Category Archives: Maintenance

On Our Western Juniper Survey in Redmond’s Dry Canyon

Leave a reply

This is an explanation of the importance of the survey work being done by the Friends of North Dry Canyon Natural Area, FNDCNA, and it’s role in the creation of a broader management plan, and a fire management plan, that addresses both community safety needs, as well as those of the Western Juniper and Sagebrush steppe plant communities in Dry Canyon. This is a 160 acre portion of the Canyon Park that stretches 3.7 miles, north to south, through the City, a remnant of one of the canyons formed by one of the previous courses of the paleo-Deschutes River, (There were at least two, one some distance east of Redmond’s location, joining with the Crooked River at present day Smith Rock State Park. The current Deschutes River flows 4 miles to the west of this location through a canyon carved in its earlier stages by Tumalo Creek.) Continue reading →

On Ornamental Trees and the Remaking/Unmaking of Place: Revising the City of Redmond’s Tree List, part 2

1 Reply

How Much to Water?

Recommending trees from climates with significantly wetter growing seasons needs to stop if we are to continue growing our population. Landscapes as designed, and managed, are the single largest user of residential water. Recommending trees which ignore this problem is irresponsible. Lower water use residential landscapes are possible. Local codes and recommendations must, however, reflect this priority.

Additionally, how much to water is a bit of a mystery to all of us and especially so to non-gardeners. How much? How often? Our watering practices should be determined by the local precipitation and the tree’s needs. What is commonly done, however, is that we water for our lawns and that largely determines what our trees receive, unless we have separate drip systems. A tree’s root system doesn’t stay neatly between the lines. They quickly extend out well beyond the span of the tree’s leafy canopy. In many cases even 2-3 times as far, taking up water and nutrients. A roots of a tree, planted in a small bed, adjacent to an irrigated lawn area, will move out into the lawn. A tree isolated in a xeric bed with only a few drip emitters, will quickly demand more than such a meager system affords it and such a tree, if it requires summer moisture, will struggle while competing with its nearby  ground level growing neighbors. Again ‘neighbors’ should share compatible requirements so all can thrive on the same ‘diet’ and moisture regime. Continue reading →

Mowing Firebreaks Across the Dry Canyon Bottom, Good Idea or No?

Leave a reply

Mowing weakens the native plant community and aids the growth of weeds.

Mown adjacent to unmown. Aggressive spreaders will fill in more quickly and because of the weeds already in place, they will sieze a larger proportion of the mown area as they grow and spread.

While recently walking home through the Canyon, last month in December, I noted 8 new  strips, presumably ‘fire breaks’, mown across relatively flat and uniform sections of bottomland, each maybe 50’+ wide, spanning the bottom between the paved eastern path and the the main dirt western bike path. While I understand the thinking here, removing ground level fuels, this is a single purpose treatment that works counter to the Park’s purpose as a natural area preserve. Mowing down the Rabbitbrush, a ruderal, transition species of the Sagebrush Steppe plant community, delays the development of a healthy native plant community and encourages an increased array and density of weeds and invasives. Mowing this way provides open space for weed species already in Dry Canyon, as well as those not yet here, giving them larger ‘launch points’ from which they can spread into the rest of the Canyon. Mowing weakens natives, which are naturally slower to rebound from the damage than the aggressive weed species. Continue reading →

The Much Maligned Western Juniper: The Role of Juniperus occidentalis in Central Oregon

Leave a reply

Old growth Junipers near Cline Buttes. These two rooted down long ago on top of this lava flow. Much of the lavas here were produced during the Deschutes Formation over many thousands of years more than 5 million years ago. Surface lavas, cliffs and slopes define the area with a few sediment filled basins dominated by Sagebrush and Bitterbrush.

The Western Juniper is the  singular native tree of Dry Canyon and the immediate Redmond area. I grew up with it here in Central Oregon. When we moved here in ’61 i remember driving north after passing through miles and miles of various Pine forests, which eventually yielded, riding in our VW bus, as we left Bend. Bend sits within the ecotone, the relatively narrow transition zone, between Ponderosa Pine forest and Juniper steppe. What were these trees? Coming from California’s Salinas Valley, the landscape could hardly be more different to a six year old. So different in form and detail, Junipers squatted darkly across the landscape, nothing like the tall, majestic Pines or Oaks I was more familiar with or even the Lodgepole Pine we drove through across the pumice plain of the LaPine area. Continue reading →

Weeds: What We Need to Do at DCVS

Leave a reply

Looking NE from the gate at Northwest Way, other than a handful of juvenile Juniper there is literally nothing native of value across this roughly 9 acre spread. The other two undeveloped phases are equally bad, having a similar mix of weeds.

The question I keep hearing is, ‘What do we do?’ Many, if not most people living here now, have expressed frustration and more about the Dry Canyon Village South, DCVS’s, landscapes, specifically the berm, the mini-parks,  the Circle and the 25+ acres of undeveloped, uncared, for property we share space with. They ask me because they know I cared for Park landscapes, as a field horticulturist, for almost 30 years, Parks which often included natural areas of over 100 acres, to little neighborhood parks and intensively developed and used urban parks in the downtown core. I also haven’t been shy about my criticism of the lack of care, or of even a plan, for the neglected property we are saddled with. Anyone who has cared for a landscape can see the problem here. Leaving disturbed and neglected properties on their own is not a plan and can lead only to their further deterioration and continuing, worsening, ‘weed pressure on the adjacent developed landscapes. Continue reading →

Weeds, Weeding and the Health of Our Public and Private Landscapes: an example from the ‘hood

Leave a reply

Every gardener is a weeder. Gardens are created landscapes, often expressions of the individual gardener or, lacking of intent and design sense, those of a chosen designer. We live in our landscapes as active, responsible, creators, participants and stewards. Gardeners are trying to create a particular look or to grow particular plants native to their area, or with ornamental value or food plants to feed themselves and their families. Some of us are simply pursuing what we understand to be a healthy relationship with one’s place, to undo the damage and allow a new healthy and vital landscape to grow. These are landscapes of our choice. Our intention and control results in various volunteers and weeds finding their own place and so follows the need for weeding. 

We watch carefully, monitor the impacts of our work, attempt to understand what result is moving us closer to our goal and which might be indicators of further loss. Landscapes and gardens are incredibly complex systems and anyone who claims to have all of the answers is fooling himself and you. Our landscapes are broken, by us and our predecessors. The Pandora’s Box of weeds and disruption was burst open long ago. The only way ahead is to find a new path.  Weeds are here filling the niches we have collectively made and maintain for them. The more one is surrounded by aggressive, well adapted weeds, the more time we must spend controlling them. While this can be significant, gardeners mostly take the work in stride, a necessity to reach our goal, a goal which may be the simple act itself, of working in concert with our place…open to its teachings. Gardening, is a way of life, a smaller scale version of farming and the management of large ‘natural areas’ with their attendant commitment, rhythms and demands. Continue reading →

The Flushing/Testing of Redmond’s New Municpal Well Into Dry Canyon’s Natural Preserve

Leave a reply

This shows the effected portion of Dry Canyon Park from Antler, at the bottom, where the new municipal well is located, north to the Maple St. Bridge. The Fir connector trail shows up faintly cutting diagonally across the canyon from Fir Ave, 3 blocks north of John Tuck School. West Canyon Rim Park is labelled on the the left. The trail/dam cuts up, northeasterly from it, gray as it is asphalted, faintly in the pic. The water travelled 200 yds north of it, a bit short of halfway up to the Maple Bridge.

I’ve adopted Redmond’s Dry Canyon Park as a project, so I’ve gotten kind of possessive about things that threaten and effect it…but it is a City Park and cities often have competing demands and priorities. In this case the City is under considerable pressure to keep growing. People and businesses are still arriving here at a high rate and this puts demands on its public infrastructure, in this case its water supply. A city of its size also finds itself in need of more Park lands as people’s private space shrinks, population density increases and we all turn to the same limited landscapes for recreation. Compound this with the demand of wildlife and plants for relatively undisturbed landscapes on which they can simply live. Well, this is a case where two of these priorities have come into conflict, and as usual, the utilitarian demands have won out over those for the living natural world (There is no division of the City or local advocacy group, at this point, speaking up for the natural landscape and the life it supports). The utilitarian ‘needs’ of the community are simply a higher priority than those of the natural world. The State is responsible for our water resource and has control over adding new wells and how that is to be done. It is in at least part a health and safety issue. In this role they require that municipalities flush the wells and conduct a flow test to determine rate, drawdown and recovery. This was to be done by running it at full volume 24 hours a day for four days. At 3,500 gals./min. That’s 5 million gals per day. 20 million gals total. That water must go somewhere. It would have overwhelmed our wastewater treatment plant which is running at close to capacity already so it couldn’t be wasted down a manhole…so, it had to be wasted into the landscape of the Canyon itself.

The City contested this amount. This is almost double the amount used by by all residents on a typical winter day of 2.7 million gallons (In summer, due to landscape irrigation the daily amount jumps to 15.8 million gals.). This was all to be ‘wasted’ across the canyon floor. The City had concerns with damage to area infrastructure and paved paths. This requirement was cut in half and eventually to a single 12 hour period as the flooding/washing problem played out. The amount flushed was 2.5 million gals.

April 14, 2024

The filling ‘reservoir’ abutting the north path.

I was unaware of the details of this as I walked the stretch of path this afternoon  going north along the west side dirt path, from the trail connector between the main paved trail, extending from the Fir Ave. stairs. I was surprised at all of the surface erosion on and around the dirt path. In some places a foot or more of path had been scoured away, flushed out into the surrounding landscape, its Bitterbrush, Rabbitbrush and other low plants. This erosion continued north following the contours and the trail.

The northern extreme of the test run, where the flow slowed and settled all of the light organic debris.

As the flow spreads and slows larger denser material settles out. Here sediment was deposited in the trail itself and on the ground where the water fanned out.

The flooding had continued a couple hundred yards to where the flow stopped depositing a layer of organic debris the water had carried along.

(I learned on the 17th that this was the result of a test to see what kind of damage might occur and to gauge how the water would spread across the site. This is why the crew was there on the 17th. The test was an attempt to determine the flow pattern so that they could minimize damage.) Continue reading →

Dry Canyon Proposal: the need for change in maintenance, use and planning

Leave a reply

[The following is a piece I wrote and sent to our local Parks staff, its advisory citizens committee, mayor and city manager…I got little back in response. I’ve developed a relationship with one of the city arborists and the park’s planner as well as have met several active neighbors interested in protecting Dry Canyon’s natural areas, several of whom have natural resources backgrounds with agencies. The City has no natural resource or botanical staff. There is no formalized friends group, nor is their an outreach and public education program that addresses these problems and the role of residents in their solution. Signage is minimal and inadequate. Their horticultural expertise would also seem quite limited. This is understandable as the City’s population has grown very rapidly in recent years. The need for such programs and an increase in expertise on staff will only increase as Redmond’s population continues to grow.]

 

Redmond’s Dry Canyon looking south from the west rim on the Maple Street Bridge. The area in the immediate foreground burned this last summer.

A typical view at the base of a section of relatively unbroken rim on the east side.

The canyon floor is variable, but as this pic shows, a solid layer of hardened lava underlies what soil is here, either blown in or washed in, a limiting factor of what can grow here. Rabbitbrush is a common and ubiquitous native pioneer.

Match of the canyon floor is recovering from pasture use. These areas have relatively deep soils and are still transitioning with many weedy mustards, annual grasses like Cheat and planted grasses like Crested Wheat and Annual Barley. Native Bluebunch Wheat is scattered as are other natives. Gray Rabbitbrush, a native seral species has moved into much of it, but the weeds are dominant. Sagebrush and Bitterbrush are more at the edges and lower rim areas.

This section of bottomland, former pasture, probably burned not that long ago, has quite a colony of Rabbitbrush coming along, all it would appear of even age, suggesting a fire. Rabbitbrush are early colonizers and ‘prepare’ the way for natives to follow. This is just north of the Maple Bridge.

This area, maybe 5 acres, burned in July. It will be interesting to see what comes back and what the City may plant??? Fire kills Sagebrush and Juniper, while it seems to favor Cheatgrass. So far, April ’24, nothing has been replanted. The window for seeding is closed. Rabbitbrush can survive a burn. This site is unfenced, with very fragile soils and we’ve already observed new bike trails in it.

My wife and I are both recent returnees to Central Oregon having both grown up here. We are also frequent walkers in Dry Canyon, a place I spent many hours in playing and exploring as a kid in the 60’s. Redmond has changed a lot over the intervening years…change that continues apace as it grows. I’m not going to whine about the ‘good old days’ and things lost. Much of the change I welcome or at least accept (We did move back!), but population growth, in addition to bringing along economic vitality and stability, new and enriching opportunities and a more diverse community, increases the ‘pressures’ on the naturally limited assets that largely define the place and attract residents. I’m speaking here of the natural landscape, its features and the opportunities which it affords us for recreation and quiet enjoyment. Realtors were once fond of saying that no one is making new land, as a prompt for buying…it is a fixed and limited quantity. This limitation has profound implications for a growing population. We have far more people today ‘enjoying’ a limited, and increasingly over utilized landscape. Continue reading →

Knapweeds in Redmond’s Dry Canyon and the Pursuit of a Healthy Landscape

Leave a reply

Redmond’s Dry Canyon looking south from the west rim on the Maple Street Bridge. The area in the immediate foreground burned this last summer.

If you garden, or maintain a landscape, you come to understand that not all weeds are the same. Each will have its own ‘strengths’, or perhaps you might call it ‘virulence’. Any particular weed, just like any other plant, will respond ‘positively’ to supportive growing conditions, conditions which often closely align with those which exist in its place of origin. Plant explorers and nursery growers are always looking for ‘new’ plants for landscape use. in a way, they have to walk a fine line. They must find plants, that with reasonable effort on the part of the gardener, can thrive across a range of conditions, unless they are looking for specialty plants, for narrow, niche, markets. The introduction of new plants must be somewhat measured, our enthusiasm tempered, because plants which are too adaptable, too vigorous, may possess the ability to escape our cultured gardens and find a place in the surrounding, uncultivated, landscape.

For Central Oregon, when we look beyond our regional natives, we must keep this in mind. Exotics from similar growing and climatic regions around the world offer both promise and threat. We want our plants to be successful, but not too. Sometimes through the process of trade, the movement of livestock and agricultural products, particularly aggressive species hitch a ride. A few weed seeds can be easy to miss. If they are aggressive enough and go unnoticed, a distinct possibility, it is likely that they wont be detected until a sizable local population asserts itself…and if no one is watching, that can be a fateful error. One group of plants, with many wonderful possibilities, also include species which can be exceedingly problematic here in Central Oregon, these are from regions sometimes referred to as Steppe. Continue reading →

On Weeds, Disruption and the Breaking of Native Plant Communities: Toward a More Informed Working Definition of Weeds

Leave a reply

The bottom land in Redmond’s Dry Canyon was used for decades as low quality pasture, the native community pretty much obliterated. Those areas with surface rock are more likely to retain more of the original plant community, although Cheatgrass has invaded much of those areas as well. The is looking southerly over one of the larger ‘pasture’ areas near the disc golf course. There is very little Cheatgrass through this section south of West Rim Park. It includes a few native seral species which typically occupy disturbed sites as a site transitions, including Gray Rabbitbrush you see here. Found in this area too is Secale cereale, Annual Rye, a non-native, which appears to have been planted along more formal paths to limit Cheatgrass spread(?).  Junipers are moving in. Sagebrush hasn’t yet.

It is commonly said that a weed is a plant out of place…and of course ‘we’ are the one’s who decide this. Some will try to argue that there are no weeds, that all plants belong and if we only left weeds alone landscapes would reach a balance on their own. If one’s time frame is long enough this may be the case, though this will take considerably longer than one of our lifetimes, and then there is our inability to actually leave landscapes on their own, or to at least consciously moderate our disturbance of them. Weeds are plants. They are not a separate classification of plants. They are plants removed from their places of origin and released into another where they have competitive advantages. Most people still simply tend to refer to plants they don’t like or want as weeds. These positions are at odds with one another. This leads to confusion and a lack of clarity, undermining any urgency to take action.

Weeds have become ‘personal’, their status a matter of ‘opinion’….A weed is a weed only if “I” agree that it is, or perhaps some ‘expert’, such as when agricultural scientist identify them as an economic threat to farms and label them as ‘noxious’. Without agreement and urgency there is a tendency to do nothing about them. Plants in general are attributed little intrinsic value. For many people they are just there. Native plants we vaguely understand as belonging to a place, but most people would be hard pressed to identify and name many at all. Quite different species are often lumped together, their relationships unnoticed. Natives are reduced to being ‘background’, their status reduced to decoration, attractive or not, a ‘space’ filler, perhaps a hinderance to what we would chose to do with a place. Continue reading →