Assessment - Southern Oregon Digital Archives

More documents

Recommendations

Info

glaciation in the Williams Creek Watershed (ARWC 2000). For millennia, the Klamath- Siskiyou Province has provided a ‘bridge’ for animal and plant migrations between the Great Plains and the Pacific Coast. This link has created immense biological diversity within the province – a characteristic that is now internationally recognized and celebrated. Within this province are ecoregions, which are identified by the State of Oregon based on soils, geology, vegetation, wildlife, hydrology and climate (GWEB 1999). The Williams Creek Watershed is contained within two ecoregions: the Inland Siskiyous and the Siskiyou Foothills. (See Figure 3.) The highly dissected mountains and moderate to high gradient streams that outline the Williams Valley characterize the Inland Siskiyous. The upland drainages are steep and narrow, and the density of streams is high. Slopes within this ecoregion are prone to erosion because of the steep terrain, unstable soils, and high winter precipitation. The Williams Valley and gentle slopes directly adjacent to it are part of the Siskiyou Foothills ecoregion. Stream channels here are of moderate gradient and waterways are often intermittent. Precipitation is generally less than in the Inland Siskiyou areas. Erosion and run-off are high during rainstorms and snowmelt periods. Figure 3: Williams Creek Watershed Ecoregions Williams Creek Watershed Ecoregions N W E S POWELL CR APPLEGATE R MUNGER CR WILLIAMS CR Williams Watershed Rivers Inland Siskiyous Siskiyou Foothills WILLIAMS CR, W FK WILLIAMS CR, E FK 8 0 8 Miles Ecoregion Type Total Acres (%) Siskiyou Foothills 30.9 Inland Siskiyous 69.1 Data Source: Southwest Oregon Province Resource Information GIS Data CD Set (V. 0.7) Williams Creek Watershed Assessment 3
Land Use Land use in the Williams Creek Watershed is predominantly forestry. (See Figure 4.) Trees have been commercially harvested in Williams since the mid-1800s. During the past 30 years, increased road building and logging technologies have allowed timber harvesting to commence in most areas of the watershed. Approximately two-thirds of the watershed is zoned Forest Commercial (FC) or Woodlot Resource (WR). Both designations prioritize forestry as the primary land use. Forestlands administered by federal land management agencies, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the United States Forest Service (USFS) amount to 27,809 acres. Additionally, Josephine County Forestry manages 1,640 acres, and private timber companies own 5,641 acres. Thus, a total of 35,090 acres, or approximately 68% of the watershed, is utilized as commercial forestlands, not including other private lands (ARWC 1994). Table 1: Forest Lands in the Williams Creek Watershed Ownership Acres Percent of Watershed Bureau of Land Management 26,990 acres 52% Forest Service 819 acres 2% Josephine County Timber Land 1,640 acres 3% Total Public Ownership 29,449 acres 57% Timber Company Ownership 5,641 acres 11% Total Commercial Forest Land 35,090 acres 68% Williams Creek Watershed 52,841acres 100% Source: Williams Watershed Analysis, March 1996 and Josephine County Planning Database. Land allocations under BLM jurisdiction in Williams include 20,597 acres in Late Successional Reserve (LSR), 6,113 acres of Matrix lands, Big Game Management Areas (BGMAs), Riparian Reserves, and Core Habitat Areas for the northern spotted owl. In addition, two Research Natural Areas (RNAs) have been designated in the Williams Creek Watershed: the Pipe Fork and the Grayback Glade RNAs. Both of these areas are set aside for scientific research and are situated near the southern headwaters of Williams Creek. The BLM also operates several tree progeny test sites in the watershed. All BLM and USFS lands within the watershed are part of the greater Applegate Adaptive Management Area (AMA), which encompasses all federally managed lands in the Applegate Basin. This AMA, one of several in the state of Oregon, was established under the Northwest Forest Plan to allow agencies to experiment with innovative resource management approaches. A stated objective of the Applegate AMA is: Williams Creek Watershed Assessment 4
Page 1 and 2: Williams Creek Watershed Assessment
Page 3 and 4: Abstract This document is the Willi
Page 5 and 6: Hydrology and Water Use . . . . . .
Page 7 and 8: List of Tables Table 1: Forest land
Page 9 and 10: List of Figures Figure 1: Williams
Page 11 and 12: • Water Quality Summer water temp
Page 13 and 14: Williams Creek Watershed Council Th
Page 15 and 16: Agencies and Jurisdictions Agencies
Page 17 and 18: data to determine if these standard
Page 19 and 20: Legislation and Management Plans Th
Page 21 and 22: Figure 1: Williams Creek Watershed,
Page 23: 3 1 2 1. Pennington Creek 2. Lower
Page 27 and 28: Williams Creek Land Use Zoning N W
Page 29 and 30: Williams Creek Watershed Land Owner
Page 31 and 32: the winter season. The TSZ is subje
Page 33 and 34: that drain to the East Fork of Will
Page 35 and 36: Botanical Resource Areas To protect
Page 37 and 38: About 153 million years ago, the ol
Page 39 and 40: Appendix A: Williams Creek Watershe
Page 41 and 42: Appendix B: Williams Creek Watershe
Page 43 and 44: Appendix F: Williams Creek Watershe
Page 45 and 46: Appendix F: Williams Creek Watershe
Page 47 and 48: OWRD. 1985. Rogue River Basin Study
Page 49 and 50: Figure 8: Native People of the Appl
Page 51 and 52: the gold amalgamates, which was the
Page 53 and 54: today. Longtime Williams residents
Page 55 and 56: Figure 10: Oxen Hauling Logs to the
Page 57 and 58: The Applegate River and its tributa
Page 59 and 60: conditions. This has created a shif
Page 61 and 62: Appendix A: Historical Conditions b
Page 63 and 64: Appendix B: Historical Timeline ~22
Page 65 and 66: ODFW. 1999. Estimates of Adult Coho
Page 67 and 68: RESULTS Williams Creek and its trib
Page 69 and 70: MC: Moderate Gradient Confined Chan
Page 71 and 72: DISCUSSION Figure 11: Percentages o
Page 73 and 74: Channel sensitivity, distribution o
Page 75 and 76:
Appendix B: Channel Habitat Types w
Page 77 and 78:
HYDROLOGY AND WATER USE INTRODUCTIO
Page 79 and 80:
Stream Flow The data for this secti
Page 81 and 82:
Table 6: Elevation and precipitatio
Page 83 and 84:
Figure 13: Precipitation Isohyetals
Page 85 and 86:
hydrology is dominated by three fac
Page 87 and 88:
Figure 16: Stream flows (cfs) near
Page 89 and 90:
Figure 19: Monthly water availabili
Page 91 and 92:
Groundwater Large quantities of gro
Page 93 and 94:
Table 10: Water rights summary for
Page 95 and 96:
DISCUSSION The pattern of precipita
Page 97 and 98:
Appendix A: Geology of the Williams
Page 99 and 100:
WATER QUALITY INTRODUCTION Water qu
Page 101 and 102:
levels of dissolved oxygen. The Ore
Page 103 and 104:
METHODS All of the data presented i
Page 105 and 106:
mainstem of Williams Creek exceeded
Page 107 and 108:
Figure 25: Continuous daily tempera
Page 109 and 110:
Figure 29: Continuous daily tempera
Page 111 and 112:
pH, Dissolved Oxygen, Alkalinity, C
Page 113 and 114:
Table 19: Levels of nitrate. The cr
Page 115 and 116:
Site Date Storm? Turbidity Williams
Page 117 and 118:
aquatic weeds and algae. Algae can
Page 119 and 120:
References ARWC. 2000. Draft Propos
Page 121 and 122:
devegetation, road building, or oth
Page 123 and 124:
5. The BLM Mining Claim Microfiche
Page 125 and 126:
plugged or undersized culverts caus
Page 127 and 128:
Private timber companies who have h
Page 129 and 130:
Table 26: Signed Private and Public
Page 131 and 132:
Review of the Josephine County Geol
Page 133 and 134:
absence of any plan of operations.
Page 135 and 136:
Similarly, in the West Fork subwate
Page 137 and 138:
Appendix A: Soils of the Williams C
Page 139 and 140:
Appendix B: Williams Creek Watershe
Page 141 and 142:
ODFa. 1998. Progress on Landslide S
Page 143 and 144:
debris, and stream shade percentage
Page 145 and 146:
Table 30: Observation data for the
Page 147 and 148:
was not analyzed for this assessmen
Page 149 and 150:
of Rock Creek, Pipe Fork, Munger Cr
Page 151 and 152:
References ARWC. 1994. Applegate Wa
Page 153 and 154:
The Williams Valley is now criss-cr
Page 155 and 156:
RESULTS Locations of Wetlands in th
Page 157 and 158:
The Classification of Wetlands and
Page 159 and 160:
References BLM. 2000. Medford Distr
Page 161 and 162:
METHODS Data on the location, timin
Page 163 and 164:
As recently as 1973, in-stream grav
Page 165 and 166:
100-year floodplain in the Williams
Page 167 and 168:
Williams Creek and have potential c
Page 169 and 170:
Table 37: Channel Habitat Types wit
Page 171 and 172:
Appendix A: Approximate Locations o
Page 173 and 174:
Appendix B: Channel Modifications (
Page 175 and 176:
Appendix B: Channel Modifications (
Page 177 and 178:
FISH AND FISH HABITAT INTRODUCTION
Page 179 and 180:
spawn after only two summers in the
Page 181 and 182:
spawning runs into small tributarie
Page 183 and 184:
Fluvial cutthroat migrate between t
Page 185 and 186:
Bill Creek > Right Hand Fork > West
Page 187 and 188:
• 1994 ODFW Stream Survey The vol
Page 189 and 190:
Fish Populations: Stream surveyors
Page 191 and 192:
• Cutthroat Trout Electrofishing
Page 193 and 194:
ODFW found trout (probably offsprin
Page 195 and 196:
Tree Branch Creek > Lone Creek > We
Page 197 and 198:
Instream Habitat, Valley Morphology
Page 199 and 200:
Table 53: Chinook Salmon Spawning S
Page 201 and 202:
Maximum Stream Temperatures: Table
Page 203 and 204:
69 pools with a maximum depth of 1.
Page 205 and 206:
DISCUSSION Life Cycle Factors To di
Page 207 and 208:
spawning tributaries. Drought condi
Page 209 and 210:
function in the Williams Creek Wate
Page 211 and 212:
A substantial beaver colony was fou
Page 213 and 214:
Appendix B: Approximate Coho Distri
Page 215 and 216:
Appendix D: Approximate Summer Stee
Page 217 and 218:
Appendix F: Fish Barriers in the Wi
Page 219 and 220:
Appendix G: Stream Surveys, Riparia
Page 221 and 222:
References Anonymous. n.d. Abbrevia
Page 223 and 224:
Frissell, C.A., W.J. Liss, R.E. Gre
Page 225 and 226:
ODFW. 1995. Williams Creek Stream R
Page 227 and 228:
Data Gaps: • Incomplete records o
Page 229 and 230:
Water diversions also directly affe
Page 231 and 232:
with storm events. Turbidity was ge
Page 233 and 234:
mines, slope instability not relate
Page 235 and 236:
• Provide incentives for property
Page 237 and 238:
long-term impact of confining the c
Page 239 and 240:
• Quantify the 1997 flood effects
Page 241 and 242:
hydric soils: Saturated soils that
show all

Assessment - Southern Oregon Digital Archives

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?