DOCSLIB.ORG

I W Water Resources Research Institute

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

A .Compilation of Flood,. Abatement Projects in Oregon i w Water Resources Research Institute . Oregon State University ;.:‘-r--- Corvallis, Oregon x~► WRRI-11 December 19710 A COMPILATION OF FLOOD ABATEMEN T PROJECTS IN OREGON by Rod E. Emme r and . Keith W . Muckleston it' Department of Geography Oregon State Universit y Corvallis, Oregon 9733 1 This research was funded by the Office of Water Resource s Research, U . S. Department of the Interior, under the provision s of PL 88-379 . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Figure s i List of Table s Abbreviation s Foreword Introduction . 5 North Coast Basin 1 0 • Willamette Basin 1 9 • Sandy River Basin 29 Hood Basin 3 2 Deschutes River Basin John Day River Basin Umatilla River Basi n Grande Ronde River Basin Powder River Basin 6 0 Malheur-Owyhee Basin s 6 5 Malheur Lake Basi n 7 2 Goose and Summer Lakes Basin 7 6 Klamath Basin 8 0 Rogue River Basin 85 Page Umpqua River Basin 9 1 South Coast Basin 9 6 Mid-Coast Basin 10 1 Flood Plain Management as an Approach to Floo d 10 6 Damage Reduction Selected Bibliography 10 8 Distribution limited . Copies of this report may be obtained from the Water Resources Research Institute . Single copies are free . f .- . : t . LIST OF FIGURES Figure, Page L . Oregon Drainage Basins 4 2. Geomorphic Divisions of Oregon :. r . .p V I 7 3. North Coast Basin Flood Prone Areas V V .1 1 4 . V Average Monthly Precipitation in Inches Tillamook . 1 3 5 . Average Monthly Discharge in cfs, Nehalem River 1 3 6; Mean Monthly Discharge in cfs, Columbia River " V 15 at The Dalles 7 . Willamette Basin and Sandy Basin Flood Prone . 20 Areas 8. .Average Monthly Precipitation in Inches Albany 22 9 . Average Monthly Discharge in cfs, Tualatin River 23 at West Linn - 10. Average Monthly Discharge in cfs, Clackamas Rive r 23' at Estacada 11 . Average Monthly Discharge in cfs, Sandy Rive r 3 1 below Bull Run River 12. ' Hood Basin 33. 13 . Average Monthly Precipitation in Inches Parkdale 34 14. Average Monthly Precipitation in Inches The Dalles 34 15. Average Monthly Discharge in cfs, Hood Rive r 36 near Hood River 16 . Average Monthly Discharge in cfs, Fifteenmile . 36 Creek near Dufur 1 . 1 1 Figure Page 17 . Deschutes Basin Flood Prone Areas 39 18 . Average Monthly Precipitation in Inche s 4 1 Bend, Oregon 19 . Average Monthly Discharge in cfs, Deschutes Rive r 42 near Madras 20 . Average Monthly Discharge in cfs, Deschutes Rive r 4 2 below Wickiup Reservoir near Lapine 21 . John Day Basin Flood Prone Areas 4 5 22 . Average Monthly Precipitation in Inche s 4 7 Austin, Oregon 23 . Average Monthly Discharge in cfs, John Day Rive r 4 7 at McDonald Ferry 24. Umatilla Basin Flood Prone Areas 5 0 25 . Average Monthly Precipitation in Inche s 5 2 Milton-Freewater 26 . Average Monthly Discharge in cfs, Umatilla Rive r 5 2 near Umatilla 27 . Grande Ronde Basin Flood Prone Areas 5 6 28 . Average Monthly Precipitation in Inches La Grande 57 29 . Average Monthly Discharge in cfs, Grande Rond e 5 7 River near Elgin 30 . Powder Basin Flood Prone Areas 6 1 31 . Average Monthly Discharge in cfs, Powder Rive r 6 3 near Baker 32 . Malheur Basin Flood Prone Areas 6 6 33. Owyhee Basin Flood Prone Areas 67 Figure Page 34. Average Monthly Precipitation in Inches 6 8 Danner and Val e 35. Average Monthly Discharge in cfs, Malheur River 7 0 near Namor f 36. Average Monthly Discharge in cfs, Owyhee River 7 0 above Lake Owyhe e 37. Malheur Lake Basin Flood Prone Areas 7 3 38. Average Monthly Precipitation in Inches Burns 7 4 39. Average Monthly Discharge in cfs, Silvies River 7 4 near Burn s 40. Goose and Summer Lakes Basin Flood Prone Areas 7 7 41. Average Monthly Precipitation in Inches Lakeview 7 8 42 . - Average Monthly Discharge in cfs, Thomas Creek 7 8 near Lakeview 43. Klamath Basin - 8 1 44. Average Monthly Precipitation in Inches . 82 - Klamath Fall s 45. Percentage Annual Runoff 82 46. Rogue River Basin Flood Prone Area s 86 47. Average Monthly Precipitation in Inches Medford 8 8 -T 48. Average Monthly Discharge in cfs, Evans Creek -.8 8 49. Average Monthly Discharge in cfs, Rogue River 89 above mile 16 4 50. Average Monthly Discharge in cfs, Rogue River 89 at Mout h 51. Umpqua Basin Flood Prone Areas 9 2 iv Figure Page 52. Average Monthly Precipitation in Inches Roseburg 9 3 53 . Average Monthly Discharge in cfs, Umpqua Rive r 9 3 at Elkton 54. South Coast Basin Flood Prone Areas 9 7 55. Average Monthly Precipitation in Inche s 9 8 Port Orford 56 . Average Monthly Discharge in cfs, Middle For k 9 8 Coquille River near Myrtle Point 57 . Mid-Coast Basin Flood Prone Areas 10 2 58. Average Monthly Precipitation in Inches Valsetz 10 4 59 . Average Monthly Discharge in cfs, Alsea Rive r 104 near Tidewater W. 1 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 . Classification of runoff-producing characteristics 6 2 . Estimated flood damages in Oregon, 1955-1969 9 3 . Dams in Oregon across the Columbia and Snake River 116 r: 7 Vi ABBREVIATION S AF acre feet cfs cubic feet per second CNPCFS Columbia-North Pacific Comprehensive Framewor k Study Fig . Figur e RGD Resource Conservation and Developmen t SWRB State Water Resources Boar d USDA. United States Department of Agriculture M1 . A COMPILATION OF FLOOD ABATEMEN T PROJECTS IN OREGQN FOREWOR D This report is designed to serve as a convenient inventory o f and reference to flood abatement projects in Oregon . It presents an organized compilation of the location, capacity, and type of floo d abatement projects within the state . Maps of many of the project s cited herein are available from the appropriate agencies . Flood abatement projects, which are usually structures ; ar e here defined as those engineering works which are built and/o r operated to control flood waters . More specifically, the primar y engineering tehcniques. employed to abate flooding are levees, reser- voirs, channel improvements, spillways or a combination of thes e (Murphy, 1958) . Although all physical structures affect the circula- tion of water, this report includes only those projects that ar e specifically designed and/or operated for flood control . Opinion about the function of a structure is not always consistent . In cases o f conflicting opinion, if either .the literature or an interviewed official. recognizes a project aS having a flood control function, it is include d in the report. As the period of the study was limited to the months of Jul y and August 1971, no field verification or field search for projects 2 was possible . The study was accomplished by library research , interviews with federal and state officials, and correspondence with numerous local and private organizations involved in flood prevention . Of the three techniques used, the interviews with federal and state officials were the most beneficial, especially with personnel of th e following agencies : the North Pacific Division and Portland Distric t of the Corps of Engineers, the Portland and Salem offices of the Soil Conservation Service, the Salem office .of the Bureau of Reclamation, the United States Weather Service in Portland, the Office of the State Engineer in Salem, and the State Water Resources Board in Salem . The least satisfactory source of information was correspond- ence with local branches of government and private individuals . Over 270 questionnaires were sent to planners of all incorporate d areas of Oregon and to the thirty-six county planners . Less than 20% responded . Over 200 questionnaires were sent to drainag e districts, water improvement companies, diking districts, and irr i gation districts . Less than 50% responded . One bright spot was the almost complete response from the County Cooperative Extension , Agents . It is felt that had time permitted, much additional informa- tion could have been gathered by interviewing county officials . The report is in the following format . An introductory sectio n outlines the major factors which influence flooding in Oregon. The bulk of the report treats flood characteristics and projects in Oregon 3 on a watershed by watershed basis . The basins used are thos e delineated by the State Water Resources Board (Fig. 1) . Material s for each basin are selected from various federal, state, and loca l reports . Each of these chapters presents the pertinent character- istics of topography, geology, climate, river regime, and floodin g patterns within the basin . Each chapter concludes with a list o f flood abatement projects within the basin . All projects listed herein were confirmed by Federal and/or nonfederal entities responsible fo r flood information . _ Most chapters have a map showing flood pron e areas in a basin . c w r zc 4 n v, o a s 0 z au7 ~~ .54xy . xC GW F4 0 Ha co ax`"x . ~ Z 8 z as ~a 3 u ;.14 cn ci• -- r x 3a .a- .t otaG. ~-+ c ; 0 a. I~ U O r- I on •.1 5 INTRODUCTIO N Floods are stream discharges which exceed bankfull stag e (Willamette Basin Comprehensive Study, Appendix E, Flood Control , p . 1-5) . This normal phenomenon of runoff results from a comple x of factors, including the duration, intensity, type, and amount o f precipitation . Runoff is modified by the relief, rate of soil infiltra- tion (Thornbury, 1965), vegetal cover, and surface storage withi n the watershed (Table 1) . Since precipitation is usually the key to runoff and flooding, the spatial and temporal distribution of precipitation in Oregon ar e briefly considered .
Recommended publications
  • Summary of Water-Resources Activities of the U.S. Geological Survey in Oregon: Fiscal Year 1993 Compiled by Douglas B

    Summary of Water-Resources Activities of the U.S. Geological Survey in Oregon: Fiscal Year 1993 Compiled by Douglas B

    Summary of Water-Resources Activities of the U.S. Geological Survey in Oregon: Fiscal Year 1993 Compiled by Douglas B. Lee, Thelma D. Parks, and Steven W. Winkler U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 93-493 Portland, Oregon 1993 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ROBERT M. HIRSCH, Acting Director The use of brand or product names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. Copies of this report can For additional information be purchased from: write to: U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Earth Science Information Center U.S. Geological Survey, WRD Open-File Reports Section 10615 S.E. Cherry Blossom Drive Box25286, MS 517 Portland, Oregon 97216 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 CONTENTS Page Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1 Mission of the U.S. Geological Survey.......................................................................................... 2 Mission of the Water Resources Division..................................................................................... 2 Cooperating agencies...................................................................................................................... 4 Collection of water-resources data................................................................................................ 4 Surface-water data...................................................................................................................
  • Plugs Or Flood-Makers? the Unstable Landslide

    Plugs Or Flood-Makers? the Unstable Landslide

    Geomorphology 248 (2015) 237–251 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Geomorphology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph Plugs or flood-makers? The unstable landslide dams of eastern Oregon E.B. Safran a,⁎, J.E. O'Connor b,L.L.Elyc, P.K. House d,G.Grante,K.Harrityf,1,K.Croallf,1,E.Jonesf,1 a Environmental Studies Program, Lewis & Clark College, MSC 55, 0615 SW Palatine Hill Road, Portland, OR 97219, USA b U.S. Geological Survey, Geology, Minerals, Energy, and Geophysics Science Center, 2130 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, OR 97201, USA c Department of Geological Sciences, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA 98926, USA d U.S. Geological Survey, Geology, Minerals, Energy, and Geophysics Science Center, 2255 N. Gemini Drive, Flagstaff, AZ 86001, USA e U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA f Lewis & Clark College, 0615 SW Palatine Hill Road, Portland, OR 97219, USA article info abstract Article history: Landslides into valley bottoms can affect longitudinal profiles of rivers, thereby influencing landscape evolution Received 25 November 2014 through base-level changes. Large landslides can hinder river incision by temporarily damming rivers, but cata- Received in revised form 26 June 2015 strophic failure of landslide dams may generate large floods that could promote incision. Dam stability therefore Accepted 26 June 2015 strongly modulates the effects of landslide dams and might be expected to vary among geologic settings. Here, Available online 8 July 2015 we investigate the morphometry, stability, and effects on adjacent channel profiles of 17 former and current landslide dams in eastern Oregon.
  • Malheur River Basin TMDL and WQMP

    Malheur River Basin TMDL and WQMP

    Water Quality Report Malheur River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) September 2010 Last Updated: 09/2010 DEQ 10-WQ-023 This report prepared by: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 811 SW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97204 1-800-452-4011 www.oregon.gov/deq Primary Authors: John Dadoly and Ryan Michie For more information contact: John Dadoly, Basin Coordinator 700 SE Emigrant Avenue, Suite 330 Pendleton, OR 97801 (541) 278-4616 [email protected] Cheryll Hutchens-Woods, Water Quality Manager Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 SE Emigrant Avenue, Suite 330 Pendleton, OR 97801 (541) 278-4619 [email protected] Eugene Foster, Manager of Watershed Management Section Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 811 SW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97204 (503) 229-5325 [email protected] Malheur River Basin TMDL September 2010 Table of Contents Executive Summary Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Scope of TMDL Chapter 3 Basin Assessment Chapter 4 Pollutant Sources Chapter 5 Summary of Current and Past Pollution Control Efforts Chapter 6 Dissolved Oxygen, Chlorophyll a, pH, and Phosphorus Chapter 7 Bacteria Chapter 8 Pesticides Chapter 9 Temperature Water Quality Management Plan Appendix A Bacteria TMDL Technical Information Appendix B Temperature TMDL Technical Data Appendix C Baseline Beneficial Use Status of the Malheur River Basin Appendix D Quality Assurance Project Plan/Sample & Analysis Plan: Malheur River Basin TMDL Nutrient Water Quality Study
  • C:\Bull Trout Final\WPD Final\Chapter 14 Malheur Recovery Unit, Oregon

    C:\Bull Trout Final\WPD Final\Chapter 14 Malheur Recovery Unit, Oregon

    Chapter: 14 State(s): Oregon Recovery Unit Name: Malheur Recovery Unit Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed necessary to recover and protect listed species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and in this case, with the assistance of recovery unit teams, State and Tribal agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery plans represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Director or Regional Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature Citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 14, Malheur Recovery Unit, Oregon. 71 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Members of the Malheur Recovery Unit Team who assisted in the preparation of this chapter include: Wayne Bowers, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Jason Fenton, Burns Paiute Tribe Tom Friedrichsen, U. S. Forest Service, Burns Ranger District Dan Gonzalez, Burns Paiute Tribe Gina Lampman, Bureau of Land Management Sam Lohr, U.S.
  • US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion

    US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion

    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion for Bureau of Reclamation Operations and Maintenance in the Snake River Basin Above Brownlee Reservoir U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office Boise, Idaho March 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction............................................................................................................1 I. Introduction..............................................................................................................1 II. Background..............................................................................................................2 A. Project Authorizations....................................................................................2 B. Hydrologic Seasons and Operations ...............................................................5 C. Snake River Basin Adjudication.....................................................................5 D. Flow Augmentation for Salmon......................................................................6 III. Consultation History................................................................................................9 IV. Concurrence ...........................................................................................................12 V. Climate...................................................................................................................13 VI. Reinitiation Notice.................................................................................................14
  • Plugs Or Flood-Makers? the Unstable Landslide Dams of Eastern Oregon

    Plugs Or Flood-Makers? the Unstable Landslide Dams of Eastern Oregon

    Geomorphology 248 (2015) 237–251 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Geomorphology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph Plugs or flood-makers? The unstable landslide dams of eastern Oregon E.B. Safran a,⁎, J.E. O'Connor b,L.L.Elyc, P.K. House d,G.Grante,K.Harrityf,1,K.Croallf,1,E.Jonesf,1 a Environmental Studies Program, Lewis & Clark College, MSC 55, 0615 SW Palatine Hill Road, Portland, OR 97219, USA b U.S. Geological Survey, Geology, Minerals, Energy, and Geophysics Science Center, 2130 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, OR 97201, USA c Department of Geological Sciences, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA 98926, USA d U.S. Geological Survey, Geology, Minerals, Energy, and Geophysics Science Center, 2255 N. Gemini Drive, Flagstaff, AZ 86001, USA e U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA f Lewis & Clark College, 0615 SW Palatine Hill Road, Portland, OR 97219, USA article info abstract Article history: Landslides into valley bottoms can affect longitudinal profiles of rivers, thereby influencing landscape evolution Received 25 November 2014 through base-level changes. Large landslides can hinder river incision by temporarily damming rivers, but cata- Received in revised form 26 June 2015 strophic failure of landslide dams may generate large floods that could promote incision. Dam stability therefore Accepted 26 June 2015 strongly modulates the effects of landslide dams and might be expected to vary among geologic settings. Here, Available online 8 July 2015 we investigate the morphometry, stability, and effects on adjacent channel profiles of 17 former and current landslide dams in eastern Oregon.
  • Harney County Comprehensive Plan 2009 Appendix

    Harney County Comprehensive Plan 2009 Appendix

    HARNEY COUNTY PLANNI NG DEPARTMENT Harney County Comprehensive Plan 2009 Appendix: Background and Planning Process History of Harney County Formally known as the: Harney County Comprehensive Plan 2002 Harney County Planning Department 450 N. Buena Vista • Burns OR 97720 Phone 541-573-6655 • Fax 541-573-8387 HARNEY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Carol J. Smith, Planning Director MORGAN, RYAN & ASSOCIATES 280 Court Street NE Salem, Oregon PROJECT STAFF John N. Morgan, President John R. Ryan, Vice President Thomas A. Shaw Leslie K. Elkins Jane Myers Martha Onasch V. Candace Benner Those persons who contributed to the formulation of this plan deserve the County's thanks and gratitude for participating in the development of the "Harney County Comprehensive Plan" and the implementing ordinances. The Goals and Polices in this Plan will help guide the growth and preservation of Harney County in the years to come. Originally Adopted Subsequently Adopted by Harney County by Harney County June 26, 1980 October 10, 1984 Acknowledged by LCDC Acknowledged by LCDC July 25, 1985, April 17, 1984 (LCDC Compliance (LCDC Compliance Acknowledgement Order 85-ACK-162) Acknowledgement Order 84-ACK-65) ii Table of Contents 2.7 WILDLIFE PROTECTION PLAN .................. 89 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..............................V 2.7.1 Habitat and Resource Overview .... 89 2.7.2 Big Game ....................................... 89 LIST OF TABLES.........................................VII 2.7.3 Upland Game Birds ....................... 94 2.7.4 Furbearers ..................................... 95 LIST OF MAPS ............................................VIII 2.7.5 Nongame Wildlife ........................... 96 2.7.6 Waterfowl, Marshbirds, Shorebirds 96 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................... 9 Wildlife Preservation Policies ................ 100 1.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................... 9 2.8 HISTORICAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES .
  • Jonesboro Diversion Dam Replacement Project OR-67329

    Jonesboro Diversion Dam Replacement Project OR-67329

    Jordan/Malheur Resource Area Jonesboro Diversion Dam Replacement Project OR-67329 Environmental Assessment (EA) DOI-BLM-OR-V040-2013-007-EA Prepared by: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Malheur Resource Area 100 Oregon Street Vale, Oregon 97918 November, 2014 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. Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1 1.2 LOCATION 2 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 3 1.4 DECISION TO BE MADE 4 1.4.1 BLM 4 1.4.2 Bonneville Power Administration 4 1.5 CONFORMANCE TO LAWS, REGULATIONS, POLICIES, AND PLANS 5 1.6 SCOPING AND POTENTIAL ISSUES 5 2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 6 2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: GRANT DIVERSION DAM RIGHT-OF-WAY (PROPOSED ACTION) 7 2.1.1 Project Design 7 2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: NO ACTION 11 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL 11 3 AFFECTED
  • Riverside Wildlife Area Management Plan

    Riverside Wildlife Area Management Plan

    RIVERSIDE WILDLIFE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN April 2009 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 3406 Cherry Avenue NE Salem, Oregon 97303 Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 4 Purpose of the Plan ................................................................................. 4 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Mission and Authority .............. 4 Purpose and Need of Riverside Wildlife Areas ........................................ 4 Wildlife Area Goals and Objectives ......................................................... 6 Wildlife Area Establishment ..................................................................... 7 Description and Environment .............................................................. 8 Physical Resources .............................................................................. 8 Location ............................................................................................... 8 Climate ............................................................................................... 9 Habitat Types ........................................................................................ 12 Description of Wildlife Area Tracts ........................................................ 17 Biological Resources .......................................................................... 17 Birds ............................................................................................
  • FINAL Coastal, Columbia, and Snake Conservation Plan for Lampreys in Oregon Pacific Lamprey Western River Lamprey Western Brook Lamprey Pacific Brook Lamprey

    FINAL Coastal, Columbia, and Snake Conservation Plan for Lampreys in Oregon Pacific Lamprey Western River Lamprey Western Brook Lamprey Pacific Brook Lamprey

    FINAL Coastal, Columbia, and Snake Conservation Plan for Lampreys in Oregon Pacific Lamprey Western River Lamprey Western Brook Lamprey Pacific Brook Lamprey OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE February 2020 ODFW Mission To protect and enhance Oregon's fish and wildlife and their habitats for use and enjoyment by present and future generations Coastal, Columbia, and Snake Conservation Plan for Lampreys in Oregon FINAL – February 2020 Acknowledgments Authors Benjamin Clemens, Kara Anlauf-Dunn, Matt Weeber, Tom Stahl Contributors (alphabetical) ODFW (reviews, data, and other assistance) Adrienne Averett Erin Gilbert Kelly Reis Tim Bailey Kevin Goodson (retired) Susan Riemer Dave Banks Stephanie Gunckel Alan Ritchey Jon Bowers Holly Huchko Jeremy Romer Robert Bradley Dave Jepsen Pete Samarin Jason Brandt Marc Johnson Ruth Schellbach Kyle Bratcher Tucker Jones Steven Starcevich Jim Brick Chris Kern Adam Storch Stephan Charette Chris Knutsen Dan Van Dyke Shaun Clements James Lawonn Erick Van Dyke Renee Coxen Chris Lorion Gary Vonderohe Matt Falcy Art Martin Ben Walczak Alex Farrand Steve Mazur Michele Weaver Emma Garner Mike Meeuwig Bryan Wright Mike Gauvin Elizabeth Moats Jeff Ziller External (reviews) Kelly Coates, Cow Creek Tribe of Umpqua Band of Indians Jason Dunham, U.S. Geological Survey Jon Hess, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Aaron Jackson, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Ralph Lampman, Yakama Nation Helena Linnell, Coquille Indian Tribe Richard Litts, Tenmile Lakes Basin Partnership Brian McIlraith, HDR Laurie Porter, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission John Schaefer, Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Carl Schreck, Oregon State University Greg Silver, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Tod Sween, Nez Perce Tribe Brandon Weems, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde U.S.
  • Malheur River Basin TMDL Appendix D

    Malheur River Basin TMDL Appendix D

    Quality Assurance Project Plan/Sample & Analysis Plan Malheur River Basin TMDL Nutrient Water Quality Study for TMDL Development - 2006 A1. Title and Approval Sheet Project Manager Signature: John Dadoly _____________________________ Signature/Date Laboratory Monitoring Coordinator/Data Manager Larry Marxer _____________________________ Signature/Date Project QA Officer: Chris Redman _____________________________ Signature/Date Laboratory Analytical Officer: Raeann Haynes _____________________________ Signature/Date WSA Manager: Rick Hafele _____________________________ Signature/Date Document: DEQ06-LAB-0022-QAPP Section: Watershed Assessment Revision No. 8 Date 9/20/2010 Page 1 of 23 A2. Table of Contents A1. Title and Approval Sheet.................................................................................................................. 1 A2. Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. 2 A3. Plan Distribution List ....................................................................................................................... 3 Table 1 Distribution List ................................................................................................................................ 3 A4. Project Description ........................................................................................................................... 3 A4.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………...3 A4.2 Background…………………………………………………………………………………...3
  • Draft Upper Snake Recovery Unit Implementation Plan for Bull Trout Recovery Plan

    Draft Upper Snake Recovery Unit Implementation Plan for Bull Trout Recovery Plan

    Draft Upper Snake Recovery Unit Implementation Plan for Bull Trout Recovery Plan June 2015 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office Boise, Idaho Table of Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................................. E-1 Current Status of Bull Trout in the Upper Snake Recovery Unit ............................................. E-8 Factors Affecting Bull Trout in the Upper Snake Recovery Unit .......................................... E-10 Ongoing Upper Snake Recovery Unit Conservation Measures (Summary) .......................... E-17 Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation ................................................................................... E-18 Recovery Measures Narrative ................................................................................................ E-19 Implementation Schedule for the Upper Snake Recovery Unit. ............................................ E-56 References .............................................................................................................................. E-79 Appendix I. Core Area Technical Meeting Summaries ........................................................ E-81 Appendix II. Core Area Summaries ...................................................................................... E-88 List of Figures Figure E-1. Map of the Upper Snake Recovery Unit for bull trout. ........................................... E-3 List of Tables Table E-1.