DOCSLIB.ORG

Rehabilitation of the Middle Fork Willamette Bull Trout Population

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rehabilitation of the Middle Fork Willamette Bull Trout Population REHABILITATION OF THE MIDDLE FORK WILLAMETTE BULL TROUT POPULATION RISK ANALYSIS AND MONITORING PLAN Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife USDA Forest Service/Rigdon Ranger District 1998 INTRODUCTION Bull trout populations have declined throughout their range in the western United States and Canada. Some of the factors that caused the decline were overharvest, water quality changes because of intensive land management practices, and removal of fish by chemical application. On June 11, 1997, USFWS proposed to list the Columbia River bull trout population segment (including the Willamette populations as Threatened. A public comment period ended August 12, 1997, and currently (November 1997) USFWS is determining how to proceed. The status of populations in the Willamette Basin is varied (Buchanan et al., 1997). Bull trout have been extirpated from Santiam systems and most likely the Clackamas. McKenzie bull trout have been fragmented into several populations by dams and their status varies from “Of Special Concern” to “High Risk.” The population in the Middle Fork Willamette basin is at an extremely low level with a low probability of persistence. Several specific factors are identified in the decline of bull trout in the Middle Fork Willamette. Rotenone poisoning in 1960 to remove undesirable fish above Hills Creek Dam killed bull trout. Subsequent to the Rotenone treatment, the river was heavily stocked with rainbow trout. A large number of anglers fished this area of the river and overharvest of the remaining bull trout undoubtedly occurred. In addition, timber harvest and road building practices damaged bull trout spawning and rearing habitat or precluded access to suitable habitat. Construction of Dexter, Lookout Point, and Hills Creek dams modified stream temperatures and restricted migrations to and from spawning areas. Table 1 displays the last reliable observations of bull trout in the Middle Fork Willamette basin. Table 1. Bull trout observations in the Middle Fork Willamette basin. WATERBODY LAST YEAR OBSERVED Middle Fork Willamette below Hills 1953 Creek Reservoir Middle Fork Willamette above Hills 1990 Creek Reservoir North Fork of Middle Fork 1962 Willamette Hills Creek Reservoir 1988 Salt Creek 1960 Bull trout habitat remains in spring-fed portions of the Middle Fork Willamette and tributaries. However, repeated electrofishing and snorkel surveys of the Middle Fork Willamette and tributaries have not detected bull trout. ODFW has electrofished margin areas of the Middle Fork Willamette and major portions of all tributaries from Chuckle Springs to Swift Creek, the areas with the most likely bull trout habitat on the Middle Fork Willamette. Most of the pools from Paddy’s Valley to Staley Creek, as well as much of Swift Creek, have been snorkeled by ODFW and/or USFS personnel. 2 Potential bull trout habitat remains in spring-fed portions of the MFW and tributaries above Hills Creek Reservoir (Rigdon Ranger District 1996). However, despite occasional angler reports, repeated electrofishing and snorkel surveys of the Middle Fork Willamette and tributaries have not detected bull trout presence. Therefore, the Upper Willamette Bull Trout Working Group believes that Middle Fork Willamette bull trout will not continue to persist in the subbasin without rehabilitation efforts. As you may recall at the SCCS meeting at McKenzie Bridge, Paul Spruell said the only way of holding on to the remaining genetic material was to provide a carrier for that material. Under the definition of Supplementation in the OAR's, 635-07-501 (53) we believe this is what we are doing. If we are not using this definition of supplementation, or if there are some non-policy rules that we don't have, please let us know (We're unsure if supplementation means an ongoing program. If that is the case, perhaps we are not supplementing because our plan is to go in for one life cycle and let the chips fall). We do have another alternative for you to consider. Under the Operating Principles for Wild Fish Management, OAR 635-07-527 (3) outlines special rehabilitation programs. We have always been very leery of calling this population extinct. If it was easy to call them extinct, we would probably have had this program going three years ago. If there is a chance that they are not extinct, our program fits into this category. This project is designed to comply with Wild Fish Management Policy (WFMP) Oregon Administrative Rules 635-07-527 (3), addressing rehabilitation of wild fish populations. PROJECT BACKGROUND In 1997, ODFW and USFS/Rigdon Ranger District began a cooperative effort to reintroduce bull trout to the Middle Fork Willamette basin. Release sites were chosen principally on criteria and information provided in Goetz (1994). In order to develop and evaluate rehabilitation procedures, ODFW transferred 178 bull trout fry (age 0+) from Anderson Creek on the McKenzie River, to three tributaries of the Middle Fork Willamette in June 1997. The release sites included Chuckle Springs, Indigo Springs and Skunk Creek. Of the three pilot program sites, only Chuckle Springs will be utilized in future restocking efforts. After further analysis, Skunk Creek was determined to be too warm to provide optimal rearing habitat for juvenile bull trout, and spawning and access were limited in Indigo Springs. Therefore, we chose new rehabilitation sites for 1998. Rehabilitation Sites The McKenzie basin contains the only verifiable populations of bull trout in western Oregon. These fish may have ranged occasionally into the mainstem Willamette and spawned with bull trout from the Middle Fork Willamette. However, warm water temperatures in the mainstem Willamette and the bull trout’s strong homing instinct probably precluded common genetic exchange between the populations. 3 Three streams have been selected as sites for rehabilitation of bull trout fry: Chuckle, Shadow, and Iko springs. These spring-fed streams emerge from rock on the north side of the Middle Fork Willamette between river miles 258 and 260.5 (Appendix A). The sites were chosen following surveys of several potential rehabilitation streams (see Appendix B). Once chosen, the food base and physical attributes of the rehabilitation sites were assessed (Appendix C). Cutthroat trout inhabit the lower reaches of each stream; there have been no brook trout sightings in the vicinity. Chuckle and Shadow springs contain minimal spawning habitat but are adjacent to good spawning habitat in the Middle Fork Willamette. For 1998, we propose to place 20% of the bull trout fry in Chuckle and 20% in Shadow springs. The remaining 60% will be placed in Iko Springs. Iko has the best combination of potential bull trout rearing and spawning habitat observed in the Middle Fork Willamette watershed. Spawning habitat could be improved dramatically at all three sites with gravel supplementation. Percentages may be adjusted as deemed appropriate in the future. We assume that fry released over the four-year period will disperse downstream and that adults will return to spawn in any suitable habitat. ACTIONS We plan to capture bull trout fry from Anderson Creek in the downstream migrant trap located below the OR Highway 126 culvert. We plan to remove 25% or 2,000 (whichever is less) of the potentially- trapped age 0+ bull trout fry (where potential assumes sampling 100% of the time, but does not account for trap efficiency) during the peak migration period in March and April. During the trapping week, the trap will be checked daily and captured fry will be held in mesh-lined plastic containers in the trap live box (Goetz 1989). Twice a week, we will combine all fry into one of the plastic containers, which will be suspended in a liberation tank. Ice will be added to the tank as needed along the route to the Middle Fork Willamette in order to maintain water temperatures at 4-6oC. The fry will be transported as close as possible to the release sites in a truck and carried the remaining distance in covered buckets. Because of the long-distance transport required to move fry to the Middle Fork Willamette, we propose transporting fry twice a week, every other week, through the months of March and April, with a goal of ten transfers per year from 1998-2001. RISK ANALYSIS Risks to the McKenzie River Bull Trout Population This project involves the risk of decreasing the size of the McKenzie River bull trout population by removing fry from Anderson Creek. The WFMP limits the number of fish that can be removed to 25% or less of the breeding population. Assuming the trap will operate an average of 50% of each week, removing all of the fry trapped in one week and not removing any fry the following week should result in removal of approximately 25% of the potentially trapped Anderson Creek fry over the migration period. Because some of the fry do not migrate during the trapping period and Anderson Creek trap efficiency 4 is estimated at 60-80 % (Pers. comm. Mark Wade, ODFW), we will actually remove far less than 25% of the migrating fry. Fry will be removed from Anderson Creek based upon fry migration totals for a single week. Therefore, we will need to monitor the number of fry removed from Anderson Creek to ensure that the number of fry removed never exceeds 25% of the potential fry totals at any point in the season. We believe that many of these migrating fry would not find adequate habitat in the lower reaches of Anderson Creek and would eventually enter the McKenzie River. We believe that fry migrating at this age rather than at age 1 or older have a lower survival rate because of a lack of fry habitat in the McKenzie and predation from other fish. We expect that a decrease in the density dependent mortality will somewhat compensate for removal of a portion of the fry population.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study
    US Army Corps of Engineers Portland District Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study DRAFT Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment November 2017 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Executive Summary The Willamette River basin is located entirely within the state of Oregon, beginning south of Cottage Grove, and extending approximately 187 miles to the north where the Willamette River flows into the Columbia River. The basin is more than 11,200 square miles, averages 75 miles in width, and encompasses approximately 12 percent of the total area of the state (Figure ES-1). Within the watershed are most of the state’s population (nearly 70 percent), larger cities, and major industries. The basin also contains some of Oregon’s most productive agricultural lands and supports nationally and regionally important fish and wildlife species. Thirteen of Oregon’s thirty-six counties intersect or lie within the boundary of the Willamette River basin. Through a series of Flood Control Acts the U.S. Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to construct, operate, and maintain thirteen major dams1 in the Willamette River basin. Collectively, these dams, reservoirs and associated infrastructure are known as the Willamette Valley Project (WVP). With a combined conservation storage capacity of approximately 1,590,000 acre-feet, the WVP is capable of providing important benefits for flood damage reduction, navigation, hydropower, irrigation, municipal and industrial water supply, flow augmentation for pollution abatement and improved conditions for fish and wildlife, and recreation. Feasibility Study History The Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study began in 1996 to investigate future Willamette River basin water demand.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Historic Trails Report Book (1998)
    i ,' o () (\ ô OnBcox HrsroRrc Tnans Rpponr ô o o o. o o o o (--) -,J arJ-- ö o {" , ã. |¡ t I o t o I I r- L L L L L (- Presented by the Oregon Trails Coordinating Council L , May,I998 U (- Compiled by Karen Bassett, Jim Renner, and Joyce White. Copyright @ 1998 Oregon Trails Coordinating Council Salem, Oregon All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America. Oregon Historic Trails Report Table of Contents Executive summary 1 Project history 3 Introduction to Oregon's Historic Trails 7 Oregon's National Historic Trails 11 Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail I3 Oregon National Historic Trail. 27 Applegate National Historic Trail .41 Nez Perce National Historic Trail .63 Oregon's Historic Trails 75 Klamath Trail, 19th Century 17 Jedediah Smith Route, 1828 81 Nathaniel Wyeth Route, t83211834 99 Benjamin Bonneville Route, 1 833/1 834 .. 115 Ewing Young Route, 1834/1837 .. t29 V/hitman Mission Route, 184l-1847 . .. t4t Upper Columbia River Route, 1841-1851 .. 167 John Fremont Route, 1843 .. 183 Meek Cutoff, 1845 .. 199 Cutoff to the Barlow Road, 1848-1884 217 Free Emigrant Road, 1853 225 Santiam Wagon Road, 1865-1939 233 General recommendations . 241 Product development guidelines 243 Acknowledgements 241 Lewis & Clark OREGON National Historic Trail, 1804-1806 I I t . .....¡.. ,r la RivaÌ ï L (t ¡ ...--."f Pðiräldton r,i " 'f Route description I (_-- tt |".
    [Show full text]
  • Oakridge-Westfir Community Trails Plan
    Oakridge-Westfir Community Trails Plan The Oakridge-Westfir Community Trails Committee and the Oakridge-Westfir Area Chamber of Commerce with assistance from the National Park Service Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program Table of Contents Table of Contents........................................................................................................... i Acknowledgments........................................................................................................ iii Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1 Planning Process .......................................................................................................... 3 Purpose .....................................................................................................................................................................3 Steps in the Trails Plan Process ................................................................................................................................3 Community Involvement ..........................................................................................................................................4 Background and History............................................................................................... 6 Economic Development................................................................................................ 7 Benefits of Non- Motorized Trails ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses Spring 6-8-2017 Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed Alexander Cameron Nagel Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Geography Commons, Hydrology Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Nagel, Alexander Cameron, "Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed" (2017). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 4012. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.5896 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: pdxscholar@pdx.edu. Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed by Alexander Cameron Nagel A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geography Thesis Committee: Heejun Chang, Chair Geoffrey Duh Paul Loikith Portland State University 2017 i Abstract This study conducts a dam-scale cost versus benefit analysis in order to explore the feasibility of each the 13 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) commissioned dams in Oregon’s Willamette River network. Constructed between 1941 and 1969, these structures function in collaboration to comprise the Willamette River Basin Reservoir System (WRBRS). The motivation for this project derives from a growing awareness of the biophysical impacts that dam structures can have on riparian habitats. This project compares each of the 13 dams being assessed, to prioritize their level of utility within the system.
    [Show full text]
  • Response to Watershed Analysis Amendment Request
    Upper Middle Fork Watershed Analysis Update Response to the Watershed Analysis Amendment Request Listed below are analysis and responses provided by the Middle Fork District to issues/concerns listed in the U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service November, 1996. In this portion of the analysis amendment, the original issue is listed, as stated by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Following this, the key question and issue from the 1996 Watershed Analysis is stated. Below each key question is the scientific, analytical, and professional response to these issues. In some cases the issue presented by the Fish and Wildlife Service do not related to the key issues presented in the original watershed analysis. In these situations a new key question is developed. For the most part, the original key questions are still valid with minor changes. Listed below are the eleven aquatic habitat condition concerns. Eleven Listed Aquatic Concerns 1. Identify and map important bull trout rearing and spawning habitat, as well as current and future re-introduction sites, and potential future distribution down to Hills Creek Reservoir – if this information is known or available. Functional Relationship – Bull Trout Habitat Historical references indicate that bull trout Salvelinus confluentus in Oregon were once distributed throughout 12 basins in the Klamath River and Columbia River systems. Bull trout were probably found throughout the Willamette Basin, however available documentation is limited (Buchanan et al. 1997). Bull trout in the upper Middle Fork Willamette Watershed likely ranged throughout the mainstem Middle Fork Willamette and associated larger tributaries (Figure 1-1, Historic Bull Trout Distribution Map).
    [Show full text]
  • Hills Creek-Lookout Point Final EA
    In cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service Hills Creek-Lookout Point Transmission Line Rebuild Project Final Environmental Assessment DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Bonneville Power Administration DOE/EA-1967 June 2017 __________________________________________________________________________________ This document is the final environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed Hills Creek-Lookout Point Transmission Line Rebuild Project (Project). Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) prepared this document as an abbreviated final EA because there have been no substantial changes to the Proposed Action, alternatives, or environmental analysis presented in the draft EA. This abbreviated final EA provides changes made to the text of the draft EA, as well as comments received on the draft EA and BPA’s responses to those comments. This final EA should be used as a companion document to the draft EA (DOE/EA-1967, dated August 2016), which contains the full text describing the project, its potential environmental impacts, and mitigation measures to reduce impacts. The draft EA is available on the project webpage at http://www.bpa.gov/goto/HillsCreekLookoutPoint. Summary BPA proposes to rebuild its Hills Creek-Lookout Point transmission line, which runs from Oakridge to Lowell in Lane County, Oregon. The existing 26-mile-long 115-kilovolt (kV) transmission line is aging, and BPA proposes to replace its wood-pole structures and other line components and improve its road system that provides access to the line. BPA released the draft EA for public comment on August 10, 2016; the comment period ran until September 19, 2016. The draft EA describes the Project, its potential environmental impacts, and mitigation measures to reduce those impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study
    US Army Corps of Engineers Portland District Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study DRAFT Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment November 2017 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Executive Summary The Willamette River basin is located entirely within the state of Oregon, beginning south of Cottage Grove, and extending approximately 187 miles to the north where the Willamette River flows into the Columbia River. The basin is more than 11,200 square miles, averages 75 miles in width, and encompasses approximately 12 percent of the total area of the state (Figure ES-1). Within the watershed are most of the state’s population (nearly 70 percent), larger cities, and major industries. The basin also contains some of Oregon’s most productive agricultural lands and supports nationally and regionally important fish and wildlife species. Thirteen of Oregon’s thirty-six counties intersect or lie within the boundary of the Willamette River basin. Through a series of Flood Control Acts the U.S. Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to construct, operate, and maintain thirteen major dams1 in the Willamette River basin. Collectively, these dams, reservoirs and associated infrastructure are known as the Willamette Valley Project (WVP). With a combined conservation storage capacity of approximately 1,590,000 acre-feet, the WVP is capable of providing important benefits for flood damage reduction, navigation, hydropower, irrigation, municipal and industrial water supply, flow augmentation for pollution abatement and improved conditions for fish and wildlife, and recreation. Feasibility Study History The Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study began in 1996 to investigate future Willamette River basin water demand.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 State(S): Oregon Recovery Unit Name: Willamette River
    Chapter 5 State(s): Oregon Recovery Unit Name: Willamette River Recovery Unit Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed necessary to recover and protect listed species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and, in this case, with the assistance of recovery unit teams, contractors, State and Tribal agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or indicate the approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery plans represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Director or Regional Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature Cited: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 5, Willamette River Recovery Unit, Oregon. 96 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Two working groups are active in the Willamette River Recovery Unit: the Upper Willamette (since 1989) and Clackamas Bull Trout Working Groups. In 1999, these groups were combined, and, along with representation from the Santiam subbasin, comprise the Willamette River Recovery Unit Team.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring and Evaluation Report Willamette National Forest Fiscal Year 2011
    AUGUST 2011 United States Department of Agriculture Monitoring and Forest Service Evaluation Report Pacific Northwest Region Willamette National Forest Fiscal Year 2011 Ames Creek, Sweet Home, Oregon i AUGUST 2011 ii AUGUST 2011 Welcome to the 2011 Willamette National Forest annual Monitoring and Evaluation report. This is our 23th year implementing the 1990 Willamette National Forest Plan, and this report is intended to give you an update on the services and products we provide. Our professionals monitor a wide variety of forest resources and have summarized their findings for your review. As I reviewed the Forest Plan Monitoring Report I got an opportunity to see the work our specialists are doing in one place and I can’t help but share my appreciation with what the Willamette’s resource specialists are accomplishing. I am overwhelmed by the effort our professionals are doing to get the work done and complete necessary monitoring under declining budgets. Our specialists have entered into partnerships, written grants, and managed volunteers in addition to working with numerous local and federal agencies. We are in the community and hope you enjoying the forests. I invite you to read this year’s report and contact myself or my staff with any questions, ideas, or concerns you may have. I appreciate your continued interest in the Willamette National Forest. Sincerely, MEG MITCHELL Forest Supervisor Willamette National Forest r6-will-009-11 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program.
    [Show full text]
  • Eugene, Cascades & Coast Adventure Guide
    adventureawaits ADVENTURE GUIDE GO! Oregon Skyway by Stacey Malstrom Bring this in for 20% off a single retail item. adventuresreal Oregon souvenirs, local beer & wine and more. One coupon per visit. ADVG-1 Eugene, Cascades & Coast Adventure Center 3312 Gateway St, Springfield real close I-5 & Beltline, Exit 195A Contents Map of all routes 2-3 Oregon Coast 4-5 Hwys 36&126 6-7 wine country 8-9 Cottage Grove 10-11 willamette River paths 12-13 Urban Parks & Trails 14-15 parks galore 16-17 Hwy 58 18-19 Aufderheide 20-21 McKenzie River 22-23 Resources 24-25 Oregon Rules & Regulations 26-27 Oregon Skyway by Stacey Malstrom Discover boundless adventure in easy-to-reach, uncrowded Eugene, Cascades & Coast Visitor Centers places fi lled with natural beauty. Slow down, unwind and Adventure Center Travel Lane County immerse yourself in the splendor of rushing rivers, old- 3312 Gateway St, Springfi eld, OR PO Box 10286 Eugene OR 97440 growth forests, ocean beaches and snow-capped peaks. Downtown Eugene Whether you’re a novice or an expert, there’s something for 541.484.5307 754 Olive St, Eugene,Real OR 800.547.5445 close (U.S. & Canada) every skill level. And the best part? It’s easy to pack a lot of info@TravelLaneCounty.org fun into a single day. How about an adventure… TravelLaneCounty.org • Watching whales migrating along the • Relaxing at a rustic campsite, Information in this guide was gathered from numerous sources. To the best of our Oregon Coast or birds gliding along riverside retreat, or luxury bed and knowledge, all information was accurate at the time of publication, but information the Pacifi c Flyway breakfast is subject to change.
    [Show full text]
  • Middle Fork Complex Northwest Incident Management Team 9 (IC Brian Goff)
    Middle Fork Complex Northwest Incident Management Team 9 (IC Brian Goff) Middle Fork Complex Statistics Total Acres: 596 Email: 2021.middlefork@firenet.gov Containment: 5% Phone: 541-625-0849 Personnel: 360 Hours: 8am-6pm Date of Ignition: 07/29/2021 InciWeb: https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/7745 Cause of Fires: Under Investigation Facebook: @middleforkcomplex Structures Threatened: 0 Injuries: 0 Fire Update: Monday, August 2, 2021 Aircraft: 3 Dozers: 1 Engines:14 Fire information: Twelve individual fires make up the Middle Fork Complex, with six fires at 100% containment. Five fires make up the northwest section of the Middle Fork complex. The Gales Creek Fire is located south of the Forest Road 18 near the 1835 road. The fire is 400-acres with 0% containment. Firefighters continue a strategic evaluation for opportunities to contain the fire. Heavy equipment will be used to remove vegetation along the 1824 road. Firefighters are implementing checking actions to keep fire south of the 220 Road and move resources to the six-acre Elephant Rock Fire, which is approximately two miles to the southeast. On the 27-acre Ninemile Fire, engines worked along the 1834 Road and will be constructing lines to keep the fire as small as possible. Crews will monitor and patrol the Journey and Symbol Rock Fires, each at 0.1 acre and both at 100% containment. The 78-acre Kwis Fire is the closest fire to Oakridge and is located south of Forest Road 24 near Salmon Creek. The challenge containing the Kwis fire has been burning material rolling past control lines.
    [Show full text]
  • Lookout Point Watershed Analysis Update
    Lookout Point Watershed Analysis Update August, 2012 Introduction The Lookout Point Watershed Analysis was prepared by personnel of the old Lowell Ranger District in 1997, so this analysis is now about 15 years old. In that time considerable new information has come to light and some conditions have changed. Additionally, the original WA contained some misinformation, or the watershed conditions are better understood now. There is also a new land management project proposed in this watershed (the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project) the analysis of which would be facilitated by this watershed update. In addition to updating current conditions, this reanalysis updates the list of recommendations. Specific conditions or occurrences creating the need for this update include: • vegetation growth which has changed the conditions of the 28% of the watershed consisting of young stands created by past regeneration harvest, • a better understanding of the fire history of the area, • the presence of a new invasive plant species, false brome, • reintroduction of Chinook salmon and bull trout into upstream watersheds, • construction of additional infrastructure elements such as cell phone towers and fiber optic lines, and • continuing deterioration of road conditions. The 1997 “Lookout Pont Watershed Analysis Area” document covered only the 49,638 acres of federally owned lands within the 100,000+ acre Lookout Point Reservoir Fifth Field watershed, which is one of nine within the Fourth-Field Middle Fork of the Willamette River watershed. This update will also address only the National Forest portion of this watershed. Some 60,000 acres of BLM and privately owned lands occur in the lower portions of the full 5th Field watershed, which include the Lookout Point dam and the lower half of the associated reservoir, the Dexter dam and reservoir, the Lost Creek drainage, and the communities of Dexter and Lowell.
    [Show full text]