DOCSLIB.ORG

Trask River Watershed Study October 2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Trask River Watershed Study October 2008 Effects of Contemporary Forest Harvest on Aquatic Ecosystems: Trask River Watershed Study October 2008 Study Summary The Trask Watershed Study is a multi-disciplinary, long-term research project designed to evaluate the impacts of current forest management practices on aquatic ecosystems. The study will utilize a whole watershed approach to compare onsite and downstream effects of forest harvest on public and private forestlands. Multiple headwater basins will be clearcut harvested; along the small non-fish bearing streams, forested riparian buffers will be retained on public land but not on private land. The investigations in the Trask River Watershed Study will comprehensively examine the mechanisms and processes that drive aquatic ecosystems. These mechanisms and processes include physical, chemical and biological responses to management and how those responses translate to downstream fish-bearing reaches. Field-collected data will be combined with process models to elucidate aquatic responses to forest management in headwaters and the manner and degree to which harvest in headwaters can influence downstream aquatic communities. The results from this experimental study will provide resource managers with expanded understanding of both direct and indirect effects of forest management on aquatic ecosystems. Table of contents Page Overview Introduction & Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 2 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Conceptual Design .................................................................................................................................... 4 Timelines ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Research Team & Organization ................................................................................................................ 7 Expected Outcomes .................................................................................................................................. 7 Study specifics Study site description ................................................................................................................................ 8 Forest harvest treatments ......................................................................................................................... 8 Research studies, questions, and hypotheses Abiotic Responses Discharge ............................................................................................................................................. 10 Suspended sediment and turbidity ...................................................................................................... 10 Nutrient concentrations and fluxes ...................................................................................................... 11 Stream temperature, shade and heat budgets .................................................................................... 11 Channel morphology and deposited sediment .................................................................................... 12 Biotic responses Detritus and in-stream wood ................................................................................................................ 12 Primary producers: Abundance and rates ........................................................................................... 13 Macroinvertebrates .............................................................................................................................. 14 Amphibians .......................................................................................................................................... 15 Fish……………………………………………………………………. ....................................................... 15 Broader understanding: Experiments, food webs and modeling of abiotic and biotic parameters ...... 16 Literature Cited .......................................................................................................................................... 17 Appendices - Additional studies and grants .......................................................................................... 20 Trask River Watershed Study 2 Overview Introduction & Objectives Experimental studies at a watershed scale have long played a role in the formulation and application of forest management techniques and regulations in the Pacific Northwest. Paired watershed studies have been implemented extensively on USFS Experimental Forests as a means of quantifying impacts of forest management on water quality and quantity and was instituted in Oregon in the early 1950’s with the watershed studies at the HJ Andrews Experimental Forest in the Cascade Mountains and the Alsea Watershed Study in the Coast Range. The Alsea and later Carnation Creek studies on Vancouver Island expanded the scope of pre- vs. post-, treatment vs. reference watershed study design to examine the impacts of timber harvest on fish. The understanding gained from prior studies has been incorporated into Federal and State watershed and forest management guidelines on both public and private lands. The presence of riparian buffers, the decline in broad-cast burning, and the retention of coarse wood in streams are among the practices influenced by these and other studies. The early studies of effects of forest management in the Pacific Northwest occurred during harvest of old growth conifer forests. Now, second growth forests are being harvested, stricter forest guidelines are in place and new questions occur about current best management practices. In response to these information needs, a new set of comparative watershed studies have begun in the Pacific Northwest. In Oregon, studies collaborating through the Watershed Research Cooperative (WRC; Figure 1) at Oregon State University are using comparable methods across sites to evaluate the Figure 1. Locations of studies collaborating in the effectiveness of the state forest practices Watershed Research Cooperative regulations at minimizing impacts of timber harvest to aquatic resources. These studies are designed by multi-disciplinary teams of scientists working in cooperation with private landowners and public agencies. The Oregon Forest Practices Act was the first in the United States to include provisions for the protection of water quality and fish habitat. Presently, regulations for harvest along small, perennial, non fish- bearing streams are less stringent than along fish bearing streams or streams designated for drinking water use. In addition, publicly owned forests may have more stringent regulations than private timberlands. Harvest in the Trask River Watershed Study will meet current management guidelines on state and private forests. It will involve clearcutting on upslopes with riparian buffers along small streams on state land and no buffers on private land. However in the watershed managed by BLM, upslope harvest will be thinning. Trask River Watershed Study 3 Figure 2. Trask River Watershed Study is being conducted in 4 basins. Planned harvest treatments include clearcut with no buffers, clearcut with buffers, thinning with buffers and no harvest. Downstream gage sites are locations of fish study reaches. Headwater study reaches are at the downstream point of delineated watershed. The Trask River Watershed Study will use multiple basins (Figure 2) to assess not only the onsite impacts of forest management on aquatic ecosystems in headwaters but also the possible effects to downstream reaches containing fish. Over the ten plus year duration of the study, the Trask group will examine a suite of abiotic and biotic processes and linkages among trophic levels, including discharge, primary and secondary production, water temperature, macroinvertebrate communities and fish populations and behavior. Pretreatment period will be used to gather baseline data and characterize variability as well as examine processes driving these food web dynamics. Researchers plan to implement smaller-scale experiments in both the field and the laboratory. Results from findings will be incorporated to models to explore landscape implications and processes influenced by forest management. The findings from this study will contribute to examinations of the effectiveness of current management practices on public and private forests, and will provide land managers with the tools and data to evaluate competing priorities in managing Oregon’s forests in the future. Background Forest harvest and associated activities, including road construction, can lead to changes in local terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems through biotic and abiotic processes. Water quantity (timing, magnitude of flows), water quality (temperature, nutrients, sediments), inputs of riparian materials (leaves, wood), and watershed geomorphology can all be modified by forest management. Changes to these and Trask River Watershed Study 4 other parameters can have both direct and indirect effects on the habitats, populations and communities of stream-dwelling organisms, including algae, invertebrates, amphibians and fish (see review edited by Salo and Cundy 1987; Meehan 1991; Northcote and Hartman 2004). The removal of overstory vegetation influences the amount of water intercepted or evaporated, the rate of snow
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Trask River CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS
    Trask River CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................................................................14 Trask Landscape Setting ..............................................................................................15 Trask Physical Setting ..................................................................................................16 Geology......................................................................................................................... 17 Geomorphology............................................................................................................... 19 Stream Channel Morphology............................................................................................... 21 Soils .............................................................................................................................. 24 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................ 26 Climate..........................................................................................................................................26 Daily Flows for Trask and Rock Creeks .................................................................................................26 Peak flows ......................................................................................................................................26 Water Quality: Temperature ................................................................................................................27
    [Show full text]
  • Trask River Watershed Analysis
    Trask River Watershed Analysis TRASK RIVER WATERSHED ANALYSIS FINAL REPORT AUGUST 2003 A Report by E&S Environmental Chemistry, Inc. P.O. Box 609 Corvallis, OR 97339 Kai U. Snyder Timothy J. Sullivan Deian L. Moore Richard B. Raymond Erin H. Gilbert Submitted to Oregon Department of Forestry and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management John Hawksworth, Project Manager Trask River Watershed Analysis ii Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... x LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .........................................................................................................xiv CHAPTER 1. CHARACTERIZATION...................................................................................1-1 1.1 Physical ........................................................................................................1-1 1.1.1 Size and Setting ..........................................................................................1-1 1.1.2 Topography.................................................................................................1-1 1.1.3 Ecoregions..................................................................................................1-3 1.1.4 Geology and Geomorphology.....................................................................1-3 1.1.5 Soils ........................................................................................................1-5
    [Show full text]
  • Lower South Yamhill-Deer Creek Watershed Assessment
    Yamhill Basin Council September 20, 2000 Lower South Yamhill-Deer Creek Watershed Assessment - 1 - Funding for the Lower S. Yamhill-Deer Creek Watershed Assessment was provided by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) and Resource Assistance for Rural Environments (RARE) Lower S. Yamhill-Deer Creek Watershed Project Manager: Denise Hoffert-Hay, Author Contributors: Dave Hanson, local resident and writer, assisted with historic vegetation and conditions. Liz Gifford, Linfield College intern, assisted with Channel Habitat Types. Robert Grover, Linfield College intern, assisted with fish research. Editor: Melissa Leoni Acknowledgements Many people gave their time and talents to assist in the completion of this document. Where actual written material was used, it is noted in the document. Many people assisted me with learning the computer or analytical techniques needed to complete different sections of the assessment. Others gave me stories of this place they call home. Any errors or omissions are not intentional and are my own. (In no particular order) Robert Grover, Linfield College Graduate Liz Gifford, Linfield College Graduate Gary Galovich, Fish Biologist, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Al White, Oregon Watersheds. Ryan Dalton, GIS Coordinator, Bureau of Land Management Willamette/North Coast Providence Bill Gille, Public Works Department, Yamhill County Dave Carter, Roadmaster, Yamhill County Robert Bower, former Watershed Assessment Project Manager, Yamhill Basin Council Dave Hanson, local watershed resident Glen
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregions-I
    Oregon Conservation Strategy 2016: Ecoregions-i Table of Contents – Chapter 3: Ecoregions ECOREGIONS ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 BLUE MOUNTAINS ................................................................................................................................................ 3 COAST RANGE ..................................................................................................................................................... 12 COLUMBIA PLATEAU .......................................................................................................................................... 21 EAST CASCADES .................................................................................................................................................. 27 KLAMATH MOUNTAINS ..................................................................................................................................... 36 NORTHERN BASIN AND RANGE ......................................................................................................................... 47 WEST CASCADES ................................................................................................................................................. 58 WILLAMETTE VALLEY ......................................................................................................................................... 67 NEARSHORE .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Survey of the Yamhill Area, Oregon by George E
    This is a scanned version of the text of the original Soil Survey report of Yamhill County, Oregon, issued January 1974. Original tables and maps were deleted. There may be references in the text that refer to a table that is not in this document. Updated tables were generated from the NRCS National Soil Information System (NASIS). The soil map data has been digitized and may include some updated information. These are available from http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov. Please contact the State Soil Scientist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service) for additional information. SOIL SURVEY OF THE YAMHILL AREA, OREGON BY GEORGE E. OTTE, DUANE K. SETNESS, WALTER A. ANDERSON, FRED J. HERBERT, JR., AND CLARENCE A. KNEZEVICH, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, IN COOPERATION WITH THE OREGON AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION THE YAMHILL AREA consists of all of Yamhill County, except In mapping the survey area, two intensities of soil mapping for the extreme western part that is in the Siuslaw National Forest. were used. In the forested-hilly or mountainous part of the survey It is located on the west side of the lower middle part of the area, soils were examined at moderate to wide intervals and were Willamette Valley (fig. 1) and is bounded by Washington, mapped at medium intensity. In the smooth Willamette Valley part, Clackamas, Polk, the soils were examined at close intervals and were mapped at high intensity, or in considerably more detail than in the forested-hilly or mountainous part. Most of the soils mapped at high intensity have a narrow range of slope.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Profile
    Section 2: Community Profile Why Plan for Natural Hazards in Yamhill County? ....................................... 2 History of Natural Hazards in Yamhill County .............................................. 2 Geography and Environment....................................................................... 3 Rivers and Streams ............................................................................... 4 Climate .................................................................................................. 7 Minerals and Soils ................................................................................. 8 Significant Geological Factors ............................................................... 8 Population and Demographics..................................................................... 9 Land and Development ............................................................................. 11 Development Regulations.................................................................... 12 Housing and Community Development ..................................................... 13 Employment and History ........................................................................... 13 Transportation and Commuting ................................................................. 14 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................................ 15 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure............................................................ 15 Yamhill County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan: Community
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Tualatin Scoggins Watershed Analysis 2000
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Salem District Office Tillamook Resource Area 4610 Third Avenue Tillamook, OR 97141 February 2000 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Upper Tualatin- Scoggins Watershed Analysis As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interest of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. administration. BLM/OR/WA/PT-00/015+1792 i Upper Tualatin-Scoggins Watershed Analysis ii Upper Tualatin-Scoggins Watershed Analysis Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District J.T. Hawksworth, Principal Author U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT February 2000 iii Upper Tualatin-Scoggins Watershed Analysis iv Introduction The concept of watershed analysis is built on the premise that management and planning efforts are best addressed from the watershed perspective. Better decisions are made, and better actions taken, when watershed processes and other management activities within a watershed are taken into consideration. Issues related to erosion, hydrologic change, water quality, and species are not limited to a specific site.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of Oregon Orr Orr.Pdf
    Fifth Edition Geology of Oregon Elizabeth L. Orr William N. Orr University of Oregon Cover: Ripple-marked sand dunes on the Oregon Coast resemble a gigantic fingerprint (photo by Gary Tepfer). Copyright ® 1964 by Ewart M. Baldwin Copyright ® 1976, 1981, 1992, 2000 by Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company ISBN 0-7872-6608-6 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Printed in the United States of America 10 98765432 Table of Contents Introduction 1 History of geologic study in Oregon 9 Blue Mountains 21 Klamath Mountains 51 Basin and Range 79 High Lava Plains 103 Deschutes-Columbia Plateau 121 Cascade Mountains 141 Coast Range 167 Willamette Valley 203 Bibliography 223 Glossary 245 Index 251 iii Dedicated to the graduates Acknowledgments Between the fourth and fifth editions of Geology of Oregon, the importance of global tectonics to the state has been ingrained even deeper. Riding on the leading edge of the moving North American plate, Oregon reflects the underlying mecha- nism of the plate collision boundary in virtually all aspects of its geology. In the seven years since the fourth edition was written, an irregular but continuing drumbeat of earthquakes reminds us of the forces beneath our feet and the need to prepare for catastrophic changes be they quakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, floods, or massive earth movements. Most profound is the discovery of irrefutable evidence that these catastrophes have been visited on the state quite regularly over the past few thousands of years as well as the absolute surety that similar disasters will oc- cur in the near and distant future.
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Oregon USGS 7.5' Topographic Maps 1949 to 2009
    Index of Oregon USGS 7.5' Topographic Maps 1949 to 2009 All current and older versions of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ topographic maps are scanned and freely available online and for download through USGS websites TopoView and the National Map Download Client: MapView. The UO Map Library has a paper collection of past and current Oregon USGS 7.5’ topographic maps (scale 1:24,000). Except for the most recent edition these are kept in a locked area. Contact [email protected] or 541-346-3051 to access maps in the locked area. The most recent printed edition is kept in the USGS topographic map cases in the open map area, first floor Knight Library. These are available any time the Library is open. Explanatory notes: Quadrangle name USGS topographic map quadrangles are typically named after the most prominent place/feature on the quadrangle. OQ: after the name if map shows underlying aerial photography (orthophotoquad). Basemap Date P: after the basemap year for provisional sheets. Print type 2 copies: The Library has at least two copies with identical dates. 1 with woodland (green ink layer) and 1 without. Woodland: The Library has only copies with the green woodland tint layer printed. Ozalid: orthophotoquad is printed on ozalid paper. Litho: orthophotoquad is a lithographic print. Photographic: orthophotoquad is printed on photographic paper. Advance Sheet: "T" maps compiled at 1:24,000-scale at the same time the 1:62,500- scale maps were published. Notes PR: Photorevised (followed by the year of the most recent photorevision) PI: Photoinspected (followed by the year of the most recent photoinspection) R: Revised MR: Minor Revisions CRG: Shows the Columbia River Gorge, National Scenic Area's boundaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    November 22, 2004 Yamhill County’s Comprehensive Parks and Open Space Master Plan was adopted by the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners on June 19, 2003 by Board Order 03-413. YAMHILL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ______________________________________________ Chair KATHY GEORGE ______________________________________________ Commissioner MARY P. STERN ______________________________________________ Commissioner LESLIE LEWIS Table of Contents page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i PART I: YAMHILL COUNTY NEEDS 1 1. Introduction 1 Mission Statement 1 Purpose of the Master Plan 1 Master Plan Objectives 2 Yamhill County Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2 2. Yamhill County Profile 4 History 4 Natural History and Ecology 4 Population and Demographics 7 Public Park, Recreation and Open Space System 7 3. Yamhill County Park & Open Space Analysis 12 Existing Parks and Open Spaces 12 Park Conditions Assessment 31 System Analysis 33 Comparison With Other Selected Counties 34 4. Public Involvement 35 Questionnaire Survey 35 Public Outreach Meetings 36 Public Review Meetings 37 PART II: FRAMING THE PLAN 39 5. Strategic Issues and Findings 39 PART III: THE PLAN 43 6. Vision, Goals, and Policies 43 Board Vision 43 Vision Statement 45 Goals and Policies 46 Future Yamhill County Parks and Open Spaces 49 PART IV: IMPLEMENTATION 52 7. Action Strategies 54 Parks and Open Spaces Classification System 54 Implementation Strategies 56 Maps and Tables page MAPS Map 1: Parks and Open Space Areas in Yamhill County 9 Map 2: Yamhill County Parks Vision Diagram 51 TABLES Table 1: Yamhill
    [Show full text]
  • Map Extent 13 17 16 Grandrond E Tribal Eland S 8 9 10 11 Eola Village
    D R L D A N O Travel Management D C 2 29 28 27 30 29 1 6 M Braun 28 1 31 32 33 31 32 6 5 4 3 34 35 36 31 32 33 33 33 34 35 Long Mountain Area 2 36 Tater Hill 12 1 SADDLE MTN MANAGEMENT 31 32 ClatsopCounty 36 SADDLE MTN 34 35 36 31 32 33 D 35 ColumCounty bia 34 7 11 6 11 6 5 4 4 N T. 12 R 3 2 5 4 Wildlife Management 7 8 1 TillamookCounty UNIT MANAGEMENT 6 5 4 3 2 1 3 2 1 6 5 4 K 3 2 12 1 6 5 Wash ing tonCounty R Sunset Highway Forest Wayside 4 3 2 1 6 5 9 10 4 3 18 O 10 Unit UNIT 10 7 11 7 8 8 17 15 14 F 11 12 9 18 God's Valley Salmonberry 7 8 9 12 17 10 Hoffman Hill H 13 16 14 13 11 12 Coyote Corner 7 8 26 Sunset Camp Neahkahnie 15 9 ¤£ 7 8 PrivateCooperators 19 T FOSS RD 10 11 12 9 10 11 12 7 !!!!!!!!! Mountain R 8 9 10 17 16 20 Wildlife Area 18 17 !!!!!!!!! 21 O 18 18 17 22 23 15 14 13 16 15 Tophill 24 14 !!!!!!!!! N 19 Wakefield 16 13 18 Giustina Land & Timber 20 Belfort 15 14 13 17 21 Green Mountain !!!!!!!!! 22 16 23 24 15 14 13 18 17 16 Neahkahnie 15 14 13 !!!!!!!!! Beach Manzanita 18 17 16 15 29 28 27 !Nehalem 19 20 19 20 Company P! P 21 22 23 24 21 22 !!!!!!!!! 19 Enright 23 26 25 20 22 24 19 27 30 29 21 23 24 20 L.L "Stub" !!!!!!!!! 28 27 21 26 25 22 23 19 24 20 21 22 23 20 !!!!!!!!! Mohler Stewart State 24 19 21 22 T.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix Occidentalis Caurina); Proposed Rule
    Tuesday, June 12, 2007 Part III Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina); Proposed Rule VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:24 Jun 11, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\12JNP3.SGM 12JNP3 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3 32450 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Comments and materials received, as revised designation and, in particular, well as supporting documentation used any impacts on small entities; and the Fish and Wildlife Service in the preparation of this proposed rule, benefits of including or excluding areas will be available for public inspection, that exhibit these impacts; and 50 CFR Part 17 by appointment, during normal business (5) Whether any areas should or hours at the Oregon Fish and Wildlife should not be excluded from the revised RIN 1018–AU37 Office, at the address above; the Western designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Act and why; and and Plants; Proposed Revised 510 Desmond Drive SE., Suite 101, (6) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be Designation of Critical Habitat for the Lacey, WA 98503; and the Yreka Fish improved or modified in any way to Northern Spotted Owl (Strix and Wildlife Office, 1829 S. Oregon St., provide for greater public participation occidentalis caurina) Yreka, CA 96097. and understanding, or to assist us in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: accommodating public concerns and AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Kemper McMaster, Field Supervisor, comments.
    [Show full text]