Trask Watershed Studyand a brief introduction to

ODF State Forests

Mark A. Meleason, Ph.D.Riparian and Aquatic Specialist

State Forests Division

Oregon Department of Forestry

Oregon Department of Forestry

• Protection

– Fights fires

• Private Forests

–Regulate forestry on private lands (FPA)

• State Forests

– State Owned and Managed lands

Aquatic Resource Active Management

–$44M since 1995

–230 mi fish passage restored

–7000 trees placed in streams

State Forests Partners–ODFW & OR Salmon Plan

–Watershed Councils

–Nehalem SAP

– Salmon Superhwy

ODF’s Statewide Stream Layer:http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/AboutODF/Pages/MapsData.aspx

The Trask River Watershed Study

Aquatic Ecosystem Response to Contemporary Forest Management

Ph

oto

by

Kelly

Jam

es

Dr. Sherri Johnson, PNW Research, USFSDr. Bob Bilby, Weyerhaeuser Company Liz Dent, Oregon Dept of Forestry Maryanne Reiter, Weyerhaeuser Company Dr. Jason Dunham, USGS FRESCDr. Michael Adams, USGS FRESC Dr. Judy Li, OSU Fisheries and Wildlife Dr. Joan Hagar, USGS FRESC Dr. Arne Skaugset, OSU College of ForestryLinda Ashkenas, OSU Fisheries and WildlifeDoug Bateman, OSU College of ForestryNate Chelgren, USGS FRESCBrooke Penaluna, OSU Fisheries and WildlifeBill Gerth, OSU Fisheries and WildlifeJanel Sobota, OSU Fisheries and WildlifeAmy Simmons, OSU College of ForestryAlex Irving, OSU College of ForestryDr. Jeremy Groom, Oregon Dept of Forestry Dr. Ivan Arismendi, OSU Fisheries and WildlifeDr. Mark Meleason, Oregon Dept of Forestry

Trask WSS Collaborators

Trask Watershed Study Objectives

1. Increase understanding of the major processes influencing aquatic ecosystems through forest-stream interactions

2. Quantify effects of forest harvest on the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of small fishless headwater streams

3. Examine extent to which harvest in headwaters influences the physical, chemical and biological characteristics in downstream fish reaches

Study Timeline

• Pre-harvest Period: 2006- 2011

• Road Upgrades: 2011

• Harvest in 8 headwater basins: 2012

• Post-harvest Period: 2012-2016

• *Analysis and Primary Pubs: 2016 -2018

• *Synthesis Pubs 2019

*Depends on Funding

Study Components and Linkages

Light

Nutrients

Leaf litter,Detrital matter

Invertebrates

Riparian vegetation

HydrologyFish

Birds

Geo-morphology

Turbidity,Sus. sediment

Amphibians

Primary producers

Temperature

What was affected by harvest?Why did it change?

Trask River WatershedThree land owners - Weyerhaeuser, ODF, BLM

Change in Incident Light

Clearcut harvest with no buffers but leave trees

Clearcut harvest with buffers

Thinned with wide buffers

Pre-Harvest Post-Harvest

Preliminary Findings

Fish Findings

• Minimal diet overlap in trout and sculpin but both food limited in summer (Raggon, 2010)

• cutthroat drive both intra- and interspecific interactions with sculpins, which had little influence overall (Ramirez 2011)

• No observed downstream fish response to harvest but sculpins more vulnerable that trout to temperature increase (Jensen 2017)

• Streams with buffers: Little to no changes in light, primary productivity, temperature, macroinvertebrates, amphibian response

• Streams w/o buffers: Small increases in stream temperature, nutrients, and shifts in macroinvertebrate community composition

Preliminary Results: Post-Harvest

Extending Results Beyond Study Sites

Synthesis of similar studies • WA Type N study, WRC WS

Modeling• Hydrology, water quality, and• Biological models

Watershed classificationWatersheds with physical characteristics comparable to study watersheds most likely to respond similarly

WRC Watersheds

Watershed Classification – (Bax 2008)

•Watershed delineation from USGS EROS data

(Earth Resources Observation System)

•5528 watersheds ≈ 2 sq. mi. Characterized by:• Climate• Land use• Vegetation cover• Geology• Topography

• Identify areas that are best represented by the WRC study sites

Similarity Results

Similarity to Trask Study Basins

Trask Fish Study Sites

State Forests FMP:

• Ecological Forestry– Landscape Plan (SBM)

– Stand-level plan

• Aquatic Resources–Protect (e.g., Buffers)

– Enhance (e.g., Fish passage)

• Adaptive Management– “Learning by Doing”

– (e.g., Trask WSS)

Treatments - Small Headwater Streams

State Forests Are:• Public (working) Forest

• 9 Districts, 745k acres

• Self-funded (2/3 goes to counties)

• Managed for GPV (financial, social, and ecological)