ' H n o d ( r m a 0 W e e n C c B a N

r e 5

o B h

y g x o ° F a

t f b 2 i e p e

e s 5 a c t e a t l y i F o s 9 1 v o l t g

d a c m i l m r - a m w e t b n I n a n k F e a e e r e

h C c t o t m a

u n s i v e i h t P o g y i t o r n I A a i U o a s k e

n p s r t F a i h o R A

i H H 2 C

n A E D E M P W S t R i p N n

a n

f W a t m " a s 8 o r a i r e 0

i 0 r 3 e g g ' r n v e t 0 a 1 r e o o a e 5 i 2 " ! u p # V ° t

e p i

f D 5 i a

C 9 o

G c R

h l i R c e t f n a i n d t i o n e i n t r o i W e e

g f l d c a f I i i e e f W n y D " R

r 0 n s i d s 3 e ' a a 2 g l h 5 z e s a a i ° s : C l C n

m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a 9 a I " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " c e s t

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v e K ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' m e i g 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

r 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 u ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' r Figure 4. Riparian Forest Classification Cedar Creek Watershed / Delaware River Basin River / Delaware Watershed Creek Cedar Classification 4. Riparian Forest Figure n 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 o E o c t i o ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 S F N A N B 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 28 95°47'30"W 95°47'0"W 95°46'30"W 95°46'0"W 95°45'30"W 95°45'0"W 95°44'30"W 95°44'0"W 95°43'30"W 95°43'0"W 95°42'30"W 95°42'0"W 95°41'30"W 95°41'0"W 95°40'30"W 95°40'0"W 95°39'30"W 95°39'0"W 95°38'30"W 95°38'0"W 95°37'30"W

39°39'30"N

BROWN COUNTY

JACKSON COUNTY 39°39'0"N

39°38'30"N

39°38'0"N

39°37'30"N "

Riparian Risk Factors " # Animal Feeding Operation (AFO) ! Ephemeral Gully 39°37'0"N " Streambank Erosion Site

Riparian Forest BMPs

Developed

39°36'30"N Establishment Management Protection

Water

39°36'0"N Geography S

U Highway HUC-12 Watershed Boundary K9 K9 2 Active Channel Width Stream Buffer

39°35'30"N County Boundary

Sources: 0 6,000 Feet Forest Classification of 2008 NAIP Imagery Riparian Forest Classification Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) Active Channel Width Determination of NHDPlus Streams Muddy Creek Watershed (102701030109) NE Kansas Regional Curves ¯ Bing Imagery Identification of Risk Factors Delaware River Basin 1 inch = 3,000 feet Basin River / Delaware Watershed Muddy Creek Classification 5. Riparian Forest Figure

Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 29 ¯ W " 0 ' 1 3 ° 5 9 t e t e W " e 0 F 3 e '

1 f

° 3 7 S 5 U 0 0 9 0 0 , 0 0 , 4 W 2 " 4 0 ' K

2 3 = °

5 9 h c n W i "

0 3 ' 1 2 3 0 ° 5 9 ) W " 0 2 ' 3 3 0 ° 5 9 2 0 " W 3 " 0

' 0

3 Y T N U O C

N O S I H C T 3 A n ° 1 5 9 o 0 i " 7 t W " 2 a 0 n ' 4 i 0 c 3 ° i 5 s 1 f 9 ( i a

s W B d " s

0 3 e ' r a 4 3 l ° h e 5 9 s v C i

r t e W R " s t 0

' 5 3 e a e ° 5 r r 9 W o a

F r W " w

0 e 3 ' a 5 n l 3 p ° a 5 e 9 i Y p r T D Y o N a T W " h U 0 ' N p 6 O i s 3 U ° 5 C s O 9 R N C a

r O N W " S 0 W 3 G ' K 6

O 3 C r ° 5 e R A 9 f f W J B u B ) H

W " O 0 m ' y F 7 a r 3 A ° e a ( r 5

d t 9 n n s S o e

u i t m t i h o t a a W S e B " d r

r 0 t e n 3 d ' S p o W 7

e i

3 l y s ° O s h r

) y 5 e u s l o I l 9 a l g r n r V P t d u n e n E i t t n D

D n

a s y G d n a k e

s r u N s H h l P W e ( r e r e n " o d N m a W o 0 C e n

o g ' x a

r M

e m f B y h t 8 o a F

c t e 2 b i e o e p 3

e s B a c t

y l ° d a i

1 m v o l t g 5 i c a t m n I - l m n r a F w

t 9 I

b n a o e s a

e e F e i h C c t P

t u a m t n n I v e e i h t s k g o A k r a i a i U o r o a e

A n p s r t i n s t R o i y H H 2 C W i N

A E D E M P W S a "

f F t h m 0 s R

8 o r e 3

' p 0 n e g 8 n n v e t a 0 3 a r e o r ° e i a i 2 u i V 5 t

r g

f D r 9 a

C a o o "

! a c #

h l i c e p t f e p n i a i n d i t i o n G e i R n W t r R o " i W e 0 e

' g f l d c a 9 f I i i e e 3 f ° n y D R 5

r n 9 s i d s e a a g l h z e s a a i s : C l C N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N n

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " m a a I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c e ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' s t

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 r 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 v e K ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' m e i g

r 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 u r ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° n 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 Figure 6. Riparian Forest Classification HW Grasshopper Watershed / Delaware River Basin River / Delaware Watershed HW Grasshopper Classification 6. Riparian Forest Figure o E o c t i o ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 S F N A N B 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 30 W ¯ " 0 ' 3 2 t ° 5 e 9 e F t 0 e 0 e 4 f ,

5 0 W " 0 0 ' 4 4 2 , ° 5 5

9 =

h c r e n f i f

u 1 0 B ) W "

0 ' O 5 m F y 2 a r ° A 5 e a ( 9 r

d t n n ) S o e

u i t t i h 3 o t a S B d r

i 0

e n d p o W 2 e i

l W y O s h " r

0 y e 0 s l o ' a l g r n r 6 t d 2 3 u n e n E ° i t t n

n 5 a s G d n a 0 9 k e s

u h l P e r e n o d m a W C e n 1 o a

r M

e m B t y h o F

2 b i e e p

e s B c 0 a t y l i

1 v o l t g a i c t m - l m r a w t b n 7 a e s a F e e e h C c n t

t u m a n v e e i h t g o 2 k A r a i U o r a e

n p s r t W o s " o y H H 2 C i i A E D E M P W S 0 0 ' F h 7 t R

2 1 p ° n n a 5 a ( a n 9 r a i

i i r c g r a i d o " ! a # s p f e p i i i e a G R R s h B s

s W " r r 0 ' a 8 l 2 e e ° 5 t " 9 v C i

" " a t R s

e e . r r r W " o a 0 ' C 9

2 F ° w r

5 9 a e n l " p " a e i " p r " D 9 " o 5 a W 1 " h p 0 ' S i 0 " s 3 U " ° " 5 R s 9 a r G

t W " 0 e ' 1 l 3 ° t 5 9 u

U S 7 3 s Y m W " a T 0 ' e Y 2 r N t 3 T ° S U 5

N 9 s O ) u U I l C V P O

D D

y C N r

N s H 0 ( r e O N N 2 o

g x f S a c t e K I o W W

" d a m 0 H n I ' n F

O I

3 o

i 3 C P t ° n R I s k 5 a i T o A i 9 B n 9 t R i A N

f K t m s 8 o r e

0 e g n v e t 0 r e o e i 2 u V t

f D a

C o

h l i c e t f W n a i " n d t i 0 o n ' e i n t r 4 o i W e 3 e

° g f l d c a f 5 I i i e e f 9 n y D R

r n s i d s e a a g l h z e s a a i s : C N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N l C n

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

m a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' c e s t

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' r v e K m e i g 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

r u r ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 n o E ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 o c t i o Figure 7. Riparian Forest Classification Outlet Grasshopper Cr. Watershed / Delaware River Basin River / Delaware Watershed OutletCr. Grasshopper Classification 7. Riparian Forest Figure 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 S F N A N B 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 31 W " 0 ¯ 3 ' 9 1 ° 5 t 9 e e F t 0 e 0 W " e 0 f 0 ,

3 ' 6 0 0 2 r ° 0 5 e 0 9 f , f 6 u

) B =

O h m F y c a r W A " e n a ( i 0 r

d 3 t ' n 1 1 n S 2 o e

0 u ° i t t i h 5 o t 9 a S B r d

e n ) d p o W i e

l y 4 O s h r

y e l o s a l g 0 r r n W t " d u n e n E i 0 t t n

2 n s 3 a G ' d n s a k e

u 2 P h l r e e 0 2 n o d ° m a W o e n C M a

5 r e t

m B h y 3 o 9 F

b 2 i e B p c e

e s a t

l y i 1 v o l a t t g 0 c m i l m - r a w t b n s a F e a e e e

h C c t t m a 1 u e n v e i h t k g r o r A a i U o a e

n p s r t s 0 o y i H H 2 C W A E D E M P W S " F h R

n 7 0

p 3 ' n n 3 a 2 o a 2 r a i i ° i r g 5 0 r t 9 a o a " ! # p 1 e a p i n i ( G R i

c R 9 i s 5 d f 1 W i " a e 0 S 3 s ' 4 U B h 2 s

° 5 s r 9 a r l e e v C t i

a t W " R 0 s

3 ' W 5 e

e 2 ° . r 5 r 9 r o a C F

r a n W e l " 0 a 3 ' e p i 6 2 r ° p D 5 9 a o p h i s R W " s 0 3 ' a 7 2 r ° 5 9 G "

" e Y l " T Y t W N " T t 0 i U 3 N ' 8 O 2 L U ° 5 6 C O 9

1 C 1 N s

K O m N a S e I 3 W r t W 7 " H O S 0 "

S 3 C ' R s 9 U ) T u 2 I l B ° A 5 V P 9 D D

y r N s H ( r e N o

g x f a c t e o

d a m W n I n F "

0 i P t 3 n I ' s k a i 0 o A i 3 n t R ° i N

5 a

f t 9 m s 8 o r e

0 e g n v e t 0 r e o e i 2 " u V t

f D a

" C o

h l i c e " t " " f n a i n d t i o n e i

t r o

W e e

U S 1 5 9 g f l d c a f I i i e e f n y D R

r W n s i " d s e a 0 a ' g l h 2 z e s a a i 3 s : C l C ° n

m 5 a a I c e 9 s t

r v e K m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N e i g

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " r u r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' o E o c t i o 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' Figure 8. Riparian Forest Classification Little Grasshopper Cr. Watershed / Delaware River Basin River / Delaware Watershed Cr. Little Grasshopper Classification 8. Riparian Forest Figure S F N A N B 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 32 K9

Riparian Risk Factors # Animal Feeding Operation (AFO)

! Ephemeral Gully " " Streambank Erosion Site Riparian Forest BMPs Developed Establishment Management

Protection Y

T "

Water N

Geography C

C "

Highway N

HUC-12 Watershed Boundary S

2 Active Channel Width Stream Buffer C

J County Boundary A

Sources: 0 6,000 Feet Forest Classification of 2008 NAIP Imagery Riparian Forest Classification Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) Active Channel Width Determination of NHDPlus Streams Negro Creek Watershed (102701030205) ¯ NE Kansas Regional Curves 1 inch = 3,333 feet Bing Imagery Identification of Risk Factors Delaware River Basin Figure 9. Riparian Forest Classification Negro Creek Watershed / Delaware River Basin River / Delaware Watershed Creek Negro Classification 9. Riparian Forest Figure

Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 33 95°48'0"W 95°47'30"W 95°47'0"W 95°46'30"W 95°46'0"W 95°45'30"W 95°45'0"W 95°44'30"W 95°44'0"W 95°43'30"W 95°43'0"W 95°42'30"W 95°42'0"W 95°41'30"W 95°41'0"W 95°40'30"W 95°40'0"W 95°39'30"W 95°39'0"W 95°38'30"W 95°38'0"W 95°37'30"W 95°37'0"W 95°36'30"W 95°36'0"W 95°35'30"W 95°35'0"W 95°34'30"W 95°34'0"W 95°33'30"W 95°33'0"W 95°32'30"W 95°32'0"W 95°31'30"W 95°31'0"W

39°36'0"N

39°35'30"N K9

39°35'0"N

39°34'30"N

39°34'0"N Y

Y T

9 N

5 U

S O 39°33'30"N O

U C

N N

O O

S I

K H

39°33'0"N C C

" T A

39°32'30"N

S U

" 39°32'0"N

Riparian Risk Factors # 39°31'30"N Animal Feeding Operation (AFO) ! Ephemeral Gully

" Streambank Erosion Site " 39°31'0"N Riparian Forest BMPs

Developed

39°30'30"N Establishment "

Management Protection 39°30'0"N Water

Geography 39°29'30"N Highway HUC-12 Watershed Boundary

39°29'0"N 2 Active Channel Width Stream Buffer "

County Boundary

Sources: 0 10,000 Feet Forest Classification of 2008 NAIP Imagery Riparian Forest Classification Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) Active Channel Width Determination of NHDPlus Streams Outlet Straight Cr. Watershed (102701030303) NE Kansas Regional Curves ¯ 1 inch = 5,000 feet Bing Imagery Identification of Risk Factors Delaware River Basin Basin River / Delaware Watershed Cr. Outlet Straight Classification 10. Riparian Forest Figure

Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 34 95°56'0"W 95°55'30"W 95°55'0"W 95°54'30"W 95°54'0"W 95°53'30"W 95°53'0"W 95°52'30"W 95°52'0"W 95°51'30"W 95°51'0"W 95°50'30"W 95°50'0"W 95°49'30"W 95°49'0"W 95°48'30"W 95°48'0"W 95°47'30"W 95°47'0"W 95°46'30"W 95°46'0"W 95°45'30"W 95°45'0"W 95°44'30"W 95°44'0"W 95°43'30"W 95°43'0"W 95°42'30"W

39°29'30"N

9 39°29'0"N 7 K JACKSON COUNTY

39°28'30"N

39°28'0"N K16 #

# # ! 39°27'30"N ! ! ! ! ! ! !

# ! !! !

39°27'0"N

39°26'30"N

Riparian Risk Factors # Animal Feeding Operation (AFO) # 39°26'0"N ! Ephemeral Gully

" Streambank Erosion Site

Riparian Forest BMPs 39°25'30"N Developed # # Establishment #

39°25'0"N Management U # Protection

Water

39°24'30"N Geography # Highway HUC-12 Watershed Boundary

39°24'0"N 2 Active Channel Width Stream Buffer

County Boundary

Sources: Riparian Forest Classification 0 8,000 Feet Forest Classification of 2008 NAIP Imagery Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) Banner Creek Watershed (102701030305) Active Channel Width Determination of NHDPlus Streams ¯ NE Kansas Regional Curves Delaware River Basin 1 inch = 4,000 feet

Bing Imagery Identification of Risk Factors Basin River / Delaware Watershed Banner Creek Classification 11. Riparian Forest Figure

Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment 35

William Beck Formerly with Kansas Forest Service

Charles Barden Dalila Maradiaga Department of Horticulture, Forestry, and Recreation Resources and

Jeff Neel Kansas Alliance for Wetlands and Streams

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment has provided financial assistance to this project through an EPA Section 319 Non‑Point Source Pollution Control Grant (EPA Grant #C9007405 17).

Contents of this publication may be freely reproduced for educational purposes. All other rights reserved. In each case, credit William Beck et al., Delaware River Watershed Riparian Forest Assessment, Kansas State University, January 2015.

Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service K-State Research and Extension is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension Work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, as amended. Kansas State University, County Extension Councils, Extension Districts, and United States Department of Agriculture Cooperating, John D. Floros, Director.