DOCSLIB.ORG

Lower Middle Fork Willamette River Watershed Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lower Middle Fork Willamette River Watershed Assessment Lower Middle Fork Willamette River Watershed Assessment August 2002 Prepared for: The Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Council Watershed Assessment Team • John Runyon, BioSystems: Project Management and Introduction • Tim Grubert, BioSystems: Sediment Sources • Jenny Allen, BioSystems: Document Preparation • Jim Reed, Consultant: GIS and map production • Val Rogers, Council Contractor: Hydrology, Riparian Habitat Conditions, and Water Quality • Kim Mattson, Ecosystems Northwest: Aquatic Habitat and Fish Populations, and Wetlands Lower Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Assessment Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 THE WATERSHED ASSESSMENT AREA...............................................................................1 1.2 LANDFORMS AND GEOLOGY .............................................................................................2 1.3 LAND OWNERSHIP AND USES ...........................................................................................6 1.4 WATERSHED ASSESSMENT APPROACH .............................................................................9 1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE DOCUMENT .................................................................................9 2.0 HYDROLOGY.......................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................10 2.2 METHODS AND KEY QUESTIONS.....................................................................................10 2.3 RESULTS .........................................................................................................................10 2.4 RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................29 3.0 RIPARIAN HABITAT CONDITIONS .................................................................................. 31 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................31 3.2 METHODS AND KEY QUESTIONS .....................................................................................31 3.3 RESULTS .........................................................................................................................36 3.4 RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................50 4.0 AQUATIC HABITAT AND FISH POPULATIONS ............................................................ 51 4.1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................51 4.2 METHODS AND KEY QUESTIONS.....................................................................................51 4.3 RESULTS .........................................................................................................................51 4.4 RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................71 5.0 WETLAND HABITAT CONDITIONS ................................................................................. 74 5.1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................74 5.2 METHODS AND KEY QUESTIONS .....................................................................................74 5.3 RESULTS .........................................................................................................................75 5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................84 6.0 WATER QUALITY.................................................................................................................. 86 6.1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................86 6.2 METHODS AND KEY QUESTIONS..............................................................................86 6.3 RESULTS .........................................................................................................................87 6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................................119 7.0 SEDIMENT SOURCES ......................................................................................................... 121 7.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................121 7.2 METHODS AND KEY QUESTIONS ...................................................................................121 7.3 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................121 7.4 RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................................136 8.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 138 9.0 APPENDICES TO THE FISHERIES REPORT................................................................. 141 Page ii Lower Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Assessment 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this assessment is to characterize current watershed conditions in the Lower Middle Fork of the Willamette River and surrounding watersheds (Assessment Area). Information from the assessment is used to evaluate opportunities for improvements in watershed conditions, particularly the fish habitat and water quality. The assessment will aid the Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Council in identifying opportunites and priorities for watershed restoration projects. 1.1 THE WATERSHED ASSESSMENT AREA The watershed assessment focuses on the Lower Middle Fork Willamette River below Dexter Dam and the associated tributary watersheds of Hills, Little Fall, and Lost Creeks (Figure 1-1). The total assessment area encompasses 108,026 acres, a little over 12% of the entire 865,920 acre Middle Fork Willamette River Basin (Figure 1-2). For the the Assessment Area is divided into three watersheds: • The Lower Middle Fork Willamette Watershed. The watershed encompasses the river from the mouth of Lost Creek to the confluence with the Coast Fork, including Hills Creek, all other tributary streams and surrounding upland areas. For the riparian and fisheries portions of this report, the assessment area is extended at the base of Dexter Dam to include the channel and floodplain area along the river. • Little Fall Creek Watershed. The watershed includes the creek to its confluence with Fall Creek and all tributary streams and surrounding upland areas. • Lost Creek Watershed. The watershed includes the creek to its confluence with the Middle Fork of the Willamette River and all tributary streams and surrounding upland areas. The three watersheds in the Assessment Area are very similar in size, but they differ significantly in average elevation and precipitation (Table 1-1). The Lower Middle Fork Willamette watershed has both the lowest mean elevation and mean precipitation of the three, while the Little Fall Creek watershed has the highest values. Lost Creek and Little Fall Creek are similar to each other in terms of minimum and maximum elevations, but their mean values for elevation and precipitation are rather different. Table 1-1. General watershed characteristics of the three watersheds in the Assessment Area. Area Mean Minimum Maximum Mean Annual Watershed (Acres) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) Precipitation (in) Lower MFW 36,006 800 446 2710 49 Little Fall Creek 37,402 1989 616 4227 66 Lost Creek 34,618 1673 600 4243 55 Total 108,026 Page 1 Lower Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Assessment Figure 1-1. Watershed assessment area with the three watersheds: Lower Middle Fork of the Willamette, Little Fall Creek, and Lost Creek. 1.2 LANDFORMS AND GEOLOGY The Assessment Area is located primarily in the older, more deeply eroded Western Cascades portion of the Cascade Mountain physiographic province. This V-shaped region is bounded on the east by the younger, snow covered peaks of the High Cascades region of the province and on the west by the Willamette Valley. Page 2 Lower Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Assessment Figure 1-2. This map depicts all of the 5th-field watersheds comprising the Middle Fork Willamette River Basin (865,920 acres). The Assessment Area covers the lower three 5th- field waterheds -- Lower Middle Fork, Little Fall Creek, and Lost Creek – for a total of 108,026 acres, a little over 12% of the entire Basin. Page 3 Lower Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Assessment Geomorphic characteristics throughout much of the Assessment Area include the steep ridges, narrow valleys, and volcanic soils which typify the western slope of the Cascades. Figure 1-3 is a geologic map of the Assessment Area. Refer to table 1-2 for a description of the geologic map units. Past episodes of glaciation and active stream erosion have created a highly dissected landscape characterized by steep, high gradient stream reaches in the upper portions of the Assessment Area and low gradient stream reaches in the lower portions (Orr et al, 1992). Figure 1-3. Geology of the Assessment Area. Page 4 Lower Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Assessment Table 1-2. Description of Geologic Map Units (Walker
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mckenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Table of Contents
    McKenzie River, ca. 1944 McKenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Report February 2000 McKenzie River, ca. 2000 McKenzie River, ca. 2000 Prepared for the McKenzie Watershed Council Prepared By: Alsea Geospatial, Inc. Hardin-Davis, Inc. Pacific Wildlife Research, Inc. WaterWork Consulting McKenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Table of Contents High Priority Action Items for Conservation, Restoration, and Monitoring 1 The McKenzie River Watershed: Introduction 8 I. Watershed Overview 9 II. Aquatic Ecosystem Issues & Findings 17 Recommendations 29 III. Fish Populations Issues & Findings 31 Recommendations 37 IV. Wildlife Species and Habitats of Concern Issues & Findings 38 Recommendations 47 V. Putting the Assessment to work 50 Juvenile Chinook Habitat Modeling 51 Juvenile Chinook Salmon Habitat Results 54 VI. References 59 VII. Glossary of Terms 61 The McKenzie River Subbasin Assessment was funded by grants from the Bonneville Power Administration and the U.S. Forest Service. High Priority Action Items for Conservation, Restoration, and Monitoring Our analysis indicates that aquatic and wildlife habitat in the McKenzie River subbasin is relatively good yet habitat quality falls short of historical conditions. High quality habitat currently exists at many locations along the McKenzie River. This assessment concluded, however, that the river’s current condition, combined with existing management and regulations, does not ensure conservation or restoration of high quality habitat in the long term. Significant short-term improvements in aquatic and wildlife habitat are not likely to happen through regulatory action. Current regulations rarely address remedies for past actions. Furthermore, regulations and the necessary enforcement can fall short of attaining conservation goals. Regulations are most effective in ensuring that habitat quality trends improve over the long period.
    [Show full text]
  • Lost Creek Watershed Analysis Table 18
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1 1.0 CHARACTERIZATION - STEP 1 ................................ 3 1.1 Human Use Characteristics ........................................ 3 1.2 Physical Characteristics ........................................... 6 1.3 Biological Characteristics ......................................... 9 2.0 ISSUES AND KEY QUESTIONS - STEP 2 ........................ 13 2.1 Human Uses 13 2.1.1 Recreation Uses/Access ................................... 13 2.1.2 Community Values/Aesthetics .............................. 14 2.1.3 Commodity Production .................................... 14 2.1.4 Miscellaneous Forest Products .............................. 14 2.2 Water Quantity And Quality ...................................... 15 2.2.1 Water Quantity .......................................... 15 2.2.2 Water Quality ........................................... 15 2.2.3 Soils and Erosion Processes ................................ 15 2.2.4 Road-related Sedimentation ................................ 15 2.3 Habitat Diversity ............................................... 16 2.3.1 Vegetation .............................................. 16 2.3.2 Forest Fragmentation ..................................... 16 2.3.3 Rare plants .............................................. 16 2.3.4 Noxious Weeds .......................................... 16 2.4 Terrestrial Wildlife ............................................. 16 2.4.1 Spotted Owl Habitat .....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Covered Bridges Built in the Last Two Decades for Private Use
    Cedar Crossing Bridge - Photos by: Bill Cockrell Although not a true covered bridge as no truss is used for support, Cedar Crossing represents Oregon's commitment to a history rich in covered bridge lore. Don Clark, former Multnomah County Executive, lobbied for the county to build a covered span. He suggested that the bridge "be over a stream where the foliage is thick and turns to shades of yellow and orange in the autumn and children can peer out windows to see the waters below." One of Clark's ancestors, who had settled in Multnomah County, helped to promote a bridge across the Willamette. The location for the roofed bridge was found when engineers decided to replace the narrow, deteriorating wooden truss bridge crossing Johnson Creek in southeast Portland. Work to demolish the old bridge began in November 1981, and soon after, workers cut the stone abutments to accommodate the greater width of the new bridge. The installation of the decking, siding, and roofing was completed within two months. The span was dedicated in January 1982. After the ribbon cutting was completed and the commemorative plaque unveiled, a parade of vintage cars, horse-drawn buggies and wagons opened the span to public use. Although the day was cold and wet, the ceremony was far from dampened as Clark quipped, "If you ever wonder why they put covers on bridges, this weather will tell you." The interior of the bridge is finished with knotty pine, and a five-foot walkway separates the pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the 24-foot roadway.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resource Overview of the \Villamette National Forest Western Oregon Rick Minor and Audrey Frances Pecor
    Cultural Resource Overview of the \Villamette National Forest Western Oregon Rick Minor and Audrey Frances Pecor University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 121977 CULTURAL RESOURCE OVERVIEW OF THE WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST, WESTERN OREGON BY RICK MINOR AND AUDREY FRANCES PECOR UNIVERSITY OF OREGON ANTHROPOLOGICAL PAPERS NO. 12 1977 CULTIJRAL RESOURCE OVERVIEW OF THE WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST, WESTENN ORECON by Rick Minor and Audrey Frances Pecor Uniwersity of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 12 1977 Errata Page 16, paragraph 4, line 9,Read "North Santiain," rather than "South Santiam." Page 17, paragraph 3,This is misleading.Although a section of the western portion of the Oregon Central Military Wagon Road became part of the Willamette Pass highway, the Wagon Road itself crossed the Cascades at Eintnigrant Pass. Page 11, paragraph 4, line 3,Change to read ",. most important one has probably been that which was formerly located at McKenzie Bridge. Page 18, paragraph 4, line 4.Read "aite 31" rather than "site 32." Page 20, last paragraph, line 2.Read "Leo Paschelke" rather than "Las Paschelke." Page 28, paragraph 2, line 1.Read "Another hot springs..," rather than tA more recently developed hot springs, Page 33, Figure 3.Site 11 is misiocatedit should be placed 4 tijiles south and 2 miles weSt of the location shown,Site 12 is mislocated; it should be placed approximately 6 miles east and tmiles south of the position shown, Page 54.Caption for Figo 20 should reflect that the photograph was furnished by S. hear. Page 70-li, Table 4.dorrect as follows Site Nooi Map Reference North Santiam Mining tistrict Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Cascades Birding Trail
    OREGON Cascades BIRDING TRAIL Primary Oregon Cascades Birding Trail Sponsors National Forest Foundation American Bird Conservancy Leupold East Cascade Bird Conservancy www.oregonbirdingtrails.org GLOSSARY Alpine – treeless region of high mountains, often referred to as tundra Oregon Cascades Birding Trail Bog – permanent wetland with peat as its base rather than soil If you like to watch birds you are part of the fastest growing outdoor recreational activity in the United States. The Clear-cut – area where the entire stand of trees was Oregon Cascades Birding Trail was created for people just like you! With nearly 200 sites along more than 1,000 removed in one cutting miles of scenic roadways, the Oregon Cascades Birding Trail offers outdoor adventure for birders of all skill and Conifer Forest – also called mixed conifer interest levels. From the snow-capped summit of Mt. Hood to the marshlands of the Klamath Basin, well over forest; containing any or all of the following: pine, 300 species of birds have occurred in the Oregon Cascades. fir, spruce, hemlock, Douglas-fir, cedar, yew, or larch; often bordered by subalpine above and pine or riparian This guide is your travel companion to explore the Oregon Cascades Birding Trail. Whether you live in Oregon or forest below. are visiting from out of state, the Oregon Cascades Birding Trail provides you the best opportunities for enjoying the birds and the beauty of the Cascade Mountains. For more information on the Oregon Cascades Birding Trail Developed Areas – towns, ranches, parks Welcomevisit our web site: www.oregonbirdingtrails.org. to... Marsh – ecosystem of more or less continuously waterlogged soil dominated by rushes, reeds, As you search for birds in the Cascades, explore the alpine meadows, picturesque lakes, mountain streams, cattails, and sedges, but without peat accumulation and dense conifer forests showcasing some of the largest trees on earth.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 10/01/2017 to 12/31/2017 Willamette National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 10/01/2017 to 12/31/2017 Willamette National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact R6 - Pacific Northwest Region, Occurring in more than one Forest (excluding Regionwide) Central Cascades Wilderness - Recreation management In Progress: Expected:08/2018 06/2019 Beth Peer Strategies 2017 Scoping Start 06/01/2017 541-383-4761 EA Est. Comment Period Public [email protected] Notice 02/2018 Description: The Deschutes and Willamette National Forests are considering visitor use management strategies for five wilderness areas in the central Cascades in order to reduce resource impacts and negative effects to wilderness character due to high use. Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=50578 Location: UNIT - Bend/Fort Rock Ranger District, Sisters Ranger District, Middle Fork Ranger District, Detroit Ranger District, McKenzie River Ranger District. STATE - Oregon. COUNTY - Deschutes, Jefferson, Klamath, Lane, Linn. LEGAL - Not Applicable. Project addresses five Central Cascades Wildernesses. Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, Three Sisters, Waldo Lake, and Diamond Peak. Willamette National Forest Detroit Ranger District (excluding Projects occurring in more than one District) R6 - Pacific Northwest Region 2017 Young Stand Density - Vegetation management In Progress: Expected:11/2017 08/2018 Sue Crowder Management (other than forest products) Scoping Start 04/07/2017 503-854-4364 CE [email protected] *UPDATED* Description: Reduce stocking on approximately 4800 acres, district wide, in overstocked stands less than 40 years old by thinning.
    [Show full text]
  • History of the Willamette National Forest
    HISTORY OF THE WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST By Lawrence and Mary Rakestraw 1991 USDA - Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION The Willamette National Forest - A Personal Perspective Description of the Willamette National Forest Vicinity Map Willamette National Forest Map History of the Willamette National Forest Table of Contents CHAPTER I - BEGINNINGS 1891-1897 Early Forest Reserve Proposal in 1889 Forest Reserve Act of 1891 Cascade Range Forest Reserve, 1893-1897 Coville Report on Grazing Notes - Chapter I Chronological Summary, 1891-1897 CHAPTER II - EVOLUTION TO PROFESSIONAL LANDMANAGEMENT, 1898-1905 U.S. Geological Survey Report on the Cascade Range Forest Reserve Forest Reserve Administration by the General Land Office General Land Office Forest Rangers Notes - Chapter II Chronological Summary, 1898-1905 CHAPTER III - TAMING A WILD FOREST: 1905-1933 Introduction Administration Lands The Timber and Stone Act Mining Claims Wagon Road Grants and School Lands Agricultural Lands, Homesteaders, and Squatters Lieu Lands and Land Fraud The Oregon Land Fraud Cases Grazing Wildlife Developments Recreation Amenity Values Research Fire Control Timber Sales Notes - Chapter III Chronological Summary, 1905-1933 CHAPTER IV: DEPRESSION AND WAR, 1933-1945 Introduction Administration Timber Sales Subsistence Homesteads Wildlife and Grazing Recreation, Amenity Values, Developments Relief Work—The Civilian Conservation Corps World War II Notes - Chapter IV Chronological Summary, 1933-1944 CHAPTER V: ERA OF INTENSIVE FORESTRY,
    [Show full text]
  • Mckenzie Pass-Santhun Passnational Forest Scenic Byway
    Mzrngement Strategy McKenzie Pass-Santhun PassNational Forest Scenic Byway Sisters Riger District Deschutes National Forest McKenzie Ranger District Wifiamette National Forest Pacific Northwest Region Minigement Strategy McKenzie Pass - Santiam PassNational Forest Scenic Byway Sisters Ranger District Deschutes National Forest McKenzie Ranger District Willamette National Forest Pacific Northwest Region MCKENZIE PASS - SANTIAM PASS SCENIC BYWAY TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page Introduction I-i Purpose and Need 1-2 Relationship to Forest Plans and other Documents 1-3 Document Organization and Structure 1-3 Seethe Byway Route Description 1-4 Management Situation 11-1 Introduction 11-2 Natural Resources 11-2 Cultural Resources 11-4 Administration and Management 11-6 Forest Plan Direction 11-7 Public Comment and Participation 11-8 ifi. Scenic Byway Management Strategy 111-1 Introduction ffl-2 Scenic Byway Program Goals 111-2 Desired Future Condition ffl-3 Management Strater Elements ffl-3 Byway Entry Portals ffl-4 Scenic Quality 111.7 Interpretation ifi- 11 Recreation ifi. 15 Signing and Design Guidelines ffl-19 Public Safety, Services, and Sanitation ffl22 Transportation ffl-24 Iv. Strategy Implementation W-1 Introduction IV-2 Funding Sources IV-2 Partnerships W-2 Development Design Guidelines IV-3 Scheduling Priorities 1V-3 Public Participation IV-4 Marketing IV-4 MCKENZIE PASS - SANTIAM PASS SCENIC BYWAY Landownership Rights IV-4 Monitoring IV-5 References (NOT INCLUDED) V- List of Preparers and Participants(NOT INCLUDED) VI- Appeclices (NOT INCLUDED) VII- Appendix A: Nomination Report VII- Appendix B: Resource Topic Narratives VII- Appendix C: Partnerships - Working With Others VII- MCKENZIE PASS - SANTLAM PASS SCENIC BYWAY Chapter I Introduction I-i MCKENZIE PASS - SANTIAM PASS SCENIC BYWAY CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Willamette National Forest and Deschutes National Forest strive to provide the general public with a wide variety of recreational opportunities, particularly those not commonly available on adjacent private or public lands.
    [Show full text]
  • Interim Corridor Strategy Highway 126 East
    Interim Corridor Strategy Highway 126 East Interstate 5 to Oregon High way 22 at Santiam Junction May 1998 Oregon Department of Transportation c ,%i?Ete street 7r Sialern, Oregon 973 10 Interim Corridor Strategy Highway 126 East Interstate 5 to Oregon Highway 22 at Santiam Junction Prepared far: Oregon Department of Transportation 7 E:Eite street Salem, Oregon 973 10 (54 1) 726-2509 Prepared by: wgog Lane Council of Governments 125 East Eighth Avenue Eugene, Oregon 9740 1 (54 1) 682-4283 May 1998 Table of Contents Executive Summary What is Corridor Planning and Why is it Being Done? Corridor Overview Major Issues Interim Corridor Strategy Next Steps Chapter 1: Overview of Corridor Planning lntroduction Corridor Planning Description and Purpose Corridor Planning Requirements Corridor Planning Process Corridor Planning Participants Chapter 2: Highway 126 East Corridor Overview lntroduction General Corridor Description Existing Plans and Studies Population and Employment Growth Tourism and Recreation-Related Travel Land Development Projections Chapter 3: Existing Conditions and Facilities lntroduction Highway System Railroads Air Service Public Transit and Inter-City Bus Service Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian Walkways Pipelines Environment Chapter 4: Future Conditions lntroduction Overview of Major Factors Impacting the Future of the Corridor Corridor Analysis Methodology Railroads Air Service Public Transit and Inter-City Bus Service Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian Walkways Highway 126 East Interim Corridor Strategy, May 1998 Chapter 5: Issues,
    [Show full text]
  • OREGON SCENIC BYWAYS & TOUR ROUTES Discover
    OREGON. WE LOVE DREAMERS.® Photo: Larry Andreasen S CENIC BYWAYS & T OUR R OUTES A DRIVING GUIDE Mt. Hood Steve Terrill 2 OREGON SCENIC BYWAYS DISCOVER Oregon S CENIC B YWAYS & T OUR R OUTES Oregon’s Scenic Byways offer a rich taste of all the grandeur and diversity the Pacific Northwest has to offer. Outstanding natural beauty and many sites of historical and cultural significance have earned Oregon more designated scenic byways and tour routes than any other state. On some Byways, you’ll drive from the high desert to snowcapped peaks to fertile valleys in a matter of just a few hours! There are the rugged rock formations of Hell’s Canyon, world famous Crater Lake, and mile after mile of breathtaking vistas along the Columbia Gorge and the Pacific coastline. Almost anywhere you turn, there’s a backdrop of mountains beckoning. You can stand in the spot where Lewis & Clark weathered out the cold, rainy winter of 1806 at Fort Clatsop, and view real ruts from the Oregon Trail near Baker City. All of these wonders are easily accessible from Oregon’s 26 scenic byways and tour routes. Each Byway description in this guide highlights natural, historical and cultural attractions along the route. Maps and information regarding availability of services, time needed to drive and enjoy each byway, and best times of year to travel are also included. The routes are categorized by their designation: All American Roads come first, fol- lowed by National Scenic Byways, State Scenic Byways and State Tour Routes. Routes are introduced in each category from the northwestern part of the state, and then move clockwise around the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4. Coastal Recovery Unit—Upper Willamette River Critical Habitat Unit
    Bull Trout Final Critical Habitat Justification: Rationale for Why Habitat is Essential, and Documentation of Occupancy Chapter 4. Coastal Recovery Unit—Upper Willamette River Critical Habitat Unit 217 Bull Trout Final Critical Habitat Justification Chapter 4 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service September 2010 Chapter 4. Upper Willamette River Critical Habitat Unit The Upper Willamette CHU is essential to bull trout conservation because it is the only CHU west of the Cascade Range in western Oregon, is among the farthest south and west populations in the range of the species, is a long distance via waterways to the next nearest populations, probably has been functionally isolated for a long time, and is genetically distinguishable. Bull trout were likely fluvial historically but now include several local populations that have adopted an adfluvial life history strategy due to the presence of impassable dams and large reservoirs. The one remaining fluvial local population is the mainstem McKenzie local population. Local populations in the McKenzie River are not robust and thus, the maintenance and recovery of this along with other local populations in the core area, and the reestablishment of bull trout in historical habitat elsewhere in and outside the core area, are likely required for long-term persistence. The four local populations in the McKenzie and Middle Fork Willamette rivers have been isolated from each other due to the construction and operation of impassable dams. Connecting each of these local populations is important for future connectivity and long-term persistence. Connectivity between local populations in the McKenzie River Subbasin is expected over the next decade due to fish passage modifications planned for Trail Bridge Dam (mainstem McKenzie River) and Cougar Dam (South Fork McKenzie River).
    [Show full text]
  • Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Headwaters to Confluence 10-Year Action Plan 2012
    ActionMiddle Fork Plan Willamette Watershed Headwaters to Confluence 10-Year Action Plan 2012 Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Headwaters to Confluence 10-Year Action Plan 2012 Acknowledgements This Action Plan is the result of a significant amount of input, guidance and review by many individuals, particularly Johan Hogervorst and the specialists of the Middle Fork Ranger District of the US Forest Service. This Action Plan was funded by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board and National Forest Foundation. It was also made possible by hundreds of volunteer hours. The Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Council wishes to thank the funding agencies that made this Plan possible as well as the dedicated specialists listed below. A number of professionals significantly improved the scope, quality, and analysis for this Plan. We wish to thank the following individuals for lending us their technical expertise and for their commitment to the ecologic and economic viability of the Middle Fork Willamette Watershed: Johan Hogervorst, Forest Hydrologist, USFS Bruce Campbell, Oregon Conservation Strategy, ODFW Dick Davis, Wildlife Biologist, USFS Chuck Davis, WQ specialist, Springfield Utility Board John Dixon, Watershed Scientist, USFS David Hulse, Landscape Architecture, University of Oregon Cary Hart, Sr Forester, Guistina Land & Timber Ernie Niemi, Economist, EcoNorthwest Wade Sims, Natural Resource Manager, USFS Wes Messinger, Lead Botanist, USACE Doug Larson, District Lead Aquatics, USFS Greg Taylor, Lead Fisheries Biologist, USACE Chris Hays,
    [Show full text]