DOCSLIB.ORG

Umpqua Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Umpqua Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL CHAPTER 7 UMPQUA BASIN WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP) Prepared by: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Submissions by: Oregon Department of Agriculture Oregon Department of Forest Oregon Department of Transportation USDA Forest Service and USDI BLM Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers Umpqua Basin TMDL: Water Quality Management Plan October 2006 Table of Contents PART I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 1 Douglas County........................................................................................................................................................2 Oregon Department of Agriculture........................................................................................................................2 Oregon Department of Forestry.............................................................................................................................2 USDI-Bureau of Land Management, USDA-Forest Service................................................................................2 Oregon Department of Transportation .................................................................................................................2 DEQ - NPDES Permitted Operations ....................................................................................................................3 The incorporated cities in Douglas County ...........................................................................................................3 B. Adaptive Management..........................................................................................................................4 Monitoring and Review...........................................................................................................................................5 C. Water Quality Management Plan Guidance and Rules ....................................................................6 PART II – WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN COMPONENTS ......................... 8 Component 1. Condition Assessment and Problem Description ...........................................................8 A. Beneficial Uses....................................................................................................................................................8 B. Umpqua Basin Streams on 303(d) List Addressed by 2006 TMDLs .............................................................9 C. Existing Sources of Water Pollution...................................................................................................10 Temperature ..........................................................................................................................................................10 Dissolved Oxygen Depletion and Nutrients (Nitrogen and Phosphorus) ..........................................................10 Bacteria...................................................................................................................................................................11 Component 2: Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................................12 Component 3: Proposed Management Strategies .................................................................................13 A. Wastewater Treatment Plants ...........................................................................................................13 B. General and Minor Individual NPDES Permitted Sources.............................................................14 C. Other Sources ......................................................................................................................................14 Specific Pollutant Strategies.....................................................................................................................18 Stream Temperature .............................................................................................................................................18 I. Control Strategies:...........................................................................................................................................18 II. Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers Action Plan Recommendations: ............................................................19 South Umpqua River Watershed .........................................................................................................................20 Middle South Umpqua Watershed.......................................................................................................................21 Lower South Umpqua Watershed........................................................................................................................22 Upper Cow Creek Watershed ..............................................................................................................................23 Middle Cow Creek Watershed.............................................................................................................................24 Lower Cow Creek Watershed..............................................................................................................................26 West Fork Cow Creek Watershed .......................................................................................................................27 Lower North Umpqua Watershed........................................................................................................................28 Calapooya Creek Watershed................................................................................................................................29 Olalla-Lookingglass Watershed:..........................................................................................................................30 Tiller Region........................................................................................................................................................31 Myrtle Creek Watershed......................................................................................................................................32 Deer Creek Watershed.........................................................................................................................................33 Rock Creek Region:.............................................................................................................................................35 Lower Umpqua River Watershed: .......................................................................................................................37 Mill Creek Watershed:.........................................................................................................................................38 Middle Umpqua Watershed:................................................................................................................................40 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 7-I Umpqua Basin TMDL: Water Quality Management Plan October 2006 Upper Umpqua Watershed: .................................................................................................................................41 Bacteria...................................................................................................................................................................42 I. Monitoring – Source Identification .................................................................................................................42 II. Bacteria Control Strategies ............................................................................................................................42 Control Measures.................................................................................................................................................44 III. Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers Action Plan Recommendations ............................................................45 Rock Creek Region..............................................................................................................................................49 Component 4: Timeline for Implementation.........................................................................................50 Component 5: How Management Strategies Will Result in Meeting Water Quality Standards ....51 Component 6: Timeline for Attainment of Water Quality Standards ................................................51 Component 7: Identification of Responsible Participants....................................................................52 Component 8: Identification of Available Implementation Plans .......................................................70 Component 9: Schedule for preparation and submission of Implementation Plans .........................70 Component 10: Reasonable Assurance..................................................................................................71 A. Point Sources: NPDES and WPCF Permit Programs .................................................................................71 B. Nonpoint Sources .............................................................................................................................................71 C. Northwest Forest Plan.....................................................................................................................................74 D. Urban and Rural Sources................................................................................................................................74
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources
    OREGON GUIDELINES FOR TIMING OF IN-WATER WORK TO PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES June, 2008 Purpose of Guidelines - The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, (ODFW), “The guidelines are to assist under its authority to manage Oregon’s fish and wildlife resources has updated the following guidelines for timing of in-water work. The guidelines are to assist the the public in minimizing public in minimizing potential impacts to important fish, wildlife and habitat potential impacts...”. resources. Developing the Guidelines - The guidelines are based on ODFW district fish “The guidelines are based biologists’ recommendations. Primary considerations were given to important fish species including anadromous and other game fish and threatened, endangered, or on ODFW district fish sensitive species (coded list of species included in the guidelines). Time periods were biologists’ established to avoid the vulnerable life stages of these fish including migration, recommendations”. spawning and rearing. The preferred work period applies to the listed streams, unlisted upstream tributaries, and associated reservoirs and lakes. Using the Guidelines - These guidelines provide the public a way of planning in-water “These guidelines provide work during periods of time that would have the least impact on important fish, wildlife, and habitat resources. ODFW will use the guidelines as a basis for the public a way of planning commenting on planning and regulatory processes. There are some circumstances where in-water work during it may be appropriate to perform in-water work outside of the preferred work period periods of time that would indicated in the guidelines. ODFW, on a project by project basis, may consider variations in climate, location, and category of work that would allow more specific have the least impact on in-water work timing recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Item L
    Kate Brown, Governor 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 360 Salem OR 97301-1290 www.oregon.gov/oweb (503) 986-0178 Agenda Item L supports OWEB’s Strategic Plan priority # 6: Coordinated Monitoring and Shared Learning. MEMORANDUM TO: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board FROM: Audrey Hatch, Conservation Outcomes Coordinator Renee Davis, Deputy Director SUBJECT: Agenda Item L – Telling the Restoration Story January 22-23, 2020 Board Meeting I. Introduction “Telling the Restoration Story” is a targeted grant offering that helps OWEB and grantees better communicate the ecological outcomes of restoration funded by OWEB. These grants support compilation, analysis, and/or interpretation of existing data from a watershed restoration project, and production of outreach materials that describe outcomes. Outreach products will reach a broad audience, including board members and legislators. Grantees also have identified specific audiences, so their messages about factors that lead to quantifiable restoration success will have high impact by speaking to landowners, restoration practitioners, and natural resource managers working to restore similar landscapes in Oregon. II. Progress to Date Seven projects were funded by OWEB in 2019: 1. Smith River Watershed Council: video, two-page fact sheet and technical report about how stream restoration treatments have increased salmon populations in the West Fork Smith River; 2. Lake County Umbrella Watershed Council: video, four-page fact sheet and technical report that highlights how fish passage projects benefit sensitive species in the Warner Lakes Basin; 3. Rogue Basin Partnership: online story map, fact sheet and compilation of fish passage restoration projects in the Rogue Basin; 4. Coos Watershed Association: video, fact sheet, and update to previously developed Willanch Creek report that details how riparian restoration improved habitat and helped keep water temperatures cool; 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Umpqua Bibliography by Groups I. Possible
    Umpqua Bibliography by Groups Introduction This bibliography is about the Umpqua River Basin, particularly its hydrology and its fisheries. Some films, photographs and archival materials are included along with books, articles, maps and web pages. The bibliography was built using local, regional and national library catalogs, major online databases, theses and dissertations, watershed assessments and Federal endangered species reports. Its historical coverage begins with Joel Palmer’s 1847 Journal of Travels over the Rocky Mountains and ends in early 2008. I have attempted to cover major physical features of the Umpqua Basin, as well as important aquatic species and critical issues facing the area. Trying to build a comprehensive collection of references on any subject in the age of information is, to use an image Joel Palmer would understand, like trying to catch a greased pig. It is ever squirming out of your grasp. This collection of references is necessarily incomplete, but I’d be grateful to learn of any major omissions. --Susan Gilmont Updated September, 2008 I. Possible Candidates for Digitization: Grey Literature, Important Or Uncataloged Reports on the Umpqua River (Sorted by Date) Roth, A. R. A survey of the waters of the South Umpqua Ranger District : Umpqua National Forest . Portland, Or.: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region; 1937. Call Number: OSU Libraries: Valley SH35.O7 U65 Notes: Baseline temperature data for the Umpqua Oregon State Game Commission. Lower Umpqua River Study : Summary : Annual Report. 1949. Call Number: Available from NMFS Environmental and Technical Svcs. Division, 525 NE Oregon St. Portland, OR 97232 (? dated reference). State Library or StreamNet should have this.
    [Show full text]
  • CURRICULUM VITAE University of Idaho
    CURRICULUM VITAE University of Idaho NAME: Madison S. Powell DATE: January 5, 2018 RANK OR TITLE: Associate Professor, Department of Animal and Veterinary Science Associate Director, Aquaculture Research Institute, Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station DEPARTMENT: Animal and Veterinary Science OFFICE LOCATION AND CAMPUS ZIP: OFFICE PHONE: 208-837-9096 FAX: 208-837-6047 Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station EMAIL: [email protected] 3059F National Fish Hatchery Road Hagerman, ID 83332 DATE OF FIRST EMPLOYMENT AT UI: June 1995 DATE OF TENURE: Tenured July 2008 DATE OF PRESENT RANK OR TITLE: July 2008 EDUCATION BEYOND HIGH SCHOOL: Degrees: Ph.D., Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, Zoology, 1995 M.S., University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, Zoology, 1990 B.S., University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, Zoology and Biology, 1985 EXPERIENCE: Teaching, Extension and Research Appointments: Associate Professor / Graduate Faculty, Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Faculty, Department of Animal and Veterinary Science, Aquaculture Research Institute, Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Hagerman, Idaho, 2008 – present Assistant Professor / Graduate Faculty, Department of Animal and Veterinary Science, Aquaculture Research Institute, Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Hagerman, Idaho, 2002 – 2008 Research Assistant Professor, Department of Animal and Veterinary Science / Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Aquaculture Research Institute, Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station, University
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Mineral Resources of Douglas County
    STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL INDUSTRIES 1069 State Office Building Portland, Oregon 97201 BU LLE TIN 75 GEOLOGY & MINERAL RESOURCES of DOUGLAS COUNTY, OREGON Le n Ra mp Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries The preparation of this report was financially aided by a grant from Doug I as County GOVERNING BOARD R. W. deWeese, Portland, Chairman William E. Miller, Bend Donald G. McGregor, Grants Pass STATE GEOLOGIST R. E. Corcoran FOREWORD Douglas County has a history of mining operations extending back for more than 100 years. During this long time interval there is recorded produc­ tion of gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, mercury, and nickel, plus lesser amounts of other metalliferous ores. The only nickel mine in the United States, owned by The Hanna Mining Co., is located on Nickel Mountain, approxi­ mately 20 miles south of Roseburg. The mine and smelter have operated con­ tinuously since 1954 and provide year-round employment for more than 500 people. Sand and gravel production keeps pace with the local construction needs. It is estimated that the total value of all raw minerals produced in Douglas County during 1972 will exceed $10, 000, 000 . This bulletin is the first in a series of reports to be published by the Department that will describe the general geology of each county in the State and provide basic information on mineral resources. It is particularly fitting that the first of the series should be Douglas County since it is one of the min­ eral leaders in the state and appears to have considerable potential for new discoveries during the coming years.
    [Show full text]
  • In South Umpqua River and Cow Creek
    HATCHERY AND GENETIC MANAGEMENT PLAN (HGMP) Hatchery Program: Umpqua River Basin Coho Salmon Program Species or Coho Salmon (Stocks-18) Hatchery Stock: Agency/Operator: Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Watershed and Region: Umpqua Watershed-Southwest Region Draft Submitted: March 14, 2003 First Update Submitted: November 28, 2011 Second Update Submitted: December 5, 2014 Third Update Submitted: June 7, 2017 Date Last Updated: June 6, 2017 South Umpqua River/Cow Creek Coho Salmon HGMP 2017 1 SECTION 1. GENERAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 1.1) Name of hatchery or program. Rock Creek Hatchery, Umpqua River Basin Coho Salmon Program (stock-18) in South Umpqua River and Cow Creek. 1.2) Species and population (or stock) under propagation, and ESA status. Umpqua basin wild Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch are part of the Oregon Coast Coho Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU), which was listed as a threatened species under the federal ESA on August 10, 1998 (Federal Register Notice 1998). It was subsequently de-listed in 2005 and was relisted effective May 12, 2008 (Federal Register 73FR7816, Oregon Coastal Coho ESU, February 11, 2008). The listing includes all naturally produced Coho Salmon from Cape Blanco north to the Columbia River. Of particular interest for this HGMP is the listing of the Cow Creek stock. The stock is incorrectly identified in the Federal Register Final Species Determination as stock-37 (page 7824), but the text identifies the stock as the Cow Creek stock. Thus in the Umpqua basin, the Coho Salmon stock-18 is an ESA-listed. The listing was reviewed again in 2011 and the threatened listing was upheld.
    [Show full text]
  • North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River Environmental Assessment
    NORW UMPQUA WII), AND SCENIC RIVER Environmental Assessment AWildUtJdMenicrivaenvirrmrnentcrlarceJstnantdevebpedjoinCIyby:. U. S. DEPT OF AGRlCUIXURE U.S. DEPT. ;Eu Ib$‘EIXIO; FOREST SERVICE Pa&k Northwest Region gg @ TqjT Umpqua National Forest OREGON STATE PARKS Q RECREATION DEPARTMENT JULY 1992 Environmental Assessment North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River Table ofContents CHAPTER I Purpoee and Need for Action.. ............................................................................... 1 Purpcee and Need/Proposed Action .............................................................................................I Background...................................................................................................................................... .1 Management Goal ...........................................................................................................................2 Scoping ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Outstandingly Remarkable Values ................................................................................................5 l.ssues................................................................................................................................................ 5 CHAPTER II Affected Envlronment .............................................................................................7 Setting..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • History, Ecology and Restoration Potential of Salmonid Fishes in the Umpqua River, Oregon
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2012 History, Ecology and Restoration Potential of Salmonid Fishes in the Umpqua River, Oregon Kelly Crispen Coates The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Coates, Kelly Crispen, "History, Ecology and Restoration Potential of Salmonid Fishes in the Umpqua River, Oregon" (2012). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 519. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/519 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. History, Ecology and Restoration Potential of Salmonid Fishes in the Umpqua River, Oregon by: Kelly Crispen Coates B.S. The University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, 2005 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Science in Organismal Biology and Ecology University of Montana Missoula, MT August, 2012 Approved by: J.B. Alexander Ross, PhD, Associate Dean of the Graduate School Jack A. Stanford Chair Division of Biological Sciences Winsor H. Lowe Division of Biological Sciences Lisa A. Eby Wildlife Biology Bonnie K. Ellis Flathead Lake Biological Station Abstract Coates, Kelly M.S. August, 2012 Organismal Biology and Ecology History, Ecology and Restoration Potential of Salmonid Fishes in the Umpqua River, Oregon Chair: Jack A.
    [Show full text]
  • 38 Chapter III. Human Use and Occupation There Is Very Little
    38 Chapter III. Human Use and Occupation There is very little history or other information available about the people who lived in the study area 200 years ago. The area that became coastal Douglas County enters the historical record in the 1700s; particularly during 1788 and thereafter, with the sea voyages of Captain Robert Gray and others, trading furs, hides, and other products from California (“Mexico”), the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, Canada (“New Caledonia”), and Hawaii, with China, the eastern United States, England, and Spain (Carey1971). Beginning in 1826, Hudson’s Bay Company fur trader Alexander McLeod, Scottish botanist David Douglas, and others began keeping journals and sending correspondence of their explorations throughout the interior western parts of Douglas County. In the 1830s, beaver trappers, cattlemen, and others following the “California Trail” from the Columbia River to the Sacramento Valley also began keeping journals, filing reports, and sending correspondence that added to the history of western Oregon. In 1841, a party of the US-funded Wilkes Expedition, under the leadership of George Emmons, precisely mapped, illustrated, and described their journey along the California Trail (the general route of today’s Interstate 5), traveling from north to south. In 1846, pioneers following the Applegate Trail (the “South Road” of the Oregon Trail) kept records and documented memories of their south to north travels along the same route. Douglas County visitors and immigrants in the early 1850s -- most notably George Riddle, of Cow Creek Valley (Riddle 1993) -- and participants in the “Rogue River Indian Wars” of that time (Zybach 2007) also kept records; including those kept by federal and territorial government agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume II Appendix F
    Volume II –Appendix F - Fisheries Appendix F – Fisheries Table of Contents 1. FISHERIES...................................................................................................... 1 2. FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE FISHERIES ................................................... 1 2.A. Water Quality..................................................................................................................................... 2 2.B. Water Quantity and Physical Habitat.............................................................................................. 2 3. ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMS....................................................................... 3 4. ASSESSMENT OF FISH RESOURCES............................................................ 4 5. BASIN OVERVIEW......................................................................................... 5 6. SUB-BASIN DISCUSSION ............................................................................... 6 6.A. Coastal / Umpqua River Sub-basins................................................................................................. 7 6.A.1. Minimum Flows ................................................................................................................................. 7 6.A.2. Distribution and Abundance............................................................................................................... 7 6.A.3. Recreation........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Olalla / Lookingglass Watershed Assessment and Action Plan
    Watershed Assessment and Action Plan N W E S Umpqua Basin Olalla / Lookingglass Watershed Prepared by Matt DeVore and Nancy A. Geyer for the Umpqua Basin Watershed Council August, 2003 Umpqua Basin Watershed Council 1758 NE Airport Road Roseburg, Oregon 97470 541 673-5756 www.ubwc.org Olalla / Lookingglass Watershed Assessment and Action Plan Prepared by Matt B. DeVore Nancy A. Geyer Umpqua Basin Watershed Council Contributors Jeanne Lum David Williams Barnes and Associates, Inc. Oregon Water Resources Department Kristin Anderson BioSystems Consulting Reviewers Umpqua Basin Olalla / Lookingglass Watershed Watershed Council Assessment Group Board of Directors Publication citation This document should be referenced as DeVore, Matt B. and Geyer, Nancy A. 2003. Olalla / Lookingglass Watershed Assessment and Action Plan. July, 2003. Prepared for the Umpqua Basin Watershed Council, Roseburg, Oregon. This project has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under assistance agreement CO- 000451-02 to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. UBWC Olalla / Lookingglass Watershed Assessment and Action Plan Table of Contents List of Photographs, Maps, Figures, and Tables ....................................... 4 Acronym List................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Census Tract Outline Map (Census 2000
    43.322190N CENSUS TRACT OUTLINE MAP (CENSUS 2000) 43.322190N 124.403400W 123.132083W CALAPOOIA CCD 90425 1000 ABBREVIATED LEGEND 600 SYMBOL NAME STYLE 900 INTERNATIONAL Umpqua River AIR (FEDERAL) Trust Land OTSA / TDSA North Umpqua River MELROSE CCD 91853 Roseburg AIR (State) North 700 SDAISA South Umpqua River COW CREEK RES (0815) 63660 STATE Roseburg NORTH UMPQUA COUNTY 63650 CCD 92244 CENSUS COUNTY DIV. B Consolidated City Incorporated Place Census Designated Place 1100 Census Tract Abbreviation Reference: AIR = American Indian Reservation; Trust ROSEBURG Land = Off−Reservation Trust Land; OTSA = Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area; TDSA = Tribal Designated Statistical Area; Tribal Subdivision = American CCD 92686 Indian Tribal Subdivision; SDAISA = State Designated American Indian Green Statistical Area 30750 FEATURES FEATURES 1600 River / Lake Winston 83400 Glacier Military Inset Out Area COOS 011 DOUGLAS 019 1800 COW CREEK RES (0815) TENMILE CCD 93179 1700 Myrtle Creek 50950 COW CREEKC RES (0815) Tri− COW CREEK RESCity (0815) 74650 Riddle 61850 COW CREEK RES (0815) COW CREEK RES (0815) Canyonville 11000 2000 MYRTLE CREEK−RIDDLE CCD 92057 SOUTH UMPQUA CCD 93060 2100 OUGL D AS 0 19 C U RR Y 015 19 DOUGLAS 019 0 S Glendale 29350 A JOSEPHINE 033 L G U O 0 2 9 D N O S K C COOS 011 A J CURRY 015 JOSEPHINE 033 JACKSON 029 CUR R Y 0 15 OS 0 3 3 J EP HINE 42.393963N 42.393963N 124.403400W 123.132083W N Sheet Location within County Key to Adjacent Sheets 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 7 mi 12 W E 10 0 10 km 34 S ST: Oregon (41) The plotted map scale is 1:140000 COU: Douglas (019) SHEET 3 OF 4 PARENT SHEETS All legal boundaries and names are as of January 1, 2000.
    [Show full text]