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)