DOCSLIB.ORG

Lost Creek Forest Management Project Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lost Creek Forest Management Project Environmental Assessment Lost Creek Forest Management Project Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-ORWA-M050-2016-0001-EA July 2016 It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. Dear Reader: The Butte Falls Resource Area, Medford District Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has completed the environmental analysis for the proposed Lost Creek Forest Management Project. This document, the Lost Creek Forest Management Project Environmental Assessment (EA), provides a description of the project and Project Area, background information, and the possible effects of implementing the project. The EA analyzed the following activities proposed on BLM-administered lands located northeast of the city of Medford, Oregon in the Lost Creek-Rogue River 5th field watershed and a small portion of the South Fork Rogue River 5th field watershed (see Maps 1-12): Forest Management . Timber harvest—1,209 acres, Timber Yarding . Ground-based—937 acres . Skyline-cable—71 acres . Helicopter—165 Transportation Management . Temporary route construction—0.83 mile . Temporary route reconstruction—0.29 mile . Road reconstruction—0.34 mile . Road renovation—96.57 miles . Haul routes—96.91 miles . Wet season haul routes—59.08 miles . Wet season haul routes with rock needs—9.85 miles . Roadside vegetation maintenance—16.75 miles . Partial road decommissioning—3.15 miles . Full road decommissioning—1.54 miles . Pre-designated skid trails—0.62 miles . New landings—5 helicopter, 14 log, and 2 service landings Treatment of Forest Management Activity Slash . Lop and Scatter . Hand pile and hand pile burn . Underburn . Biomass removal Water source restoration—5 sites Meadow Restoration – 106 acres The 30-day comment period for this EA will begin when the legal notice is published in the Medford Mail Tribune newspaper on July 1, 2016. Any comments you may have regarding this project must be received by August 1, 2016 to be considered in final decisions for this proposal. The BLM will host a field tour of the Lost Creek Project area on Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. The visit will include a selection of proposed harvest areas, including a stand proposed for Regeneration Harvest, Selective Thinning, and Density Management. We will also visit some proposed temporary route locations. Interested individuals should RSVP by July 8 to Stephanie Kelleher (email [email protected] or call 541-618-2205). The field tour will begin from the public entrance of the Medford Interagency Office at the address below. Please send your comments to Bureau of Land Management, Attention: Stephanie Kelleher, 3040 Biddle Road, Medford, OR 97504, or e-mail your comments to [email protected] (Attention: Stephanie Kelleher). You may also submit comments through the BLM’s national register website by selecting “Comment on Document” in the Documents section of the webpage for this EA. Questions on the proposed project should be directed to Stephanie Kelleher at 541-618-2205 or Nick McDaniel at 541-618-2356. Please note that all written submissions from private individuals in response to this notice, including your name, address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information may be made available for public inspection and disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, unless you specifically request confidentiality. If you wish to withhold your personal identifying information from public review or disclosure, you must state this at the beginning of your written comment and provide justification for doing so. We will honor such requests to the extent allowed by law, but you should be aware that release of that information may be required under certain circumstances. All submissions from organizations or businesses and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organization or business will be made available for public inspection and disclosure in their entirety. Thank you for your continued interest in the Lost Creek Forest Management Project. Your input plays an important role in our land management decisions. Teresa J. Trulock Field Manager Butte Falls Resource Area CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 WHAT IS THE BLM PROPOSING? .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 WHERE IS THE PROJECT LOCATED?.................................................................................. 1-1 1.4 WHY IS THE BLM PROPOSING THIS PROJECT? .............................................................. 1-3 1.4.1 Need for the Lost Creek Project ............................................................................................... 1-3 1.5 DECISION FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................................... 1-5 1.6 LAND USE CONFORMANCE AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ......................................... 1-6 1.6.1 Conformance with Land Use Plans.......................................................................................... 1-6 1.6.2 Special Status Species Policy................................................................................................... 1-6 1.6.3 Statutes and Regulations .......................................................................................................... 1-7 1.7 RELEVANT ASSESSMENTS AND PLANS .............................................................................. 1-7 1.8 SCOPING AND ISSUES ............................................................................................................... 1-9 1.8.1 Relevant Issues......................................................................................................................... 1-9 1.8.2 Issues Considered but not Further Analyzed ......................................................................... 1-10 CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT....................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Treatment Area Selection ........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2.2 Transportation Management Inventory and Assessment ......................................................... 2-5 2.3 PROPOSED PROJECTS .............................................................................................................. 2-6 2.3.1 Forest Management .................................................................................................................. 2-6 2.3.2 Transportation Management .................................................................................................. 2-12 2.3.3 Water Source Restoration ...................................................................................................... 2-14 2.3.4 Meadow Restoration .............................................................................................................. 2-14 2.4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL ........................................................................... 2-14 2.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ...................................................................................................... 2-14 2.4.2 Alternatives 2 and 3 ............................................................................................................... 2-14 2.5 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES .............................................................................................. 2-16 2.5.1 Common to All Proposed Projects ......................................................................................... 2-16 2.5.2 Timber Harvest and Small Diameter Thinning ...................................................................... 2-19 2.5.3 Timber Harvest ...................................................................................................................... 2-22 2.5.4 Road Maintenance, Decommissioning, and Quarry Work .................................................... 2-24 2.5.5 Fuels Treatments Associated with Timber Harvest and Small Diameter Thinning .............. 2-26 2.5.6 Water Source Restoration ...................................................................................................... 2-27 2.5.7 Meadow Restoration .............................................................................................................. 2-27 2.6 ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................... 2-28 2.7 MONITORING ............................................................................................................................ 2-31 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Brief History of the Project Area ............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Motor Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest FSEIS
    United States Department of Agriculture FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Volume 1 Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest for the greatest good September 2015 VicinityVicinity Map Map OREGON Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest High Cascades Powers 5 ¨¦§ Grants Pass Wild Rivers Gold Beach Medford I Siskiyou Mountains Wild Rivers OREGON CALIFORNIA The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Lead Agency: TARGET CenterUSDA at Forest(202) 720 Service-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaintIn accordance of discrimination, with Federal write civil to rights USDA, law Director, and U.S. Office Department of of Civil Rights,Rogue 1400 River-Siskiyou Independence Avenue,National S.W., Forest Washington,Agriculture D.C. 20250 -(USDA)9410, or civilcall (800)rights 795 regulations-3272 (voice) and or policies, (202) the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to CITY of SHADY COVE Jackson County, Oregon
    Welcome to CITY OF SHADY COVE Jackson County, Oregon “The jewel of the Upper Rogue” ABOUT SHADY COVE HISTORY As early as the 1870s, pioneers looking for the promise of free land were drawn to the Shady Cove area where tiny rural schools served the hard-working families. A post office was opened in the area in 1882 with the community known as Etna. The post office was eventually moved to the community of Trail – just upriver of Shady Cove. How Shady Cove acquired its name is still a mystery. Some believe in the early 1900s, a man named “Barnes” laid out a town site on the east side of the river in an area that the locals still call “The Cove.” The Cove is a bend in the Rogue River located a few hundred yards upstream from the Shady Cove Bridge. However, the name “Shady Cove” didn’t become official until 1939 when a post office was once again established within the community. Periodic floods have punctuated the city’s history, with the first flood recorded in 1869, followed by others in 1890, 1927, and 1964. In the 1960s Shady Cove’s population increased from a few hundred to more than 1,300. Shady Cove was incorporated as a city in 1972. Additional growth came with the construction of Lost Creek Lake and Dam on the Rogue River nine miles north of Shady Cove. At first the Shady Cove economy was based upon the timber industry. In the 1980s the once thriving timber industry in the region began declining.
    [Show full text]
  • Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project Ferc Project No
    PROSPECT NO. 3 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. P-2337 Final License Application for Major Project—Existing Dam Volume III Exhibit E—Environmental Exhibit Appendices December 2016 PROSPECT NO. 3 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. P-2337 Final License Application for Major Project—Existing Dam Volume I: Initial Statement and Exhibits A, B, C, D, F, G, and H* Volume II: Exhibit E* Volume III: Exhibit E Appendices Volume IV: Exhibit F Appendices (CEII)* (*Provided under separate cover) VOLUME III TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents APPENDIX A. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN ........................................ 186 APPENDIX B. FISH PASSAGE FACILITIES OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN ....................................................................................................................... 214 APPENDIX C. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................... 226 APPENDIX D. HISTORIC PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................... 270 APPENDIX E. CONSULTATION CONTACT LIST ........................................................... 358 Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337) December 2016 Final License Application Page iii APPENDIX A. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337) December 2016 Final License Application Page E-186 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. P-2337 Prepared by: PacifiCorp Portland, OR August 2016 PacifiCorp Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project Erosion and
    [Show full text]
  • FERC Project No. 2337-077
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Prospect No. 3 Project FERC Project No. 2337-077 Oregon Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 October 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. iv LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................... v ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS............................................................... vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... ix 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Application ......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of Action and Need for Power .............................................. 1 1.2.1 Purpose of Action .................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Need for Power ........................................................................ 3 1.3 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements ............................................ 3 1.3.1 Federal Power Act ................................................................... 3 1.3.2 Clean Water Act ...................................................................... 4 1.3.3 Endangered Species Act .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rogue River Watershed MP 60 Percent 25Jun2018
    10 Bibliography Rogue River Regional Master Plan DRAFT 247 10. Bibliography References Census. 2017. Annual Estimates of the Resident Operations Branch. Revised 2004. Population, 2016. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Corps. 2008. Safety and Health Requirements. EM 385-1- Aikens, C. Melvin, Thomas J. Connolly, and Dennis L. Division. May 2017 1. Jenkins. 2011. Oregon Archaeology. Oregon State Census. 2017a. American Community Survey, 2012-2016 Corps. 2008a. WSES 08-054 Elk Creek. U.S. Army Corps University Press, Corvallis. 5-Year Dataset. American Fact Finder, U.S. Census of Engineers, Portland District, Portland, OR. Beckham, Stephen Dow. 1990. History of Western Oregon Bureau. Corps. 2008b. Email from Michael Gross, Corps, to Jim Since 1846. In Handbook of North American Census. March 2015. Projections of the Size and Buck and Kenneth Duncan, Corps, titled Elk Creek Indians, Vol. 7: Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014-2060. update. Suttles, pp. 180–188. William C. Sturtevant, general March 2015. P25-1143. Corps. 2011. Recreation Strategic Plan. April 2011. U.S. editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2015/ Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. Bell, Chris. 2011. Oregon Inventory of Historic Properties, demo/p25-1143.html Corps. 2012. Elk Creek Project, Jackson County, Oregon, Section 106 Documentation Form for the Crater Connolly, Thomas J., Jane E. Benjamin, Brian L. O’Neill, Master Plan. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland Lake Highway Historic District. Prepared for Oregon and Dennis L. Jenkins. 1994. Archaeological District. Published October 2012. Department of Transportation. Investigations at Two Sites on the Upper Rogue Corps.
    [Show full text]
  • Lost Creek Lake and Applegate Lake Oregon
    Public Information: Lost Creek Lake WELCOME PROJECT DATA U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District LOST CREEK PROJECT P.O. Box 2946 and Applegate Lake Lost Creek Measure Metric Portland, Oregon 97208-2946 US Army Corps Lost Creek Lake, situated on the main stem of the Rouge River, Oregon Dam http://www.usace.army.mil of Engineers R is located approximately half way between Crater Lake National Length 3,750 ft 1,143 m Portland District Park and the city of Medford, Oregon in a scenic valley basin. 2008 Lost Creek Lake is a multi-purpose project built and operated Height 327 ft 100 m by the Portland District, US Army Corps of Engineers. Project Elevation (NGVD*) 1,872 ft 570 m purposes include flood damage reduction, power generation, and Total kilowatt capacity 49 mw water supply, with water quality, fish and wildlife enhancement Lake TO ENJOY A SAFE OUTING and recreation as important benefits provided by Lost Creek Lake. Length 10 mi 16 km OBSERVE THESE SAFETY TIPS Area when full 3,430 ac 1,389 ha Lost Creek Lake offers quality facilities and recreational BOATING opportunities for visitors. There are over twenty developed parks Applegate ALWAYS wear a personal flotation device (PFD) and including campgrounds, picnic areas, trailheads, boat ramps, Measure Metric observe posted boating speeds and regulations. fishing/shoreline access points and group use areas. Thirty miles Dam of trail, maintained by the Corps of Engineers, surround the lake, Length 1,300 ft 396.2 m WATER SKIING portions of which are in the scenic Rogue River Trail system.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Merced Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology
    UC Merced Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Title Takelma Prehistory: Perspectives from Archaeology in the Elk Creek Dam Project in Southwest Oregon Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/75d4392d Journal Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 34(2) ISSN 0191-3557 Author Minor, Rick Publication Date 2014 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology | Vol. 34, No. 2 (2014) | pp. 247–272 Takelma Prehistory: Perspectives from Archaeology in the Elk Creek Dam Project in Southwest Oregon RICK MINOR Heritage Research Associates, Inc. 1997 Garden Avenue, Eugene, OR 97403 Between 1965 and 1989, archaeological investigations in connection with the Elk Creek Dam Project, some 60 km. north of the California border in Jackson County, Oregon, documented a record of Native American occupation and activity that began at least by 4,000 – 5,000 years ago and continued until shortly before contact between the Takelma people and Euro-Americans in the mid-nineteenth century. The dam project was cancelled in 1988, and a final synthesis of the investigations was never prepared. This article highlights some of the important contributions made by the substantial archaeological research conducted for the Elk Creek Dam Project. The ancestors of the Takelma appear to have had a close relationship with prehistoric peoples to the east and south over the last several thousand years, with the evidence pointing to the existence of an interaction sphere connecting the Northern Takelma with native groups in northern California in late prehistoric times. he Takelma Indians, whose language by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Reservoir Management Strategy Report
    RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AT LOST CREEK LAKE IN RELATION TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ROGUE RIVER SPRING CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE DECEMBER 2009 INTRODUCTION In September of 2007, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted a conservation plan for spring Chinook salmon (CHS) in the Rogue River of southwest Oregon. This plan called for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to submit a suite of requests, to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), in relation to reservoir management operations and reservoir releases at Lost Creek Lake. As detailed in the CHS conservation plan, there are a variety of actions that, if implemented, are designed to increase the production of wild CHS in areas downstream of Lost Creek Lake. These actions are desirable because (1) fishery enhancement is a primary authorized USACE project purpose and (2) there were unforeseen negative impacts on CHS production and life history. The purpose of this multi-agency document is to describe recent USACE progress and future actions related to the conservation plan actions requested by ODFW. A copy of the conservation plan is available on the ODFW website at the following address: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/rogue_spring_chinook_conservation_plan.asp Action 1.1 Request that Lost Creek Lake be managed to reduce the intensity of peak flows during the period eggs and sac-fry incubate in the gravel. USACE Progress to Date: The USACE routinely operates this way whenever possible. We recognize that in years of high water supply maintaining the reservoir below the rule curve during refill enhances the capability for flood reduction and provides the potential to minimize peak flows downstream of the dam for the benefit of fish.
    [Show full text]
  • LOST CREEK LAKE and ELK CREEK Along the Rogue-Umpqua
    Public Information: WELCOME PROJECT DATA U.S. Army Corps of Engineers LOST CREEK LAKE Portland District LOST CREEK LAKE P.O. Box 2946 AND ELK CREEK Lost Creek Lake, situated on the main stem of the Rogue River, is Lost Creek Lake Portland, Oregon 97208-2946 about halfway between Crater Lake National Park and Medford, Measure Metric http://www.usace.army.mil Ore. along the Rogue-Umpqua Scenic Byway. Lost Creek Lake is Dam a multi-purpose project built and operated by the Portland District, Length 3,750 ft 1,143 m U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Its purposes include flood damage Height 327 ft 100 m reduction, power generation and water supply, with water quality, Elevation (NGVD*) 1,872 ft 570 m SAFETY TIPS DURING YOUR VISIT fish and wildlife enhancement and recreation as important benefits. Total megawatt capacity 50 mw Lake Lost Creek Lake offers quality facilities and recreational Length 10 mi 16 km LOST CREEK LAKE US Army Corps opportunities for visitors. There are over 20 developed parks Area when full 3,430 ac 1,389 ha of Engineers ® including campgrounds, picnic areas, trailheads, boat ramps, BOATING fishing/shoreline access points and group use areas. Thirty miles Portland District ALWAYS wear a life jacket and observe posted of trail maintained by the Corps of Engineers surround the lake, Elk Creek boating speeds, “No Wake Area” signs and all portions of which are in the scenic Rogue River Trail system. Measure Metric boating regulations. Be cautious of underwater Stewart State Park, operated by Oregon State Parks, has over Dam (remaining): 200 campsites, a marina with a store and café, and many other hazards and floating debris.
    [Show full text]
  • Unknown Rogue River Spring Chinook Tragedy
    Unknown Rogue River Spring Chinook Tragedy January 23, 2019 Steve Beyerlin The Environmental Impact of Lost Creek Dam Quoting 1972 EIS and the 1962 Project Authorization Document “Any flood control plan detrimental to the fishery resource would be unacceptable, both locally and to the Federal and State fishery agencies” This statement came from a public meeting in 1956 and has followed all documentation forward… Oregon Strong, LLC 2 The Effects of Adverse Management on Rogue Spring Salmon Populations 1972 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Lost Creek Project “The project will effectively isolate the upstream drainage area from use by anadromous fish. Maintenance of anadromous and resident fish populations will be dependent upon the fish hatchery (Cole Rivers) for artificial spawning and rearing” 33% of the Rogue Spring Chinook Spawning Habitat is lost due to the Lost Creek Project. The specified contribution of Cole Rivers fish hatchery is 13020 adults. ODFW and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) have failed to adhere to the (EIS) of 1972. For the past 14 years Cole Rivers Hatchery has not met the agreed to quota. Violation of the EIS and Dam Authorization has damaged the Rogue basin economy. These violations extend to the contract with local governments and the public. Faulty, well challenged, assumptions by USACE concerning gravel migration have severely harmed Natural Spawning. Oregon Strong, LLC 3 Cole Rivers Hatchery mitigation requirement per EIS: Produce 13,020 returning Adult Spring Chinook “to the hatchery” Reported Return 1972 EIS Required Mitigation Level of 13,020 Adults Less Jacks and Wild Return / Adults Only 4 Oregon Strong, LLC Violation of the Environmental Impact Statement of 1972 and Dam Authorization Have Damaged the Local Economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Non-Motorized Boater Participation and Priorities
    Oregon Non-Motorized Boater Participation and Priorities Report in support of the 2015-2024 Oregon Trails Plan May 27, 2015 By Kreg Lindberg and Tyson Bertone-Riggs Contact: [email protected] Conducted by Oregon State University for the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Acknowledgments This project was funded by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD, Oregon State Parks) and the Oregon State Marine Board (OSMB). OPRD and OSMB staff made significant contributions in the development of the questionnaire and provision of associated maps. We thank the project planning advisory committee (see footnote on page 6) for their input during questionnaire development. We also thank Mark Needham and Eric White of Oregon State University for their input during questionnaire development and reporting. Lastly, we thank all the non-motorized boaters who completed the questionnaire. 1 Table of contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................ 5 1.2. Data presentation .................................................................................................................. 5 1.3. Survey methodology .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 Project Description 2.1 Project Authorization and Purpose
    Chapter 2 Project Description 2.1 Project Authorization and Purpose Elk Creek Lake is a unit of the Rogue River Basin Project authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1962 (Public Law 87-874, 87th Congress, Second Session, House Document 566, approved 21 September 1962). The project was modified by the Public Works Appropriation Act of 1971, dated 7 October 1970, PL 91-439. Authorized purposes of the Elk Creek Lake project include flood control, irrigation, water supply, recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement, and water quality control. 2.2 Project History The Rogue River Basin Project (RRBP), which includes three multi-purpose dams, was designed to operate as a system to relieve flooding in the Rogue River Basin and to accomplish additional purposes as authorized. Planning for the three dam system began in the 1930's in response to recurring flood problems in the basin. A water resources development plan was submitted to Congress in 1962. Lost Creek Dam was completed in 1976, and Applegate Dam in 1980. Construction of Elk Creek Project began in 1971 with the acquisition of project lands, relocation of residents, and relocation of some roads and utilities. The main dam contract was successfully bid in April 1975. However, the state's Water Policy Review Board and the Governor of Oregon expressed a position of non-support for Elk Creek Lake and all bids were cancelled. Construction of the project was held in abeyance for approximately seven years to permit observations and evaluations of the extent of turbidity experienced in releases from Tost Creek and to reassess the present water needs in the region in light of changing land uses.
    [Show full text]