Little River Watershanalysis 1995
Little River WatershAnalysis 1995
@w USI'A USDT Umpqur Netlonel ForcrG Burctu ol lrnd Menagernent North Unrpgur Rrnger DlJHct Mt Scott Berourcc Area
LITTLE RIVER WATERSHEDANALYSIS
Version1.1
September1995
PreparedBy.
DebbieAnderson Forester,Writer/Editor SteveHofFord Hydrologist MilesBarkhurst EngineeringTechnician BonnieHowell GIS Specialist Alan Baumann Forester ScottLightcap FishBiologist Larry Broeker Geologist StephenLeibenguth GIS Specialist RayDavis WildlifeBiologist Don Morrison SoilScientist BarbaraFontaine IDT Leader,WriterlEditor Laura Ward FuelsSpecialist SteveGadd Forester Lisa Wolf Botanist
With AssistanceFrom.
DebraBarner Archaeologist RalphKlein SoilScientist DayneBarron Forester Tim La Marr FishBiologist N{ikeBlack WildlifeBiologist SusanLivingston WildlifeBiologist WayneBrady RecreationTechnician JerryMires WildlifeBiologist Iv{aryBrennan GraphicArtist GeorgeMoyers Forester Ken Carloni Botanist JohnPatrick Forester NancyDuncan WildlifeBiologist Mark Powell AquaticBiologist Terry Farrell WildlifeBiologist foe Ross Nat.Res. Spec. JimFierst Forester DaveRuppert Forester Don Goheen Pathologist Elijah Waters FishBiologist GlennHarkleroad FishBiologist DudleyWatson ComputerAsst. Jerry Harryman RangeConservationist DianeWhite Ecologist RussHolmes Botanist Ron Wickline Forester Mike Widmann Bio Technician NeithcrthcBrrrcauoflandManagcme[tgorthcForestSenricccanasilrcthcreliabrlityor suitabilityofthrsrnformattonfora-partrcularPy?o*origrnaldatawascompilcdfromvanousstandards' Each agency i* -."1 with oational Et-"p sourccs. Spatiat ,io..*n."y "".*.ty they adninister as tt and recommendationsfor thc tands can be expectedto updatc informauoo be up&ted without notification becomesavarlable Tb.,t;;;;on may forgot reviewers(listed below and any otherswe unintentionally Specialthanksgoes to all of our tomention),whospentnumeroushourshelpingmakethisabetterdocument.
BradAngle DayneBanon KevinCarson N{attDahlgreen NedDavis JeffDose RogerEvenson Tem Fairbanks GordonHanek RichardHelliwetl RussHolmes Mike HuPP DebraKinsinger CraigKintoP RalphKlein JoeLint WillaNehlsen Don Rivard TrudiRhodes DianneWhite PaulUncaPher putthis peoplewho helped'in oneway or another, Additionalthanks goes to thespecial documenttogether.
DanaHess KristinMcCulloch KathyPostles
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ChapterI An Introductionto WatershedAnalysis andthe Linle Riverwatershed Introduction
Chapter2 Issuesand Key Questions Questions - t
Chapter3 TenestrialEcosystem. Terrestrial - I HumanUses. . .. Terrestrial - I Biologicaland Physical Characteristics...... Terrestrial - l0 Stratificationof the Watershed.. Terrestrial - 10 LandUnits At-a-Glance...... Terrestrial - l5 Disturbance Terrestrial -26 lnsectsand Disease Terrestrial -34 ForestProductiviry and SpeciesDiversity.... Terrestrial -35 SiteProductivity in YoungManaged Stands...... Terrestriai -39 SiteProductivify in Mature Stands...... Terrestrial -45 PlantSpecies Diversity Terrestrial -47 RarePlants, Non-native Plants, and Native Revegetation...... Terrestrial -50 Changesin WildlifeHabitat...... Tenestrial -61 InteriorHabitat...... Tenestrial -12 RiparianHabitat Condition... Terrestrial -7 5 UniqueHabitat Condition... Terrestrial -'/7 GameAnimals..... Terrestrial -82 EIk...... Terrestrial -83 Deer...... Terrestrial -87 Marten...... Terrestrial -89 Band-tailedPigeon...... Terrestrial -90 Threatened,Endangered, and Sensitive Species...... Terrestrial -92
Chapter4 AquaticEcosystem. Aquatic -l HumanUses...... Aquatic -1 BiologicalUses...... Aquatic -t ta Trendsin AquaticEcosystem Condition... Aquatic - tL FishSpawning Habitat.. Aquatic -t2 FishRearing Habitat... Aquatic -t2 AquaticInsects...... Aquatic -./.) RiparianConditions. Aquatic -25 -26 Shadeand Stream Temperature...... Aquatic -34 StreampH...... Aquatic -35 Streamflow Aquatic Al SedimentRegime...... Aquatic -at Interactionsof LandscapeProcesses and -50 Ramificationsto the AquaticEcosystem. Aquatic Effectsof Land Managementon AquaticHabitat -57 andAquatic Communities...... Aquatic -60 CriticalHabitat Deficiencies...... Aquatic
Chapter5 -lI Answersto Key Answers Questions. -l Socio-Economics...... Answers -) RoadManagement...... Answers -4 WildlifeHabitat...... Answers -7 Non-nativeSpecies...... Answers -8 ForestProductivity and Management...... :.-. Answers -10 FireManagement...... Answers -tl Streanl Wetland,and Riparian Habitat.....' Answers -18 Fish Stocksat fusk Answers Answers -20 WaterQualiry
6 Chapter - ...... Recommendations I Recommendations. '2 TerrestrialEco system- Recommendations - 2 LateSeral Prone to Fire-."---. Recommendations - 4 PineHealth Recommendations - 6 Interior'Habitat...... Recommendations - 8 GeneralLandscaPe.. Recommendations - 9 UniqueHabitats..... Recommendations -i0 Elk Management...... Recommendations -I2 SpecialForest Products.... Recommendations -Lz RarePlants Recommendations -13 Non-nativeSPecies...... Recommendations -14 AquaticEcosystem. Recommendations -14 GeneralPrioritY Areas...... Recommendations RiparianAreas Adjacent to Wide Vdley, -16 GentleGradient Channels.... Recommendations RiparianAreas Adjacent to Narrow Valley, -16 SteepGradient Channels-..... -....-"' Recommendations -17 ExistingHealthy Riparian Areas.... ". " Recommendations -18 Water Recommendations QualitY.-..... -18 FlowRegimes...... Recommendations -19 Regimes..... Recommendations Sediment -20 OtherRecommendations.'..... Recommendations - I References.... References CHAPTER 1
AN INTRODUCTIONTO WATERSHEDANALYSIS AND THE LITTLE RTVERWATERSHED
Introduction
Federalagencies have been directed to managepublic landsas ecosystems.To accomplishthis, the NorthwestForest Plan @OD) callsfor landscape-levelanalyses of the variouscomponents and interrelationshipsin the ecosystem.This is to be done on the scaleof a 20 to 200 squaremile watershedto documenta scientificallybased understanding of how that particularwatershed works. By understandingthe ecologicalhistory, processes, and limitationsof the are4 human needsand desiresmay be met in a sustainablemanner without impairingthe ability of the ecosystemto function.
Watershedanalysis is not a detailedstudy of everythingin the watershed. lnstead,it is built upon the most importantissues. For example,since cutthroat trout, steelhead,chinook and coho salmon,and steelheadtrout arepresgnt in the watershedand their numbersare declining regionallyand locally,the factorsthat affectthese species are identifiedand characterized.
Watershedanalysis is not a decisionmaking process, nor is it intendedto take the placeof detailed,site specificproject planning and analysisunder the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA). The analysisis meantto providebroad-based information that will help federaldecision makers@istrict Ranger,Forest Supervisor, Area Managerand Distria Manager)make decisions on proposedprojects under NEPA A watershedanalysis is also a flexibledocument and may be changedor addedto as new informationbecomes available. This watershedanalysis for Little River is the first iteration- changesto this documentwill be madeas new data,monitoring results, andother findings become available.
A primarycomponent of the NorthwestForest Plan is the Aquatic ConservationStrategy, which was developedto restoreand maintain the ecologicd healthof watershedsand the aquatic ecosystemscontained within them on public lands. Watershedanalysis is integralin meetingthe Aquatic ConservationStrategy. When consideringproject implementationor management actions,federal decision makers will use the resultsof watershedanalysis to supporta finding that a managementaction either meets or doesnot preventattainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategyobjectives (ROD p. B-10). Therefore,watershed analysis helps provide aquaticand riparianhabitat protection by describingthe processesthat needto be consideredwhen making landmanagement decisions.
Watershedanalysis will alsoplay a role in the complianceof the EndangeredSpecies Act. It will providean avenueto assesshabitat conditions for listed and proposedspecies. This information
lntroduction- I will then be available for use in planning and subsequent consultation with either the National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS) for anadromousfish or the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for specieslike the northern spottedowl, bald a8le, and peregrinefalcon.
Finally, watershedanalysis plays a role in compliancewith the CleanWater Act. The primary objective of this Act is to "restore and maintainthe chemical,physica[ and biological integrity of the Nation'swaters." A principaltask that watershedanalysis will addressfor compliancewill be the identificationand evaluationof the factorsinfluencing the healthof the watershedand the beneficialuses of the water. AgairLthis requiresa scientificallybased understanding of the processesand interactionsoccurring within the watershed.
The WatershedSetting
The Little River watershedencompass€s an areaof 131,853acres that rangesin elevationfrom 730 to 5,275 feet. Linle River flows into the North UmpquaRiver eighteenmiles east of Roseburg,Oregon in DouglasCounty (Figure I). As one of the largesttributaries of the North UmpquaRiver, Little River supportsa very diverseassemblage of fish speciesincluding five stocksof anadromoussdmonids. The colder,high qualirywaters of the North UmpquaRiver help maintain relatively healthyand productive anadromousfish runs in the systemcompared to other rivers in the region.
Little River is where the coniferousforest of the westernedge of the CascadeMountains meets the easternedge of the mixed hardwoods,prairies, and conifers of the Umpqua Valley hills. Three geologic provincesconverge in the Little River watershed,making it truly a place of transitions. The Coast Rangeprovince, found in the northwest corner of the watershed,covers about 6Yoof the watershedarea, and is characterizedby ancient marine sedimentsand volcanic rocks, forming the hilly tenain just south of Glide. The northernmostextent of the Klamath geologic provinceis found in the westernpart of the watershed,and makesup 1l% of the basin area. The remaining83% of the basin is in the Western Cascadesgeologic province, which is composedof manylayers of volcanicdeposits which haveeroded into deeplyincised topography.
There are an estimated1,200 peoplewho live in the Linle River watershed. Many residentsdraw surfacewater from the river and its tributaries for domestic and inigation uses. The dominant use of the basin has beentimber harvest. Due to Little River's proximity to the mills in Roseburg and becauseof its productive high volume forests,it was intensivelyharyested during the 1950'sand 1960's;almost 60% of the drainagehas beenharvested and reforestedto date.
As a result of forest harvestin Little River and throughout the regioq wildlife populationshave shifted from those that thrive in older forests to those populationsthat prefer younger forests and openings. Directly east and south of the watershedis a large late successionalreserve that runs north and south alongthe west sideof the Cascades(Figure 2). To the north and west of the watershedare a mix of private lands and public "matrix" lands primarily managedfor timber production.
lntroduction - 2 Figure I Little River Watershed Vicinirv Map
. Eugene
ford o oKlamath Falls
Bureau ol Land lrlanagement Mt Scott Resource fuea
Bureau of Land Management South Douglas Resourcetuea
Introduction- 3 (d L al - 9* I () t Ei;EE ^E
.Fr| ^F s€ =iEEs{ 3u) H; z2=2 \r, Ft tV, v a 4 e 3v 6x -l< c< - sva c) H ESrEg# nJJ - P:J() .hr 0 i re 6;: ai HA E H E$e \V 6) - {r) +) 5 .- .- gE?? t\F F,€€EEE; vl-) (-, 3 ."i- d, O. O. - c Introduction - 4 Recreationaluse hasgradually increased over the decadesas the road systemwas developed. Hunting, camping,fishing, swimming, hiking, and sight-seeingare the most popularrecreational usesof the areatoday. Little River is the closestexpansive area of publicland outside the citv of Roseburgwhich hasa populationof about 18,000. Sixty-threepercent of the watershedis public land administeredby the USDA ForestService (63,575acres) and the USDI Bureauof Land Management(19,802 acres). The remaining3To/o (44,772acres) is privateland (Figure 3). Most of the privatelands(73o/") are in blocksg."^t.. than 40 acresand are managedas industrialforest. Most of the homesare in the lower portions of Little fuver and Cavitt Creekwhere peopleoperate small ranches or otherwiselive in a rural setting. The publicland in Little River hasbeen designated as one of the ten Adaptivelv{anagement Areas (AMA) in the Northwest ForestPlan. In AMA's, the objectiveis to learnhow to manageon an ecosystembasis in terms of both technicaland socialchallenges, and in a mannerconsistent with applicablelaws. The specificemphasis of the Little RiverAMA is the developmenrand testing of approachesto integrationof intensivetimber production with restorationand maintenance of high quality riparianhabitat. To implementthis direction,a seriesof adaptivemanagement projects will be implementedand monitored. The findingsin this watershedanalysis help put the AMA emphasisinto contextand provide a foundationfor managementand restoration projects. Introduction- 5 .-. rc ".s ?J!2- b "3;-aA!h ! bo Z 7 ai -- ='a = ;d=2. eE= ? e : tl,;l I L-:J l vz (t) .+f C) L.{ O . t-( l-) /ft L< 5J O -1 .Fl (4 i-- t- (-, ca c.) -1 bo fT lntroduction- 6 CHAPTER 2 TSSUESAND KEY QUESTIONS Oneof the initialsteps in watershedanalysis requires issue identification and the formulationof key questions.The purposeof identi$ingissues is to focusthe analysison the processesand conditionsthat aremost important to the watershed.Key questionsare then formulated -- questionsthat watershedanalysis will answeror that will leadto a monitoringplan. In Little River,these questions helped focus and drive data collection and analysis efforts. The key questionsfall underthe broadtopics of: l) socio-economics;2) roadmanagement; 3) wildlife and sensitivespecies; 4) forest productivityand fue management;and 5) fisheries,water, geology,soils Socio-economics Jobs This issuefocuses on how public landswithin the watershedwill be managedto providea sustainableflow of forestproducts, maximizing employment possibilities, while maintainins a healthyand productive ecosystem. - What were the historicalemployment opportunities in the Little fuver watershedand how do they differfrom today? - What futurejob opportunitiesmay exist in the watershed? Recreation This issuefocuses on the needto continueto meetthe demandfor high quality recreation opportunitiesand experiences,while maintaininga healthyand productiveecosystem. - What were/arethe recreationalopportunities in Little River? - What future recreationalopportunities exist and will therebe a demandfor more opportunitiesin the future? Questions- I Road Management This issuefocuses on the managementof roadsto addressresource impacts they causeand meet the accessneeds of both the publicand the managingagencies. - What typesof roadsare most importantin providing accessfor all usersand uses? - Which roadsand vicinitiespose the greatestrisk for landslidesand streamsedimentation? - Whichroads are a potentialfor closureor decommissioning? - Which roadsare priority for remainingoper\ but requireupgrading or storrn-proofing? Wildlife and SensitiveSpecies NativeSpecies and Habitat Diversify This issueexplores the habitatconditions and populationsof nativespecies associated with early, mid, and late successionalforests and uniqueunforested habitats in the Little River watershed. - What is the estimatedhistoric amount (range) of seralstages in the watershedprior to fire suppressionand timber management and how doesit compareto currentamounts? - How doesthe structureand compositionof current seralstages of forest differ from those of pre-managementtimes? - What is the estimatedhistoric conditionof uniquehabitats in the watershedprior to fire suppressionand timber management and how doesit compareto currentconditions?. - What is the degreeof interior, late successionalforest fragmentationin the watershedand how much interior forest currentlyexists and where? Is it stableor doesit havea high probabilityof beingdisturbed in the near future? Game Species This issueexamines the sustainabilityof current populationsof gamespecies (especially elk), and theirdistribution and availability to hunters. - What effectwill changrngtimber harvestrates and prescriptionshave on gamespecies? - What is the estimatedhistoric population of gamespecies in the watershedand how does Questions- 2 that comparewith currentpopulations? - What are the factorslimiting the productionof gamespecies and how can habitat managementbe usedas a tool to increaseor sustainpopulations? - What is the existingforage cover distribution in the watershed? - Where are existingpermanent forage areas and how can they be enhanced? - Where arethe bestsites to createnew forageareas (both transitoryand permanent)and what speciesof grassesand forbs should be usedfor intensiveforage production? Non-Native Species This issuelooks at the effectsof the introductionand spread of undesirablenon-native species and the abilityto limit furtherintroduction and spread of harmfulspecies. - What ecologicalprocesses have been altered by non-nativespecies that arepresent? - What non-nativespecies are posing the biggestrisk to ecosystemintegrity? - What plant communitiesare most at risk and where are the areasof concern? - What restorativeactions are possibleand where are the high priority areasfor treatment? ForestProductivify and Fire Management This issuefocuses on the abilityto managethe landscapein order to sustainand/or enhance long term forest productivity(including intensive timber production)and resiliencyto naturaland humancaused disfurbance. - Are theresites existing in public land that are growing at lessthan their potentialand if so, why? - Is vegetationin the Linle River areamatched to the site (representativeof natural composition)?If not, are the discrepanciesminor in occurrenceor widely-spread? - What proportionsor areasof the landscapeare the most/leastproductive for sustained timber management?Which ecologicalvariables account for that productivity(i.e. soils, elevation,aspect, rainfall etc.)? - Where zuethe priority treatmentareas for increasingtree growth and for minimizinglosses Questions- 3 due to disturbances(such as fire and insects)or growth lossesassociated with compaction relatedto timber harvesting? How will the use of naturalregeneration and/or uneven-aged management diversify stand structureand speciescomposition? What havebeen the cumulativeeffects on nativespecies or communities? What are the existinghabitat conditions for federallylisted and candidate species? What were the referenceperiod fuel loadsand vegetation patterns of the watershedand how doesthat compareto today'scondition? Is theresignificant change in fuel loadsand/or vegetation patterns which may inlluence the sizeand intensity of wildfire? What areashave high fire occurrencerates and high fuel hazards,and are thereoptions to reducethe hazard? Is there a ciifferencebetween the referenceperiod fire regimeand the existingfire regime? Fisheries,Water, Geology,and Soils Fish Stocksat Risk At the regionalscale, this issuefocuses on the fact that thereare threestocks of anadromousfish (Jmpqua cuttkoat trout, coastalcoho salmorLand coastalsteelhead trout) eitherpetitioned or proposedfor Federallisting under the Endangered Species Act within the Little fuver watershed. At the watershedscale, issues pertaining to thesespecies focus on populationviability andtrends, as well as habitatcondition and trends. What is the conditionand trend of "at risk" fishstocks and their habitat within the Little River basin? How are fish populationswithin the watershedlinked to the largerpopulations of the North UmpquaRiver downstream(i.e., fue thereany refugeareas within the watershed? Is the habitatproducing at its potentid?etc.)? Stream,Riparian, and Wetland Habitat For fish stocks,this issuedeals in part with specificmeasurable habitat parameters such as pool:riffle.glideratios, amounts of largewood, streambedcomposition, number of qualitypools Questions- 4 per mile, banldullwidth to depthratios, etc. What is the extentand conditionof aquatichabitat within the watershed,includine wetlands,riparian areas, and streams(historic, current, and trend)? What arethe criticalprocesses and landforms that in{luenceaquatic biodiversity? Where are the highly diverseaquatic communities within the watershedand how do they relateto the habitattypes and conditions? What arethe primarylimiting factors to fish populationswithin the watershed? Water Quality This issuefocuses on the mostessential and basic natural resource that is presentwithin the watershed,and its conditionwith regardto useby aquaticlife, aswell as humans.Specific areas of concerninclude high summerwater temperatures,high pfl high turbiditiesduring winter months,extremely low flows during suruner months,and flow regimeswhich havebeen artificiallvaltered. what is the thermalprofile of the watershed(historic, current, trend)? Have other water qualityparameters, such as dissolvedoxygen, pH, and turbidity, affected aquaticcommunities? If so, how? How do flow regimesinteract with/regulate water quality within the watershed? What, when, andwhere are the sedimentation/erosionalprocesses occurring within the basin? Questions- 5 CTIAPTER3 TERRESTRIALECOSYSTEM Usesof the TerrestrialEcosystem Human Uses Ifuman occupation Humanuse of the Little fuver watershedcan be tracedas far back as 9,000 yearsago (Connolly 1990). More recently,people of the SouthernMolalla and Umpqua tribesinhabited the watershed.Many descriptionsof encounterswith the Umpqua exist (AppendixD). Both the SouthernMolalla andUmpqua peoples practiced migrational subsistence and settlement patterns,using the lowlandsfor winter villagesand the uplandsfor task-speci-ficcampsites. This type of settlementallowed the culturesto utilize the anadromousfish runs,big gameanimals, and seasonalplant foods@eckham 1986). Tribesutilized extensivetrail networksthroughout the UmpquaValley. A trail, labeledthe KlamathTrail on historicalmaps, followed Cavitt and Tuttle Creeksto Red Top Campwith branchesfollowing Salt Creelg a ridge along SlateCreelg as well as upper Graniteand lower Corn Creeks,and was most likely an improvedIndian trail. To date,fifty-six archaeologicalsites have been recorded in Little River during federallymandated culturalresource surveys. These surveys, done in conjunctionwith timber sales,may havefound only a fractionof the usethat actually existed in Little River. Most of thesesites were recorded on relativelyflat ground,with almosthalf located on southaspects. Sites have been recorded on ridges,benches, stream terraces, bluffs, hills, and intermittentstream terraces. Within theseareas, five typesof archaeologicalsites have been recorded in Little River, includingquarry (wheretool stonecan be located),cairn (where rock was piled for trail marking or spirit quests),rockshelter (shelters),lithic scatter(temporary camp sites associated with huntingand gameprocessing), and villagesites (where winter dwellingswere located). Of the fifty-six sitesin Liule River, only one hasbeen evaluated and determinedto be eligiblefor the NationalRegister of Historic Places. More recentoccupation consisted of explorersand fur traders,who were presentaround southwestOregon from the 1820sto the 1840s.During the 1850sand 1860s,Euro-Americans establishedsmall farms and livestockranches in the lowlandsof the Little River watershed.Glide was settledin 1852. Settler'svillages were establishedat Peel (in lower Little fuver) andNofog (in the Cavitt Creekdrainage) in the late 1800s. The Klamath trail, as mentionedabove, was utilizedby settlersto accessthe Cavitt Creekdrainage and may havehelped pave the way for earlywagon roadswhich were laterdeveloped into the road systemthat helpedestablish access to the e>rtensivetimber in the watershed. Tenestrial- I Today, over 18,0O0people live in Roseburg the nearestpopulation center to the Little River watershed.The unhcorporatedcommunities of Glide,Idleyld Parh andPeel are experiencing somegrowth, but no censusdata specfficto unincorporatedareas is available. Populatedareas within the watershedboundary occur mostly alongLittle River Road (County Rd. #I7) and Cavitt CreekRoad (County Rd. #82). Farmingand ranchingcontinue to be importantto the area. Populationrates are expectedto increasein DouglasCounty over the next severaldecades. More peoplemean a greaterdemand for goods and services,including a placeto live, cleanwater to drink outdoor placesto recreate(that are easilyaccessible), and a myriadof forest productsto consume. All of thesedemands will placea greaterdemand on forestslocated near population centers.such as those found in the Little Riverwatershed. A Civilian ConservationCorps (CCC) campwils establishedat Wolf Creek,12 milesup Little fuver in the 1930s. In 1965,it was transformedinto a Job Corps,where young men and more recently,womer\ learntrades and earnHigh SchoolEquivalency Degrees. Presentday students (now at 231 students)have the opportunityto learnvarious trades such as carpentry,forestry, and culinaryarts. Srudentsare given the opporn:nityto practicetheir vocationalskills on various projectsthroughout Douglas County, providingcommunities with a skilledworldorce. Schools, non-profit groups,and government agencies utilize the studentsto constructbuildings, develop parks,maintain trails, and suppressfires, making the Wolf CreekJob Corps an importantpartner in the developmentand maintenanceof DouglasCounty's many @mmunities. Lookouts, for use in fire detectiorqwere establishedin the Little River watershedas early as l9l8 and were locatedon Big SquawMountain, Flat Roc( Lookout Mountain,Red Butte, Shivigny Mountaiq Taft MountairLand White Rock. Today,only the lookout on Red Butte remains. 1.,,i: Timber Harvest With the end of World War II, the demandfor lumberswelled. Timber harvestingin the Little fuver watershedbegan in earnestin the 1940sand 1950s,following the road systemas it continuedto be developedtlroughout time (Figure4). Early hanrestingand road building accessedthe biggesttrees found on gentleslopes. Theseearly entrieswere often in lower elevationson the most productive ground. Harvest iueaswere large in size, ranging from 40 to 100 or more acres- much largerthan the averagesize of the recentpast (Table l). Terrestrial- 2 I na r Ir o\ I -,\c! .cC) O () t-{ (a {-) OVi ()g li \vFl xi HX- FJ-{ : C) r\ \J o\ x F- ; I ad (\ o\ $ (.) oo (r Tenestrial- 3 Tnble l. Acres of timber hnrvestby decadeand vicinity for ell land ownerrhipsin the Little River wrterthed. Vicinity 1940rcrcs 195{Ircrer 1960 rcrer 1970 rcr.ee l9&) rcrcr 1990 ecrer Totrlr l,ower Little 922 3423 2604 9766 3271 702 l r898 fuver Cavrtt 595 2438 9548 565s 3569 889 22694 Creek Mrddle Little 735 3628 3094 t9l8 2166 775 t23t6 fuver Wolf Plateau 127 2838 4143 2499 1367 404 11377 Emrle Creck 0 1274 t28l 771 824 95 4245 Black/ 98 92'l t799 I 160 I 804 387 6t76 Clover UpperLinle 0 u19 633 808 770 3661 River DecadeTotal 2478 15647 23t02 t3787 t3770 3583 72368 PercentTotal r.8% 12.00h 17.50h t0 5% l0.4Yo 2.704 54.88Yo Harvestduring the 1960'sbecame more dispersedand generallyconsisted of regenerationharvest activities,although some commercial thinning in 50 to 85 yearold standsdid take place. Forest programsbecame more intensive,incorporating site preparation,reforestation, thinning, i..tiiirution, genetics,and pruning. Regenerationand replantingtrees became the preferred methodof reforestationfollowing burning of the loggingslash. Today, of the 131,853acres in the watershed(all ownerships),a total of 75,623acres have been regeneration harvested (AppendixC). Eventually,mid andupper slopeswere roaded,gaining entry for timberharvest activities. Today, 961 milesof road exist in the Little River watershed,630 milesof which are undergoverrrment jurisdictior\ including27 miles managedand maintainedby DouglasCounty. Roadswithin the Little River watershedhave been developed and utilizedfor a multitudeof uses includingtimber hanest, residentialaccess, recreatior; gathering special forest products, fire managementand accessto a variety of administrativefacilities. Harvestrates from federallymanaged lands have declined from 49 percentof the total harvestin DouglasCounty in 1985to 33 percentin 1993. Under the NorthwestForest Plan, which amends cunent UmpquaNational Forestand RoseburgDistrict Bureauof Land Management(BLIvf) plans,the estimatedtimber output for Forest Serviceadministered lands within the Little fuver AdaptiveManagement Area for fiscalyear 1996(described in termsof ProbableSale Quantity or pSe) is 7.5 Million Board Feet (MMBF). The RoseburgBLM hasno target assignedto the Terrestrial- 4 AMA; but a breakdownof RoseburgDistrict's PSQ suggeststhat 4.6 MMBF is possibleif managedas matrix. Timber harvestlevels in Linle River arenot likely to reachpast levels for federallymanaged lands. Ffistorically,Forest Service harvest levels in Little River rangedfrom an estimated8 MMBF in the 1940sto an estimated39 MMBF in the 1980s.BLM Littte River harvestlevels ranged from an estimated127l,/BF in the 1940sto an estimated17.5 MMBF in the 1970s(Appendix D). Analysesof ecosystemprocesses and recommendations made by this watershedanalysis will help determinethe sustainableamount of timberthat canbe producedfrom public landswithin the Little fuver watershed.On privatelands, harvest rates are usually market driven;however, it can be expectedthat industrialforest lands, those holdings that are larger than 40 acreson average, will be managedon a SO-yearrotation. Many acresof privateland cut in the 1960swill likely be scheduledfor harvestwithin the next 20 vears. SpecialForest Products Historically,little is known aboutthe fypesor quantitiesof products(other than timber)that were collectedfrom the Little fuver watershed.American Indians used many forestplants for medicinalreasons and collectedfood (berries,fnrit, etc.) or usedlogs as needed.Early settlers alsoused the forestfor manyof the samepurposes. Collectionson federallymanaged lands have been tracked since 1989. Today,products collected in the foresttoday include: firewood, cedar and yew posts,cedar rails, corral poles, shake bolts, beargrass,salal, sword fenl moss,incense-cedar boughs, Douglas-fir boughs, Christmas trees, sugarpine cones,and burls. Collectionsof beargrass,salal, and boughshave soared over the past few years. On BLM managedland alone, I18,000 pounds of beargrasswas collectedin 1995by peopleholding permits to gatherthis product. SeeAppendix D for specialforest product collectionsby federalagencies. Collections of specialforest products will likely increasein the future and will continueto employitinerant workers. Permit systemswill continueto evolveand tracking of useis likely to improve. Employment Sinceno incorporatedcommunities exist in the Little River watershed,it is difficult to derive estimatesof historicalemployment levels. However,it is possibleto look at DouglasCounty as a whole, which is representativeof what hashappened in and aroundLittle River. Historically,the prima4yjob opportunitiesin Little River camefrom the timber industry. In DouglasCounty, employmentand incomederived from timberrelated occupations has fluctuatedover the last two decades.Periods of high unemploymenthave been led by job lossesin the countlr'slumber and wood productssector. Job increasesare primarily due to the large increasesin service,retail, and transportationindustry jobs, which typicallypay lessthan timber industryjobs. Terrestrial- 5 Despiteincreases in otherjob sectors,the timberindustqy still representsa signfficantcomponent of the manufacturingsector for DouglasCounty (CCD 1994). Of all WesternOregon counties, DouglasCounty showsthe highestportion of total personalincome from the lumberand wood productssector, at around 20 percent(OED 1992a).While the timberindustry continues to be importantto thesecommunities, other industrieshave been slowly movingin. Recreationand tourism hasbecome a small,but importantemployer for the communitiesof Glide and Idleytd Park. A new river rafting guide service,a mountainbike shop,and severalbed and brealdasts haveopened along the North Umpquafuver corridorto meetthe needsof local peopleas well as thosepassing through. Local restaurants,gas stations, and motels also receive the benefitsof the increaseduse of the areaby recreationists.Employment opportunities in the servicess€ctor are expectedto grow. As Roseburgbecomes more attractiveas a retirementcommunity, the needfor healttUtransportation, and other serviceswill rise. Recreationand tourism demands are continuingto increase;jobsassociated with theseindustries are also expected to increase. Programssuch as Jobs-In-The-Woodsare breaking new groundto retrainforest workers for jobs that areavailable today and that will be availablein the furure.Employment trends in the timber industryare expectedto fluctuateas timberbecomes available for harveston both federally managedand privatelyowned lands. Mechanizationand improved technology will continueto inlluenceemployment levels. Use of harvestsystems that aremore ecologically sensitive, such as helicopterlogging, will createa needfor updatingworker skills. Restoration projects, such as culvertrepair or removal,road obliteration, and riparian and fish habitat improvement will create a smallnumber ofjobs in the future Recreation Historically,recreation use followed the developmentof theroads. As moreroads accessed the Little fuver watershed,new groundwas openedup for fishingand hunting. In 1946,an extensive 163 mile trail systemwas locatedtkoughout the watershed;most likely usedfor accessing lookouts,other trails or road systems.The structureat Lake-in-the-Woods,built in 1909,was originallya guard stationand later becamea campgroundand recreation area. Hemlock Lake was built in 1962to serveas a rearingpond lor hatcheryfish, but that ideawas abandonedafter it was foundthat temperatureswere too cold in the winterfor the fishto survive. Today, the Little fuver watershedoffers recreationiststhe choiceof biking, picnicking,camping (Table 2), fishing,hunting, hiking, off-roading,driving for pleasure,or partakingin winter sports suchas crosscountry skiing. On federallymanaged land, hiking trails and campingareas are maintainedfor public use. The ForestService administers most of thesesites, while the BLM managestwo sites,Cavitt FallsCampground and Wolf CreekTrail. The county managesone park (Cavitt Park) in the watershed(Figure 5). Terrestrial- 6 :p== =F= =F,64) a:(-r3,i:3HF .e 2 € F . c.) : ? F::, rg oo 57^nR= -5 e 2 f a; I *. 9, A + 2n i 6E Ei,i E EE l E E ETE v= a C) +-J (t) (- - 5) C) r< () C) fr/ \n () bo Tenestrial- 7 Teble 2. Recrertionsites, treil tengthsend camping nreasfor federelly managedlends in the Little River wrtershed. Recreation Miles of Developed Dispersed Other Site trail Camping Camping Wolf Creek N/A Yes No Ball ficld and group areaavailable; acccss to Campground Nahre Trail: Fee site Coolwater N/A Yes No Campground White Creek N/A Yes No Acccss to OverhangTrail Campground Lake in the Woods NiA Yes No Accessto Hemlock Falls Trail, Hemlock Campground Creek Trail, and Yakso Falls Trail; Fee site Hemlock Lake N/A Yes No Access to Hernlock Creek Trail, Yellow Campground JacketGlade Lnop, Flat Rock Trail, and Snowbird Trail. Includescanoe camp Emile Industrial N/A Yes No Normally for industriat forest worker use Campground Carrft Falls N/A Yes No Next to waterfall Campground EmrleShelter NiA No Yes Primitive shelterwith outhouse Willow Flas N/A No Yes Picnic table on site GrottoFalls N/A No Yes Picnic table on site: outhouseavailable; access to Grotto Falls Trail ShadowFalls N/A No Yes Accessto ShadowFalls Trail Wolf CreekTrail 1.5 No No Near Wolf Creek Job Corps; leadsto waterfall Nah.ueTrul 0.9 Next to Wolf No I-oop trail CreekCG to White No Leadsto naftral rock overhang Overhang 0.3 'CreekNext CG Hemlock Falls 0.5 At Lake in the No f3sdq te 80 foot waterfall Woods CG YaksoFalls 0.7 Next to Lake in No leads to 70 foot waterfall thc Woods CG llemlock Creek 4.0 No No Severalweterfalls along route; connects Lake in the Woodsand Hemlock Lake Campgrounds Terrestrial- 8 Recreation Miles of Dweloped Dispersed Other,, Site trail, Camping Camping Yellow Jacket 8.0 AtHemlock No Loop trail to divide betweenLittle River and Loop Lake CG SouthUmpqua River Flat Rock 0.8 Near Hemlock No Vista of HemlockLake; old lookout location Lake CG Snowbird Trail J.t No No Accessed by Yellow Jacket Glade or at Snowbirdt'nilhead Big Squaw 1.5 No No Site of old lookout; vista of Little River and SouthUmpqua &ainages Grotto Falls 0.3 No Yes Leads to 100 fmt waterfall ShadowFalls 0.8 No Yes Leads to double waterfall In general,use of theseareas has increased. Campgroundssuch as Cavitt Falls are experiencing the effect of overuseand limited moniesfor improvements. Agency budgetsfor maintaining hiking trails and campgroundshave also declined,making it difrcult to keep up with building maintenance,annual vegetation gowttL and winter blowdown along trails. User groups have shifted - now, more mountain bikers are using the trails for recreation. Much of the trail work done today is bythe fue suppressioncrew or the Wolf CreekJob Corps. Recreationuse is expectedto continueto increasein the future as more peopleseek outdoor experiences(SCORP 1988). Projectionsmade @DAW 1994)indicate that overallrecreation demandand relatedfacility needsiue expectedto modestly increasethroughout the are4 includingLittle fuver. Most demand(78%) will comefrom Oregonresidents, while 22 percent will comefrom peopleliving outsideof Oregon. Activitiesthat are expectedto increaseby more than 5 percent annuallyinclude day and overnight hiking birycling, swimming, sightseeing,boat fishing, non-motorized boating, nature study/observatior\camping (RV and tent) and visits to information centers. Both cunent and future userswill desire activities that require road access. Areas within the watershedare sometimesused by school groups. The Little River Ckistian Camp, a church group retreat are4 is often an overnight destinationfor school children and their teachers. Located along Little River and next to Wolf Creek Campground,it offers teachersand youth group leadersa place for children to learn about and experiencetheir natural world. Since use is expectedto continue,opportunities exist to enhancethese learning labs by creating a center for environmentaleducation, perhaps at Wolf Creek Job Corps, where studentsthere can benefit from increasedknowledge. Tenestrial - 9 Biologicaland PhysicalCharacteristics of the Terrestrial Ecosystem There are approximately319 vertebratespecies of wildlife that canbe found within the Little River watershed.Some of them are permanentresidents, while someare migratory species. There are about four times as many plant speciesas vertebratespecies, and severalhundred speciesof invertebrates.All of thesespecies play a part in the local ecosystem. There is a lack of informationon detailedhabitat requirements for most of theseplants and animals(and an equally large lack of habitat inventory information). However, we do know that animalsseem to prefer certain types of habitats,climates and topography. Some animalsneed large amountsof deadand down wood to survive,while someneed grassy open areas. Othersdo well in almostany situation. Wildlife habitatrelationships and lists of speciesthat utili's specific habitatsin this watershedare discussedin detailin AppendixE. Wildlife and plant populationsand distribution changethrough time in responseto habitat changes.Plants and animalsthat preferredlate seralforests were ableto maintainpopulations in Little River through time becauselarge patchesof habitat (missedby fire) servedas refuge areas from which they could recolonizedisturbed areas as they grew back into forests. Early seral speciesfollowed disturbancepatterns which createdopenings, or used permanentopenings. Food, cover and water are the key componentsof wildlife habitat. Habitats such as riparian areas often provide all of these. In additiorLmany species utilize specialhabitats such as rock outcrops, and wet or dry openingsfor breedingor feedingpurposes. Stratification of the Watershed Land units of the Little River watershed The following land unit descriptionsof Little River were developedas a frameworkto describe how landfornr, climate, vegetatiorl and disturbanceinteract in shapingaquatic and terrestrial ecosystemsat the coarsestscale (see Appendix f for an in-depthdiscussion on how landunits were developed). Four broad land units (drylwarnL moisVwarnr,wet-dry/warm, and moist/cool) were delineatedfor the Western Cascadesgeologic provinces(which containsthe majority of the public land found in Little River) basedon differencesin landform and climate @igure 6). Some Bureau of Land Management(Bllvf) administeredlands are located in the Klamath province, while no public land is found in the Coast Rangeprovince. The developmentof theseland units, describedin the At-A-Glancesection on pages15-23, was basedon the following concepts: l) Landform and climatecontrol the locationand extentof disturbanceand producepredictable patternsin vegetationand streamconditions (Swanson et. al. 1990). Terrestrial- 10 (1 ; :{ C) bo &t E{Ll- C) I is € Ef tE 6p e EI g ;=l- E sEsEffiril" v () O <.'1 t-( n, C) bo () r l-1 \./ 6 +) t-"! F( - FJ F-f _.,t FI d ) \o 0) bo fr Tenestrial- I I 2) The interactionsberween the forest and streamsdiffer in responseto disturbancehistory, plant successionand geomorphicsening (Swanson et. al. 1990). 3) Patternsin a landscape:ue easierto observethan ecosystemprocesses, so an understandingof how landscapepatterns affect processessuch as fire behavior,erosioq and streamllow will allow one to predictecosystem behavior in responseto change(Swanson 1988) The purposeof dividing the Little River watershedinto landunits is to encourageland managers and resourcespecialists to view the watershedat a broaderscale and in a way that will help focus on the processesthat formed the land;processes that arethe basisfor how the watershed"works" (I-inleApplegate WA 1995). Sinceeach land unit is mappedin similargeologic and climaticenvironments, the large-scale patternscreated by vegetationdevelopment and land-formingprocesses within eachland unit shouldbe similar. Land units were usedin describingthe importantforest and stream-forming processesoperating in the Little River landscape.They are alsoused as a frameworkfor developingvegetation and watershedmanagement strategies. The referencesource for the historicalpattern of vegetationwiui from 1946aerial photographs. Recentchanges in landscapepatterns are evaluatedby comparingthe recent vegetationpatterns and streamconditions. Vicinities The watershedwas divided into sevenvicinities for the purposeof grouping areaswith similar land unit compositioq elevation range, and topography. Vicinity boundaries(Figure 7) were basedon subwatershedboundaries (ridges). They are useful as planning areasthat are smaller than the entire Little River watershed,and have a more homogeneousownership pattern- Thesevicinities also provided stratificationto conducta landscape.pattern analysis. This is becausethey are single contiguous blocks of land containedwithin definablewatershed boundaries. The landscapepatterns within them result from the underlying land units, topography and ownership. To conduct only one landscapepattern analysison the entire Little River watershedwould have been less precisebecause patterns in the western portion are much different from patternsin the easternmargins. Current land patternsalso differ from eastto west. Vicinity level landscapepattern analysisand analysisof watershedconditions was found to be useful for conducting a watershedanalysis of this size. Using two stratifications(land units and vicinities), helps integratethe effects of terrestrial and aquaticprocesses. For example, differencesin land unit patternsby vicinities may explainthe differencesin the condition and extentof aquatichabitat in thosevicinities. Characteristicsof eachWestern Cascadesland unit (dry/warnL moist/warrq wet-dry/warnr, and moist/cool)are displayedin the Land Unit At-a-Glance. Terrestrial- 12 a- := tn =! () cc bo < EE l-'l O rv c.) {-) {-) .F{ -l -1 F{ . r-l (- -l {-) . Bt-( (t) c) ofi {-) ofi c1 t-( .F{ O oF{ f- c.) l< bo lr' J Terrestrial- 13 Terrestrial- l4 Land Unit At-a-Glance I I , Legend I ll I \r/ rl ,r|tt,,,,...... , = Douglas-fir tlllllllllllllllllt= deep soils rlY 'rllllliilllllll I 'l rl r f =whitefir = shallowsoils rT- I I rfl ,..t' : {-' = westernhemlock = variabledepth soils Y 'l:\r .A ,E i ='a = west€rnredcedar = high intensityfue It- ,Y v tl In 'v: () =hardwoods = moderateintensity fire rl rl I I I nV = shrubs/forbs = low intensrtYfire ' \-/r ( I I I I = I a rain I I I I = I snow I * I Terrestrial- l5 LandUnit At-a-Glance DryMarm WesternCascades Percentof DrvMarmLand Unit in EachVicinitv LowerLittle River (LLR) 17o/o Wolf Plateau(WP) 10% MiddleLittle River (MLR) 37% BlacUClover(BC) 33% EmileCreek (EMl) 33o/o UpperLittle River (ULR) 10% CavittCreek (CAV) 47Yo Tenestrial- 16 DryM/armWestern Cascades Elevation Range: 1,600to 4,000n l-andforms: Dissecieduplands, landslide North , South complex,upland plateau Soils: Shallowon steepslopes, deep on gentlesouth slopes SlopeClass VolcanE Lrycrr Shallow Sorls. Deep erb, bencfiE St*p Slopes Slop€s < @X 33X ConceptualCross-Seclion E Cicntlc - 0301| D i/bderate - 3055% I Stccp - Ovtr 66* CLIMATE DISTURBANCE Scr.fh tol^aaarOta ftd6dSay'anrifre dlr+psscP€ ./ 2,'i1,:, E€ iti lt.,'t,| ,r,i ,r. ,'i| a ,:a i, :c *+***** EE osFf Hghlrnrr*yFiE Fo.63 ab:ro Eo 40 Ftc orrroa bge as htb trd t-H AnnualPreotrtatnn in Inch€s VEGETATION UNIQUE HABITATS Percentage in of SeralStage LandUnit 'This Referenceand ExistngVegetation landunit contained the greatest number of naturalopenings and the second highest density at E.3natural openings/mi2. Openings are relatively staticdue to thinsoils and poor growing conditions for trees. 'Openingsize: Mean= 2.5ac 'Openingsusually occur on the upperslopes and ridges andare on dry,shallow rocky soils and rock outcrops- Terrestrial- 17 LandUnit At-a-Glance MoistMlarmWestern Cascades Percentof MoistMarmLandUnit in Eaqh-Vicini LowerLittle River (LLR) 1.4% WolfPlateau (WP) 57% MiddleLittle River (MLR) 47Yo BlacUClover(BC) 42o/o EmileCreek (EMl) 28o/o UpperLittle River (ULR) 32% CavittCreek (CAV) 3Oo/o Tenestrial- 18 MoistM/arm Western Cascades Hftdd ffiffi Elevation Range: 850 to 4,200n Landforms: Dissectedupland, uplandplateau, landslidecomplex, earthflow Soils: Deep SlopeClass Fqo( ttofr O.op Fib. Str.p, N h€l|rg Upff .ldtbn Colrrlm q.Orne mh ](bfop.r ganata tbpat. Sd/'th tsct EG€ndc -0-30X 0l oderatc-30{5% ConceptualC rors-Section r Stcep - Over 56!( CLIMATE DISTURBANCE laa-aaaaaaa North r South la'a',t'r'l/r'a',, / "-,lrr1'rr. = ,'-1,'J'!"'rr-,r-,',, I r' d: ******* !G 45F* ;o -o oo ,o <.9 Moderate hten:rty fres over largo areat Annual Precicitatbn in Incfics VEGETATION UNIQUE HABITATS Percentageof SeralStage in LandUnit Referenceand ExistingVegetation 'Containsprimarily of seasonallywet openingswith some perennialwet meadows.Some drier openings occuron steepslopes. Openingdensity = 4/mi2. too 'Openingsize: 0.2ac - 27ac 50 Mean= 1.8ac 25 0 'Favorablegrowing conditions result in rapid encroachmentby trees and shrubs. Tenestrial- 19 LandUnit At-a-Glance Wet-DryMarmWestern Gascades Percentof Wet-DryMarmLand Unit in EachVicinitv LowerLittle River (LLR) 1o/o Wolf Plateau(WP) 30% MiddleLittle River (MLR) 13o/o BlacUClover(BC) 3.5% EmileCreek (EMl) 1o/o UpperLittle River (ULR) 0% CavittCreek (CAV) 11% Tenestrial- 20 Wet-DryMarm WesternCascades ElevationRange: 1,000to 3,000 n Landforms: Earthflow,lanclslide complex Soils: Deep SlopeClass lllllllllllllllll',,,,,,""'Volcanic Fbw |illil il lil tr,' Deposits in Valey Bodorns LrndCre EartHlor Adamt @Eve,correx 8€rct€s Oeocts Slor Fo.rc ConceptualCross-Section e Gende - 030'A o h/bderate - 30{5% CLIMATE DISTURBANCE aaaa a aaaaa '!2"'-',t ,a'!'f' ',a North 'Il'rf/,. ,'a a ,,, ,, ,,, eE '*/** ,4r, / ,tt :** EE * €F,; :o ro.eo Eb trD Fo <-.g Low intensity fires over large areas 40 60 80 AnnualPredpitation in lnctlca VEGETATION UNIQUEHABITATS Percentageof in SeralStage LandUnit 'Historically, Referenceand ExistingVegetation this land unit containedthe fewest numberand lowestdensity of openings. 'Opening 100 size: 75 a0 Mean= 2.7ac 26 'Openings 0 usuallyoccur on steeperslopes and in areaswith land movement. Tenestrial- 2l LandUnit At-a-Glance MoisUcoolWestern Cascades Percentof MoisUCoolLand Unit in EachViciniW LowerLittle River (LLR) Oo/o WolfPlateau (WP) 2.8% MiddleLittle River (MLR) 13% Black/Clover(BC) 3.5To EmileCreek (EMl) 1% UpperLittle River (ULR) 58o/o CavittCreek (CAV) 2% Terrestrial- 22 MoisUCoolWestern Gascades Hd,S-t m.9 |"6d ElevationRange: 3,200to 4,700ft Landforms: Uplandplateau, dissected North South uplands,earthflow Soils: Mostlydeep SlopeClass fr Vohanac Leye6 Deeg Eorls. Steep ndges. complex Gentle sloo6 South-taonO mtt Uglands and earthl'lors sdes^Lopes E C'€ndc- 03014 O I'tode.ate- 30{5tt ConceptualCross-Section r Stecp - Over 6611 CLIMATE DISTURBANCE North South = d: 96 ',1,,',1,r,!,,2,' 45ts,. r,'r,',', =6 oo JO Tf**l*****d Fo * * ** * * *r i.c Low htensrty tirca ovet linated aa€a3 Annual Precipritation in Incher VEGETATION UNIQUE HABITATS Percentageof SeralStage in LandUnit 'Highest to Referenceand EristingVegetation densityof openingsat 15.5/mi2,these tend be largeand static,due to highwater tables and short growingseasons. 'Openingsize: 0.2ac#149ac min max Mean= 4.1ac 'Openingsmostly consist of wetmeadows, bogs' and marsheswhich are located in riparianzones on gentleto moderatelysloped ground. Tenestrial- 23 PhysicalFeatures The geologyfound throughoutthe Little River watershedis a resultof ancientplate tectonic processes(shifts in the earth'scrust) that haveshaped the North Americancontinent for the past hundredmillion plusyears. Eighty-threepercent of the watershedarea has a foundationof volcanicrocks, while the rest of the watershed(the westernmostand privatelyowned portion) has a diverseassemblage of underlyingrocks that include sediments, siltstones, sandstones (all in the CoastRange province), greenstones, and serpentines(Klamath Mountain province). Many differenttypes of volcanicrocks that eruptedfrom volcanicdomes, vents, or fissures,are found within the watershed,including tuffs, breccias, andesites, and basalts (See Appendix A for a detaileddiscussion on geology). Landformsare features on the landscapecreated by the effectsof erosionalprocesses and differentweathering rates of rock types. Severaltypes of landformsare presentwithin the Little fuver watershed(Figure 8): DissectedLowlands are smooth,convex slope forms on mostlygentle slopes at low elevations foundin the CoastRange and Klamath Mountain provinces. Here, erosion has reduced the mountainsto hillsand broad valleys that arefilled with sediment.Channel gradients are low and havemeandering stream courses that areindicative of a landscapethat hasbeen subject to intense weatheringand erosion for a very long time. DissectedUplands are smooth,concave slope forms on mostly steepslopes in the Klamath Mountainand Western Cascades provinces. The ridgesof theseland forms are narrow and slopes are steepfrom ridgetopto canyonbottom. Channelgradients are steepwith narrow, con-fined, bedrockdominated channels. High densitiesof streamsare found where runoff is rapidfrom the steepslopes and shallow soiled areas. LandslideComplexes are complexslope forms that havea mixture of steepand gentleslopes. This topographyhas been created by the downslopemovement and break-upof large,landslide blocks( l0's to 100'sof acresin size)in the canyonsof CavittCreek and Little River. When looking at a profile of a landslidecomplex, the terrainis stair-stepped,with gentlebenches and steepslopes on scarps(the "sca1' left by a landslide)between landslide blocks and other landforms. Channelgradients are variable. On steepergradients, gullies have formed with steep sideslopes along the channel.On low gradients,streams form a meanderingcourse. EartMow depositsare a commoninclusion on gentleslopes in landslidecomplexes where weak, clay-rich rocks and abundantwater causethe earthto move. Terrestrial- 24 E R q f i 3B IU 9 ='9 k oofro oru B uJ ttJ O o o- FF-i LL o fi8n z l-'( aa= E C.) 8-g9I a o. re 1F = * ffi llllllllllil/))il (.) l (t-{ a -1 F t- ,9. € t-l I @ a.) l< bo Tenestrial- 25 Earthflowsare irregular,broken, hummocky valley-bottom deposits on gentleslopes. On a small scale,earthflows are a mixture of concaveand convexslope forms. The brokencharacter of the terrain has causedthe drainagenetwork to be poorly definedwith ponds and seepscorrrmon where water comesto the surfaceon gentle slopes. Subzurfacewater flow is significantlygreater than that of surfaceflow. Surfacedrainage networks are often confined along the marginsof the earthflowdeposit and haveformed gullieswith steepside slopes in responseto beingpushed aside by the earthflowdeposit. Upland Plateau's are elevated,gently-slopin& smooth land surfacesnear the top of the watershed where erosionhas done the leastamount of work. Thousandfoot-thick rocks resistantto erosion have preservedthese gentle surfacesin an otherwisehighly dissectedand eroded landscape. Streamgradients and streamdensities are low. Disturbance Filstorically, lightning causedwildfire was the main disturbanceprocess in Little River. Burning by American Indians and settlersalso occurred in Little River up until the late 1800s. Indians probably set fires around their summercamps in the upper watershedand in the low elevationhills adjacentto winter villages. Sincethe late 1940s,fue suppressiorltimber harvest and the lack of prescribedfire in unmanagedstands has influencedhow fire interactswith the landscape. Insects, disease,and windthrow are disturbanceprocesses that all function at a smallerscale than'fire, providing pockets of disturbanceat the stand level. Thesedisturbance processes, working simultaneously,determine landscape vegetative patterns,and have influencedwildlife populations and aquatic habitat for centuries. ReferenceCondition Fire Behavior and Land Units The path over which a fire travels dependson severalvariables. In normal weather conditions, weather,topography, and fuel factors effect how a fire behaves. Weather is the variable that changesthe most, af[ecting fue intensity and rate of spread. South and west aspectsusually experiencehigher fire intensity (faster rates of spread,greater flame lengths,and increasedfire intensity). Since theseaspects receive more zunlight for longer periods of time, they tend to be drier and warmer than north or east aspects. Slope steepnesshas a tremendousinfluence on fire behavior. Increasingslope steepnessincreases the rate of spreaddue to preheatingof available fuels; flame lengthscan also increase. Finally, fuel factors zuch as the type and size of vegetatiorl its moisture content, and how it is arrangedon the ground, directly affect the way a fire burns. The more fuel availableto burn, the greater the fire intensity and the more severethe fues effects will be. In the following discussionfire severity will describecumulative fire effects in the growing environment. Generalteffns such as higtq moderateand low summarizefue effects. Terrestrial- 26 Fire intensityis usedto generalizefire behaviorelements such as rate of spread,flame lengths and fire line intensity (BTU/fl/s). It is difficult to quantify thesespecific elements at the landscape scale;high, moderateand low intensityterrns are used to describethe referenceconditions interactionwith fue. Thereis a strongcorrelation between fire behaviorand the previouslydescribed land units. The majorityof the public land in Little River falls into the four landunits in the WesternCascade Geologicprovince. This landunit stratificationis criticalto understandinghow fire interacted with the landscapein the past,as well as how changesto the landscape(through management activities)have altered the future risk of fire in the Little River landscape. Moist/cool land units receivethe greatestamount of precipitation(up to 80 inchesper year),have slopesof gentleto moderatesteepness, and experienceinfrequent, low intensity,small acreage fires. Only in extremeweather conditions would a high intensity,stand replacement fire occur in the moisUcoolzone. Forestsin this land unit show an old-growth structure:multiple layers, shade tolerantspecies in the understory,large wood on the ground,etc. Cool air temperaturesand high humidityoften exist in moist/coolforests during any season.When fires do ignite in this land unit, they would thin out fire intolerantunderstory species, but would havelittle effecton the overstory. An exampleof interactionbetween land units would be PeterPaul Prairie. The prairie is in the moist/coolland unit. However its jurcapositionto the drylwarm landunit allowsfire to interactmore readilythan on other moist/coolsites. The openingssuch as PeterPaul Prairie, Yellow JacketGlade and Willow Flatsare not solelydependant on fire for maintenanceas open areas. High water tablesand soil type play an importantrole in maintainingthese sites. Tree encroachmentis a slow processin the moist/coolland unit. When moist/coolland units are adjacentto drylwarm land units, a large amountof edgeis createddue to fire. ll?t4ryh,arm landunits receiveapproximately 65 inchesof precipitationper yearand have mostlygentle slopes. This land unit experienceslow intensiryfires that cover largeareas. Decompositionrates are rapid and the accumulationof organicmatter in the soil is high. The drier forestsin this land unit (wherefire would tendto burn with higherintensities) are simplein structure,usually trvo layered,and havefue tolerantspecies in both the understoryand overstory. The wetter forests would act as fire breaks, slowing fire spreador containingthe fire. Stand structure in wetter forest resemblesforests in the moist/cool land unit. This combinationprovides for mosaicstand in both strucnrreand composition. Moist4carm land units also receiveapproximately 65 inchesof precipitation per year, but have gentle, moderate,and steepslopes. Thesehighly productive sites have the ability to produce and accumulatefuel quickly, resultingin frequent,low to moderateintensity fires that shapethe forest, which hasa singleor two-storiedstructure. Fire tolerantspecies are presentin the overstory, while shadetolerant species occur in the understorybenveen fire events. As slopesteepness increases,mortality in the overstoryand openings(gaps) occur more frequently. The maintenance of openingsare dependenton growth rates and interveningdisturbances. The mature successional Tenestrial- 27 stageis prolongeddue to frequentmoderate severity fire. This is an areato focuson for fuel accumulationoutside of the naturalrange due to productivegrowth rates. Dryhuarmland units receiveabout 60 inchesof precipitationper year. Produaivity canbe limited by low soil moisturein the later half of the growing season;little largewood or leaf litter accumulatesin thesesites. Duffthicknessand organicmatter available for incorporationinto the soilsis generallylimited. Gentle,moderate, and steepslopes occur in this landunit, with over half of the slopesin the moderateor steepcategory. Whenignitions otrur (which they do frequently), the likely result is a moderateseverity fire that coversa largearea. Historically,fire intensityin this land unit was directly relatedto slopesteepness and weather since available fuels were limited. Pocketsof standreplacement fire associatedwith moderateseverity fire would occurin the upperslope position. Thisis evidentby numerousopenings on steepslopes in theupper slope positionin the drylwarm landunit on the 1946aerial photos. Standsmove tkough the stagesof successionrather slowly due to site conditionsand frequentfires. Typical standstructure would be evenaged, and would be frequentlysubject to standreplacement fues, especiallyon upper slopes. Both the understoryand overstoryhave a hardwoodcomponent in them,with fire tolerantspecies present in the overstory. Speciesnot adaptedto fire would be presentonly in riparianareas and on lower portionsof the slopes. In order to characterizethe historicalextent and ecologicalrole of fire in the Little fuver watershed,two differentmethods were used. For low to moderateintensity fires, a fire history field inventorywas conducted.This inventory examined3,258 stumpsfrom treesharvested in the last l0 yearsover a varietyof elevationsand aspectsin the watershed.Random samples of the ForestService managed public lands were surveyed. Low to moderateintensity ground fires leavethe overstorytrees alive, while leaving fire scarsnear the baseof the live treesthat tell the story of how often and wherethese ground fires burned. For an explanationof the fire history surveymethods, see Appendix B. The fire history surveysdetermined that 54 percentof all stumpsshowed some degree of disturbance,indicated by a scaror pitch ring. Surveyorswere ableto establisha referenceperiod for low to moderateintensity fires that spannedfrom the years 16t3 to 1938. The numberof fire scarsdropped offdramatically after 1938,so the endof the referencecondition was establishedat 1938. During this 325 ye.arperiod, the cumulativemean fire return interval(the averagetime betweenfue eventsin a particulararea) for the areawas thirteenyears. The rangewas nineto seventeenyears. This is a very frequent fire return interval, when comparedto areasin the northernand centralparts of the CascadeMountain Range. Cdculation informationis in AppendixB. For standreplacement fires, aerialphotos taken in 1946were analyzedto characterizethe extent and role of thesehigh intensityfires that killed entirestands of trees. Thesestand replacement fires were visible on the photos:ts evenaged stands which burnedprior to 1946. For severefires, Terrestrial- 28 the aerialphotos showed that up to 2l percentof the Little River watershedwas burnedby stand replacementfires within approximatelya 200 yearperiod. Fire Regime:The fire regimeof an areais a functionof the growing environment(temperature and moisturepatterns), its ignitionpatterns, and the characteristicsof the plant speciespresent, includingfuel accumulationsand adaptationsto fire (Agee 1990). Basedon analysisof the fire historydata and the 1946aerial photos, Little Rivercan be classifiedas having a moderate severity fire regime for the referencecondition. A moderateseverity fire regimeis one of the mostdifficult to describe.Fire frequenciesusually range from 20-100years and individual fires oftenshow a rangeofeffects. The overalleffect is oneofpatchiness at the landscapelevel and at the standlevel, two or more ageclasses would be present(Agee 1990). Firescovered large areas,were of a varietyof intensities,and burnedoften. Firesof low to moderateintensities were the norrq with pocketsof standreplacement activity that createdmosaic patterns of vegetationon the landscape.A fire regimecovers a largearea (in thiscase 132,000 acres). While the landunits experiencedifferent intensities of fire at varyingfrequencies however, the overallregime for the referencecondition includes all land units. ExistingCondition Fire suppressionwas establishedwith the ForestReserves in 1906. Fightingfires became more effectivewith the adventof the Civilian ConservationCorps (1929), smokejumpers (1940), lookouts(1930-1950), and improved communications. Today, aerial retardant, helicopter deliveryof waterand people,educational prevention programs, 800 miles of open roads,fire enginecapabilities, plus well trainedand equippedfirefighters have all increasedthe ability to extinguishfires within the first 24 hours of their detection.Eritreme weather and multiplestarts in combinationwith delaysin initid attack are what allowsfires to escapeunder today's condition. In the westernUnited Statestoday, 97 percentof all fires are containedto lessthan l/4 acre;the other 3 percentmake the headlines. Fire suppressionefforts of the pasthave not beenoffset by the useof prescribedfire, diminishing the naturaleffects of fire in the watershed.The ecologicalrole of fire hasbeen substantially diminishedand is often not consideredas a managementtool. Today, timber harvesting representsthe greatestsource of disturbancefound in the watershed.With about60 percentof the watershedharvested since the 1940s,fuel types and amountshave changedradically from historicconditions. Nnety percentof theseharvested acres have received some sort of fuels treatment,either broadcast or hand-pileburning. Regardlessof treatment,stand structures have beenaltered and standdensities have changed. Today'scurrent stands are more dense. The exclusionof fire hasnot allowedforest understorydensities to be kept in checkas in the reference condition. As standdensities increase, the amountof availablefuels increase,resulting in fire behaviorthat hashigher intensities, even in normalweather conditions. This is especiallytrue for over 7,000 acresof the drylwarmland unit, which havetree densitiesthat are muchhigher than what naturallyoccurred. A fire startedin the dry/warmland unit would more likely havea higher Terrestrial- 29 fire intensity and fue severitythan what was experiencedin the referencecondition due to increasedfuel loads. Air QuelitY Pleasesee Appendix B for a discussionon air qudity. Fuel Models Fuel modelshave been designed to quantifythe flammabilityof forest stands. In order to make fire behaviorpredictions, fuel modelsare assignedto stands. Thesemodels focus on the small sizeclass fuel loadsassociated with certainvegetation. The smallsize class fuels are quantified sincethey are the mainfire carriers(Appendix B). The determinationof representativefuel modelsfocuses on the expectedfire behavior. The fuel modelthat coveredthe most acresof Little fuver's forestsduring the referenceperiod was a fuel model 8 (Figure9). This fuel model characterizesfire behaviorin matureand old- growth standswith light fuel loads. The fire intensirytypically associated with fuel model8 is low in normalweather conditions. Normal weatherconditions in this caseire measuredin wind speedsand fuel moisturecontent of the deadand down wood. Weatherthat is normalwould havewind speedsat or above9 mph and deadfuel moisturecontent above I I percentin the large wood (ninetiethpercentile weather). Standswith a fuel model 8 conditionthat experiencedfire had relativelylow mortalityin the overstoryand a moderateto high mortality of understoryshade toleranttrees and shrubs.This resultedin a relativelysimple stand structure with two ageclasses and openunderstory conditions. Moderate severity fire dominatedin all land units throughoutthe watershed,although moist/cool land units had limited interactionwith fire. Moist/cool landunits would serveas fire breaksor containedthe fire becauseof its associatedcool air temperaturesand high humidities. The findingsof the fire history inventorysupport the predictionsof the fuel modelingexercise for the referencecondition. Today's fuel modelsare differentthan in the referencecondition. Today's potential for rapidly moving and hotter burning fires has increasedover the reference condition. Fuel modelswith the highesthazard are 9 and 10. In somevicinities, tens of thousandsof acresare h a higher risk category than they were in the past (Table 3). Generally, future fires will have higher flame lengths,greater rates of spread,and will havemore severe effects on vegetation,soil, and aquatic habitat. Theseelements of fire behavior will be present even in normal surnmerweather conditions and intensify during extremeweather conditions (drought,high wind, etc.). Terrestrial- 30 FIGURE9 FIREBEHAVIOR FUEL MODELS REFERENCECONDITION -ET.= EXISTINGCONDITION g'-wEMIIN [] FM 2,5 LoWERRISK FUEL MODELS 1' FL;]',IE FI,l B LENGTH [] 132' P:R HOURSPREAD 3'FLAI,,IE fP,--.TFf,,l 9 LENGTH ,.8 e4 5:8'PERHOUR SPREAD Terrestrral- I I Ft,t 10 5' FL;I.|ELENGTH n 526'P:RHOUR SPf]EAD Table 3. Proportionsof high hazardfuel conditionsin the vicinitiesof Little River,past and present. Vicinity Acres fn Acres And Percent Of Acrcr And FercentOf Vicinity Vicinity In High Hezzrd Vicinify In High Hazard Fuel Cetegories: Fucl Cetegories: Historic Condition CurrentCondition Lower Little River 21,835 0 tt,482(53%) Cavitt Creek 37.689 1,884(5%) 25,628(68%) MiddleLittle River 21,632 4,326(20%) l5,l4l (70%) Wolf Plateau 14,5t4 2,902(20%) 8,126(56%) EmileCreek 8,7r8 1,492(L7o ) 5,578(64%) Black/Clover 17,057 t,876(tto ) t1,662(68%) UpperLittle River 10,408 5,600(54%) s,203(s0%) Totals t3t,853 t8,070(r4%) 82,820(63%) Many of the unmanagedstands that havebeen deprived of fire arein fuel model9 today(see AppendixB). Theseare moving toward fuel model l0 with moredead and down materialonthe forestfloor andan intermediatelayer of live fuel. The endresult of the trendtoward a more ':rrll severefire regimewillbe greatermortality in standsthat experiencefire. The environmental effectsof fire will be more destructiveand the cost to suppressfires will increase. Firesof this magnitudeand intensityhave occurred in the recentpast. In 1987,the Clover fire burned over22OO acres in the Black/Clovervicinity and the Fall Creek fire burned5,000 acres in the Cavitt Creekvicinity which includesthe higtrlyerosive granitic terrain. The Cloverfire was a typical moderateintensity fire that burnedthe landscapein a mosaicpatterq with stand replacementpockets. The Fall Creek fire was more intense,burning as a standreplacement fire in a landscapedominated by plantations.Both thesefires coveredlarge areasdue to the combined effectsof drought,multiple starts, limited fire fighting resources,and standconditions. Today thereis a trend toward a low frequency, high severity fire regime, which is characterized as a severesurface or crown fire that resultsin total tree mortality. Fires of this extentare usually associatedwith drought years,east winds, and dry lightning storms. Fire return intervalsare long and may not be cyclic. The role fire hasin this systemis an agentof ecosysteminstability, as it createsmajor shiftsin forest structureand function (Agee 1990). This trend is of most concernin the drylwarm land unit. The fuel conditionsin Little River are not in a stateof extremehazard as they are in the forestsof easternOregon. However, fuel loadsiue on a trend to becomingwell Tenestrial- 32 abovenormal levels in Little fuver. Standconditions present today nre a precursorto heavierfuel loads. Many private, industrial forest landswithin the watershedare likely to be scheduledfor harvest over the next 20 years. A trend towards increasedfirehazard on private lands can be expectedat least for the next two decadesdepending on the pattern and type of harvesttreatment applied. In additioq the Cavitt Creek and Little River vicinities are experiencinga gradualtrend ofincreased humanpopulatiorq so the interfacewith rural landownersand fire hazzrdmav intensifv. Fire OccurrenceRates A fire occunencerate is predictedby determiningthe numberof fire startsin a particulararea for a certaintime periodthen averagingthese sta-rts out to an annualoccurrence rate. For example,if 100fires were startedin a 20 yearperiod, the annualoccurrence rate would be 100i20: 5 starts per year. The occurrencemap for Linle River with hig[ moderateand low zonesis in Appendix B. Sincewe are unableto predictwhere and when a fire (especiallyone causedby lightning)will occur, it is helpfulto examinefire recordsover a largerarea in order to get a pictureof how fire interactswith the landscape.To estimatethe probabilityof largefires occurringin the watershed in the future, pastfire records(of lightningcaused fues) of the entire250,000 acre North Umpqua RangerDistrict were examinedfor the time period of 1983to 1,992.Tiris time periodwas chosen becauseit had a variety of fue sizes,providing a good referenceof how fues burned historically. Probabilityestimates were made(Table a) for two time frames,a 50 yearperiod, to get a sense for immediateconcerns, and a L20 yearperiod, to help predictwhat may occur in the long terng evenwith fire suppressioneffort in place. Table 4. Probability of fires occurring and the acrestikety to burn in 50 and 120years. Acres Likely To Probability :of Oicfianct Probability of Occurrence Burn Within theNext 50 Yesrs Within the Next 120Years 16,500 .0l2yo l0jYo 66,000 .0t2% .20% 132,000 .012% .20% Occurrencerates for the private and BLM managedlands were unavailable,so utilizing only Forest Servicedata provides an underestimateof the acreslikely to burn in the watershed. Regardless,this conservativeestimate predicts that 16,500 acreswill burn in the watershedover the next L20 year period. While current fue occurrencerates are probably very similar to historic rates,the areaaffected by thesefires today hasbeen held to a minimum. Tenestrial- 33 Insects Severalinsect species have caused substantial amounts of mortalitythroughout southwest Oregorgincluding Little River. Found in endemicpopulations in Linle River, mountain pine beetleshave causedmortality in sugar pine and western white pine. Like other bark beetles(at endemicpopulations), mountain pine beetlesrarely infest healthyvigorous trees. Rather, they prefer (or are most su@essfulon) trees that are under some degreeof stress,induced by competitioq drought,disease or wounds. In Little River (and in SW Oregon),beetles are attacking healthy-appearingpines in heavily stocked standswhere competition for water is weakeningtrees (Goheen 1995). Additionally,overstocking of standsthat includesugar pine is stressingthese trees, making these areas susceptible to beetleinfestations, fire and/orwindtkow. In additionto the mountainpine beetle, both the westernand pine engraverbeetles have the potential to causeextensive mortality in ponderosapines in the Little River watershed. As with sugarpine, overstochng in ponderosapine standswill predisposethe areato attackby these insects. Douglas,fir beetlesare presentin the Little River watershed,but have not significantly effected forests in the area. Areas that have erperiencedrecent windthrow are very susceptibleto infestationsof Douglas-fir beetles. Once an infestationbegins, these beetles have the capabilityto attack live, standingtrees, causingpatches of mortality (Goheen 1995). Diseases White pine blister rust causessubstantial damage to five-needlepines (sugar pine and western white pine) in southwestOregon and is common in the Little River watershed. The complex life cycle of this diseasemakes it diffcult to control. When outbreaksdo occur, trees branchesare killed or are weakenedand becomesusceptible to attack by mountain pine beetles,again creating gapsin forest stands. Laminatedroot rot is anotherdisease found in the Little River watershed.Although only found in lessthan I percent of the areain the watershed,laminated root rot is a long-term disease,lasting 50 yearsor more in the roots of infected snagsand stumps,making it difficult to re-establisha coniferous forest on affectedsites. Openingscreated by laminatedroot rot can be beneficialas they often provide areasof speciesdiversity and groups of dead and down trees (Goheen 1995). Black stain root disease,common in southwestOregon Douglas-fir plantations,has causedlittle morrality in Little River, but opportunities exist for this diseaseto take hold and spread. Areas with compactedsoils or wounded trees appearto be especiallywlnerable to attack (Goheen lees). Stemdecays in conifersare another cause of disturbancein the watershed.Hemlocks and true fus areparticularly susceptible to stemdecays. Long rotationsare difficult to attainin theseforests Tenestrial- 34 due to the presenceof thesestem decays - stembreakage can be quite common. Found throughoutthe watershed,stem decays cause small-scale disturbances and are not in epidemic proportions. However,little documentationexists on how stemdecays develop in intensively managedDouglas-fir plantations(especially those treated with heavymachinery), which are in abundancein the Little River watershed(Goheen 1995). Finally,hemlock dwarf mistletoeis found throughoutthe watershed.This diseaseprimarily affectswestern hemloclg although true firs are also hosts on occasion. Impactsto trees can be light to severe,with stem malformation,branch diebac( and tree mortality as the end result. Malformations,called "brooms", canbe desirableas nestplatforms for somespecies of wildlife. Hemlock dwarf mistletoecan causesignificant problems, especially where regeneration of hemiockis important. All of the insectsand diseasespresent in the Little River watershedare found in endemic(normal and cyclic) proportions,primarily causing small-scale disturbances. It is expectedthat most insectsand diseaseswill remainat current populations. Only in the caseof the mountah pine beetleis therea causefor concern. Populationsof mountainpine beetle can be expectedto increaseif competitionand understorydensities are not reducedin sugarpine stands. Referto AppendixB for a more thoroughdiscussion on insectsand diseases. ForestProductivify and SpeciesDiversity Introduction In Little River, disturbanceevents, such as fire, determinevegetative patterns across the landscape. Thesedisturbance events, combined with soil moisture, temperature,and geology determinethe plant communitiesthat occur throughout Little River. Forestsin the Pacific Northwest are inherently productive. Evergreenconifers and high productivities are a result of the relatively dry, cool sumrnersand warm winters that characterize the Douglas-fir region (Waring and Franklin L977). Site productivity is the ability of a geographic areato produce biomass(organic rnatter such as trees and wildlife) as determinedby conditions (such as soil type and depth, rainfall, and temperature)in that area (FEMAT 1993). For this analysis,site productivity is further defined in terms of the production of commoditiessuch as merchantabletimber. As part of the Northwest Forest Plan, the emphasisof the Little River Adaptive Management Area (the public land portion of the watershcd) is the "developmentand testing of approachesto integration of intensivetimber production with restoration and maintenanceof high quality riparianhabitat." Intensivetimber production efforts requireknowledge of the resourcestied to tree growth andthe conditionof the commercialland designatedfor timber harvest. Terrestrial- 35 Understandingthe currentprocesses and conditionsof the forestsand streamsin Little River will help determinethe ability to balanceintensive timber production with the need to maintain and restore high quality riparian habitat. Site productivity in young managedstands (those stands cut prior to 1970for the purposeof this analysis)can be afFeaedby managementactivities that affect soil quality such as tractor loggttrg (which can causecompaction), the treatmentused to reducefuels (suchas broadcastburning), and the amount of large wood left on site after harvest. In addition, site productivity (for the production of commodities) can be affeaed by competition for nutrients, light and water caused by high stand densities. Finally, site productivity can be measuredin terms of the time it takes for a tree to reach breast height and by assigningthe area a site index. In maturestands, productivity can be affectedby competitionfor nutrients,light, and water from the understory that grows up underneaththe large trees (ingrowth). Productivity can also be influencedwhen thinning treatmentsare applied to a stand. Diverse and complex groups of speciesexist in Little River. Ecologists have developeda way to combinethe various tlpes of vegetationinto recognizablegroups, referred to as plant associations.Plant associationsare describedby herb,shrub, and tree specieson the basisof the likelihood that a particular tree specieswill becomeclimo< given a period of stability (relatively free from disturbance). In older stands,a climor speciesshows dominanceon a particular site and is usually able to regenerateitself in perpetuity. Included in this speciesdiversity discussionis the presenceof rare plants and the use of native plants for revegetationefforts. Another important componentof speciesdiversity include the presenceof exotic speciesthat can displacenative species. The processof successionhas a continuouseffect on speciesdiversity. To describethe processof forest successionin Little River, six categorieswere delineated(Brown 1985), called seral stages (Figure l0): 1) the grasVforb stagefor pioneeringplants and seedlingestablishment; 2) the shrub/seedling/saplingstage for rapid and diverseplant establishmentwhich often createsvaluable forage for wildlife species;3) the open saplinglpolestage, where young coniferous trees fill in most of the growing spaces,forage opportunitiesbecome more limited, and hiding cover begins to be available;a) the closed poldsapling stagewhere tree crowns close in, creating unfavorable growing conditions for most understory speciesdue to low light levels, but creating more hiding cover for many game species;5) the mature forest stage,where tree mortality through self- thinning increases,height growth slows down, and the understory beginsto develop again as openingsare created;and 6) the old-growth stage,where diversity is increasedttrough the formation of gaps and re-initiation of understorygrowth and large woody debris and snags becomemore abundant. Thesesix seral stageswere grouped into three broad categories: 1) early-seral,which combinesthe grasVforb and shrub/seedling/saplingstages; 2) mid-seral,which combinesthe open sapling/poleand closed sapling/polestages; and 3) late-seral,which combines the matureforest and old-growth stages. Tenestrial- 36 -1 4 l: - -,- ') '-- 'J () t;' - /, Etl bo Yro-.,.8&v z d, 7 .F q a-g-.1;U 4 7 ' A = - 2= .E4F; '-i.-.i vAIJIJ2JJU ;,1 TffiTffiffiTE ^-Z : -1 BF.l rnl-l \n o\ c\ a\ a c) eo F) +-) (t) t-.{ Fl L\J t-r aC) +-) r-1 F{ C) l-{ $-{ ) U () l-{ bo fr Terrestrial- 37 a disturbanceevent' Where fire Seralstages change as forestsmove through succession following has assumedthat role functioned as the primary disturbanceagent in the past,timber hanesting River havechanged from the today. The seralit"g., presenttoday in the landunits of Little shift in landscapepatterns ,eferencepoints of t[e past (Figure I l). There has beena substantid to two historic reference toward one dominatedLy earl/and mid seralforests today, compared most dramaticshift in poinr, where older foresisdominated (See Appendix C, maps2a)' The units. Historically, theseland seral stageshas occurred in the moist/warm and werdry/warm land the first placeswhere units sustainedthe old-growth forestsover long periods. They were also and high timber intensivetimber harvestoccurred due to their gentle tenaiq accessibility, volumes. DryANarm MoisWVarm 1(I) .75 .E ! : a a 3so 3so 3 c a a g :. 2s 2,8 o 0 mil rnl l.b r.r.l rrlyrnl mil rnl ld. a..rl rdyrnl ldD t-.tr lgo I trb'lEdL &l t..l tme I lrb E Tody(1S5) tr Tony(1F5) E -l Wet-DryAlVarm MoisUCool 1m .75 ! a :soa a c ex miJ corrl |at! 3c]rl rdy3.'d mHrnl l&..t l rdyronl ur lglo I bb tEo E br rsoo I bb isb [| ffi Tony(rS5) B Tony(rss) Figure ll. Referencernd cristing condition of serel stegesin thc Isnd units of the Little River wetershed. Terrestrial- 38 SiteProductivity in Young ManagedStands Sincetimber managementbegan, the processesof growttq a reflectionof productivity,has been altered. In the pre-managementer4 site productivitywas rarelyaltered; only a largescale "ft"r disturbanceevent, such as a standreplacement fire did productivitychange. Activities affecting soil quality suchas compactionand hot slashburns, as well as the affectof havingoverly dense- standsand clearcutsin high elevationareas have all worked eithercollectively or individuallyto decreasethe overail productivity of someof the acreswithin eachland unit. Sincenone of these variableswere measurablein the past,we must look at the currentcondition to determinewhich sitesmay have altered productivity (Table 5). Table 5. Menagementrctivities and factorcaffecting stend productivity in young managed standsof the Little River watershedby land unit. o/o Lend Unit V. of lsnd Appror. of land Current 7c of ecres Current 7o of acres unit ecres unit acresburned by stend density that took > 15 yrs tractor hot following (stendr hervested for treesto reach hervcsted timber harvest prior to 1970)- (FS breast height (all during the 1970s only) (standsharvested ownerships) and 1980s(FS prior to 1970,FS only) High Med Low only) drylwarm 22Yo 39Yo 270 6j%o l40A 24% moist/warm 25Yo 4lYo 3r% 5s% 13% 27% wet-dry/warm 62Yo 24Yo &% 3s% T% t7% moist/cool t6% t9% 26% 48% 27% 49% Soil Quality Compaction: Approximately35,300 acresor 27 percentof the land in the watershed(Figure 12) hasbeen harvestedor had the site preparedfor plantingusing tractors. Acresthat havebeen tractor harvestedwithin the Little River watershedare displayedby vicinity in Appendix C. The amount of land area within the watershedthat hasbeen compactedby tractors varieswith the type of soil, soil moisture during logging and degreeof regulation (whether or not skid trails were designated and followed). [n the wet-dry/warm land unit where slopesare gentle, early tractor logging that didn't utilize designatedskid trails causedextensive compaction. Quite commonly,at least20 percent of a tractor harvestunit will have soils that are detrimentallycompacted; however, other placesin the watershedhave up to 80 percentof the ground within a tractor harvestunit compacted. Tenestrial- 39 ') g 5t ,;t:;1 '.0 -: ., r- t-'. t-) C) ,+t r f-{ h'! F (1 .,-') rt (*. l C) {-) (t) () , P |} F{ ,o R'a ,Tr )*r '!d',., U) r i' L\) () t{ _{t: c\ c.) bo fr Terrestrial- 40 As a resultof compactiorLindividual trees can exhibit growth problems. Literaturefrom studies conductedoutside of Little River haveobserved reductions in root grolvttL height,and timber volume. A 35 percentincrease in soil bulk density(loss of soil po." ,p""") can reduceDouglas-fir sites from Site tr qualify ground to site Itr @roehlichand McNabb rls+).' In compactedarias, trees tend to have shallow root masseswhich increasestheir susceptibilityto blowdowrl while black stain root diseasecan take hold and causemortality. Douglas-fu uees growing in tractor skid trails took four yearslonger to reachbreast height and producedonly on.-qu"rt"r ofthe volume than adjacenttrees in logged, but relativelyuncompacted areas, 32 yearsafter harvest (We.t and Thomas 1981). Thesefindings have been observed during field recoruraissanceof harvestunit (thoseharvested prior to 1970)skid roadson Forest Servicemanaged lands within the Linle River watershed.However, how compactioneffects overall standgrowth is unknown (Tappeiner1995). Regardless,compaction is a very long term impact:natural recovery time is unknown,but Power (1974) reportedno appreciablerecovery of compactedsoils after 40 years. In additionto impactsto siteproductivity, soil compactioncan alsoincrease overland water flow. Overland water flow will reachstream channels more quickly than if it were to infiltrate through the soil; increasingpealdows. SeeChapter 4, effectof roadson pealdlowsfor further information. Awarenessof the causesand resultsof soil compactionhas increased. Todav, skid trails are kept to a minimum and in many areason public land, tractor logging has been replacedwith slcyline logging. Compaction occurs lessnow than it did in the past and will continue on this downward trend for federallymanaged land. Fuels reducfion: Fuelsreduction treatments, such as slashburning (both broadcastand hand pile) are commonly usedmethods of reducingfuels following timberharvest. Primarilyduring the 1970s,hot burns were the norm (Table 5). Burning was conductedwith the objective of creating a cleanunit to makethe areaeasier to replant. Thesehot burnsconsumed much of the organicmatter, possibly reducingthe areas'productivity. This is especiallytrue for the drylwarm and moist/coolland units, which are lessresilient to loss of organic matter and take longer to recover. The use of hot broadcastburning is expectedto be reducedon federallymanaged land, although the use of low intensity prescribedunderburning should be increasedin order to mimic natural fue. Concernsabout smoke drifting into populatedareas, hazards of burning next to private land, policieson leavingdead and down wood for long-termsite productivity,and reducedclearcut acresto treat have all worked to lessenthe numberof acresneeding fuels treatment. Broadcast burningis now conductedin the springwith fewer "hot" burns. Less resourcedamage from broadcastburning can be expected.Hand piling and burningto treat logging slashon federally managedland is expectedto continue. Intenseburns will continueto occur in piled areas,and while not over a broad are4 all the soil organicmatter is consumed,impacting the productivityof the siteat the locationof the burnpile. Terrestrial- 4l Iarge woad: The amount, distribution and rate of decayover time of organic matter, including Large Woody Debris (LWD), is a function of a site's temperatureand moisture regime as well as the frequency of disturbancethat a site experiences.In unmanagedforests of the Oregon Cascades,the distribution of LWD was found to differ significantlyby moisture regime with the amount of LWD being greater on moist than on dry sites(Spies, 1988). Furthermore on all sites,the amount of LWD over time has been shown to follow an up-and{own pattern with stand developmentup to 500 years. The highestlevels of LWD are found in old-growth standsand the lowest levelsin maturestands (80-120 years). The most prolongedminimum levels occurred in standswhere frequent fires burned early in succession(this condition is most likely in drylwarm land units). The cycle of death and decayin unmanagedforests hasbeen a long term and dynamic process. The structurelarge wood providesfor decomposers,the organicmatter it providesthe soil, and its role in the storage and releaseof nutrients and water is essentialto the long term productivity of forests. In fact, the differencein productivity (and resilienceto disturbance)between land units reflects in large pa4 the sitesability to sustainthis resourceover time. The role of LWD has been recognizedin the Northwest Forest Plan: "To nraintainlong term productivity following a stand replacementdisturbance, management should retain adequateLWD quantitiesin the new stand so that in the future it will still contain amounts similar to naturally regeneratedstands" @ecord of Decisiorqpg. C-14). Standardsand Guidelinesstate that 120 linealfeet per acreof logs greaterthan or equalto 16 inchesin diameterand 16'long shallbe left in regenerationharvest units (ROD C-40), although standardsand guidelinesfrom current plans apply if they provide greater arnounts. Such as the casewith the Umpqua National Forest Plan Standardsand Guidelinesfor large wood, which calls for leaving 250 lineal feet per acre greater than 20 inchesin diameterat the small end in eachharyest unit. Many past timber harvestprescriptions have largely over-looked or removed this important resource. To recruit and retain LWD in managedstands, managers will need to know (Neitro et al.1985): 1.) The existingforest landbase by land unit and age class(these parameters directly affect the size, number and dynamicsof LWD); 2.) The current condition and objectivesfor standsin the land base(by land unit); 3.) Information concerningthe rate of decayprocesses affecting LWD and the quality of snagsprovided over time. Terrestrial- 42 Stand density: Standdensity represents the numberoftrees per acrethat occupya given area. Areasthat have low densitiesmay not be asproductive as they could be for.ornrnoaty volumeproduction. Standsthat are too dense may alsobe lessproductive (in termsof wood products)than they could be becausetoo many trees are competingfor a limited amount of availabiegrowing ,p""", light, nutrients, and water. Flstorically,disturbance events determined how manf treesper acrebicame established. In drylwarm and moist/warmland units, low intensity fires keit densitylevels low to moderatein youngerand older stands.Moist/cool land units exhibit low to moderatedensities due to the cold, wet siteconditions, while wet-dry/warmland units would exhibitareas of dense stands,due to high productivityand low frequencyof fire. Currentlyin young stands,most standdensities are a product of tree plantingand natural regeneration(Table 5). Forestmanagement policies of the 1970sand lg80sencouragedplanting at high densitiesto help ensurereforestation success. Forest Servicerecords of harvest prior to 1970 show that high densirystands represent 30 percentof the "olde/'young gowth".r., "ri stands(those stands that were harvestedearliest), while 16 percentof theseyoung standsare at a Iow standdensity. The wet-dry/wiumland unit can carry higherstand densities due to good to excellentgrowing conditions- soils are deep and terrain is gentle. On managedlands, pie- commercialthinning and fertili'ation (seemap I in Appendix C for areasfertilized) hasbeen commonly prescribedfor young standsto reducestand densities and stimulatetree growth. Today, many denseyoung standsare in need of treatment. Sinc.e1980, clearcut harvestingon public landswithin the watershedhas generated over 11,000acres of land that is or will soonbe in need of density adjustmentsusing precornmercialthinning. Some young standsare passingthe pre-cornmercialthinning stage and havenot beenthinned. Thesestands will sooncome into the commercial thinning stage. Delaysin neededpre-conrmercial thinning operationscan slow down growth to a point of stagnation.I[gh standdensities will increasea tree's heightto diameter ratio (a measureof how tall a tree is versushow wide). A value greater than 90 meansa tree may be too tall for its diameterand blowdown (or stembreakage) is likely to occur (Oliver 1990). Breast Height Development: The time it takes for a tree to reachbreast height ( % feet)also measuressite productivity. Some of today's young standsare taking longer to reach breast height age than what is predicted from growth and yield calculationsused in managementplans. Possiblecauses of this lag include harvestrelated problemssuch as compactedsoils, high water tables, frost pockets, or harvesting on areastoo rocky to reforest and other problemssuch as deer/elk browsing and competition from shrubs. For example,the moist/coolland unit has48 percentof its acreagein the slow developmentcategory, due to both past harvestpractices and site limitations (the growing season is limited to lessthan 100 days). In contrast,other young stands,like some in the dry/warm land Tenestrial- 43 unit, are r€achingbreast height age quickly. Thesehighly productivesites may be the areasbest suitedfor intensivetimber production. Of the approximatelyI1,000 acresof young growth standscut before 1970 in Forest Service managedland, almost 1/3 (3,000 acres)of the acreagetook longer than predicted to reachbreast height. Becausethe time it takes for the trees to reach crown closure might be delayed, hydrologic recovery may be influenced(see Chapter 4, pageAquatic-4O for further discussionon hydrologic recovery). An analysisof someyoung managedstands on BLM managedlands within the watershedshow that no trees took longer than 12 yearsto reach breast height after planting. SiteIndex: Site index is definedin terms of the total height of the largest, full crowned trees in a given stand at a given age flilenger 1984). It is an expressionof productivity,usually displayed as a number. A site index assignedto a given areais basedupon the areasability to grow a merchantabletree. In a more generalsense, it is also usedto imply various other characteristicsof the areawhich include vegetation,landforrq soil, and climate (Wenger 1984). For young stands,average dominant and co-dominanttrees :ue measuredfor both their height and age. Thesenumbers are then averagedagain to assigna site index to a stand,using King's 1965 Douglas-fir tables(KD) on a 5O-yearbasis. In Little Riveq site classesfor young standswere determinedby measuringstands harvested befween1940 to 1970@igure l3). Activitiesthat afFectan area'ssite classinclude timber harvestand burning. In general,areas where intensiveharvest occurred using ground-based skiddinghave suffered some loss of produaivity. 60 50 40 F z 3so u ul e20 wct{ryArrrm drylwrrm moirl/\lerm moirUcool r Sitc two + n sitcthrcc E Sitc four - Figure 13. Percentageof young stand acreagein each site classby land unit for Forest Servicemanaged land in the Little River watershed. Tenestrial - 44 On areasclassified as site two or three, growh rates are expectedto be fairly rapid. However, in many.reas of the watershed,diameter $owth ratestend to be slow (Table 6). Field observations and stand exam records on the North Umpqua RangerDistrict have establishedthat diameter gowth ratesof threeinches per decaderepresents slow growth for standsbefween i5 and 35 years,breast height age. This is especiallytrue for the wet-dry/warm land unit, which has the most acresclassified as site classtwo, but also has a significantnumber of acresin the slowest growth rate category. The wet-dry/warm land unit should have some of the fastestyoung stand growth rates. This land unit representsthe most potential to regain productivity using restorative measures. Table 6. Acres of young managedstands in eachdiameter growth rate category(slow, moderate,and fast) on ForestService managed land in the Littte River watershed. Laud Unit SIow growth rate Moderate growth rate Fast growth rate (1 to 3 in/decade) (3.I to 3.4 in/ -decede) (3.4 to 5.E inldecade) dry/warm 250 ac 579 ac 708 ac moist/warm 320 451 1119 wet-drv/warm 264 35 62 a1A moist/cool L t.+ 277 802 Totals I I09 1342 2690 Site Productivity in Mature Stands Site productivity in mafure stands(those in the mature or old-growth seral stages)is inlluencedby competition and thinning treatmentsapplied, which allocatesor re-allocatesmoisture, nutrients, and sunlight. Historically, only natural disturbancessuch as severefue events,volcanoes, earthquakes,and landslidessignificantly altered productivity in mature forests. Competition: Competitionfor nutrients,light, andwater from trees,shrubs, or grasses(Tappeiner 1995) can slow standgrowth. One sourceof competitioncomes from the coniferousunderstory that grows up underneaththe canopy, often called ingrowth. If left unchecked,ingrowth can slow the growth of a standas growing spacebecomes restricted and nutrients and water becomelimited. Individual tree speciesreact differently to competition from ingrowth. Speciessuch as sugarpine and ponderosapine do not grow well when the understorybecomes thick and dense. They begin to experiencestress, which can makethem susceptibleto infestationsby mountainpine beetles, eventuallycausing mortaliry. Historically, ingrowth was controlled by fire. Land units, such as drylwarrq experiencedmore frequentfue, had openunderstories, and fire tolerant speciesin the Tenestrial- 45 overstory. In contrasgmoist/cool land units had more shadetolerant species underneath the canopy such as western hemlock and white fu, which would grow thick until the next fire episode occurred. Competition from ingrowth and high standdensities have affectedmany of the mature standsthat exist in the watershedtoday. With the adventof modern fue suppressionactivities, much of the watershedhas not experienceddisturbance as often as it did historically. Where fue was once frequent in the past (such as in the drylwarm land unit), standswould experiencefrequent underburningand stand replacementfires, limiting the standsability to carry high volumes over long periodsof time. Fire suppressionhas led to the creationof standsthat are very denseand thick. These standscarq/ more trees per acre now than they did in the past. On Forest Service managedland within the watershed,some acres are carrying higher densitiesthan what was likely to haveoccurred in the past(Table 7). Somelate seraland mid seralstands appear to have changedfrom having mostly large trees to a structurethat has a higher component of smaller trees. For example,in the drylwarm land unit, over 7000 acresare carrying high densitiesof smallerdiameter trees. Thesestands are at risk of experiencinga high intensity fire in the future. Flgh intensity fires are capableof causingextensive damage to the soil resourcebecause they consumenearly all of the organic matter and much of the large wood, thus loss of long term site productivity is likely with theseintense fires. In addition, the risk of soil erosion and sedimentationin streamsincreases as organic matter and vegetation on the site decreases. Table 7. Acres in eachland unit by seralstage that have high densitiesfor Forest Service managedland in the Little River watershed. Land Unit tate SCiaI Mid':SCrel drylwarm 7700ac 9142ac moist/warm 8829ac 3348ac wet-dry/warm 885ac 261 ac moist/cool 6980ac l5l6 ac Standdensities are expectedto continueto increasein the shortterm. As densitymanagemenr activitiesare undertakerq stand densities should slowly return to a morenatural level. Tenestrial- 46 Thinning treatments: In mature stands,thinning treatmentsincrease the growing spacefor the remaining trees. As a result of more growing space,leave trees grow faster, producing more volume on a site, while also increasingstand resiliencyto disturbance. Yield projections for mature standsbased on various thinning prescriptionsfor eachof the land units within the Little River watershedwere developedfor standson ForestService managed land. Thesecan be found in AppendixC. Most maturestands thinned during the I 970sand I 980shad approximately l/3 of the basalarea removedfrom the stand(mostly intermediate and suppressedtrees). To date,2870 acreson Forest Servicemanaged land hasbeen commercially thinned in the watershed. Little or no monitoring has been done on standswhich have beenthinned, so it is diffcult to determinewhat the responseof thesestands has been and whetheror not treesare growing to their full growth potential. Thinningtreatments can be usedto lessena stand'ssusceptibility to high intensityfires andto restore stand vigor over time. Understory diversity can be increaedby increasinglight levelsthat reach the forest floor. Slashfrom thinning increasesthe fuels availableto burrl increasingthe fire hazard. Thinning can also introduce conifersinto the understory and begin the developmentof a two-storiedstand (Tappeiner 1995). In addition,thinning usually produces bigger trees, which can be used as future snagsor for commodity production. Commercialthinning opportunitieswill increaseas standsharvested during the 1940sthrough the 1960sbecome commercially marketable. Plant SpeciesDiversity Individual plant specieshave unique abilitiesto grow and zurvive h a particular climate. Groups of speciesthat occur togetherare referredto as plant associations,which representan integration of site factors such as climate, landform and soil moisture. Plant associationscan be used to describemany stand characteristicssuch as systemcomposition, canopy layers, live and deadtree diversityand down wood. AppendixJ displaysplant associations(project level classification)and plant series(an aggregationof associations)by aspectfor land units in the Little River watershed. In general,species diversity has changedthroughout the watershed. In some early seralforests, there are more speciesthan historically present,sometimes due to an inllux of non-native species. In other early seral areasi,species diversity has declineddue to an aggressiveprogram to control competing vegetatioq a lack of seedsource when the standwas cut, and planting mostly Douglas-fir following harvest. In mid and late seralforests, speciesdiversity has probably held steadyor perhapsslightly declined(due to salvagelogg-g and firewood programs that removed hardwoods)over naturalconditions. The choiceof standregeneration method can alsohave an effect on standdiversity. During the 1940sand 1950s,harvest units were usually left to naturally regeneratethemselves. Tree planting beganin the 1960s,and geneticprograms began in the 1970s. Douglas-firbecame the Tenestrial- 47 regenerationspecies of choice,leading to the creationof extensiveacres of Douglas-fir forests. Natural regenerationis beingused more today on Forest Servicemanaged land. In additio4 other minor speciesare beingplanted in harvestunits on BLM managedland. Understandinglight levels necessaryto grow shadeintolerant speciessuch as Douglas-fir and pine in young managed stands(see Appendix C for light leveldiscussion) will help land managersutilize natural regenerationmore often. The Relationshipof Land Units to SpeciesDiversity Each land unit in the Little River watershedhas a unique ability to support different plant associations.An area'spotential vegetation - that vegetationwhich would occur on a sitein the absenceof managementactivities - is what grow's bestgiven the climate,soils, and geologyof a particularsite. Dry/W'arm Potential Vegetation' Historically in Little River, the vegetation type and growth rate was primarily controlled by moisture stress. On steepsouth-facing slopes,Douglas-fir forests dominated, an adaptationto the frequeng intensefire behavior episodesthat were likely on steep slopesin this land unit. TheseDouglas-fir forests formed a mosaic with the drier hemlock plant associations,which were probably being perpetuatedwhere fire intensity was less severeor less frequent. On gently sloping deep-soillandforms, a mixed conifer forest would often be present (white firldwarf Oregon-grape/salal)and was probably an adaptationto a relatively frequent, low- intensity fue regime. The following relationshipbetween plant associationsand landforms in the drylwarm Western Cascadesland unit (Table 8) was developedfrom Forest ServiceLand ResourceInventory Gzu) data collectedin the field (in order of prevalence): Table 8. Plant associationsand landformsfor the drylwarm land unit of the Western Cascadesprovince. Common Plant Associationr Landform Relationrhip Sou& aspecs,steep slopes D ou gl as-fi r/dwarf Ore gon-grape/sword fern Moistfor Douglas-fusites High frequcncyof low intensityfires r On uppcr slopcsor ridge tops + All aspects,steep slopes western heurlock/rnccosc{€dar/s8l8l Salaland Pacific rhododcndronalways prcsent i.c., indicativcof acidicrock Multi-doried stands' South aspects,steep slopes Douglas-fir/salaUswordfern Drier than Douglas-fir/dwarf Oregon-grape/ sword fern One - two storied stands ' Moderate frcquency fues ' white frldwarf Oregon- grape/salal Mostly southaspccts Deepsoils on gentleto moderatelysteep slopes Tenestrial- 48 Common Plant Associations Landform Relationship wqstern hemloclc/salaVwqsterntrvinfl ower All aspects Deep soils Staddles moisUwarm,moisUcool land units r Plant Association Guide Moist/Warm Potential Vegetalion' Moist westernhemlock plant associationsdominated this land unit and indicatea microclimatewhere moisture stress was minimal. Adequatesoil moisture for plant growth w:rsassociated with northerlyaspects, high soil moisturestorage and lower slopepositions. The following relationshipsbetween moist/warm plant associationsand landforms(Table 9) were developedfrom field collecteddata: Table 9. Plant associationsand landformsfor the moist/warm land unit of the Western Cascadesprovince. Coomon Plant Associatious Landform Relntionshio wqster:nhemlock/salaVwestern hvinllower On south slopcs with deep soils and gentie to moderately steep slopes; Also on north slopes with moderateto deep soils, all slope steepness wcstcrn hemlocklvinc maple/soow bramblc Mostly south aspects,on upper elevations with decp soils westem hernlock-bigleaf mapley'swordfern On north aspectswith deep soils and steep slopes western redcedar/Pacific rhododeadron/ westcrn North aspects,mid to lower lR of slope and in valley twinllower bottons western hemlock/western redcedar/Oresonoxalis Vallev bottom"foot slope. lower 1/3 of slope Frequent,low to moderateintensity fue has shapedthe moist/warm stand structure historically. Two-storied and single-storiedstands were common. The potential for multi-storied stand structure was accentuatedby two land unit attributes: 1) land unit location which would include low-slope positions and streamsidelandforms that are often refugesfrom fire, and 2) the diversity of shadeintolerant speciesthat add structural layersto standsin the absenceof fue. In most locations,fire hasprolonged the matureseral stage and selectedagainst fire-intolerant species. The differencebetween the existingand referenceseral-stage distribution portrayed in the At-a- Glance is a reflection of both the abundanceof late-seralforest and the easv accessaflorded by moist/warmtimber resourceson moderateto gentleslopes. Wet-dryhoarm Potential Vegetation' The wet-dry/warm land unit supported avery productive forest, limited by only moisture stressin the driest convex micrositesand excessmoisture in the wettestzreas. For the most part, the earlyseral stage development was rapid like the sunounding moisVwarmland unit. Openingsfilled in rapidlyand were prolongedonly in the wettestareas as an extendedshrub stase. Tenestrial- 49 This land unit once was the strongholdof western redcedarin Little River, a product of the land unit's surplus of soil moisture. Today, however, almost no western redcedarcan be found in this land unit, due to extensivereforestation of Douglas-fir following timber harvest. The following relationshipsbetween wet-dry/warm plant seriesand landforms(Table 10) were developedfrom field collecteddata: Table 10. Ptant seriesand landformsfor the wet-dr/warm land unit of the Western Cascadesprovince. Plent Seriir Landform Relrfionrhip Mo i st hemloclc/westeruredcedar EartMow landslide deposis, gentleold surfaceson upland plateau Western redcedar forests in coucavities Motst/cool Potential Vegetation' Both the type of vegetation and its growth would be limited by cool temperatures. This is the realm of the Pacific silver fir and western white pine in a matrix of cool western hemlock forests. The following relationshipsbetween plant associationsand aspect (Table I l) were developedfrom field collecteddata: Table 11. Plant associationsand landformsfor the moisUcoolland unit of the Western Cascadesprovince. Plmt Arrocirtionr Leudform Relrthnchip western hemlockrtinc maple/Oregon oxalis North aspect only whitefu All aspects western hemlocMhin-leaf huckleberry/ western South aspects,deep soils twinflower Pacific silver fu/virc maple/coolwort fonmflower Mostlynorth aspects western hemloclclPacific silver firlthin-leaf huckleberry All aspccts Terrestrial- 50 Rare Plants, Non-Native Plants, and Native Revegetation Information on currently listed threatened,endangerd and sensitiveplants (TES) is lacking for nearly all of the land within the Little River watershed. Certain plant groups, such * gr"rrJr, sedges,rushes, aquatic species,bryophytes, and lichensremain almost uninvestigated. With the exceptionof BLM ResearchNatural Areas, non-timberhabitats remain almost unexplored. The staffof the Douglas County Museum Herbarium with the assistanceof the Roseburg chapter of the Native Plant Society of Oregon has beenconducting plant suweys in the Little River Watershedfor many years and have kept a compositelist of vascularplant species(which may not include some of the above mentionedplant groups) for the area(on file at the North Umpqua RangerDistrict). Threatened,Endangered, and Sensitive(TES) Plant Surveys Prior to 1990, records were not kept on which Forest Servicelands had been zurveyedfor rare plants. From 1990 to the presen! 678 acres(l.l percent ofthewatershed) havebeen surveyed, but only 243 acres(0.4 percent of the watershed)of that total have had surveysthat meet current standards. Surveysfor fungi, lichen, bryophytes,rushes, sedges, and aquatic plants have not been conductedand for all practical purposes,the Forest Servicelands in the watershedremain unexploredfor TES plants. The RoseburgBLM has surveyedfor Threatened,Endangered, and Sensitiveplants srnce1977, and has surveyed4,139 acresto date. Surveysfor lichens and bryophytesbegan in 1995,with 134acres surveyed to date. Thirty-one sites representingeight currently listed TES speciesare known to occur in the watershed(Table l2). No attemptshave beenmade to prioritize potential habitat within the watershed. Some of the currently listed TES specieshave easilydefinable habitat while others do not. Some are generaliststhat can be expectedto occur throughout coniferous forests. Since speciesstatus changes periodically, prioritization of potential habitat is best undertakenat the project level. Specific habitat descriptionsfor TES plants suspectedor known to occur on Forest Servicelands are includedin AppendixG. Table 12. TES plant speciesknown to occur in the Little River watershed by status. Common Name Scientific Name ${S,.,.,,..BtM...:.,.,. FS ,, Ststui,. Status:,.r.:r sietus Wavsideaster Aster vialis USW) C2 Candidate Sensitive Woodlandmilkvetch A stragulus um brati ctt s (ASUM) AssessmentSensitive Umoouamarioosa lilv Calochortus umpquaensis (CAUM CI Candidate Sensitive Siskivoufritillarv Firti I laria slanca 6RGL) Sensitive California slobemallow I lliamna latibratiata OLIJ,) AssessmentSensitive Terrestrial- 5l ScientificNan; ,,1, ,,;'ii ,i:.i',,,, FS,,.,..:,ti.:::,:. ,1,, Stims,. Columbia Lewisia Iswisia columbia v. columbiou Sensitive (LECO) California sword fern P o lysticlrum californi anm (P OCA) AssessmentSensitive Thompson'smistrnaiden Romouoffi a " thomDsonii" (ROTII) Sensitive Sensitive Dwarf-flowered horkelia Horlceliacongesta spp. congesta C2 Candidate 6roco) Sandwort Mirusti a ci smontana (MICI ) Trackine Punctatewater'meal Wolffia borealis MOBO) Assessment Distribution by vicinity lower Little River 6 6 ) I Caviu Creek 2 I I I Middlc Littlc Rivcr 3 I I I Wolf Plateau 3 2 I EmileCreek 4 2 2 BlacVClover t0 I J 4 I I UpperLittle River t I I I WatershedTotal 34 I 4 6 I 5 4 4 6 2 I I ROD Species Somespecies designated by the NorthwestForest Plan (ROD) as requiringspecial management (TableC-3 andprotect and buffer) have not yet hadsurvey protocols established. However, someefforts have been undertaken. Five oneacres plots representingdifferent habitat types were intenselyinspected for lichenoccurrence. BLM personnelhave included easily recognizable speciesin their regularsurveys for TES plants. Tenestrial- 52 Fifteen speciesof lichen listed in Table C3 of the Northwest Forest Plan were located in the spot samplingundertaken in 1995. One "strategy 1" (seeAppendix G) species,the rare Hall's lungwort (Lobuia hallii) was found. The remainingfourteen speciesare designated "strategy 4" and are common in at least parts of the watershed.. A searchofForest Service ecology pi-ot records revealedthree sites for Candystick(Allotropavirgata). No occurrencesofMountain lady's slipper (Cypripedium montanum) arc known from the area. No fungus listed in the ROD hasbeen found. On BLM administeredlands, Bug-on-a-stick (Bwbaumia pipei), a protect and buffer species, hasbeen found with someconsistenry. Site location information is not yet available. Ilabitats of protect and buffer speciesare designatedas ManagedLate-successional Areas, and are managed as such. Potential species The list of speciesclosely associatedwith late successionaland old-growth forests that could occur in the Little River Watershedis includedin Appendix G. Some of the listed speciesare likely to be common within the areawhile others will be quite rare. Non-native Plant Species Non-native plant speciesare those speciesthat did not originaly occur in the United States. Means of transport include wind, wateq animals,and humanaaivity. In caseswhere movement occurs over long distances,human activity (vehicle traffic) generallyprovides the main meansof transport. The introduction of non-native plants has beengoing on at a rapid rate on the North American continent sinceEuropean peoplesbegan their westward migration some300 years ago. The current, rapid pace of human developmenthas increasedthe rate of introduction of new species. Occasionallya new speciesis met with few or no factors limiting its spread. These plants are not preyedupon to a geat degree;their habitat needsare easilyfilled and their ability to reproduceis not restricted. Consequentlythey spreadrapidly, easilydisplacing native plants and organisms that dependon them. This posesserious ecological and possibly economicalimpacts. The exact extent of the presenceof such speciesin the Little River watershedis not known. A completelist of all speciesrecorded in the Little River watershedand nearbyis included in Appendix G. Noxious Species Noxious weeds are those plants that havebeen officially designatedas such by federal or state law. The Oregon StateDepartment of Agriculture definesthese as plants that are "injurious to public healttt, agriculture, recreation,wildlife, or any public or private property''. Becausethis designationfocuses on human economyand agriculture there are two casesin which native plants Tenestrial- 53 are included. Thesespecies, giant horsetailand western horsetail,will be managedas native speciesand will not be subjectto noxious weed managementefforts. The Oregon Departmentof Agriculture (ODA) determineswhich specieswill legally be 'noxious' considered in the state of Oregon, eachof which carrieswith it an eradication"plan", which may be on the local, county, or statelevel. SeeAppendix G (Oregon StateNoxious Weed List) for more detailon thesespecies. Of the 48 speciesof noxious weedsthat either occur, or have a significant potential to occur, within the state,ten of thesespecies (disregarding the two native species)can be found in the Little River watershed(Table l3). Five are consideredto be so widespread(tansy ragwort, St. Johnswort, Canadathistle, bull thistle, and Scotchbroom) that most disturbedground is occupied by at least one of thesespecies. Eleven more are known to occur in close proximity and havethe potential to colonize the areain the foreseeablefuture. Of particular concern are gorse, yellow star-thistle,milkthistle and French broom. Table 13. Norious weedsknown to occur or in closeprorimity to the Little River watershed Noxious'W€eds Know n,T6:: Ocgur In f ,iftle:,,,:: Noriorrs:Weeds In 9!ose Prorimity,,To Fliver::,:"'::::, : ,: , diffirse knapweed(C e n taur e a di ffu sal French broom (Cvtisus monsDessularus\ meadow knapweed (Centaurea iacea x nisral gorse (Uex europeaus) Canadianthistle (Cirsium ovense\ Italian thistle (Csduus pycnocephalus\ bull thistle(Cirsium vulsare) Japaneseknotweed (Polygonum ctspi datum) poison hemlock (Conium mactlatum\ Medusahead ( Taeniatherum caw t-me dusa\ field mornine slorv (Convolvtlus rl-t'ensis\ milk thistle (Silvbum mariorum\ Scotch broom (Cytisttsscoparius\ star thistle (Centureaspp.) oumleloosestrife (Lvthrum sali cari a\ puncturevine ( Tribu lus tene strisl tioton weed (Hwericam perforatum) Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens') tansvraswort (Senecioiacobaeal woolv distaff thistle (Cuthamus luutus\ Soanishbroom (Sputium iunceum) Yellow toadflax(Linaria wlssis) Of the noxiousspecies listed above only diff-rseknapweed and purple loosestrifehave been identified as a priority speciesby both the Forest Service and BLM. Diffirse knapweedoccurs within the watershedon two sites,occupying about three acresabove Cavitt Creek. A clump of purple loosestrifewas found growing along Linle River Road in Augusg 1995. Meadow knapweed,widely usedin the early 1960'sby the Forest Servicefor roadsideerosion control, is also a slow moving but aggressivecolonizer that has become so widespreadthat eradicationof the population is unlikely. The BLM is actively attempting to limit the spreadof Scotch broom Terrestrial- 54 through roadside mowing. The thistles, tipton weed and tansy ra$r'ort are consideredby agenry personnelto be too widely distributedto be eradicated. Many of thesenoxious weeds are spreadingrapidly. RoseburgBLM District estimatesthat the rate of increaseon lands the agencyadministers within the county could be as high as 1000 acres per year. Typical rates of spreadfor specieswith high potentialto occur in the watershedrange from 8 percent to as high as 24 percent per year with an averageof 14 percent(USDI BLM 1994b)- a doubling of infested acreageevery five to six yearsor less. Even with repeated treatmentof known sites, occurrencesare expectedto increasedue to the movementof seedinto the areafrom outsidesources and by perpetuationof seedproduction on privateland. Forest Service and BLM roads within the Little River watershed(600 road miles)were surveyed for the presenceof twelve of the abovenoxious species considered to be a priority for locating, monitoring and control or eradication.The following specieswere surveyedfor: Common name Scientificnarne wooly distaffthistle Cutha nus lanatus diffilse knapweed Centaurea dtffusa spottedknapweed Centaurea maculos yellow starthistle Ce ntaurea so lstitialis rush skeletonweed Chon&illa juncea poisonhemlock Conium macttlatum lea$ spurge Euphorbia evla dyerswoad Isalis tinctoria dalmationtoadflax Linqia dalmatica yellow toadfla:c Linqia wlguis purple loosestrife Lythntm slicsia SOrSe UIex europeus The surveywas completedin July, 1995. Areasalong the roadsideswere examined,with special emphasisgiven to areasin early seral stage, rock quarries,recreation sites, and other areasof recentdisturbance. No populationsof any of the trvelvespecies were detected.Because most of the Forest Service and BLM roads are in the upland areasof the watershed,the survey did not includelow elevationiueas of lower Little River, middleLittle Riveq andlower Cavitt Creeh wheremore agriculturd use,disturbance levels, and vehicle trafrc createhigher probability for invasionof noxiousweeds. Aggr es si ve Non-native s i Besidesthose plants listed as noxious there are many aggressivespecies that are compromising the ecology of the area and may threatennative communities(Table l4). For the most part, these are pioneer speciesthat occupy disturbed areasin great numbers. In somec:ses the invasive ability of theseplants rivals thoselisted as noxious,but they are eitheralready so firmly Tenestrial- 55 estabtishedthat eradicationefforts have not beenuseful or their ecologicalthreat has not been recognized. Teble 14. Aggressivespecies of concern COMMONNAME SCIENTINC NAIVIE Bird'sfoottrefoil Lotus cornic-ulata Cat's ear Hwocharis radicata Cheat srass Bromus tectorum Commonmullien Verbascum thapsis Doctail hedsehoggrass Cwrosrus echinatus Evercreen blackberrY Rubuslaciniatus Ffimdavan blackberry Rubusdiscolor Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata Ox-evedaisv Chvsanthemumleucanthemum QueenAnne's lace Daacus carota Redsorrel Rumexacetosella Rincut Bromus rigidus Soft brome Bromus mollis SweetDea Lathwas latifolia Teasle Dipsacis svlvestris Timothv Phleum pratense Three of the specieslisted are of particularconcern. On the North UmpquaRanger District, cat's ear and ox-eyedaisy dominate recent clearcuts. Both of thesespread by windborneseeds and are commonlytransported in surfacegravel for roads. Ox-eyedaisy also increases itself by rooting from the stems. Neither of thesespecies is easilyeradicated. Dogtail hedgehoggrass is quite likely the most common grassspecies in the Little River watershed. Although no studieshave been conducted,the specieshas shown up in all Forest Service surveys,dominating most openingsonce inhabitedby nativegrass species. Habitats and pruesses altered Many non-nativespecies are capableof invadingand dominatingdisturbed areas. Takenas a goup, field observationsindicate they can occupyas much as ninetypercent of the available habitatin disturbed(clearcuts, road cuts) areas.Considering that 60 percentof the landin the Little River watershedhas been harvestedand roaded, and many more acreswere intensively grazedin the past, very little of the Little River watershedhas not been invadedby one or more aggressivenon-native species. Tenestrial- 56 Most of the aggressivenon-natives iue pioneeror earlyseral species. Both fue and timber harvest activities reduceplant communitiesto early stagesof developmen! providing opportunity for expansionof non-nativepopulations. What effectthis hason the nativespecies whose niche they occupyis unknown. Argumentsare often madethat non-nativepioneer species will die out over time asthe vegetationmoves from openclearcuts to forestedconditions. To somee)dent this is true. Pioneerplant populationsdecline in shadedconditions provided by tightly growing trees. However recent field work indicatesthat they do persistwhere their needsare met and will not simply disappearas successionruns its course. We can expectthat they will populatefuture disturbed siteseven if no further seedis introduced. This meansthe native specieswill be out-competedfor occupancyof future disturbedareas as well. How this disruption of early seralprocesses effects the long term viability of native pioneer plants and the creaturesthat dependon them is unknown. The extent of the detrimentaleffect on the compositionof later seralherbaceous communities is, for the most part, alsounknown. However, thereare someexamples of specieswhich alter succession. Gorse and scotchbroom are rwo speciesthat havedemonstrated an ability to changepatterns of succession.Both of thesespecies dominate disturbed sites and lorm densethickets which exclude other speciesfrom becomingestablished. Both containhighly flammable oils, arevery fire prone, and burn intensely.The plantsproduce copious amounts of seedthat can lay dormantin the soil for decades,then sprout quickly after fire, producingyet anotherbrush field and precludingthe establishmentof timber producingspecies. What we do know is that besidesoccupying disturbed sites, non-natives are alsoaffecting communitystructure in uniquehabitats, although exact species are unknown. In sometueas (such as dry meadows)these species have filled a greatdeal of habitatonce occupiedby natives. Srudieson the WillametteNational Forest indicate that uniquehabitats harbor up to 85 percent (Chambers1988) of the plant diversityon that forest. Fieldwork done in the JacksonCreek watershedon the Tiller RangerDistrict in 1994indicates this percentagemay be equallyhigh for the UmpquaNational Forest. Impactto individualspecies and to communitystructure as a whole is a matterof concern. In additioq field work in JacksonCreek demonstrated that bunchgrass meadowshave been particularly damaged. This was attributedto intensivedisturbance and introductionof non-nativeplants resulting from grazing. No fieldwork or botanicalassessment hasbeen done for uniquehabitat in the Little River watershed.Since grazing history indicates that use in Little fuver hasbeen intense, it is assumedthat impactshave been similar and bunchgrasscommunities, in particular,may be at risk. Impact to the process of pollination Besidesthe plant speciesimmediately replaced by non-nativeinvasion, the most higl,ly affected speciesmay be insectsinvolved in pollination. Native specieshave established varied and particularrelationships with nativepollinators. The decreasein plant diversitycaused by non- nativeencroachment can causedisplacement or lossof pollinators. Orchidsmay be particularlyat Tenestrial- 57 rish sincethey often are dependenton a single pollinator. Disturbanceof such relationshipscould teadto extinctionof both species(Boyd 1994). Impacts towildlife In additionto affectingpollinators, the replacementof nativespecies by non-nativesaffects both the structure and food production provided to wildlife by native species. Thesechanges are not necessarilyall bad. [trmalayanblackberry, provides extensive habitat and food for certain species. The net loss or gain to wildlife in the Little fuver watershedhas not beenascertaine4 but has potentialto be negative. Another speciesthat hasthe potentialto impactwildlife is purpleloosestrife, which rapidly colonizeswet areasthrough both seeddispersal and rooting stems. If forms densethickets, crowding out most native plantsand animals. Purple loosestrifedoes not provide food, nesting structure,or usefulcover for wildlife, displacesmany species, and disrupts the ecological functionsof the areait invades. Impacts to rare plorts Non-native plants impact rare plant speciesin three ways: l) by causingphysical displacement, 2) loss of nutrient availability and changesin other environmentalparameters such as water, light, and temperature,and 3) intemrptionof crucialrelationships with other natives. The extent of this rype of disturbanceto populationsof rare plantsis not known. In Little River, the clustered lady's slipper(pollinator unknown) may be at risk due to intemrptionof pollinatorrelationships. Extensiveunoccupied habitat exists for the plant and it is possiblethat a connectionbetween non- nativeinvasion, pollinators and the limited occurrenceof the plantexists. The chatter-box orchid (Epipactis gtgantea) occurs in the splashzone along larger fast moving streamsuch as Little River. Although the speciesis not given specialstatus and its pollinator is unknowr\ it is at the northern edge of its rangeand has a limited distribution in the watershed. Field observationsalong the North Umpqua River indicatethat the habitat for the plant is being encroachedupon by birdsfoottrefoil and meadowknapwee4 both aggressivenon-natives that were introducedby the ForestService in the early 1960sto control soil erosion. Both habitatand pollinatormay be at risk. Although no field work hasbeen conducted in Little River, the situation is likely to be the same. Neither the exactnature of the damageto rare plantsresulting from the presenceof non-native plant speciesin Little River Watershednor its extentis known. Basedon observedsituations, it is reasonableto :rssumethe trend hasbeen negative. Tenestrial- 58 RestorativeActions Legal mandatesare provided to deal with noxious weeds (Appendix G). Policy on public lands toward thesespecies is consistentwith Stateregulations. The RoseburgBLM Distria has in place an Integrated Weed Control Plan that addressesiszues and control efforts. The Umpqua National Forest has madenote of the needfor a similar document. Until it can be completedthe Forest has issueda list of noxious speciesof concernand provided direction to help preventthe introductionand establishmentof new infestations. At the Regional level, the Forest Serviceand BLM have a Memorandum of Understandingwith the Oregon Departmentof Agriculture (ODA) to work jointly to prevent the spreadof noxious weeds. For further descriptionsof pertinentdocuments and public law seeAppendix G. By far the simplestand least expensivemeans of control is prevention. One aspectof this is educationof the public and agencypersonnel on how to identify and avoid spreadingweeds. The other aspectis simply not engagingin soil disturbing activities. In addition, the interior of large, intact forest standsare the most likely areasto have resistednon-native invasionand may harbor functioning systemsnot yet identified and long sincelost elsewhere. Retention of these communitiesis importani. Integrated weed managementincludes planning, inventory control (including mechanical,manual, chemical,and biological), preventiorl educatioq coordination, and monitoring/research.See AppendixG for more details. Revegetationefforts Past and current revegetationefforts havebeen aimed at controlling erosion on siteswhere soil has been disturbedby heavy equipmentuse and/or that have been burned over by fue. Need for this kind of effort continues. However, aggressivespecies that are not native to the areawere used in past revegetationefforts. While the immediatebenefit of stabilizingthe soil is obvious, no long term monitoring has been conductedto determinethe effects of the spreadingof these speciesor the potential for alterationof the natural successionalprocesses. Large scalegrass plantings following wildfire may reducecoverage of native forbs and grasses,may out compete trees planted during reforestationefforts, and may produce future fue hazardsby creatinglarge areasof fine, flashy fuels (grass). Planting of herbaceousvegetation has also beenundertaken for big game forage production. As long as large populationsof elk are desiredin the forested areasof Little River, this will continue to be a need. There are native speciescapable of filling this need. Using native speciesas a meansof preventingweed encroachmentis alsoa concern. PastForest Servicerevegetation efforts included aggressivespecies because of their ability to aggressivelycolonize and dominatea site (Table l5). As a matter of Forest Servicemanagement policy, all sites disturbedby managementactivity that could causesediment to reach the streamsare plantedwith erosion Tenestrial- 59 control seed mixes. Planting is also undertaken to prevent colonization of sites by highly aggressive and less desirable non-native species. Table 15. Non-native speciesused in past forage and erosion control plantings on lands administered by the Forest Service. COmmOnrName.:.r'. alta fescue Fesfuca arntndinaceae annualrye Lolium multiflontm birdsfoottrefoil Lotus cornianlatus colonial bentgrass Asostis temtis meadow knapweed Centaarea pratensis New Zealandwhite clover Trifolium repens orchard grass Dactylus glomerata perennialrye Lolium perene subclover Trifolium s'ubtenorcum timothv Phleum pratensis Potential species to usefor revegetation Revegetationefforts on Forest Servicemanaged lands have been successfulusing non-native speciesand havefocused on erosion control (including after fires) and big game forage. Hot dry sites are particulady difficult to revegetate. Native speciesthat are most appropriateto use on theseharsh sites are listed in Appendix G. Experimental nursery propagationof a limited number of thesespecies have taken place with zuccessfulresults. On-site trials have not yet taken place and the most practical speciesto use has not been determined. In general,legumes and grassesiue conunonly used for revegetationefforts. 'Legumes are important nitrogen fixers and the added nitrogen to a site can help other plants becomeestablished (Appendix G). The Tiller RangerDistrict is currently experimentingwith someof these speciesin road decommissioningprojects and their findings will be applicableto the Little River watershed. Grasses,while commonly used, may not respond on a site as well as other non-grassnative species. However, somenative grassesare appropriate for erosion control efforts and may also be useful in providing elk forage. Speciesthat have the potential to be useful for revegetation Terrestrial- 60 efforts and that commonly occur throughout the area include blue wild rye, Caiifornia fescue, California oatgrass,California oatgrass,Columbia brome (Bromus wlguis), and Letterman's needlegrass. Determinationof which speciesare nativeto wetlandsin the Little River watershedhas not yet beenmade. However, speciesthat would be appropriatefor revegetationinclude cattail, small- fruit bullrusiLinflated sedge, slough sedge, coltsfoot, and severalother speciesincluding slough sedge,cornmon rush, and dagger-leafrush. On siteswhere adequatesoil moistureis available,salal, thimbleberry, beargrass, and trailing blackberryall may be worthy of particularattention for development. Specificareas to revegetateon ForestService and BLM landsare listedin AppendixG. Opportunitiesexist to createseed beds on areaswhere roadswill be decommissioned. ChangesIn Wildlife Habitat Wildlife habitatis constantlyin a stateof change. In any one are4 habitatconditions change over time as disturbancesand naturalsuccession take place. Habitat for one speciesincreases as it decreasesfor anotherspecies. Thus the cyclic natureof increasingand decreasingpopulations in a given areathrough time. For this analysis,changes in habitatconditions for wildlife were quantifiedat a broad scale,based on landscapepatterns of threeseral conditions (early, mid and late). Cunent habitatconditions were comparedto a historicalrange of conditionsto show today's patternsin relationshipto the naturalcycle. Th.is"reference range" consists of landscapepattern conditions at tu/o separate times,covering a period of about 60-70 yearsfrom the late 1800sto the late 1930s. The 1930s mappingrepresents a point in time where late seralwas probablyclose to the peakin its cycle. The late 1800smapping was an attemptto depictlandscape patterns which would resultfrom a climaticevent leading to severefire conditionsthat undoubtablyoccurred at timesover the centuries. The late 1930smapping was developedthrough photo interpretationof aerialphotographs taken in 1946of the Little fuver watershed.From thesephotos we wereable to accuratelymap landscapepatterns for 1946. However, the desirewas to createa rangeof "natural" landscape patternsfor this watershed,therefore, clearcuts and other managedareas from the 1946mapping were convertedto matchtheir adjacentseral conditions (usually late seral)and a map of seral conditionsfor the late 1930s(which predatedthe adventof intensivetimber managementin this watershed)was created. The late seralof this map representsmature conifer and old-growth,the mid seralrepresents smaller/younger conifer regenerating in are:tsthat experiencedstand replacementfires in the late 1800sand the earlyseral represents stand replacement fires of the late 1930sand natural openings such as meadows and rock outcrops. Tenestrial- 6l The mappingof conditionsfor the late 1800swas doneby revertingthe mid seralmapped from the 1946photos into early seral. To depia mid seral,we assumedthat areaswith steepslopes in the drylwarrq moist/warmand wet-dry/wuumland units probablyexperienced a higherfrequency of standreplacement fires and mappedthem as such. The naturalopenings from the late 1930s were retainedin the late 1800smapping. Figures t4-16 depictthe seralconditions over time. With thesetwo mappingsof the landscapewe developeda "referencerange" for landscape patternsto show how they changedthrough time prior to intensivetimber management. The late 1930smapping is highly accurate,the late 1800smapping is lessaccurate as it may over-estimate the amountof early and mid seral,but representsconditions which would probablyoccur during a severefire season.Each of the following measuresand indicesof wildlife habitatis discussedin termsof the referenceand currentcondition LandscapePatterns and SeralConditions A landscapeis the sum of everythingthat hashappened to an areaover time. It is not static,but ever changingas its surroundingenvironment changes. Environmental changes can occur slowly, suchas global climatic changes, or they may happenquickly as in a forest fire, flood or the introductionof new plant or animalspecies. The processesthat shape(or change)the landscapeare many. They includephysical, biological and chemicalprocesses that are relatedto surroundingenvironmental conditions. They vary in size,rate of spreadand intensity,such as the slow decompositionand breakdownof organic matterinto soil, the conversionof sunlightinto organicmaterial (photosynthesis) or the rapid consumptionof organicmatter in an intenseforest fire. Processesare basicallyenerg:y flows tkoughout the landscape.They add to, subtractfronl or moveenergy around within the local ecosystem.The landscapeis, essentially,a record of all the processesthat haveoccurred up to that pointin time. Terrestrial- 62 E-. a ltt. 0.) E?F 5 all ()co 'daa J A! e fi r=il: NffiT ve o (-.,! l-l . +)tri ofi r-a !J 1-.t t-l c a U 6 A oo c)Lr V) 0) d c.)J O -1 F{ C) $-{ ,'92 a) ^/ li I -f, C) t< bo ft Tenestrial- 63 t" c) E?? bo ,t c.) 3E I EE3;-t: NffiT v= a (- cl-l ofi +r o gr{ 't t1 l-{ c a O n ca d o\ c.)$-r a C) C) J O - c)l-i $-{ ,9 c.) f\/. (n C) Lr bo IT Terrestrial- 64 t- x llt- C) (-)bo I $s!;-1. NHT [. 4-e a - l-l .Fl {-) . t-{ € C1 F( U -'l \n d $-r o\ () o\ (t) {-) |-{ () FH ) U I \o 0) t< bo (r Landscapepatterns are the visibleattributes of a landscape.Easily seen attributes, such as the vegetatioqare the most obvious patterns. For this analysisof wildlife habitat,two basic landscapepatterns were used. Thesepatterns were delineatedby seralconditions (which were basedon tree sizeand distributionor the lack thereof). Landscapepatterns are definedas: MATRD( t : The dominantlandscape pattern or "fabric of the land". It usuallymakes up morethan 50 percentof the areaand is the most connectedelement. (*Not to bc confuscd with thc matrix allocation in thc Northwest Forcst Plan) PATCH: The basiclandscape unit. It can be a standof timber,a clearcutor meadow. Patchesare scatteredor clumped throughout the matrix and are not connected. The tkee seralstages that makeup theselandscape pattems are definedas follows: EARLY SERAL = Grass,shnrbs, forbs, rocky openings(openings in the forest canopy). MID SERAL = Young standsof trees from about 25 to 100 yearsof age (most with closedcanopies). This alsoincludes hardwood stands. LATE SERAL: Manrre standsof conifers and old-growth- Various index valueswere used to describeboth the matrix and patch componentswithin each of the sevenvicinities (seeAppendix E). Thesevalues rangedfrom what percent of a vicinity each patterntook up, to valuesthat correspondto patch shapeand overalllandscape diversity. The index valuesare describedbelow (and in further detail in Appendix E): percentInterior Habitat: Percentof the landscapethat containsinterior habitat. Interior habitat is definedas that habitat within a late seral standthat is greaterthan 600 feet from a high contrast edge (i.e. early/lateor grasylarge tree) and 150 feet from a low contrast edge (i.e. mid/late or small tree/largetree). FragmentationIndex = This index is a measureof the relativesize and placementof patches within the landscape.A landscapewith only a few large patcheshas a lower value than one with manysmall patches scattered throughout. Low valuesindicate a more contiguous,clumpy landscape.Flgher valuesindicate a more fragmented,patchy landscape. Low Fraprnentation F[gh Fragrnentation Tenestrial- 66 DiversityIndex : This indexrepresents the amountof landscapepattern diversity within the watershed.The higherthis valueis, the more diversea landscapeis or the higherthe numberof seralstages (or patches)and their distributionwithin the landscape.A landscapewith only one or two seralstages with low fragmentationwill havea lower diversityindex value. F[gh Diversty Low Diversity The watershed'scurrent seral conditions are outside of the referencerange conditions. The largestdeviation is seenin the amountof late seralwhich hasdecreased by asmuch as 40 percent to 50 percentfrom recenthistorical pre-timber management levels. Mid seralhas increased by as muchas 25 percentto 28 percentand early seralhas increased by 9 percentto 25 percent.Two vicinitieswithin the watershed,BlacVClover and Emile,have naturally lower amountsof late seralhabitat and more earlyto mid seral. This is due to the landunit characteristicsthat dominate thesevicinities (Western Cascade's drylwarm and moist/warm)and the steepertopography within them. Becauseof this,landscape pattern conditions within these vicinities are closer to their referenceranges. Seralstage conditions fluctuated between the late I 800sand I 930s valuesshown in Figure I 7. Thesevalues compare relatively closely with the findingsof the RegionalEcological Assessment Report(REAP) of 1993. The rangeof early and mid seralforests fluctuated berween 17 percent to 34 percent,where asREAP's estimationwas l0 percentto 42 percent.Late seralhabitat rangedfrom 69 percentto 80 percent,whereas REAP's estimationwas from 48 percentto 76 percent. @eferencevalues used by REAP were for the entireUmpqua National Forest). Terrestrial- 67 ed 160 a o F Ero o 20 Eerly 6rnl Mld 8or.l L.t 6.r.l I Lab laoor E L.t r93o. m Todry(r9g5) Figure 17. Seralstages within the Little River wttershed as found in the late 1800s,the late 1930s,and today(1995)" As a resultof intensivetimber management,there has been a shift in the compositionof seral stagesover the landscape.Late seralforests are now patches,whereas historically they were the matrix. The matrix is dominatedby mid seralforests. One of the major changes,and one that hasserious ecological implications, is the spatialshift of late seralhabitat within the landscape.During the referenceperiod, late seralhabitat fell mostly within the gentleto moderateslopes of all landunits. Within the moist/coolland unit, late seral was dominant,regardless of slope;the resultof the historicfire regime. Today, most of the remaininglate seralhabitat occurs within the moderateto steepslopes of the drylwarm land unit or in placesthat naturallyburned hot and frequently. This puts the remaininglate seralhabitat at highrisk of beingburned. The majorityof remainingmature conifer (82 percent)and old-growth (72 percent)is within land units(Figure l8) that havethe highestrisks of catastrophicfire. Terrestrial- 68 Ol4crc^^/tl WeslemCacades I DryANrm ffi McistA/V*m tt MoisUCool Wet-OryM/rm U m Figure 18. Current percentageof mature and old-growth coniferousforest in eachland unit within the WesternCascades province of the Little River watershed Stntcture Conditions Landscapepatterns of seralstages give us a coarseview of a watershed.Within the matrix and patches,however, there are finer differencesin structureand speciescomposition, depending on differencesin soils,microclimate (moisture/temperarure), geology and topography(represented by the landunit type). The currentlandscape was dividedinto six structurestages similar to thosedescribed by Brown (1985). Table l6 andFigure l9 showhow thesestructure stages fit into seralstages. Existing vegetationmapping of naruraland managedstands was usedto developthis structuredivision basedon standage and moisrure/temperatureconditions (see Table 4 of AppendixC). Tenestrial- 69 rl **PPE l-v< ?(tt ci roEo PE AF c;: q,) .v -o ttr za U' L< ggFg bE o EgFg tr (t). . c)k at, o (l) C) c.) 9o? bo oo oo o !!tr Sd rr r-d (l)d xc) c)1< >4 (.t O) d 6 Xr. c) >.o *< oo t; oq o=L XaO q.).E oo 6b q >ri q) O oo! ooE 9€ ct D .- C) Q,)tr ;< =.t a '5 eE: 0) -v c) ::, tr r&E +i= 'A:ry Fo. , al, 'o .eo i ' bl) .h z B D 0.) o0 q q) ro) q) a.) -o ! o q) .r. =Fi u *t CI cg o = = J J ctt q c) #* q.) (J 'o C) 6 a oo a q) C) o