-*5

H 86x I/

Hunter Creek

A

OplO V<f 0 '' "I* voev *I' W- VPO.-O 'r f  VW0.11 'r "

Engineering, Science, and Technology

3841 North Freeway Boulevard Sacramento, CA 95834
I have read this analysis and find it meets the Standards and Guidelines for watershed analysis

required by The Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. (April 1994).

SIGNED A /t/ .I /gI(/V / 49y- District Ranger

Gold Beach Ranger District

Siskiyou National Forest

DATE /7-/
Hunter Creek Watershed Analysis

Prepared for

USDA Forest Service

Siskiyou National Forest

Gold Beach Ranger District

29279 Ellensburg Avenue

Gold Beach, OR. 97444

Prepared by

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology

3841 N. Freeway Blvd. Suite 145

Sacramento, CA. 95834

August 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1-

1.1 ANALYSIS PROCESS ............. ................................ 1-

1.2 ANALYSIS OF ECOSYSTEM ELEMENTS ............................. 1-

2.0 CULTURAL AND PHYSICAL FEATURES .................... .............. 2-1

2.1 MANAGEMENT ALLOCATION .................................... 2-1

2.2 PHYSICAL SETTING .............................................. 2-1

2.2.1 Bedrock Geology ............ ............................... 2-1

2.2.2 Lithologies . ............................................... 2-6

2.2.3 Structure .................................................. 2-6

2.3 CULTURAL ELEMENT ............................................ 2-7

2.3.1 Prehistoric ............... ................................. 2-7

2.3.2 Historic ................................................... 2-8

2.4 RECREATION . ................................................. 2-11

3.0 TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM ............................................. 3-1

3.1 VEGETATVE CHARACTERIZATION ............................... 3-1

3.1.1 Reference Condition ........................................ 3-2

3.1.2 Current Conditions ......................................... 3-3

3.1.3 Future Conditions ........... ............................... 34

3.1.4 Sensitive Plants ............ ................................ 3-6

3.2 WILDLIFE HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION ......................... 3-8

3.2.1 Special and Unique Habitats .................................. 3-15

3.3 SPECIES OF CONCERN ........... ............................... 3-15

3.3.1 Federal or State Listed Species ............................... 3-16

3.3.2 State Sensitive ............ ................................ 3-17

3.3.3 ROD's Survey & Manage ................................... 3-20

3.3.4 Regional Forester Sensitive ................................... 3-21

3.3.5 Siskiyou N.F. Land & Resource Management Plan Indicators .... ... 3-21

3.3.6 Neotropical Migrant Landbirds ............................... 3-24

3.4 FOREST HEALTH - INSECTS, DISEASE AND NOXIOUS WEEDS .... ... 3-25

4.0 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM ...................... ........................... 4-1

4.1 UPSLOPE ENVIRONMENT ........................................ 4-

4.1.1 Hydrology ................ ................................ 4-

4.1.2 Erosion and Sediment ....................................... 4-9

4.2 RIPARIAN ENVIRONMENT ....................................... 4-11

4.2.1 Physical Characterization .................................... 4-1

4.2.2 Riparian Animal Species of Concern ........................... 4-17

4.3 AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT ....................................... 4-19

i
4.3.1 Physical Characterization ........... ......................... 4-1

4.3.2 Biological Characterization ......... ......................... 4-2

5.0 MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 5-

5.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................. 5-

5.2 TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM ................ ...................... 5-

5.2.1 Silviculture Opportunities .......... .......................... 5-

5.2.2 Wildlife Enhancement Opportunities ....... .................... 5-

5.2.3 Forest Health . ............................................. 5-

5.3 RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEM .......................................... 5-

5.3.1 Opportunities in Riparian Reserves ........ ..................... 5-

5.4 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM ........................................... 5-

5.5 RECREATION ................................................... 5-

5.6 COORDINATION OPPORTUNITIES .............. ................... 5-

REFERENCES

APPENDIX A:

APPENDIX B. 1:

APPENDIX B.2:

APPENDIX C.1

APPENDIX C.2:

APPENDIX C.3:

APPENDIX C.4:

APPENDIX C.5:

APPENDIX C.6:

APPENDIX C.7:

APPENDIX C.8:

APPENDIX C.9

APPENDIX D:

APPENDIX E:

APPENDIX F:

List of People Contacted

Late Successional Forest 1940

Vegetation Structural Stands by WAA

Species of Concern Designation and Occurrence

Suitable Habitat and Availability for Federal and State Listed Species

Suitable Habitat and Availability for State Sensitive Species

Suitable Habitat and Availability for Presidents Forest Plan Species

Suitable Habitat and Availability for Regional Forester's Designated Species

Suitable Habitat and Availability for Siskiyou N.F. LRMP Indicator Species

Elk Cover and Forage

Elk Avoidance Areas

Summary of Habitat Associations for Neotropical Migratory Landbirds

Hydrology Method

Road Conditions

Vegetation Structure in Riparian Zones

ii
LIST OF TABLES

Number Title

1 Land ownership in Hunter Creek.

2 Land management allocations.

3 Developed recreation sites in the Hunter Creek Watershed, existing and

proposed.

4 Harvest acres by half-decade period, National Forest lands.

5 Acres by structural stage and non forest class in 1992, entire watershed.

6 USFS sensitive and BLM special status (Bureau Sensitive and Bureau

Assessment lists) plant species documented to occur in the Hunter Creek

watershed.

7 USFS unusual and BLM special status (Bureau tracking lists) plant species

documented to occur in the Hunter Creek watershed.

8 Historic distribution of interior late successional forest blocks in 1940.

9 Current distribution of interior late successional forest blocks in 1992.

10 Future distribution of interior late successional forest blocks in 2040.

11 Patch size (acres), and closest distance (miles) to an adjacent patch, of

interior old growth within the Hunter Creek watershed.

12 Acres of special wildlife habitats on National Forest lands within the

Hunter Creek Watershed.

13 Estimated suitable habitat for marbled murrelet nesting or spotted owl

nesting/roosting/foraging within the Hunter Creek watershed.

14 Peak and base flow estimation.

15 Forest Service activity in the transient snow zone.

16 Roads and vegetative recovery.

...

..
TABLES (continued)

Number Title

17 Ranking of WAA's by unrecovered acres.

18 Streamside Vegetation in the non forest and pioneer structure

19 Stream classification and miles within the Hunter Creek watershed.

20 Amount and quality of anadromous fish spawning gravel estimated

from surveys of the Hunter Creek drainage in 1971.

iv
LIST OF FIGURES

Number Title

1 Vicinity Map

2 Land Management Allocations

3 Rock Types

4 Current Vegetation Structural Stage

5 1940 Interior Old Growth

6 1992 Interior Old Growth

7 2040 Interior Old Growth

8 Port-Orford-cedar Disease

9 Perennial Stream Density

10 Permanent Road Density

11 Watershed Analysis Areas (WAA's)

12 Riparian Zone Vegetation Structure

13 Stream Gradients

14 Fish Distribution

15 Comparison of 1940 and Current Vegetation Structure

16 Unsurveyed Marbled Murrelet Habitat

v
1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this analysis is to develop a scientifically based understanding of the processes

and interactions occurring in the Hunter Creek watershed and to determine how past management

activities have influenced near- and long-term resource conditions. Specific goals and objectives

of the analysis are to:

* Gather and analyze information to guide future management activities.

* Provide management recommendations designed to attain/maintain Aquatic

Conservation Strategy objectives and increase old growth habitats on the Late

Successional Reserve (LSR) portion of federal lands.

* Develop an understanding of the role that multiple ownership plays in determining

conditions in the Hunter Creek watershed.

1.1 ANALYSIS PROCESS

Documentation and analysis procedures follow the guidelines in the Federal Guide to Watershed

Analysis. Issues and key questions, developed by the Forest Service with EA Engineering,

Science, and Technology guide the content of this analysis. Key questions are designed to focus

the assessment on the important questions, so that efforts are concentrated on the processes and

conditions directly related to desired conditions and beneficial uses.

The Hunter Creek watershed was stratified by land ownership and four 6th field watersheds. For

analysis purposes, the sixth field watersheds were subdivided into Watershed Analysis Areas

(WAA's). Information used in the analysis consisted of Forest Service GIS maps and associated

databases, aerial photography, field sampling, and interviews with various individuals. Private

land owners and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) were contacted regarding management

direction and future actions. Considering the mixed ownership, amount and quality of data at the

subwatershed level is highly variable. However, attempts are made to assess watershed

conditions across all ownerships consistently.

An interdisciplinary core team consisting of a hydrologist, geologist, fisheries biologist, wildlife

biologist, and silviculturalist conducted this analysis. Forest Service and other agency personnel,

in addition to the public, provided key information and insights to the history and conditions in

the Hunter Creek Watershed (Appendix A).

1.2 ANALYSIS OF ECOSYSTEM ELEMENTS

This analysis is grouped into three main categories: the Terrestrial Ecosystem, the Riparian

Ecosystem, and the Aquatic Ecosystem. Social aspects and values are discussed in Chapter 2,

Watershed Overview.

1-1
In a physically based model of the watershed, energy flow is initiated at the summit and proceeds

downslope through the riparian zone, into the stream channel, and delivered to the next body of

water. Therefore, the physical/biological analysis begins upslope, with the forest structure and

associated biological communities. Next, the riparian zone serves as the interface between the

upslope and aquatic environments. The final section focuses on the aquatic system and its ability

to transport watershed products and support aquatic dependent species.

Key questions are organized sequentially, such that information contained in preceding questions

are used in the analysis of the subsequent questions.

1-2
2.0 CULTURAL AND PHYSICAL FEATURES

2.1 MANAGEMENT ALLOCATION

The Hunter Creek watershed encompasses 28,404 acres. The watershed is located directly south

of Gold Beach and drains directly into the Pacific Ocean (Figure 1). Lands administered by the

forest products industry (South Coast Lumber, Menasha, Moore Mill and Lumber), BLM, Forest

Service, and private citizens create a mosaic of ownership in the Hunter Creek watershed. Table

1 displays the ownership allocation acres. Table 2 displays the land management allocations.

Distribution of ownership and land management allocations presented in Figure 2.

The Siskiyou Land and Resource Management Plan (Siskiyou LRMP 1989) as amended by the

Record of Decision for Amendments to the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management

Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (ROD 1994) further

allocated the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management ownership into various

management designations (Table 2, Figure 2). At the watershed scale, industrial forest land

accounts for the largest management area with 14,732 acres. Within federal lands, Late

Successional Reserves (part of the Northwest Coast LSR) account for the largest management

area (6,311 acres) followed by matrix land designation (2,375 acres).

2.2 PHYSICAL SETTING

Hunter Creek is a moderate sized stream flowing into the Pacific Ocean in Township 37 South,

Range 15 West, Section 12, Willamette Meridian, approximately two miles south of Gold Beach,

Oregon. The National Forest boundary occurs approximately at river mile (RM) 12.0 from the

mouth. Hunter Creek divides into three major branches: the main stem, North Fork Hunter

Creek, and South Fork Hunter Creek. Other significant tributaries include Conn Creek, Little

South Fork Hunter Creek, and Elko Creek.

A small estuary approximately of 0.7 miles in length is at the mouth of Hunter Creek. During

low water flow periods sand accumulates at the mouth developing a sill and "bar-bound"

conditions which restrict the daily mixing of fresh and salt water.

2.2.1 Bedrock Geology

The bedrock geology of the Hunter Creek watershed consists primarily of four units: Colebrooke

Schist, Otter Point Formation, Dothan Formation and an ultramafic suite composed of

serpentinites and peridotites (Figure 3). These units were created seaward, likely as trench fill

sediments and subsequently accreted on to the North American Plate as the Pacific Plate was

subducted beneath the North American Plate. The obducted crust forms a series of

2-1
subparallel thrust plates that appear in map view as east to west trending out cropping ridges

trending parallel to the coast. Typically the relative age of the rocks increases with depth. The

watershed is divided by a north-south striking thrust fault located between the Otter Point

Formation and the ultramafics, running from Section 36 of T36S, R14W to Section 36 of T37S,

R14W.

TABLF 1 LTAND OWNERSHIP TN HI

Private 17,662

Forest Service 7,001

Bureau of Land Management 3,703

State of Oregon 38

TABLE 2: LAND MANAGEMENT ALLOCATIONS

Forest Products Industry 14,732

Late Successional Reserve 6,311

Small Private Ownership 2,931

Matrix 3,474

BLM General Forest 1,099

Riparian Reserve 649

Special Interest Site 144

Special Wildlife Site 77

Botanical Area 47

Oregon State Park 38

Matrix 2,735

Late Successional Reserve 2,422

Riparian Reserve 649

Special Wildlife Site 77

Special Interest Area 144

Botanical Area 47

2-2
Hunter Creek Watershed

Vicinity Map

POWERS *E or

ll'

31

GOLD BEACH

a

N (

3 0 3 6 9 Miles

l l j1
HUNTER CREEK WATERSHED

MANAGEMENTARE4S

MANAGEMENT AREAS

R USFS BoEaicAm

*USFS Uniqu Ara

*USFS Special Wi Shie

USPS Ri Reseves

USFS an dLM

LeSuccesiolRves

USFS Mrix

oE.LM rl Poet Ma

* - Slate Park

Fore Producs lidusxy I

* Sm Private Ownehip

N

-- A

Sa.l.: I hio = 1.25 uS Q*6497,LW1Y

2.2.2 Lithologies

Stratigraphically, the youngest rocks in the watershed, the Dothan and Otter Point Formations are

composed of greywacke, sandstone, mudstone, with inclusions of cherts and pillow basalts. The

more resistant volcanic units often form the topographic highs within the watershed. The deepest

gorges in the Hunter Creek watershed are incised into these units. These gorges trend parallel to

the strike of the regional structure and appear to be related to either localized stratigraphic

weaknesses in the units (i.e. more erosive layers), or to fracturing and faulting. Field

investigations found the sedimentary units to be generally thinly bedded with high degree of

fracturing.

The ultramafic rocks occur primarily as sheets within the Otter Point Formation and as soles to

overriding thrust sheets, but also are present along vertical faults (Renoud 1976). They consist o

peridotites and serpentinites. Ultramafic soils once disturbed, erode rapidly. However,

ultramafic rocks weather to a saprolitic clay which is more erosion resistant. Because of the very

low permeability of these clay soils, water tends to pond which results in higher mass movement

potential. Another important aspect of the ultramafic units is the toxicity of these saprolitic soils

to a majority of the plant species in the watershed. This leads to an open woodland vegetative

structure where trees are generally sparse and stunted, or may be completely lacking in

vegetation. The ultramafic rocks are a source of chromite, nickel, copper, and asbestos (Ramp

1975).

Colebrooke schist consists predominantly of tectonically metamorphosed sediments. Inclusions

of metavolcanic greenstone are also present. The metavolcanics are very resistant to weathering

often forming bedrock promontories, such as Pyramid Rock and the buttes at Signal Buttes. The

metasediments are much less resistant and constitute a higher risk of failure, particularly in the

inner gorge areas of Hunter Creek.

2.2.3 Structure

The principle structural feature in the Hunter Creek watershed is a complex system of thrust

faults in which relative displacement of individual thrust plates is in an east to southeasterly

direction. The rocks were further deformed by a series of north/south trending high-angle

faulting which sheared and altered the rocks into a melange of lithologies. These shear zones

range in size from a few inches wide to the width of a valley, and appear to be a prime area for

slope failures. Subsequent tectonic events have caused some folding in all units, with the

exception of the unconsolidated Quaternary sediments. The structural fabric generally controls

the landscape-scale topographic features, from deeply-incised stream channels to flat-lying ridge

tops. Structure controls appear to dictate the extent of incision since there is little correlation

between geologic units and extent of incision.

2-6
Geomorphologv

Low angle implacement of the ultramafic thrust plates have formed broad plateaus in the upper

watershed as a result of the. Massive landscape-scale landslides have occurred in the past,

blocking and re-routing Hunter Creek. Several landslides exist on the south and east flanks of

the Flycatcher Springs area. The upper basin is characterized by immature drainage patterns and

terrace landforms. The topography on many of the hillsides exhibit a scalloped pattern indicative

of landslide scarps. Lower in the basin, and particularly in the North Fork and the mainstem nea

the National Forest boundary, the creek is deeply incised, with steep canyon walls and associated

inner-gorge slides. In the lower watershed, where gradients decrease, sediment delivered to the

channel system are deposited creating an alluvial valley.

Hydrogeology

Groundwater is an important factor in determining slope stability in the Hunter Creek watershed.

In areas where the serpentine has weathered to clay it presents an impervious boundary to the

vertical migration of groundwater, creating local perched water tables. The Hunter Creek bogs

are a good example of this occurrence. Localized perched water tables have also formed on the

back side of ancient landslides.

The clay layer also has the effect of keeping the water at or near the surface, which increases the

potential for overland flow. The groundwater can also play an important role in the initiation of

mass wasting events, as in the example of the slump complex at MP 8.0 on FR 3680.

2.3 CULTURAL ELEMENT

Key Question: What are the past and present cultural uses of the watershed?

2.3.1 Prehistoric

The archaeological record points to continuous human occupation of southwest Oregon for at

least the last 8,000 to 9,000 years. A Carbon-14 study of the Marial site (35CU84, Griffin, 1983

on the Rogue River yields several dates beginning at 8,560 Before Present (B.P.), establishing th

antiquity of human life in this portion of southwest Oregon. Excavations carried out near the

mouth of the Illinois River at the Tlegetlinten site (35CU59, Tisdale, 1986) unearthed materials

from two later cultural periods; 6,000 and 2,000 years ago. Human adaptations in southwest

Oregon appear to have evolved from a moderately mobile, hunting/gathering lifestyle to more

sedentary, specialized economies.

Southwest Oregon was traditionally occupied by several different bands of Athabaskan Indians.

Each band spoke a different dialect of the Athabaskan language and had its own name. The

Tututni group of bands refers collectively to all of the Oregon Athabaskans of the seaboard.

2-7
The Tututni group occupying Hunter Creek was known as the Yahshutes band. In general, the

Tututni (or Coast Rogues, as they are sometimes called) inhabited much of southwestern Oregon

from the beaches to the upland forests. They occupied the region from the mouth of the Coquille

River near Bandon, Oregon to northern California and extending up the major drainages like the

Smith, Chetco, Pistol and Rogue Rivers. The bands were numerous and the locations diverse.

The general pattern of Tututni settlement indicates that large winter villages were established at

meadows, along rivers and major streams. Houses constructed at village settlements were

substantial, consisting of semi-subterranean structures with bark or plank walls with roofs

measuring 12 to 16 square feet. These villages served as semi-permanent habitation spots, where

foods collected throughout the year could be stored for use in the winter.

The Hunter Creek watershed was likely used as a dispersed hunting and gathering area. A winter

village may have been located along the wider reaches of lower Hunter Creek. Hunter Creek

itself would have likely been used for seasonal fishing opportunities. The ridge top location of

current road 1703 was likely used as a travel corridor between the Rogue and Pistol Rivers.

Several prehistoric sites have been documented on federal lands within the Hunter Creek

watershed. These sites have been primarily lithic scatters. One prehistoric camp has also been

documented. Vision quest sites have also been documented in or near the watershed. Cultural

surveys have not been conducted on private lands.

There is no evidence that local Indian groups presently use the watershed for traditional

activities. Recognized tribes (Tolowa, Karuk, Coquille, and Siletz) have previously been queried

about any traditional activities currently in practice in the Siskiyou National Forest. No current

activities were disclosed.

2.3.2 Historic

Exploration /Settlement

The first historic encounters with the Hunter Creek watershed were by offshore Spanish

explorers in the 1500s. Exploration by English, Russian, and French explorers came later. The

earliest recorded contact between the coastal natives and Europeans is noted in the log of Captain

George Vancouver in 1792.

Interest in fur resources led to a period of maritime fur trade, particularly strong between 1785

and 1820. Both Americans and Europeans gained much knowledge of the Pacific Northwest

from these trade voyages. It was this knowledge of the area's bountiful natural resources that

prompted land-based exploration.

The first real land exploration of southwest Oregon began with the Hudson Bay Company's fur

trading expeditions in the 1820s. This British-based firm monopolized most of the fur trade in

2-8
southwest Oregon. Forays by American traders like Jedediah Smith and Ewing Young were rare

With the exception of the bloody confrontation in 1828 between Jedediah Smith's group and the

Lower Umpqua or Kalawatset Indians near Gardiner, relations between the land-based traders

and the Indians were positive and peaceful.

The efforts of the land traders, as well as those of pioneer emigrants and natural history

explorers, gradually publicized the area between 1820 and the early 1850s. Then, discovery of

gold near Jacksonville in 1852 and near Bandon at Whiskey Run Beach in 1853 brought in

thousands of miners. The discovery of gold near Gold Beach (then Ellensburg) followed. Thus

started the first Euro-American settlement of the area.

Differences in culture, lifestyle, and economic subsistence between the native peoples and the

newly arrived Euro-Americans inevitably led to conflicts. By the end of the Rogue Indian wars

in 1856, the remaining population of aboriginal people had been moved to the Grande Ronde or

Siletz Reservations. Some individuals escaped relocation or were allowed to return to their

homelands, mainly because of intermarriage with the white settlers. However, some individuals

returned to their homelands after the enactment of the Dawes Act, which opened up public

domain allotments to Indian peoples. In 1938, 23 allotments existed in Curry County.

The restricted area of arable ground in the watershed (essentially just the valley bottom at the

lower end of Hunter Creek) limited the amount of settlement in the watershed.

The Siskiyou National Forest was established on October 5, 1906. Early on, fire protection was

one of the primary functions of the rangers. Fire lookouts were built and operated in the 1930s.

In the Hunter Creek watershed, these included lookouts at Pyramid Rock, Signal Buttes, and

Grizzly Mountain. None of these lookouts exist today.

Mining

The Hunter Creek area has seen mineral exploration and development at varying levels of

intensity since the 1850s gold rush. Gold was mined in the 1850s mostly as placer deposits alon

the river terraces and beaches near the mouth of the creek. The 1930s saw exploration for nickel

as well as gold; the 1950s for nickel and chromite. Most of the physical evidence found today is

from exploration, mainly trenches and test pits.

Mining activity in the watershed focused around two main areas: Signal Buttes, including the

Starr or McKinley mine; and Red Flat, including the West mine. Current road 1703 (which

began as an aboriginal trail) on the east side of the watershed served as a mining trail. Other

trails in the watershed were created or used by miners. Several prospectors' or early settlers'

cabins exist, or at one time existed, in the watershed.

Current mining claims in the watershed are on serpentine soils. Nickel is the only metallic

resource that appears to have a potentially significant impact on the future economy of Curry

2-9
County (Ramp et al. 1977). If market conditions were to change, wide-scale nickel mining in the

watershed is possible due to the vast extent of low-grade ore.

Approximately 10 rock quarries have operated in the watershed over the years. Two sand and

gravel pits are currently being operated in the Hunter Creek alluvium. Curry County and the

Siskiyou National Forest operate these pits.

Special Forest Products

Special forest products collected from the watershed include: mushrooms, boughs, ferns, shrubs,

poles, cedar posts and bolts, Christmas trees, burls, beargrass and firewood. Much of this

collection activity is recreational in nature.

Neither the Forest Service nor the BLM allow collection of Port-Orford-cedar boughs for

personal use. This is due to past over harvest and as a measure to control the Spread of PortOrford-cedar Root Rot.

Grazing

Since the 1800s, the area has a history of domestic livestock grazing (Dillingham 1995).

Presently, about 1,132 acres in the northern part of the watershed is grazed in an area known as

the Signal Buttes Range Allotment. The remaining 971 acres of this 2,103-acre allotment falls

within the neighboring Quosatana and Jim Hunt Creek watersheds.

The Signal Buttes Range Allotment, formerly known as the Wildhorse-Quosatana Range

Allotment, has been under Forest Service permit since 1924. The Signal Buttes (and Kimball

Hill) portion was added in 1950. Sometime between 1965 and 1974 the allotment was vacated.

In 1974, grazing resumed in the Signal Buttes area with 30 cow-calf pairs for the period June 15 -

September 15. Grazing continued through 1994. Since 1995, one bull and 9 cow-calf pairs are

allowed to graze yearlong, with the highest use taking place during spring, summer, and mild

winters. This grazing permit is valid to the year 2005.

Streams exposed to grazing within the watershed's portion of this allotment amount to

approximately 1.25 miles in the North Fork Hunter Creek subwatershed and 1.5 miles in the

Hunter Creek subwatershed; all are perennial, non-fish bearing streams. Stream banks are well

vegetated and stable (Dillingham 1995). There are no range improvement structures (including

boundary fencing).

Cattle are also present in the lower watershed. Grazing occurs on private land, on pastures

adjacent to Hunter Creek.

2-10
2.4 RECREATION

Key Question: What are the major recreation uses in the watershed?

The majority of National Forest lands in the Hunter Creek watershed is designated "roaded

natural" in the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classification system. Roughly 1,800

acres in the National Forest's northwest corner of the watershed is designated "semi-primitive

motorized" in the same ROS system. Table 3 gives an inventory of formal recreation sites and

trails in the Hunter Creek watershed, both existing and proposed.

TABLE 3. DEVELOPED RECREATION SlTES IN THE HUNTER CREEK WATERSHED,

EXISTING AND PROPOSED

Elko Campground Existing USFS

Quosatana Butte Trail (Non-system trail) Existing USFS

McKinley Mine Trail (Non-system trail) Existing USFS

North Fork Hunter Creek Trail Existing BLM

Hunter Creek Bog Viewing Area/Trail Proposed BLM

There are no developed recreation sites on private lands within the watershed.

Recreational activities in the watershed are conducted mostly by local citizens. The amount of

each use is not known. However, the primary recreational use of the watershed is driving. This

is especially true during the autumn hunting seasons.

The second most common use is camping. The heaviest camping use occurs during hunting

season. During this time, camping is spread throughout the watershed at dispersed sites along

Hunter Creek. Camping also occurs during the summer months, again at dispersed sites.

The undeveloped Coldiron Camp area receives the highest camping use in the watershed. The

second most heavily used camping area is at Elko Campground, the only developed campground

in the watershed. Elko receives most of its use during deer and elk hunting seasons and summer

weekends; exact numbers are unknown. Other dispersed camping sites include Red Flat, sites

along Hunter Creek, and the Signal Buttes area.

Another recreational use is botanical study and viewing. This occurs at the Hunter Creek Bog

(BLM) and Red Flats Botanical Area (USFS). The Bureau of Land Management plans to

improve this use by constructing a boardwalk. The existing parking area on the east side of the

bog will be maintained at its current size.

2-11
Hiking in the watershed is moderately popular with local citizens. All of the existing trails listed

in Table 3 receive varying degrees of use. Currently, none of the National Forest trails are

maintained except for minor work by local hikers. Only the North Fork Hunter Creek trail is

planned for maintenance (not improvement).

Swimming is a very popular recreational activity during the summer. There are several excellent

swimming holes in the main stem of Hunter Creek near the end of the county road. This area is

outside the fog zone and thus a popular area for locals.

All-terrain vehicle (ATV) use and four-wheeling in the open serpentine areas is another common

recreational pastime in the watershed. However, this activity is a concern, as motorized vehicles

are a known vector spreading Port-Orford-cedar root rot. There is also concern that this type of

recreation could, in the future, negatively impact the watershed's sensitive plants.

Recreation is very limited on private lands due to locked gates. South Coast Lumber Company,

for example, keeps almost all its roads gated and locked except during deer season.

Recreation trends shown in the 1994 Oregon State Outdoor Recreation Plan survey indicate that

demand for dispersed recreation of various types is increasing. The dominant activities, listed in

rank order, are sightseeing/pleasure driving (69 percent of households), swimming (59 percent),

boat fishing (41 percent), tent camping (39 percent), and nature study and wildlife viewing (38

percent). Demand for recreational opportunities in Hunter Creek is expected to remain the same

or gradually increase from current levels. The outdoor recreation plan also indicates that the

demand for trails is increasing. Locally, there has been an increased interest in accessible trails,

including equestrian, mountain bike and ATV trails, as well as day-use trails.

If roads are closed for fish and wildlife protection, Port-Orford-cedar protection, road-related

watershed restoration, meadow protection, and other resource-related purposes, then current

levels of road access in the watershed will decrease.

2-12
3.0 TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM

Assessment of the terrestrial ecosystem begins with the historic and current vegetative structure

in the watershed. This includes stand structure, old growth habitats, and special and unique

habitats. Following the vegetation and habitat characterization, the assessment presents

terrestrial species of concern, including information on occurrence. Habitat is discussed for each

species and is based on the findings from the vegetation characterization analysis.

Although sources vary, data on vegetation and species is consistently assessed across all

ownerships. Data sources include Pacific Meridian Resources (PMR), Forest Service supplied

GIS and associated databases, aerial photography, and field sampling.

Limitations

PMR classifications should be verified before making any site-specific resource decisions.

Classification discrepancies have been noted in vegetation stands located on ultramafic soils.

Specifically, vegetation stands located on ultramafic soils in the early seral stage are classified as

pioneer structural stage by PMR.

3.1 VEGETATIVE CHARACTERIZATION

Key Question: What is the structure and distribution of vegetation in the watershed?

The Hunter Creek watershed stretches from the Pacific Ocean to approximately 10 air miles

inland. As such, the entire watershed is strongly influenced by the coastal climate. However,

there are a variety of habitats in the watershed driven by the diversity of other physiographic

conditions. Habitats include serpentine soils, rock and rock outcrops, productive riparian areas,

and north and south-facing aspects.

Most of the lower end of the watershed, primarily in private ownership, consists of highly

productive soil of sedimentary origin. These lands, heavily harvested of nearly all old growth

timber in the 1950s and 60s, now support a mix of conifer and hardwood stands. Small amounts

of agricultural and developed land exist in the lower watershed. Some residential development

has taken place on the hills above lower Hunter Creek.

Federal lands occupy the eastern one-third of the watershed, including the headwaters of the

mainstem and North Fork Hunter Creeks. National Forest lands have seen a moderate amount of

timber harvesting; since 1955, 22 percent of these lands have had regeneration or thinning

harvests.

Federal lands, in general, are a mix of productive forest lands and sparsely vegetated serpentine

soils. These serpentinite soils occupy a wide block of land running south from Signal Buttes to

the southern watershed boundary. The serpentine, or ultramafic derived soils, supports stands of

3-1
widely spaced Jeffrey pine and Port-Orford-cedar; Jeffrey pine and Port-Orford-ceder are the

climax species on ultramafic soils. Other pine species found on or near serpentine soils in the

watershed include knobcone pine, western white pine, lodgepole pine, and sugar pine.

More productive sites in the watershed are stocked with Douglas-fir, western hemlock, western

redcedar, grand fir, and red alder. Other species found in the watershed include incense cedar,

Oregon myrtle, and tanoak; tanoak is common on dry, south-facing slopes.

At least three plant series occur on National Forest lands in the watershed: tanoak,

tanoak/Douglas-fir, and Jeffrey pine. Plant series are not mapped for the balance of the

watershed. However, it is likely that these three series, along with the Douglas-fir and western

hemlock series, account for the entire watershed.

Currently, approximately three percent of the watershed is in late successional habitat. In 1940,

approximately 37 percent was in late successional habitat. In comparison, the Regional

Ecosystem Assessment Project Report - Southwest Oregon (USDA 1994) estimates that 45 - 75

percent late successional habitat across the landscape is needed for a fully functioning ecosystem.

Unique interest areas help characterize the diversity of vegetation within the watershed. Hunter

Creek Bog (BLM) and the adjacent Red Flat Botanical Area (USFS) are a prime example of

serpentine bogs. Darlingronia califomica (California pitcher plant) is the focal plant of the bog.

Also included as unique interest areas are Pyramid Rock, Quosatana Butte, and Signal Buttes; all

on National Forest lands. These unique interest areas are home to most of the 10 documented

sensitive plant species in the watershed (see Key Question: What is the status of T&E listed,

sensitive, and indicator species in the watershed, what is their distribution, and what is the

character of their habitat?).

3.1.1 Reference Condition

Vegetation conditions in the 1940s represent reference conditions, as timber harvesting was not

yet a significant disturbance factor in the watershed. Some timber harvest occurred in the late

1940s, although logging in earnest did not start until the 1950s. Prior to harvest activities, fire

was the primary disturbance in the watershed.

Lightning fires have shaped the landscape over time. The fire return frequency for the Hunter

Creek watershed is estimated to be at least 150 years. The strong marine influence in this

watershed creates moisture conditions that are generally unfavorable for fire starts from

lightning. When conditions are favorable, however, the resulting fires are intense and stand resetting in nature. Additionally, during pre-historic and early historic times, American Indians

and early white settlers likely used fire to enhance forage for game and to stimulate the growth of

plants used as food and for manufacturing baskets.

3-2
Fire suppression since early this century has nearly eliminated the fire disturbance process from

the watershed. It is likely that the 1940 forest stands originated with a fire. But, it is also likely

that few, if any, of these stands had encountered even moderate intensity fire for many years prior

to 1940. There are no significant fires recorded in the watershed during this century.

Clumpy windthrow and, especially, large scale windthrow is a natural disturbance which has

shaped forested landscapes throughout the Pacific Northwest. Although data is not available to

describe the historic distribution of windthrow, it is assumed that over the centuries windthrow

has modified vegetation stands in Hunter Creek. Exploratory and extractive mining also had an

influence, but mining in general, including fires started as a result of mining activities, likely had

only a minor impact to the vegetative landscape.

Late-successional forest in 1940, by sixth field watersheds, is shown in Appendix B. The

acreages were determined in two ways, depending on ownership. A 1938 Curry County

inventory using aerial photographs established late-successional stands on National Forest lands.

On all other lands, late-successional forest was interpreted from 1940 aerial photographs. Based

on these sources, 37 percent of the watershed (10,375 acres) was in late-successional forest in

1940.

It should be noted that the 1938 inventory was probably done for timber purposes, not for

structural characteristics. As such, there are limitations to its accuracy for late-successional

assessment.

3.1.2 Current Conditions

Since the 1940s, timber harvest has supplanted fire and large scale windthrow events as the

primary disturbance influence in the watershed. Timber harvesting started in the watershed in

the late 1940s, with significant logging in the 1950s and 1960s. During that time, Agnew Timber

Company (previous landowner to South Coast Lumber Company) heavily logged its ownership

in the watershed.

Logging on National Forest lands within the Hunter Creek watershed reportedly started with the

Hunter Creek Timber Sale in 1955. This sale included timber harvest in the nearby Lawson

Creek watershed to the east. Overall, there were two periods of relatively heavy harvest in

Hunter Creek: 1955 to 1964, and 1980 to 1989. Harvest levels on National Forest lands by halfdecade periods are shown in Table 4. Some of this harvest occurred in what was General Forest

that now is designated Late-Successional Reserve. This allocation occurred by the Record of

Decision, Northwest Forest Plan in 1994.

Reforestation on private forest lands did not begin until the 1960s. Much of this early

reforestation, often in the form of aerial seeding, was unsuccessful. In addition, vegetation

control was poor to non-existent. As a result, much of the logged private lands grew back to red

alder, tanoak, and other hardwoods. South Coast Lumber and other private landowners are now

3-3
converting these hardwood stands back to conifers. This conifer reforestation appears is

silviculturally intensive and appears successful.

TABLE 4. HARVEST ACRES BY HALF-DECADE PERIOD, NATIONAL FOREST

1955 - 1959 289 0 4%

1960- 1964 309 0 4%

1965- 1969 17 0 <1%

1970- 1974 92 23 2%

1975 - 1979 79 44 2%

1980- 1984 178 107 4%

1985- 1989 317 70 6%

1990- 1994 0 0 0%

ToW 1281 244 22%

* Includes partial removal, shelterwood and salvage harvest.

It should be noted that even though natural fire has been excluded from the watershed for most of

this century, prescribed fire in support of reforestation efforts is fairly common. In fact,

regeneration harvest areas on National Forest and BLM lands are routinely burned. Many of the

recent hardwood conversion units on private lands have been burned as well.

Current structural stages were determined from the interpretation of 1992 aerial photos on nonUSFS land and from the PMR analysis of 1988 Landsat satellite imagery (manually updated in

1992 to reflect harvest since 1988). Table 5 and Figure 4 show current structural stages and nonforest land for the Hunter Creek watershed as a whole. Appendix B- B.2 shows the structural

stage breakout by Watershed Analysis Areas (WAAs).

3.1.3 Future Conditions

Current structural stages along with land ownership allocations were used to predict areas of late

successional forest in the year 2040. It is estimated to be 210 acres (interior acres). It was

assumed that management practices on private lands would not produce late successional forest.

A similar assumption was made for BLM's Northern General Forest Management Area and

National Forest matrix lands. For Late Successional Reserve (LSR) lands, any forest of

3-4
I

ffi

II0

0 0 I g 0 B S

I. X l|E

I I i I 

I Illl I I i NO

~~I I |o

1 I J. tI ~ 41:I I * s
mid-seral structural stage and greater is assumed to be late successional in the year 2040. These

predictions do not account for any structure-enhancing treatments that may expedite late

successional achievement.

A trend in state forest practices regulations is for increasing protection of riparian and aquatic

resources. It is anticipated that streamside protection zones will be broadened in the future.

Also, harvest unit size will likely be reduced in size and spatial distribution. Therefore,

connectivity and late seral structure along stream corridors are expected to increase over the next

20 to 50 years.

TABLE 5. ACRES BY STRUCTURAL STAGE AND NON-FOREST CLASS IN 1992,

ENTIRE WATERSHED.

Water 10 <1%

Rock Outcrops / Rocky Soil 92 <1%

Meadows 469 2%

Shrub I Brush 798 3%

Developed (residential) 687 2%

Agriculture 192 1%

Pioneer 5696 20%

Early Seral 14,948 53%

Md-Seral 4677 16%

Late Seral 809 3%

Climax 11 <1%

Total 28,404 100%

3.1.4 Sensitive Plants

Key Question: What is the status of T&E listed, sensitive, and indicator species in the

watershed, what is their distribution, and what is the character of their habitat?

There are no federal threatened or endangered plant species identified in the watershed.

There are currently 10 documented sensitive plant species located in the watershed. For this

analysis, sensitive plants include those on the USFS Region 6 Sensitive Plants listing and those

3-6
on the BLM Special Status Plants: Bureau Sensitive Oregon Natural Heritage Program (ONHP

List 1) and Bureau Assessment (ONHP List 2) lists. These 10 plants are shown in Table 6.

All but the Sidalcea and the Trillium are associated with serpentine soils. The Sidalcea grows in

meadows and openings; Trillium occurs in moist coniferous forests.

Populations of these species are generally stable. The potential threats to these species include

grazing, recreation, and meadow encroachment. Timber harvesting is not a threat, as these are

serpentine associated species where timber harvesting is not planned.

Grazing on Signal Buttes, where some of these species occur, is not currently a major concern.

The grazing allotment is small - 1 bull and 9 cow/calf pairs. Grazing is not expected to be a

threat to these plants at the current use level. However, grazing could cause harm if direct

grazing to these plants were to increase or if increased disturbance overall allowed alien plants to

invade, crowding out the sensitive plants. Neither scenario is expected at this time.

TABLE 6. USFS SENSITIVE AND BLM SPECIAL STATUS (BUREAU SENSMTiVE AND

BUREAU ASSESSMENT LISTS) PLANT SPECIES DOCUMENTED TO OCCUR

IN THE HUNTER CREEK WATERSHED

Allium bolanderi Bolander's onion BLM

Arctostaphylos hispidula Howell's manzanita BLM/USFS

Carex gigas Siskiyou sedge USFS

Gentiana setigera Waldo (elegant) gentian BLM

Hieracium bolanderi Bolander's hawkweed BLM/USFS

Poa piperi Piper's bluegrass BLMIUSFS

Salix delnortensis Del Norte willow USFS

Sidalcea malvaeflora ssp. patula coast checker mallow BLM/private

Trillium angustipetalum giant purple trillium BLM

Note: The known locations of these species in the watershed have been mapped out However, agreement

with the Nature Conservancy precludes their location from being listed here.

Off-road vehicle recreation in the watershed has been known to harm some Poa piperi plants. In

general, however, current recreation levels do not pose a threat to any of the sensitive plant

species.

Meadow encroachment is not considered a threat to the core populations of sensitive plants in

this watershed because vegetative establishment is slow on serpentinite soils which support these

plants. One notable exception is the Pine Point area, where Douglas-fir seedlings are coming in

under the Jeffrey pine overstory. This regeneration may create conditions too shady for

Arctostaphylos and Poa.

3-7
There are at least six unusual plant species in the watershed. Unusual plants includes those listed

by the USFS Gold Beach Ranger District and those on the BLM Special Status Plants, Bureau

Tracking (ONHP list 3 and 4) lists. These six plants are shown in Table 7.

TABLE 7. USFS UNUSUAL AND BLM SPECIAL STATUS (BUREAU TRACKING LISTS)

PLANT SPECIES DOCUMENTED TO OCCUR IN THE HUNTER CREEK

WATERSHED

Asterbrickelloides Ibickelibushaster USFS

Cypripedium californicum California lady-slipper USFS/BLM

Darlingtonia californica California pitcher-plant USFS/BLM

Lillium voilmeri Vollmer's filly USFS

Myrica californica wax myrtle USFS/BLM

Pinus contorta var. murrayana inland lodgepole pine USFS

The Myrica californica is unusual in that Hunter Creek is one of two known locations supporting

of this species on the Siskiyou National Forest. It is also unusually far inland for this section of

the coast.

The Quercus garryana (Oregon white oak) savanna is a unique plant community located on

BLM lands in the North Fork Hunter Creek subbasin. This community is unique because of its

close proximity to the Pacific Ocean and relative rarity along the west side of the Siskiyou

Mountains.

There are currently no known sites of "survey and manage" species (S & M species) in the

Hunter Creek watershed. There are, however, eight such species documented in the adjacent

Pistol River watershed.

3.2 WILDLIFE HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION

Key Question: What is the historic and existing late-successional habitat in the watershed?

Pioneer successional habitat is generally found in recent clearcuts from 1980 to present, in brush

fields, meadows, and open woodlands located on ultramafic soils. Currently, 5,696 acres or 20

percent of the watershed area is in pioneer habitat condition.

Early to mid-seral stands typically have small diameter trees with a nearly closed to closed

canopy; these include pole-sapling, and hardwood stands. Currently, 19,625 acres or 70 percent

of the watershed area is in early and mid-seral habitat condition.

3-8
Only three percent of the watershed (820 acres) is in the late seral or climax structural stage. All

but approximately 40 acres are located on federal lands.

Interior Old Growth

Interior forest habitat includes those portions of the late-successional and climax forest areas that

are not influenced by "edge effect." Edge effect is the result of changes in microclimate and

species composition which are caused by an increased exposure to sun and wind. Edge effect

penetrates a forest edge for approximately two tree lengths, or about 400 feet into the forest

interior (Harris 1984; Franklin and Forman 1987). The preliminary results of current research

(Spies et. al. 1990) generally support this approximate distance.

Interior old growth late-successional habitat (late seral and climax seral stages) was analyzed

using GIS seral stage data. Interior habitat was determined by buffering in from openings and

lesser seral stage forests. For 1992 (current condition), buffers around mid-seral stands were 200

feet; buffers around pioneer, early seral and non-forest stands were 400 feet. Stands on

ultramafic soils were excluded from late successional habitat, as these stands contain widely

spaced trees and do not contain the same conditions typical of closed canopy late-successional

habitat.

To determine interior old growth in 1940, an average buffer width of 300 feet (average of 200

and 400) was applied to all stands surrounding late successional habitat. Data describing seral

stages adjacent to late successional habitat is not available. Therefore, applying buffer widths

based on seral stage condition was not possible. Again, stands on ultramafic soils were excluded.

The same 300 foot buffers were made for the 2040 interior old growth assessment. This

projection assumed that all stands in protected management regimes that are currently at least

mid-seral in size would reach late successional condition by 2040.

Tables 8, 9, and 10 show the grouped distribution of interior old growth blocks in the years 1940,

1992, and 2040, respectively. Figures 5, 6 and 7 display the data.

Old-Growth Fragmentation and Connectivity

Old-growth forest habitat within the Hunter Creek watershed is highly fragmented. Table 11

shows how patch size and distance to an adjacent patch has changed dramatically since the

1940s. Fifty years ago, interior old growth habitats were contiguous with the mean closest

distance to an adjacent patch of 0.26 miles (range 0.08 - 0.76 miles). The current condition

shows a 71 percent loss of patch numbers (8 remaining of 28), and a reduction in mean patch size

of 95 percent (from 226 acres to 11 acres). Currently, average distance to the closest adjacent

patch is 0.65 miles (range 0.08 - 2.61 miles). This reduction in old-growth habitat may

contribute to the absence of old-growth-associated animals like the marbled murrelet and spotted

owl.

3-9
TABLE 8: HISTORIC DISTRIBUTION OF DJTERIOR LATE-SUCCESSIONAL FOREST

BLOCKS IN 1940 __ ______

1 -25 1 4 113

26 -50 4 121

51-100 2 165

101 -300 2 -230

301 -500 2 936

501 -700 0 0

701 -900 1 892

>900 3 3874

Total 28 6331

TABLE 9: CURRENT DISTRIBUTION OF IINTERIOR LATE-SUCCESSIONAL FOREST

BLOCKS IN 1992.

1 -25 7 39

26 -50 1 48

51 -100 0 0

101 -300 0 0

301 -500 0 0

501 -700 0 0

701 -900 0 0

>900 0 0

Tota 8 87

TABLE 10: FUTURE DISTRIBUTION OF INTERIOR LATE-SUCCESSIONAL FOREST

BLOCKS IN 2040 ________

1 25 7 83

26 -50 0 0

51-100 0 0

101 -300 1 127

301 -500 0 0

501 -700 0 0

701 -900 0 0

>900 0 0

Total 8 210

3-10
TABLE 1 1. PATCH SIZE (ACRES), AND CLOSEST DISTANCE (MILES) TO AN

ADJACENT PATCH, OF INTERIOR OLD GROWTH WTHN THE HUNTER

CREEK WATERSHED

DECADE 1940

SIZE DISTANCE

1,570 0.19

1,281 0.23

1,023 0.08

892 0.49

476 0.27

460 0.19

129 0.27

101 0.15

92 0.27

73 0.19

32 0.34

32 0.34

30 0.23

27 0.34

24 0.19

20 0.19

13 0.30

13 0.76

9 0.08

9 0.11

8 0.08

5 0.19

4 0.30

3 0.19

2 0.23

1 0.19

1 0.27

1 0.64

Mean = 226 Mean = 0.26

CURRENT DECADE

SIZE DISTANCE

47 0.72

20 0.08

8 0.15

8 2.61

2 0.72

1 0.08

1 0.19

DECADE 2040

SIZE DISTANCE

127 0.15

23 0.61

20 0.98

18 0.61

13 0.76

4 0.27

4 0.27

1 0.15

Mean = 11 Mean = 0.65 Mean = 26 Mean = 0.47

3-11
HUNTER CREEK WATERSHED

INTERIOR OLD GROWTH IN 1940

INTERIOR OLD GROWTH IN 1940

N

-A

Scae.: 1 ich = 1.25 iila
y

4 It

a ad n~~~~~~~~

I

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

0

1 ~~.1

0

El Slt~2 7}

Figure 6 ! ~~~~~~~~~z-< ~ ~ ~ i Ie
HUNTER CREEK WATERSHED

INTRIOR OLD GROWTH IN 2040

INTERIOR OLD GROWTH IN 2040

N

- -A

Oak: I nic = 1.25 na
3.2.1 Special and Unique Habitats

Key Question: What are the special and unique habitats in the watershed, and how are they

changing?

Special and unique terrestrial habitats discussed in this analysis include (1) rock cliffs,

outcrops, or talus slopes, (2) caves, (3) dry or moist meadows, and (4) old or mature

coniferous forest (Brown 1985; Andelman & Stock 1994). Table 12 displays the type and

amount of special wildlife sites located on National Forest land.

Rock cliffs, outcrops, or talus habitats are present in at least nine locations, but total less than

74 acres. This habitat is relatively unchanged since the 1940s, and is not expected to change in

the future.

Only one cave is known in this watershed. This is located within the National Forest. The site

is suspected to shelter bats, although a detailed survey has not been conducted to determine

season of use (e.g. maternity colony, winter roost, or summer roost), or species and population

occurrence. Disturbance from current human use is unknown but conditions are not expected

to change in the near future.

Aerial photography from 1940, 1992, and 1996 indicates that at least one grassy area or

meadow located on a private land ridge top of the watershed's north end may be experiencing

tree encroachment, presumably from red alder and Douglas-fir. For the two large meadows on

National Forest land, little change is evident between 1940 and 1996. However, Douglas-fir

and incense cedar is encroaching into open, grassy Jeffrey pine stands in the northeast section

of the watershed.

TABLE 12. ACRES OF SPECIAL WILDLIFE HABITATS ON NATIONAL FOREST

LANDS WITHIN THE HUNTER CREEK WATERSHED.

DISPERSED

LATE-SUCCESSIONAL

FOREST LAKE, POND, OR BOG MEADOW ROCK OUTCROP WILDLIFE AREA

62 <1 54 69 95

3.3 SPECIES OF CONCERN

Key Question: What is the status of (species of concern) T & E listed, sensitive, and

management indicator species in the watershed, what is their distribution, and what is the

character of their habitat?

There are 70 terrestrial animal "species of concern" evaluated in this section. They include 4

federal or state listed (or proposed/candidate for listing), 22 state of Oregon sensitive, 9

President's plan survey & manage, 7 Regional Forester-designated sensitive, 9 Siskiyou N.F.

3-15
Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) indicators, and 19 neotropical migrant landbirds.

State of Oregon sensitive species of concern are further divided into critical, vulnerable,

peripheral, and undetermined. Appendix C. 1 lists species, designations, and occurrence.

Appendices (C.2-C.9) describes habitat associations and the amount of suitable habitat for those

species within the watershed.

A species with more than one designation (for example, state sensitive and neotropical migrant)

is discussed in detail only in the category where it first appears (e.g. state sensitive in the

preceding example).

Evaluation of conditions for these species in the 1940s is difficult because of the diversity of

habitats involved and lack of reliable forest stand conditions. However, it would be expected

that forest-associated animals responded linearly to changes in habitat. Animal species

associated with mature or old-growth forest have presumably declined in number and

distribution, while edge species have presumably increased. Similarly, non-forest-associated

animals have not changed significantly because these habitats have not changed.

3.3.1 Federal or State Listed Species

Appendix C.2 describes habitat associations and the amount of suitable habitat for federal or

state listed (or candidate/proposed for listing) animal species within the watershed.

Endanaered

The peregrine falcon has not been sighted in the watershed, although no specific inventories

have been conducted. Aerial foraging for prey is possible anywhere, but cliff-nesting habitat is

estimated from aerial photography occurs on less than 20 acres .

Threatened

Nesting surveys for the marbled murrelet have been conducted on BLM and Forest Service

lands. These surveys have not documented nesting activity within the watershed since their

startup in 1994 (Colin Dillingham personal communication; McCabe et al. 1995; Rodenkirk &

Guetterman 1994). At another survey site on BLM land just outside the watershed's northern

boundary, three detections were recorded in 1994- including one visual of flight below the

canopy that indicated occupied behavior. General surveys at this site in July 1991 recorded three

murrelets to indicate presence. At the same site in 1995, three audio detections indicated

presence only. One bird was sighted in early-January 1998 near the mouth of Hunter Creek, in

WAA 06L01F.

Approximately 38 percent of existing suitable nesting habitat has been surveyed to protocol.

About 546 acres of suitable nesting habitat on National Forest lands remain unsurveyed; 60

3-16
percent of unsurveyed habitat is in WAA 06M04F. Unsurveyed suitable nesting habitat on BLM

land amounts to another 174 acres, and a small balance of 36 acres in private ownership.

In spite of specific surveys for the spotted owl within this watershed, there have not been

sightings to indicate the presence of an activity center. However, the species have been reported

just outside the watershed's southeast boundary. This indicates that dispersing adult and juvenile

owls move through the watershed, but insufficient nesting/roosting/ foraging habitat remains for

them to nest and reproduce. There are an estimated 3,766 acres of suitable

nesting/roosting/foraging habitat, of which 56 percent is on the National Forest, 19 percent is on

BLM, and the remaining 25 percent is in private holdings. Suitable nesting/roosting/foraging

habitat was estimated from PMR stand types 15-19, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, and 39.

Ultramafic (serpentine) areas within these PMR stand types were excluded.

The wolverine has not been reported within this watershed, but its presence is possible especially

on the ridge lines forming the watershed boundary closest to the Kalmiopsis Wilderness less than

6 miles to the east.

3.3.2 State Sensitive

Appendix C.3 describes habitat associations and the amount of suitable habitat for state sensitive

animal species within the watershed.

Critical

A northern goshawk has been observed on BLM land (John Guetterman personal

communication). Nest locations have not been found, but breeding is suspected. Suitable habitat

consists of stands in mid-seral, late-seral, or climax forest structures; there are 5,497 acres of

suitable habitat in Hunter Creek.

One of only five known nesting location for purple martin in Curry County was documented in

1991 on BLM land in T37S, R14W, Section 23 (Colin Dillingham personal communication;

John Toman personal communication). At this location, two (possibly four) pairs are using snags

as nesting habitat. Seven individuals were sighted during the 1995 breeding season in T37S,

R14W, Sections 10 & 13 (John Guetterman personal communication). These latter two locations

indicate the possibility of additional nesting colonies. Suitable habitat consists of water

availability and stands in pioneer forest structure. There are 5,684 acres of pioneer habitat in the

Hunter Creek watershed, but an undetermined percent of this has suitable snag habitat.

Although no documentation exists for the Lewis' woodpecker in this watershed, it is suspected

to occasionally winter within open forests of oak, pine, or hardwood-pine.

3-17
TABLE 13. ESTIMATED SUITABLE HABITAT FOR MA1RBLED MURRELET NESTING

OR SPOTTED OWL NESTINGIROOSTINGIFORAGING WrrHlN THE

HUNTER CREEK WATERSHED

MARBLED MURRELET SPOTTED OWL

AREA

SUBWATERSHED ACRES USFS BLM OTHER USFS BLM OTHER

06LOIF 774 0 0 0 0 43 192

06L02F 1,223 0 0 0 0 0 0

06L03F 1,415 0 0 0 0 12 38

06L04F 1,739 0 0 0 0 0 3

06L05F 2,372 0 0 13 0 17 115

06L06W 826 0 0 0 0 0 0

06L07W 620 0 0 0 0 0 36

06L08W 1,429 0 0 0 0 93 46

06L09W 1,708 0 0 16 0 0 37

06MOlF 3,001 4 0 0 0 44 170

06M02W 585 70 0 0 66 0 0

06M03W 669 44 0 0 40 0 0

06M04F' 1,808 135 0 0 404 0 0

06MO5W 1.395 231 0 0 1,047 0 0

06M06W 1,141 46 0 0 460 0 0

06N 2,022 0 75 18 0 236 176

06NOIW 1,143 17 87 0 2 154 0

06N02W 653 0 0 2 0 93 65

06S 1,568 0 0 0 0 0 55

06S01W 709 0 0 0 0 0 0

06S02W 1,604 38 17 7 95 17 9

TOTAL 28,404 585 179 55 2,114 709 942

The white-headed woodpecker is not suspected within the watershed. However, one

unconfirmed sighting on BLM land approximately 20 years ago is in the BLM database (USDI

Bureau of Land Management 1995b). This sighting, if reliable, represents the western-most

occurrence in Oregon; the known range is east of Curry County (Marshall et al. 1996). If more

than accidental within the watershed, it would likely be found in mature Jeffrey pine forest.

Suitable habitat consists of forest stands in late-seral, or climax seral structure; there are 820

acres of suitable habitat in Hunter Creek. This habitat estimate may be high because stand

3-18
structures included in this estimate incorporate moister plant series like Douglas-fir or western

hemlock, which are not favored by the white-headed woodpecker.

Few specific surveys have been conducted for the Townsend's big-eared bat. However, a

sighting of at least five individuals was reported in September 1991 at a cave within the National

Forest boundary. Follow-up surveys failed to relocate them. In June 1976, one individual was

reported at an abandoned cabin (Gold Beach Ranger District 1998). Suitable roosting habitat is

estimated from the amount of rock identified which occurs in less than 1 percent of the

watershed.

No sightings of the fisher are known. Suitable habitat consists of late-seral or climax forest

stands; suitable habitat is estimated to be 820 acres.

Vulnerable

Sightings of the Del Norte salamander have been noted since 1993 (Gold Beach Ranger District

1998). Locations include the Big South Fork Hunter Creek watershed (WAA 06S02W = 2

sightings), and the Hunter Creek watershed (WAAs 06M02W = 1 sighting, 06M04F = 4

sightings, 06MO5W = 6 sightings, and 06M06W = 1 sighting). Suitable habitat was estimated

from the amount of rock identified in GIS, which accounts for less than 1 percent of the

watershed. An additional but unquantified amount of suitable talus habitat is present under the

forest canopy.

Although presence is expected, the western bluebird has not been reported.

The pileated woodpecker was documented on BLM and National Forest ownerships in the

northern third of this watershed (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1995b; Gold Beach Ranger

District 1998). Presently, there are 5,467 acres of suitable habitat of which 82 percent is in

public ownership.

Guetterman (personal communication) and the Gold Beach Ranger District (1998) reported

sightings of the American marten in the Big South Fork watershed (WAA 06S02W), and the

Hunter Creek watershed (WAA 06MOlF, 06M02W, 06MO5W, and 06M06W). Currently, there

are an estimated 5,467 acres of suitable habitat of which 82 percent is in public ownership.

There is one unconfirmed report of a California mountain kingsnake (John Tornan personal

communication). The location within the watershed is unspecified. Suitable habitat consists of

forest stands in early-seral or mid-seral structure, and also shrublands.

Although the sharptail snake has not been found, it is suspected because of the wide range of

suitable habitats found within the lower watershed; habitats include agriculture, grassland,

shrubland, pioneer forest, or early-seral forest.

3-19
Peripheral or Rare

The only documented occurrence of the California slender salamander's is in WAA 06LOlF of

the Lower Hunter Creek subbasin (John Guetterman personal communication).

Cliff faces near waterfalls are optimal colonial nest sites for the black swift. Neither the species

nor the suitable habitat have been observed in the watershed.

Undetermined

Sightings of the clouded salamander have been reported in the Lower Hunter Creek (WAA

06LO5F) by John Guetterman (personal communication), and in WAAs 06M04F and 06M06W

by the Gold Beach Ranger District (1998). It is apparently tolerant of forest openings and timber

harvest if suitable logs or other woody moist debris are available. Suitable habitat consists of

early-seral or mid-seral forest stands; estimated suitable habitat in the watershed is 19,625 acres.

The tree-cavity nesting northern pygmy-owl was documented in two Hunter Creek WAAs06MOlF in 1978, and 06M04F in 1991 (Gold Beach Ranger District 1998). It is suspected in

conifer or coniferous/deciduous forests of late-seral or climax structure.

Few surveys for the silver-haired bat, long-eared myotis, long-legged myotis, or Yuma

myotis have been conducted. Of these species only one, the long-legged myotis, has been

documented. This species was tentatively identified near Elko Creek in 1995 (Gold Beach

Ranger District 1998). Suitable habitat for the silver-haired bat and long-eared myotis is climax

forest. For the long-legged myotis and Yuma myotis, approximately 820 acres of suitable habitat

occur in Hunter Creek.

The ringtail is not documented in Hunter Creek, but it is associated with a wide variety of

habitats found in Hunter Creek. Suitable habitat consists of agriculture, grassland, rock,

shrubland, and forests of pioneer or early-seral structure, especially tanoak woodlands near rocky

areas or streams.

The western gray squirrel is widely distributed and particularly associated with white oak,

tanoak, or myrtle forest (John Toman personal communication). Suitable habitat consists of

mid-seral, late-seral, or climax forest stands; estimated suitable habitat in Hunter Creek is 5,497

acres.

3.3.3 ROD's Survey & Manage

Appendix C.4 describes habitat associations and the amount of suitable habitat for species listed

in the President's Forest Plan. Species considerations and requirements pertain to federal lands

only.

3-20
Proiect Survey Required

Sighting of the red tree vole have not been recorded in Hunter Creek. Suitable habitat consists

of mid-seral, late-seral, or climax forest stands. Over 50 percent of the area is suitable habitat.

The terrestrial snail Oregon megomphix (Megomphix hemphilli) is expected in moist

conifer/hardwood forest slopes and terraces up to 3,000 foot elevation (Furnish et al. 1997).

Bigleaf maple in the overstory, and an abundance of sword fern with rotten logs and stumps

nearby, is favored. Forested plant associations described by Atzet et al. (1996) which potentially

have suitable habitat include:

* Tanoak-Port-Orford-cedar/Salal (LLDE3-CHLA/GASH).

* Tanoak-Western hemlock/Evergreen huckleberry/Western sword-fern (LIDE3-

TSHE/VAOV2/POMU-R1P).

* Western hemlock-Tanoak-California-laurel (TSHE-LIDE3-UMCA).

* Douglas-fir-Canyon live oak/Dwarf Oregongrape (PSME-QUCH2/BENE2).

Blue-grey tail-dropper (Prophysaon coeruleum), a slug, is found in open to moist conifer or

conifer/hardwood forests at 500-3,000 foot elevation (Furnish et al. 1997). This condition

includes many forested plant associations found in the watershed. In open or dry areas, it is

usually located in micro sites with relatively abundant shading and moisture such as partially

decayed logs, leaf or needle litter, and moss or moist plant communities.

Another slug, papillose tail-dropper (Prophysaon dubium), is strongly associated with

hardwood logs and leaf litter in open, moist conifer or conifer/hardwood forests at 500-3,000 foot

elevation (Furnish et al. 1997). This condition includes many forested plant associations found

within the watershed.

3.3.4 Regional Forester Sensitive

Appendix C.5 describes habitat associations and the amount of suitable habitat for Regional

Forester-designated sensitive animal species within the watershed. All species in this group are

previously discussed.

3.35 Siskiyou N.F. Land & Resource Management Plan Indicators

Appendix C.6 describes habitat associations and the amount of suitable habitat for Siskiyou

National Forest LRTIAP indicator animal species within the watershed. Species considerations and

requirements pertain to National Forest Lands only.

3-21
An abundant and widespread population of black-tailed deer use the watershed yearlong (except

in deep-snow winters). The entire watershed, except for areas labeled in GIS as water or rock, is

considered suitable habitat.

While Roosevelt elk in Curry County were reported in great numbers by the first European

settlers (Peterson & Powers 1977), the watershed's current population is unknown but estimated

to be a few small groups (Colin Dillingham personal communication; USDI Bureau of Land

Management 1995b). The entire watershed, except for areas labeled in GIS as water or rock, is

considered suitable habitat.

Optimal elk cover, as estimated from PMR and other data, is relatively scarce and poorly

distributed (Appendix C.7). Optimal thermal elk cover consists of vegetation stands with 70

percent Crown Closure (CC), that contain hiding cover and forage. Optimal cover was estimated

from areas labeled in GIS as PMR structure codes 20-34. There are 731 acres of optimal cover in

the watershed, of which 97 percent is located on National Forest or BLM ownership.

Regular thermal cover, with at least 70 percent canopy cover (providing fully neutral thermal

microclimates) is found on 2,933 acres, of which 78 percent is in public ownership.

Elk hiding cover, defined as any vegetation capable of hiding 90 percent of a standing adult elk at

200 feet or less, is estimated to occur on 17,535 acres. It is presumed that watershed areas not

labeled as (1) elk optimal thermal cover, (2) elk thermal cover, (3) elk hiding cover, (4) elk

forage, or (5) labeled as "no data", "water", "rock", "developed", or "agriculture" is considered

hiding cover.

Elk forage area is defined as vegetated structure with less than 60 percent combined canopy

closure of tree and tall shrub (greater than 7 feet). Grass (463 acres) and pioneer forest (5,674

acres) structural stages were used to estimate forage acreage. The current distribution of forage

in Hunter Creek is: 16 percent in the Lower Hunter Creek subbasin, 33 percent in the Big South

Fork subbasin, and 24 percent along the mainstem and North Fork Hunter Creek subbasins.

1940 elk forage acres are estimated to be areas currently labeled by GIS as grass. Current

pioneer forest is presumed to have been closed-canopy in reference conditions, providing little

forage opportunity. In the absence of timber harvest, elk forage areas by 2040 will approach the

acreage estimated in 1940. However, it is not anticipated that harvest activities will cease.

The density of roads open to public vehicles in this watershed averages 1.77 miles per square

mile of area. Roads on forest product industry lands are gated and closed except for hunting

season (5-6 weeks). According to Cole 1996, in a nearby study area, elk are affected by road

density and avoid areas <150 meters from roads. Appendix C.8 displays the open road density,

and associated area of elk avoidance for the Hunter Creek watershed. Subbasins with >40

percent of their area avoided by elk due to roads include 06LOlF, 06L02F, and 06L03F on

private land, plus 06M02F, 06M04F, 06MO5F, and 06M06F on National Forest ownership.

3-22
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife believes illegal harvest of elk in Hunter Creek is a

concern (John Toman, Personal Communication 1997). Poaching, facilitated by roads open

yearlong to public vehicles, is known to be a significant cause of elk mortality elsewhere in

western Oregon (Cole 1996; Pope 1994; Stussey et al. 1994).

Woodpeckers excavate tree cavities for their own need and coincidentally benefit many other

animals. Because they benefit other species, woodpeckers are considered a pivotal species group

in this watershed. Snags and decayed live trees are the excavation platform for the woodpecker

species. Of the seven woodpecker species likely to be found, the pileated woodpecker and whiteheaded woodpecker were discussed earlier in this section, and the downy woodpecker is

considered in the riparian ecosystem section. The remaining four species are the northern

flicker (documented in USDI Bureau of Land Management 1995b), hairy woodpecker

(documented by USDI Bureau of Land Management 1995b, and by Dillingham 1997), redbreasted sapsucker, and acorn woodpecker.

Snags and decayed live trees are scarce on private land due to past harvesting. At that time,

regulations did not protect snag density/size. Presently, informal observations indicate that these

lands provide less than one snag per 10 acres (<0.1 per acre). It is estimated that wildlife trees

on private lands average less than 15 inches dbh and, therefore, provide little woodpecker habitat.

This current habitat situation provides less than 3 percent maximum woodpecker density;

maximum woodpecker population density occurs when nest cavities are no longer limiting. Due

to the current scarcity of large trees, cavity-user habitat is not expected for 20-40 years.

Secondary cavity-users like the western screech-owl, northern pygmy-owl (discussed elsewhere),

and northern saw-whet owl are likely to be absent or in token numbers on private lands because

of the species dependency on tree cavities. Current state regulations require two snags or live

trees (Ž1 1" dbh and >30' tall) per acre in harvest units >25 acres size. This requirement applies

only if a site-variable threshold for remaining basal area is reached. Two wildlife trees per acre

would equate to <54 percent maximum woodpecker density, but only if those trees were dead

and most were >15-25 inches dbh. Current management rotations on private forest uplands is

not expected to produce adequately-sized snags. However, riparian buffers along streams are

expected to provide future snags.

On National Forest lands, approximately 1,523 acres were harvested prior to snag guidelines as

specified in the 1989 Siskiyou National Forest LRMP. The guideline provides snags for 60

percent of the maximum woodpecker density (USDA Forest Service 1989d). It is estimated from

field reconnaissance that those harvested acres do not meet this guideline. Harvest information

on BLM ownership is unknown, but observations indicate the retention of snags is similar to

National Forest lands.

Not considering snags, suitable habitat for the northern flicker was estimated to occur

everywhere except areas labeled in GIS as water or rock. Primary suitable habitat for the red3-23
breasted sapsucker, acorn woodpecker, and hairy woodpecker is considered late-seral or climax

forest structure(Brown 1985).

3.3.6 Neotropical Migrant Landbirds

There are 122 species of neotropical migrant landbirds that breed in Oregon (Andelman & Stock

1994). Of these, 89 occur on the Siskiyou National Forest (Shea 1996). According to Breeding

Bird Survey (BBS) data from Andelman & Stock (1994), twenty-two of the Siskiyou N.F.

species show statistically significant long-term declines in Oregon. Another 2 species could be

vulnerable due reduced habitat. Among these 24 species, 19 are found primarily in terrestrial

habitats. They include:

Mourning dove Chipping sparrow Turkey vulture

Olive-sided flycatcher White-crowned sparrow Hermit warbler

Rufous hummingbird Violet-green swallow Orange-crowned warbler

Dark-eyed junco Vaux's swift Townsend's warbler

American kestrel Western tanager Western wood-pewee

Western meadowlark Swainson's thrush

Band-tailed pigeon Varied thrush

Twelve of these 19 species utilize mature/old growth forest habitat components, indicating the

importance of late-seral structure. Three of the 12 species are dependent upon mature/old growth

forest characteristics. It is assumed that coinciding with the loss of habitat there is an associated

decline in bird populations. Appendix C.9 summarizes habitat associations and generalized

management recommendations for neotropical migrant landbirds.

Four stations of a 30-station BBS are near Elko Camp. During observation years 1992-1997,

brown-headed cowbirds were not recorded at these four points (Dillingham 1997). Similarly,

none of the other 26 points in this BBS, albeit in a neighboring watershed, recorded cowbirds.

These findings indicate that cowbird parasitism upon neotropical birds is not yet a problem

within National Forest land. While similar data is lacking in the lower watershed, it is assumed

that cowbirds are present in association with agriculture and animal husbandry.

Alder shrubland or alder/conifer forest is valuable habitat for neotropical migratory landbirds.

This habitat condition is currently common on private lands logged as early as the 1950s.

Conversion of alder stands to conifers is planned, diminishing existing habitat for neotropical

bird species.

3-24
3.4 FOREST HEALTH - INSECTS, DISEASE AND NOXIOUS WEEDS

Key Question: What is the known status and risk of spread of disease in the watershed?

White pine blister rust, while a significant concern in the Lawson Creek watershed to the east, is

not a problem in Hunter Creek. The lack of a blister rust in Hunter Creek may be due to a

decreased frequency of summer fog. Swiss needle cast, while a significant problem on the north

coast of Oregon, does not appear to be a concern in Hunter Creek. Insect pests are not currently

an issue in Hunter Creek.

Port-Orford-cedar root rot (POC root rot) is the primary disease concern in the Hunter Creek

watershed (Figure 8). This watershed has one of the highest incidences of POC root rot on the

Gold Beach Ranger District. This disease is particularly well-established along the North Fork

and main stem Hunter Creeks, as well as the Signal Buttes area. As Port-Orford-cedar is an

ultramafic associate, most ultramafic sites tend to be infected with POC root rot.

POC root rot spores live in water and mud. Anything that attracts and carries mud or soil

including, construction equipment, seedlings, boots, tires, and animals can spread the disease to

uninfected drainages. Once in a drainage, any moving water along a road or in a stream can

spread the disease downstream. Natural uphill spread of the disease is slow to non-existent.

Port-Orford-cedar is an important forest component of the watershed, particularly in ultramafic

riparian areas where it is often the dominant tree species. It provides shade, large wood and

vegetative diversity. It is especially valuable as riparian large wood because of its decayresistance. POC will last far longer in streams than other species of the same size.

Several management strategies have been employed in an effort to stop or slow the spread of the

disease. Some roads have been closed during the wet season when spores are easily spread. The

Snow Camp tie-through is one such road. Road-side berms have been built near Pine Point and

Hunter Creek bogs to keep water from leaving the road and infecting healthy trees.

In 1992 and 1993, all POC within 25 feet and less than eight inches in diameter were removed

along road 3680 from Pine Point to Quosatana Butte. This work was accomplished with a Curry

County corrections crew. In addition, the ditch lines along this segment of road were cleaned in

1997 (timber sale road maintenance), including the removal of all new seedlings established

since the earlier cutting. This host tree removal is intended to break the POC root rot life cycle.

Seedlings from disease-resistant trees have also been planted as a way to halt the disease spread.

Such seedlings have been planted at Pine Point and in the upper North Fork Hunter Creek

drainage. The disease-resistant parents are located near Hunter Creek bog and along the upper

half of the four-wheel drive road east of the bog.

3-25
NOTE: Additional information on the occurrence of POC disease in Hunter Creek is available at

the Bureau of Land Management, Coos Bay. During the writing of this document, the BLM is

conducting POC root rot surveys.

Key Question: What are the known locations and risk of spread of noxious weeds in the

watershed?

Five noxious weed species currently inhabit the watershed. Most populations are currently

restricted to disturbed areas including roadsides, disturbed woodlands, landings and streambeds.

Noxious weed populations have likely increased along with new roads in the watershed. Brooms

(Cytissus sp.) and gorse (Ulex sp.) are beginning to appear in the Hunter Creek watershed and

their aggressive nature could threaten native plant communities.

Current known occurrences of broom on National Forest lands include road 3680 at Pine Point,

the 1503/3680 road junction near Coldiron Camp, and on the access road to the Signal Buttes

communications site less than a 1/4 mile from the summit. Broom is also a problem lower in the

watershed on private lands.. Ground disturbance, including roads and development, provides an

excellent seed bed for both Scotch and French broom. Gorse is documented only on road 3680-

200 - Elko Creek Road.

Canada thistle, bull thistle, and tansy ragwort are well-established in the watershed. These

species pose a lesser risk of spread because of their long occupancy on many of the watershed's

disturbed sites. Biological controls, including a flea beetle and the cinnabar moth, have been

established to keep tansy ragwort under control.

Italian thistle has not been found in the watershed, but does occur in the Pistol River watershed to

the south. Yellow star thistle is also a potential problem, as it exists nearby in the Rogue River

corridor.

3-26
HUNTER CREEK WATERSHED

PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR DISEASE

a Range of Port-OrfeodCedar

(Chamaecyparis lawso naw )

N

-- A

*ce Q64-97.LWaxa, &SIe: 1irf* = 1.25mi1m
4.0 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM

This section describes the past and current conditions of the aquatic resource in Hunter Creek.

The intent of this analysis is to establish linkages between current aquatic conditions and

hillslope and riparian conditions. The assessment starts with the upslope processes of runoff and

erosion. Next, riparian zone conditions and functions are assessed. The channel condition

assessment synthesizes upslope and riparian zone conditions with channel processes. The data

from these assessments are integrated to describe watershed function and characterize aquatic

habitat. Following the characterization, beneficial uses of the stream system are identified. For

the Hunter Creek watershed, fisheries resources are the focus of beneficial uses. Aquatic species

of concern are also identified.

4.1 UPSLOPE ENVIRONMENT

4.1.1 Hydrology

Key Question: What are the dominant hydrologic characteristics in the watershed?

Current Conditions

Figures 9 and 10 display stream density and road density respectively. These figures and the

associated numbers represent the drainage pattern of Hunter Creek.

Peak and Base Flow

Using the regional equation developed by Oregon Water Resource Research Institute (Andrus et

al., 1989) a 25 year return interval was determined for each WAA (Figure 11) and each sixth

field watershed (Table 14). The 25 year return interval is an instantaneous peak flow discharge

expected to occur once every 25 years. The model is based on the United States Geological

Survey's (USGS) gauging statistics from the Elko Creek streamflow station. Based on the

statistics, a runoff coefficient of 250 cubic feet per second per square mile of drainage (CSM)

was determined. Base flows were calculated using 0.5 CSM determined to be appropriate for the

region (Lawson Creek Watershed Analysis 1997).

Note: Accuracy of peak flows diminishes from the WAA level to the sixth field level to the fifth

field level (Hunter Creek). This is due to times of flow concentration. For example, the 25-year

event of 10,783 cubic feet per second (cfs) calculated for the sixth field watershed 06L assumes

that all individual WAA's in 06L contributed their peak discharge simultaneously. Generally,

this does not occur and will result in an overestimation of peak flow. For this reason, a peak

discharge was not calculated at the fifth field level.

4-1
D6L0lF Turner Creek 77A i )I ARQ n rd

06L02F ~~aylor Creek 1223 1.9 1089 IA)

060F __________1415 2.2 1260 1.1

06L04F ___________________ ~~1739 2.7 1549 1.4

06L05F ___________________ ~~2372 3.7 2113 1.9

06L06W Crossen Creek 826 1.3 736 0.6

106L07W ___________620 1.0 552 0.5

06L08W Conn Creek 1429 2.2 1273 1.1

06L09W ___________1708 2.7 1521 1.3

_______________ WAA TOT L10782 9

Upper Hunter Creek _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

06MOIF __________3001 4.7 2673 2.3

06M02W ___________585 0.9 521 0.5

06M03W _______ ___669 1.0 596 0.5

06M04F ___________1808 2.8 1610 1.4

06M05W EloCreek 1395 2.2 1242 1.1

06M06W __________1141 1.8 1016 0.9

___________ _______________ W AA TOTAL __ _ _7658 7

D6NO1W N. F. Hunter 1143 1.81 1018 0.9

D6N02W 653 1.0 582 0.5

D6N 2022 3.2 1801 1.6

_______________ AATOTAL __ _ _3400 3

____________ South Fork Hunter _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

D6S little South Fork 1568 2.5 1397 1.21

D6S01W ___________709 1.1 631 0.6~

M602W Big South Fork 1604 2.5 14291 1.3

I _ _ _ _ __ _ 4TOTAL 34571_ _ __ _

* Blanks indicate an unnamed tributary

** Return Interval

Cumulative Effects

Fifteen percent, or 4,195, acres of the Hunter Creek Watershed is in the Transient Snow Zone

(TSZ). The remainder of the watershed lies in a rain dominated hydrologic regime. Table 15

displays past harvest activity in the transient snow zone. (Data is for Forest Service lands only).

Tables 16 and 17 display the Equivalent Clearcut Acres (ECA) for each WAA. ECA acres are

based on vegetation units and road acres (data includes all ownerships). Please refer to Appendix

D for a description of the ECA method and the calculations involved in determining total

unrecovered acres. Table 16 displays the data by WAA and then totaled by sixth field watershed;

results at the sixth field level are in bold. Table 17 is a ranking of WAAs, from the least

recovered to the greatest. WAA's in National Forest lands are in bold. Road acres were

calculated using an unvegetated road prism width of 25 feet.

4-2
HUNTER CREEK WATERSHED

PERENNIAL STREAM DENSITY

, Ii 

I -TI~~~~~~~I.

3.811

2.80

2.53

3.36

3.01

1.80

2.46

2.14

2.59.

2.93

3.50

3.21

3.02

2.46

2.43

0.52

2.85

1.30

2.95

3.73

2.08

-A

2.70

Sak: I iZh = 1.25 wile,
HUNTER CREEK WATERSHED

PERMANENT ROAD DENSITY

N

-, -A 4 , 4 flm M S6A"M 135.811 2.32 -4-O7LWu - -J _____
HUNTER CREEK WATERSHED

WATER SHED ANALYSIS AREAS

AN

ScAk. I MM = 1. 25 mUes Totd Acws 28404 Scale: 1 Lm* = 1.25 miln Total Acres 28404
TABLE 15: FOREST SERVICE ACTIVITY IN THE TRANSIENT SNOW ZONE

06MOIF 0 0

06M02W 3 3

06M03W 18 4

06M04F 107 17

06M05W 143 13

06M06W 350 40

06NOlW 0 0

06SOlW 0 0

06S02W 0 0

TVA I ) VEPGTATIVE A RECrnVPRY

4t

auI .4 -_ * _

1739

23721 316.21

2591 1

359 1

95 11

17 3

IID6LO6W 826 81.:

L07W i 6201 14.41

_ _

u6w)W 1429 232 18 250 1i

06L09W 1708 33 32 65 4

06L Total 12106 1823.8 211 2034 17

KMOIF 3001 349.2 13 362 12

06M02W 585 156 7 163 28

06M03W 669 134.4 4 138 21

06M04F 1808 273.6 32 306 17

06M05W 1395 79.2 17 96 7

06M06W 1141 193.8 24 218 19

06M Total 8599 1186.2 97 1283 is

06N 2022 266.4 15 281 14

06NO1W 1143 180.6 5 186 16

06NO2W 653 49.8 6 55 8

06N Total 3818 496.8 25 522 14

06S 1568 189 37 226 14

06SO1W 709 71.4 1 73 10

06S02W 1604 504 41 545 34

06S Total 3881 764.4 79 843 22

Grand Total 28404 4271.2_ 4683 16

4-6
UbLA2F 1223 456.4 32 489 40 

06S02W 1604 504 41 545 34

06M02W 585 156 7 163 28

06L03F 1415 352.2 28 380 27

06M03W 669 134.4 4 138 21

06M06W 1141 193.8 24 218 19

06L08W 1429 232 18 250 18

06M04F 1808 273.6 32 306 17

06NOlW 1143 180.6 5 186 16

06LOIF 774 109.6 11 120 16

06L05F 2372 316.2 43 359 15

06L04F 1739 228.8 31 259 15

06S 1568 189 37 226 14

06N 2022 266.4 15 281 14

06MOlF 3001 349.2 13 362 12

06L06W 826 81.2 14 95 11

06SOIW 709 71.4 1 73 10

06N02W 653 49.8 6 55 8

06MOSW 1395 79.2 17 96 7

06L09W 1708 33 32 65 4

06L07W 620 14.4 2 17 3

Interpretation

Alterations to the hydrograph are a function of management activities interacting with watershed

characteristics. In Hunter Creek, three variables were identified as the dominant inherent

characteristics determining runoff response: rain dominated hydrologic regime; presence of clay

soils; and quick revegetation rates.

In a rain dominated hydrologic regime, soil moisture recharge begins in fall and becomes

complete through the winter season. As soil saturation increases, a greater percent of

precipitation is available for runoff. Timber harvesting reduces evapotranspiration increasing

antecedent soil moisture; thus soil moisture recharge occurs earlier in the year. Keppeler et al.

(1990) states, "Soil on logged watersheds has a relatively high moisture content at the onset of

the rainy season, requiring less rainfall to recharge soil moisture levels, thus allowing more

precipitation to become available for runoff." According to Jones et al. (1996), "Clear cutting

apparently suppresses transpiration losses from soil depths greater than 1 meter."

Correspondingly, the studies found the largest relative increases in runoff occurred early in the

wet season.

Clay soils, weathered from ultramafic rock, reduce deep infiltration rates because of their low

permeability. As a result, a greater percentage of precipitation is available for runoff.

4-7
The revegetation process in Hunter Creek is rapid, excluding areas of ultramafic soils. This is

primarily due to the moisture availability throughout the year. Consequently, herbs, brush, and

hardwoods quickly vegetate openings in the canopy, reducing recovery time. However, these

species have a shallow root system and do not affect soil moisture content greater than one meter,

referenced by Jones et al.

Based on vegetation distribution and road mileage, the National Forest lands which currently

have the highest probability for alterations in the flow regime are WAA's 06M02W, 06M03W,

06M06W, and 06M04F. Of the four WAA's, 06M06W rates the most sensitive to hydrologic

disturbances due to the percentage harvested (40) in the TSZ. Although WAA 06M03W rates

susceptible to alteration in the flow regime, aerial photograph analysis indicates ultramafic soils

are responsible for the pioneer structural stage. Since pioneer structural stage represents

reference condition, this watershed is considered recovered.

WAAs with a high ECA attributed to harvest management are likely to experience alterations in

runoff early in the wet season, during the first storms of the year. This can be attributed to

quicker recharge of the soil profile. As the wet season progresses, more and more of the

watershed becomes saturated, increasing translatory flow (flow through the soil profile). As

more of the watershed contributes to flow generation, the percent increase in runoff from

harvested units and road beds becomes proportionately smaller. WAAs with a high ECA

attributed to development and agriculture (06L02F, 06L03F) are likely to experience alterations

in quick flow processes. Specifically, compacted surfaces decrease the lag time or the difference

between rainfall initiation and runoff generation. This is attributed to increased water

conveyance efficiency to the channel.

Field observations made in the North Fork and Upper Hunter subbasins indicated inside ditch

lines intercepted more water from vegetation units in the pioneer structure stage than the more

mature vegetation stages. This supports the "quicker recharge" process inferred above.

Increases in peak flows are more likely to occur in the smaller events (<2 yr Return Interval) than

in larger, less frequent events. Harr et al. (1975), found that with increasing storm size

differences between cut and uncut watersheds became less significant, responding nearly alike

hydrologically. Efficiency of flow over compacted surfaces is masked by the more efficient

translatory flow from the entire watershed (Wright et al., 1990). Wright further states, "for larger

storms, interception would be less significant because the canopy quickly reaches water holding

capacity."

4-8
4.12 Erosion and Sediment

Key Question: What erosion processes are dominant within the watershed?

Methods

Geology, soils, and slope are investigated to characterize the watershed. Combined with the

runoff and vegetation patterns discussed in previous assessments, they represent the dominant

variables influencing erosion in reference conditions. To qualify management related erosion,

management activities were tracked through time and effects noted. Data sources for the

determination included aerial photographs, past research, field reconnaissance, and maps

provided by the U. S. Geologic Service, State of Oregon, and the U.S. Forest Service.

Reference Conditions

Natural Sources of Erosion and Sedimentation

Historically, the sediment input of the watershed was dominated by mass movements with minor

contributions from surface erosion and ravel. Constantly sloughing inner-gorge side walls of the

North Fork and the mainstem coupled with large slower-moving landscape-scale earthflows,

such as the Otter Point formation, represented the largest natural sources of sediment input. To a

lesser degree, surficial erosion from exposed ultramafic soils contributes to the historic sediment

regime. The channel response to the sedimentation was the formation of point bars and

floodplain deposits in the lower four miles of river, creating an alluvial valley (see Channel

Morphology).

Several of the landscape-scale failures have been studied and at least one is fairly well

documented (slump complex at MP 8.0 of FR 3680). Two studies have shown this failure to be

related to a massive pre-historical movement, across which the road was built. Sag ponds, large

tilted trees, and abundant tension cracks reveal that the slide is still active. Rainfall and

groundwater response show a very "flashy" system where groundwater levels respond very

quickly to rainfall. A graph of slide movement, based on extensometer data, shows that the slide

responds rapidly to infiltration of surface water which would indicate that pore pressure is the

determining factor in movement. Cross-sections of the site show that the bedrock, which is

composed of serpentinites, has a low permeability which ponds water on its surface creating a

failure plane.

One of the greatest chronic natural sediment sources in the watershed is the inner-gorge slides.

As documented on the earliest air photo flights, a series of slides has been caused by over

steepening of the hillslopes composed of peridotite. This was observed in both the mainstem

Hunter Creek and the North Fork of Hunter Creek.

4-9
Shallow rapid mass wasting processes such as debris flows and shallow landslides were not a

significant hillslope process in Hunter Creek. Resource areas identified as sensitive to debris

flows are located primarily on concave slopes; these slopes tend to be collection areas for both

sediment and water. Sediment and organic material accrete in these concave features through

colluvial processes. When precipitation intensity is sufficient, the sediment can become

saturated and develop into a fluid composed of water and sediment. The additional weight of the

water increases shear force while saturation decreases friction, or shear resistance, between the

top-soil and the underlying bedrock. Slides initiate as the shear force acting on the sediment

body increases beyond the shear resistance.

Considering that saturation is a mechanism for debris flow initiation, it is assumed that large

infrequent rainstorm events could trigger shallow rapid landsliding. However, aerial photographs

following the 1964 and 1974 events displayed very few occurrences of shallow landslides or

debris flows. Additionally, shallow landslides or debris flows resulting from the 1996 flood in

Hunter Creek were not observed during field surveys conducted in December 1997.

Because shear force is a function of gravity and the angle of repose, it is speculated that the

shallow relief of the basin minimized rapid mass wasting events.

Current Conditions

Although data is not available which indicates the quantity of increased erosion, investigations

conclude that vegetation manipulation and road building has increased surficial erosion. Most

notable is the use of tractor logging. Logging removed vegetation, increasing runoff (see

hydrology assessment), and skid trails concentrated and routed the water down the hillslopes into

the creek. In other instances, the use of log and fill stream crossings (referred to as "Humbolt"

crossings) led to elevated sedimentation rates. The crossings failed as they destabilized or were

subjected to peak flows.

Surface erosion from road cuts and fillslopes is occurring throughout the watershed. Field

surveys identified roads as the mechanism for channeling and gully formation (see Appendix E -

Road Condition Report). A notable example is the alterations to the drainage pattern in the

Signal Buttes area where the roads are becoming seasonal drainages into upper Hunter Creek.

Road related failures are also common in the watershed. Forest Road 1703 crossing of the Little

South Fork of Hunter Creek is an example of road fill failures entering the creek. Another

example is located in SE Section 1, T37S, R14W; the road is failing into a small tributary.

Sediment and debris from raveling cut banks and eroding ditch lines are blocking culverts and

causing surface flows to be routed down the road bed. On other sections of road with blocked

culverts, inner ditches are eroding to a depth of one to two feet, undermining the road. Culvert

blockage and ditch scour are particularly frequent below recent harvest units. It is speculated tha

the ditches are intercepting increased subsurface flow (see hydrology), as well as organic debris.

4-10
Increased sedimentation was identified from bare ground surfaces and skid trails following

logging activity, but the mass failures which have been known to occur five to seven years

following harvest were not observed. Aerial photo review following the storms of 1955, 1964,

and 1974 showed very low occurrences of hillslope failures in past harvest units. Recent field

sampling in areas with the highest road densities and the largest scale harvest units showed very

little signs of mass failure following the storm of 1996. This is probably due in part to the high

rate of revegetation, and to the nature of the vegetation. For example, tan oak is a vigorous

stump-sprouting tree (the root wad stays intact). This improves slope stability. Additionally,

first and second order stream channels running through harvest units and crossed by multiple

roads were stable and intact, supporting the watershed's low sensitivity to shallow landslides and

debris flows.

The increase in surficial erosion has likely led to increased sedimentation during high intensity

storms. However, cumulative sediment input over a longer time scale (>5 years) is relatively

small compared to the natural sediment input from large landslides and the inner gorge slides.

4.2 RIPARIAN ENVIRONMENT

Key Question: What are the riparian processes in the watershed?

Methods

Based on the interim buffer widths recommended in the ROD, riparian zones on federal land

consisting of 300 feet on either side of fish-bearing streams and 150 feet on non fish-bearing

streams were assessed (Figure 12) as part of this watershed analysis. Based on buffer widths

listed by the Oregon State Forest practices, riparian zones consisting of 100 feet and 50 feet on

either side of fish and non-fish bearing streams, respectively, were assessed. In total, 2,229 acres

of streamside vegetation were analyzed. GIS, aerial photo interpretation, and field observations

were used to characterize the vegetative conditions.

Streams buffered and discussed were derived from USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles. Channels

delineated on these quadrangles are considered perennial streams.

The identified functions of the riparian zone were split into physical and biological. Data

characterizing the physical structure and associated functions is presented first. Following the

physical description, riparian habitat dependent species are discussed.

4.2.1 Physical Characterization

Intermittent Streams

The ROD defines intermittent channels as any nonpermanent flowing drainage feature having a

definable channel and evidence of annual scour or deposition. The category of intermittent

channels can be further classified into ephemeral and intermittent channels. Intermittent

channels flow seasonally where both groundwater and surface runoff contribute to stream flow.

Ephemeral channels also flow seasonally but only during periods of heavy precipitation.

411
II5

'9

I

2

W

9

U'WI F--4 nz Figure 12
Duration of flow in intermittent channels is greater than ephemeral channels. Correspondingly,

biological diversity is generally higher. Intermittent channels provide moist microclimates for

amphibian species seeking shelter and nest sites, and for terrestrial species seeking thermal

refuge and travel corridors. Physically, intermittent channels act as a conveyance system,

delivering sediment, nutrients, and large wood to perennial fish bearing streams.

Similar to intermittent channels, ephemeral drainages store nutrients, sediment, and large wood.

However, delivery of these products downstream is less frequent, requiring large storm events to

produce sufficient precipitation to mobilize the material. Ephemeral channels maintain a lower

moisture content and support a reduced vegetation diversity compared to intermittent channels.

As a result, they provide little habitat value for amphibians or thermal refuge for terrestrial

species.

Riparian zones play a major role in regulating nutrient and energy flow in low-order streams.

Leaf litter and wood originating from riparian vegetation enters the lotic system and affects

associated microbial and benthic macroinvertebrate communities that consume and process this

organic material. This material typically constitutes the energy base in low-order forested

streams (Wipfli 1997).

Perennial Streams

Perennial stream and adjacent riparian areas are generally the most biologically diverse locations

in the watershed. Terrestrial species utilize the dense riparian vegetation as a travel and dispersa

corridor. The grasses, shrubs, and hardwoods within the riparian zone provide an important food

source for both terrestrial and aquatic species. Due to a relatively high moisture content and a

multiple canopy of hardwoods and conifers, these riparian areas provide thermal refuge in times

of heat and drought. The streamside vegetation also provides a microclimate for riparian

dependent species such as salamanders and frogs.

Riparian zones are crucial to protecting aquatic habitat. Large conifers supply wood to the

channel needed to create pools and hiding cover. Tree crowns of hardwoods and conifers

provide stream shade and their roots stabilize channel banks.

Reference Conditions

River valley morphology for nearly all channel segments in the Hunter Creek watershed is

classified as confined. Confinement limited floodplain development. Consequently, riparian

species (willows, sedges etc.) that depend on fine fluvial sediment deposits for establishment

were few and limited to the, stream margins. Based on 1940 aerial photographs and field visits t

undisturbed riparian zones in Upper Elko Creek and a tributary to upper Hunter Creek in section

5, riparian zones were dominated by conifer species which provided a full canopy. Many of

these stands had an understory component of hardwood species. Due to a dominant component

4-13
of conifers and a full canopy reducing solar radiation input, stream side shade and large woody

debris (LWD) recruitment potential were high.

The inner gorge area along the mainstem, near Pine Point, had a reduced conifer and vegetative

component. Low productivity soil of peridotites along the inner gorge of Hunter Creek,

supported a minimal canopy cover (<30 percent) with an open understory. One reach of the inner

gorge is void of vegetation due to constant erosion. In the lower reach of Hunter Creek,

confluence of Conn Creek to the mouth, the unconfined nature of the valley bottom allowed

floodwater to spread across the valley floor. This process created new deposits, scoured old

deposits, and fluctuated the water table. As a result, the landscape was dynamic, and

correspondingly, supported a variety of vegetation consisting of grasses, shrubs, hardwoods, and

conifers. Strearmside canopy was open and large wood recruitment was low.

Current Conditions

The physical functions of the riparian areas are: (1) stabilize stream banks via root mass,

(2) provide a canopy to reduce solar radiation input, and (3) supply LWD to the channel system.

Table 18 displays the amount of streamside vegetation in the non-forest (rock, grass, brush,

residential) and pioneer vegetation structural stage at the WAA level. Data includes strearnside

vegetation across all ownerships. The final column represents the percent of the WAA with

streamside vegetation in non-forest and pioneer structure. WAA's with a higher percentage of

these classes are more susceptible to elevated stream temperatures due to the absence of canopy

closure. They are also likely to maintain a low level of instream wood due to a reduced presence

of large tree structure.

Table 18 ranks the WAAs by riparian zones from the highest percent of non-forest and pioneer

structural stage to the lowest. WAA's in bold represent National Forest lands. Appendix F

provides the breakdown of all vegetation classes in the riparian zone by WAA.

Bank Stability

Other than the naturally unstable inner gorge areas of the mainstem and the North Fork, and the

naturally migrating reach of the lower watershed, channel banks are stable. Although 50 percent

of the streamside vegetation across the entire watershed is classified as pioneer and non-forest,

field inspections indicated very little bank erosion. Channel reaches with the most recent harvest

activity coincide with the most inherently stable banks. Channel banks in the North and Big

South Fork of Hunter Creek are composed of large cobble and small boulder. Bank stability in

these reaches is not dependent on vegetation and associated root mass. Therefore, banks are not

sensitive to vegetation disturbances. This is supported by the fact that in 1996 the channels

experienced a very large flow event which resulted in minor bank erosion.

4-14
In the Upper Hunter Creek subbasin (Upper Hunter and Elko Creeks) a mixture of sediment

sizes, including fluvial deposits, comprise the channel banks. Due to inclusions of fine grained

previously deposited sediments, these areas are considered susceptible to erosion. Review of

1969 aerial photographs documented bank erosion and channel widening following the 1964

storm event. All identified widened areas coincided with recent harvest activity (harvesting

occurring within 10 years of the flood event). Currently, the previously disturbed' streambanks in

the Upper Hunter subbasin are stable with a mixture of hardwood and conifer species.

TABLE 18: STREAMSIDE VEGETATION IN NON-FOREST AND PIONEER

STRUCTURAL STAGE

____________ 11 11 10X

____lW 4 4 100

__________ 75 58 77

_________ 82 60 73

06L02F 75 53 71

06LOIF 71 43 61

06M02W 120 72 60

06M06W 220 110 5(

06S02W 57 24 42

06MOlF 253 94 37

06N02W 23 8 35

06M04F 402 137 34

NOiW 84 28 33

06L08W 30 9 30

06L05F 109 32 29

06M03W 129 37 29

06N 68 17 25

CRS 76 11 14

06M05W 250 36 14

06L09W 47 3 61

06L07W 8 0(

06M06W 0 110 __

* NF= Non-forest structure; P= Pioneer vegetation structure

Canoyv Cover

The ability of streamside vegetation to prevent increases in water temperature is directly related

to the canopy cover provided by the vegetation. As canopy cover increases, solar radiation input

decreases. Vegetation structure less than early seral (pioneer and non-forest) has little canopy

cover value. In Hunter Creek, early seral stage is often associated with large alders, which fill in

the canopy and provide shade. Table 18 displays the WAA's and associated level of streamside

vegetation in the non-forest and pioneer stage.

4-15
A reduction in the streamside canopy cover has occurred as a result of past management

activities. Past harvest units in the riparian zones have created openings in the canopy.

Additional canopy openings were created by stream widening during the 1964 flood event (see

effects of storm events in aquatic environment). However, aerial photographs following harvest

activity and stream widening indicated that canopy openings did not persist for long periods

(approximately 17 years) as hardwoods were quick to revegetate, providing canopy cover.

Water temperature data has been collected by the Forest Service (1993-1997) in the upper

reaches of Hunter Creek down to the Forest Service boundary. In 1995, the Lower Rogue

Watershed Council monitored the water temperature at the mouth of North Fork and Big South

Fork Hunter Creek and on the mainstem at High Bridge. Along the mainstem Hunter Creek on

Forest Service lands, the 7-day maximum temperatures ranged from 58-640 F in the upper basin

to 72-74'F at the Forest Service boundary. This represents a stream distance of approximately

three miles. The increase in temperature can be attributed to the inner gorge area where constant

raveling and landslides have prevented the establishment of riparian vegetation, exposing the

entire water surface width to solar radiation input. This change in temperature, from above the

canyon to below, is considered a natural phenomenon. At High Bridge 71 TF was recorded.

Water temperatures for the two largest tributaries, the North and Big South Forks, had a 7-day

maximum temperature of 65 0F and 63 0F, respectively.

In 1973, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) recorded water temperature of

720F near the Highway 101 bridge. Although the temperatures were recorded 25 years ago, a

significant change in temperature is not expected. The lower three to four miles of Hunter Creek

is unconfined with riparian vegetation in the non-forest or early seral vegetation structure. The

unconfined morphology and associated immature vegetation combined with residential and

pasture development provides little canopy cover.

Large Wood Recruitment

The potential for large wood recruitment is considered high in stands maintaining mid- and late

seral vegetation structure. On National Forest lands, past harvest in WAA's 06M02W,

06M06W, and 06M04F decreased the high large wood recruitment potential to 31 percent, 40

percent, and 53 percent respectively. In comparison, WAA's 06M03W and 06M05W, which had

a reduced level of harvest activity, maintain 80 percent and 72 percent, respectively. Field

inspection of channels in WAA's with low recruitment potential indicated a very low presence of

LWD (see channel morphology assessment).

WAA 06MOIF is also rated low, with mid and late seral stands comprising 19 percent of the

riparian area. In this WAA, however, minimal development of mid to late seral stands is due to

the presence of ultramafic soils.

4-16
42.2 Riparian and Aquatic Animal Species of Concern

There are 18 riparian animal "species of concern" considered in this section. They include 2

federal or state listed (or proposed/candidate for listing), 8 state sensitive, 4 Regional Foresterdesignated sensitive, 4 Siskiyou LRMP plan indicators, and 5 neotropical migrant land birds

experiencing significant long-term decline. Appendix C.2 lists species designations and

occurrence. In this document, a species with more than one designation (for example, state

sensitive and neotropical migrant) is discussed only in the category where it first appears from

the above hierarchy (e.g. state sensitive in the preceding example).

Federal or State Listed

The Aleutian Canada goose has not been documented in the watershed, nor is it probable except

in pastures or waters on private lands at the mouth of Hunter Creek. Increasing human

development will probably cause future goose avoidance.

The Bald eagle is not known to nest or roost here, but there have been a few sightings in lower

Hunter Creek and near Hunter Creek Bog (Gold Beach Ranger District 1998). The lack of use in

the watershed by the bald eagle may be due to limited foraging area, consisting of the mouth of

Hunter Creek upstream to approximately Conn Creek. This segment is developed with

residences and other concentrated human activity that disturb eagles. Additionally, larger trees

favored by the eagle are limited. National Forest lands are at least 3 miles beyond this upstream

foraging area, and many times farther than the half-mile or less from water for a typical nest

location.

State Sensitive

Critical

The southern torrent salamander was documented in T37S, R14W, Section 13 (Guettennan

1997). Its distribution within the watershed is probably wider, considering that there are many

miles of cold water streamside habitat with rock, gravel, or sphagnum in the splash zone.

Vulnerable

The foothill yellow-legged frog was documented in T37S, R14W, Section 15 (Toman 1997),

and in T37S, R14W, Section 14 (Guetterman 1997). It also is suspected to habitate throughout

the area in perennial, slow-moving streams with rocky bottoms and vegetated streambanks.

The only evidence of the tailed frog was a sighting in 1992 (Gold Beach Ranger District 1998).

Because of this species preference for pristine, cold, tumbling water streams, Elko Creek

provides particularly good habitat. Habitat conditions are unlikely to change in the future, unless

recreation use at Elko Camp increases dramatically.

4-17
The western toad has not been documented in the area, but may occur in any near surface water

habitat which is necessary for breeding. It is tolerant of human presence and vegetative

manipulation. However, ultraviolet radiation has been identified as a controlling factor.

Undetermined

The red-legged frog has been reported in the Lower Hunter Creek (T37S, R14W, Section 18) by

Toman (1997) and in subwatershed 06LOlF by the Gold Beach Ranger District (1998). The frog

has also been documented by the Gold Beach Ranger District (1998) within the North Fork

Hunter Creek WAA 06NO1W, and Upper Hunter Creek WAA's 06MO1F, 06M03W, 06M04F,

06M05W, and 06M06W.

Shallow-gradient reaches of lower Hunter Creek, plus ponds or lakes, provide wintering habitat

for the buffiehead, but they migrate north to nest.

Alder stands in riparian areas seem to be the preferred habitat for the white-footed vole. This

species has not been documented in the watershed, but is suspected. It apparently benefits from

timber harvest that creates early successional stages (and supports alder). Species distribution is

expected to be widespread on private ownerships and on streambanks of the upper watershed.

National Forest Land & Resource Management Plan Indicators

The osprey is not known to nest in Hunter Creek, but the Gold Beach Ranger District (1998) has

reported a single-bird sighting in WAAs 06S (July 1993), 06M04F (June 1980), and 06M06W

(August 1988).

Neotropical Migrant Landbirds

There are 122 species of neotropical migrant landbirds that breed in Oregon (Andelman and

Stock 1994). Of these, 89 occur on the Siskiyou National Forest (Shea 1996). Twenty-two (27

percent) of these Siskiyou N.F. species show significant long-term declines in Oregon according

to Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data, and another three species (3 percent) could be vulnerable

due to reduced habitat. Eighteen of the 25 species utilize riparian habitat. Such a high

proportion of riparian species illustrates the critical value of this habitat. Appendix C.9

summarizes habitat associations.

It is assumed, but not verified, that cowbirds occur in the riparian areas of the lower watershed in

association with agriculture and animal husbandry.

Alder dominated riparian habitats are valuable habitat for 19 (70 percent) of the 27 species in

decline or vulnerable. This habitat condition is especially common on private lands logged in the

1940s or 50s, where alder has matured to provide a dense, tall, deciduous canopy with stems of

up to an estimated 16 inches dbh. This habitat is favored by birds such as the American

4-18
goldfinch, Swainson's thrush and Orange-crowned warbler. Conversion of alder stands to

conifers is extensively planned on industrial forest lands, which could diminish existing habitat

for these three neotropical bird species and others.

Aquatic Animal Species of Concern

The western pond turtle is documented from the lower reaches of Hunter Creek in T37S,

R14W, Section 18 (Toman 1997). Since it favors standing or slow-moving water, its distribution

is probably limited to Hunter Creek from Conn Creek downstream. This stream reach is in

private ownership.

The horned grebe is not documented within the watershed, but if present is likely to be found

only near the mouth of Hunter Creek during winter. Increased human development on private

land will probably preclude its occurrence in the future.

4.3 AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT

The aquatic environment is divided into physical and biological components. Data

characterizing the physical processes and associated structure of the channel environment are.

presented first. Following the physical description, characterization of salmonid use is discussed.

4.3.1 Physical Characterization

Key Question: What are the basic morphological characteristics of stream valleys and

channels and the sediment transport and deposition processes in the watershed?

Methods

In determining changes to channel morphology from past land activity, stream channels were

stratified based on two criteria. The first criteria stratified the channels based on riparian zone

condition; harvested or not harvested. The second criteria stratified the channels based on

sediment transport capacities. This classification is based on "Channel Classification, Prediction

of Channel Response, and Assessment of Channel Condition"(Montgomery and Buffington,

1993). Each channel type is discussed. Methods vary slightly between reaches and will be

discussed individually.

Figure 13 displays the distribution of source, transport, and response reaches in the watershed. In

summary:

Source Reach -These are high gradient, sediment storage reaches likely to

experience debris flows. Slope range is >30 percent.

4-19
* Transport Reach-These have high sediment transport capacities, and channel

geometry alterations from increased sediment load is not probable, as sediment is

quickly transported downstream. Slope range is 3 to 30 percent.

* Response Reach-These are low gradient, typically unconfined, reaches. Response

reaches are considered most susceptible to changes in sediment and/or flow changes

due to the low transport capacity. Sediment delivered to the channel system from

source reaches is mobilized through the transport reach and deposits in the response

reach. The slope range is < 3 percent.

In assessing channel conditions and establishing relationships between channel conditions and

types, several stream channels were investigated and are noted below.

Source Reaches

Channels designated as source are generally first and second order channels, according to the

Strahler method. They are also colluvial hollows. Source reaches are generally located in the

upper most reaches of the watershed. Source reach channels are considered vulnerable to

scouring events such as debris flows and shallow landslides.

Most source reaches are not identified on maps, but several reaches were identified in the field.

Source reaches were examined in forested and harvested units in the Upper Hunter, North and

South Fork subwatersheds. Specifically, channels were investigated to determine the level of

scouring which may occur as a result of flow concentrations due to road runoff or vegetation

removal.

Field observations indicated these reaches are stable. In both harvested units and fully vegetated

stands, there was very little evidence of scouring, suggesting the source reaches in Hunter Creek

are not highly susceptible to shallow landslides or debris flows. This is particularly true since

field investigations followed the 1996 flood. Given the magnitude and infrequency of such an

event, it is assumed that if these channels were susceptible to mass wasting, a greater number of

failures would have been observed. Similarly, 1969 aerial photos, which follow the 1964 flood

event, indicate very few first and second order channels failing.

Transport Reaches

Except for the first few river miles, the Hunter Creek channel system is dominated by sediment

transport processes. Channels in the Upper Hunter (including Elko), Middle Hunter, North Fork,

and South Fork subbasins were visited to evaluate conditions. Site visits included reaches

running through past harvest units, ranging from the 1950's to the 1980's.

4-20
H UNTER CREEK WATERSHED

STREAM SLOPES

N

- A

ScA: I inch = 1.2L5 ns 0M1 &S*6w4-97,
Upper Hunter Subbasin

Current Conditions-Stream gradients in upper Hunter Creek fall within the transport reach

classification with inclusions of response reaches. Field verification indicated that a mixture of

sediment sizes are depositing throughout the reaches, representing a response reach. Specifically,

these are confined response reaches. Confinement limits the lateral adjustments to increasing

sediment loads; adjustments such as multiple channel formation or "braiding" are unlikely. As a

result, responses to disturbances occur along the longitudinal profile.

Lacking geologic structure and sinuosity, the confined response channels in Upper Hunter Creek

rely on the input of large roughness elements such as Large Wood Debris (LWD) or boulders to

converge and diverge flows. Convergence and divergence of flows scour pools and form bars,

respectively. Currently, the channel system is void of large roughness elements. Wood removal

from the stream channels occurred in this basin (Personal Communication, 1997. Vanleer).

Additionally, past harvest in the riparian zone reduced the potential for large wood recruitment.

Consequently, the combination of wood removal and harvest activities reduced instream

roughness elements. Currently, sediment grains and a few mid-channel bars provide the majority

of energy dissipation.

The geomorphology of upper Hunter and Elko creeks is characteristic of a plane bed

morphology. Montgomery and Buffington (1995) state, "plane-bed channels lack free form bars,

have subdued cross-section topography, and consist primarily of riffles." This is the condition

observed in the field. Longitudinal profiles lack vertical fluctuations with very little bedform

roughness. Runs and riffles dominate the habitat types; pool habitat comprises approximately 10

percent of the channel area. Additionally, due to the lack of complexity, the channel is rated poor

for pool formation and instream cover.

Effects of Storm Events-Aerial photography sequencing indicates channel widening following

the 1964 flood event. In all cases, channel widening was commensurate with streamside harvest;

each of the areas with widened channels was harvested in the late 1950's or early 1960's. Reaches

in Lower Elko Creek, mainstem Hunter Creek in Sections 4 and 8, and an unnamed tributary

running southeast through Section 5 all experienced channel widening. Widening appeared to be

related to the scouring of young vegetation as opposed to an increase in sediment loads.

Otherwise, the stream channels had nearly a full canopy of stream side vegetation. Currently,

these reaches have a full canopy dominated by alder species with a fir subdominant component.

The storm of 1996 had little effect on the channels in the Upper Hunter Creek subbasin. Fine

sediment deposition was observed along the stream margins. Significant scouring (>20 percent

of the channel) was not observed, with the riparian zone maintaining a full vegetative

component.

Reference Conditions- To present reference conditions for upper Hunter Creek, physically

based conclusions are necessary. A comparison to undisturbed channels was not possible due to

the fact that all channel segments have been subjected to past disturbances. The physically based

analysis focuses on processes active in forming the current plane-bed morphology. Montgomery

4-22
et al. (1993), describes processes as "plane-bed channels respond to increased flows by bed

coarsening, creating turbulence; an increase in sediment can cause significant aggradation;

removal of LWD can change a pool-riffle morphology to a plane-bed morphology."

In confined response reaches, valley bottom morphology prevents the widening of the channel as

a response to an increase in sediment loads. Rather, zone of active sediment transport increases.

In the channels observed in the Upper Hunter Creek, the active zone of sediment transport is the

entire channel. This creates an unstable channel environment where the channel bed becomes

mobile through a wider range of flows. Without large wood or other structural elements, local

hydraulics acting to scour pools and create depositional environments are absent. Therefore,

prior to harvest and wood removal channels in the Upper Hunter Creek WAA probably had a

pool-riffle morphology shaped and maintained by the presence of large wood.

Middle Hunter Creek

Current Conditions-The Middle Hunter Reach runs from the SE 1/4 Section 8, T 37S, R 13W

to the low gradient reach of the lower watershed in SW Section 22, T 37, R 14W. In this reach,

bedrock geology controls channel processes and conditions.

The presence of bedrock throughout the reach creates geologic sinuosity. The bedrock also

provides hydraulic controls. Sinuosity shifts the thalweg laterally, causing changes in the

velocity profile. Gravel bars are developing in eddies and back water areas. Bedrock protruding

into the active channel constricts flow width, creating deep backwater pools.

As with upper Hunter Creek, very little wood was observed. However, unlike Upper Hunter

Creek, LWD does not play a significant role in the channel forming process. Specifically, in the

middle reach, flow obstruction and complexity is provided by bedrock.

In Section 18, the channel runs through a steep inner gorge composed of peridotite. Numerous

gullies and slides are directly delivering sediment into the channel environment. This inner

gorge represents the single largest source of sediment into the Hunter Creek stream system.

However, the flow velocities are competent in transporting the sediment downstream to the

alluvial reach of the lower watershed.

Reference Conditions-Based on the geomorphology and the dominant role of bedrock in this

reach, it is speculated that reference conditions are very similar to current conditions. There are

localized channel disturbances from campsites and old roads. However, these perturbations are

isolated and do not represent changes to channel functions or conditions.

Big South Fork and North Fork Hunter Creeks

Current Conditions-The Big South Fork and North Fork were lumped together based on

similarities in channel morphology and sediment transport capacities. These subbasins have the

highest relief in the Hunter Creek watershed. Correspondingly, they have very high transport

capacities.

4-23
The Big South Fork has the highest road density in the watershed. Aerial photographs and field

visits reveal that much of the watershed has been harvested.

Based on past activities in the basin, and the relation between land management activities and

accelerated erosion, hillslope erosion has likely increased. However, stream channel conditions

in the Big South Fork subbasin do not indicate an elevated sediment load. The geomorphology is

characterized by high gradient riffles and cascades. Channel substrate is composed of large

cobbles and small boulders.

Similar to the channels in the upper basin, large wood is essentially absent from the system. In a

high gradient system such as the South Fork, the presence of LWD functions to provide future

wood delivery to the mainstem. The function of large wood to scour pools is minimal due to the

armoring of the bed with cobbles and boulders.

Channel conditions in the North Fork are very similar to those in the South Fork. High gradient

riffles and cascades characterize the geomorphology; large cobbles to small boulders compose

the channel bed and banks.

Harvesting and road building in the North Fork are assumed to have increased sediment into the

channel. Also, stream bank failures up to 30-50 feet tall were noted in Section 2. As evident

from the absence of sediment accumulation, stream power in the North Fork is competent in

transporting the current sediment input.

Much of the streamside vegetation has been removed from the lower reach. The volume of LWD

is low. However, the mechanism for the low volumes of LWD is uncertain and could be a

combination of stream power and management activities. The energy gradient observed in the

North Fork has the capacity to transport wood of all sizes during large storm events.

Reference Conditions-Typically, the function of the high gradient streams found in both the

South and North Forks is to transport sediment and wood to the mainstem of Hunter Creek.

Currently, channels in the North and South Fork lack wood debris and sediment. Although the

relative contribution of management activities versus stream power shaping this condition is not

known, it is assumed that in the absence of road building and harvest, wood delivery to the South

and North Forks would be higher.

Response Reaches

The lower three to four miles of Hunter Creek represents the largest contiguous response reach.

Lower Hunter Creek is an unconfined, alluvial valley consisting of point bars, side channels, and

an extensive floodplain. As this reach has the lowest gradient in the watershed, the probability

for sediment deposition is greatest. Additionally, bank material is composed of fluvial deposits,

or sediment previously transported by the channel. A combination of low transport capacity with

banks composed of fine material, makes this reach highly susceptible to changes from alterations

in sediment and/or water supplies.

4-24
Reference Conditions-Inspection of 1940 photographs displays an open alluvial valley. The

valley bottom consists of the wetted width with bare soil (depositions) extending 2-4 channel

widths. This zone delineated the active channel. Outside the active channel, side channels and

grass flats are evident. The extent of the grass flats and side channels delineated the floodplain.

The response reach in the Lower Hunter Creek was dynamic, in terms of vertical and lateral

adjustments to annual sediment and flow volumes. The unconfined nature of the valley allowed

for channel migration and overbank flooding. During infrequent flood events water overtops its

banks and spreads across the floodplain. Depending on local conditions, sediment was deposited

and stored in the floodplain or generated by the scour of a new channel. Commensurate with the

physical changes occurring across the floodplain, vegetation composition was dynamic. A

mixture of pioneer, early seral, and mid-seral structures developed; the stage and age being

dependent on the frequency and magnitude of inundation.

Channel forming processes were consistent with a pool-riffle sequence. In a low gradient poolriffle system, pools are rhythmically spaced about five to seven channel widths (Leopold et, al.,

1964). The key to bar and pool formation is lateral migration of the thalweg. Bars forming on

the inside create roughness pushing the thalweg to the alternate bank, scouring a pool. This

sequencing provides significant form roughness, acting to reduce flow energy.

Current Conditions-Currently, channel processes have been altered. Road building and

floodplain reclamation are the dominant mechanisms. Channel banks have been stabilized to

prevent erosion. Floodplains were drained to support agriculture and development.

Consequently, the channel straightened, increasing stream flow velocities. This has led to an

increase in shear stress and sediment transport capacity.

From field visits, and interviews, it is evident that the channel has degraded. Preventing bank

erosion and restricting floodwater from accessing the floodplain significantly reduced the energy

dissipating capability of the channel. As a result, energy dissipation is occurring along the

channel bed.

As the stream downcuts, it undermines the toe of the bank. Additionally, as the water recedes

from a high flow event pore pressure pulls on the bank. Consequently, channel banks are

collapsing. In a natural setting scenario, the sediment from the banks would be deposited in the

form of point bars. The process of eroding banks and forming point bars is an attempt to

reestablish grade through sinuosity. Currently, scouring of channel banks and depositing on the

alternate bank forming pool-riffle sequences is not a significant process. Bank armoring and

channel straightening are artificially maintaining stream grade, perpetuating bank erosion and

land losses.

4-25
Summary and Conclusions

From a watershed perspective, the conveyance rate of watershed products (water and sediment)

has increased through the channel network. In the Upper Hunter Creek subbasin, removal of

wood has reduced the process of flow convergence and divergence, creating a uniform bed

profile. As a result, average stream flow velocity increased. Since stream power, or the ability to

do work, is proportionate to velocity, stream power has also increased. Beschta and Platts (1986)

state, "Channels that are steep, straight with hydraulically smooth banks and beds, uniform in

cross section...will have relatively high unit stream power." Consequently, rate of water and

sediment transport has increased. However, mid-channel bars continue to develop and scour

annually, indicating that degradation from increased stream power is not occurring.

The middle reaches of Hunter Creek have changed little from reference conditions. Bedrock

continues to be the dominant characteristic determining sinuosity, pool formation, and bank

stability. One of the most significant sediment sources in the watershed are the inner gorge slides

of the middle reaches. Both the influence of bedrock on channel form and the sediment input

from the inner gorge slides remain unchanged from reference conditions.

In the lower watershed, armoring of the stream banks and reclaiming the floodplain led to

channel straightening, or decreased sinuosity. "Meandering is one means whereby a river can

adjust its rate of energy loss and transport ability" (Knighton 1984). The greater the sinuosity,

the lower the channel slope relative to the valley slope. Associated with straightening is a

reduction in bedform roughness; point bars and pool formations have been reduced. Flows

which historically accessed the floodplain are now contained in the channel banks, resulting in

bed and bank scour. For fish habitat, increased bed mobility translates to unstable gravels.

Additionally, the primary pool forming processes (development of pools on the opposing bank of

point bars) have decreased.

4.3.2 Biological Characterization

Key Question: What is the physical and biotic characterization offish habitat?

Hunter Creek is an important, fish-producing watershed on Oregon's south coast. Populations of

sensitive anadromous fish are dependent upon the quality of the watershed and, subsequently, the

quality of the water produced within the watershed.

Methods

Data on stream classification, miles of streams, and watershed characteristics were obtained from

the National Forest. ODFW provided data on physical stream surveys, fish populations, and

special studies. Historic data was obtained from conversations with several individuals who have

lived or worked in the Hunter Creek area for many years.

4-26
Anadromous fish populations typically receive the most emphasis from public agencies. Hence,

the majority of fish-related data pertains to anadromous species. Data on non-anadromous

species is collected primarily during physical stream surveys. Also, information on other aquatic

species of concern are presented.

Habitat Characterization

Table 19 lists the miles of stream class in the Hunter Creek watershed. As with most coastal

streams, the upper section of the watershed is typified by steep hills and confined valley profiles.

This characterizes habitat in the North and South Forks of Hunter Creek. In these reaches, the

stream has a high gradient with little or no spawning gravel. Pools are minimal, limited to small

plunge pools. Woody debris from past logging activities or slides frequently accumulates in

narrow canyons or behind large boulders. Fish production is minimal, however, resident

cutthroat trout are usually found through the limit of perennial stream flow.

Lower stream gradients within National Forest Land (Upper Hunter and Elko creeks), allow for

increased spawning gravel deposition, and pool formation. However, a reduction in LWD (see

channel assessment) has resulted in a simplified channel form which supports low habitat

complexity. Currently, the habitat is dominated by shallow, low gradient riffles and runs.

Additionally, the lack of instream structure has increased sediment conveyance, presenting

spawning gravel stability concerns.

Middle Hunter Creek currently provides good habitats. The habitat is geologically controlled

providing sinuosity and backwater areas. Both create large pool habitat. Geologic nick points

also provide stable locations for spawning gravel. These nick points are a fixed structure in the

system and, therefore, will not respond to changes in water or sediment inputs. This habitat

condition was observed from Section 8 on National Forest lands to Section 14 upstream of the

confluence with the North Fork Hunter Creek.

The lower watershed, approximately RM 0.7 to RM 10.75, exhibits a low gradient, meandering

stream, frequently with vertical streambanks. Decreased stream velocities through this section

cause gravel and silt to deposit. Fair-to-good amounts of spawning gravel are available for fall

chinook and winter steelhead (Table 20). Deep pools are forming upstream of geologic bedrock

controls.

The concern for the lower reach is the reduction in sinuosity and floodplain function.

Straightening the river restricted lateral adjustment and, hence, formation of lateral scour pools.

Channelization and reduction in floodplain function increased water and sediment conveyance.

This will act to fill in pools and mobilize potential spawning gravel sites.

Most tributary streams have a limited amount of low gradient stream near the mouth. At these

locations gravel is deposited and available to spawning fish

4-27
TABLE 19: PERENNIAL STREAM CLASSIFICATION AND MILES WiTHIN THE

HUNTER CREEK WATERSHED.

CLASS I CLASS 2 CLASS 3 UNCLASS TOTAL

Hunter Creek mainstem - below USFS

boundary

- above USFS boundary

Hunter Creek tributaries - below USFS

boundary

11.95

2.05

0.00

0.00

2.69

0.45

0.00

0.58

12.60

0.00 11.95

0.00 5.32

17.75 30.80

- above USFS boundary 0.00

Crosson Creek 0.00

1.27

0.00

1.19

0.86

11.32

0.00

0.90

5.51

0.00 12.59

Conn Creek 0.57

2.26

2.10

0.00

2.26

4.76

South Fork Hunter Creek 0.52 6.89

Big South Fork Hunter Creek 0.88 2.62

1.00

10.22

2.95

0.00 13.72

North Fork Hunter Creek 0.75 3.60 8.30

Elko Creek 0.00 2.05 2.93 0.00 4.98

TOTAL 16.72 12.13 47.01 25.71 101.57

TABLE 20: AMOUNT (SQUARE-YARDS) AND QUALiTY OF ANADROMOUS FISH

SPAWNING GRAVEL ESTIMATED FROM SURVEYS OF THE HUNTER

CREEK DRAINAGE IN 1971.

GOOD MARGINAL TOTAL

Hunter Creek - below barriers 16,046 7,544 23,590

- above barriers 597 1,063 1,660

Conn Creek 0 25 25

Little South Fork Hunter Creek 15 35 50

South Fork Hunter Creek 0 65 65

North Fork Hunter Creek 430 550 980

TOTAL 17,088 9,282 26,370

A 1971 physical and biological stream survey of the Hunter Creek watershed by the Oregon

Game Commission (OGC) indicated there were 16,046 square yards of good spawning gravel

and 7,544 square yards of marginal spawning gravel for chinook and steelhead. There were also

597 square yards of good gravel and 1,063 square yards of marginal gravel above anadromous

fish barriers. Tributary streams also contained 445 square yards of good gravel and 1,063 square

yards of marginal gravel accessible to anadromous fish (Oregon Game Commission - 1971).

4-28
Due to a lack of current information, it is uncertain how present spawning gravel conditions

compare to 1971 conditions.

A 1996 National Forest document reports the seven day average maximum stream temperature

near the forest boundary was 74.4°F. The seven-day average maximum temperature in the upper

reaches was 62.7 0F. (USFS - 1996). Water temperatures increased through the inner gorge

where vegetation is sparse. A 1973 ODFW Hunter Creek estuary study recorded water

temperatures within the estuary near the old Highway 101 bridge from May 15, 1973 to

September 18, 1973. The maximum high temperature recorded during this period was 720 F with

a weekly average of 70.5°F.

According to the Siskiyou National Forest LRMP, optimal water temperatures for salmonids

range between 450F and 590F. Temperatures ranging from 59 to 690F are considered suboptimum. At temperatures ranging from 69 to 75TF, it is suspected that growth ceases. Summer

low flow temperatures fall into the 69 to 75 0F category for a majority of the channel length.

Tidal influence at the mouth of the stream provides an area where fresh and salt water mix during

the daily ebb and flow of the tide. The Hunter Creek estuary is typical of the Klamath Geologic

Province, in that during low summer flows the entrance becomes "bar bound". However, enough

mixing does occur through the year to provide rich biota typical of an estuary. Tidal influence

occurs from RM 0.0 to about RM 0.7. Large numbers of salmonids and non-game species use

the estuary for feeding and rearing.

Historic Fish Distribution

Considerable fish population and fish habitat data have been collected over the years by the

ODFW. National Forest and BLM have data relative to their lands. A collation of available

agency data, conversations with knowledgeable individuals and personal experience provided the

data for this section.

Records of fish distribution prior to approximately 1950 are not available. Human access to

much of the upper watershed was limited to foot travel. Roads allowing ready access for fish

surveys, had not been constructed. Apparently little effort was made to quantify fish populations

It can be reasonably assumed that anadromous salmonids used all accessible streams where

habitat was available for spawning and rearing. Resident cutthroat trout were likely found above

barriers upstream, extending to the limits of perennial stream flow.

The mainstem Hunter Creek stream mileage (RM) as reported in various reports varies

considerably. For example, an ODFW 1971 stream survey report lists the fall chinook barrier at

RM 8.25 and a winter steelhead barrier at RM 10.75 (ODFW - 1971). The National Forest lists

the upward limit of anadromous fish passage at RM 13.1 (USFS - 1996). Another National

Forest stream survey report designated the forest boundary at RM 10.0. For the purpose of this

4-29
report, the ODFW stream mileages will be used. Stream miles reported by ODFW begin at the m

Hunter Creek historically has the reputation for producing large adult fall chinook and winter

steelhead. Some of the largest steelhead on the south coast have been caught or observed

spawning within the system.

It is probable that chum salmon used the system at one time, as chum salmon typically spawn in

tributaries close to the mouth of the river or estuary.

Present Fish Distribution

A series of waterfalls and chutes 6 to 12 feet in height at RM 8 - 10 create a barrier to

anadromous fish. Steelhead migrated one or two miles further upstream than chinook. National

Forest lands have very little anadromous fish production.

Fall chinook salmon currently use mainstem Hunter Creek up to the natural stream barriers

located near the National Forest boundary (Figure 14). An estimated 600 to 800 adult chinook

annually enter the system to spawn (Personal Communication, ODFW). Annual standard

spawning ground surveys indicate that the numbers of fall chinook using the Hunter Creek

system has increased dramatically since about 1991-92 (Chart 1).

Cwh 1. Cao d hof k s digu HeM COmk hmg I su

lW............. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .. ................

.s........o.... - -- - -- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -

............... ... ........ .. .. . ..... .... ...... H............... .........

1:1.....~~~~~~. .. . .. . .. . .. . .

.L :L: .------------....-.-. *.--- .-.-.-- .---

1Us? W. wn O wm so~ wn z win OrI in 1

Winter steelhead use the mainstem Hunter Creek up to the barrier and the lower portions of

tributary streams where suitable spawning and rearing habitat are available. A few steelhead

apparently negotiate the mainstem barrier during certain high water stages. No quantitative

population data is collected on spawning steelhead due to the length of their spawning season and

the difficulty of observing spawning adult fish.

While numbers of chinook and steelhead may not yet be optimum, the population of adults

entering the system has increased. Currently, a limited no-bag-limit sport angling season

currently is in effect for winter steelhead in the lower mainstem Hunter Creek; a limited fall

chinook sport fishery is being contemplated. The majority of the recreational angling is

4-30
conducted from the bank. Boat angling is severely limited by the size of stream and depth of

water.

A remnant run of coho salmon may still be present in Hunter Creek. However, coho have not

been observed since the 1993 spawning season when one adult coho was caught in a seine being

used to capture spawning chinook (personal comm. - ODFW). Coho prefer spawning in small

tributary streams or backwater areas such as side channels. Habitat of this nature has decreased

as a result of floodplain reclamation.

Coho salmon are in severe jeopardy along the entire Oregon coast. While all of the reasons are

not understood, the general feeling is that reduced spawning and rearing habitat in combination

with ocean conditions are the reasons for this serious decline. Coho are currently listed as a

threatened species by the federal government.

A limited run of sea-run cutthroat trout enter Hunter Creek each fall to spawn. Historic runs

were not quantified but were apparently never of much significance.

Chum salmon have not been observed for many years.

Resident cutthroat trout occupy most all available habitat. These resident trout are found

primarily in the upper stream reaches, above anadromous spawning areas. Some resident

cutthroat do descend the streams and enter the sea-run cutthroat population. It is expected that

cutthroat populations have declined with habitat degradation.

4-31
... 

.',, i -- 'I.' aihi j 

X -* As A;---\ An,;;, ,,, ' >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I---

A' i tS\X'X'X \g '

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-: - -->vs .

if i ! '""I ZY .. g~~~~~~~~I S Figure -. /~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 14 ' l-
5.0 MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This section identifies management opportunities, restoration opportunities, and information

needs to improve future terrestrial and aquatic conditions in the Hunter Creek watershed.

Guidelines for management options on Federal Lands are adapted from Late Successional

Reserve Assessments and the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives.

5.2 TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM

5.2.1 Silviculture Opportunities

The following recommendations identify silvicultural treatment opportunities intended to:

1) Accelerate the growth and development of early and/or mid-seral stands into late seral forest

structure. 2) Increase block size and connectivity of future late successional habitat.

Below are opportunities identified during the watershed analysis, however, these do not represent

the only opportunities. Additional areas and prescriptions may be identified by the agencies and

landowners during the project level planning process.

Late-Successional Reserve Allocation

There are 6,311 acres allocated to Late Successional Reserves.

BLM land: Commercial thinning in the mid-seral stand to the south of the existing BLM late

seral block located in WAA 06NOlW will increase the size of the current late seral stand. Precommercial thinning in surrounding early seral stands will also expedite the development of a

large late seral habitat block. Given the fragmentation of late seral stands by pioneer and early

seral vegetation stands and the limited productivity of ultramafic soils, this is the best opportunity

in the northern portion of the watershed to create a contiguous late successional habitat block.

National Forest land: To increase the size of the existing late seral habitat identified in the eastern

portion of WAA 06M02W, near Pyramid Rock, commercial thinning in adjacent mid-seral

stands is recommended.

Development of contiguous late successional structure can be accelerated by the use of

silvicultural treatments in managed stands between the late seral forest stands near Pyramid Rock

northeast to the LSR boundary (western edge of Elko Creek drainage). Figure 15, "1940

vegetation structure" displays a contiguous block of late successional habitat from Elko Creek

along the watershed boundary to Pyramid Rock. Harvest activity in 1955-1964 and 1975-1984

has fragmented this contiguous block. Treating these past harvested units will expedite the

return of late successional habitat connectivity. Specifically, commercial thinning in the 1955-

1964 managed stands and pre-commercial thinning in the 1975-1984 managed stands is

recommended.

5-1
Matrix Land Allocation

There are 2,375 acres allocated to National Forest matrix lands. Project level planning is

necessary to establish specific prescriptions and areas of timber management in the matrix land

allocation. However, the team identified commercial thinning opportunities in stands managed

between 1955 and 1964. These units are located in the lower, or western half, of Elko Creek

(Figure 15 "current vegetation structure").

Silviculture planning efforts should coordinate prescriptions in matrix lands with thinning

activities in the LSR and riparian zones (see riparian ecosystem recommendations) to optimize

landscape diversity.

5.2.2 Wildlife Enhancement Opportunities

Throughout the watershed there is a lack of adequately sized snags for woodpeckers and other

cavity using species. Managing for snags and erecting nest or roost boxes will improve short and

long term habitat conditions for cavity associated wildlife.

In the northwest end of the watershed, Douglas-fir and incense cedar are encroaching into open,

grassy Jeffrey pine stands. There is an opportunity to reduce the encroaching vegetation by the

use of prescribed fire or by slashing and girdling.

Roads

Appendix E lists road segments and conditions.

Throughout the forest, road closure/obliteration will reduce fragmentation thereby increasing

connectivity of terrestrial habitat. However, the greatest impact of roads on wildlife resources,

particularly elk, is the level of open road density. Based on road densities leading to elk

avoidance areas, WAAs 06M-02W, 04F, 05W, 06W were identified as high priority areas for

reducing road access. These subbasins are located on National Forest land. Currently, South

Coast Lumber Company keeps gates locked on several of their roads, restricting access into the

North and South Forks of Hunter Creek.

Information needs

PMR vegetation classification should be field verified at the project planning level. This will

more accurately identify old-growth and late-successional forest where species of concern such

as marbled murrelet, spotted owl, and others could be found.

Sharp (1994) referenced the existence of Breeding Bird Survey route #025 - Wedderburn,

Oregon. Data from this route should be located to supplement bird species occurrence and trend

information for the west side of the watershed.

Complete marbled murrelet surveys in the watershed (Figure 16).

5-2
Hunter Creek Watershed

Comparson of 1940 and 1992 Vegetation Structural Stages

1940 Late Seral Vegetation 1992 Vegetation Structural Stages

Vegeatm 8tur Sftgesj

N I 1~f¶!!"N 'oreg _ r rAm

:- Mid Ser

- Climax _ cuff=a

LW8OWn 5-17-08
Hunter Creek Watershed

Unsurveyed Marbled Murrelet

Suitable Nesting Habitat

Unveyed Marbled Murelet

Suitable Nesting Habitat

/V Watershed Boundaries

Dfta Bmuco: um.IdInuf"fr m ri

ddpw*w ibb ufhrS by shBm 1121198

L.Wa~, 6-1-98 Scok. I WA - 1.2 x0a

LWatacm, 6.1-96 Scale: lbuc*-1.2miles
5.23 Forest Health

POC root rot disease

Decommissioning the following roads is recommended to reduce the risk of spreading POC root

rot disease:

* Road 195 in WAAs 06M03W and 06NOlW

* 4WD road which connects Hunter Bog to road 1703 in WAA 06M02W

* 4WD road just north of Hunter Creek Bog from road 3680 heading downslope toward

the mainstem of Hunter Creek (note: this action is recommended in the BLM's

"Hunter Creek Bog and North Fork Hunter Creek Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern")

Currently, several risk reducing practices are in place. These practices include using only "clean"

water sources for road watering, washing contractors' vehicles, restricting the off-site movement

of material from infected rock sources, and limiting ground disturbing operations to the dry

season. Continuing these practices is recommended.

Noxious weeds

The most effective approach to controlling noxious weeds is a long term strategy that eliminates

known seed beds. Not only is it important to eliminate existing plants, but also to monitor every

two years to prevent reestablishment.

Treatment opportunities include cutting, pulling, burning, and chemical treatments. Control

methods include closing roads, washing construction machinery, and using "clean" fill material.

South Coast Lumber Company, Oregon Department of Transportation and Curry County have

cooperated with the National Forest to administer control activities along their roads.

Control methods are limited for thistles and tansy because of their wide distribution, although the

flea beatle is an option for controlling tansy. Seeding disturbed areas with native vegetation will

reduce opportunities for weeds to become established or re-established.

Information needs

Continue to monitor areas adjacent to known locations of POC root rot disease, particularly in

creeks downstream of the 3680 road from Pine Point to Quosatana Butte. Evaluate the presence

of disease spores in active rock pits.

For noxious weed control, survey disturbed areas to detect new populations before they become

well established. Prompt eradication of these populations will greatly reduce the potential for

establishment of noxious weed beds.

5-5
Apply for grants, including those offered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which

are available to fund noxious weed control on both federal and private lands.

5.3 RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEM

The team recommends following the guidelines listed in the ROD for riparian reserve boundaries

until adjustments are made through site specific project planning analysis. In addition to the

ROD

* Two site potential trees (340 foot slope distance) for fish-bearing perennial streams.

* One site potential tree (170 foot slope distance) for perennial, non fish-bearing and

intermittent streams.

* In addition to the ROD's standards and guidelines, the team recommends applying a

25 foot (slope distance) buffer to small drainage features, such as ephemeral swales,

that do not meet the ROD criteria of a definable channel with evidence of annual

scour or deposition. Although riparian vegetation is lacking in these areas,

maintaining unimpeded water flow during high runoff periods is important for

hydrologic function.

Locations of ephemeral and most intermittent drainages are not mapped and will need to be

identified during project planning.

5.3.1 Opportunities in Riparian Reserves

The biggest concern within the riparian zone is the lack of large tree structure. The lack of large

tree structure does not, and is not expected to for the next 50 years, provide adequate large wood

recruitment into the channel environment. Lack of large tree structure has also reduced habitat

connectivity and species diversity. The ROD describes acceptable management opportunities

within riparian reserves, stating "Apply silvicultural practices for Riparian Reserves to control

stocking, reestablish managed stands, and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to

attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives."

In WAAs 06M06W and 06M04F (upper Hunter Creek) and 06MO5W (Elko Creek), riparian

reserves lack large tree development and, correspondingly, in-channel large woody debris is

lacking. These conditions prevent the attainment of ACS objectives # 3, 8, and 9- Physical

integrity of the channel environment; structural diversity of plant communities; and habitat to

support a well-distributed population of species.

To improve riparian functions, pre-commercial thinning in pioneer and early seral structural

stands (see figure 12) is recommended. The intent is to expedite the development of large tree

structure through silvicultural treatments. Because alder is desirable for invertebrate fish food

production, silviculture treatments within 50 feet of the channel should maintain a mixture of

5-6
hardwoods and conifers.

Commercial thinning in riparian reserves in conjunction with thinning opportunities, discussed in

the terrestrial section, will increase the effectiveness of the LSR. Specifically, expediting the

development of large tree structure will create corridors from the LSR allocation in Hunter Creek

to late seral blocks to the northeast.

In developing management guidelines within riparian reserves, the following site characteristics

should be considered during project level planning.

* Sensitivity of hillslope to erosion and mass wasting. Identify hillslope angle of

repose, soil erodibility and productivity characteristics, and local drainage

characteristics, i.e. convex or concave slope orientation.

* Potential fluvial erosion. Identify the location of the management activity relative to

the high flow stage ( 5-25 year return interval).

* Instream beneficial uses and their sensitivity to disturbance. Identify the location and

timing of beneficial uses.

* Habitat for riparian dependent species. Identify habitat characteristics at project site

and along the entire riparian corridor.

* Streamside canopy for shade and micro habitat

* Large wood recruitment

5.4 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM

This section describes management recommendations intended to improve aquatic conditions.

Recommendations focus on surface runoff and channel hydraulics.

To improve hydrologic function, focus road decommissioning/obliteration in hydrologically

sensitive areas. Identified hydrologically sensitive areas are the first 6 WAA's listed in table 17.

Combining past harvest activity with road mileage, these locations have the highest probability of

an altered flow regime. Target road densities to the range of 2-3 miles of road per square mile of

watershed area. High priority locations are roads or sections of roads that increase the drainage

network. Such locations are typically long sections of road without culvert relief that drain into

existing channels, or areas where a series of roads cross the same drainage. Roads immediately

downslope of harvested areas may require a "tighter" spacing of culverts due to increased

interception of subsurface flow and logging debris.

Road 3680 crossing of Upper Hunter Creek is suspected to prevent fish passage. The hydraulic

drop and flow velocity through the culvert restricts migration of aquatic species. Redesign of the

road crossing is needed to facility aquatic connectivity above and below the road crossing.

Channel hydraulics have been simplified. Both Upper Hunter and Elko Creeks lack instream

structure. Additionally, large wood debris recruitment potential from the riparian zone is rated

low for the next several decades. Therefore, to improve aquatic habitat, in-channel placement of

5-7
large native materials is recommended. Large substrate, (greater than 36 inches) vortex weirs

will converge flows necessary to scour the channel bottom, creating pool habitat and channel

complexity. Where appropriate, falling trees into the channel environment from adjacent riparia

areas is a cost effective means to increase instream LWD. Unless a specific objective is

identified, anchored placement of wood debris in not recommended.

In the lower watershed, from the mouth of Hunter Creek to just below the confluence of York

Creek, the channel has been straightened and the floodplain reclaimed. Additionally, banks have

been armored to protect property and roads. As a result, the ability of the system to dissipate

energy during high runoff periods has been greatly reduced. The dynamics of lateral scour and

fill, creating sinuosity, has also been reduced.

Allowing flood water to access the floodplain and reestablish sinuosity will improve quality poo

and spawning habitat. Scouring on the outside bends will create pools and depositions on the

opposite bank will increase spawning gravel stability. Stream bottom scour and bank failures

associated with pore pressure will be reduced. An alternative approach would be to create side

channels designed to convey flood water. Side channels would act as an overflow channel,

reducing stream power in the thalweg channel. This would also provide velocity refugia and

backwater habitat for anadromous fish species.

Information Needs

Prior to in-channel project implementation, site specific hydraulic analysis would be required to

properly plan and design structures. The feasibility of allowing the stream channel to meander in

the lower watershed needs to be addressed. This action would result in the loss of land on the

scour side and an accretion of land on the deposition side. Similarly, the feasibility of providing

an overflow channel needs to be addressed. The length of this channel will likely exceed a half

mile with a width two-thirds of the main stem.

5.5 RECREATION

ATV use should be managed to limit the spread of POC root rot disease (BLM is planning to

close Hunter Creek Bog and North Fork Hunter Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern

(ACEC) to motorized vehicle use).

Two opportunities exist to convert poorly maintained roads into recreational trails. They include

* Road up Pyramid Rock with additional trail construction to the top of the rock

* Road to the top of Signal Buttes (note: It will be necessary to allow for vehicular

traffic for maintenance of electronic equipment)

This action will reduce resource damage from poorly maintained roads and provide a hiking

experiences to vista points.

5-8
5.6 COORDINATION OPPORTUNITIES

Terrestrial

In the North Fork Hunter Creek (WAA 06NO1W) LSR allocation, there is an opportunity to

coordinate silvicultural thinning prescriptions between the FS and BLM. Currently, there are two

small blocks of late seral habitat-one on BLM and the other on National Forest land.

Ultramafic soils in the North Fork prevents the development of a contiguous late seral vegetation

stand. However, thinning in adjacent early and mid-seral stands represents the best opportunity

to increase late successional habitat in the northern portion of the watershed.

Coordination between BLM, FS and South Coast Lumber regarding POC root rot will be the

most effective means to limit the spread of the disease. Communication of disease location and

control efforts will produce a watershed understanding of the progress of POC root rot.

The only documented locations of the Purple Martin in Curry county are in sections 10, 13, and

23 of T37, R14. Coordination between ODFW and South Coast Lumber will help ensure

awareness and protection of this unique wildlife resource. Additionally, coordination between

ODFW and South Coast Lumber Company regarding snags and placement of nest/roost boxes

will improve woodpecker and cavity user habitat conditions.

Aquatic

The team recommends a watershed scale assessment of culvert function at road-stream crossings.

Current information on susceptibility of road failure and fish barrier concerns is limited. An

opportunity exists to work through the South Coast Watershed Council (SCWC) to provide

crews to inventory road-stream crossings. Another identified opportunity with SCWC includes

coordination with private landowners along the floodplain in the lower watershed and ODFW to

survey for the presence of western pond turtle nesting sites. This coordination will help facilitate

protection of critical habitat.

In the lower reach of Hunter Creek, ODFW has conducted stream bottom scour studies to

determine the level of channel scour during high flow events. However, insufficient data points

are available to present conclusions. Considering the alteration of floodplain function in the

lower watershed, annual scour has likely increased which represents spawning gravel stability

concerns. It is recommended that ODFW continue with the channel scour study to determine the

effects of bed mobilization on spawning success.

5-9
REFERENCES

Andelman, S.J., and A. Stock. 1994. Management, research, and monitoring priorities for the

conservation of neotropical migratory landbirds that breed in Oregon. Washington

Natural Heritage Program, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA.

13 pp. + 7 tables +3 figures + 6 appendices.

Atzet, T., D.E. White, L.A. McCrimmon, P.A. Martinez, P.R. Fong, and V.D. Randall. 1996.

Field guide to theforestedplant associations ofsouthwestern Oregon. R6-NR-ECOLTP-17-96. Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR.

Beckham, Stephen D. 1978. Cultural Resource Overview of the Siskiyou National Forest.

Siskiyou National Forest. Grants Pass, Oregon.

Brown, E.R. (tech. ed.). 1985. Management of wildlife and fish habitats inforests of western

Oregon and Washington: Part 2 - Appendices. Publication # No. R6-F&WL-192-1985.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 302 pp.

Cole, E.K 1996. Influence of limited access roads on Roosevelt elk in the Oregon Coast Range.

M.S. thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 121 pp.

Confer, T. 1997. Steelhead smolt trapping: Lobster Creek, Hunter Creek, and Winchuck River.

Unpublished report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR.

Confer, T. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife. Personal Communication. 17 December 1997.

Csuti, B., AJ. Kimerling, T.A. O'Neil, M.M. Shaughnessy, E.P. Gaines, and M.M.P. Huso.

1997. Atlas of Oregon wildlife: Distribution, habitat, and natural history. Oregon State

University Press, Corvallis, OR. 492 pp.

Dillingham, C. 1997. Breeding bird survey computerized database for the period 1992-97,

long-term ecosystem productivity study, Chetco IRS. Unpublished report. Siskiyou

National Forest, Gold Beach Ranger District, Gold Beach, OR.

Dillingham, C. 1995. Signal Buttes grazing allotment environmental assessment. Unpublished

report. Siskiyou National Forest, Gold Beach Ranger District, Gold Beach, OR. 26 pp.

Dillingham, C. Sikiyou National Forest, Gold Beach Ranger District. Personal Communication

26 November 1997.

Dobkin, D.S. 1994. Conservation and management of neotropical migrant landbirds in the

northern Rockies and Great Plains. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID. 220 pp.

Faaborg, J., M. Brittingham, T. Donovan, and J. Blake. 1993. Habitatfragmentation in the

temperate zone: A prospective for managers (pg. 331-338). In: Finch, D.M., and P.W.
Stangel (eds.). Status and management of neotropical migratory birds: Proceedings of

September 21-25, 1992 workshop, Estes Park, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. USDA

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Foerst and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

422 pp.

Friberg, N., and D. Jacobsen. 1994. Feeding plasticity of two detritivore shredders. Freshwater

Biol. 32:133-142.

Furnish, J., T. Burke, T. Weasma, J. Applegarth, N. Duncan, R. Monthey, and D. Gowan. 1997.

Survey protocol for terrestrial mollusk species from the Northwest Forest Plan (DRAFT,

vl.9 - October 28, 1997). Unpublished report. Regional Ecosystem Office, Portland,

OR.

Gold Beach Ranger District. 1998. WILDOBS (query dated 4/13/98). Unpublished computer

database of wildlife observations. Siskiyou National Forest, Gold Beach R.D., Gold

Beach, OR.

Griffin, D. 1983. Archeological Investigation at the Marial Site, Rogue River Ranch,

35CU84. Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University. Corvallis, Oregon.

Guetterman, J. Coos Bay District, Bureau of Land Management. Personal Communication. 5

December 1997.

Gunther, Bob . Core Team Member. Coos Bay District, Bureau of Land Management. Personal

Communication. 18 December 1997.

Harmon, M.E., J.F. Franklin, F.J. Swanson, P. Sollins, S.V. Gregory, J.D. Lattin, N.H. Anderson,

S.P. Cline, N.G. Aumen, J.R. Sedell, G.W. Lienkaemper, K Cromack, Jr., and K.W.

Cummins. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Adv. Ecol.

Res. 15:133-302.

Harr, D., Fredriksen, R. And J. Rothacher. 1979. Changes in Streamflow Following Timber

Harvest in Southwest Oregon. USDA Forest Service. PNW, Portland, OR.

Harr, D. 1975. Forest Practices and Streamflow in Western Oregon. Paper presented at the

symposium of Watershed Management. USDA Forest service. PNW, Portland, OR.

Harr, D., Harper, W., and J. Kryger. 1975. Changes in Storm Hydrograph after Road Building

and Clear-cutting in the Oregon Coast Range. School of Forestry, Oregon State

University, Corvallis, OR.

Jones, J. A., and G.E. Grant. 1996. Peak Flow Responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and

large basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research, Vol. 32
Keppeler, E. T., and R. R. Ziemer. 1990. Logging Effects on Streamflow: Water Yield and

Summer Low Flows ar Casper Creek in Northwest California. WATER RESOURCES

RESEARCH. VOL. 26, NO. 7. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Knightom, David. 1984. Fluvial Forms and Processes. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Halsted

Press. New York, New York.

Langenstein, S. Coos Bay District, Bureau of Land Management. Personal Communication.

21 November 1997.

Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.L.C. Jones, KR. McAllister, and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians

of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA. 168 pp.

Leopold, Luna B., Gordon Wolman, and John P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in

Geomorphology. Dover Publications, Inc. Mineola, New York.

Marshall, D.B., M.W. Chilcote, and H. Weeks. 1996. Species at risk. Sensitive, threatened, and

endangered vertebrates of Oregon. 2nd edition. Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife, Portland, OR.

Martin, J.T. (Date unknown). Hunter Creek estuary report. Unpublished report. Oregon Game

Commission (currently Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife), Portland, OR.

McCabe, KC., L.A. Grudzinski, J.H. Guetterman, B.M. Miller, TJ. Rodenkirk, and J.A. Snyder.

1995. Marbled murrelet monitoring summary - 1995. Unpublished report. Bureau of

Land Management, Coos Bay District, Myrtlewood Resource Area, Coos Bay, OR.

Miller, M. Sikiyou National Forest, Gold Beach Ranger District. 19 November 1997.

Montgomery, D., Buffington, J. 1993. Channel Classification, Prediction of Channel Response,

and Assessment of Channel Condition. Report TFW-SH10-93-002. University of

Washington, Seattle, WA.

Montgomery, D., Dietrich, W. 1994. A Physically based model for the topographic control of

shallow landsliding. Water Resources Research, Vol. 30, No. 4.

Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 1995. Rare, threatened, and endangered plants and animals

of Oregon. Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland, OR. 84 pp.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1993. Presence/absence determination for salmonids

in South Coast District streams. Unpublished report. Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife, Portland, OR.
Oregon Game Commission. 1971. Physical and biological stream survey. Unpublished report.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly Oregon Game Commission), Portland

OR.

Peterson, E.R., and A. Powers. 1977. A century of Coos and Curry. Coos-Curry Pioneer &

Historical Association, Coquille, OR. 599 pp.

Pope, M. D. 1994. Roosevelt elk habitat use in the Oregon Coast Range. M.S. thesis. Oregon

State University, Corvallis, OR. 78 pp.

Robbins, C.S., J.R. Sauer, and B.G. Peterjohn. 1993. Population trends and management

opportunities for neotropical migrants (pg. 17-23). In: Finch, D.M., and P.W. Stangel

(eds.). Status and management of neotropical migratory birds: Proceedings of September

21-25, 1992 workshop, Estes Park, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. USDA Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Foerst and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 422

ppRisley, Connie. District Hydrologist. Siskiyou National Forest. Personel communication.

17 December 1997.

Rittenhouse, Bruce . Botanist. Coos Bay District, Bureau of Land Management. Personal

Communication. 26 November 1997.

Robinson, S.K, J.A. Grzybowski, S.L Rothstein, M.C. Brittingham, L.J. Petit, and F.R.

Thompson. 1993. Management implications of cowbird parasitism on neotropical

migrant songbird (pg. 93-102). In: Finch, D.M., and P.W. Stangel (eds.). Status and

management of neotropical migratory birds: Proceedings of September 21-25, 1992

workshop, Estes Park, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. USDA Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Foerst and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 422 pp.

Rodenkirk, T., and J.H. Guetterman. 1994. Marbled murrelet monitoring summary - 1994.

Unpublished report. Bureau of Land Management, Coos Bay District, Myrtlewood

Resource Area, Coos Bay, OR.

Rodenkirk, T. Coos Bay District, Bureau of Land Management. Personal Communication. 21

November 1997.

Rivera, R. 1996. Interim watershed analysis - Hunter Creek. FSM 2500 memorandum to the

files, dated January 4. Gold Beach Ranger District, Siskyou National Forest, Gold Beach,

OR. 4 pp.

Samuel, Steve s. Archeologist. Coos Bay District, Bureau of Land Management. Personal

Communication. 15 January 1998.
Sharp, B.E. 1992. Neotropical migrants on nationalforests in the Pacific northwest: A

compilation of existing information. Unpublished report. Pacific Northwest Regional

Office, USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR. 45 pp. + 3 tables + 12 appendices.

Shea, D. 1996. Bird checklist, Siskiyou National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Region, Portland, OR

Stussy, R.J., W.D. Edge, and T.A. O'Neil. 1994. Survival of resident and translocated elk in th

Cascade Mountains of Oregon. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22:242-247.

Styskel, E. 1998. Styskel, E. 1998. Stewardship incentive programsforfish and wildlife

habitat improvement. Unpublished report. Ecological Services, Inc., Bend, OR. 16 pp.

Tisdale, Lucille. 1986. The Tlegetlinten Site (35CU59) and its Place in Southwest Oregon

Prehistory. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, Oregon State

University. Corvallis, Oregon.

Toman, J. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife. Personal Communication 11 November 1997; 9

December 1997.

USDA Forest Service. 1997 - Stream inventory handbook - Version 9.7. Pacific Northwest

Region, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Stream survey management, Hunter 1991. Unpublished report.

Gold Beach Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest, Gold Beach, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1989a. Regional Forester's sensitive species list. Unpublished report.

Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1989b. Record of decision: Land and resource management plan,

Siskiyou National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR

USDA Forest Service. 1989c. Final environmental impact statement: Land and resource

management plan, Siskiyou National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1989d. Land and resource management plan, Siskiyou National Forest.

Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service, and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of decision for

amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents

within the range of the northern spotted owl. Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1995a. Coos Bay District record of decision and resource

management plan. Coos Bay District, North Bend, OR.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1995b. Hunter Creek Bog and North Fork Hunter Creek

areas of environmental concern: Draft management plan and environmental assessment.

Coos Bay District, North Bend, OR. 63 pp.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Hunter Creek Bog and North Fork Hunter Creek

areas of environmental concern: Draft management plan and environmental assessment.

Coos Bay District, North Bend, OR. 63 pp.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Final Coos Bay District proposed resource

management plan and environmental impact statement. Coos Bay District, Coos Bay,

OR.

Vanleer, Bob. Hunter Creek Resident. Personal Communication. 18 December 1997.

Webb, L 1994. Wildlife of the Siskiyou National Forest, by seral stage and habitat type.

Unpublished report. Siskiyou National Forest, Roseburg, OR.

Wemple, B., Jones, J., and G.E. Grant. 1996. Channel Network Extension by Logging Roads in

Two Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resource Bulletin. American Water

Resources Association. Vol. 32, NO. 6.

Williams, R.W. 1997. 2670/1920 memorandum to Forest Supervisors (except Colville NF) and

Manager - CRGNSA: Designation of certain wild anadramous salmonid fish stocks and

the western populations of the spottedfrog as sensitive species (dated August 20). Pacifi

Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

Wipfli, M.S. 1997. Terrestrial invertebrates as salmonid prey and nitrogen sources in streams

Contrasting old-growth and young-growth riparian forests in southeastern Alaska,

U.S.A. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54:1259-1269.
Appendix A

List of People Contacted
List of people consulted:

EA Engineering Core Team

Mike Mathews

Ed Styskel

Jay Walters

Michael Maudlin

Ed Schwartz

Rick Barnes

Agency Specialists

Connie Risley

Bill Blackwell

Joe Niesen

Rudy Tantare

Colin Dillingham

Kevin Johnson

Tex Martinek

Jerry Wilks

David Pivorunas

Lee Webb

Mike Miller

Randy Frick

Bruce Floyd

Bill Forbes

Lori Watson

John Guetterman

Tim Rodenkirk

Steve Langenstein

Ray Orazem

Lance Finnegan

Joe Aiken

Jim Covalich

Dale Stewart

John Toman

Todd Confer

A.G. Riikula

Team Leader/Hydrologist

Wildlife

Silviculture

Geology

Fisheries

Engineering

Forest Service

Forest Service

Forest Service

Forest Service

Forest Service

Forest Service

Forest Service

Forest Service

Forest Service

Forest Service

Forest Service

Forest Service

Forest Service

Forest Service

Forest Service

BLM

BLM

BLM

BLM

BLM

BLM

BLM

BLM

ODFW

ODFW

ODFW (retired)

Jennifer Dwyer Lower Rogue Watershed Council

Harry Hoogesteger

and other private landowners South Coast Watershed Council

A-1
Appendix B

B.1 Late Successional Forest 1940

B.2 Vegetation Structural Stands by WAA
B.1 Late Successional Forest 1940

06LO1F 204 26

06L02F 243 20

06L03F 858 62

06L04F 1012 58

06L05F 1428 60

06L06W 715 87

06L07W 439 71

06L08W 244 17

06L09W 841 49

06MO1F 135 4

06M02W 82 14

06M03W 49 7

06M04F 965 53

06M05W 538 39

06M06W 630 55

06N 584 29

06NO1W 66 6

06N02W 260 40

B-2
B.2 Current Forest Structural Stages

06LO1F 246 32 261 235 0 0

06L02F 489 45 689 0 0 0

06L03F 217 242 905 50 0 0

06L04F 236 159 1340 4 0 0

06L05F 106 528 1598 128 13 0

06L06W 11 117 697 0 0 0

06L07W 0 25 558 36 0 0

06L08W 149 385 755 139 0 0

06L09W 19 55 1588 21 16 0

195 541725 491 4 0

3 23 94 135 70 0

2 225 ~~~91 306 4 

65 ~~~~358 314 105 0

06N02W 16 83396 155 20

06S 4 361193 55 00

06SO1W 330 10259 0 00

06S02W 37 82 579 100 620

Total 2253 :5:697~ 14,942 4677 809 1

B-3
Appendix C

C.1 Species of Concern Designation and Occurrence

C.2 Suitable Habitat and Availability for Federal and State Listed Species

C.3 Suitable Habitat and Availability for State Sensitive Species

C.4 Suitable Habitat and Availability for Presidents Forest Plan Species

C5 Suitable Habitat and Availability for Regional Forester's Designated

Species

C.6 Suitable Habitat and Availability for Siskiyou N.F LRMP Indicator

Species

C.7 Elk Thermal Cover

C.8 Elk Avoidance Areas

C.9 Summary of habitat associations for Neotropical Migratory Landbirds
C.1

Animal species of concern within the Hunter Creek watershed.

SPECIES

FEDERAL

STATUS 1/ STATE STATUS 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/

LE L C> LE LT SC SV SP SU SV R6 Ml N 0 - T - - - - - - - - - - C C

Kingfisher, Belted _ _~ _ _ _ = Cery alcyon

Martin, Purple

Progne subis

Meadowlark, Western

S5wei neglecta

Murrelet, Marbled

Brchyramphs amerats

Osprey

Pandion halieuus

Owl, Spotted

Sbix occidentafs

Pigeon, Band-tailed

Coleafasclata

Pygmvl, Northern

Gciabn gnema

Sapsucker, Red-breasted

Sphrupks ruber

Sparrow, Chipping

Spizeffapasserzna

Sparrow, White-crowned

Zonoechia kecophrys

Swallow, Barn

Zruzndo nurtca

Swallow, Violet-green

Tachydnethdwasshna

Swift, Black

Cypselkides niger

Swfft, Vaux's

Chaetur vauxi

Tanager, Western

Pnga rubra

Thmsh, Swainson's

CA~ws utdau

Thrush, Varied

Lroems nna

Vulture, Turkey

Cat4fes ar

Warbler Hermit

Den ica occidentalus

Warbler, Orange-crowned

Vemiowra ceat

Warbler Townsend's

Dn c townsend

Warbler, Wilson's

Wilseniapuifla

Wood-Pewee, Western

Contopes serd&Ulw

Woodpecker, Acorn

Meanerpesfornniierus

. .

0

.

a

0

0

0

0

0

.

.

.

0

S

0

0

.

S

0

0

S

S

0

S

0

0 0

C-3
C.1

Animal species of concern within the Hunter Creek watershed.

SPECIES

FEDERAL

STATUS 1/ STATE STATUS 2/ 3/ 4t S/ 61 7/

LE L C> LE LT SC SV SP SU SV R6 MI N 0 _ T -... _ _ _ _ _ C C

Woodpecker, Downy _ - - - - - - * _ Picoidepubeacens

Woodpecker, Haiy Picoides wiosow

Woodpecker, Lewis's

melnazpes lewis

Woodpecker, Pileated

Dryecepurpileatw

Woodpecker, White-headed

Pcaider abeokraus

FISH

Salnon, Chinook (fag) Ondhorynchus Ithawyacha

Salmon, Cohb

Oncheryndus kbutch

Steelbhead, Klamath Mountains

O0dtownchu

Trout, Cutthroat (resident) Onchorvnchlu c*i clAW

MAMMALS

Bat, Silver-haired

Larionyters nocdvagans

Bat, Townsend's Big-eared Precotas townseAN

Deer, Black-talled

Odocolieur henienus ceunbianas

Elk

Cemnws elphws

Fisher

Martaspennanw

Marten, American

Martes _nerica

Myotis, Lon-eared

Mjads o*fs

Myeti Long-legged Myo- voians

Myotis, Yum

Myods yuiasens

Ringtaff

Shrew, Fog Sorer senemee

Squirrel, Western Gray

Scimw w

Vole, Red Tree

Phenacmys longksds

Vole, White-footed

Phenacemns afpes

.

. .

0

0

0

0

S

S

0

0

0

0

S

0

.

0 .

0

S

0

.

S

S

S

S

0

0

0

0

0

0

S

S

0

.

0

0

C-4
CA1

Animal species of concern within the Hunter Creek watershed.

FEDERAL

STATUS :11

LE L C> - TSPECIES

STATE STATUS 2/ 3/41 5I 61 7/

LE LT SC SV SP SU SV R6 MNHN 0

- - - -- - - - -C 7

Wolverine

Gui. gulo

MOLLUSKS

Me ~phlx, Oregon

7egompkix kunphifli

Tail doper, Paypse

REP11LES

KnseCalifornia Mountain

zonat'

SnakeSharptail CetAtenids

Turtle, Western Pond

Clurnys mwanrmoiua

S

S

S

0

0

0

0

0

0

1/ Federal des'nations by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service (Oregon Natural Heritage

LE = Listed as Endangered LT = Listed asThreatened

C> = Candidate for listing or Species of Concern classificatlon when the next Candidate Notice of Review is published.

2t State designations by the Oregon Departent of Fish & Wildlie (Oregon Natural Heritage Program 1995): LE - Listed as Endangered LT - Listed asThreatened

SC - Sensitive -Critical. (Listing as endangered or threatened is pending, or may be appropriate if Immediate conservation

actions are not taken.

SV - Sensitive - Vuinerable. (Listing as endangered or threatened is not imminent, and can be avoided through continued or expanded use of adequate protective measures and monitoring.) SP = Sensitive -Peripheral or Natual Rare. (Oregon populations are on the edge of the species range, or are historically few

in

number because of naturally-limiting factors) SU = Sensitive - Undetermined. (Status is unclear, so scientiflc study is required before a judgement can be made.)

3/ SEIS survey & maniage species (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994)

4/ Regional Forester-designated sensitive species (USDA Forest Service 1989, Williams 1997)

St Sisklyou N.J. Land & Resource Plan-designated management Indicator species (USDA Forest Service 1989)

6/ Neotropical migrant landbirds of management, research, or monitoring concern (Andelman & Stock 1994)

7/ Occurrence within the Hunter Creek watershed. * - Documented o = Suspected

C-5
C.1

Animal species of concern within the Hunter Creek watershed.

FEDERAL

STATUS 11 STATE STATUS 21 31 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/

SPECIES LE L C> LE LT SC SV SP SU SV R6 Ml N 0 - T - - - - - - - - - - C C

AMPHIBIANS

Frog, Foothill Yellow-legged 0

Rana beldi

Froj -d1eaged 0

Frog, Taled

Ascaphus &uei

Salamander, California Slender * BaWchreps nautnu&s

Salamander, Clouded 0 Aneiderferw

Salamander, Del Norte * o Pletiodon elongatws

Salamander, Southern Torrent * Rhyaco~riten wungalus

Toad, Western 0 Bufo borer,

BIRDS

Bluebird, Western o Siaia mexicana

Bufflehead S BRucephaa albeola

Dove, Mouring 0 Znaida macroura

Eagle, Bald 0 0 a Haliaelus kucocephalw

Falcon, Pererine 0 o Falcoperegrinus

Flicker, Northern 0

Colapes mwaus

Flycatcher, Olive-sided 0 Contopus cooperr

Golefnch, American - Carduecis &u si

Goose, Aleutian Canada 0 0 0

Branta canadensis Irucoparda

Gashawk, Northern 0 0 Accipitergmntdls

Grebe, Horned * o Podiceps martis

HMnnmlngtbfrd, Rufous o SClasphorur rufws

Junco, Dark-eyed o Junco hyemalis

Kestrel, Amecan 0

Falco sparvenias

KMideer 0

charabb vocifcrus

C-2
C.2

Pmar baig, a tiotns ace of, gatad suitable habitat forfederal or state listed animal species Wm oncern tun tnWe! u erl! mrewaterses

NONFOREST 11 FOREST 2/ SUITABLE %

SPECIES A G R S W PI ES MS IS CX HABITAT AREA

BIRDS

Eagle, Bald

HaZ1 ntUs kuccephahu

Falcon, Peregrine Fakopmpbe

Goose, AMutian Canada

Drunta canadamis kiwoama

Murreet, Marbled

BrachyrnmWhus armoratus

Owl S

MAMMALS

Wolverine

Gui. g.i

0 14

202

819

3,765

<1

<1

<1

3

1.3

6

6

Ho EU M*O* 6,016 21

I/ Nonforest Habitats:

A = Agriculture G = Grass

R = Rock

S = Shrub

W = Water

2/ Forest Habitats:

CX - Cli.ax

ES = Early-serI LS = Late-seral

MS - Mid-seral

Pn - Pioneer

C-6
C3

Primary habitat associations and acres of estiated suitale habitat forsate sensitive anzmaispeceso I concern wltn mtnealunter reeKewatersefe

NONFOREST 1/ FOREST 21 SUITABLE %

SPECIES

AMPHIBIANS

Frog, Foothill Yellow-legged Rana boysi

Fro&, Red-legged Rana aurora

Frog Tailed

Ascaphus truei

Salamander, California Slender

Bauchoseps affenuants

Salamander, Clouded

Ancidesfemreus

Salaader, Del Norte

Pkthodon dongatus

Salamander, Southern Torrent

Rhyacoiriton wamegahts

Toad, Western

Bufo boreas

BIRDS

Bluebird, Western

Sialia mexicana

Bufflehead

Bucephala albeola

Goshawk, Northern

Accpitergenizdh

Martin, Purple Progne subi

PygmL4w Northern

G su nomna

Swift, Black

Cypseloides niger

Woodpecker, Lewis's

Melanerpes kwis

Woodpecker, Pileated

Dryocopus piaeatus

Woodpecker, White-headed

Picoides albolarwaus

MAMMAIS

Bat, Silver-haired

UsionAyCtis nodivagans

Bat, Townsend's Big-eared Plecogts townsendim

Fisher

Martes pennand

Marten, American

Martes americana

Myotis, Fringed Myvois thysanodes

Myotis, Long-eared MyAods evotis

Myotis, Lanqgged Mytis voun

A G R S W PI ES MS IS CX EABITAT AREA

8

2,8 8

8

0 0 20,418

19,614

72

69

74 di

2,228 8

. 19,624

22,032

69

. * _ O 78

10 <1

. . 5,479 19

5,684 20

0 804 3

<20 <1

.

S

S

S

S

5,467 19

804 3

804 3

11 d

74 d

S 804 3

. S 5,467 19

74 di

11 di

. 804 3

C-7
Primary habitat associaftons and acres f estiaed suitable habitat for state sensitive

an species OI concern wIuleknter reeKwatersneu.

NONFOREST 11 FOREST 2/

SPECIES

Myotis, YumD

Myoys uaneflS

Ringtail

Bassoruscus oshrtn

Shrew, Fog Soer soenomae

Squirrel, Western Gray

Scium, griv 81s

Vole, White-footed

Phenacomys albipe

REPTELES

lingnake, California Mountain

Lainprepeht zonata

Snake, Sharptall Conda teni 

Turtle, Western Pond

Clemmmys wmorata

A G R S W

* S -

_ * _ * _

1 .0:1I

PI ES MS S

0

SUITABLE

CX EABITAT

* 804

22,106

* 2,228

* 5,479

1,211

20,378

22,032

10

AREA

3

78

8

19

4

72

78

<1

0

0

0

1/ Nonforest Habitats:

A = Agriculture G Grass

R = Rock

S = Shrub

W = Water

2f Forest Habitats:

CX - Climax

ES = Earlyserml IS = Late-seral

MS - Mid-seral

PI = Pioneer

C-8
C.4

Primary habitat associations and acres of estimated suitable habitat for President's plan survey &

manage animal species of concern within the Hunter Creek watershed.

NONFOREST I/ FOREST 2/ SUITABLE %

SPECIES A G R S W PI ES MS LS CX HABITAT AREA

AMPHIBIANS

Salamander, Del Norte

Plethodon elongatus

BIRDS

Woodpecker, White-headed

Piceides albolarvatus

MAMMALS

Bat, Silver-haired

Lasionycteris nocdtvagans

Myots, Long-eared Myodts evods

Myotis, Long-legged Myods volans

Vole, Red Tree

Phenacomys longicaudus

MOLLUSKS

Megmphix, Oregon M4gomphi hemphili

Tail-dropper, Blue-grey Prophysaon cocruleum

Tail-dropper, Papilose Prophysaon dubium

U,, 

74 <1

0 804 3

0

U <1

11 <1

0 304 3

* _ 0 5,479 19

0 - S ?

* _ S

. 0

I/ Nonforest Habitats:

A : Agriculture G * Grass

R = Rock

S . Shrub

W = Water

21 Forest Habitats:

CX = CilMa

ES Early-seal LS = Late-seral

MS - Mid-seral

Pl = Pioneer

C-9
Cs

Primary habitat associations and acres of estimated suitable habitat for Regional Forester-designated sensitive animal species of concern within the Hunter Creek

watershed

NONFOREST 11 FOREST 2t SUITABLE %

SPECIES A G R S W PI ES MS IS CX HABITAT AREA

AMPHBIANS

FrRed-legged rawarora

Salamander, Del Norte

Pkthedon elongaus

BIRDS

Eale, Bald

Haiatetis laucocephahus

Falcompregrlnw

Goose, Aleutian Canada

Brana canadensb lrcopareia

Murrelet, Marbled

Bracyrpmhs wmnnorgus

Owl, Spotted Sbtr occdenta&

bAMMALS

Bat, Townsend's Big-eared Plecots townsendl

Vole, White-footed

Phenaomys abipes

Wolverine

Gdo gudo

REPTES

KiDgsnaak, California Mountain

Lampropelis zonata

Kinpuake, Common

vA~rpelds getulus

Turtle, Western Pond

Ckmmys mannorata

2,228 8

74 d

. 14 <1

-2O

202

<1

<1

40

40

819 3

3,765 13

74 <1

. 804 3

0 0 _ - 6,016 21

72

78

. 0 20,378

* - 0 . 22,032

10 <1

I/ Nonforest Habitats:

A = Agriculture G = Grass

R - Rock

S = Shrub

W = Water

21 Forest Habitats:

CX - Climax

ES = Early-seral [S = Late-seral

MS = Mid-serl

PI = Pioneer

C-10
C.6

PiYhabig a gts' oijations adacres pfes iated suitaJ ge hbitat for Siskiyou N.F. Land & Resource

Management Plan *ndwator ammat species of concern th the Hunter Creek watershed.

NONFOREST 1/ FOREST 2/

A G R S W PI ES MS IS CX

SUITABLE

SPECIES RABITAT AREA

BIRDS

Eagle, Bald

HaliaeehW kucocephaks

Flicker, Northern

Cokaptes azwhus

Osprey Pandlon hkiages

Owl, Spotted

Soi occidnhais

Sapsucker, Red-breasted

Sphyrapicus ruber

Woodpecker, Acorn

Milanerpesfonniciverus

Woodpecker, Downy Pcoidespubescens

Woodpecker, Hairy Poides ilwsu

Woodpecker, Pileated

Drocwpus pileats

Woodpecker, White-headed

Ploides albolwwaus

MAMMAIS

Deer, Black-tailed

Odocoila hemienus colmbiamns

Elk

Cervus elaphus

Marten, American

Mames americam

* _ * 0

* 14

* * 28,256

* * 14

* 3,765

* 804

* 804

* 155

* 804

* S 5,467

* 804

<1

100

<1

13

3

3

3

19

3

100

100

19

0

S

0 0

0

* 0 * 28,256

28,256

5,467

1/ Nonforest Habitats:

A = Agriculture G 5 Grass

R = Rock

S = Shrub

W = Water

21 Forest Habitats:

CX ClimaxES - Earlyseral LS te-sel

MS = Mid-seml

PI = Pioneer

c-li
C.7

Current acres of elk cover andforage within the Hunter Creek watershed.

SUBWATERSHE

06LOlF

06L02F

06L03F

06L04F

06LOSF

06L06W

06L07W

06L08W

06L09W

AREA OPTDMAL

ACRES TEERMAL

COVER

774 0

1,223 0

1,415 0

1,739 0

2,372 0

826 0

620 0

1,429 0

1.708 16

TEHERMAL COVER HIDING COVER FORAGE

0

0

0

0

128

0

36

137

21

621

696

965

1,344

1,662

698

S59

816

1.596

62

95

242

253

SSO

117

25

464

73

06MOlF

06M02W

06M03W

06M04F

06M05W

06M06W

3,001

58S

669

1,808

1,395

1,141

4

70

44

91

226

38

321

67

76

411

712

329

,983

164

322

814

307

436

659

260

225

457

132

324

06N 2,022 81 245 1,178 514

06NOlW 1,143 105 168 553 314

06N02W 653 2 155 401 95

06S 1568 0 5S 1.93 317

06SOlW 709 0 0 590 119

06S02W 1,604 S4 72 637 840

TOTAL 28,404 731 2,933 17,S35 6,137

C-12
C.8

Open road density and associated ell avoidance area within the Hunter Creek watershed.

SUBWATERSEHED AREA ACRES

OPEN ROAD

MILES 2/

OPEN ROAD

MILESISQ. MILE

06LO1F

06L02F

06L03F

06L04F

06LOSF

06L06W

06LO7W

06L08W

06L09W

774

1,223

1,415

1,739

2,372

826

620

1,429

1,708

3.47

10.45

5.23

3.41

4.75

1.84

0.71

2.80

2.71

2.87

5.47

2.37

L26

L28

L43

0.73

125

L12

ACRES OF ELK

AVOIDANCE

1/

414

1223

624

407

567

220

85

334

323

% AREA

ACRES

53

100

44

23

24

27

14

23

19

06MOlF 3,001 2.38 0.51 284 9

06M02W S8W 2.23 2.44 266 45

06M03W 669 1.19 1.14 142 21

06MW4F 1,808 10.72 3.79 1,279 71

06M05W 1,395 5.S5 2.55 662 47

06M06W 1,141 7.88 4A2 928 81

06N 2,022 1.56 0.49 186 9

06NOlW 1143 L70 0.95 203 18

06N02W 653 0.01 0.01 1 0

06S 1,568 3.12 1.27 372 24

06SOlW 709 019 0.17 23 3

06S02W 1,604 4.55 1.81 543 34

TOTAL 28,404 76.45 1.77 9,086 32

I/ Avoidance zone of 150 mets on each side of open roads, from Cole 1996.

2/ Includes roads open ail year

C-13
C.9

Primary habitats and management recommendations for neotropical migratory landbirds of management or research concern within the

Hunter Creek watershed. 1/

HABITATS 2/

SPECIES CM CP CS M MP MS ES FW RP

M - _ - MD CL MANAGEMENT 3/

Dove, Mourning Zinaida macroura

Flycatcher Olive-sded

Contopus borealis

Goldfinch American

Carduelis tristis

Hummingbird, Rufous

Selasphorus rufus

Junco, Dark-eyed Junco hyemalis

Kestrel, American

Falko sparverlus

Kilideer

Charadrius vocferus

Kingnfsher, elt

ed

Ceryle a cyon

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

41

0

S

0

0

0

Thin forest stands (particularly drier plant series) to increase tree spacing and

encourage seed-producing, low-growing vegetation.

Use selective tree harvest rather than clearcut. Retain snags for perching.

Maintain open forest canopy and deciduous

trees or tall shrubs near water. Discourage

presence of brown-headed cowbird via

control of livestock.

Encourage wildflowers as hunumingbird fdsource by keeping meadows free of

tree invasion, and y fncluding desirable

natve flowers in erosion control seedings.

Maintain open coniferous forest with

shrubby understory. Retain logging slash.

Retain snag - es dcalIy with existing cavtles -in forest openings for primary cavity qicavators, or introduce and maintan nest boxes. Minimize pesticide

use.

Provide areas of bare ground or very short plant stubble In riparian habitat or upland areas near standing water.

Protect yrrtIcpl banks of friable soil within 1 mile of fsh-bearing streams as

prospective nest sites.

Maintain natural openings with short grass stubble (e.g. grassland & meadow).

0

0

Meadowlark, Western

Sturnella neglecta

C-14
C.9

Primary habitats and management recommendations for neotropical migratory landbirds of management or research concern within the

Hunter Creek watershed. I/

HABITATS 21

SPECIES CM CP CS M MP MS ES FW RP MD CL - M _ _

MOO*O _ -

MANAGEMENT 3/

Pigeon Band-tailed

Cofumbafasciata

Sparrow Chipping

Sparrow White-crowned

Zonolrichia lkucophrys

Swallow, Barn

Hirundo rustica

Swallow, Violet-green Tachycineta halassina

Swift Vaux's

Chaetura vauxi

Tanager, Western

Ifranga rubra

Thrush Swainson's Ca-tarus ustulatus

Thrush, Varied

Ixoreus naevius

0

S

0

0

0

0

0

Protect known nest sites or mineral deposits from exploitation, noise, and human

presence during occupancy. Encourage nutor berry-produing plant species such as

elderberry, chokecherry, hazelnut, salmonberry, tanoaks, or madrone.

Maintain open forest u lands or deciduous

tree riparian areas witi shirub understory.

Maintain open forest uplands or deciduous

tree riparian areas with shrub understory.

Minimize human disturbance and maintain

db sources at rocky cliffs, bridges, or

builing alead =sd as colonal nest sites.

Retrofit Undres and buildin with

structure ne nestlding surfaces.

Retain snags with existing cavities In open forest or forest dearings, and

rovide/maintaln nest boxes mnsnaeeficdent but otherwise suitable habitat.

Retain large broken, hollow snags or live

trees for nesling or roosting.

Matin~ mature or old growth forest

conditions espedafy with shrubs - or

moist, shrubby, raan habitats with

illow or aider. May be sensitive o habitat

Tragmentation and minimum patch size.

Maintain dense forest canopy with

herbaceous ground cover.

.

0 .

.

C- 15
C.9

Primary habitats and management recommendations for neotropical migratory landbirds of management or research concern within the

Hunter Creek watershed. 1/

HABITATS V

SPECIES CM CP CS M MP _ ~M

* _ * _

MS ES FW RP MD CL

0 _ * _ a

MANAGEMENT 3/

Vulture, Turkey Cathartes aura

Warbler Hermit

Dend;roica occidentalis

Warbler, Orange-crowned Vermhvora celata

Warbler Townsend's

Dend;oica townsendit

Warbler, Wilson's

Wilsonia pusilla

Wood-Pewee, Western

Contopus sordidulus

0

0

Provideprotection from disturbance around Known nesting or communal roasting sites.

Maintain open coniferous forest with

scattered large trees.

Maintain niesic, deciduous shrub thickets

-es necally on north aspects -avoiding

coseverna forest canoDy. May be

sensg~e to babitat fragmentation and

Matailn mudle-tcan rv mature and old

growt ur or :1ze rconer forest.

Discourage presence of brown-headed

cowbird via control of divestock or minimal openings In overhead canopy.

Maintain open forest canopy. Sensitive to forest fragmentation and patch size.

0 .

.

1/ Designation from Andelman & Stock 1994.

2/ Habitat associations from Andelman & Stock 1994:

CL = Cliff or rock outcropt M *Maure or growh coniferous forest closed canopy sta1d >100 years of age).

ap ng or pole-sz coniferous forest (cosed canopy shtad <1 years of age). CS = Unstocied clearcut, seedlin? stand, or shrubby opening within coniferous forest or potentially-forested area. ES * Estuary or mudflat where fresh water meets ocean.

FW = Freshwater (sbrubby or oter-vegetted bog, marsh, or similar wetland associated with standing water). MD = Wet or dr meadow. MM * Mat re or old growth mpixed conifer and mixed evergreen forest (dcosed canopy stand >100 years of age). MP * Saplin or pole-szed mixed conifer and mixed evergreen forest (cosed canopy stand <100 years of age). MS - Unstoced clearcut. seedling sand, or shrubby opening within mixed conifer and mixed evergreen forest or potentially-forested area. RP = Riparlan woodland, shrubland, or other-vegetated area associated with moving (occasional standing) water.

3/ Management recommendations from Dobkin 1994, Marshall et al. 1996, and Sharp 1992.

C-16
Appendix D

Hydrology Method
Method

The Hunter Creek Watershed was divided into four 6th field watersheds (Big South Fork, North

Fork, Upper Hunter, and Lower Hunter). These four were further divided into 21 hydrologic

units or Watershed Analysis Areas (WAAs). Each WAA is investigated for the potential of flow

alteration, following the module outlined below. The units are then combined into the subbasins

for determination of potential flow alteration at the 6th field level.

Cumulative Effects Analysis

In developing a conceptual model and forming assumptions for factors leading to changes in flow

regime, research conducted in western Oregon and northern California (e.g., Harr et al. 1979;

Harr 1975; Harr et al. 1975; Keppeler et al. 1990; Wright et al. 1990; Jones et al. 1996; Wemple

et al. 1996) was used. A summary of the key findings is described below:

* Storms produced higher peak discharges and increased volume when 25-30 percent

of drainage is in clear-cut condition.

* Mean daily peak flows increased.

* Number of low flow days decreased

* Loss of transpiration accounted for 2/3 of the change in flow with 1/3 from loss of

interception.

* Road network increased drainage density altering flow routing efficiency.

* Elevated peak flows decreased rapidly after year 6, but remained altered for 20-30

years.

Using this background data, a hydrologic module was developed.

The net effect of a decrease in evapotranspiration, canopy interception, and road development

was assumed to be most influential in altering quick flow and peak discharge. The fundamental

concepts underlying these assumptions are: loss of transpiration allows quicker recharge of soil,

reduction in canopy closure will reduce interception, and the presence of roads add to the

drainage network. "Net effect" was chosen because all three factors are simultaneously involved

Consequently, determining the relative contribution of any one variable is not significant.

Equivalent Clearcut Method (ECA)

The assumptions focus the cumulative effects analysis on road densities and recovery rates of

harvested units. Recovered in this analysis is considered to be "hydrologically recovered."

D-2
Harvest units are hydrologically recovered when reestablishment of leaf area is sufficient to

return transpiration rates to pre-harvest levels and canopy closure is sufficient to provide

interception. The leaf area index is the ideal variable to quantify to express recovery; however,

considering the mixed ownership and availability of data, vegetation structure was used as a

surrogate. Vegetation structure information coverage is consistent across all ownerships.

To standardize the data and facilitate comparisons among watersheds, hydrologic recovery is

expressed in terms of ECA. ECA is determined from vegetation structure data. Roads and areas

of compaction are considered unrecovered in the recovery model as these conditions persist for

long periods of time.

The vegetative recovery period for the Hunter Creek watershed geographic area is considered to

be 25 years. Temporally, the maximum increase in streamflow response generally occurs the

first five years following harvest. Keppeler et al. (1990), found increased water yields

diminished with revegetation, with annual flows returning to pretreatment levels within four-tofive years. Jones et al. (1996), found increases in average peak discharge declined significantly

after year six.

The module examines the two dominant time periods of timber harvest in the Hunter Creek

Watershed, 1955 to 1965 and from 1980 to 1995. The former group has developed into early

seral stage and is considered recovered. Aerial photographs of Hunter Creek indicate as stands

develop from pioneer to early seral stage they move into the 70-100 percent canopy closure class

(CCc). Stand age of this transition is estimated at 20-25 years old. The latter group is classified as

pioneer structural stage. Given the age range of cuts in the 1980 to 1995 group, a mean age of

eight years is assumed.

A percent recovery coefficient is assigned to the six vegetative categories:

Vegetation Type Recovery Coefficient

Non forest (rock, water, grass) 1.00

Agriculture 0.00

Development (Including roads) 0.00

Pioneer 0.4

Early seral 1.00

Mid seral 1.00

Late seral 1.00

Non-forest is considered fully recovered as this group is assumed unchanged from reference

conditions. Agriculture and development received a zero recovery value as the soil runoff

D-3
coefficients have increased due to compaction, creating an impervious surface layer. As

previously mentioned, age eight is assumed to be the mean age of vegetation within the pioneer

class. At age 8, a 40 percent recovery value is assigned. Even though from an age perspective,

recovery is approximately 30 percent, due to the exponential nature of recovery early in the

regrowth process, a slightly higher recovery value is awarded.

Limitations

It is recognized that in certain watersheds, ultramafic soils are responsible for the pioneer

vegetation condition. Many of these same areas have also been harvested. Therefore, it is

difficult to determine the relative contribution between natural versus management factors

responsible for the early vegetation development. In WAA's where ultramafic soils are

responsible for the pioneer vegetation structure ECA acres are overestimated; this stage

represents reference conditions. However, these areas are identified with aerial photographs and

are noted in the interpretation text.

The following analysis is not intended to quantify the magnitude of change in stream flow from

management activities. Rather, it is a tool to translate past and present research into management

considerations. Specifically, the analysis is designed to give a picture of the potential effects

given the magnitude of disturbances within the watershed.

In assigning the same recovery values to each vegetative stand, the WAA ECA results are

relative. The analysis is designed to compare vegetative recovery between watersheds and not to

give an absolute number, the results are intended to highlight hydrologically sensitive areas.

D-4
Appendix E

Road Conditions
HUNTER CREEK WATERSHED ROAD UST- USFS LANDS

Syster Ltngth Ope I Mnt Red Red Rood MI il." Closed Lemel Condtn Su Note

3W80 9.00 open 3 1 3-L Aga Frorn nod counroad q to Jct vd 3313 Rod Condition Coder. TIrTh road ha or sides n h 23,TR37S. d 14W. Thenurnermspedilameroalcn problen 360190 3.04 open 2 3-L. Aggregele High emeton hawd for 300 fet 1 -No emeon pomblen occmt I___ song Hunter Cre* 2- MInor wombn oming 36O-191 0.22 open 2 3-L Aggregate 3-Modeate roeon ocmuin

______ ______ ___________ ______ ______ _____ 4 - Substorital em slon ocouring 360192 0.08 open 2 2-L Aggregate 5= Major pconing eroIon 

3t193 0.78 dosed 1 24. The letter phe II Omas e potedie of

tlgrnts _edienon a rudiug a tr 3 195 2.30 open 2 541 Aggregate FS plan to doe for POC L * Low Fk

__________________ _________________ M - M oderate Astk 368196 0.13 drced 2 544 Aggregate H- High Risk

3EO0197 0.10 open 1 2-4. Aggreate NotinTIS

3680 200 1.40 qon 2 341 Aggregate Rooo Is dc to Elko CreL

This mad hast a bnd h . in -and hm mod" nwr h end.

3e80202 0.40 open 2 2-L Aggregate

30-204 0.47 open 2 44. Aggreg

360-205 o. open 1 4-1. Natural

35W207 0.17 open 1 31.L Naturl

3680210 1.06 open 2 3.4. Agpoft

368220 1.34 dosed 2 2-I. JAggeat Need. weleteus A blocdkd at end

0.50 1 5-. Natural Nturlt ohsonno needs

0680-230 0.87 open 2 341 loee bAret to re arfirst few ate

3E80-270 0.75 open 2 2-1. Aggregete

3680-280 1.18 opn 2 34. JAggregate In nead of..*o repair. rlanneling In med.

asurnvs off of hs road -oil are grassed over ok 3680-281 0.28 opan 2 24. A re

3680-282 0.26 opn 2 3.4. A n nga d of.ed nnorrnantennce to prevent water

______ c~om irenrelo" In the road 3680-4WD1 0.70 open 1 3-1. In SESI of Sectiond

___ ___ ___ c~~~~~~~~~~~God watimimer 3680-4W02 0.70 clred 1 3. In NENW of Secon 7

:> has ben removed, has heted well

368oxpur I 0.10 open 1 4Mn Aggregate In SESWofdSelton S

______ _____ _____ _____ ftz~~~~Rm down to Hunt~er Creelk

36804pur 2 0.30 open 1 2-. Aggregate In SESE ol SectIon 23. roed natu

0.20 opn 1 2-1. Nabr Grat vew poont

3680-pur 3 0.10 open 2 24. Aggregate Road to Pie Point plafn aea

1503 3.40 open 3 3L Aggregate 680to 1503070

1503-spur 1 0.20 open 1 3.L Auegate ulvert fr 1503 dranig weter onto spur

4WD-1 1.20 open 1 4-4 Ties Road 1703 o Road 3680

bomn seiu rus& drinag prob*ms WD-2 0.70 coeed 1 54M Naturl Rood to FamIly Fued clairm hi por shapo -r nd

1703 6.00 open 2 4-H Aggregate County mod d toboundn

_______ Po~Srn. dloughlng Into crek-fw potential Problem area 1703-11S 0.20 opn 1 1 44. Aggregate

1703-189 0.20 dosed 1 2.1. Agegate

1703-195 0.30 open 1 4. Ntual Roed to pynramd rock

_______ uppurusntty to close end turn into trail 1703-401 0.10 dosed 1 2-L. Aggregate Roadbnn goodahmpe eep

_______ ______ rt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~inor efroeton In the iditc

1703-epur I 0.10 open I 4-I. Nul Road to Wet n*io

1 703-spur 2 1.00 open 1 31.L Natural Red Ratl-priil road in good shape

Mnny 4X4 ad tn this area hi good condition

703-spur 3 020 open 1 4-L Natrl In NWNW Sedon 16

____e wIlefbamr, could close

703-pur 4 0.20 343 Aggregate In SWSW Sedon 9

Totalmeds 40.59
Appendix F

Vegetation Structure in Riparian Zones
|06LOlF NF 43

ES 18

MS 10

06LO1F Total 71 43 61

06L02F NF 53 53

ES 22

06L02F Total 75 53 71

06L03F NE 45 58

ES 14

_____ _____ M s 

3

P 13

06L03F Total 75 58 77

06L04F NF 60 60

ES 22

P 

0

06L04F Total 82 60 73

06LO5F NF 32

ES 76

MS 

1

P 32

06L05F Total 109 32 29

06L06W NF 3 11

ES 

0

P 

8

06L06W Total 11 11 100

06L07W ES 

8

06L07W Total 8 0 

0

06L08W NF 1 

9

ES 20

MS 

1

P 

8

06L08W Total 30 30

06L09W ES 44 3,

F-2
p 

3

06L09W Total 47

06MO1F NF 14 94

ES 109

MS 50

P 80

06MO1F Total 253 94 37

06M02W ES 10 72

LS 

0

MS 38

P 72

06M02W Total 120 72 60

06M03W NF 2 37

ES 11

LS 13

MS 68

P 35

06M03W Total 129 37 29

06M04F NF 4 137

ES 50

LS 32

MS 183

P 133

06M04F Total 402 137 34

06M05W NF 1 36

ES 36

LS 78

MS 100

p 35

06M05W Total 250 36 14

06M06W NF 0 110

ES 20

LS 14

MS 76

p 110

06M06W Total 220 11 50

F-3
06N ES 47 17

LS 4

p 17

06N Total 68 17 25

06NOlW NF 3 28

ES 8

LS 9

MS 39

_ P _ _ _ _ 25

06NOlW Total 84 28 33

06N02W ES 11 8

MS 4

P 8

06N02W Total 23 8 35

06S ES 65 11

MS

P 11

06S Total 7 11 14

06SOlW ES 4

P 4

06SO1W Total 4 4 100

06S02W ES 33 24

LS C

P 24

06S02W Total 57 2A 42

Grand Total 2194 847 39

F-4