a synthesis of the impacts of contemporary forest

A Synthesis of the Impacts of Contemporary Forest Practices on Aquatic Ecosystems at a Watershed Scale: A Case Study from Hinkle

Creek

A Skaugset, M Adams, D Bateman, K Cromack, L Ganio, B Gerth, B Gresswell, J Li, S Meininger, A Simmons, C Surfleet, and N Zegre

ResearchersGraduate Students• Aaron Berger• Becca Miller• Fey Egan• Hazel Owens• Kelly Kibler• Lance George• Mark Novick• Matt Meadows• Niels Leuthhold• Nick Som• Nicolas Zegre• Scott Meininger• Tim Otis

P.I.s• Arne Skaugset• Bob Gresswell• Judy Li• Kermit Cromack• Lisa Ganio• Mike Adams

Faculty Research Assistants• Alex Irving• Amy Simmons• Bill Gerth• Chris Surfleet• Dave Leer• Doug Bateman• Emily Sinkhorn• Janel Sobota• Nicolas Zegre• Rich Van Driesche• Steve Clark• Tim Royer

And our many field crews, lab technicians, and associates.

Thank you!

Physical Setting

• Foothills of the southern Oregon Cascades• Igneous geology (basalt and rhyolite flows)• Deep, well-drained gravelly to clay loam soils• Mean annual precipitation (MAP) ~ 1,480 mm (58 in)• 60-year old, harvest regenerated, Douglas-fir forest• Owned and managed by Roseburg Forest Products.

Hinkle Creek Paired Watershed Study

• Nested, paired watershed study

• Total watershed area; 1,941 ha (4,794 acres)

• Control watershed NFH; 857 ha (2,117 acres)

• Treatment watershed SFH; 1,084 ha (2,677 acres)

• Nested control watersheds; Meyers & DeMerrsmann

• Nested treatment watersheds; Fenton, Clay, Russell, & BB

Hinkle Creek Paired Watershed Study

2001 • 3 harvest units in place

2005 – 2006• Adjacent to non-fish-bearing streams• 152 ha (380 acres) of clearcuts in 5

units• 12.2 mmbf and 3,281 loads of logs

2008 - 2009 treatments:• Adjacent to fish-bearing tributaries and

main stem• 131 ha (324 acres) in 4 clearcuts• 7.6 mmbf and 2,059 loads of logs

Watershed Hydrology

H A R V E S T I N G E F F E C T S

LOCALMONTHLYSTREAM FLOW

H A R V E S T I N G E F F E C T S

LOCALPEAK FLOW

HARVESTING EFFECTS

DOWNSTREAMPEAK FLOW

QUICK FLOW

MONTHLY STREAMFLOW

August Low Flow SFH

Source: Surfleet & Skaugset. (In press). WJAF

Sediment Yield

Sediment Yield Increases

• Sediment yield results are not consistent with the seminal results in the literature.

• Increases in sediment yield are consistent with and are correlated with increases in water yield.

• This requires further work to separate increases in sediment yield due to increases in stream power from increases due to an increase in the erosion rate of the watershed.

Stream Temperature

The net impact of the timber harvest on the non‐fish‐bearing streams was a 0.5°C decrease in average daily temperature.

Maximum Daily Temperature

DeMersseman Creek (C)6 8 10 12 14 16

Beeb

e C

reek

(C)

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

202002200320042005 First harvest2006200720082009 Dam-break flood


DeMersseman (C)6 8 10 12 14 16

Beeb

e 30

0m (C

)

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2002200320042005 First harvest2006 200720082009


C05 (C)6 8 10 12 14 16 18

T05

(C)

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2002200320042005 First harvest2006 200720082009 Second harvest


C01 (C)6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

T04

(C)

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

20022006 200720082009 Second harvest


North Fork (C)6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Sout

h Fo

rk (C

)

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2002200320042005 First harvest2006 20082009 Second harvest

Residence Times for Surface Flow

Stream Reach Early July

Travel Time (hrs)

Late AugustTravel Time

(hrs) LSFH 0 0MSFH 7 8UMSFH 12 14FEN_DOWN 12 14RUSS_DOWN 12 14RUSS_UP 21 26CLAY 24 27FEN_UP 25 31USFH 19 61BB 25 77

Stream Chemistry

Fertilization

• Fertilizer was applied to both watersheds in the fall of 2004

• Existing clearcuts and imminent clearcuts did not receive fertilizer

• The North Fork received 25% more fertilizer per hectare

• Fish-bearing streams: 60 foot buffer strips

• Non-fish-bearing streams: no protection

• Fenton received no fertilizer

Nitrate response

• Strong seasonal fluctuation during the calibration period• Muted seasonal response during the first post-treatment period• More pronounced seasonal response during the second post-treatment

period

Nitrate response

Calibration Period 1 Period 2North Fork 0.015 0.017 0.023South Fork 0.098 0.075 0.117Treatment headwaters 0.129 0.207 0.135

Mean NO3 + NO2 (mg/L)

Amphibians

DataCollection• Sampled only

before and after the first entry.

• Sampled 100 sites/yr.

• Average of 39 were unoccupied.

Amphibian Results

Effect of Being Within a Harvest Unit

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2004 2005 2006 2007Odd

s Ratio (and

Con

fiden

ce Lim

its)

Aquatic Invertebrates

2004

2006 - 2009headwaterlogging

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

controltreatment

Benthic taxa richne

ss2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

controltreatment

1

10

100

Benthic pe

rcen

tchiro

nomids

Invertebrate Response in Headwaters:Percent Chironomids, Increased,

Taxa Richness Decreased

Tributaries with Fish:No downstream effects on invertebrates

after harvest in headwatersafter harvest in headwaters

300

3000

30000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

control

treatment

Benthic inverteb

rates p

er squ

are meter

Benthic densities (in this graph), percent chironomids and taxa richness did not differ significantly from controls

Invertebrate Mainstem Responses:Percent Chironomids Increased,

Taxa Richness Decreased

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

controltreatment

Benthic taxa richne

ssBe

nthic pe

rcen

tchiro

nomids

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20091

10

100

controltreatment

Mainstem Responses:Lack of invertebrate density response possibly related

to fish biomass response

Fisheries

Mean Fork Length of Age 1+ Cutthroat Trout by Year andTreatment Period with 95% CI for North and South Fork Hinkle Creek

Years

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Fork

leng

th (m

m)

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140NF HinkleSF Hinkle

Pre-treatment Post 1 Post 2

Year2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Age

0 tro

ut (g

ram

s/m

2)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0NF HinkleSF Hinkle

Mean Biomass Age 0 Cutthroat Trout from Pools inNorth and South Fork Hinkle Tributaries

Pre-treatment Post 1 Post 2

Mean Biomass Age 1+ Cutthroat Trout from Pools inNorth and South Fork Hinkle Tributaries

Age

1+

cutth

roat

trou

t (g/

m2 )

1

2

3

4

5

6

NF HinkleSF Hinkle

Year

Pre-treatment

Post 1 Post 2

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Basin-level Analysis Significant Preliminary Results:

Coming soon: Stream-level analysisOwens, H.L. 2013

Same relationships for Age-1+ CT with 1-yr lag in both watersheds

Dissimilar relationships for Age-0 CT (no lag) between

watersheds

At this point in time, what do we think we have learned at Hinkle Creek?

• For almost every discipline, contemporary forest practices resulted in detectable changes in a parameter of interest.

• These changes were often difficult to detect, not acute, often subtle, and the magnitude of the changes existed well within the spatial variability exhibited within the watershed.

Douglas County Thank You!

Invertebrate Response in Headwaters:

Densities Increased

headwaterlogging

300

3000

30000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

control

treatmentBe

nthic inverteb

rates p

er squ

are meter

2004

2006 - 2009

Annual stream export

• Probably a 16-fold increase in annual stream export

• A portion of this increase is due to fertilizer

• Average input of nitrate from precipitation is approximately 0.7 kg/ha/yr

• Input was roughly equal to output

North Fork 50.5 (0.06) 837.4 (0.96) 130.5 (0.15) South Fork (37% clearcut) 721.4 (0.68) 1011.7 (0.95) 1017.7 (0.96) Myers 5.2 (0.06) 188.3 (2.18) 17.7 (0.21) Fenton (75% clearcut) 1.4 (0.06) 4.0 (0.18) 56.3 (2.49) Clay (36% clearcut) 11.5 (0.18) 109.0 (1.67) 96.9 (1.49) DeMersseman 11.8 (0.08) 694.4 (4.44) 30.7 (0.20) BB (32% clearcut) 375.0 (3.38) 489.9 (4.42) 303.2 (2.74) Russell (15% clearcut) 11.8 (0.12) 97.6 (1.01) 62.4 (0.65)

Values in kg/yr and kg/ha/yr

Calibration Fertilization Treatment

Amphibian Results

Effect of Being Within 500m Downstream of Harvest Unit

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

2004 2005 2006 2007Odd

s Ratio (and

Con

fiden

ce Lim

its)

Amphibian Results

Effect of Being in the South Fork

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

2004 2005 2006 2007Odd

s Ratio (and

Con

fiden

ce Lim

its)

Significant differences were

related to increases in

production (growth and mass).

• Overall, very few detectable changes in habitat or biologic parameters were observed with either treatment.

• At Hinkle Creek, Oregon Forest Practices Rules provided adequate short-term protection from acute negative effects to the resident fish community.

Fisheries Summary

a synthesis of the impacts of contemporary forest

Documents