Appendices

100 Pages·2002·4.93 MB·English

Spencer Creek
Pilot
Watershed Analysis
A day of huckleberry picking at Buck Lake around 1905 (photo courtesy of the Anderson family photo collection).
August 1995
Appendix 1
Preparers
7 1895
7 1895
Appendix 1-2
Name Agency Position
Andrew T. Peavy USFS Winema National Forest Forest GIS Coordinator
Andy S. Hamilton BLM Klarnath Falls Resource Area Aquatic Biologist
Michael W. Bechdolt BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Timber Manager
Patricia R. Buettner USFS Winema National Forest/ Wildlife Biologist
BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area
Mike Mathews USFS Winema National Forest Hydrologist
Kristin M. Bald BLM Lakeview District Team Leader
Tom Robertson U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Aquatic Ecosystems Coordinator
Robin Bown U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Supervisory Wildlife Biologist
Scott Senter BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Outdoor Recreat on Planner
Rob McEnroe BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Timber Sale Plarner GIS
Bill Yehle BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Archaeologist
Bill Lindsey BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Range Conservationist
Lou Whiteaker BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Botanist
Heather Haycen BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Visual Information Specia, st
Jim Vienop BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Writer/Editor
7. 18 95 Appendix 1-3
Appendix 2
Vegetation
7 18 95
Spencer Creek Watershed Analysis
Appendix 2-27185 7/1 8,95
Vegetation- stages using the two different methods
described above.
Seral Stage
In summary, it is important to note that
historically the watershed contained about 8
Breakdowns
to 11 percent nonforest land. In addition, the
watershed had been impacted by fires
(1899, 1945, and historica,!y. Based upon Leiberg's descnp-
tion, the -Foresteo Area -2MBF to 5MBF-
was the result of an older burn. it is as-
1994)
sumed that about 10 to 20 percent of the
watershed was probably in early or early-mid
seral stage at any one time due to repeated
1899 Leiberg Data
fires. Based upon a comparison of percent-
ages above, it is assumed that the water-
shed was probably composed of 65 to 75
Leiberg had 4 categories:
percent mid and late seral forests at any
one time.
1. Nonforest Area: This included
burned areas, glades, meadows,
marshes, lakes, semiarid tracts, etc.
2. Badly burned areas: We as-
sumed that these were forested
lands that had received some type
of fire. They were classified as
early sera] stage.
3. Forested Area: included all
forested area that contained trees 4
inches in diameter or greater. We
classified all these as either mid or
late seral stage.
4. Logged Area (None found within
this watershed)
In order to derive numbers for Table 2-1, we
averaged the percentage of land in each
c!assifcation stated above for the 8 town-
ships surrounding and within the Spencer
Creek watershed. The numbers were
obtained from Leiberg's description.
Note: Later in the analysis process,
Leiberg's 1899 vegetation map was digitized
just for the watershed boundaries. This
later analysis is a better representation of
the actual historic breakdown of seral
stages in the watershed, but the digitizing
was completed so late in the process. that
we can only include it in the Appendix. The
percentages of the different seral stages is
somewhat different that the other method,
b ':h ey are still reasonably close. Table
2 -1 srowv.s the percent of the different seral
7 18 95 Appendix 2-3
Spencer Creek Watershed Analysis
Table 2-1. Comparison of Leiberg's 1899 Data: Comparison between
averaging the 8 Townships within and surrounding the watershed and a
digitized version of just that area within the watershed.
Seral Stage Averaging 8 Legend used in Using the
Townships Leiberg's Digitized
Vegetation Map. version of
Within Watershed Leiberg's map.
only. Within Watershed
only.
Non Forest 11.4% Rock (Nonforest) 1%
Marshes,!Meadows 8%
Non Forest 6.7% Deforested area
Burned as a result of 8%
fires
Badly Burned 17% Forested Area - 11ic
2MBF to 5MBF"AC
1
(early-mid?)
Forested Area 18 %
5MBF to 1O MBF,AC
Forested 64% Forested Area 56%
10MBF to 25MBF. AC
1945 Seral Stage Data Note: Any pols - :s'er in GIS with a prefix
of 34 indicates c ear-cut or selectively logged
areas now restcc 'rg. in Spencer Creek,
Using the 1945 Legend For County Forest approximately 15.367 acres (28 percent of
Type Map, Eastern Oregon and Eastern the watershed) had Deen harvested prior to
Washington. Prepared by Forest Survey, recording this data.
Pacific Northwest Forest and Experiment
Station", forest types were classified into
seral stages based upon the limited descrip-
tion of that fores: type. Figure 2-2 lists the
description gr.-n and the subsequent seral
stage that it was abeled for this watershed
analysis
Appendix 2-4 7 18 95
1994 Seral Stage Clas-
The USFS had previously mapped plant
sification Using PMR
associations on their lands within the
(Pacific Meridian Re- watershed. In order to be consistent with
their plant associations, William Hopkins and
sources) Mike Bechdolt, using Hopkins (1979) plant
assoc:ation guide for the South Chdioquin
and Karnatn Ranger Districts, mappec the
The PMR ciassified the fiested areas into a
plant associations for the remaining portiuo
combination of sizes and structures. A
of the watershed (private and BLM-admin s-
complete description of the different sizes
tered lands). Mapping was done in the field
and structures that PMR classifies the
but under a limited time constraint, so there
stands into is available in the Winema
may likely be some corrections to make in
National Forest PMR Handbook. For this
the future. Plant associations are shown in
analysis, the size/structure classifications
Figure 2-1
listed in Table 2-2 were found in the water-
shed and subsequently classified into a
For the 1945 species group inventory data,
seral stage or nonfo est category. Note that
the descriptions listed in Figure 2-1 for the
some areas were treated (harvested) after
different timber types were used to map arid
the time the PMR data was collected. Each
determine the amount of acres of a domi-
area that was treated after 1987 was field
nant species. There was some discrepancy
checked and assigned a size/structure
in the classification they put on a polygon;
classification and canopy closure based
for example, 21 PONDEROSA PINE -
upoan field review This was done only on
SMALL. and the percentage by scecies that
federal Lands. On private lands, the data
occurred in that polygon. Sometimes the
was not updated. However, because most
percentage of white fir in that polygon was
of the private land was already classified as
higher than the percentage listed for pine.
early, early-mid, or mid, we did not fee! it yet they called the polygon a PONDEROSA
was as important to update the private and.
PINE, SMALL. Therefore, 1945 species
The data for private land reported in th s
group data was somewhat hatd to interpret.
analysis is likely more conservative than
Table 2-2 is a summary of that query.
wniat is actually there at the present tirme.
Much of the private land has been thinned to
For the 1994 species group information,
treat the ongoing salvage problem. The
PMR data was used. Sorne of the PNIR
percentage of eariy and early-mid is like'y
speces group classifications had to be
somewhat higher or the private land than is
lumped together for comparson purposes
reported in this arnaiss.
The 19 94 spec group PMR data was
es
grouped as outrined in Tab'e 2-3. The data
Note: For a complete description of what
likely has some discrepancies, but does give
these codes mean, please refer to the PMR
a general indication of how much of the
handbook available at the Winema National
watershed is likely dominated by a particular
Forest Supervisor's Office or the Klamath
species or vegetative type.
Falls BLM office.
7 18 95
Appendix 2-5
Spencer Creek Watershed Analysis
PLANT COMMUNITY AREA
ASSOCIATION DESCRIPTION (ACRES) PERCENT
CL-S4-13 Lodgepole/huckleberry/forb 3,643 7%
CL-S4-14 Loogepole grouse huckleberry!
long-stolon sedge 60 0 01^!.%
CM-S111 Mountain hemlock/grouse
hucktecerry 1,320 2%z
CP Ponderosa pine 520 0.9 6%
CR-Gi -11 Snasta red firilong-stolon sedge 903 2%
CR-SI-12 Shasta red fir-mountain hemlock/
pinemat manzanita/long-stolon sedge 1,775 3%
CR-S3- 11 Shasta red fir-white fir! chinquapin
-prince s pine, long-stolon sedge 10,445 19 %4
CW-C2-15 M: xed conifer,snowbrush-bearberry 19,635 36°o
CW-Hi -12 Wh ite fir/chinquapin-boxwood-
prrce s pine 13,641 25°
CW-M1-11 White fir-alder/shrub meadow 122 0.23%o
FW Forb meadow 58 0.11%O
MW Wet meadow -surface wet/ all
growing season 1,466 3^o
NR ncrforest rock 512 0 95%o
WL non-moving water 2 0.00%o
F~gure 2- P a' -' ASSSca w s Fot- t n the Spencer Creek Watershed
Appendix 2-6 7 18 95