DocuoP.ntc E1~it 1/2037 8e.ar Cre:e:k Upper Long Tom Elk CrHk Coyote Creek Long Tom Watershed Assessment January 2000 Landowners learning how to monitor a fish trap on a tribu­ tary to Coyote Creek. Cathy Glaudin and son Kyle Everett, neighbor Paul Atkinson, and Gary Galovich (ODFW). Photo taken April 1998 by Dana Erickson Re-contouring a drainage channel for the Hunton Resto­ ration Project. Partners were East Lane SWCD and Future Farmers of America. Photo courtesy of Tom Hunton, Spring l 999 Fender's blue butterfly on Kincaid's lupine. Photo taken on the Long Tom Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Photo courtesy Army Corps of Engineers Forest fringe area typical of the southern and western portions of the watershed. Aerial photo taken March l 998 by Dana Erickson The Long Tom River flowing through Monroe. The drop structure adjacent to the old mill has the only fish ladder in the basin. Riparian corridor on east bank of river. Aerial photo taken March 1998 by Dana Erickson • Key to Photographs Ospreys in nest adjacent to Long Tom River. Photo courtesy Army Corps of Engineers Confluence of Long Tom River with Willamette River at Norwood Island, north of Monroe. Aerial photo taken March l 998 by Dana Erickson Map of Long Tom Watershed boundary and stream network. Courtesy of John Bolte, Oregon State University Bioresource Engineering Department. Photo courtesy of Kat Beal, Army Corps of Engineers Western Pond Turtle emerging from its shell. Photo courtesy of Kat Beal, Army Corps of Engineers Drawing of a native cutthroat trout, a fish with two populations in the water­ shed ( one above and one below the dam). The Watershed Council's hand­ carved sign by Paul Reed also sports a cutthroat trout. Amazon Canal flowing west from Eugene into Fem Ridge Reservoir. Gibson Island visible in background. Aerial photo taken March l 998 by Dana Erickson Long Tom Watershed Assessment Janmary 2000 , LONG TOM WATERSHED ASSESSMENT By Cindy Thieman MASTER'S PROJECT Presented to the Department of Planning, Public Policy & Management of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Community & Regional Planning February 2000 "Long Tom Watershed Assessment," a master' s project prepared by Cindy Thieman in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Community & Regional Planning degree in the Department of Planning, Public Policy & Management. This project has been approved and accepted by: Date Committee: John Baldwin, Chair Dennis Todd Ed Alverson Lita Furby Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction and Overview ........................................................................................ 4 Scope and Purpose of the Assessment .......... ............ ..... .. ............................................................ 4 Chapter Descriptions ................... ............................................................. .. ................................. 5 Methods ....................... .. .. .... .. .... .................................................. .. .............................................. 7 Contributors ....................... ...... .. ............................ .. .............. .. ................................................... 8 Reviewers ....................................... ............................................................................................ 10 Chapter 2 Sub-basins, Ecoregions, Vegetation and Land Use ............................................... 12 Location and Sub-basins .................................................. ................................. .............. .......... 12 Ecoregions ................................................................................... .............................................. 12 Current Vegetation .................................... ................................................................................ 15 Land use .............................. ...... .. ............................................................................................... 18 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 22 Chapter 3 Historical Conditions ................................................................................................ 23 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 23 Historical Climate and Geology ................................................................................................ 23 Early Human Inhabitants .......................................................................................................... 25 Pre-settlement: Early 1800s ..................................................................................................... 27 Settlement Period: 1848 - early 1900s ...................................... .......... .. .................................... 31 Onset of the Modern Era: early 1900 's - present ..................................................................... 3 6 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 40 Chapter 4 Channel Habitat Types ............................................................................................ 42 Introduction ................................................................................... ............................................ 42 Methods ....... ........................................................................................................... .. ................. 44 Results ......................................................... .. .............................................. .. ............................. 45 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 47 Chapter 5 Hydrology and Water Use ........................................................................................ 50 Introduction ........................................................................................................ ... .................... 50 Factors Influencing the Flow of Water ...................................................................................... 50 long Tom Watershed Council 541-683-6578 I Streamjlow ................................................................................................................................. 52 Which Human Activities Increase Peak Flows? ........................................................................ 54 How Do Human Activities Decrease Peak Flows? ................................................................... 57 How do Human Activities Influence Low Flows? ..................................................................... 58 Summary of Human Impacts on Hydrology ...................... .. ...................................................... 61 Conclusions ..................................................... ....................................................... ................... 63 Chapter 6 Stream Channel Modifications ................................................................................ 66 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 66 How do channel modifications affect fish and wildlife habitat? ............................................... 67 How did we assess channel modifications? ............................................................................... 68 Historic Modifications ............................................................................................................... 69 Current Modifications ............................................................................................................... 70 Conclusions ....... .. ............................................ .................... ...................................... ................ 7 3 Chapter 7 Riparian Zone Conditions ........................................................................................ 75 What is a riparian zone? ..................... .... .................................................................................. 75 What did riparian zones used to look like in the Watershed? ................................................... 75 How did we characterize current riparian zones? .................................................................... 77 How did we evaluate current riparian zone conditions? .......................................................... 80 Results .. ...................................................................................................................................... 81 Conclusions .............. .. ........................................................................... .................. .................. 85 Chapter 8 Wetland Types, Distribution and Functions .......................................................... 93 What are wetlands? .................... .. ............................................................................................. 93 What types of wetlands are in the Long Tom Watershed? ....................................................... . 93 Local Wetland Inventories ......................................................................................................... 96 Historic Wetland Conditions .................. ............................................. ...................................... 99 Conclusions ................... ......................................................................... .............................. ... 100 Chapter 9 Sediment Sources .................................................................................................... 101 What natural features in the watershed affect sediment delivery to streams? ........................ 101 Potential Sources of Human Caused Sediment Delivery to Streams ....................................... 102 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 107 Long Tom Watershed Council 541-683-6578 2 Chapter 10 Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 110 Introduction and Background. ..... .... .. .............. .. ....... ............ ... .... ... .. ....... .. .. .................... .. ...... 110 Water Quality Monitoring in the Basin ........ .. .. .. ..... ... .. ... .. ... .. .. ....... .. ..... .. ........ .. ........ .. ........ ... 113 Water Quality Conditions, 1990 to Present ............. .. .. ............ ..... .. ..... .. .. ...... ... ... ..... .... ........... 114 Watershed Summary ................................................ ... ......... .. .. ...................... ................. .. ... .... 128 Conclusions ..................... ................... ............................... ... .... .. .. .................................... ....... 135 Chapter 11 Fish and Wildlife ................................................................................................... 138 Introduction .. .. .. .... .. .. .................. ........... .. .. .. .. .......... .. .......... .. ........................... .. ............. .... ... . 138 Long Tom Watershed Fish Species .... .... .................... ...... .... .. ..... .. ..... .. ... ...................... .. ..... .... 138 Habitat Requirements of Sensitive Native Species .. .. ................ ... ................. .. ....................... . 138 Fish Distribution ...... ....... ............... .. ..... ....... ..... ........ .... .. .. .......... ..... .. ....... .. ....... .... ........ ....... .. J 42 Wildlife ..................... ................ ... ... ....... .. .... .............. .. ......... .. .. ...... .. ........ .. .. ... ... ... ........ .. ... ..... . 146 Chapter 12 Watershed Condition Summary .......................................................................... 160 Chapter Summaries .... .. .. .... .. ........... .. ...... ..... ............. .... .. .. ....... ............................. .................. 160 Where is more information needed? ............... .. .. ...... ..... ...... .. ................ .. ... ... ... ... .. .. .... .... ...... .. 167 What is the overall condition of the riparian and aquatic system? ......... .. .... ............ .. ............ 167 References .................................................................................................................................. 169 Appendix A. Confidence Evaluations for each Assessment Component ............................. 177 Appendix B. Glossary of Terms and Acronyms ..................................................................... 181 Terms .. .... ............. .......... ... ... ......... .... ..... ....... ..... ..... .. .. ............... ...... .. .. ... .... .. ..... ......... ...... .... ... 181 Acronymns .................... .. ..... ... .................... ................. .. ... .. ..... .. ....... ................. .... ....... ........... 184 List of Maps 1) Long Tom Sub-basins and Landuse . .... ... ... .. ... . . . ....... .. ... .. ....... . ................... . . ... 13 2) Eco regions for the Long Tom Watershed ...... . ..... .. . . ................... .. .. .... . . . .. ... ... .. . . 16 3) Long Tom Watershed Landuse/Landcover .......... .. .. ...... .. . ... ......... . ...... . .... ... . . .... 17 4) Long Tom Watershed Channel Habitat Analysis .. . ... .. . .... .. .. .. .. ................ . ... .. .. .. . 46 5) Long Tom Watershed Channel Modifications ..... . . ........ ........ . ... . ..... .. ..... .. ......... . 72 6) Historic Vegetation and Hydric Soils of the Long Tom Watershed . ..... . . ... . ... . . ... ....... 78 7) National Wetlands Inventory for the Long Tom Watershed ................................... 95 8) Erosion Potential from Agricultural Areas in the Long Tom River Basin ............ ..... 108 9) Water Quality Monitoring Sites ... ... ...... . .. .... .......... . . . . .. ... ...................... . . . . ..... 116 Long Tom Watershed Cou11cil 541-683-6578 3 Long Tom Watersi,ed Assessment January2000 CJ,apter 1 Chapter 1 Introduction and Overview Scope and Purpose of the Assessment This assessment presents current and historic information on the physical, biological and cultural landscape in the Long Tom Watershed. Aspects of the watershed that were studied include physical stream conditions, hydrology, sediment transport, land and water use, vegetation, habitat, aquatic species and water quality. In general, this information is summarized by sub­ basin. The maps in this assessment show the extent and general location of certain watershed features or human impacts, but they should not be considered precise enough to target a specific piece of property. There are two main purposes of this assessment. First is to help council members understand how the watershed functions at an ecological level. This means bringing together all the pieces of the "watershed puzzle" in order to see how the local climate, underlying geography and soils, stream flow patterns, flooding, fire and eventually human modifications have influenced the composition of plants and animals (i.e. fish, wildlife, insects, birds, etc.) present. A recurring theme in this assessment is to describe the "ecological functions" that were historically provided by this combination of physical factors and to evaluate whether these functions are still present. For example, flooding provides many ecological functions in this watershed and in the past it was more extensive and frequent. Hence, we discuss how the reduction in flooding has influenced plants, humans and other animals. The second objective of the assessment is to inform both council and individual actions. At a council level, we can use the assessment results to: 1) identify aspects of the watershed that warrant more detailed study and 2) identify ecological functions and habitat types that would benefit from restoration or enhancement. Lack of water quality data is an example of an area in need of further study. In this case, the council has already begun a water quality monitoring program in response to initial results from the assessment. The council can also use the information for education and outreach and to prioritize council sponsored restoration projects. Individuals may use the assessment results to inform land management decisions and/or implement habitat restoration or enhancement on their own property. It is important to keep in mind that this assessment is not meant to pass judgement on any particular human land use or activity. Rather, it provides a scientific framework for understanding human impacts on the watershed so that people can make informed choices regarding land use, private property and personal action. In addition, not all perspectives may be represented in this document. Although considerable effort was made to solicit contribution and feedback from a wide variety of stakeholders in the watershed, it was not possible to reach everyone or incorporate everyone's personal perspective. Finally, although restoration strategies are frequently discussed and suggested, this assessment does not determine what types of restoration will be sponsored by the watershed council. Long Tom WatersJ,ed Council 541-683-65 78 4 Loflg Tom Watershed Assessme11t Climate, Geology, Topography (Chapter 2 & 5) Sediment D to Stre (Chapt Jafluary 2000 Fish and Wildlife Habitat (Chapter 11) Chapter I Land Use (Chapter 2) Surface Water Withdrawals (Chapter 5) ·parian and tland Habitat ter 3, 7 & 8) Figure 1.1 Relationship between Watershed Assessment Components By emphasizing a basin-wide, "ecological functions" perspective this assessment raises our awareness of environmental issues in the watershed that may be difficult to see at a site-specific level. From this vantage point, it is also easier to identify and understand cumulative human impacts to the watershed. Figure 1.1 provides a conceptual framework for the components of the assessment and illustrates cumulative impacts on fish and wildlife. It also highlights the fact that both human impacts and the local ecology interact to determine the water quality and habitat conditions within the watershed. The abundance of arrows connecting each component reflects the numerous interconnections within the watershed's ecosystem. Chapter Descriptions Chapter 2- Sub-basins, Ecoregions, Vegetation and Land use: Provides a general description of the watershed, including its location, ecoregion, vegetation, population, land use and ownership patterns. This provides an important background for understanding the potential human influences on water quality and habitat. Long Tom Watershed Couflcil 541-683-6578 5 Long Tom Watershed Assessment January2000 Chapter I Chapter 3- Historical Conditions: Characterizes the watershed before Euro-American settlers arrived in the mid-1800s and documents changes caused by settlement and subsequent population growth in the watershed. This information may help determine appropriate standards or goals for water quality and habitat conditions and guide council restoration activities. Chapter 4- Channel Habitat Types: Describes stream channel morphology within the basin. Channels are categorized by their relative sensitivity to flow and channel modifications (either human or natural). Stream channels that are highly sensitive to these influences should be prioritized for protection or enhancement if they have been negatively impacted by human activities. Chapter 5- Hydrology and Water Use: Describes how local climate, geology, topography and land use influence stream flow patterns in the watershed. Data on stream flow and water use is presented in order to identify potential problems with peak and low flows. This information may be used to identify opportunities to minimize human caused peak flow enhancement and to target streams in potential need of instream flow protection. Chapter 6- Stream Channel Modifications: Documents change to stream channels due to channel straightening, bank reinforcement, gravel mining, road crossings, and dams or impoundments. These changes are then discussed in light of the effects they have on instream and riparian zone habitat. Chapter 7- Riparian Zone Conditions: Describes the current condition ofriparian zones in the watershed and compares them with historic conditions. Specific information includes width, vegetation type, density and size of trees. This information will contribute to our understanding of how riparian zones may be affecting water quality and habitat in the Long Tom Basin and highlight areas for potential restoration. Chapter 8- Wetland Types, Distribution and Functions: Describes the type, functions and general location of wetlands in the basin and estimates the amount of wetland loss and potential restoration opportunities. Chapter 9- Sediment sources: Identifies the most likely sources of human caused sediment delivery to streams, which can be used to target activities that will reduce these sources. Chapter 10- Water Quality: Presents and analyzes current water quality data collected by several government agencies and lists streams that have been identified as water quality impaired by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Lo11g Tom Watershed Cou11ci/ 54/-683-6578 6 Long Tom Watershed Assessment January 2000 Chapter I Chapter 11- Fish and Wildlife: Describes the types of fish found in the watershed, their habitat needs and current habitat conditions. This chapter also identifies wildlife species that depend on riparian zones and wetlands. Chapter 12- Watershed Condition Summary: This chapter summarizes and integrates information from each component of the assessment. This highlights the most significant sources of water quality and habitat degradation, which may be used by the watershed council to identify and prioritize actions to improve water quality and habitat with the basin. Methods The overall scope and methods used in this assessment were guided by the Oregon Watershed Assessment of Aquatic Resources Manual developed for the Governor' s Watershed Enhancement Board (Watershed Professionals Network 1999). The manual offers a range of methods depending on time and resource availability. The manual methods are most appropriate for a watershed of about 50,000 acres. In most cases the assessment team closely followed the manual, however the size of the watershed (262,872 acres) and the extent of private land made some components impractical ( e.g. field verification of sediment sources and wetlands). On the other hand, we were able to utilize information generated from geographic information systems (GIS) analyses, which enhanced our ability to integrate a large amount of information into meaningful conclusions. A more detailed methodology of channel habitat typing, riparian zone delineation and analysis, and sediment source analysis will be given in their respective chapters. Geographic Information Systems All of the maps and most of the quantitative information (e.g. percentage ofland use/sub-basin, road density, etc.) presented in this document were created using geographic information systems (GIS). GIS is a computer-based mapping technique that compiles information about the landscape in "layers", similar to information presented on a map. The advantage of using GIS, as opposed to paper maps, is that different layers can be combined on a computer to produce quantitative estimates of landscape features. For example, a layer showing historic vegetation can be combined with a layer showing hydric soils (i.e. soils that are highly impermeable to water). This combination would produce a map showing the probable extent and type of historic wetlands given that most undisturbed areas with hydric soils in this basin have wetland vegetation. Table 1.1 lists the GIS layers utilized for this assessment. long Tom Watershed Council 541-683-6578 Table 1.1 Long Tom Watershed GIS Layers: • Watershed and sub-basin boundaries • Land use • Land ownership • Roads • Streams • Ecoregions • Historical vegetation • Current vegetation • Human population • Channel habitat types • National Wetlands Inventory • Soils • Topography • Riparian zone conditions • Water quality monitoring sites 7 Long Tom Watershed Assessment January2000 Chapter 1 Public Outreach and Participation The assessment process included short presentations at the council's monthly meetings on each portion of the assessment. In addition, one to two page summaries of some of the chapters and an executive summary of the entire assessment were sent to all council members through monthly newsletters. This allowed all council members to provide feedback and/or contribute personal knowledge on assessment information and maps. This format also created an ongoing dialogue about water quality, habitat conditions and human impacts within the watershed. Many hours were spent in compiling and writing this assessment, which is a tribute to the cooperation and generosity of many agency personnel and watershed council volunteers. This cooperation ensured greater accuracy and scope, and helped to create understanding and trust between watershed council members. In addition, the assessment process provided a forum for watershed council members to share information and resources with each other as well as with land management agencies. Contributors Below is a list of people who contributed to this assessment. A brief description of each individual's work is given to illustrate the magnitude of effort and breadth ofresources that went into this document. (If anyone's name has been forgotten it was not intentional.) Jack Alley, South Eugene high school student: Helped organize and tabulate water quality data. Ed Alverson, Nature Conservancy: Helped design the riparian zone analysis method based on historical vegetation and provided many references on historic vegetation and wetlands within the watershed. Andrea Ball, University of Oregon Infographics Lab: Provided technical assistance in developing GIS maps and analyses. Doug Card, University of Oregon, Department of Sociology: provided extensive information for the Historical Conditions Chapter. Most of the quotes from early diaries are a result of his research. Dr. Card is a local historian and visiting professor at the University of Oregon. Bill Clingman, GIS analyst, Lane Council of Governments: Created a map of 100-year flood plains within the watershed; Provided lists of the digitized wetlands types and soil types in the watershed. Churchill high school students: Researched information on fish species within the watershed and helped map fish distribution. Dana Erickson, Long Tom Watershed Council coordinator: Primary author of Chapter 5 Hydrology and Water Use. She also helped to ensure that the assessment process was open and educational for all members of the council. Kyle Everett, watershed council member and budding electric guitarist: Helped catalogue information from Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife fish trap data. Matt Fidanque, South Eugene high school student: Spent over 30 hours interpreting riparian zone information from aerial photos. Lita Furby, watershed council member: Helped to refine the riparian delineation method and spent over 1 00 hours interpreting riparian zone information from aerial photos. Long Tom Watershed Council 541-683-6578 8 Long Tom Watershed Assessment January2000 Chapter l Gary Galovich, fisheries biologist, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife: Wrote descriptions of sensitive fish species within the watershed and their habitat needs. Chelsea Gibbons, South Eugene high school student: Spent over 40 hours interpreting riparian zone information from aerial photos. Jennifer Gilden, sociologist, Oregon State University: Researched and provided a large amount of background information for the Historical Conditions chapter and interviewed residents regarding historical conditions. Ted Gresh, University of Oregon student: Assessed, mapped and digitized channel habitat types. Jim Godfrey, GIS analyst, State Service Center for Geographic Information Systems: Digitized riparian zone information, created maps of watershed land use and ownership, ran several key GIS analyses for the assessment. Diane Henkels, watershed council member: Interviewed watershed residents for the Historical Conditions chapter. Greg Hughes, University of Oregon Infographics Lab: Created maps of National Wetlands Inventory, and historic vegetation and hydric soils. Lara Konig, volunteer, mapped and digitized channel modifications; created map for Channel Modifications Chapter. Jim Meacham, Director, University of Oregon lnfographics Lab: Provided technical assistance in developing GIS maps and analyses. Frank Mifsud, University of Oregon Infographics Lab: Created a map of water quality monitoring sites for the Water Quality Chapter. Josh Peters, University of Oregon student: Collected and organized information on precipitation and stream flow. Samara Phelps, University of Oregon student: Spent over 40 hours interpreting riparian zone information from aerial photos. Anita Ragan, watershed council steering committee: Helped to develop the assessment cover. Larry Rhodes, watershed council member: Helped develop an interview on historical conditions. Elliot Shuford, University of Oregon student: Assessed and mapped channel habitat types. Cindy Thieman: Watershed assessment project manager and primary author of chapters 1-5 and 7-12. Kellie Vache, research assistant, Oregon State University: Helped develop a model and map of potential erosion on agricultural lands; performed a GIS analysis of road density & proximity to streams; created a map of current vegetation; provided a population estimate for the watershed based on digitized census block information. Alan Whiting, University of Oregon student: Compiled and mapped information on channel modifications. Gary Wilkinson, Bureau of Land Management: Was instrumental in generating the map of channel modifications In addition to the contributors listed above, there were many others who provided information for the assessment and we would like to extend our thanks to them! Long Tom Watershed Council 541-683-6578 9 Long Tom Watershed Assessment January WOO Chapter 1 Reviewers Chapter 1 Introduction: Dana Erickson (Council coordinator), Paul Reed*, Lita Furby*, Diane Henkels*, Gary Holm**, Paul Atkinson*, Andy and Mary Rae Thompson*, Jeff Yost**, Ryan Collay**, Ken Bierly (Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board) Chapter 2 Ecoregions, Vegetation & Land Use: Dana Erickson, Ryan Collay**, Juan Welsh & Dave Downing (East Lane Soil & Water Conservation District), Rick Block (Farm Service Agency), Jeff Yost**, Gary Holm**, Diane Henkels*, Paul Reed*, Lita Furby*, Ed Alverson**, Paul Atkinson*, Andy and Mary Rae Thompson*, Ken Bierly Chapter 3 Historic Conditions: Doug Card*, Frances Evans (long term resident), Jennifer Gilden (research associate, OSU), Court Smith (professor, Dept. of Anthropology, OSU), Ed Alverson**, Christopher Pearl (US Geological Survey), Dennis Todd*, John Dillard*, Gary Holm**, Lita Furby*, Paul Reed*, Paul Atkinson*, Diane Henkels*, Andy and Mary Rae Thompson*, Jeff Yost**, Ryan Collay* *, Ken Bierly Chapter 4 Channel Habitat Types: Bob Denman (Watershed Professionals Network), Ted Gresh (University of Oregon), Cary Moffett*, Lita Furby*, Ed Alverson**, Paul Reed*, Gary Holm**, Paul Atkinson*, Diane Henkels*, Andy and Mary Rae Thompson*, Jeff Yost**, Ryan Collay* *, Ken Bierly Chapter 5 Channel Modifications: Jim Beal (US Army Corps of Engineers), Gary Galovich (ODFW), Bob Denman, Rick Allison*, Lita Furby*, Ed Alverson**, Paul Reed*, Gary Holm**, Paul Atkinson*, Diane Henkels*, Andy and Mary Rae Thompson*, Jeff Yost**, Ryan Collay**, Ken Bierly Chapter 6 Hydrology and Water Use: Michael Mattick (Water Master), Graham Armstrong (Eugene District, BLM), Dee Dee Malarkey*, Lita Furby*, Ed Alverson**, Paul Reed*, Gary Holm**, Paul Atkinson*, Diane Henkels*, Andy and Mary Rae Thompson*, Jeff Yost**, Ryan Collay* *, Cindy Thieman, Ken Bierly Chapter 7 Riparian Zone Conditions: Nancy Holzhauser (local wetlands biologist), George Bronson*. Lita Furby*, Ed Alverson**, Paul Reed*, Gary Holm**, Paul Atkinson*, Diane Henkels*, Andy and Mary Rae Thompson*, Jeff Yost**, Ryan Collay**, Ken Bierly Chapter 8 Wetlands: Christopher Pearl, Lita Furby*, Ed Alverson**, Paul Reed*, Gary Holm**, Paul Atkinson*, Diane Henkels*, Andy and Mary Rae Thompson*, Jeff Yost**, Ryan Collay**. Nancy Holzhauser, Ken Bierly Chapter 9 Sediment Sources: Tom Black (US Forest Service), Kellie Vache (OSU), Rick Allison*. Lita Furby*, Ed Alverson**, Paul Reed*, Gary Holm**, Paul Atkinson*, Diane Henkels*, Andy and Mary Rae Thompson*, Jeff Yost**, Ryan Collay**, Ken Bierly Long Tom Watershed Council 541-683-6578 10 Long Tom Watershed Assessment January2000 Chapter I Chapter 10 Water Quality: Cary Kerst & James Ollerenshaw (City of Eugene wastewater division), Frank Rinella (USGS), Gary Arnold (DEQ), Lita Furby*, Ed Alverson**, Paul Reed*, Gary Holm**, Paul Atkinson*, Diane Henkels*, Andy and Mary Rae Thompson*, Jeff Yost**, Ryan Collay**, Nancy Holzhauser, Ken Bierly Chapter 11 Fish Populations and Habitat: Gary Galovich, Nancy Holzhauser, John Reerslev*, Lita Furby*, Ed Alverson**, Paul Reed*, Gary Holm**, Paul Atkinson*, Diane Henkels*, Andy and Mary Rae Thompson*, Jeff Yost**, Ryan Collay**, Ken Bierly Chapter 12 Condition Summary: Lita Furby*, Ed Alverson**, Paul Reed*, Gary Holm**, Paul Atkinson*, Diane Henkels*, Andy and Mary Rae Thompson*, Jeff Yost**, Ryan Collay**, Ken Bierly (* council member, ** steering committee member) Long Tom Watershed Council 541-683-6578 II long Tom Watershed Assessment January2000 Chapter 2 Chapter 2 Sub-basins, Ecoregions, Vegetation and Land Use Location and Sub-basins The Long Tom River Watershed drains 410 square miles of land at the southwestern end of the Willamette Valley. The headwaters of the upper Long Tom River originate on the eastern side of the Coast Range and flow south through forested hills and small farms until reaching Noti where the river turns east and is joined by Elk and Noti Creek. Several miles downstream of Noti the upper Long Tom drains into the southeast side of Fem Ridge Reservoir. Coyote Creek, which drains the southern portion of the basin, and Amazon Creek, which drains the eastern portion, also empty into Fem Ridge Reservoir. The lower Long Tom spills out the north end of the reservoir and flows north approximately 25 miles before joining the Willamette River at two locations, the original northern confluence and the channelized southern confluence at Norwood Island. For this assessment, the watershed is divided into sub-basins in order to identify and focus on the specific landscape features and land uses that impact water quality, instream habitat and riparian zone conditions in a smaller drainage area. Sub-basin divisions also provide a framework for future water quality monitoring studies, prioritizing restoration activities and identifying other sub-basin specific issues. The IO sub-basins were delineated based on drainage pattern, land use and size (see Long Tom Sub-basins and Landuse map). They include: 1) Upper Long Tom, 2) Elk Creek, 3) Coyote Creek, 4) Spencer Creek, 5) Fem Ridge, 6) Upper Amazon, 7) Lower Amazon, 8) Ferguson Creek, 9) Bear Creek, and 10) Lower Long Tom. Each sub-basin drains to a single point (except Upper Amazon, Lower Long Tom and Fem Ridge), is roughly the same size as the other sub-basins and has a predominant land use. Land use along the upper and lower portions of Amazon Creek is very different. Hence a division into two sub-basins (i.e. Upper Amazon & Lower Amazon) was made near Royal A venue where Amazon Creek splits into the diversion channel, which empties into the reservoir, and the original channel, which empties into the lower Long Tom River west of Junction City. In the following chapters information is presented in the context of both ecoregions and sub­ basins. Both frameworks are important for interpreting conditions within the watershed, however rarely do the divisions between sub-basins and ecoregions correspond. The presence of multiple ecoregions in some of the sub-basins within the Long Tom Watershed highlights the need for a number of management goals and methods within each sub-basin. Eco regions An ecoregion is defined by a unique combination of physical geography (stream patterns, elevation), geology (surface and bedrock composition), climate (temperature, precipitation), soils, vegetation and land use (Omernik & Griffith 1991). Ecoregion designations are an important tool for interpreting existing watershed conditions and setting appropriate goals for lo11g Tom Watershed Council 541-683-65 78 12 - Long Tom Sub-Basins and Landuse r . .an, ♦ ·-..,= --♦ 2 0 2 ◄ 6 8 10 Mlle ,, LEGEND ♦ 0uactiot ~ f::Y 7Sl. l.onllTOlll a- 0,Lona TOffl 8111 11111 '/yl.GflQTom~ Tom lrHq F-l'Orlll Aulll-Olt'W =--,__ Rini Cllrrmlfclll IMlllnMlrial ~ WIie( ~ L U.:-l'DWIII ~ r'ler.,.- i-o,y1999 Long Tom Watershed Assessment January WOO Chapter 2 Table 2.1 Ecoregions within the Long Tom Watershed Eco region Mid-Coastal Valley Prairie Terraces Willamette River Sedimentary Foothills and Tributaries Gallery Forest Physical Moderately Rolling footh ills Nearly level to undulating Floodplains with Geography sloping, with medium river terraces with low gradient, dissected gradient, sinuous sluggish, meandering incised, strongly mountains with streams streams and rivers. meandering rivers medium to high Historically, seasonal and associated gradient, wetlands and ponds were oxbow lakes sinuous streams common. Many streams now channelized. Geology 35-55 million l 0 - 25 million 12 - 600 thousand year old Present - 600 year old year old andesitic sediment deposits from thousand year old sandstone, basalt* and lakes and rivers sediment deposits siltstone, sandstone of from rivers mudstone & marine origin conglomerate* of marine origin Soils Very deep to Moderately deep Very deep to deep, silty Very deep to deep, moderately to very deep, silty clay loam to silt loam. fertile, silty clay deep, clay loam clay loam to silt loam to fine sandy to gravelly loam loam loam Rainfall 60- I 30 in./year 40-60 in./year 40-50 in./year 40-50 in./year Potential Western Douglas fir Oregon white oak & Cottonwood, alder, Native hemlock, common; some prairies; In wetter areas: Oregon ash, bigleaf Vegetation western red western red cedar Oregon ash, Douglas fir maple, Douglas-fir (trees) cedar, Douglas- fir Land use Forestry, Rural residential Grass seed, grain & row Vegetable & fruit pastureland in development, crop farming. Also farm ing, valleys, some pastureland, urban/rural residential pastureland, rural residential coniferous & development & some urban/suburban/ development deciduous forested riparian zones rural residential forests, forestry, development, vineyards, forested riparian Christmas tree areas, flood control farms, orchards .. .. Adapted from Pater et al. 1998; *Definitions: Andes1t1c basalt- fine-gramed rock resemblmg granite. volcanic in origin; Conglomerate- made up of rock fragments or pebbles cemented together by clay (Guralnik 1984) instream habitat conditions, biotic indices (e.g. types & diversity of macroinvertebrates and fish) , riparian zone conditions and water quality within different parts of the watershed. The Long Tom Watershed contains four ecoregions: Mid-Coastal Sedimentary, Valley Foothills, Prairie Terraces and Willamette River and Tributaries Gallery Forest (see Table 2.1 & Ecoregions Long Tom Watershed Council 541-683-6578 14 Long Tom Watershed Assessment January 2000 Chapter 2 map). 1 Each of these ecoregions will respond differently to land management and thus may require somewhat different management strategies and habitat/water quality goals. The Mid-Coastal Sedimentary ecoregion and Valley Foothills ecoregion cover the steeper upland areas of the watershed. Headwater stream channels are confined within steep, narrow valleys, becoming more sinuous downstream where the valley widens. The underlying geology is mostly sedimentary (i.e. resulting from upland erosion as opposed to volcanic eruptions) with some basalt (i.e. volcanic) in the Valley Foothills region. The combination of soft sedimentary rock and high rainfall levels in these regions contributes to relatively high erosion rates. Native vegetation includes western hemlock, western red cedar, Douglas fir, and red alder, in addition to a variety of understory shrubs and flowering plants. The Prairie Terrace ecoregion covers most of the low gradient valley lands except for a small portion along the lower Long Tom River, which is part of the Willamette River and Tributaries Gallery Forest ecoregion. Unmodified streams in these regions tend to meander across the valley, although humans have channelized many in order to protect farms, homes and businesses from flooding. In either case streams are often deeply entrenched in the thick sedimentary clay soils that were deposited by a series of massive floods thousands of years ago. The native vegetation types within the Prairie Terraces ecoregion are oak savanna (sometimes with scattered Douglas fir & ponderosa pine), ash swales and prairie (grasses and wildflowers), whereas the Willamette River Gallery Forest contains large stands of cottonwood, alder, Oregon ash, bigleaf maple and Douglas fir. Current Vegetation The Long Tom Watershed Landuse/Landcover map shows vegetation within the watershed in 1995. Vegetation categories include several forest types and stand ages, grassland, shrubland and many different agricultural crop types. Vegetation was determined by using satellite images of the Willan1ette Valley taken in 1995; aerial photos were used to verify and calibrate some of the satellite imagery data (Pacific Northwest Ecosystems Research Consortium 1999). The accuracy of crop type, location and acreage is not high at a site-specific level because vegetation was being categorized for the entire Willamette Valley. In addition, agricultural crops can change at a given site within one season, which makes it difficult to field or photo verify crop determinations based on satellite imagery. Nonetheless, the Landuse/Landcover map does illustrate the approximate distribution of major vegetation categories and the variety of agricultural crops in the watershed. A variety of forest types and stand ages exist within the watershed. Forests generally cover the western and southern foothills of the watershed, as indicated by the dark ano ·1ight green shading on the map. The light green areas, characterized by a mixture of hardwoods and conifers (on map: Forest semi-closed mixed & Forest closed mixed categories), trace the major stream networks in the forested portion of the watershed. This is because in upland areas hardwoods like bigleaf maple and Oregon ash are found primarily in riparian zones (i.e. adjacent to streams), 1 Ecoregions have been delineated at four different scales. Level I is the coarsest scale (delineates North America into 15 ecoregions). The ecoregions used in this document are Level IV, which delineates western Oregon and Washington into 55 different ecoregions (Pater et al. 1998). 4 Long Tom Watershed Council 54/-683-6578 15 Eco regions for the Long Tom Watershed ECOREGIONS 1g Mld-co.tal &edlmentary - 3b Willarnelte Rlvw and Tributaries Gau.y FONS& 3c Prairie Temices 3d Valley Foothills 0~~~~25.5~----~5 Miles U o/0 ~ ~ ,,_,_ ofGa,gr,pry ~:X.,,,,l/rao,Andr,o6ofl•J',__ Joly. 1999 I Long Tom Watershed Landuse / Landcover 0 Developed by the Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium - July 1999 N 4 8 12 Kilometers Ec901tbin L-- Urban / Residential r..:.J Rural structures ~ Railroad - Secondary roads L] Light duty roads - Rural non-vegetated unknown Channel non-vegetated Stream orders 5-7 Water Topo. Shadow [_ 1 Forest open ---, Forest Semi-closed mixed LJ Forest Cosed hardwood D Forest Closed mixed D Forest Semi-closed conifer a Forest Closed Conifer 0-20 yr Forest Closed Conifer >20 yrs =-, Forest Semi-closed hardwood J Hybrid poplar D Grass seed-grain-meadow foam ::::-::J Irrigated annual rotation ----- Grains 1] Nursery , Caneberries & Vineyards D Double cropping CJ Hops t::J Mlnt CJ Sugar beet seed ~ ; Row crop Grass Burned grass - Field crop I Hay Late field crop Pasture D Natural grassland CJ Natural shrub - Bare/fallow CJ Flooded/marsh Fl Irrigated field crop Turfgrass/park Orchard Christmas trees Woodlot ' ,._ - Map produced for the Long Tom River Watershed Assessment by OSU Department of Bioreeource Engineering Biosystems Analysis Group - August 1999. Long Tom Watershed Assessment January2000 Chapter 2 whereas upland areas that are not adjacent to streams are typically dominated by conifers like Douglas fir and western hemlock (on map: Forest Closed Conifer categories). In some areas this pattern is natural and in other areas it is a result of historic logging. In particular, conifers generally dominated riparian zones in forested headwater areas in the past. These were often the first trees to be logged because they were right next to a stream that could be used to transport the logs to a mill downstream. After clearcutting, hardwoods quickly overtook these newly opened riparian areas and shaded out conifer seedlings. This has had a negative impact on those streams because large conifers that fall into streams from adjacent riparian areas provide important benefits to fish and other aquatic organisms. Hardwoods are not as large and decay faster than conifers, thus when they fall into streams they do not remain as long, which limits their value to aquatic organisms. Current state forestry rules do not allow clearcutting in most riparian zones. However, hardwoods that have overtaken riparian zones in the past often prevent the growth of conifers now. Because of this, some local timber companies are actively recruiting conifer growth in riparian zones by removing hardwoods and planting conifers (Claassen 1998). Agricultural land in the watershed occupies the lower foothills and valley bottomlands. Vineyards, orchards and Christmas tree farms are generally on the hillsides, where land is less suitable for crops. On the flatlands grow crops like grass seed, mint, corn, beans, sugar beet seed, hay and meadow foam. Crops that require regular irrigation in the summer are generally grown on land to the north of Fern Ridge Reservoir. This is because the majority of irrigation water in the basin is stored in the reservoir and withdrawn from the lower Long Tom in the summer. The Landuse/Landcover map shows that a large amount of grass seed ( categorized as both grass seed and grass on the map), mint and row crops are grown on land downstream of the reservoir. (Unfortunately these categories do not show up very well on a map this size so the reader will have to trust the author on this point.) Land use Table 2.2 and the Long Tom Sub-Basins and Landuse map show the proportion of land use in each sub-basin according to zoning. Although some of the sub-basins drain into other sub-basins ( e.g. Spencer Creek drains into Coyote Creek) the land use percentages and acreage calculations presented for each sub-basin do not overlap. For example, the information for Coyote Creek does not include the portion of its drainage area covered by Spencer Creek. Sub-basins on the western and southern perimeter of the watershed are mostly forested. Consequently, most of the land use is forestry, especially in the Upper Long Tom and Elk Creek sub-basins. Coyote Creek, Spencer Creek, Ferguson Creek and Bear Creek are a mixture of forestry, agriculture, and rural residential land, although land zoned for forestry still covers the majority of these drainages. The sub-oasins in the central and eastern portion of the watershed have gentler gradients, making them more suitable for agriculture and urban development. This is evidenced by the fact that the majority of the Lower Long Tom, Lower Amazon and Upper Amazon basins are either urban or agricultural. The Fern Ridge sub-basin, which is the reservoir and land area that drains directly into it (i.e. not into Amazon Creek, Coyote Creek or the Upper Long Tom first) is a fairly even split between agriculture, forestry, and water. However, the land now submerged by the reservoir used to be farmland. Long Tom Watershed Council 541-683-6578 18 Long Tom Watershed Assessment January 2000 Chapter2 Approximately 92% of the land within the watershed is privately owned (see Table 2.3). This is a significant social aspect of the watershed, which shapes the structure and membership of the council and has an impact on land management and restoration issues. Table 2.2 Sub-basin Land Use Sub-basin Agri- Forestry Urban Rural Parks Rural Other Total culture Resident &Rec. Indust Acres Upper Long 8% 80% <1% 10% 2% <1% 0% 35,605 TomR. Elk Cr. 9% 88% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 27,709 Coyote Cr. 31% 64% 0% 4% 2% 0% 0% 45,185 Spencer Cr. 22% 49% 1% 27% <1% 0% 0% 21,320 Upper 6% 6% 80% Amazon Cr. 7% < )% 0% 0% 19,710 Lower 62% 0% 21% Amazon Cr. 6% <1% 0% 11%* 19,292 Fern Ridge 25% 20% 5% 20% 5% 0% 25%** 32,209 Bear Cr. 33% 57% 0% 10% <1% 0% 0% 17,701 Ferguson Cr. 40% 59% 0% <1% 0% 0% 0% 16,357 Lower Long 81% 7% 1% 8% 2% 0% <1% 27,784 Tom R. Watershed 31% 46% 8% 9% 1% <1% 4% 262,872 Total(% & 81,490 120,921 21,029 23,658 2,628 3,834 10,515 acreage) *Large percentage is from "Public Facilities" land use category (mostly the Eugene Airport); **includes Fern Ridge Reservoir Ownership Table 2.3 Long Tom Watershed Ownership Acres Percentage Private 242,131 88% BLM/ 0 & C Lands 20,650 8% Army Corps of Engineers 12,000 4% State Lands 66 <1% Note: there 1s a discrepancy in the total watershed acreage between Table 2.2 and 2.3 . The total given in Table 2.2 is the most accurate. Acres in Table 2.3 are approximate and are only meant to show the relative proportion of land ownership. Agricultural Lands The main agricultural crops in the watershed include annual and perennial grass seed, hay, mint, specialty seeds (flowers, radish, sugar beets), feed corn, wheat, sugar beets, vegetable crops (corn, green beans, beets), orchards, vineyards, berries, and Christmas trees (Block pers comm1999). Farms vary in size from 10 - 15 acre hobby farms, to small family operations of 100 - 2000 acres, to 1,500 - 10,000 acre commercial operations. Long Tom Watershed Council 541-683-6578 19 Long Tom Watershed Assessment Ja11uary2000 The potential impact of fanning on water quality and riparian habitat stems primarily from pesticide and fertilizer use, soil erosion from tilling, modifying stream channels to prevent flooding of fields, planting near streams, and planting on top of small seasonal drainages. These impacts can be mitigated with a variety of management practices, including leaving adequate buffer zones adjacent to streams, timing and reduction of fertilizer and pesticide applications, and irrigation management (see Table 2.4). Chapter 2 Table 2.4 Agricultural management practices that protect rivers and streams • Stream buffers • Hedgerows • Riparian fencing • Off-stream watering devices • Manure management (treatment lagoons, sheds) • Cover crops (to avoid exposed soil) • Irrigation nozzle upgrades • Pesticide and ferti lizer application Livestock, including cattle, sheep, goats and hogs, timing and minimization is also raised within the watershed. There are some • Pasture management to avoid large confined livestock operations within the compacted or eroded soil (rotational b · h h · · f 1· k • d grazing grassed filter strips) asm, owever t e maJonty o 1vestoc are raise --- --'----------~ in pastures or on lots of various sizes. The most significant potential impacts livestock have on stream health come from grazing or trampling the vegetation along streams and when manure reaches surface waters. The relative impact of these operations also varies significantly with management practices. For example, manure from a large confined livestock operation can pose a significant threat to water quality if allowed to enter nearby waterways via overland runoff ( occurs during periods of heavy rain). However, many of these large operations are required to manage livestock waste with treatment lagoons or sheds. Smaller operations may have cattle, sheep or goat either on an adequate amount of pastureland or crowded onto an inadequately sized parcel with no manure management or riparian zone protection methods. Again, it is difficult to estimate the • • • • • • • relative proportion of livestock owners who employ • management practices to adequately protect rivers and streams. Urban Lands Urban lands cover about 8% of the watershed. The largest proportion within the watershed is the City of Eugene, with a population of approximately 132,000 ( only a portion of this population lives within the watershed boundary). All of Eugene's treated wastewater discharges into the Willamette River, whereas stormwater from the land within the Upper Amazon sub-basin drains into the watershed. Smaller towns in the watershed include Veneta, Monroe, Elmira, Crow and Noti. In addition, Long Tom Watershed Council 541-683-6578 • • • • • • • • • Table 2.5 Management practices used by the City of Eugene to protect local streams Street sweeping Catchment basin cleaning Education programs Investigation and prevention of illegal discharges Issuance and monitoring of industrial stormwater permits Water quality monitoring Storm drain stencil ing Acquisition of natural waterways and wetlands Riparian and wetland restoration Clean up after accidents and fires Litter pick up Street design standards Erosion prevention and construction site management program Household hazardous waste program Commercial/Industrial housekeeping practice Train Public Works Maintenance staff on Integrated Pest Management techniques in order to reduce pesticide use Remove non-native vegetation from wetlands and riparian areas 20 Long Tom Watershed Assessment January 2000 Chapter 2 Junction City is near the eastern boundary of the watershed and during floods is often hydrologically connected to the lower Long Tom River. The environmental impacts from urban areas are quite large, given the density of people and intensity of land use. Industrial and commercial businesses have been shown to deliver heavy metals and other toxic chemicals into waterways when these substances are not properly contained. Runoff from parking lots and streets contribute oil, grease, dirt and other debris from cars, people and domestic animals (data shown in Chapter 10 Water Quality). Residential areas degrade water quality when people apply fertilizers, pesticides or other household chemicals and some enters the storm drain system. Exposed soil at construction sites can also enter streams if not managed properly. Even treated effluent from municipal sewage treatment plants at times causes water quality problems; frequently wastewater discharge contains high levels of phosphorus. Table 2.6 State Forest management practices to protect river, streams, lakes and wetlands • Written plans are required for harvest operations within 100' of fish bearing streams, large lakes or streams supplying domestic water and within 300' of significant wetlands. A plan " ... describes how a forest operation will be conducted to meet the minimum standards for resource protection prescribed by the forest practice rules (Forest Practices Program, 1994)." • Riparian management areas (RMAs) are designated for all water bodies except small, non-fish bearing streams. Width of RMAs ranges from 20' to I 00' depending on size and type of stream. • Within RMAs on fish bearing streams: ► all understory vegetation within 10' of stream must be retained ► all trees within 20' of stream must be retained ► all trees leaning over the channel must be retained ► all downed wood and snags in RMA Currently cities with populations over I 00,000 must be retained are required to have a storm water management ► 30 to 40 live conifers/ 1000' must be plan and program, which includes measures to retained, which range from 8" - 11 " protect water quality and aquatic habitat. The dbh depending on stream size City of Eugene' s management practices, which • Similar rules govern RMAs for lakes, are part of its stormwater program, are listed in wetlands, medium and large non-fish Table 2.5. The next phase of the state' s urban bearing streams, and streams supplying stormwater program will soon be implemented, which will require any urbanized area with greater than 10,000 people or covering at least one square mile to obtain a storm water discharge permit from the Department of Environmental Quality. For est Lands Land zoned for forestry covers 46% of the watershe~. Forestland ownership is a mixture of large commercial timber companies, federal forestland and small wood-lot owners. Compared to some of the timberlands in the Cascades or Western side of the Coast Range, the Long Tom Watershed has relatively few large tracts of timberland owned by a single company. A survey of nine large commercial operations in the basin indicated that these timber companies manage roughly 33,000 acres, with each company owning from a few hundred to several thousand acres. Roughly 20,000 acres of timberland is federally owned and managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Given that approximately 120,000 acres are zoned for forestry in this watershed, Long Tom Watershed Council 541-683-6578 21 long Tom Watershed Assessment January 2000 Chapter 2 this means that about 67,000 acres are owned and harvested by small family trusts and other private woodlot owners. Sediment delivery from forest roads and logging related landslides may be the most significant impact of forestry on aquatic resources in this watershed. The application of aerial fertilizer and spraying of pesticides also have the potential to impact streams if they accidentally reach nearby streams. The State Forest Practices Act, created in 1971, led to the development of a variety of rules and guidelines to protect waterways and wetlands near timber harvest operations. These are listed in Table 2.6. Rural Residential Lands Rural residential land covers roughly 9% of the watershed. Potential impacts to waterways caused by rural residents include runoff from fertilizer or pesticide use, small overstocked pastures, farm animals in streams or grazing in riparian zones, stream channel modifications and leaking septic systems. Because there is no oversight of rural residential land use like there is for forestry, agriculture and urban areas, it is difficult to assess the degree to which rural landowners impact water quality and aquatic habitat. In some cases rural residents may cause more damage on a per acre basis than agriculture, due to overuse of pesticides and fertilizers or by allowing a high density of domesticated animals near waterways. Another issue, particularly relevant to the Spencer Creek sub-basin, is the lowering of the water table from an increasing number of domestic wells. Conclusions Information on ecoregions, vegetation and land use point to several key issues: ► The presence of multiple ecoregions within the watershed calls for restoration and management strategies and water quality and habitat goals that reflect the unique nature of each region. >- The diversity of land use requires different management and resource conservation strategies. >- Private ownership of the majority of the watershed makes land use practices and management more difficult to assess and influence. >- Agricultural lands, residential areas and timberlands are divided into many private parcels, making it challenging to communicate and share information or concerns. >- A growing population will increase the challenges of natural resource management and protection in the future. long Tom Watershed Council 541-683-6578 22 l ong Tom Watershed Assessment January2000 Chapter 3 Chapter 3 Historical Conditions Introduction This chapter describes the major landscape changes that have taken place in the Long Tom Watershed from prehistoric times to the present. Studying historical conditions within the Long Tom Watershed serves several purposes. First, it shows us how climate, geology and finally human beings have created the landscape we see today. Second, it illustrates the ecological functions that have evolved over time, an important first step in determining whether these ecological functions still exist. Third, it highlights the amount and rate of change to the landscape, vegetation and wildlife. Historical Climate and Geology Although difficult to believe given today's cool wet climate, 50 million years ago the Pacific Northwest was tropical. At that time the Willamette Valley was completely submerged under the Pacific Ocean, which lapped against the foothills of the Cascade Mountains. Fossilized marine mollusks, crabs and sharks from this time period indicate warm, tropical seas (Orr et al. 1992). Data from ice cores and other sources indicate that global climate was on a cooling trajectory at this point, a trend that has been highlighted over the past few million years by a series of ice ages (Crowley 1996). Between 40 and 25 million years ago the Pacific Ocean began to withdraw from the newly forming Willamette Valley as the Coast Range "lifted" from the ocean floor. Over time, this lifting caused portions of continental shelf that were one to two thousand feet below the Pacific Ocean to rise two or three thousand feet above the ocean! (This explains why marine sedimentary material is found high up in the Coast Range.) During this period the valley was a broad semi-tropical coastal plain, dotted with lakes that were formed in shallow depressions. Studies of fossilized pollen indicate the presence of both conifers and broadleaf plants, although most of these species are extinct today (Orr et al. 1992). Ironically, two tree species (Gingko and dawn redwood) that existed during this time but went extinct when the climate cooled have been reintroduced to this area by landscapers (the trees were still in existence in Asia). Volcanic activity also shaped the landscape over time. Around 15 million years ago" . .. lava from fissures and vents in northeastern Oregon poured through the Columbia gorge and into the Willamette Valley where they reached as far south as Salem (Orr et al. 1992, 206)." A lava flow that solidified at the northern end of the Willamette Valley created the falls at Oregon City. These falls created a seasonal barrier to upstream fish passage and maintained a broad, relatively flat floodplain in the upper portion of the Willamette Valley (Aikens 1993). l ong Tom Watershed Cou11ci/ 54 J-683-6578 23 Long Tom Watershed Assessment January2000 Cllapter3 Beginning two to three million years ago a series of ice ages descended on the region, at times creating continental ice sheets that spread from the Arctic to the northern edge of the Pacific Northwest. These ice ages were punctuated with interglacial periods characterized by warmer temperatures and higher sea levels (the latest of which we are presently in) (Crowley 1996). During this time the advance and retreat of glaciers from the northern part of the continent and Cascade Range left its mark on the Willamette Valley. Rivers laden with glacial meltwater deposited large quantities of silt and debris (Orr et al. 1992). To illustrate, sediment cores drilled in various parts of the watershed show that alluvial fill (i.e. sediment deposited by rivers) ranges from 200' thick near Fem Ridge Reservoir to 250' thick near the headwaters of Elk Creek (Baldwin & Howell 1949). A series of particularly large floods occurred between 15,500 and 13,000 years ago in the Columbia River drainage. "The amount of water in a single flood, estimated at up to 400 cubic miles, is more than the annual flow of all the rivers in the world (Orr et al. 1992, 212)." These floods were caused when ice dams that blocked Lake Missoula in Montana were breached, causing the lake behind the ice dam to drain within a span of two days. Floodwater backed up into the Willamette Valley, carrying silt and debris as far south as Eugene. In addition to alluvial deposits, several glacial "erratics" (i.e. large boulders deposited by glaciers or glacial water) scattered around the watershed serve as evidence for these catastrophic floods (Orr et al. 1992). Since the last ice age, which spanned approximately 100,000 to 10,000 years ago, the global climate has became considerably warmer and dryer, the "The Long Tom, Former Tributary oftlze Siusilaw River" In the late 1940s two local geologists, Ewart Baldwin and Paul Howell (1949), proposed that the Long Tom River, Coyote Creek, Spencer Creek and Bear Creek all used to flow into the Siusilaw. Their initial clues came from studying local topographic maps that showed many westward draining tributaries to these streams and other evidence that the direction of their drainage had been reversed. Later, evidence collected in the field confirmed that at some point in the late Pleistocene (12,000 - 200,000 years ago) the Long Tom, Coyote Creek and Bear Creek were "pirated" by tributaries of the Willamette River. Baldwin and Howell proposed that the original path of the upper Long Tom followed what is today Poodle Creek. Then, instead of flowing east near Noti it turned west into the valley that is presently drained by Elk Creek. Afler passing through what is today a divide between the Long Tom and Siusilaw Watersheds at the headwaters of Elk Creek, the "ancient" Long Tom Joined with the Siusilaw. A convincing piece of evidence for this proposed drainage path is that the valley that drains Elk Creek is overly wide given the relatively small network of streams it now drains. This suggests that at one point a much larger river flowed through it. The proposed path of ancient Bear Creek turned southwest instead of east near Goldson, and then joined the upper Long Tom just south of Alderwood State Park. Ancient Spencer Creek and Coyote Creek.flowed west, instead of flowing south towards Fern Ridge, and joined the Long Tom River near Noti. The likely causes of these rivers being diverted into the Willamette River Watershed are: 1) slight uplift and eastward tilting of the Coast Range, 2) piracy by a Willamette tributary and 3) a.landslide or series of landslides that blocked the Long Tom near the present headwaters of Elk Creek. This combination of events is thought to have dealt the final blow, since one of these factors alone would probably not have brought about the change (Baldwin & Howe/11949). Long Tom Watershed Council 541-683-6578 24 Long Tom Watershed Assessment January2000 Chapter3 Willamette Valley being no exception. Yet even within this relatively warm period, average global temperatures are thought to have fluctuated between 14 ° to 16° C, the warmest interval of which was between 9,000 to 7,000 years ago (Thompson et al. 1993). More recently, a "Little Ice Age" took place between the mid-1400s until the late 1800s ( average temperatures estimated to be 0.5° - 1 ° C colder than present), a time when European explorers and immigrants were discovering North America (Crowley 1996). This latest event may have the greatest significance to us now because the lore of early explorers and settlers, to an extent, have shaped our perceptions of the landscape and climate. Yet, because we are coming out of a cooler period and have no true record of what it was like to live here before the "Little Ice Age" it is difficult for us to anticipate how this gradual ( or not so gradual) warming trend will affect us. Will we have more floods of greater magnitude? Will we have more droughts? Will seasonal shifts interfere with our current system of agriculture? In short, climate change adds another layer to the complexity of environmental change brought about by humans. Also during the last 10,000 years the major plant communities that we see in the watershed today began to develop. Marshlands and lakes receded in places, allowing the expansion of grasslands and oak. Douglas fir and western hemlock became established in the higher elevations of the Valley and grand fir and ponderosa pine along the foothills. In turn, this diversity of plant communities supported a variety of insects, frogs, reptiles, birds and mammals (Aikens 1993, Hansen 1942, Heusser 1960, Alverson pers comm 1999, Pearl pers comm 1999). Ultimately, the geologic and climatic events of the last 50 million years have determined how humans utilized the landscape. The flat, broad valley and adjacent hills shaped by the uplift of the Coast Range, layers of volcanic basalt at the northern end of the valley and sediment deposited by eons of flooding created a diverse environment; ideal for hunting or gathering a wide range of animals and plants and later for farming, ranching and logging. Early Human Inhabitants Between 15,000 to 23,000 years ago, during the last ice age, sea levels lowered sufficiently enough that early humans were able to cross the Bering Strait (between present day Siberia and Alaska) and begin populating North and South America (Crowley 1996). Evidence of human inhabitants in the Long Tom Watershed begins approximately 10,000 years ago. At the time of early exploration and European settlement the Kalapuya were the main tribe that inhabited the middle to southern end of the Willamette Valley. However, it is not known whether this tribe lived in the area over the entire period, or whether other tribes existed here in the past. To date, seven archaeological sites have been excavated in the Long Tom Watershed, including sites at Hannavan Creek, Perkins Peninsula, Upper Long Tom River (Oregon Country Fair grounds), Kirk Park, Inman Creek, and the Flanagan and Benjamin sites. The Hannavan Creek and Perkins Peninsula sites were strategically located near the four major vegetation zones in the area: prairie, marsh, deciduous riparian forests and woodland. Because these sites were on higher ground they were likely used year round. In contrast, other sites would have been flooded in the winter, so were presumably used for summertime hunting and gathering (Aikens 1993). Long Tom W{ltershed Council 541-683-6578 25 Long Tom Watershed Assessment January2000 Chapter 3 Plant foods available in some quantity would have included camas bulbs, acorns, hazelnuts, tarweed seeds, sunflower seeds, cattail rhizomes, and a variety of berries. Large animals of the area were elk, deer, black bear, and grizzly bear. Smaller creatures included raccoons, rabbits, squirrels, beavers, and other rodents. Marsh birds included ducks, geese, and other water-loving species, as well as grouse, quail, and wi ld pigeon. Trout, suckers, freshwater mussels, and crayfish were available in the streams. Grasshoppers, yellowjacket larvae, and caterpillars were also endemic. All these species were characteristic foods of the Kalapuyan people who occupied the Willamette Valley during the early I 9th century (cited in Aikens 1993, I 94). Excavations revealed various tools used for hunting and processing animals, including arrowheads, scrapers and knives. The remnants of tools used for grinding and pounding plant material were also found, as well as roasting ovens used to cook camas bulbs, acorns and other roots gathered from nearby prairie and marshes. "Hammerstones, anvils, cores, flaked stone debris, choppers, drills, spokeshaves, and gravers indicate the working of stone, bone and wood (Aikens 1993, 194)." Reports from early explorers and settlers suggest that the Kalapuya set regular frres in the lower portions of the watershed. David Douglas, a British botanist travelling with an expedition from Ft. Vancouver, frequently complained in his journal of traveling for miles without finding adequate forage for their horses because the vegetation was completely burned. He also described what he had learned about the reasons for the prairie burning: "Some of the natives tell me that it is done for the purpose of urging the deer to frequent certain parts to feed, which they leave unburned, and of course they are easily killed. Others say that it is done in order that they might the better find wild honey and grasshoppers, which both serve as articles of winter food (Douglas 1959, 214)." Charles Wilkes also speculated on the reason the Kalapuya set fires: "They are generally lighted in Sept. for the purpose of drying the seeds of the [tarweed] which is then gathered and forms a large portion of their food (quoted in Boyd 1986, 71)." Since then, many anthropologists have discovered or suggested additional reasons for Kalapuya burning. For example, the ground under oak trees was burned to facilitate the collection of acorns the following year, and perhaps the Kalapuya understood that by preventing the growth of understory trees and shrubs the oaks would produce larger acorn crops. Fire also promoted the growth of Hazelnut, berries and bulbs like camas and wild onion, which were important staples in the Kalapuya diet. Finally, the Kalapuya used fire to prepare ground for tobacco seeding, an agricultural practice not uncommon in the watershed today (Boyd 1986). During the last quarter of the 18th century, the maximum Kalapuya population in the Valley is believed to have been roughly 13,500, about 50 people per 100 square miles. By 1841 Wilkes estimated that only 600 Kalapuya lived in the Valley. The main reason for this staggering loss was disease introduced by European explorers. Before 1806 two small pox epidemics had killed at least one third of the native population. Venereal disease also spread inland from the Columbia in the 1790s, after the first explorers' ships arrived. Then, beginning in the 1830s there were annual outbreaks of malaria, against which the Kalapuya had no immunity (Boyd 1986). Despite the deadly effectiveness of these introduced diseases, there were still a handful of Kalapuya when the first settlers arrived in the mid-1800s. Shortly thereafter, however, these Long Tom Watershed Council 541-683-6578 26 Lo11g Tom Watershed Assessment January2000 Chapter 3 people were forced onto the Grand Ronde reservation in Northeastern Oregon, their presence and practices being viewed as a threat and an infringement on the rights of new settlers. Pre-settlement: Early 1800s Europeans and Americans began to leave their mark on the Long Tom Watershed before the first Euro-American settler arrived in 1848. By transmitting disease to the Kalapuya they may have indirectly reduced fire in the Valley, at least the fire which appeared to be intentionally started by the Kalapuya. Wilkes comments, "Since the country has been in the possession of the whites it is found that the wood is growing up rapidly a stop having been put to the fires so extensively lighted throughout the country every year by the Indians (quoted in Boyd 1986, 71)." Mr. Cox, an early settler to the area, also noticed this effect. Elk were once very abundant along the placid stream and the ground was strewn with their cast antlers in every direction. Although well timbered this was all open woods when Mr. Cox first saw it [-1846]. There was no underbrush. One might ride a horse anywhere and a deer might be seen and followed without impediment ... The country was kept thus open by the Indians who were compelled by the whites to quit burning it over; then the brush sprung up (quoted in Boyd I 986, 77). European trappers also had an impact on the landscape by depleting or extinguishing some species of wildlife, most notably beaver (Johnson & Chance 1974). This is significant from an ecological perspective because the dams that beaver create form wetlands, which in turn influence the type of habitat available to fish, birds, amphibians and invertebrates (Alverson pers comm 1999, Pearl pers comm 1999). In addition, there is evidence that the collective effect of beaver dams in a watershed dampens the effect of flooding downstream and reduces the severity of summer drought. Landscape and Vegetation The main traffic through the Long Tom Watershed in the late 1700s and 1800s was along the "Old Trail" or "California Trail," which is the approximate location of Territorial Highway today. This was the main route that early fur trappers and explorers took from Ft. Vancouver to Sacramento. The Applegate trail, an alternate route, was established in 1846 by a group of explorers who were heading to California from Polk County. This trail followed the Long Tom River as far as Monroe, crossed over it and traveled to Eugene along what is today River Road (Card 1999). long Tom Watershed Council 541-683-6578 27 Lo11g Tom Watershed Assessment January 2000 Chapter3 Fortunately, some of these trappers and explorers kept journals during their trips, which provide us with descriptions of the watershed's landscape at that time. Several recurring themes that are found in these diaries include: 1) the perceived effect of fires set by the Kalapuya, 2) the difficulty of winter travel due to extensive swamplands and muddy ground, 3) the steep sided banks of muddy streams that were challenging to cross, 4) the beauty of the open prairie and woodlands and 5) the excellent quality of the grass and woodlands. Many early explorers commented on the extent and beauty of the prairies, which they speculated, would provide excellent forage for cattle and sheep. Native grasses of the time included tufted hairgrass, sloughgrass, Roemer's fescue, june grass, slender wheatgrass, California oatgrass and meadow barley (Christy et al. 1998, Alverson pers comm 1999). Charles Wilkes wrote, "We passed in going thither, several fine prairies, both high and low .... The prairies are at least one-third greater in extent than the forest: they were again seen carpeted with the most luxuriant growth Long Tom or Lom-Tom-Buff? by Doug Card How did this river get its name? According to the classic Illustrated History of Lane County, Oregon the Long Tom was originally "Long Tom 's Bath, " after a tall fellow who fell off a mule and got wet (Walling 1884). Rubbish. As can be seen in various writings and diaries, the original Kalapuya name must have been something like "Lam-Tom-Buff, " which Euro-Americans mutilated into Long Tom Bath, and finally the non-descriptive "Long Tom. " Below are the spellings from various travelers ' diaries: Longtabufj: David Douglas, Botanist, 1826 Lum tum buff: Alexander McLeod, Scottish fur trapper, 1827 Norn tom ba: Alexander McLeod, 1828 L 'ommitom ba: Alexander McLeod, 1828 Sam Tomeleaf John Work, Hudson 's Bay Co. , 1834 Lam i Tam buff: John Work, 1834 Lamale: William Brackenridge, botanist, and 1841 Lum Tum buff: George Colvorcoresses, US officer 1841 Tom Beoff: James Clyman, trapper, 1845 Long Tom Bath: Virgie K. Pringle, settler, 1846 Lung Tum: Thomas Holt, US Emigrant Relief Party, 1846 Long Tom: George Ambrose, US Indian Agent, 1856 of flowers, of the richest tints ofred, yellow and blue, extending in places a distance of fifteen to twenty miles ( quoted in Boag 1992, 25)." Although the expanse and beauty of the prairie was frequently written about, there was also a diversity of other plant communities. Savanna, containing primarily oak and sometimes a scattering of ponderosa pine and Douglas fir, covered higher ground that didn't flood in the winter. Along the larger streams riparian forests containing ash, poplar and willow flourished. On the surrounding hills and coastal mountains grew Douglas fir, grand fir, ponderosa pine and inc::nse cedar, and in moist, cool areas western hemlock and western red cedar. Also on the foothills were hardwood trees like bigleaf maple, Oregon white oak and golden chinquapin. Shrubs included hazelnut, ocean spray and snowberry (Christy et al. 1998). Journal entries by William Brackenridge, a botanist exploring the Willamette Valley, and John Work, of the Hudson 's Bay Company, describe some of these plant communities. In September of 1841 Brackenridge wrote: Long Tom Watershed Council 541-683-6578 28 4 Long Tom Watershed Assessment January 2000 Chapter3 Struck into what our hunter (Guide) called the long prairie, at the entrance to which is Marshes Creek, a small still pond of water. The N. East side of this prairie is bounded for a considerable distance by the Lamale River [Long Tom], which is about 20 yds. broad and very still. On the banks grew Dogwoods, Spiraea, Willows, Alder, and Close by Clumps of a large Pinus, near to P. ponderosa ... (Brackenridge 1931 , 57). In describing their 1833 trip along Coyote Creek from Fem Ridge south, Work said, (t)he second valley through which we passed is watered by a fork [Coyote Creek] of the river which we left in the morning. Through all the hilly country through which we passed the land on the sides of the hills and in the intervening valleys appears to be of a superior quality, or at least the vegetation is more luxuriant than on the low flat plains even where they do not appear subject to inundation. There is also some timothy grass similar to what we have from England. The clover is of the white or red kind & grows _ most luxuriantly on the border of swamp or on the plains, where the ground is a little damp & springy. The timber today was mostly oak & a few other trees, & pine in the higher hills (Work 1923, 251-253). Most of the prairie and oak savanna that covered the watershed in the early 1800s has been altered by the encroachment of trees, reduction in flooding or conversion to farmland (Alverson 1992, Christy et al. 1998). Viewed from an ecological function perspective, this means that the animals, birds, amphibians and invertebrates that utilize or rely on these habitats are threatened as well. Some researchers believe that regular fire set by the Kalapuya maintained the prairie and savanna and prevented forests from encroaching on these habitats (Johannessen et al. 1971, Towle 1974, Boyd 1986). As evidence, they cite the many descriptions by early explorers of the natives setting fire, the infrequency of lightning that would ignite fires naturally and the encroachment of shrubs and trees onto former prairie since the disappearance of the Kalapuya (Boyd 1986). However, it is also possible that grazing by deer and elk and flooding may have maintained the prairie in some places (Pearl pers comm 1999). In addition, climate change ( e.g. recent departure of the Little Ice Age) may be causing a change in current vegetation patterns. Hence a lack ofKalapuya burning may not be the only historical explanation for the loss of prairie. In more recent times, the draining of wet prairie and the conversion of prairie and savanna to farm fields or urban development have also decreased these habitat types. All of these factors are significant because they influence how we view and approach restoration of prairie and savanna habitat. For example, although fire may be a highly effective restoration tool for some sites, other techniques (e.g. reintroduction of flooding, mowing, periodic grazing) may be more appropriate or feasible at other locations. Wildlife Diarists often mentioned the wildlife they saw along the way, especially if it related to a potential evening meal. Deer were sometimes difficult to find, although the presence of large expeditions accompanied by horses may have scared many a deer off. On November 12, 1826 Douglas noted that "at two o· clock passed LongtabuffRiver, which falls in to the Multnomah [Willamette]," and continuing north reported that they "camped on the edge of a small lake, where there was an abundance of wildfowl (Douglas 1959, 236)." He also reported camping on the margin of an old beaver dam at a later point, which was probably north of Fem Ridge somewhere. Although these entries describe the types of wildlife present, their relative abundance is difficult to tell. long Tom Watershed Council 541-683-6578 2 9 Long Tom Watershed Assessment January 2000 Chapter 3 Predators were also abundant in the forests and prairies. Douglas ( I 959) described one of the trappers getting run up a tree, and almost killed by a grizzly bear at a point probably around Fem Ridge. And on September I 0, 1841 Brackenridge wrote, "(t)he country today was much the same Character as yesterday, the soil rich but of a yellowish cast. The prairies we found swarming with Wolves (Brackenridge 1931, 57)." Flooding A frequent complaint in travelers' diaries was of the swampy bottomlands and difficult stream crossings. James Clyman, a famous fur trapper of the time known for his great writing and terrible spelling, described travelling through the Long Tom watershed in June of 1845. His narrative gives a vivid picture of how difficult it was to travel during certain times of the year and the great extent of wetlands and swamps in the watershed. Pased some fine Prarie lands and continued up the south Branch of Tom Beoff, a dull muddy stream nearly Bank full and not fordable crossed several deep cammace swamps and several deep muddy Brances of the main stream with difficulty at length we cleared the Tom Beoff intirely and assended the long slope of a ridge had a few miles of pleasant traveling the ridge was thinly clad with oak and pine our rout still lying near the Killamook mountains [Coast Range] we not being able to travel in the main vally on account of highness of the waters (Clyman 1960, 157). The next day he continues: " ... after leaving our low over flown camp we soon passed into a dirty mirey pond for nearly a mile Belly deep to our horses an hours plunging brought us to a dry ridge of considerable hight from which we had a view of nearly all of the upper Willhamet vally and from apearances seven Eights of the level vally was overflown during the winter rains continued up a small river [Long Tom] our course a little west of south made an etempt to pass over the creek and gain another trail more easterly with considerable difficulty we succeeded to cross the stream after getting over to our disapountment we fou[n]d our selves on a low sunken Island surrounded by Byous and sloughs and ware forced to cross back again through the same miry ford- continued our course up the stream through mud and mire a low pine ridge to our right and large extensive marsh to our left noticed a speces of Black oak to day (Clyman 1960, 158-159). John Work's diary entry on June 3, 1833 provides another good description: Considerable portions of the plain are subject to inundation & parts of it are not so well clothed with grass as some of those we have already passed. Some places of it are also swampy. And parts of it gravelly which is the first soil of the kind we have seen since we started. This plain is 4 to 6 miles wide. The river here runs over a muddy bottom with steep clayey banks, so much so that it is difficult to water the horses. Where we left this morning [between Monroe and the north end of the Long Tom] would be an eligible situation for a settlement. On the E side of the river would serve for pasturage & the high ground on the W side for tillage & sheep walks; and the river could easily be made navigable (Work 1923, 251-253). It is significant that all of these entries are written in June, which is not the time of year with highest stream flow or standing water in this watershed. This suggests that standing water was Long Tom Watershed Council 541-683-6578 30 Long Tom Watershed Assessment January 2000 Chapter 3 present throughout the winter and spring at low points within the valley bottomlands, perhaps drying out in August or September only to fill up again in November. In the winter, some lowland areas may have had frozen, shallow lakes. In regards to a particularly difficult winter James Collins wrote, "Between Spencer' s Butte and the cabin [Skinner's cabin], Coyote creek [ what we now call Amazon Creek] widened into a shallow lake, more than half a mile across; but it was frozen over, I thought, solid enough for me to cross it (Collins 1846)." Evidence from both prehistoric times and journals of early explorers illustrates that flooding has influenced and shaped the landscape for millions of years. In particular, intermittent flooding and sediment deposition over thousands of years led to the development of hydric soils, which created extensive wetlands along valley bottomlands. In turn; the plants and animals that lived in this region evolved in response to the habitat flooding provided. A map showing the likely extent of historic wetlands can be found in Chapter 7.2 The extent and location of wetlands can generally be inferred by hydric soils (area covered by diagonal lines on map). This is because hydric soils prevent surface water from draining quickly, resulting in standing water. When these conditions persist for more than a few days during the growing season it favors the growth of wetland plants (Mitsch & Gosselink 1993 ). Most of the historic wetlands in the Long Tom Watershed were seasonal wet prairie, a native habitat that is now extremely rare. The majority of these prairie wetlands were located in the Amazon Creek, Coyote Creek, Fern Ridge, and Lower Long Tom sub-basins. Other common historic wetland types were ash swales and willow swamps, the latter often being created by beaver dams. Settlement Period: 1848 - early 1900s A combination of factors led to rapid settlement of the Long Tom Watershed beginning in the 1850s. The U.S. government, eager to establish jurisdiction over a land so rich with natural resources, passed the Donation Land Claims Act in 1850. This program lasted from 1850 - 1855 and granted each man 320 acres if he was single and 640 acres ifhe was married. Within five years over 2.5 million acres had been granted, most of which was in the Willamette Valley (Dicken & Dicken 1979). Euro-American settlement began to change the Watershed's environment in many ways. In addition, the relationship between humans and the land changed. The Kalapuya had led a subsistence lifestyle, moving with the seasons to harvest wild plants and hunt animals. Aside from deliberately setting fires, which seems to have had a significant effect on certain kinds of vegetation, it does not appear that they altered their environment in any other way. Their lifestyle and population had probably remained relatively stable or at least changed relatively slowly during their occupation of the Watershed. In contrast, the new settlers had a different way of working with the land. The introduction of agriculture was a significant event, and many farmers brought seeds, plants and animals from across the country. The settlers also possessed relatively sophisticated technology, which eventually evolved into tools that could significantly alter the environment. Finally, the surge in population encouraged by the Donation Land Claim 2 This map was created by overlaying two GIS maps; one of historic vegetation based on 1850s Government Land Office surveys and the other ofhydric soils based on the 1990 Lane County Soil Survey. long Tom Watershed Council 541-683-6578 31 Long Tom Watershed Assessment January2000 Chapter3 Act placed new demands on the landscape. Between 1850 and 1900 the population of the Oregon Territory jumped from 13,294 to 413,536 (Dicken & Dicken 1979)! Agriculture In the early days the tall, rank grass covered all this valley. We would tum out our cattle on the valley and they would immediately be lost in the tall grass, which reached higher than their backs. In looking for cattle it was impossible to find them by sight. It was necessary to listen for their bells, and when they were lying down to rest during the heat of the day, one might pass within a few feet without finding them (Unknown). This was probably the experience of the first farmers who came to the Long Tom Watershed. John B. Ferguson established the first claim in the watershed in 1848 on Ferguson Creek. Within a few years his family and other settlers had established a small farming community along the Ferguson Creek. Likewise, most of the prime farmland along Coyote Creek and the Long Tom River was claimed within the first several years of settlement (Inman 1967). Many homesteads consisted of" ... one room log houses with vegetable gardens and a few acres planted in wheat. With little hard currency available, wheat was the primary medium of exchange (Oregon Archives 1990)." Mrs. Gregory Stroda relates " ... that years ago they hauled their grain to Monroe to Wilhelm's grocery, feed and grist mill. They traded sixty pounds of wheat for forty pounds of flour and paid their groceries for an entire year, amount $60. She also relates that early shipping was done by boat ... [from] the loading docks at Monroe (Inman I 967)." For the first few decades settlers tried growing wheat and com, since many were from the Midwest. Despite the relatively cool, wet climate, wheat became the most successful crop in the Valley during the late 1800s and early 1900s; it was used for local consumption and later as an export crop. Com, however, was not suited to the cool summers and did not become an important cash crop. Oats, flax, hops, potatoes, fruit, nuts and vegetables were also cultivated (Dicken & Dicken 1979). In 1904, the Lane County Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association formed and began exporting fruit very successfully. New technology also allowed vegetable canning, which meant that more food could be grown and preserved for distant consumers. Cattle, sheep and pigs were an important part of many early homesteads. Cattle were first brought to the Willamette Valley in I 837 and sheep in 1843; thus livestock were likely introduced into the watershed around the same time as the first settlers (Dicken & Dicken 1979). Grazing was generally limited to higher ground and, based on the reports of early explorers, was quite nutritious and abundant given the wide expanse of prairie and savanna. Pigs, which were traditionally fed on corn in the Mid-west, were fed acorn mast that came from the prolific oaks (Evans 1985). Although the introduction of agriculture provided significant advantages to local residents, it had several notable impacts on the local ecology. For instance, in areas that were farmed, non-native crops replaced native prairie species. Domesticated animals grazed on the native grasses, which sometimes damaged them enough to be outcompeted by more resilient, weedy species or non­ native plants. An early writer noted that "(t)he cattle would summer and winter on the prairie and in the course of time this indiscriminate pasturing injured the grasses, and reduced them to Long Tom Watershed Council 541-683-6578 32 Long Tom Watershed Assessment January2000 Chapter ] shorter growth; though it is said that when the land is permitted to lie idle under fence they recover their old luxuriance (Victor 1872, 184)." Finally, Predatory wildlife such as grizzly bear, wolves, cougar and coyote were hunted and in some cases exterminated in order to protect humans and livestock. Flooding Annual flooding was a constant struggle for early settlers in the watershed. Old timers in the area recall regular, widespread flooding along the Long Tom River from Veneta to Monroe, the lower portions of Coyote Creek, and all along Amazon Creek (Smith 1999, Bentsen 1998). Ernest Smyth recalled that his Uncle Ned swam a horse from Bear Creek to Junction City some time in the late 1800s ! In an effort to reduce the effects of flooding, landowners would remove brush and trees from the creeks, and roads were covered with planks to control the loss of dirt and gravel (Smyth 1998). Sometime in the 1890s a bridge was built from Veneta to Elmira so that travelers could avoid the frequently flooded marsh below (Shaffer 1998). Over the course of decades many streams were straightened and deepened in order to drain the bogs and marshes to render them farmable. Logging Dense forests of fir and hemlock covered the hills on the southern and western portions of the watershed and settlers wasted little time in capitalizing on this resource. The first mill in the watershed was built in Monroe in 1850. By the 1870s many small mills were scattered throughout the basin (Farnell 1979). Because there were few roads in the late 1800s, many mills were by necessity small and mobile. These mills would be built and utilized for two or three years until the surrounding timber had been felled and processed, and then relocated to the next site. Locals called these mills "hillside beavers" because they were so numerous, especially after the turn of the century (Smith 1999). Transporting logs off the site and to the mill was a challenge back then. Before steam power was introduced felled logs were dragged across the ground on skids by horse or oxen to a nearby stream or hand built flume. Skids consisted of poles laid perpendicular to the skid trail. "(T)he lead end of the log would be 'sniped' (tapered slightly with an ax), and lard or whatever was available would be applied to the skids to "grease the skids" (V anNatta I 999)." Steam donkeys, which became available around the turn of the century, were a tremendous boon to the industry. The donkey wou ld consist of a steam boiler and steam engine connected to a winch all