DOCSLIB.ORG

Umpqua Basin Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Umpqua Basin Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan Umpqua Basin Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan November 2020 Developed by the Oregon Department of Agriculture With input from the: Umpqua Basin Local Advisory Committee Douglas Soil and Water Conservation District & Umpqua Soil and Water Conservation District Oregon Department of Agriculture Douglas SWCD Umpqua SWCD Water Quality Program Roseburg, OR Reedsport, OR 635 Capitol Street NE (541) 957-5061 (541) 662-1341 Salem, Oregon 97301 Phone: (503) 986-4700 Website: oda.direct/AgWQPlans (This page is blank) Table of Contents Acronyms and Terms .................................................................................................................. i Preface ....................................................................................................................................... ii To: Agricultural Landowners of Douglas County ............................................................. iii Foreword .................................................................................................................................. iv Required Elements of Area Plans ............................................................................................. iv Plan Content ............................................................................................................................. iv Chapter 1: Agricultural Water Quality Program .................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose of Agricultural Water Quality Program and Applicability of Area Plans 1 1.2 History of the Ag Water Quality Program ............................................................... 1 1.3 Roles and Responsibilities ......................................................................................... 2 1.3.1 Oregon Department of Agriculture ................................................................................................... 2 1.3.2 Local Management Agency ............................................................................................................. 5 1.3.3 Local Advisory Committee .............................................................................................................. 5 1.3.4 Agricultural Landowners ................................................................................................................. 5 1.3.5 Public Participation.......................................................................................................................... 6 1.4 Agricultural Water Quality ...................................................................................... 6 1.4.1 Point and Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution .................................................. 6 1.4.2 Beneficial Uses and Parameters of Concern ...................................................................................... 6 1.4.3 Impaired Waterbodies and Total Maximum Daily Loads ................................... 7 1.4.4 Oregon Water Pollution Control Law – ORS 468B.025 and 468B.050 ............... 7 1.4.5 Streamside Vegetation and Agricultural Water Quality ..................................... 8 1.4.6 Soil Health and Agricultural Water Quality ........................................................ 9 1.5 Other Water Quality Programs .............................................................................. 10 1.5.1 Confined Animal Feeding Operation Program .................................................. 10 1.5.2 Groundwater Management Areas ...................................................................... 10 1.5.3 The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds ................................................... 10 1.5.4 Pesticide Management and Stewardship ............................................................ 10 1.5.5 Drinking Water Source Protection ..................................................................... 11 1.5.6 Oregon’s Coastal Management Program ........................................................... 11 1.6 Partner Agencies and Organizations ...................................................................... 11 1.6.1 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ................................................. 11 1.6.2 Other Partners ..................................................................................................... 12 1.7 Measuring Progress ................................................................................................. 12 1.7.1 Measurable Objectives ........................................................................................ 12 Umpqua Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan November 2020 1.7.2 Land Conditions and Water Quality .................................................................. 13 1.7.3 Focused Implementation in Small Geographic Areas ........................................ 13 1.8 Progress and Adaptive Management ...................................................................... 14 1.8.1 Biennial Reviews .................................................................................................. 14 1.8.2 Agricultural Water Quality Monitoring ............................................................. 14 Chapter 2: Local Background ............................................................................................ 17 2.1 Local Roles .............................................................................................................. 17 2.1.1 Local Advisory Committee.................................................................................. 17 2.1.2 Local Management Agency ................................................................................. 18 2.2 Area Plan and Area Rules: Development and History .......................................... 18 2.3 Geographical and Physical Setting ......................................................................... 18 2.3.1 Location, Water Resources, Land Use, Land Ownership, Agriculture ............. 18 2.4 Agricultural Water Quality .................................................................................... 19 2.4.1 Water Quality Issues ........................................................................................... 19 2.4.2 Local Issues of Concern, Sources of Impairment, Pollution Prevention/Control . .............................................................................................................................. 21 2.5.1 Nutrient Management ......................................................................................... 22 2.5.2 Riparian/Streamside Area Management ............................................................ 23 2.5.3 Soil Erosion Prevention and Control .................................................................. 24 2.5.4 Bacteria ................................................................................................................ 25 2.5.5 Temperature ........................................................................................................ 26 2.5.6 Waste Management ............................................................................................. 27 2.5.7 Livestock Management, Irrigation Management, Estuarine Management ...... 28 Chapter 3: Implementation Strategies ................................................................................ 31 3.1 Measurable Objectives and Strategic Initiatives .................................................... 32 3.1.1 Management Area ............................................................................................... 32 3.1.2 Focus Areas and Other Coordinated Efforts in Small Watersheds................... 32 3.1.3 Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships .................................................................... 33 3.2 Proposed Activities .................................................................................................. 34 3.3 Water Quality and Land Condition Monitoring .................................................... 34 3.3.1 Water Quality ...................................................................................................... 34 3.4 Education and Outreach ......................................................................................... 35 3.5 Conservation Planning and Conservation Activities ............................................. 37 Umpqua Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan November 2020 3.6 Funding .................................................................................................................... 38 3.7 Monitoring and Evaluation ..................................................................................... 38 Chapter 4: Progress and Adaptive Management ................................................................ 41 4.1 Measurable Objectives and Strategic Initiatives .................................................... 41 4.1.1 Management Area ............................................................................................... 41 4.1.2 Focus Areas and Other Focused Efforts in Small Watersheds .......................... 41 4.1.3 Pesticide Stewardship Partnership ..................................................................... 43 4.2 Activities and Accomplishments ............................................................................. 43 4.3 Water Quality and Land Condition Monitoring .................................................... 44 4.3.1 Water Quality .....................................................................................................
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]
  • Click Here to Download the 4Th Grade Curriculum
    Copyright © 2014 The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon. All rights reserved. All materials in this curriculum are copyrighted as designated. Any republication, retransmission, reproduction, or sale of all or part of this curriculum is prohibited. Introduction Welcome to the Grand Ronde Tribal History curriculum unit. We are thankful that you are taking the time to learn and teach this curriculum to your class. This unit has truly been a journey. It began as a pilot project in the fall of 2013 that was brought about by the need in Oregon schools for historically accurate and culturally relevant curriculum about Oregon Native Americans and as a response to countless requests from Oregon teachers for classroom- ready materials on Native Americans. The process of creating the curriculum was a Tribal wide effort. It involved the Tribe’s Education Department, Tribal Library, Land and Culture Department, Public Affairs, and other Tribal staff. The project would not have been possible without the support and direction of the Tribal Council. As the creation was taking place the Willamina School District agreed to serve as a partner in the project and allow their fourth grade teachers to pilot it during the 2013-2014 academic year. It was also piloted by one teacher from the Pleasant Hill School District. Once teachers began implementing the curriculum, feedback was received regarding the effectiveness of lesson delivery and revisions were made accordingly. The teachers allowed Tribal staff to visit during the lessons to observe how students responded to the curriculum design and worked after school to brainstorm new strategies for the lessons and provide insight from the classroom teacher perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • Bretz Club Field Guide - Sunset Bay Area 2012 P.183-198
    Bretz Club Field Guide - Sunset Bay Area 2012 p.183-198 Wallick et al., 2011, Umpqua River Channel Change & Transport p. 199-215 Stop 1. Bastendorff Beach Figure 1‐1. Navigation Leaving OIMB, our first stop is Bastendorff Beach, a short drive over Coos Head. Oregon Beach dynamics The Oregon Coast is highly active, with one of the most energetic wave climates (Figure 1‐2) in the world, and all of that energy pushes a lot of sand around. We all learned about longshore drift in Geo 101, but the pattern in Oregon is fundamentally different. Oregon’s coast is broken into a series of “pocket beach” littoral cells, long stretches of dune or bluff‐backed beach bounded by rocky headlands that extend into water that is deep enough to block sediment transport around the ends of the headlands. There are also large differences in the direction and energy of summer versus winter waves (Figure 1‐3); highly energetic winter waves erode the beaches and move sand offshore to form sand bars, while gentler summer waves restore the sand to the beaches. Within each cell, sand also moves north or south depending on the prevailing wave directions and in response to climate events such as El Nino’s. Here at Bastendorf beach we see evidence for this intra‐cell movement in the form of dramatic accretion of the beach since the construction of the south jetty in the early 1900’s. The beach rapidly accreted (Figure 1‐3) until about 1967, and has reached some state of equilibrium since then.
    [Show full text]
  • ON TAP “Drinking Water You Can Trust”
    ON TAP “Drinking Water You Can Trust” Vol. 24 Issue 1 March 1, 2010 2009 YEAR IN REVIEW 2009 was a year of slow growth for Umpqua Basin Water Association, Inc. Our membership grew with the addition of 4 new members. We had 19 new members join the Association but, we lost 15 members. Your Association grew to a total of 3,240 members. CURRENT AND PLANNED SYSTEM UPGRADES In 2009 your Association completed one of its largest projects to date. We replaced the water mainline that was hanging on Browns Bridge with a 950’, 22” HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) line, under the North Umpqua River. This new mainline has a life expectancy that will probably outlast the next two new bridges. ODOT and Douglas County are in the development stages of a new overpass that will be replacing the current Del Rio Rd over pass (exit 129). At this time UBWA is considering where our current line, which is attached to the current over pass, will be located. We are currently working with all the landowners, Douglas County, ODOT and others in this process. THE NORTH UMPQUA RIVER The North Umpqua River is a tributary of the Umpqua River, approximately 100 miles long, in southwestern Oregon in the United States. It drains a scenic and rugged area of the Cascade Range southwest of Eugene, flowing through steep canyons and surrounded by large Douglas fir forests. The North Umpqua River rises in the high Cascades, issuing from Maidu Lake at an elevation of 5,980 feet in the Mount Thielsen Wilderness.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Oregon Plan Assessment- Hydropower Program
    Part 4(C) ODFW (8) Hydro Final Report May 6, 2005 OREGON PLAN ASSESSMENT- HYDROPOWER PROGRAM OREGON COAST COHO SALMON ESU Perspective The impacts to coho salmon populations from hydroelectric projects are variable among stream basins or within evolutionarily significant units (ESU). Hydropower development within the Oregon Coastal Coho ESU has not been as extensive as within other ESU’s, and impacts are not a significant issue within this ESU, except in the Umpqua River Basin where two major hydroelectric projects have been constructed. These are PacifiCorp’s North Umpqua project (FERC 1927) and Douglas County’s Galesville project (FERC 7161). Both projects were constructed without fish passage facilities and prevent anadromous fish, including coho salmon, from accessing approximately 8 miles of historical habitat in the upper North Umpqua River (North Umpqua project) and 28 miles in Cow Creek (Galesville project), a tributary to the South Umpqua. There are five other small non-FERC licensed hydroelectric projects within this ESU which have hydroelectric licenses authorized by the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). All are outside of coho spawning, rearing and migration corridors. ESU Perspective Conclusion Generally, within the majority of the ESU, impacts from hydroelectric projects are insignificant or non-existent. Specifically, within the Umpqua basin, Oregon Coastal coho have been prevented from reaching 36 miles of spawning and rearing habitat by hydroelectric projects. Impacts to downstream reaches include; alteration of flows and interruption of natural sediment and large woody debris regimes. Mitigation measures have already been implemented and additional measures will be implemented as part of hydroelectric project relicensing and reauthorization.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Mineral Resources of Douglas County
    STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL INDUSTRIES 1069 State Office Building Portland, Oregon 97201 BU LLE TIN 75 GEOLOGY & MINERAL RESOURCES of DOUGLAS COUNTY, OREGON Le n Ra mp Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries The preparation of this report was financially aided by a grant from Doug I as County GOVERNING BOARD R. W. deWeese, Portland, Chairman William E. Miller, Bend Donald G. McGregor, Grants Pass STATE GEOLOGIST R. E. Corcoran FOREWORD Douglas County has a history of mining operations extending back for more than 100 years. During this long time interval there is recorded produc­ tion of gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, mercury, and nickel, plus lesser amounts of other metalliferous ores. The only nickel mine in the United States, owned by The Hanna Mining Co., is located on Nickel Mountain, approxi­ mately 20 miles south of Roseburg. The mine and smelter have operated con­ tinuously since 1954 and provide year-round employment for more than 500 people. Sand and gravel production keeps pace with the local construction needs. It is estimated that the total value of all raw minerals produced in Douglas County during 1972 will exceed $10, 000, 000 . This bulletin is the first in a series of reports to be published by the Department that will describe the general geology of each county in the State and provide basic information on mineral resources. It is particularly fitting that the first of the series should be Douglas County since it is one of the min­ eral leaders in the state and appears to have considerable potential for new discoveries during the coming years.
    [Show full text]
  • The Distribution and Relative Abundance of Spawning and Larval Pacific Lamprey in the Willamette River Basin
    The distribution and relative abundance of spawning and larval Pacific lamprey in the Willamette River Basin Final Report to the Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish Commission for project years 2011-2014 May 2014 Prepared by Luke Schultz1* Mariah P. Mayfield1, 2 Gabriel T. Sheoships1 Lance A. Wyss3 Benjamin J. Clemens4 Brandon Chasco5 and Carl B. Schreck6 (P.I.) CRITFC Contract number C13-11 Fiscal Year 2013 (May 1, 2013-April 30, 2014) BPA Contract number 60877 BPA Project number 2008-524-00 1Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, U. S. Geological Survey, 104 Nash Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331 *E-mail: [email protected]; phone: 541-737-1964 2current address: Rural Aquaculture Promotion, Peace Corps, Lusaka, Zambia 3current address: Calapooia, North Santiam, and South Santiam Watershed Councils Brownsville, OR 4current address: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR Corvallis, OR 97331 5Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 104 Nash Hall, Oregon State University 6USGS, Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 104 Nash Hall Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331. [email protected] Acknowledgements Funding for this study was provided by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission through the Columbia Basin Fish Accords partnership with the Bonneville Power Administration under project 2008-524-00, Brian McIlraith, project manager. Fieldwork assistance was generously provided by J. Doyle, B. Gregorie, B. McIlraith, K. Kuhn, V. Mayfield, R. McCoun, J. Sáenz, L. Schwabe, K. McDonnell and C. Christianson. B. Heinith, J. Peterson, B. Gerth, G. Giannico, J. Jolley, G.
    [Show full text]
  • Implications for the Calapooya Divide, Oregon
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Karen Joyce Starr for the degree of Master of Arts in Interdiscinlinary Studies in Anthr000loay. Geogranhv, and _Agricultural and Resource Economics presented on October 1, 1982 Title: THE CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF MOUNTAIN REGIONS; IMPLICATIONS FOR THE QALAPOOYA DIVIDE. OREGON Abstract approved: Redacted for Privacy Thomas C. Hogg Altitudinal variations in upland regions of the earthcreate variable climatic zones and conditions. Plant andanimal communities must adapt to these conditions, andwhen theyreach their tolerance limits for environmental conditions at the upper levels of a zone, they cease to exist inthe environment. Humans also utilize mountains for a variety of reasons. The cultural traits which result from the adaptationof groups of people to mountainenvironments are unique from those of the surrounding lowlanders. Adaptation to upland areas is most often expressed in a transhumant or agro-pastoral lifestyle attuned to the climatic variations and demands of the mountain environment. This distribution of cultural traits suggests thatmountains are considered unique culture areas, apart from but sharing sometraits in common with neighboring lowland areas. The Cultural Significance of Mountain Regions Implications for the Calapooya Divide, Oregon by Karen Joyce Starr A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies Completed October 1, 1982 Commencement June 1983 APPROVED: Redacted for Privacy Professor of Anthropology in charge of major Redacted for Privacy Chairman of Department of Anthropology Redacted for Privacy AssociateiDrofssor of Geography in charge of minor Redacted for Privacy Profe4or of Agricultural and Resource Economics in charge of minor Redacted for Privacy Dean of Graduat chool Date thesis is presented October 1.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief History of the Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuslaw Indians
    A Brief History of the Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuslaw Indians The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians are made up of 3 tribes (4 Bands): 2 bands of Coos Tribes: Hanis Coos (Coos Proper), Miluk Coos; Lower Umpqua Tribe; and Siuslaw Tribe. Although both Coos bands lived in close proximity to one another on the Coos River tributaries, they spoke different dialects of the Coos language and had their own unique history and cultural differences. A days walk north from the Coos River, you found yourself in the Lower Umpqua territory with a much different spoken language that both the Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw bands shared; the Siuslaw language. The diversity of languages and cultures you can find along the West Coast attests to the longevity these bands sustained for hundreds of generations in the lands they call home. The tribes trace their ancestry back to the aboriginal inhabitants of the South-Central coast of Oregon. Their historic homelands extended from the richly forested slopes of the Coastal Range in the East to the rocky shoreline of the Pacific Ocean in the West, a vast region of some 1.6 million acres. They lived peacefully in an area characterized by moderate temperatures and abundant natural resources, including fish, shellfish, wildlife, and a rich variety of edible plants. This was their land; the Coos cosmology states that: Two young men from the Sky World looked down below, and saw only water. Blue clay they laid down for land, and tule mats and baskets they laid down to stop the waves from running over the land.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality and Algal Conditions in the North Umpqua River Basin, Oregon, 1992–95, and Implications for Resource Management
    Cover photograph: North Umpqua River above Copeland Creek and Old Man Rock, summer 1994. (Photograph by Chauncey W. Anderson, U.S. Geological Survey.) Water-Quality and Algal Conditions in the North Umpqua River Basin, Oregon, 1992–95, and Implications for Resource Management By CHAUNCEY W. ANDERSON and KURT D. CARPENTER U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 98–4125 Prepared in cooperation with Douglas County Portland, Oregon 1998 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas J. Casadevall, Acting Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For addtional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey, WRD Branch of Information Services 10615 S. E. Cherry Blossom Drive Box 25286 Portland, Oregon 97216-3159 Federal Center E-mail: [email protected] Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Abstract........................................................................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................2 Background ...................................................................................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • In South Umpqua River and Cow Creek
    HATCHERY AND GENETIC MANAGEMENT PLAN (HGMP) Hatchery Program: Umpqua River Basin Coho Salmon Program Species or Coho Salmon (Stocks-18) Hatchery Stock: Agency/Operator: Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Watershed and Region: Umpqua Watershed-Southwest Region Draft Submitted: March 14, 2003 First Update Submitted: November 28, 2011 Second Update Submitted: December 5, 2014 Third Update Submitted: June 7, 2017 Date Last Updated: June 6, 2017 South Umpqua River/Cow Creek Coho Salmon HGMP 2017 1 SECTION 1. GENERAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 1.1) Name of hatchery or program. Rock Creek Hatchery, Umpqua River Basin Coho Salmon Program (stock-18) in South Umpqua River and Cow Creek. 1.2) Species and population (or stock) under propagation, and ESA status. Umpqua basin wild Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch are part of the Oregon Coast Coho Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU), which was listed as a threatened species under the federal ESA on August 10, 1998 (Federal Register Notice 1998). It was subsequently de-listed in 2005 and was relisted effective May 12, 2008 (Federal Register 73FR7816, Oregon Coastal Coho ESU, February 11, 2008). The listing includes all naturally produced Coho Salmon from Cape Blanco north to the Columbia River. Of particular interest for this HGMP is the listing of the Cow Creek stock. The stock is incorrectly identified in the Federal Register Final Species Determination as stock-37 (page 7824), but the text identifies the stock as the Cow Creek stock. Thus in the Umpqua basin, the Coho Salmon stock-18 is an ESA-listed. The listing was reviewed again in 2011 and the threatened listing was upheld.
    [Show full text]
  • North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River Environmental Assessment
    NORW UMPQUA WII), AND SCENIC RIVER Environmental Assessment AWildUtJdMenicrivaenvirrmrnentcrlarceJstnantdevebpedjoinCIyby:. U. S. DEPT OF AGRlCUIXURE U.S. DEPT. ;Eu Ib$‘EIXIO; FOREST SERVICE Pa&k Northwest Region gg @ TqjT Umpqua National Forest OREGON STATE PARKS Q RECREATION DEPARTMENT JULY 1992 Environmental Assessment North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River Table ofContents CHAPTER I Purpoee and Need for Action.. ............................................................................... 1 Purpcee and Need/Proposed Action .............................................................................................I Background...................................................................................................................................... .1 Management Goal ...........................................................................................................................2 Scoping ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Outstandingly Remarkable Values ................................................................................................5 l.ssues................................................................................................................................................ 5 CHAPTER II Affected Envlronment .............................................................................................7 Setting..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]