DOCSLIB.ORG

North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed Water Quality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Beneficial uses in the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed 1 2. Sensitive Beneficial Uses in the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed 1 3. Draft 2004 303(d) Listings in the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed 2 4. Ownership within the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed 7 5. Summary of Watershed Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands in the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed 15 6. 303(d) Temperature-Listed Reaches in the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek KeyWatershed 17 7. Temperature Summary for the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed 18 8. Percent-Effective Shade Targets for BLM-Managed Lands in the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed 22 9. 303(d) Sedimentation-Listed Reaches in the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek KeyWatershed 23 10. Substrate and Streambank Stability for Sedimentation-Listed Streams 24 11. BLM Ownership for Sedimentation-Listed Watersheds 26 12. Road Miles by Surface Type for BLM-Administered Lands and BLM-Controlled Roads on Non-BLM Lands 27 13. Road Miles on Slopes ≥ 60% for BLM-Administered Lands and BLM-Controlled Roads on Non-BLM Lands 27 14. Road Miles within Riparian Reserves for BLM-Administered Lands and BLM- Controlled Roads on Non-BLM Lands 27 15. Road Stream Crossings for BLM-Administered Lands and BLM-Controlled Roads on Non-BLM Lands 28 16. Allotments Containing Sedimentation-Listed Streams (BLM-Administered Lands) 29 17. Proper Functioning Condition Assessment for Sedimentation-Listed Stream Reaches on BLM-Administered Lands 30 18. 303(d) E. Coli-Listed Reaches in the North and South Forks Little Butte CreekKeyWatershed 32 19. 303(d) pH-Listed Reaches in the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed 34 20. Recovery Goals for BLM-Administered Lands in the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed 37 List of Figures Page 1. Location of the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed 4 2. Rogue Basin and the Upper Rogue Subbasin 5 3. Watersheds in the Upper Rogue Subbasin 6 4. BLM Land Ownership in the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed 7 5. Coho Distribution in the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed 11 6. Chinook Distribution in the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed 12 7. Steelhead Distribution in the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed 13 8. Resident Trout Distribution in the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed 14 9. Draft 2004 303(d) Temperature-Listed Streams in the North and South Forks Little ButteCreekKey Watershed 18 10. Draft 2004 303(d) Sedimentation-Listed Streams in the North and South Forks Little ButteCreekKey Watershed 24 11. Draft 2004 303(d) E. Coli-Listed Streams in the North and South Forks Little Butte CreekKeyWatershed 33 12. Draft 2004 303(d) pH-Listed Streams in the North and South Forks Little Butte CreekKeyWatershed 35 Water Quality Restoration Plan for BLM-Administered Lands in the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed – May 2006 Element 1. Condition Assessment and Problem Description A. Introduction This document describes how the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will meet Oregon water quality standards for 303(d) listed streams on BLM-administered lands within the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed. It contains information that will support the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) development of the Rogue Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Its organization is designed to be consistent with the DEQ's Rogue Basin Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) when it is completed. The area covered by this Water Quality Restoration Plan (WQRP) includes all lands managed by the BLM, Medford and Lakeview Districts within the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed, including the North and South Forks but not the mainstem Little Butte Creek. This area is referred to as the Key Watershed or plan area. Beneficial Uses The Oregon Environmental Quality Commission has adopted numeric and narrative water quality standards to protect designated beneficial uses (Table 1). In practice, water quality standards have been set at a level to protect the most sensitive uses. Cold-water aquatic life such as salmon and trout are the most sensitive beneficial uses (Table 2) in the Rogue Basin (ODEQ 2004:5). Seasonal standards may be applied for uses that do not occur year round. Table 1. Beneficial Uses in the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed (ODEQ 2004:5) Beneficial Use Occurring Beneficial Use Occurring Public Domestic Water Supply 9 Anadromous Fish Passage 9 Private Domestic Water Supply 9 Salmonid Fish Spawning 9 Industrial Water Supply 9 Salmonid Fish Rearing 9 Irrigation 9 Resident Fish and Aquatic Life 9 Livestock Watering 9 Wildlife and Hunting 9 Boating 9 Fishing 9 Aesthetic Quality 9 Water Contact Recreation 9 Commercial Navigation & Trans. Hydro Power 9 Table 2. Sensitive Beneficial Uses in the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed Sensitive Beneficial Use Species1 Salmonid Fish Spawning & Coho (t), summer and winter steelhead trout (c), spring and fall chinook Rearing Resident Fish & Aquatic Resident Fish: Life Rainbow trout, cutthroat trout (c), sucker, sculpin Other Aquatic Life: Pacific giant salamander, western pond turtle (s), beaver, and other species of frogs, salamanders, and snakes 1/ Status: (t) = threatened under Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA); (c) = candidate; and (s) = sensitive. 1 Water Quality Restoration Plan for BLM-Administered Lands in the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed – May 2006 Listing Status Section 303 of the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, provides direction for designation of beneficial uses and limiting discharge of pollutants to waters of the state. The DEQ includes streams that do not meet established water quality criteria for one or more beneficial uses on the state’s 303(d) list, which is revised every two years, and submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. Section 303 of the Clean Water Act further requires that TMDLs be developed for waters included on the 303(d) list. A TMDL defines the amount of pollution that can be present in the waterbody without causing water quality standards to be violated. A WQMP is developed to describe a strategy for reducing water pollution to the level of the load allocations and waste load allocations prescribed in the TMDL. The approach is designed to restore the water quality and result in compliance with the water quality standards, thus protecting the designated beneficial uses of waters of the state. At the time of this writing, the draft 2004 303(d) list has been released (ODEQ 2005). This WQRP addresses all stream listings on the draft 2004 303(d) list for the plan area: two streams listed for exceeding the bacteria (E. coli) criterion, one stream exceeds the pH criterion, four streams listed for exceeding the sedimentation criterion, and six streams listed for exceeding the temperature criterion (Table 3). In addition to the stream listings, Fish Lake on North Fork Little Butte Creek exceeds the pH criterion (Table 3). Fish Lake is located on U.S. Forest Service (USFS)-administered land and will not be addressed in this WQRP for BLM-administered land. Changes from the 2002 303(d) list for streams in the plan area include the addition of Conde and Dead Indian Creeks for summer temperature, North Fork Little Butte Creek for fall/winter/spring E. coli and summer pH, and South Fork Little Butte Creek for summer E. coli. Table 3. Draft 2004 303(d) Listings in the North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed (ODEQ 2005) 303(d) Applicable Rule Total Listed List Date Stream Segment Season (at time of listing) Miles Parameter Affected 2004 Conde Creek Temperature Year around OAR 340-041-0028(4)(b) 4.4 2004 Dead Indian Creek Temperature Year around OAR 340-041-0028(4)(b) 9.6 1998 Deer Creek Sedimentation OAR 340-041-0365(2)(j) 3.2 1998 Lost Creek Sedimentation OAR 340-041-0365(2)(j) 8.4 1998 Lost Creek Temperature Summer OAR 340-041-0365(2)(b)(A) 8.4 North Fork Little 2004 E.
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]
  • Upper Rogue Watershed Assessment
    Upper Rogue Watershed Assessment Chapter 2 Hydrology . TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 HYDROLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................1 2.2 Water Use .......................................................................................................................1 2.3 Streamflow Data ............................................................................................................2 2.4 Peak Discharge ..............................................................................................................5 2.4.1 Trail Creek Subwatershed .....................................................................................5 2.4.2 Elk Creek Subwatershed .......................................................................................9 2.4.3 Upper Rogue River Subwatershed......................................................................12 2.4.4 South Fork Subwatershed...................................................................................16 2.4.5 Big Butte Creek Subwatershed ...........................................................................18 2.4.6 Lost Creek Lake Subwatershed ..........................................................................22 2.4.7 Shady Cove Subwatershed..................................................................................23 2.5 Summary ......................................................................................................................25
    [Show full text]
  • The Chat September 2015
    Number 417 The Chat September 2015 A voice for education and conservation in the natural world Rogue Valley Audubon Society www.roguevalleyaudubon.org Deadline for the October issue is September 20. SEPTEMBER PROGRAM MEETING TUESDAY, SEPT 22 at 7 PM “Birding Adventures in South America: Patagonia, Brazil and the Galapagos” . Presented by PEPPER TRAIL Our annual series of monthly programs kicks off with Pepper Trail’s slide show and talk. Pepper will present highlights from his three most recent natural history cruises, with birds as spectacular (and spectacular- ly different) as Blue Manakins and Blue- footed Boobies, Andean Condors and Saf- fron Toucanets, Darwin’s Rheas and Dar- win’s Finches. This is sure to be an enter- taining and educational evening – don’t miss it! Pepper Trail is the long-time Conservation Chair for RVAS, and the ornithologist at the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Lab in Ashland. During his vacation time, Pepper leads natural history field trips around the world. Nazca Booby, native to the Galapagos Coming Up October Program Meeting, Tuesday, Oct 27 Speaker: Steve Mason of the WISE (Water for Irrigation, Streams and Economy) Project November Program Meeting, Tuesday, Nov 24 Speaker: Kristi Mergenthaler from the Southern Oregon Land Conservancy (SOLC) Page 1 The Chat – September 2015 President’s Column OFFICERS and DIRECTORS President: Linda Kreisman, 541-482-6456 Welcome back after our (brief) summer vacation! [email protected] This year seems to be getting off to a good start. Vice-President: Jon Deason, [email protected] Treasurer: Sue Polich, 541-608-3802 Pepper Trail, our Conservation Committee Chair, and [email protected] I met with representatives from the Southern Oregon Secretary: Mike Guest, 541-857-6334 Land Conservancy (SOLC) to discuss ways our or- [email protected] ganizations can cooperate with each other and came Carol Mockridge [email protected] away with a few good ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Geologic History of Siletzia, a Large Igneous Province in the Oregon And
    Geologic history of Siletzia, a large igneous province in the Oregon and Washington Coast Range: Correlation to the geomagnetic polarity time scale and implications for a long-lived Yellowstone hotspot Wells, R., Bukry, D., Friedman, R., Pyle, D., Duncan, R., Haeussler, P., & Wooden, J. (2014). Geologic history of Siletzia, a large igneous province in the Oregon and Washington Coast Range: Correlation to the geomagnetic polarity time scale and implications for a long-lived Yellowstone hotspot. Geosphere, 10 (4), 692-719. doi:10.1130/GES01018.1 10.1130/GES01018.1 Geological Society of America Version of Record http://cdss.library.oregonstate.edu/sa-termsofuse Downloaded from geosphere.gsapubs.org on September 10, 2014 Geologic history of Siletzia, a large igneous province in the Oregon and Washington Coast Range: Correlation to the geomagnetic polarity time scale and implications for a long-lived Yellowstone hotspot Ray Wells1, David Bukry1, Richard Friedman2, Doug Pyle3, Robert Duncan4, Peter Haeussler5, and Joe Wooden6 1U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefi eld Road, Menlo Park, California 94025-3561, USA 2Pacifi c Centre for Isotopic and Geochemical Research, Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, 6339 Stores Road, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada 3Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1680 East West Road, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA 4College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, 104 CEOAS Administration Building, Corvallis, Oregon 97331-5503, USA 5U.S. Geological Survey, 4210 University Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4626, USA 6School of Earth Sciences, Stanford University, 397 Panama Mall Mitchell Building 101, Stanford, California 94305-2210, USA ABSTRACT frames, the Yellowstone hotspot (YHS) is on southern Vancouver Island (Canada) to Rose- or near an inferred northeast-striking Kula- burg, Oregon (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Types of Landslides.Indd
    Landslide Types and Processes andslides in the United States occur in all 50 States. The primary regions of landslide occurrence and potential are the coastal and mountainous areas of California, Oregon, Land Washington, the States comprising the intermountain west, and the mountainous and hilly regions of the Eastern United States. Alaska and Hawaii also experience all types of landslides. Landslides in the United States cause approximately $3.5 billion (year 2001 dollars) in dam- age, and kill between 25 and 50 people annually. Casualties in the United States are primar- ily caused by rockfalls, rock slides, and debris flows. Worldwide, landslides occur and cause thousands of casualties and billions in monetary losses annually. The information in this publication provides an introductory primer on understanding basic scientific facts about landslides—the different types of landslides, how they are initiated, and some basic information about how they can begin to be managed as a hazard. TYPES OF LANDSLIDES porate additional variables, such as the rate of movement and the water, air, or ice content of The term “landslide” describes a wide variety the landslide material. of processes that result in the downward and outward movement of slope-forming materials Although landslides are primarily associ- including rock, soil, artificial fill, or a com- ated with mountainous regions, they can bination of these. The materials may move also occur in areas of generally low relief. In by falling, toppling, sliding, spreading, or low-relief areas, landslides occur as cut-and- La Conchita, coastal area of southern Califor- flowing. Figure 1 shows a graphic illustration fill failures (roadway and building excava- nia.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary for the Pacific Northwest Recreation Resource Advisory Committee
    Executive Summary for the Pacific Northwest Recreation Resource Advisory Committee Site: Illinois River Scenic Area Site Type: HIRA Proposed Action: New Fees Recommended Fees: Area Fee: Begin charging $5.00 per vehicle per day Site Description - The Illinois River Scenic Area is a highly used area within the nationally designated Illinois Wild and Scenic River corridor located on the Rogue River- Siskiyou National Forest, Wild Rivers Ranger District. The area is about 15 miles south of Grants Pass and within a 1 to 2 hour drive from the Rogue River Valley and Medford- Metropolitan area. The approximate 2,970 acre area is nestled in an old growth forest setting. The area has four campgrounds, five picnic areas, two scenic overlooks and interpretive sites, one historic site, five trailheads, four developed parking areas with swimming and rafting opportunities, and one private commercial lodge. The area is the gateway to the east side of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness and the Wild Section of the Illinois W&S River. The unique mix of recreation opportunities is significant to southern Oregon. Visits to the scenic area currently exceed 180,000 people per season. Fee Assessment - Recent capital investments of 1.2 million dollars in road and parking improvements, new picnic tables, shelters, trails, and campgrounds have been built to help serve the public, improve visitor safety and prevent resource damage. Subsequently, fees are needed to provide law enforcement presence, operation and maintenance. The recommended fees are based on 1) a Market Value analysis, 2) the Regional Campground Pricing rating, and 3) the Recreation Facility Analysis process.
    [Show full text]
  • United States of America 123 Ferc ¶ 62021
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 123 FERC ¶ 62,021 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PacifiCorp Project No. 2630-004 ORDER ISSUING NEW LICENSE (April 8, 2008) INTRODUCTION 1. On June 27, 2003, PacifiCorp filed an application for a new license pursuant to sections 4(e) and 15 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),1 to continue operation and maintenance of the Prospect Nos. 1, 2, and 4 Hydroelectric Project No. 2630. The project’s authorized capacity being licensed is 41.56 megawatts (MW). The project is located on the Rogue River, Middle Fork Rogue River, and Red Blanket Creek in Jackson County, Oregon.2 The project does not occupy federal lands. 2. On October 26, 2006, PacifiCorp filed a Settlement Agreement (settlement) signed by it and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Oregon DFW) that addresses certain resident trout issues related to this relicense proceeding, including ramping rate effects and large woody debris management. 3. As discussed below, I am issuing a new license for the project. The license incorporates most of the settlement’s provisions. 1 16 U.S.C. §§ 797(e) and 808 (2000). 2 The project is part of PacifiCorp’s interconnected system that transmits power across state lines for public utility purposes. The project was constructed in different segments, the first of which was completed in 1911 (Prospect No. 1) and the last in 1944 (Prospect No. 4). Because the project (1) is located on a body of water over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction, (2) affects interstate commerce through its connection to an interstate power grid, and (3) has had significant post-1935 construction, it is required to be licensed pursuant to section 23(b)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Outdoor Recreational Needs & the Hunter Lake Opportunity Illinois
    Outdoor Recreational Needs & The Hunter Lake Opportunity Illinois Department of Natural Resources December 3, 2018 Introduction In 2015, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) entered into agreement with the City of Springfield to manage city-owned property surrounding the City’s proposed secondary water supply (Hunter Lake). The City has already acquired 7,138 acres for the project located in southeastern Sangamon County. The lake is expected to cover 2,560 surface-acres with water. Outdoors recreation generates about $32 billion in economic activity each year for the State of Illinois, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. All this activity supports 90,000 jobs statewide. As the population of the United States continues its gradual migration from rural to urban areas (U.S. Census Bureau), demand for recreational land, open space and hunting and fishing opportunities will continue to grow. With 95 percent of Illinois land in private hands, the state ranks 46th in terms of land in public ownership. The IDNR owns and manages about 480,000 acres. The partnership between the City and IDNR is intended to provide additional public access for outdoor recreation, education and habitat conservation on Hunter Lake and its surrounding area. The City concluded the IDNR is the appropriate state agency to help the City achieve this objective. IDNR has statutory authority to manage the state’s fish and wildlife resources. To this end, the City chose to enter a Memorandum of Cooperation with IDNR (Appendix A) and tasked the Agency with managing the property’s outdoors potential for recreational opportunity, including hunting, fishing, bird-watching, biking, hiking and camping.
    [Show full text]
  • South Fork Coquille Watershed Analysis
    DOCUMENT A 13.66/2: COQUILLE fiVE, LOWER S.F. 17 10 03 00* I C 66x 1 COQUILLE RIVER, UPPER S.F 17 1:-03 01* ' United States Q, '0) Departimnt of Agriculture THIS PUBLICATION Forest Serilce CMN FE CHECKED OUT Pacific Northwest Region 1995 JA* fSouth Fork Coquille Wate1hed Analysis Iteration 1.0 Powers Ranger Distric, Slsklyou National Forest September 1995 SOUTHERN OREGON UNWVERSiTY LIBRARY ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 United Stat. Depaenent of Agnculure Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region 1995 SOUTH FORK COQUILLE WATERSHED ANALYSIS ITERATION 1.0 I have read this analysis and it meets the Standards and Guidelines for watershed analysis required by an amendment to the Forest Plan (Record of Decision dated April 1994). Any additional evidence needed to make a decision will be gathered site-specifically as part of a NEPA document or as an update to this document. SIGNED CoQ 4 DATE q 1T2 letE District Ranger Powers Ranger District Siskiyou National Forest South Fork Coquille Watershed Analysis - September 1995 Developed by Interdisciplinary Team Members: Steve Harbert Team leader Betsy Howell Wildlife Biologist Dave Shea Botantist, Wildlife Biologist Ruth Sisko Forester Cindy Ricks Geologist Chris Parks Hydrologist Max Yager Fish Biologist Kathy Helm Writer-Editor (March-April 1995), BLM Tina Harbert Writer-Editor (May-July 1995), Powers R.D. Joe Hallett Cultural Resource Key Support: Joel King Forest Planner, Siskiyou National Forest Sue Olson Acting District Ranger, Powers R.D. (Jan-May 1995) Carl Linderman District Ranger, Powers R.D. Marshall Foster GIS, Powers R.D. Jodi Shorb Computer Assistant Linda Spencer Computer Support For Further Information, contact: Powers Ranger District Powers, OR 97466 (503) 439-3011 The policy of the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, religion, sex, or disability, familial status, or political affiliation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rogue River 3, 4 and 5 Day Trips Riverside Beach Camping
    The Rogue River 3, 4 and 5 day trips riverside beach camping The Rogue River is born near Crater Lake in the Cascade mountain range, then flows southwest to its meeting with the Pacific ocean near the town of Gold Beach. We float the most spectacular 38 miles of the river, where it cuts through the rugged coastal mountains of southern Oregon, not far from the town of Grants Pass. When congress first passed legislation to protect America’s wild rivers, the Rogue was among the first to receive protection. And no wonder. The Rogue River canyon is an enchanting blend of lush forests, fern grottos, beautiful sandy beaches, sparkling waterfalls, lovely side streams, and cool clear swimming holes. It’s wild country and wildlife is everywhere: perhaps more wildlife than you’re likely to see on a river trip anywhere outside Alaska. The Rogue’s rapids are mostly class III in difficulty: exciting and challenging, but not too threatening for our guests who choose to try their hand at inflatable kayaks or our row-yourself rafts. (Rapids are rated I through VI. Class I indicates the smallest possible rapid, while VI indicates steep, turbulent, highly dangerous rapids and waterfalls.) The Rogue is a river for all seasons. Summer trips promise hot, sunny weather and warm water for swimming. Spring trips are sensational, with multitudes of wildflowers. Fall trips reveal gorgeous colors, warm days and cool crisp evenings. And the whitewater is exciting, any time of year. A great family trip, the Rogue is one of our nation’s finest river journeys.
    [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]