DOCSLIB.ORG

Watershed Health Factors Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Watershed Health Factors Assessment WATERSHED HEALTH FACTORS ASSESSMENT Rogue Basin Coordinating Council Rogue River Basin, Jackson, Josephine, and Curry Counties, Oregon. Rogue Basin Coordinating Council Mission: The Rogue Basin Coordinating Council helps promote the success of member councils in watershed protection and restoration, encouraging activities that transcend individual watershed boundaries. Rogue Basin Coordinating Council Vision: Citizens of the Rogue Basin will enjoy the quality of life they desire because their choices promote a healthy ecosystem for native forms of flora and fauna and promote the productive capacity of the watershed to ensure sustainable economies. March 31, 2006 Document prepared for the Rogue Basin Coordinating Council in conjunction with OWEB grant #204-939 Watershed Health Factors Assessment 2 Watershed Health Factors Assessment Dedication This document is dedicated to Pamela Jean Galey. Pamela’s love of her watershed was reflected in her personal life, her business and in her work as coordinator of the Upper Rogue Watershed Council. Whispering Pine Old Pine Tree whispered, “Brother Wind, I fear what I see coming. Your breath is full Of toxic waste, And I, deformed, am dying. What curse have we Brought to ourselves? I hear the babies crying.” Old Pine Wind blew “Fear not the truth, I see our time here ending. Our souls move on By Universal Law, Each end a new beginning.” by Pamela Jean Galey March 22, 1959 – December 24, 2005 Whispering Pine printed with the permission of The Estate of Pamela Jean Galey (see: Galey, 2006). 1 Watershed Health Factors Assessment Acknowledgements In November 2004 watershed councils of the Rogue Basin were tasked with developing limiting factor priorities for watershed council areas in Southwestern Oregon. Several key individuals were invaluable in the facilitation and completion of this final document. Special thanks are given to John Ward for his leadership of Rogue Basin Coordinating Council through this process. And to Mark Grenbemer and Ken Bierly from OWEB for their valuable feedback to the process, ensuring OWEB requirements were being met. Lastly, included among these is Rose Marie Davis for her volunteer service as project manager and contract officer, as well as her all around efforts to smooth the process, which included nourishing us with goodies. A heartfelt thank you to the watershed councils of the Rogue Basin and watershed council representatives to the watershed health factors assessment process including Daniel Newberry and Zach Stevenson of the Applegate River Watershed Council; Dana Hicks and Peter Aspinwall of the Lower Rogue Watershed Council; Lu Anthony of the Little Butte Watershed Council; Rose Marie Davis, Jeannine Rossa, Kara King, John Ward, Jim Hill and Beth Franklin of the Bear Creek Watershed Council; Gail Perrotti, Dave Graham and John Nally from Seven Basins Watershed Council, and Pam Galey, Paula Trudeau and Don and Ruth Nelson from the Upper Rogue Watershed Council. Among this distinctive group, an exceptional thank you is given to Brad Carlson of the Middle Rogue Watershed Council and Kevin O'Brien of the Illinois Valley Watershed Council for believing in the project enough to co-chair it from start to finish. Instrumental to the completion of this process were Jay Doino of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Randy Frick from the US Forest Service (USFS) and Dale Johnson of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). They provided valuable oversight, input and direction for the process, of which this final document is a result. Roy Quackenbush, also of the Bureau of Land Management, provided an invaluable service in keeping the restoretherogue.org website updated as the prioritization process proceeded. Leilani Sullivan and Maribeth Mattson at the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) worked tirelessly to prepare the draft for printing. Local stakeholder, Pat Whitney, provided priceless computer assistance in times of great need. Finally, Jacob Gavin, network administrator extraordinaire, completed work and resolved problems at all hours. Particular thanks goes to each of them. A very BIG thank you to the contract team consisting of team leader, Tatiana Bredikin, retired ODF&W fisheries biologist, Jerry MacLeod, and retired USFS forest ecologist, Tom Atzet. Time and time again the contract team went above and beyond their call of duty to patiently work with councils and stakeholders to produce a document of watershed health factors both relevant and consistent with the needs and concerns of all interested parties. Finally, a genuine thank you to every volunteer from all over the Rogue Basin who helped in the creation of this document. Whether providing feedback on a draft, attending one of the council or public review meetings, or lending general oversight, your help is truly appreciated. Through countless meetings, miles in the car, hours on the telephone, cups of coffee, trips to the copy center, and pages of notes, the Rogue Basin Coordinating Council presents this Watershed Health Factor Assessment of the Rogue Basin and extends a sincere thank you to all those who made it possible. 2 Watershed Health Factors Assessment Table of Contents Dedication....................................................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ 3 Table of Tables and Figures............................................................................................................ 4 Abbreviations.............................................................................................................................. 5 Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 6 Purpose of the project ................................................................................................................. 6 Background................................................................................................................................. 6 Character of the Rogue Basin ..................................................................................................... 7 Methods....................................................................................................................................... 7 Rogue Basin Results ................................................................................................................... 8 Watershed Council Area Priorities Summary........................................................................... 10 Watershed Council Areas Summaries .......................................................................................... 13 Applegate River Watershed Council Area................................................................................ 14 Bear Creek Watershed Council Area........................................................................................ 18 Illinois Valley Watershed Council Area................................................................................... 22 Little Butte Creek Watershed Council Area ............................................................................. 26 Lower Rogue Watershed Council Area .................................................................................... 30 Middle Rogue Watershed Council Area................................................................................... 34 Seven Basins Watershed Council Area..................................................................................... 38 Upper Rogue Watershed Council Area..................................................................................... 42 Conclusion: Watershed Council Areas Summaries .................................................................. 46 Ecosystem Concepts ..................................................................................................................... 47 Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 52 Appendix A: Methodology and prioritization system .............................................................. 52 Appendix B: Roles and Responsibilities of Key Players.......................................................... 55 Appendix C: Evaluation Standards........................................................................................... 56 Appendix D: Master Watershed Health Factors Matrix ........................................................... 62 Appendix E: Master Limiting Factors Priorities Table............................................................. 68 Appendix F: Crosswalk Table .................................................................................................. 72 Appendix G: Resources ............................................................................................................ 74 Appendix H: Watershed Health Factors Matrix Conclusion Resources................................... 79 Appendix I: Interagency Vegetation Mapping Project ............................................................. 84 Appendix J: List of Meetings Held..........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Little Applegate Hydrology Report
    Little Applegate Watershed Hydrology Report Michael Zan * Hydrologist April 1995 Little Applegate Watershed Analysis Hydrology Report SECTION 1 LITTLE APPLEGATE RIVER HYDROLOGY Mean Monthly Flows: Except for some data collected from May through October 1913, and from June through October 1994. there is no known flow data for the Little Applegate River or its tributaries. With this in mind it was necessary to construct a hydrograph displaying mean monthly flows by utilizing records from nearby stations that have been published in USGS Surface Water Records and Open-File Reports. In constructing a hydrograph, a short discussion of low flows is first in order. Since low streamflows have been identified as a key question pertaining to the larger issues of water quantity/quality and fish populations, the greatest need is to gain a reasonable estimate of seasonal low flows to help quantify the impacts of water withdrawals on instream beneficial uses. With this in mind, extreme caution must be used when extrapolating data from gaged to ungaged watersheds. This is particularly important in determining low-flow characteristics (Riggs 1972, Gallino 1994 personal communications). The principle terrestrial influence on low flow is geology and the primary meteorological influence is precipitation. Neither have been adequately used to describe effects on low flow using an index so that estimation of low flow characteristics of sites without discharge measurements has met with limited success. Exceptions are on streams in a region with homogeneous geology, topography, and climate, in which it should be possible to define a range of flow per square mile for a given recurrence interval.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic, Wildlife, and Special Plant Habitat
    I 53.2: 53A2s U.S. Department of the Interior June 1995 AQ 3/c 4 Bureau of Land Management Medford District Office 3040 Biddle 9oad Medford, Oregon 97504 I U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Forest Service Rogue River National Forest P.O. Box 520 _________ 333 West 8th Street Sft>TRV&> Medford, Oregon 97501 iu~s• Siskiyou National Forest ~~' ~~P.O. Box 440 Rd 200 N.E. Greenfield Rd. Grants Pass, Oregon 97526 Applegate River Watershed Assessment Aquatic, Wildlife, and Special Plant Habitat 41- As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interest of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. administration. BLWOR/WAIPL-95/031+1792 Applegate River Watershed Assessment: Aquatic, Wildlife, and Special Plant Habitat Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................... i TABLE OF FIGURES .............................................................. ii TABLE OF TABLES .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Snake Surveys in Jackson, Josephine and Southern Douglas Counties, Oregon
    Snake Surveys in Jackson, Josephine and Southern Douglas Counties, Oregon JASON REILLY ED MEYERS DAVE CLAYTON RICHARD S. NAUMAN May 5, 2011 For more information contact: Jason Reilly Medford District Bureau of Land Management [email protected] Introduction Southwestern Oregon is recognized for its high levels of biological diversity and endemism (Whittaker 1961, Kaye et al. 1997). The warm climate and broad diversity of habitat types found in Jackson and Josephine counties result in the highest snake diversity across all of Oregon. Of the 15 snake species native to Oregon, 13 occur in the southwestern portion of the state and one species, the night snake, is potentially found here. Three of the species that occur in Oregon: the common kingsnake, the California mountain kingsnake, and the Pacific Coast aquatic garter snake are only found in southwestern Oregon (Table 1, St. John 2002). Table 1. Snakes known from or potentially found in Southwestern Oregon and conservation status. Scientific Name Common Name Special Status Category1 Notes Charina bottae Rubber Boa None Common Sharp-tailed See Feldman and Contia tenuis None Snake Hoyer 2010 Recently described Forest Sharp-tailed Contia longicaudae None species see Feldman Snake and Hoyer 2010 Diadophis Ring-necked Snake None punctatus Coluber constrictor Racer None Masticophis Appears to be very Stripped Whipsnake None taeniatus rare in SW Oregon Pituophis catenifer Gopher Snake None Heritage Rank G5/S3 Lampropeltis Federal SOC Appears to be rare in Common Kingsnake getula ODFW SV SW Oregon ORBIC 4 Heritage Rank G4G5/S3S4 Lampropeltis California Mountain Federal SOC zonata Kingsnake ODFW SV ORBIC 4 Thamnophis sirtalis Common Garter Snake None Thamnophis Northwestern Garter None ordinoides Snake Thamnophis Western Terrestrial None elegans Garter Snake Thamnophis Pacific Coast Aquatic None atratus Garter Snake No records from SW Hypsiglena Oregon.
    [Show full text]
  • Rogue River Date: March 11, 1938 Work Plan Nth Period Camp Applgbate F-41 Name and Number /S/ Karl L
    ccc SUMMARY COPY Camp Program Forest: Rogue River Date: March 11, 1938 Work Plan nth Period Camp ApplgBate F-41 Name and Number /s/ Karl L. Janouch forest Supervisor Total Man Months Work From: Material Little Apple. Costs Main Camp Side CamD Side Camo Side Camp Truck Trail Construction & Maintenance 340 185 6.150 Hor3<j Trail Construction 6 Maintenance 60 800 Administrative Improvements 48 450 Protective Improvements 132 975 Fire Prevention, Pre.Sup.5 Fire Suppression Hazard- Reduction Projects Range Management Projects 143 670 '<,'ild Life Projects Erosion Control Projects Recreation Projects 106 370 Insect Control & Timber Management Projects Experimental Forest Projects TOTALS 829 185 $9,514 Total amount of material costs as shown on work Dlans that cannot be financed from camo allotments Name Location No. Men Durat ion (. Months) Littlfi ApplPgatff S.rr.?fi,T39S. R2W .35. 4/1-9/30. JL. Side Camps ccc Plans Camp Programs Forest: Rogue River Work Plan 11th Period Camp Applegate F-41 Name and Number Date: March 11, 1933 Sheet 1 of 2 sheets Karl L. Janowch Forest Supervisor Star (*) material items that cannot be financed from current camp allotments. : Map : : Material : Start : Coi:io"leTe rSurober: lion Months l*ork : No. : Units : Costs : Date : Date : of Men: t'ain "C'-ciipfSi'de ~Cp. Truck Trail Construction Star Gulch 192 3 2,000 4/1 9/30 40 240 Tallowbox L.O. 399 200 5/1 6/30 20 40 Little Applegate 395 i& 2,000 Vi 9/30- 30 180 Goat Cabin Ridge 389 w, 200 5/1 5/31 5 5 Truck Trail Maintenance 165 1,650 4/20 6/20 20 40 Bridge Maintenance 1 1 100 20 Trnil Maintenance 400 800 4/1 6/30 20 60 Telephone Line Betterment 2 25 5/1 5/31 7 7 Water Development (Springs) 1-3 3 95 8/1 8/31 5 3 Silver Fork Soil Erosion contours 20 50 Mi.
    [Show full text]
  • Klamath Mountains Ecoregion
    Ecoregions: Klamath Mountains Ecoregion Photo © Bruce Newhouse Klamath Mountains Ecoregion Getting to Know the Klamath Mountains Ecoregion example, there are more kinds of cone-bearing trees found in the Klam- ath Mountains ecoregion than anywhere else in North America. In all, The Oregon portion of the Klamath Mountains ecoregion covers much there are about 4000 native plants in Oregon, and about half of these of southwestern Oregon, including the Umpqua Mountains, Siskiyou are found in the Klamath Mountains ecoregion. The ecoregion is noted Mountains and interior valleys and foothills between these and the as an Area of Global Botanical Significance (one of only seven in North Cascade Range. Several popular and scenic rivers run through the America) and world “Centre of Plant Diversity” by the World Conserva- ecoregion, including: the Umpqua, Rogue, Illinois, and Applegate. tion Union. The ecoregion boasts many unique invertebrates, although Within the ecoregion, there are wide ranges in elevation, topography, many of these are not as well studied as their plant counterparts. geology, and climate. The elevation ranges from about 600 to more than 7400 feet, from steep mountains and canyons to gentle foothills and flat valley bottoms. This variation along with the varied marine influence support a climate that ranges from the lush, rainy western portion of the ecoregion to the dry, warmer interior valleys and cold snowy mountains. Unlike other parts of Oregon, the landscape of the Klamath Mountains ecoregion has not been significantly shaped by volcanism. The geology of the Klamath Mountains can better be described as a mosaic rather than the layer-cake geology of most of the rest of the state.
    [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]
  • 1 Introduction Lamprey Are One of the Oldest Living Vertebrates on Earth
    Introduction Lamprey are one of the oldest living vertebrates on earth. Despite this longevity, little quantifiable information concerning lamprey populations exists. The majority of scientific studies on lamprey have investigated biological attributes, with few studies investigating historic abundance, detailed distribution and specific ecological requirements and role. Because of the paucity of information and concerns of declining lamprey population in the Pacific Northwest, the Applegate River Watershed Council (ARWC) with the Medford District of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) collaborated to study lamprey populations in the Applegate River watershed of southwest Oregon (Close et al. 1995, Larson & Belchik 1998, Kostow 2002). The objectives of the study included: (1) Identifying species composition; (2) determining the distribution of lamprey species; and (3) relating the distribution of lamprey ammocoetes (juveniles or larvae) to physical stream characteristics. This paper summarizes the life histories of the two most common lamprey species in the Oregon, the Pacific (Lampetra tridentata) and Western Brook (Lampetra richardsoni), details the methods of study, reports the results and summarizes the findings. Also included are recommendations and suggestions for future lamprey work in the Applegate basin. Setting The Applegate River watershed is located in southwest Oregon and northern California (Fig. 1.) Comprising 500,000-acres, the watershed is a 4th field tributary to the Rogue River. Situated in the Klamath Mountain eco-province, the watershed is of varying topography and geology. Elevations range from 1,200- 7,200 feet. Cool-wet winters and dry-warm summers broadly characterize the climate of the region. In turn, the region supports a large diversity of flora and fauna species as related to this varying geology, topography and climate.
    [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]
  • The Siskiyou Loop: Discovery Tour
    The Siskiyou Loop: Discovery Tour Would you like to take a trip of discovery into the mountains near Medford and Ashland? The Siskiyou Loop is an 85-mile long drive that will take you from the Medford-Ashland area – via Jacksonville and the equally historic Applegate Valley – up along the scenic crest of the rugged Siskiyou Mountains, and return you to Interstate Five and the Rogue River Valley. Along this self-guided “discovery tour” through parts of two National Forests you will: z view managed forestlands; z observe interesting geology, flora, and fauna; z visit historic sites; z and see some beautiful, near-pristine backcountry. This information provides travel directions and it points out the major features along the way. Please be sure to read all of the information below before you decide to take the tour. Page 1 of 13 SOME CAUTIONS and TRAVEL TIPS The Siskiyou Loop follows a route that includes a z The steepest part of Road 20 is between wide variety of travel conditions: four-lane freeway, mileposts 8 and 9 along Beaver Creek. two-lane paved highway, and about 25 miles of Optional, short side-trips to Dutchman Peak single-lane, graveled and dirt mountain road. Lookout and the summit of Mt. Ashland have some steeper, rougher sections. Although the entire route over the Siskiyou z The Siskiyou Loop passes through forestland Mountains has long been a popular summertime where livestock graze and timber is harvested. drive for local people in passenger cars, you may Logging trucks and cattle are common; drive wish instead to drive only the shorter sections of the slowly and cautiously, particularly when loop along the higher-standard roads – from rounding bends in the road.
    [Show full text]
  • Klamath Mountains Ecoregion
    98 OREGON WILD GEORGE WUERTHNER GEORGE World-Class Biodiversity Klamath Mountains Ecoregion he 3.9 million acres of the Klamath Mountains Ecoregion in Oregon bogs, grasslands, savannas and alpine meadows. (most of the ecoregion lies in California) extend from the California Perhaps most interesting of the region’s geological features are the serpentine border to the southern end of the Willamette Valley, and from the formations which are made up of “an unusual metamorphic rock rich in magnesium T Cascade foothills to the Coast Range. They encompass what the and some other minerals but deficient in calcium and others.”1 The serpentine soils International Union for the Conservation of Nature calls an area of found here are low in silica and high in heavy metals such as zinc, iron, chromium, “global botanical significance” and the World Wildlife Fund terms the “Galapagos of nickel, magnesium and cobalt. Several unusual plant and insect species co-evolved with North America.” The region’s highest point, Mount Ashland, rises to 7,533 feet in the the unique chemistry of these lands. Siskiyou Mountains. The Klamath Mountains Ecoregion hosts some of the most diverse conifer forests Defining the region’s geography can be as knotty as its geology and botany. The in the world. Over thirty species of conifers are found here. The region is a botanic Siskiyou Mountains run generally east-west, roughly parallel to the Oregon-California crossroads, hosting species common to the Sierra Nevada Mountains, Sacramento border, which they cross three times. In the western portion of the region, the Siskiyou Valley, Cascade Mountains, Coast Ranges and the Great Basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Lamprey 2019 Regional Implementation Plan Oregon Coast
    Pacific Lamprey 2019 Regional Implementation Plan for the Oregon Coast Regional Management Unit South Coast Sub-Region Submitted to the Conservation Team August 27, 2019 Primary Authors Primary Editors J. Poirier U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service K. Coates Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians This page left intentionally blank I. Status and Distribution of Pacific Lamprey in the RMU A. General Description of the RMU South Oregon Coast Sub-Region The Oregon Coast Regional Management Unit is separated into two sub-regions equivalent to the USGS hydrologic unit accounting units 171002 (Northern Oregon Coastal) and 171003 (Southern Oregon Coastal). The South Oregon Coast sub-region includes all rivers that drain into the Pacific Ocean from the Umpqua River basin south to the Smith River boundary in California. It is comprised of twelve 4th field HUCs ranging in size from 1,216 to 4,662 km2 (Table 1).Watersheds within the South Oregon Coast sub-region include the North and South Umpqua, Umpqua, Coos, Coquille, Sixes, Upper, Middle and Lower Rogue, Applegate, Illinois and Chetco (Figure 1). Figure 1. Map of watersheds within the Oregon Coast RMU, South Coast sub-region. South Coast sub-region - RIP Oregon Coast RMU August 27, 2019 1 Table 1. Drainage Size and Level III Ecoregions of the 4th Field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Watersheds located within the South Oregon Coast sub-region. Watershed HUC Number Drainage Size (km2) Level III Ecoregion(s) North Umpqua 17100301 3,544 Cascades, Klamath Mountains South Umpqua 17100302 4,662 Coast Range,
    [Show full text]
  • Applegate Subbasin Total Maximum Daily Load (Tmdl) Huc # 17100309
    APPLEGATE SUBBASIN TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) HUC # 17100309 Applegate River Mile 8 Applegate River Mile 39 Little Applegate River Near Mouth Beaver Creek Mile 3 December 2003 Prepared by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality For more information, contact: Bill Meyers Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 201 W. Main Street, #2-D Medford, OR 97501 Applegate Subbasin TMDL December 2003 Statement of Purpose This Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) document has been prepared to meet the requirements of Section 303(d) of the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act. Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................1 WATER QUALITY SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................................1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................1 Scope....................................................................................................................................................................1 Legal Requirements..............................................................................................................................................1 Listed Parameters ................................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]