DOCSLIB.ORG

Inland Rogue Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Inland Rogue Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan Inland Rogue Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan Developed by the: Inland Rogue Local Advisory Committee Oregon Department of Agriculture With support from the: Jackson, Two Rivers, and Illinois Valley Soil and Water Conservation Districts February 28, 2018 Oregon Department of Agriculture Water Quality Program 635 Capitol Street NE Salem, Oregon 97301 Phone: (503) 986-4700 oda.direct/AgWQPlans Jackson SWCD 89 Alder St., Central Point, OR 97502 (541) 664-1070 https://jswcd.org/ Two Rivers (Josephine) SWCD 1440 Parkdale Drive, Grants Pass, OR 97527 (541) 474-6840 Illinois Valley SWCD PO Box 352 102 S Redwood Highway Cave Junction, OR 97523 (541) 592-3731 http://www.ivstreamteam.org/ Inland Rogue Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan February 6, 2018 Table of Contents Acronyms and Terms Used in this Document ............................................................................... i Foreword .................................................................................................................................................. ii Required Elements of Area Plans .................................................................................................... ii Plan Content ............................................................................................................................................ ii Chapter 1: Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Purpose and Background ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Agricultural Water Quality Management Program and Applicability of Area Plans ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 History of the Ag Water Quality Program ................................................................................. 1 1.3 Roles and Responsibilities .............................................................................................................. 2 1.3.1 Oregon Department of Agriculture ........................................................................................................ 2 1.3.2 Local Management Agency ........................................................................................................................ 5 1.3.3 Local Advisory Committee ......................................................................................................................... 5 1.3.4 Agricultural Landowners ........................................................................................................................... 5 1.3.5 PuBlic Participation ...................................................................................................................................... 6 1.4 Agricultural Water Quality ............................................................................................................. 6 1.4.1 Point and Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution............................................................................... 6 1.4.2 Beneficial Uses and Parameters of Concern ....................................................................................... 6 1.4.3 Impaired Water Bodies and Total Maximum Daily Loads ............................................................ 7 1.4.4 Oregon Water Pollution Control Law – ORS 468B.025 and ORS 468B.050 .......................... 7 1.4.5 Streamside Vegetation and Agricultural Water Quality ................................................................ 8 1.5 Other Water Quality Programs ..................................................................................................... 9 1.5.1 Confined Animal Feeding Operation Program ................................................................................ 10 1.5.2 Groundwater Management Areas......................................................................................................... 10 1.5.3 The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds ................................................................................. 10 1.5.4 Pesticide Management and Stewardship ........................................................................................... 10 1.5.5 Drinking Water Source Protection ....................................................................................................... 11 1.5.6 Oregon’s Coastal Management Program and the Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 .............................................................................................................. 11 1.6 Partner Agencies and Organizations ........................................................................................ 12 1.6.1 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ............................................................................... 12 1.6.2 Other Partners .............................................................................................................................................. 12 1.7 Measuring Progress ........................................................................................................................ 13 1.7.1 MeasuraBle OBjectives .............................................................................................................................. 13 1.7.2 Land Conditions and Water Quality..................................................................................................... 13 1.7.3 Focused Implementation in Small Geographic Areas ................................................................... 14 1.8 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adaptive Management ........................................................... 15 1.8.1 Agricultural Water Quality Monitoring .............................................................................................. 15 1.8.2 Biennial Reviews and Adaptive Management ................................................................................. 15 Chapter 2: Local Background ...................................................................................................... 17 2.1 Local Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................................ 17 2.1.1 Local Advisory Committee (LAC).......................................................................................................... 17 2.1.2 Local Management Agency ...................................................................................................................... 17 2.2 Area Plan and Regulations: Development and History ...................................................... 17 2.3 Geographical and Physical Setting ............................................................................................. 18 Inland Rogue Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan February 6, 2018 2.3.1 Geographic and Programmatic Scope ................................................................................................. 18 2.3.2 Map of the Management Area ................................................................................................................ 19 2.3.3 Location, Water Resources, Land Use, Land Ownership, Agriculture ................................... 19 2.3.4 CannaBis .......................................................................................................................................................... 22 2.4 Agricultural Water Quality in the Management Area ......................................................... 22 2.4.1 Local Issues of Concern ............................................................................................................................. 22 2.4.2 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies and Basin TMDLs ........................................................... 24 2.4.3 Groundwater Resources ........................................................................................................................... 26 2.4.4 Beneficial Uses .............................................................................................................................................. 29 2.5 Prevention and Control Measures ............................................................................................. 32 2.5.1 How the AgWQM Area Plan Addresses the Temperature Standard ...................................... 32 2.5.2 How the AgWQM Area Plan Addresses the Bacteria Standard ................................................ 34 2.5.3 Sedimentation ............................................................................................................................................... 34 2.5.4 Nutrients ......................................................................................................................................................... 34 2.5.5 Dissolved Oxygen ........................................................................................................................................ 34 2.5.6 pH ....................................................................................................................................................................... 35 2.5.7 Menu of Better Management Practices .............................................................................................. 35 2.5.8 CZARA .............................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • South Fork of Little Butte Creek Area Naming Proposals
    South Fork of Little Butte Creek Area Naming Proposals Presented by Dr. Alice G. Knotts INTRODUCTION We begin by thanking the Oregon Geographic Names Board for its careful work exhibited and accomplished in recent years for naming geographical features in the State of Oregon. We have identified some physical features in the area of the South Fork of Little Butte Creek located in Jackson County and put forth name suggestions and proposals. We believe that most of them are located on public lands of the U.S. Forest Service or the BLM, but the Knotts Cliff is on private land. 1 Naming Proposals for the South Fork of Little Butte Creek Area Identified in geographic order of approach from Medford, the road up the South Fork of Little Butte Creek and the Soda Springs trail 1009 that follows upstream Dead Indian Creek that is proposed to be named Latgawa Creek. 1. Hole-in-the-Rock Name a rock arch located on top of a hill NW of Poole Hill. Hole-in-the-Rock has been recorded on a BLM map but not with GNIS. 2. Pilgrim Cave Name a rock shelf with ancient campfire smoked walls. A shelter for travelers for thousands of years. 3. Knotts Bluff Name a cliff that defines the northern side of a canyon through which runs the S. Fork of Little Butte Creek. 4. Ross Point Name a prominent point on Knotts Cliff above the cave. 5. Latgawa Pinnacles Name a group of rocky pinnacles located near Camp Latgawa. 6. Marjorie Falls Name a water slide on Latgawa Creek upstream from the soda springs.
    [Show full text]
  • Temperatures Cool by Shading the Stream from Solar Radiation. These
    Chapter 3 Affected Environment Conde Shell temperatures cool by shading the stream from solar radiation. These trees and shrubs also contribute nutrients to the system as coarse organic material that is crucial to the macroinvertebrate communities that support fish and other aquatic organisms. Large wood has been identified as a limiting factor in Dead Indian and Conde Creek systems.5 The effects of large wood on stream form and function are positive, creating pools, trapping sediment, providing cover for fish and other aquatic species, and stabilizing banks during high flow events. Beaver have historically contributed wood in the form of beaver dams, to these systems. Beaver dams are present in the upper section of Dead Indian but absent in Conde Creek. Two dams were observed on Dead Indian Creek, below the confluence with Conde Creek.6 South Fork of Little Butte Creek and tributaries have been identified by Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) (1994) as water quality limited under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. From the mouth to Beaver Dam Creek, South Fork of Little Butte Creek is water quality limited due to flow modification, habitat modification, sediment, and summer temperature. Dead Indian and Conde Creeks are limited by summer high temperatures, exceeding the maximum 7-day average for temperature (>64 F). Temperature monitors placed throughout Conde Creek and upper Dead Indian Creek during the summer of 1998 found water temperatures ranging from 65 - 77 F in late July. 7 The geology of an area plays an important role in describing fish habitat through the physical processes driving a system.
    [Show full text]
  • Little Butte Creek Watershed Assessment
    Little Butte Creek Watershed Assessment Little Butte Creek Watershed Council August 2003 Abstract The Little Butte Creek Watershed Assessment has been prepared for the Little Butte Creek Watershed Council with funding from the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). The Assessment was prepared using the guidelines set forth in the Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board’s 1999 Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual. The purpose of this document is to assess the current conditions and trends of human caused and ecologic processes within the Little Butte Creek Watershed and compare them with historic conditions. Many important ecological processes within the watershed have been degraded over the last 150 years of human activity. This Assessment details those locations and processes that are in need of restoration as well as those that are operating as a healthy system. The Assessment was conducted primarily at the 5th field watershed level, that of the entire Little Butte Creek Watershed. List and describe field watershed levels below. Where possible, the analyses was refined to the smaller 6th field watershed level, thirteen of which exist within the Little Butte Creek Watershed. The assessment also notes gaps in data and lists recommendations for future research and data collection. It is intended that this document, and the Little Butte Creek Watershed Action Plan be used as guides for future research and watershed protection and enhancement over the next decade. The document was developed using existing data. No new data was collected for this project. Where data was lacking, it was detailed for future work and study. Acknowledgements This assessment was compiled and written by Steve Mason.
    [Show full text]
  • ECR Summary.Pdf
    ISSUES AND CONCERNS AS RELATED TO EXISTING CONDITIONS Introduction The stakeholders who participated in the scoping process, through six four hour meetings, identified over 100 issues that were of concern to landowners, educators, conservationists, farmers, foresters, recreationists, and agency representatives. These issues were categorized into fourteen groups, and from these, the Watershed Advisory Committee (WAC) defined the top ten issues and concerns for the watershed. Please note that the numbers in parentheses after each issue/concern correspond to the order in which issues were raised. They are in no way intended to indicate rank or priority. These concerns were further refined for consensus on exact wording. The top ten issues are as follows: 1. Increased population over the last ten years in the canyon and surrounding areas, as well as future growth, has increased recreational pressures in the watershed without an increased infrastructure to accommodate the use. (Note: infrastructure has not kept up with the increase in population, i.e. the number of wardens.) 2. The decline of the fisheries mainly due to water diversions and lack of screening has resulted in Endangered Species Candidate listing for the spring run Chinook salmon leading to restrictions on Sport fishing and elimination of salmon and trout fishing, and could lead to further watershed-wide restrictions for multiple uses: agriculture, timber management, recreation, urban development, and property rights. 3. The current fuel load in the watershed is at an unacceptable level due to natural response and man- made interventions. 4. Inadequate timber management regulations and practices have potential impact on water quality. 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Methods for Value of Watershed Restoration 2.2.12B
    A Brief Economic Analysis of Watershed Restoration Investments: A Case Study of Southwestern Oregon This methodology report was prepared for the Whole Watershed Restoration Initiative and accompanies Ecotrust’s brochure: “The Restoration Economy: Investing in natural capital for the benefit of communities and salmon in Southwestern Oregon” Prepared by Ecotrust Taylor Hesselgrave, Economic Analyst Cathy Kellon, Water & Watersheds Program Director Kristen Sheeran, Ph.D. Updated May 15, 2012 721 NW 9th Ave, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97209 www.ecotrust.org Table of Contents ABOUT THE WWRI AND THIS STUDY ...................................................................................... 3 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 4 2. RESTORATION & THE LOCAL ECONOMY: Southwestern Oregon ................................ 2 2.1. Methods ............................................................................................................................. 2 2.2. Results ............................................................................................................................... 6 2.3. Single Project Analysis: The Rehabilitation of Little Butte Creek ....................................... 8 3. ADDITIONAL BENEFITS FROM RESTORATION ............................................................... 9 3.1. Non-Market Benefits Of Restoration ................................................................................ 10 3.2. The Value
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Streamflow Records in Rogue River Basin, Oregon
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 187 \ EVALUATION OF STREAMFLOW RECORDS IN ROGUE RIVER BASIN, OREGON B!y Donald Rkhaideon UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 187 EVALUATION OF STREAMFLOW RECORDS IN ROGUE RIVER BASIN, OREGON By Donald Richardson Washington, D. C., 1952 Free on application to the Geological Surrey, Washington 25, D. C. ' CONTENTS Page Page Abstract................................. 1 Syllabus of gaging-stations records--Con. Introduction............................. 1 Gaging-station records-Continued Purpose and Scope...................... 1 Rogue River Continued Acknowledgments........................ 1 Little Butte Creek at Lake Creek... 25 Physical features- of the basin........... 2 Little Butte Creek above Eagle Utilization of water in the basin........ 2 Point............................ 25 Water resources data for Rogue River basin 5 Little Butte Creek near Eagle Streamflow records ..................... 5 Point............................ 25 Storage reservoirs..................... 6 Little Butte Creek below Eagle Adequacy of data....................... 6 Point............................ 26 Syllabus of gaging-station records....... 13 Emigrant Creek (head of Bear Creek) Explanation of data .................... 13 near Ashland..................... 27 Gaging-station records................. 13 Emigrant Creek below Walker Creek, Rogue River above Bybee Creek........ 13 near Ashland..................... 28 Rogue River above
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Little Butte Creek Analysis Area Water Quality Restoration Plan
    Water Quality Restoration Plan Southern Oregon Coastal Basin Lower Little Butte Creek Analysis Area Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Medford District Ashland Resource Area Butte Falls Resource Area October 2010 Lower Little Butte Creek Analysis Area at a Glance Hydrologic Unit Code Number (Little 1710030708 Butte Creek) WQRP Area/Ownership Total: 112,922 acres BLM: 27,828 acres (24.6%) Private: 85,094 acres (75.4%) 303(d) Stream Miles Assessed Total: 62.7 miles BLM Ownership: 9.1 miles 303(d) Listed Parameters Temperature, Bacteria, Dissolved Oxygen, Sedimentation Key Resources and Uses Salmonids, domestic, aesthetic Known Human Activities Agriculture, forestry, roads, rural residential development, and recreation Natural Factors Geology: volcanics (basaltic andesite, basalt, and andesite) Soils: various series and complexes Water Quality Restoration Plan for BLM-Administered Lands in the Lower Little Butte Creek Analysis Area – October 2010 Statement of Purpose This water quality restoration plan is prepared to meet the requirements of Section 303(d) of the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act. Water Quality Restoration Plan for BLM-Administered Lands in the Lower Little Butte Creek Analysis Area – October 2010 Table of Contents Page Element 1 Condition Assessment and Problem Description 1 A. Introduction 1 B. Watershed Characterization 1 C. Temperature 13 D. Bacteria 20 Element 2 Goals and Objectives 23 Element 3 Proposed Management Measures 25 Element 4 Time Line for Implementation 26 Element 5 Responsible Parties 27 Element 6 Reasonable Assurance of Implementation 27 Element 7 Monitoring and Evaluation 27 Element 8 Public Involvement 29 Element 9 Costs and Funding 30 Element 10 Citation to Legal Authorities 30 References 31 List of Preparers 32 Water Quality Restoration Plan for BLM-Administered Lands in the Lower Little Butte Creek Analysis Area – October 2010 List of Tables Page 1.
    [Show full text]
  • North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed Water Quality
    Water Quality Restoration Plan Southern Oregon Coastal Basin North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Medford District Ashland Resource Area Butte Falls Resource Area Lakeview District Klamath Falls Resource Area May 2006 North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed at a Glance Hydrologic Unit Code Number (Little 1710030708 Butte Creek) WQRP Area/Ownership Total: 125,778 acres BLM: 26,959 acres (21%) U. S. Forest Service: 59,875 acres (48%) Bureau of Reclamation: 5 acres (<.01%) Private: 38,939 acres (31%) 303(d) Stream Miles Assessed Total: 65.4 miles BLM Ownership: 15.7 miles 303(d) Listed Parameters Temperature, Sedimentation, E. Coli, pH Key Resources and Uses Salmonids, domestic, aesthetic Known Human Activities Agriculture, forestry, roads, recreation, rural residential development Natural Factors Geology: volcanic Soils: various series and complexes Statement of Purpose This water quality restoration plan is prepared to meet the requirements of Section 303(d) of the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act. Table of Contents Page Element 1 Condition Assessment and Problem Description 1 A. Introduction 1 B. Watershed Characterization 4 C.Temperature 16 D. Sedimentation 23 E.E.Coli 31 F.pH 34 Element 2 Goals and Objectives 36 Element 3 Proposed Management Measures 39 Element 4 Time Line for Implementation 40 Element 5 Responsible Parties 41 Element 6 Reasonable Assurance of Implementation 41 Element 7 Monitoring and Evaluation 42 Element 8 Public Involvement 44 Element 9 Costs and Funding 44 Element 10 Citation to Legal Authorities 45 References 46 List of Preparers 48 List of Tables Page 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality
    Chapter 5 Water Quality Introduction Overall water quality in Butte Creek is considered to be good to excellent in the upper portions of the watershed, and degrades in quality lower in the system. Water quality can vary seasonally, corresponding to precipitation and diversions. It can also vary year to year depending on drought or wet conditions. Large storm events have a great influence on things, increasing turbidity and mobilizing pollutants and salts. Low flows can reduce water quality by concentrating contaminants. The following sections outline desired conditions, illustrate current and historical monitoring, and highlight data gaps regarding various water quality parameters. Water Quality Goals The Department of Water Resources (DWR) has compiled a list "Water Quality Goals," listed in Appendix I, that can be used to compare the range of levels that are described later in this chapter. Sources of Water Quality Monitoring Information The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Northern District in Red Bluff coordinates the most comprehensive monitoring of surface water quality. Information was provided from older, pre-computer data stored on microfiche as well as newer information that was downloaded from their computer system. The Draft Butte Basin Report was provided to assist in "...efforts in developing management plans for Butte Creek." It contains synthesized data and documents from DWR, the Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR), the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB), the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), the California Department of Fish and Game (CCDFG), the Department of Health Services (DHS), and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). The appendices contain the raw data for many physical parameters, as well as graphical displays of certain parameters over time.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Rogue Step District
    OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE ROGUE FISH DISTRICT REPORT TITLE: Upper Rogue Smolt Trapping Project, 2001 STREAM: Bear, Little Butte, South Fork Big Butte, Slate and West Fork Evans Creeks and the Little Applegate River REPORT DATE: August 2001 AUTHOR: Jerry Vogt INTRODUCTION In March 1998, the Rogue District office of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) began a cooperative smolt trapping project with the Butte Falls Resource Area of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on Big Butte, Little Butte and West Fork Evans Creeks. In March 1999, the Ashland Ranger District of the U.S. Forest Service became a cooperator in this project, and smolt trap sites in addition to the 1998 sites were selected on Slate Creek, South Fork Big Butte Creek and the Little Applegate River. Trapping at these six sites was continued during the spring of 2000. In 2001, access to the trap site on Big Butte Creek was lost, so a replacement trap site on Bear Creek was selected. This trapping project is part of a statewide effort by ODFW to monitor juvenile salmonid production as outlined in the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. The objectives of this project were to 1) obtain an estimate of the production of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead (O. mykiss) smolts; 2) determine the timing of outmigration of smolts; and 3) determine the sizes of smolts migrating from each of these stream systems. An objective specific to the South Fork Big Butte Creek site was to determine the extent of anadromous fish production above the natural waterfall near the town of Butte Falls.
    [Show full text]
  • Medford's Messenger Quarterly Planning Update, Winter 2018
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Medford District Medford’s Messenger Winter 2018 Mount McLoughlin (left) and Brown Mountain (right) Medford BLM’s Mission Working together to sustain and enhance resilient landscapes and quality of life in southwest Oregon. Bureau of Land Management Medford District Office 3040 Biddle Road Medford, Oregon 97504 ii BLM/OR/WA/PL-18/002+1632 Medford’s Messenger a publication of Bureau of Land Management Medford District Office Winter 2018 Dear Public Land User: elcome to the Winter 2018 edition of the Medford’s Messenger. The purpose of our publication is to provide you with information on proposed and ongoing activities on the Medford District. It contains listings of projects by field office that have been recentlyW completed and identifies newly proposed projects. We are seeking ideas and comments from those who may be affected by our multiple-use management programs. Your comments, opinions, and suggestions are appreciated and very important to us. They help us make informed decisions, take sound land management actions, and improve our projects. Our intent is to increase the public’s awareness of BLM issues, activities, and opportunities. This planning update provides a brief description of activities occurring in various programs across the Medford District, as well as descriptions of new projects we are considering. Additional project information can be obtained from the contacts listed in the descriptions. These contacts are familiar with their projects and can answer your questions and provide more details. We are interested in receiving information you wish to share concerning any of the projects or project areas listed in this planning update.
    [Show full text]
  • Siskiyouproject-Blm Herbicide Impact Statement 2.Pdf
    SISKIYOU PROJECT Protecting the Siskiyou Wild Rivers region for future generations December 31, 2009 Edward W. Shepard, State Director United States Department of Interior Oregon/Washington Bureau of Land Management PO Box 2965 Portland, OR 97208 [email protected] Regarding: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM [Bureau of Land Management] Lands in Oregon Dear Mr. Shepard: The Siskiyou Project recommends you choose Alternative 1‐No Herbicide Use. Complex mixtures of pesticides commonly occur in fish habitats. Studies have shown that over 90% of waterways affected by urban or agricultural land uses contain two or more pesticides (Northwest Fisheries Science Center 2009). New information (as per NEPA) published since the Biological Opinion Issued by the NMFS on June 26, 2007 for the PEIS indicates that “[s]ingle‐ chemical risk assessments are likely to underestimate the impacts of these insecticides on salmon in river systems where mixtures occur. Moreover, mixtures of pesticides that have been commonly reported in salmon habitats may pose a more important challenge for species recovery than previously anticipated” (Laetz et al. 2009: 348). Although Laetz et al. (2009) did not test the herbicides proposed for use by BLM, the fact remains that pesticides found to be not lethal singly may become lethal when mixed (Laetz 2009:348) and with toxicity that greatly exceeds what would be expected from merely additive effects (i.e. synergistic effects). The DEIS:196 acknowledges the potential for synergistic effects: “[t]here is some uncertainty in this evaluation because herbicides in tank mixes may not interact in an additive manner; this may overestimate risk if the interaction is antagonistic, or it may underestimate risk if the interaction is synergistic.
    [Show full text]