L -7 - - - . - "
DOCUMENI OR Y/W29/4 .2Ap6x
APPLEGATE WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
Prepared for State of Oregon Watershed Health Program and Strategic Water Management Group
Prepared by Applegate River Watershed Council
November 1994 APPLEGATE WATERSHED ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTERS
I INTRODUCTION
II. WORKING ASSESSMENT
III. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT STRATEGY
IV. WATERSHED HEALTH STRATEGY
V MONITORING PLAN
VI. MECHANISM FOR UPDATING THE WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A LINKAGES TO EXISTING PROGRAMS
APPENDIX B REVIEW OF PERTINENT REGULATIONS
APPENDIX C COOPERATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING
APPENDIX D BUILDING LOCAL CAPABILITIES: LONG TERM STRATEGY
35138 00ll4ll7ll0ll 3 5138 00497059 3 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Applegate Watershed Assessment is the initial step in providing a framework for the community to address many of the difficult natural resource issues we must face in the coming years. It is hoped that this initial step will lead to a process where by the community can come together to analyze issues and problems and develop and implement solutions. The objectives of this process are to: * enhance and restore the watershed for all species, including humans. * promote the recovery of anadromous fish stocks in the Rogue Basin by improving habitat conditions in the Applegate watershed. * involve the community in caring for their watershed. * provide educational opportunities. * prioritize our efforts. * provide avenues to accomplish our objectives.
The watershed assessment was prepared by the Applegate River Watershed Council coordinating staff for the State of Oregon Watershed Health Program and the Strategic Water Management Group. Assistance was provided by the Watershed Health Field Team and Central Staff and many local experts. The imposed time constraints did not allow the involvement of community residents that we feel is essential. Public involvement in the refinement of the assessment and the development of a strategy for improving and maintaining health in the watershed will be initiated immediately and the findings generated by this outreach will be incorporated in the next, updated version of assessment. A preliminary draft of the assessment was reviewed by the watershed council and many other interested parties.
The Applegate River Watershed Council consists of the Board of the Applegate Partnership and other interested community members. The Applegate Partnership is comprised of industry, conservation groups, research scientists and residents cooperating to protect and restore the health of the Applegate River watershed, and to provide economic and community health. All meetings are open to the public. The Partnership has focused predominantly on forest health issues since its inception in 1992. In its new role as the Applegate River Watershed Council, the focus is directed predominantly on the aquatic ecosystem; streams and the plants and animals they support. The consideration of all components in the watershed is necessary to ensure the health of the whole. The cooperative relationships developed by the Partnership over the last two years will make it much easier to implement solutions across ownership boundaries. Since a large portion of the watershed is managed by federal agencies, cooperation between private landowners and the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service is essential.
This assessment is based on information which is available from the literature at this time. References are indicated by "(#, e.g. 1,2, etc.)" as they appear and are listed at the end of
Introduction I 11194 each chapter. As new information or ideas are developed, they will be integrated. Information gleaned from accounts of residents regarding current and historic conditions will be integrated with this information. Results derived from current studies and monitoring will also be used to update the assessment.
The long term goal of the assessment is to evaluate all components of the watershed from ridgetop to ridgetop. It is important to note that the integrity of streams depends on the integrity of riparian and upland areas, and that individual species influence processes in many ways that feed back to help maintain ecological health. Species, stands, streams, landscapes, and regions compose an inter-linked system in which the health of the parts cannot be considered separately from the health of the whole. Additionally, we must recognize that the ever-growing human needs have increased the pressure on the ecosystem to provide clean water, increased water supply, forest products, game and other wildlife, and adequate habitat for the total diversity of life; including humans (1).
At this time, the focus of this assessment is on fisheries. Assessments of other resources will be developed as time permits. This document will focus entirely on inland watershed conditions and restoration potential, however it is important to note that ocean conditions play a strong role in fishery management and that these are outside the scope of this assessment and our area of potential influence.
This preliminary assessment provides the basis for developing a strategy for maintaining and improving healthy conditions in the watershed. The evolution of this document and process could take many different paths. The involvement of residents from many different backgrounds will provide a wide range of insights and recommendations which will enhance the development of possible solutions in the watershed.
REFERENCES
(1) USDA Forest Service, Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests and PNW Research Station/USDI Bureau of Land Management, Medford District, 1994, Applegate Adaptive Management Area Ecosystem Health Assessment.
Introduction 2 11194 F_- -
CHAPTER II
WORKING ASSESSMENT
WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING
The Applegate watershed is an important part of the diverse 3,300,000 acre (5,156 square mile) Rogue River Basin. Map I shows the location of the Applegate watershed within the Rogue Basin. The 493,000 acre (770 square mile) Applegate watershed includes lands in Jackson County (approximately 410 square miles) and Josephine County (approx- imately 270 square miles) of Oregon and in Siskiyou County (approximately 90 square miles) of California. The watershed is located on the northeastern flank of the Siskiyou Mountains in southwestern Oregon. This is one of the most biologically, botanically and geologically diverse areas in the country. The watershed is steep and rugged, ranging in elevation from 850 feet to 7,418 feet (1).
Numerous small watersheds flow into the Applegate River which flows into the Rogue River near Grants Pass. Map 2 shows the rural communities, primary tributaries and peaks in the Applegate watershed.(2) There are no incorporated towns within the watershed. Major communities include Wilderville, Wonder, Murphy, Provolt, Williams, Applegate, Ruch and McKee Bridge. The watershed contains about 700 miles of streams.( l)
Issues: The watershed is large, spans several political jurisdictions, and has no central meeting place, means of distributing information, or governing entity.
GEOLOGY
The Applegate River drainage basin contains some of the oldest (150-250 million years) and most complex geologic assemblages along the U.S. West Coast. Plate I is a generalized geologic map of the Applegate watershed.
Bedrock is composed of intrusive and metamorphic rock types which have been faulted, folded and broadly uplifted. Major rock types in the headwaters include granite, graphite/mica schist, serpentine, and medium-grade metamorphosed sedimentary formations. The vast majority of bedrock found in middle and lowland portions of the basin is composed of weakly metamorphosed volcanic and sedimentary rocks. Notable exceptions are the large granitic intrusion located near the confluence with the Rogue River and the large granitic pluton underlying the Williams Valley (3).
The sediment produced from granitic terrain contains mostly coarse sandy material with little gravel, cobbles and boulders. Deposited granitic sands are usually tightly packed and
Assessment I 11 1.94 Rogue Basin Watershed Boundaries MA P 1 r'd
-2
Watershed meters APPLEGATE 0 30000 60000 ILLINOIS LOWER ROGUE MIDDLE ROGUE W1 UPPER ROGUE Bureau of Land Mlanagemenl- 311,
I.S. Foreg Semilee- 3PMI
MAP2 lack void space needed by many aquatic forms (4). Granitic soils are very susceptible to surface erosion and debris slides (4) (5).
Narrow bands of serpentine bedrock have very cobbly, clayey soils with a distinct plant community. When vegetation is removed it is often difficult to reestablish because of a nutrient imbalance (5). The low shear strength of fresh serpentine and the clayey nature of weathered serpentine makes these areas very susceptible to landsliding.
The more widespread metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks are generally more stable, however some soil types developed on these rock types are susceptible to high erosion rates (6).
Most of the Applegate watershed today is characterized by highly dissected mountain slopes with long, steep, narrow canyons that have been carved into the rugged terrain by high gradient drainage. Steeper slopes in the middle and upper elevations are noted for their relatively high rates of mass wasting and erosion. In general, high erosion rates on the steep slopes cause soil profiles to be relatively thin and rocky. Major valleys have broad gently sloping landscapes with river valley bottoms characterized by extensive accumulations of river deposits.
Issues: Steep slopes and rock types which are susceptible to erosion should be identified and avoided when conducting activities which could trigger instability if possible. Removing vegetation in serpentine areas should be avoided.
SOILS
Soil is the most critical ecosystem component. The interaction of soil and climate generate the inherent productivity of the site. Healthy soils are airy, permeable, fertile, (high organic carbon content), protected from surface erosion, and productive. They transmit and store heat, water, and other chemicals. Soils host plants, animals, nutritional elements, and regulate water flow. Any damage to the physical or chemical properties, particularly the organic components of soil, has potentially extensive impacts on vegetation, water, nutrition, and microsite temperatures.
Soils in the Applegate watershed have a wide range in texture, depth, rock content and mineralogy because of the diversity of rock types. Detailed soil mapping has been done in both Josephine and Jackson Counties and is available at the Soil Conservation Service/ Soil and Water Conservation district offices. The Forest Service has also mapped soil types on their lands. Josephine County has been contracted to enter both Jackson County and Josephine County soils information into a GIS system, expected to be completed in 1995. This information will enable the council to show the distribution of soil types having various properties in project sites or throughout the watershed.
Issues: Soil characteristics should be made available to landowners and potential impacts of activities should evaluated.
Aesse.wment 2 /1/94 CLIMATE/WEATHER
As part of interior southwestern Oregon, the Applegate area has the lowest annual precipitation and highest annual summer temperatures for the west side of the Cascade mountain range to the Canadian border. Rainfall ranges between 20 and 100 inches per year with the high elevation glaciated basins accumulating over 10 feet of snow. The rain shadow effect created by the Siskiyou Mountains accounts for the relatively light annual rainfall. Rainfall amounts vary widely across the watershed as the rugged terrain exerts a strong rain shadow and rain-producing effect. Table I shows the precipitation variation between Ruch, Williams and Buncom (1).
Precipitation usually occurs in the form of rainfall in most of the watershed. However, in the higher elevations, above 5,000 feet, the precipitation during the winter months is in the form of snow. Between 3,500 feet and 5,000 feet snow and rain are dominant. This elevation band is called the transient snow zone. Rain on snow events in this range can cause very high peak flows causing severe erosion.
Southern Oregon is currently experiencing severe drought conditions; with 7 of the last 9 years having less than average precipitation. Long and short-term climatic cycles are critical to the ecosystem's current and future condition. Pollen studies suggest that hot, dry periods may have persisted for 4000 years of the last 10,000 years after the Ice Age. Jeff LaLande (personal communication), archeologist for the Rogue River National Forest analyzed dendrochronology records (tree rings) and found evidence of a severe drought lasting for 30-40 years about 300 years ago. A more recent drought, also recorded in tree-rings, occurred around 1880 for a period of about 20 years duration. Hot, dry weather coupled with continued development in the area should raise awareness that community involvement to plan for our future, regarding water use and ways to protect our property from the high potential fire risk, is essential.
Issues: Drought conditions could persist; consequently, water conservation measures should be encouraged and implemented where possible. Seek support from governmental agencies for realistic incentives to encourage conservation.
HYDROLOGY
Stream flow in the Applegate River mirrors the precipitation pattern. Approximately 80 to 90 percent of the annual water yield occurs from December through May. Run-off usually peaks in February and March. Historic extreme flood events have come in December and January as a result of rain-on snow events. Summer flow are usually quite low reflecting the low summer precipitation. Table 2 shows water yields for several drainage areas in the Applegate watershed.
Assecssment 3 /l 94 TABLE 1 AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (FO) AND PRECIPITATION (IN.)
RUCH
Annual Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Temp. 39 43 46 49 53 64 70 69 64 54 44 39 53 Precip. 5.2 2.5 2.7 1.6 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.8 3.8 5.3 26.5
WILLIAMS
Annual Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average
Precip. 7.5 4.1 3.7 1.8 1.3 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.8 2.9 5.1 6.8 35.4
BUNCOM
Annual Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average
Precip. 4.0 2.4 1.9 1.3 1.5 1.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 2.3 3.1 4.2 23.0
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration I
_ TABLE 2. WATER YIELD (5)
Watershed Name Annual Annual Average Average Average Precip. Yield Annual 25-year Minimum (Inches) (Inches) Flow (cfs) Flood (cfs) Flow (cfs) Little Applegate 30 15.4 128 11,627 20 Lower Applegate* 40 14.3 136 14,822 49 Middle Applegate* 35 14.3 127 12,871 46 Upper Applegate* 30 15.4 59 5,828 9 Williams Creek 35 14.3 88 10,048 32 *Regulated flow
The greatest water needs occur during the summer months when water is in high demand for irrigation, recreation, domestic use, road construction and power generation. This is also the time of lowest water yield. Naturally low summer stream flows are directly affected by withdrawals for agriculture and domestic use. The result is seriously depleted stream flows which affect instream fish habitat. The Applegate Dam completed in 1980 has moderated both high and low flows in the mainstem. An increase in rural population density has been accompanied by an increase in surface and ground water diversion. This trend is expected to continue.
Water quality of streams in the Applegate watershed is generally good. Principal water quality concerns are: * above optimum water temperatures for salmon and trout in the summer * high turbidity during major winter storms.
For purposes of this report, the Applegate watershed has been divided into nine basins on hydrologic boundaries. Table 3 lists the basin names and sizes in acres and square miles. Map 3 and Plate 2 show their location in the watershed.
Issues: Water is a limited resource, especially in the tributaries, with many competing demands vying for its use. Plan now, taking all uses into account, to find ways the watershed can provide this precious resource to the many demands.
VEGETATION
Riparian Riparian zones are the areas immediately adjacent to rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, springs, marshes, seeps, bogs and wet meadows. The vegetation and microclimate conditions in riparian zones are products of the combined presence and influence of perennial or intermittent water, associated high water tables and soils which exhibit some wetness characteristics. Riparian zones provide streambank stability,
.A1ssess7ment 4 1 11'94 1
'x-
Applegate Watershed
I &s an Streams
MAP 3
0 5 1 0 Miles 0 5 10 Miles TABLE 3 APPLEGATE WATERSHED SUB-BASINS SUB-BASIN TRIBUTARY ACRES SQUARE MILES UPPER APPLEGATE 142,167 222 Butte Fork 11,646 18 _Middle Fork 20,653 32 Silver Fork 16,704 26 Dutch Ck. 6,818 11 Joe Ck. 3,443 5 Elliot Ck. 9,190 14 Carberry Ck. 19,068 30 O'Brien 2,465 4 Sturgis Ck. 10,510 16 Brush Ck. 15,367 24 Squaw Ck. 18,813 29 Applegate Lk. 7,490 12 STAR/BEAVER/PALMER 52,243 81 Palmer Ck. 18,664 29 Beaver Ck. 17,484 27 Star Gulch 16,065 25 LITTLE APPLEGATE 72,242 113 McDonald Ck. 16,845 26 Glade Ck. 8,727 14 Mid-mainstem 11,952 19 Yale Ck. 15,229 24 Sterling Ck. 19489 30 FOREST CK. 22,528 35 THOMPSON CK = 20,029 31 MIDDLE APPLEGATE 41,042 62 Spencer Gulch 6,541 10 Humbug Ck. 22,397 35 Ferris 12,104 19 WILLIAMS CK 51,911 81 E. Fk. Williams Ck. 11,207 18 _ W Fk Williams Ck. 21,077 33 Williams Ck. 19,627 31 LOWER APPLEGATE 62,159 97 Missouri Flat 22,275 35 Murphy Ck. 19,382 30 Cheney Ck. 15,685 25 Baum S1. 4,816 8 SLATE CK. 28,413 44 APPLEGATE WATERSHED 492,732 770
Assessment 5 11 94 physical filtering of water, water storage, aquifer recharge, and insulation for the streams from summer and winter extremes. Riparian zones are key components of biological diversity in a watershed, displaying a greater variety of plant and wildlife species and vegetative structure than adjoining ecosystems. Many wildlife species depend on food, water, shade and cover, and other unique and diverse habitat niches offered by riparian zones (5).
Logging, residential and agricultural clearing of riparian areas, and drought-caused mortality of conifers have impacted the naturally occurring riparian vegetation in the Applegate watershed. Residential development has removed considerable riparian vegetation, usually to facilitate construction, lawn development and a view. A healthy riparian zone is characterized by water-loving plants such as willows, alder, ash, cottonwoods. Conifers, which will provide future shade and large woody debris to both the stream and to the riparian area are an important component, but logging and agricultural clearing have removed most of the conifers in the riparian zone in the Applegate.
Preservation and restoration of riparian areas are essential for maintaining wildlife habitat and the other benefits riparian areas provide such as improved water quantity and quality and stream shading to reduce stream temperatures. In some areas blackberries have out- competed native vegetation. Clearing blackberries in selected areas to allow native vegetation to reestablish may be necessary.
The Applegate dam, completed in 1980, has altered the condition of riparian areas by regulating winter flows. Previously, high flows cleared out blackberries and other riparian vegetation. Many side channels, which provide important rearing habitat for Coho salmon, especially in the winter, have become clogged with debris and are no longer functional
Riparian areas serve as connecting corridors among late successional areas and between upland and lower slope areas. Corridors provide migration pathways essential for both wildlife and plant communities.
Valley floor
The valley floor supports a vegetative type, described as native valley woodlands. This plant association occurs adjacent to the riparian zone and includes Ponderosa pine with occasional Douglas fir, incense cedar and oaks, with additional black cottonwood, Oregon ash, blackberries and a diverse understory. This plant association is becoming increasingly rare, due to clearing for agricultural use and residential development although it once characterized the valley floor.
The recent lengthy drought has stressed the pines, causing significant mortality from insect infestation in many of these stands. Some areas of existing native valley woodland lack
Assessment 6 11194 sufficient natural regeneration of ponderosa pine to maintain this component of the ecosystem.
Preservation of this habitat is a high priority. The native valley woodlands provide excellent wildlife habitat and are particularly valuable for perching and nesting for large birds such as hawks, ospreys, herons and owls that utilize adjacent riparian habitat or farmland.
The similar oak woodland occurs in the foothills up to an elevation of 2200 feet and includes white oak, California black oak, madrone, deerbrush and manzanita.
Upland Forests
The Applegate watershed is dominated by mixed conifer and mixed conifer/hardwood forests. Dense stands of low vigor are characteristic across the Applegate watershed. In general the species mix changes with elevation. Map 3A shows the major plant groups in the Bureau of Land Management portion of the Applegate watershed (7). This includes a large proportion of the private lands in the watershed.
Issues: Native vegetation should be reestablished in riparian areas and forest health should be a focus in upland areas on private and federal lands.
SPECIAL PLANT SPECIES
Several plant species occur in the Applegate watershed which may be at risk of declining significantly or disappearing over time. Managing for the viability of these species in the Applegate watershed will reduce the need for listing them as threatened or endangered, and maintain the flexibility of land management options in the area. Table 4 includes nine species (in 86 populations) that are candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the state of Oregon or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Issues: Before any restoration activities occur, the Applegate River Watershed Council should check to determine the proximity of threatened or endangered plants which could be harmed.
Assessment 7 11l194 ...... %...... lb ......
...... - Z ...... Ct ...... ofE ...... Ct) ......
...... Cn e ...... ^d' ...... 0. %- E ...... tv ...... 2 2x >Q ......
*4-
...... -. X
...... 02 ...... C12 ...... Li C:
......
0 co Cu
CD, CXCu &.
Cu 0co bo -,~ LI*I r W- W ...... ~~~~rf z z
...... Cu . t...... CD W W-4 Z x
C~~~~ . 4= tji...... Cg 5 ~:~ W-4T I TABLE 4. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANT SPECIES IN THE APPLEGATE WATERSHED
Plant species Status No. of populati orls Applegate Clustered lady's-slipper (Cypripedium fasciculatum) C 48 Oregon willow-herb (Epilobium oreganum) C 1 Siskiyou willow-herb (Epilobium siskiyouense) C 11 Elegant gentian (Gentiana plurisetosa) C 2 Henderson's horkelia (Horkelia hendersonii) C 3 Slender meadowfoam (Limnanthes gracilis var. C 1 gracilis) C 17 Applegate stonecrop (Sedum oblanceolatum) C 2 Western senecio (Senecio hesperius) C 1 Howell's tauschia (Tauschia howellii) 86 Total Data source: Oregon Natural Heritage Program C-Candidate species
FIRE ECOLOGY
Fire has been an important historic agent of change in the Applegate watershed. "Natural" fire frequencies range from 10 to 80 years. Native Americans used low- intensity fires extensively every 2 to 10 years to manage both game and vegetation. Prescribed fires were used to keep the forests open for hunting and gathering, stimulate berry and seed production, produce quality wildlife forage, reduce disease and insect infestations, maintain food, fiber and medicinal plants, and increase water quantity. Native American land management was at least partly responsible for the composition and distribution of plant communities in the pre-European historical Applegate landscape. Later, miners and ranchers burned to clear the land, and to protect their stock, fields and homes from wildfire (time between reburns in the lowlands averaged less than 10 years). By the early 1920's, valley forests were dominated by early developmental stages and older fire-resistant stands covered only the higher elevations (8).
In the last 80 years, fire suppression in the Applegate watershed has changed the composition and structure of vegetation across the landscape. Today the effects of decades of fire exclusion are evident. Rural homes are surrounded by dense, continuous vegetation, tree vigor is declining as a result of overstocking, and composition is changing to a less resilient complement of species, such as true and Douglas firs The recent drought has accelerated the decline in tree vigor. Dense overstocked stands along with large accumulations of fuel from insect mortality have greatly increased the risk of catastrophic wildfire. The risk is compounded by an increased population of rural residential dwellings throughout the watershed at the forest interface (8).
Assessinenw. 8 8IJ94 Virtually all forests within the Applegate watershed currently have high to extreme risk of catastrophic loss from drought, bark beetles and wildfire. Map 4 shows the fire hazard ratings for the Applegate watershed. Fire hazard assesses the kind, arrangement, volume, condition and location of vegetative fuels that form the threat of ignition, spread and difficulty of control. Map 5 shows fire risk. Risk is defined as the chance of various ignition sources causing a fire, threatening valuable resources, property and life (8).
Catastrophic fires under these conditions are not part of the natural healthy ecosystem. These fires often destroy all components of the forest rather than burning the understory. Soils are often altered making recovery a very slow process. Increased sedimentation on destabilized slopes damages water quality.
Issues: Reduce fire hazards on private lands in cooperation with similar activities on federal lands to restore forest health and to protect property.
WILDLIFE
The Applegate River watershed contains a variety of habitats for different wildlife species. Habitats on private land have been heavily modified. Wide river valley areas have been developed and riparian and marsh-like areas have been channelized and drained. After white settlers arrived, private lands likely sustained significant drops in populations of specific groups of animals, such as waterfowl, fur-bearers, and amphibians. Roosevelt elk probably frequented the valley lowlands, along with grizzly bear and gray wolf (8).
Species viability is a complicated subject, and definitive data are not available for many wildlife species (Marcot and Murphy 1992). However, maintenance of species viability depends on maintaining a diversity of wildlife habitats at appropriate levels. Table 5 shows the animal species listed as threatened and endangered in the Applegate watershed.
A species list for the Little Applegate watershed was compiled by Matt Broyles, a wildlife biologist for the BLM, and is attached as Attachment A. The categories for evaluating the degree of protection for different species vary from agency to agency. The various listings are shown in this attachment. The size of this list illustrates the wide variety of life that inhabits the watershed.
Issues: The habitat for many species has been decreasing over many years. The role many of the species play in the ecosystem is not understood. Preserve or reestablish habitat when possible.
Assessmnen9 9 11/94 MAP4 Fire Hazard Map Applegate Watershed
,.i, ;1t.;.;i-b, t f o &~.;. ,- , RATING
I~~~~~~~~~~~I o;"A I' EIZ High
Medium ;,I
Awl I ., Low Fire hazard assesses the kind, ..-e ,.:- arrangement, volume, condition and location of vegetative fuels that form the threat of ignition, spread and difficulty of control.
0 5 10 Miles __ MAP 5 Fire Risk Map Applegate Watershed
RELATIVE FIRE RISK LIZ High Moderate
Low Fire risk is defined as the chance of various ignition sources causing a fire, threatening valuable resources, property and life
0 5 10 Miles ______
______TABLE 5. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED ANIMAL SPECIES IN THE APPLEGATE WATERSHED
Animal Species Status No. of populati ons Applegate American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) L 1 Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) L 2 Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) L 75 Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica) C 1 Pacific western big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii C 6 townsendii) C 6 Northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata 91 marmorata) Total Data source: Oregon Natural Heritage Program L=listed species C=candidate species
HISTORIC/CULTURAL
Recent archaeological work prior to the construction of the Applegate dam identified Indian sites that existed as early as 8000 years BC.
The tribe which lived in the Applegate Valley, the Dakubetede, were Athapascan speaking people from northern Canada The Applegate was not claimed by any other tribe of people. Other tribes in the region such as the Shasta to the east of the Little Applegate River and to the south of the Klamath Mountain Divide, the Takelma to the west in the Illinois River Drainage, and the Molalla to the north from the Rogue River to the Upper Rogue were linguistically different from the Dakubetede and must have originated in different localities. No records of displacing or conflicting tribal area overlaps are found, or were found when the survivors of the relocation reservations were interviewed in the late 1800's and early 1900's concerning the Applegate Basin. It is unknown why other tribes did not historically claim the Applegate Basin, or why an outside tribe was not also allowed to move into the drainage.
The documented change in climate (discussed above) from drought conditions, supporting oaks and grasslands; to a milder wetter climate, supporting fir forests, approximately 4,000 years ago may have presented a threat to the survival of the indigenous peoples who had long-ago adapted to the climate and the resources supported by the hot, dry regime. Some regional archaeologists believe that the cyclical burning of the landscape by indigenous peoples was an attempt to manipulate and possibly control or prevent an advance of the fir forests into the oak woodlands and oak savannas that meant sustenance to these people.
.4ssesssment 10 111/94 The Takelma had a name for the Applegate which was "Sbink", or "place of the Beaver". Early in the 1820's Hudson Bay trappers took a significant number of beaver from the streams and stream structure gradually, but profoundly, changed. Beaver are a keystone species; a species that is linked to the environment and well-being of quite a number of other species. Beavers provided deep, cold, nutrient rich pools, and habitat variety, including ideal conditions for an insect prey base. Their dams increased wetland habitat in the bottom lands where streams were not confined to one channel, but braided throughout the flood plain.
The Applegate watershed was not a destination for indigenous people or Anglo-European immigrants. The basin was on the fringes of the main North-South travel route, both for indigenous people and for the Anglo immigrants who adopted and enlarged the native trails and travel routes. It was not until the 1840's that any "value" was seen in the Applegate.
The value recognized in the Applegate basin was gold. Both lode and placer gold deposits occur in the Applegate watershed.. Much of the placer gold was found within relict stream channels, now elevated relative to the modem channels. In the mid 1800's miners dredged streams and hydraulically washed away alluvial terraces. Stream structure was again simplified and pools were often filled with sediment from mining operations. In the same era, as settlers moved in, bottom lands were cleared for agriculture and human habitat. Upper slopes were burned to expose geologic formations for mining, and the trees were cleared for sheep and cattle. Both activities adversely affected hydrologic processes and stream dynamics. Dredging continued for decades and Elliot Creek was still being dredged in the late 1960's. The impacts from hydraulic mining are still very apparent and have dramatically damaged the dynamics of several Applegate tributaries such as Sterling Creek and Forest Creek
Issues: Historic activities have change the structure of many of our streams.
LAND OWNERSHIP AND POPULATION
Land ownership is shared by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and private residential, agricultural, business and corporate landowners. Private residential and agricultural landowners control the majority of the Applegate River and major tributary river frontage and associated riparian areas and alluvial valleys. Map 6 shows the distribution of ownership in the watershed. Approximately 12,650 people lived in the Applegate watershed in 1990. The total population in 1970 was 3,025 and in 1980 it had grown to about 9,000. The settlement patterns associated with population increase and immigration have been dispersed in the rural areas, creating a large forest/residential interface. The added population is associated with an increase in water demand and other services, and increased recreation on public forest lands.
A ssessmnent I1I 11.,94 MAP6~~~~~~1
LAND OWNERSHIP__i__ Apple gate Watershed
W Pan r r vatSe e
Applegate Watershed Corps of Engmnears Issues: Cooperation between landowners will be necessary to achieve restoration goals in the watershed because of the mixed ownerships. Projected continued growth will stress natural resources even further in the future.
SOCIAL
Southern Oregon continues to undergo steady social and economic change. The economic structure of the area is shifting from the natural resource sectors (agriculture and timber) to trade and service sectors (recreation, tourism and retirement). Many residents in the watershed have expressed a desire to work in the area rather that commute to Medford or Grants Pass. In addition to in-migration of retired people, a significant portion of in-migrants are younger, more educated ex-urbanites (9). These newcomers tend to have strong environmental values but little experience with land management in general or the southern Oregon ecosystem in particular.
The social complexion of forest management has also changed: more diverse publics, more questions about forest management, and greater scrutiny of agency decision-making have characterized recent years, partly as an outgrowth of these demographic changes.
Issues: Educate residents rural values and promote expanded employment opportunities in the watershed.
RESOURCES IN THE WATERSHED
Impacted beneficial uses (as defined by the DEQ) on major streams in the Applegate Watershed are shown on Table 6. (10)
TABLE 6 IMPACTED BENEFICIAL USES (10)
Stream Name domestic irriga- stock cold other wildlife water aesthetics water tion water aquatic recreation supply fish life Applegate River (lower) Y Y Y Y Y Y Applegate River (upper) Y Y Little Applegate River (I) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Little Applegate River (u) Y Y Y Y Y Y Beaver Creek Y Y Y Yale Creek Y Star Gulch Y Forest Creek Y Y V Y Y Thompson Creek Y Y Y Nine Mile Creek Y
Williams Creek Y Y Y Y Y _Y Williams Creek, W. Fk _ Slate Creek V V V V V Y Y=This use is impacted.
Assessien2 12 I11.'9. FISHERIES (Compiled from referneces (2, 3, 8, and I 1)
The Applegate River has significant populations of coho, fall chinook, winter and summer steelhead and resident trout (rainbow and cutthroat). Winter steelhead and fall chinook are the primary anadromous species using the Applegate River system. Several non-salmonid species also exist in the basin.
Salmon and steelhead are anadromous fish which migrate from the ocean as adults into fresh water streams to reproduce young which return to the ocean to grow to maturity. These migrants can travel far out into the Pacific Ocean, a very rich pasture, and grow very rapidly. When large numbers of salmon return with the calcium, nitrogen and phosphorus from the ocean, so important to growth of other plants and animals, they recycle nutrients to the Applegate River ecosystem. They are also an important food source for humans and other animals.
Anadromous salmonids return from the ocean to their natal stream for spawning. All salmonid species require a freshwater environment for spawning. Each species, however, differs in the extent to which they rear in fresh water. AD salmonid species dig a nest (redd) in the gravel bottom of streams where the eggs are deposited by the female and fertilized by the male. Incubation of the egg depends upon the species and is water temperature dependent. After incubation, an alevin (a small fry with an attached egg yolk sac) emerges from the egg into the gravel. Once the egg sac has been completely absorbed, the alevins emerge from the gravel as developed fly.
The salmonid life cycle involves a confusing and complex web of instream habitats, ocean conditions and harvest pressure that regulates salmonid populations. Collectively it will require the partnership of all landowners in the Applegate River watershed and cooperation from groups on the coast to allow salmon stocks to rebound. Salmon are one of those connecting threads that tie us inexorably to the forests, the rivers and the oceans.
Each of these species of salmonids prefer specific habitat niches in the watershed. The following is a brief description of the habitat preference for spawning and rearing of the three anadromous species:
Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
Life cycle
Coho salmon, also known as silver salmon, enter the Rogue River in September. Adults begin their journey up the Applegate River in late October and most spawn in November and December. These fish migrate into smaller tributaries all along the Applegate River if fall rains provide adequate flows.
Fry begin to emerge in April. Since coho are fall spawners, they are susceptible to sedimentation of redds (nests) over the winter. Coho juveniles spend a year in freshwater
A ssessmnen1 13 1 1194 -1---l-I ----
before migrating to the ocean where they will stay for two years before returning to spawn. Some coho mature after only one summer of ocean life. These are known as "jacks" and are much smaller than normal mature coho.
Preferred habitat
Coho are most linked to the complex nverine habitats that were once prevalent in the Applegate River. Spawning of wild coho in the Applegate was historically limited to the upper third of the main Applegate. Coho prefer pools, glides, or slow velocity areas with overhead cover for rearing. Juveniles are territorial and prefer plunge pools, lateral scour pools, and glides during the summer months. They spend the winter months in low gradient braided channel areas where side channels, sloughs, and beaver ponds, were present, before migrating to the ocean. They depend on smaller streams that have wide riparian areas with marshes and side channels and pools in off-channel areas, alcoves along the edges of streams and rivers and beaver dams for summer and winter freshwater habitat.
The upper lethal temperature for coho salmon is 78.4 degrees F. and their preferred range is 53 to 58 degrees F.
Map 11 and Table 9 shows the drainages presently used by Coho including Slate Creek, Williams Creek, Cheney Creek, Murphy Creek, Thompson Creek and the Little Applegate along with the mainstem below the dam.
Current status
The Rogue Basin is on the southern end of the coho range. Coho are the least abundant wild salmonid (with the exception of sea run cutthroat) that use the Rogue system. The Applegate system was not historically a major producer of coho in the Rogue Basin; however no definitive historic records are available.
Coho are a prized sport and commercial fish. Low escapement has recently forced closures of the ocean fishery for coho in many areas. The Rogue River coho salmon are listed as a sensitive species by ODFW. The sensitive species designation is meant to bring attention to the possibility that the Rogue river Race of coho could be listed as threatened or endangered if measures are not implemented to improve coho salmon production. Many of the historic river conditions that coho depended upon for successful production are now degraded.
Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Life cycle
Rogue River chinook salmon, also known as king salmon, migrate south and rear off California prior to returning to the Rogue River. Fall chinook migrate up the Applegate River in the fall. The majority of the population spawns in October and November, but will spawn as late as February on Slate Creek. The juvenile fall chinook emerge from the redds in March and April,
Assessmen4 14 I11194 and usually migrate out of the Applegate River to the ocean at a small size (2-3 inches) by late June. They stay in the ocean about 4 years before returning to spawn in the fall and die.
Their life history makes this fish less susceptible to problems resulting from warm summer stream temperatures in the Applegate River than coho or winter steelhead. They are however susceptible to sedimentation of redds from unstable stream banks and channels. Passage over diversion structures also poses a significant problem to returning adults during low water years
Preferred Habitat
Most spawning and rearing occurs in the lower segments of larger tributaries and the mainstem of the Applegate River. Prior to the construction of the Applegate dam, the river frequently flowed intermittently during the fall spawning period limiting chinook salmon to the lower 12 miles of the river. Flow releases from the dam increased adult access up to the dam, adding an additional 38 miles of mainstern habitat. Mainstem river edge habitat is used for refuge by fry in the early spring prior to their migration downstream to the estuary. Drought has impacted fall chinook because of reduced water levels.
Current conditions
Chinook are prized by sport and commercial fisherman in the ocean and sport fisherman in the lower and middle Rogue River. ODFW lists fall chinook as sensitive in the Lower Rogue, but the Applegate and Upper Rogue stocks are healthy. The main factor influencing fall chinook populations in the Applegate system is ocean rearing conditions.
ODFW currently conducts fall spawning ground counts for fall chinook in the Applegate. Studies are needed to determine the minimum flows required for fall chinook to pass over instream passage barriers. Adequate flows would lessen delay.and reduce pre-spawn moralities. ODFW recommends that habitat projects for fall chinook should be directed at maintaining, improving, or reestablishing the quality and quantity of spawning gravel in suitable spawning streams.
Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Life cycle
Steelhead are rainbow trout which migrate to the ocean. Of the three species, (chinook, coho, and steelhead), steelhead are the most adaptive. The Applegate River is home to two distinct runs of steelhead: summer run and winter run..
The winter steelhead in the Applegate River migrate into tributaries from December to May and have incredible swimming ability. Steelhead are primarily tributary spawners. They will use mainstem channels when access to the tributary of their choice is limited by a barrier or when flows are inadequate. These fish migrate over waterfalls if conditions are favorable during the time of year when streams have high flows. They are late winter through spring spawners and
Assessment 15 1 1/94 are not as susceptible to the fall and winter storns involving sediment movement as the other species. They stay in fresh water from one to four years before migrating to the ocean.
Adult summer steelhead enter the Rogue River from May I through November 30. This run can be broken up into two categories: half pounder run and adult run. Half pounders reenter fresh water three months after first entering the ocean as a smolt, but do not spawn that year. Over 95% of the summer steelhead have a half-pounder life cycle. The fish that survive this run will return a year later along with the adults that did not make the immature run to spawn.
Preferred habitat
Steelhead spawn and rear throughout the watershed, but seem to prefer headwater streams or upper segments of streams. Juvenile steelhead reside in small streams and the mainstem of the Applegate if temperatures are cool. Unlike the salmon which prefer pools and glides, steelhead are able to rear in fist-moving water. This trait and their variable stay in fresh water - one to four years - makes them most adaptive to changing habitat conditions, but also most susceptible to high water temperatures. They can compensate somewhat for elevated stream temperatures by seeking turbulent water with more oxygen. Many of the streams preferred by steelhead for spawning dry up in the summer. Drought, which is exacerbated by water withdrawals, has impacted both adult and juvenile steelhead. Low flows limit adult access to spawning tributaries, forcing steelhead to spawn in the mainstem, resulting in a lower juvenile survival rate.
Applegate Lake cut off much of the historic winter steelhead habitat in the upper basin: Carberry Creek, Middle Fork Applegate River, Elliott Creek. There is a collection facility at the base of Applegate Dam for winter steelhead. Roughly 400 adults are collected and transported to Cole Rivers Hatchery where sufficient offspring are raised to produce 120,000 smolts each year for release in April and May at the base of Applegate Dam. The goal is to replace 2,000 adults that used to spawn and rear above the dam site.
Current status
Steelhead are a prized sport fish in the Rogue and Applegate Rivers. Steelhead are not exploited in the ocean by commercial fishing. Steelhead have been found spawning in 21 tributaries of the Applegate River from river mile 3 to River Mile 47. Spawning has been documented throughout the mainstem of the Applegate River, the Little Applegate, and most of the major tributaries. ODFW recognizes summer steelhead as a species of concern throughout the Rogue Basin, but the winter steelhead population appears healthy.
Resident Trout
The Applegate and Rogue resident rainbow population is somewhat unusual for coastal basins. Usually either cutthroat or steelhead (anadromous rainbow) are dominant. Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) are ubiquitous in upper tributaries and headwater streams. This may be of interest to the California Fish and Game Department as native coastal cutthroat trout
Assessment 16 I11194 are on the watch list in California Some streams are inhabited entirely by rainbow trout (Silver Fork, Elliott, Middle Fork Applegate) with no cutthroat populations
Fishing pressure and habitat alterations have eliminated most large fish, although in remote stream segments trout can exceed 12 inches in length (Silver Fork, Butte Fork). Sturgis Creek and O'Brien Creek were once widely-known as blue-ribbon trout streams, today few large fish are present in these systems. Inventory of presence or absence of resident trout populations is patchy. There are some populations of cutthroat in remote headwater areas (Sturgis, O'Brien, Steve Fork).
OVERVIEW OF RESOURCE AGENCY DESIGNATIONS ON CURRENT SALMONID POPULATIONS
Declining fish populations characterize the Applegate. (Table 6 clearly shows that cold water fish are impacted on the mainstem of the Applegate River and on all tributaries).
The BLM RMP lists the following population trends for anadromous fish in the Applegate watershed from 1979 to 1989.
* Coho salmon-probably downward due to water diversion * Fall Chinook salmon-increasing due to the combined effects of Applegate dam and reduced commercial fishery * Summer steelhead-probably downward due to water diversion * Winter steelhead-stable
ODFW list coho in the Rogue Basin as sensitive and summer steelhead as a species of concern in the Rogue Basin.
Palmer Creek, Beaver Creek, Yale Creek and the Little Applegate River are designated as "key watersheds" in President Clinton's Forest Plan. Key watersheds are watersheds containing: I) habitat for potentially threatened species or stocks of anadromous salmonids or other potentially threatened fish, or 2) greater than 6 square miles with high-quality water and fish habitat.
Maps 7-1 1 show the range of these different species in the watershed (8). These ranges are based on field observations by fisheries biologists and technicians.
Issessment 17 I11194 -. .-
0*'*z
X t t, Uo -4ok2 MAP8 Chinook Salmon Applegate Watershed
0o 5 10 Miles 0 5 10 Miles 1
MAP9 Steelhead Trout Applegate Watershed
0 5 10 Miles I ---- -
CO
u~s o
0 %0 MAP 11 Rainbow Trout Applegate Watershed
0 5 10 Miles 0 5 10Miles~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------'------
TABLE 7. FISH DISTRIBUTION IN THE APPLEGATE WATERSHED
SUB-BASIN COHO FALL STEELHEAD RESIDENT CHINOOK TROUT UPPER APPLEGATE N N N Y Tributaries above dam N N N Y STAR/BEAVERIPALMER Palmer Ck. N N Y Y Beaver Ck. N N Y Y Star Gulch N N Y Y LITTLE APPLEGATE Y Y Y y Little Applegate Tribs N N Y y FOREST CK. N N Y Y THOMPSON CK. Y Y Y Y MIDDLE APPLEGATE Y Y Y Y Humbug Ck. N N Y Y Slagle Ck. N N Y Y WILLIAMS CK. Y Y Y Y Williams Ck. Tribs Y Y Y Y LOWER APPLEGATE Y Y Y Y Cheney Ck. Y Y y SLATE CK. Y Y Y Y N=Not present Y=Present
FACTORS AFFECTING FISHERIES
Many factors have contributed to the decline of anadromous fisheries and are discussed below. The ODFW draft Rogue Basin Fish Management Plan ( 11) contains an excellent description of the early impacts on fisheries caused by human activities in the Rogue Basin.
Sedimentation
Most of the Applegate is characterized by highly dissected slopes and narrow steep canyons Granitic and serpentine rock types as well as other soil types are highly erodible especially in this steep terrain. Logging and road building have caused extensive upland erosion, in some cases creating or exacerbating landslides, causing sedimentation of stream beds and consequent loss of spawning and rearing habitat. Amaranthus, et. al. (1985) (12) found that erosion rates on roads were 100 times greater than those on undisturbed areas. Road density is a rough indication of potential risk for sedimentation. Map 12 shows the primary and secondary roads in the watershed.
Assessment 18 I11194 MAP 12 ROAD DENSITY APPLEGATE WATERSHED Grazing practices allowing livestock in riparian zones, over-grazing in general and residential clearing, in and outside of riparian zones, have also contributed to increased sedimentation. Landslides and bank erosion can occur as a result of natural forces, but are accelerated by vegetation removal, and steepening of slopes by road and ditch construction and seepage from ditches. Annual maintenance of many diversion structures (especially push-up gravel dams) also causes sedimentation. Plate 1, the geologic map, shows the locations of granitic bodies and areas where serpentines may occur in the watershed. Activities which could cause soil erosion problems should be avoided in these areas. (When all of the soils information from Jackson and Josephine counties is entered into the GIS system, we will be able to generate a map showing areas of erodible soils across the watershed.)
Sedimentation increases turbidity (the presence of suspended solids) and increases embeddedness. The FEMAT report (13) summarizes that "Increased levels of sedimentation often have adverse effects on fish habitats and riparian ecosystems. Fine sediment deposited in spawning gravels can reduce survival of eggs and developing alevins. Primary production, benthic invertebrate abundance, and thus, food availability for fish may be reduced as sediment levels increase. Social interaction and feeding can be disrupted by increased levels of suspended sediment. Pools and important habitat types may be lost due to increased levels of sediment. In general, the highest productivity and diversity of aquatic invertebrates seems to occur in riffle habitats with medium cobble and gravel substrate. Areas of shifting sands commonly have reduced species abundance and richness. Where excessive fines are washed into the streams a "mat" is formed on top of the coarser bed materials. The infilling of gravels with finer sediments can reduce inter- gravel flow rates, suffocate eggs, limit burrowing activity and trap emerging young.
Water quality
High summer temperatures
Low flows from drought and irrigation withdrawals reduce stream flows and increase water temperatures. Temperatures above 68 degrees F. jeopardize salmonoid species and favor warm water fish. Logging, residential and agricultural clearing of riparian areas, and drought-caused mortality of conifers have impacted the naturally occurring riparian vegetation which shade the stream, further contributing to higher water temperatures.
The construction of Applegate Dam stabilized stream flows and reduced summertime temperatures in the mainstem of the river, however recent temperature data show that temperatures increase to harmful levels in the middle and lower sections of the mainstem even in normal flow years. The FEMAT report shows that the Applegate maximum temperatures have ranged above acceptable levels historically and that the current maximum is well above acceptable levels as well as above the historic maximum range.
.AIssessmpwent 19 11194 Temperatures in smaller tributaries such as the Little Applegate, Thompson Creek and Williams Creek, which are critical to spawning and rearing for coho and summer steelhead, are most affected by high summer temperatures.
Chemical constituents
Little data has been gathered measuring chemical properties throughout the watershed. The effects of variations in various chemical properties of water on fish and other aquatic life, have been studied. In many cases, there is insufficient data to determine whether these properties are limiting factors in the Applegate watershed. Additional work in this area will be proposed.
pH
The pH of a stream (a measure of the hydrogen ion concentration) can have direct and indirect effects on the aquatic ecosystem. Some of the effects of various pH ranges are listed below(14): * pH range of 5 to 9: not directly toxic to fish * decline from 6.5 to 5: reduction in salmonid egg production and hatching success * less that 6.5: emergence of certain aquatic insects decline
Low Dissolved oxygen
Dissolved oxygen (DO) is critical to the biological community instrearn and to the breakdown of organic material. As DO concentrations decrease species begin to exhibit symtons of oxygen distress. DO concentrations are critical instream and intergravel in spawning beds. Sedimentation affects intergravel DO values in spawning beds. When water temperatures increase, oxygen concentrations decrease. (14)
Nutrients
Nutrients includes nitrogen and phosphorus. Nitrogen is one of the most important nutrients in aquatic systems because it stimulates production, e.g. growth. However, certain nitrogen compounds have toxic effects at relatively low concentrations. Low concentrations have been shown to be toxic to rainbow trout, but for the most part salmon and trout are not very sensitive to nitrates. Human and livestock wastes are sources of phosphorus. (14)
Pesticides
Aquatic species are usually exposed to pesticides for only a short duration and at low concentrations, therefore they are not usually considered a limiting factor for fish. However, immediate runoff after application, wind drift and spills can result in concentrations that can impact aquatic life.
Assessmen2 20 1 1/94 Bacteria/viruses
Elevated water temperatures and low flows will stimulate a number of diseases that can significantly affect fish. Dermosystidium and columnaris both have killed thousands of Applegate salmon in the past.
High summer temperatures are a primary water quality problem in the Applegate. Low flows from drought and irrigation withdrawals reduce stream flows and increase water temperatures. Logging, drought-caused mortality of conifers and residential and agricultural development have decreased riparian vegetation which shades the stream, exacerbating the problem.
Water quantity
Low flows
Low summer flows characterize most of the tributaries in the Applegate watershed. Flows tend to mirror rainfall amounts which are often very low in the summer months. Low flows cause fish passage problems and elevated temperatures, which can stimulate excessive aquatic plant and bacteria growth and reduce oxygen concentrations.
Irrigation diversions
The Applegate watershed is crisscrossed by a network of irrigation systems. Many of these systems were constructed in the late 1800's and early 1900's to provide water for mining operations. Agricultural development followed with more ditch construction. Irrigation systems impact fisheries in many ways. Diverted water reduces stream flows causing higher summer temperatures. Unauthorized water use is also a problem. Because instream water rights for fish are relatively recent, irrigators have precedent over fish and may divert all the water from a stream if their water right allows. Obviously these low flows inhibit fish passage and raise temperatures to unhealthy ranges.
Drought
The drought of 10 years has severely stressed fish and other aquatic and wildlife populations. Many tributaries dried up completely this summer, stranding anadromous and resident fish in shrinking pools to eventually die.
Soil compaction
Soil has a large infiltration and storage capacity for water. Water from this storage reservoir is released slowly back to the stream. Often soil is compacted during activities such at construction or logging, and consequently the system reduces its ability to store water.
A ssessment 21 I /194 Fish passage
Barriers to fish passage can prevent adult salmon from reaching spawning gravels and can prevent juveniles from finding safe rearing areas or from migrating out to the ocean. Barriers to fish passage can be natural or man-made. Some will affect juveniles and not adults. Irrigation diversions are often difficult for spawning adult fish to circumvent. Some diversions stretch nearly all the way across the stream. Ditches which are unscreened or improperly screened cause direct juvenile fish mortality. Culverts which are blocked or poorly constructed are difficult for fish to navigate through especially juveniles. Low flows also cause barriers to migration.
Instream habitat conditions
Many components of the aquatic ecosystem have been lost or impacted through time. Prior to European settlement, the valley segments in the mainstem Rogue River, Applegate River, Illinois River, and larger tributaries contained more wetland and marsh habitat than is seen today. The Applegate River (and Little Applegate River) probably had many channels and a hardwood forest of Oregon Ash, maple, alders, and willows with conifers and oaks on the well-drained areas. Salmon utilized this habitat for spawning and juvenile salmon had a complex set of habitat conditions providing refuge from very dry hot conditions and high winter flows.
Gold mining from the 1850's through the 1942 damaged fisheries through dredging and hydraulic mining. Excessive silt loads turned the Applegate brick red and damaged fish and eggs. Dredging reduced the amount of spawning gravels in some streams and many fish were lost when large quantities of cyanide were dumped directly into streams (15). Coho and fall chinook suffered the most. The first dredge.started on the Applegate River in 1880. Thompson, Williams Creek, and the Little Applegate were also dredged.
Current characteristics which represent the degraded habitat are:
* High riffle:pool ratios * Depleted large woody material (LWM) * Degraded spawning habitat * Loss of historic off-channel habitat * High channel width to depth ratios
OTHER RESOURCES
WATER
Managing our water resources is an extremely difficult task. The Applegate River Watershed Council is concerned about the water resources in the Applegate watershed.
Assessment 22 11194 Increasing demands on this limited resource, especially in these drought years, have focused attention on this question in the community. We have set a meeting date, November 30, 1994, to bring residents together to discuss the issues of concern to them regarding water. We plan to catalogue these concerns then seek the appropriate experts to address these concerns at a later meeting.
This section will be developed as this process moves forward.
FOREST PRODUCTS
This section will be developed further at a later date. Data on the conditions of forests on private lands is not readily available. Efforts to attain this information will be made in 1995.
AGRICULTURE
This section will be developed later.
SPECIAL FOREST PRODUCTS
This section will be developed later.
RECREATION
This section will be developed later.
REFERENCES
(I) Oregon Water Resources Department, 1985, Rogue River Basin Study.
(2) Applegate Partnership, 1994, Applegator. August issue.
(3) Applegate Partnership Ecological Assessment Team, 1994, EcologicalAssessment Applegale Watershed, Concepts, Considerationsand Information Needs.
(4)USDA/USDI, 1994 draft, Beaver/Palmer Watershed Analysis
(5) USDI, Bureau of Land Management, 1992, Medford DistrictResource Management Plan.
(6) USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Josephine County, Oregon.
(7) USDI, Bureau of Land Management, 1994, Medford District, ProposedResource Management Plan /'Environmental Impact Statement.
Asses.sment 23 11194 (8) USDA Forest Service, Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests and PNW Research Station/USDI Bureau of Land Management, Medford District, 1994, Applegate Adaptive Management Area Ecosystem Health Assessment.
(9) Preister, Kevin, 1994, Words into Action: A Community Assessment of the Applegate Valley
(10) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 1988, 1988 Oregon Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution.
(11) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1993, Draft Rogue Basin Fish Management Plan.
(12) Amaranthus, et. al., 1985, Logging and forest roads related to increased debris slides in southwestern Oregon. J. Forestry 83:229-233
(13) Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, 1993, Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment.
(14) Environmental Protection Agency, 1991, MonitoringGuidelines.
SUB-BASIN ASSESSMENTS
An assessment for each of the nine sub-basins is included below. Not all are completed at this point. The amount of information available on each sub-basin varies widely. Information which is not available has been noted. The format of each sub-basin section is designed to allow a reader to excerpt that section for use during project development. Findings regarding the Applegate watershed as a whole are included in the program strategy chapter. As we went through this process, we developed two different formats for displaying data. We intend to convert all assessments to one format at a later date.
Asse.ssment 24 11/94 FOREST CREEK SUB-BASIN ASSESSMENT
SUB-BASIN: FOREST CREEK ACRES: 22,528
TRIBUTARIES: ACRES KEY WATERSHED No (l)
OWNERSHIP U.S. F. S. 0 BLM 55 % PRIVATE 45 % MAP NUMBER FC-2
IMPACTED Cold water fish BENEFICIAL Aquatic life USES Wildlife (2) Aesthetics Stock water
OTHER Special forest products RESOURCES Forest Products
CURRENT ESTIMATED FISH DISTRIBUTION (3)
I1-R1BUTARYICO JCO MICHF ICHF MI ISTW ISTW MI IST S ISTS MI IRT IRT MIe |Forest Ck I 0l 0o 0o 0o 0o 5501 4.31 YES| 8 31
CO=Number of coho; CO MI=Miles of coho habitat; etc. CHF=Fall Chinook; STW=Winter Steelhead; STS=Summer Steelhead; RT=Resident trout
WATER INFORMATION
Annual Runoff (4) Based on precip. data 8,600 acre-feet Number of water rights (5) No. of surface water rights Date of oldest water right Total allocation rate of surface rights Consumptive uses
I ______I______I______
LOCATION AND OWNERSHIP
Map FC- I shows the location of the Forest Creek watershed in the north-eastern part of the Applegate watershed. Map FC-2 shows the distribution of ownership. Land use in
Forest Creek I I11194 the lower elevations is~predominantly irrigated agricultural farmland and rural residential homes. Upper elevations are predominantly forest land. H1istoric hydraulic mining and dredging have left much of Forest Creek in an aggraded condition where flows sub in the large cobbles left in the stream channel. The community of Ruch is located in the southern portion of the watershed about I mile upstream from it's confluence with the Applegate River.
LIMITING FACTORS I RESTORATION APPROACH SEDIMENTATION To be completed at a later date.
WATER QUALITY ______
WATER QUANTITY______
FISH PASSAGE ______
[NSTREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS
The following table illustrates that Forest Creek has many severe water quality problems.
______Identified water quality problems (2) ___ _ _ Pollution type, Severity, and
______Inform ation source _ _ _ _
Stream Name DEQ turb low nutr Pest b/v sedl erosion low plants
______id do I_ __ _ flow struct Applegate River 239 M M ml MMM mlM M M M
Applegate River 240 M M M M _ M M M M M Little Applegate 241 M M M M M
R iver ______
Little Applegate 242 M M M - M M M M
R iv e r______
Beaver Creek 243 _ _ M __M _ __ M _ _ _
Yale Creek 244 _ M ___ M _
Star Gulch 245 M M_ _ _ M M __
Forest Creek 246 S S M S S S S M __
Thompson Creek 247 __ M M ____ M M ___
Nine Mile Creek 248 M_ _ _ _ _ M _ _ Williams Creek 249 M S M- M M S__ M Williams Creek, 250 M S M M S
W . F k______
Slate Creek 251 M M _M M M IM S = Severe problems M = Moderate problems
Forest Creek21/4 2 11,,94 turb = turbidity; low do = low dissolved oxygen; nutr = nutrients; b/v = bacteria/viruses; sed = sedimentation; struct = lack of instream structure, plants = excessive plant growth.
The Bureau of Land Management is planning to conduct a watershed assessment in 1995. The Applegate River Watershed Council will be cooperating with the assessment team during their analysis.
Many of the water quality problems stem from low flows. The owner of a feedlot is working with the council and the Soil Conservation Service to develop a plan to control animal waste impacts. We are awaiting an engineering study from SCS. Many other residents in the watershed have expressed interest in participating in projects.
Ruch School is located very near to the lower portion of Forest Creek. There is an excellent possibility to begin long term studies and projects with these students.
REFERENCES
(1) Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Tearn, 1993, Forest Ecosystem Management An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment.
(2) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 1988, 1988 Oregon Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution.
(3) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1991, Rogue Basin fish distribution estimates. Memo by Chuck Fustish
(4) Oregon Water Resources Department, 1985, Rogue River Basin Study
Foresi Creek 3 11194 )
Applegate Watershed
Basins and Streams FOREST CREEK MAP FC-1
0 _ _ _ 5_ _ _10 Miles SX\9 w~~~~~~~~~~~~lse-,dls -|{ 9 n (t/} wi I ~ dB WXQ qs < D\ /)yt21.>-
I~ye4A NDOWNERSUHtr I ;@aP I' /L
iA~~~tg~~~~_ - Forest Service H 9 2~~~~~P ;,b~z it H M . ;$: K hL C l pG i / e| z Private l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C-
~~~\+ ~~~ElgO;T\CRXtiX Ll :145 fe 1 9a u**0i*0+**~Z...... ,,/tz.....IE
U~ ~ ~~~Fo OrgnWleVeoresDprrnn.18 1t &Sw9? -*tRoueDaiagasna13N __ ---!___ - - I - -
LITTLE APPLEGATE SUB-BASIN ASSESSMENT
SUB-BASIN: LITTLE ACRES: 72,000 APPLEGATE
TRIBUTARIES: ACRES KEY WATERSHED Lower mnstm/Sterling 19,489 Y (1) Mid-mainstem 11,952 Y Yale Creek 15,229 Y Glade Creek 8,727 Y McDonald/U. Mnstm 16,845 Y
OWNERSHIP U.S. F. S. 40% BLM 40%/c PRIVATE 20% MAP NUMBER
BENEFICIAL Aquatic life _ USES Irrigation (2) Wildlife Water contact sports Aesthetics
OTHER Forest Products RESOURCES Special forest products
I I ~~~~~~I I_
A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I. ______CURRENT ESTIMATED FISH DISTRIBUTION (3)
CO=Number of coho; CO MI=Miles of coho habitat; etc. CHF=Fall Chinook; STW=Winter Steelhead; STS=Summer Steelhead; RT=Resident trout
Little .'lpplegate I // 94 WATER INFORMATION
Annual Runoff (4) 54,200 acre-feet Number of water rights (ORWD WRIS) No. of surface water rights Date of oldest water right Total allocation Rate/duty? Consumptive uses
[ I ______I ______
Map LA-I shows the location of the Little Applegate sub-basin at the eastern edge of the Applegate watershed. Map LA-2 shows ownership patterns.
LIMITING FACTORS
The attached charts summarize the data currently available in the Little Applegate watershed.
* Sedimentation from roads and bank instability, especially in the upper reaches impact spawning gravels and fill in rearing pools downstream. Map LA-3 is a geologic map of the Little Applegate watershed. Much of the upslope area especially in the headwaters consists of highly erodible granite. Existing landslides are also shown on this map provided by the USFS/BLM pilot watershed team. Other erodible soils types are also present. Road construction or other operations which cause surface disturbances should be avoided in these areas. Map LA4 shows intersections where roads cross drainages. These are areas of potentially high sedimentation risks. This occurs from road surface/ditch line and fill slope erosion that is routed directly into the stream.
* Low flows from drought and irrigation withdrawals create high temperatures and fish passage problems. Map LA-5 shows the locations of irrigation diversions in the Little Applegate (ODFW/Pilot Watershed Analysis, in progress). Each diversion should be checked for screening and fish passage problems.
* Fish passage may be impeded by irrigation diversions and by low flows.
* Degraded instream habitat has resulted from large wood removal, channelization and historic mining.
The Little Applegate is designated as key watershed and a 'pilot watershed' under President Clinton's Forest Plan. An integrated team consisting of Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife personnel has been assessing conditions
Little Applegale 2 /11/94 in the watershed. As part of this project, ODFW has completed a comprehensive stream survey. This information will be available in 1995 and will be integrated into this analysis.
CURRENT OR RECENT RESTORATION PROJECTS
Map LA-6 shows 1994-1995 restoration project locations in the Little Applegate. Both the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service have completed several restoration projects, mostly addressing sedimentation from roads. The Applegate Watershed Conservancy was awarded a grant through the Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board (GWEB) for restoration projects from RM 0 to RM 3. The Applegate River Watershed Council has received approval for the Rush Creek Road project designed to reduced sedimentation from a poorly designed and maintained road. Work will begin as soon as possible.
RESTORATION APPROACH
* Identify roads on private lands, especially in the uplands or in erodible soils, that are sedimentation sources. Work with landowners who wish to participate to find cost effective solutions. * Initiate discussions with irrigation associations to investigate ways to improve diversions and conserve water. Check for fish screens. * Plant upslope and riparian areas. * Protect high quality instream structure and enhance other areas.
The Pilot Watershed Analysis Team has divided the Little Applegate watershed into landscape units having similar characteristics. Rock and soil type, topography and prior geologic processes have shaped these current characteristics. Landscape units provide an initial screening, for further analysis in the watershed. This report is included as an attachment. This approach could be used in other sub-basins and will be used in the Little Applegate sub-basin to determine areas which should be reviewed.
DATA GAPS
The various studies which are being completed at this time will provide a comprehensive view of the watershed. Data on vegetative conditions (riparian and upland) on private lands is lacking. A recent aerial survey conducted for the Applegate Adaptive Management Area may provide the information needed. Information on activities on private lands on file at the Oregon Department of Forestry may also be helpful.
REFERENCES
(1) Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, 1993, Forest Ecosystem Management An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment.
Little Applegale 3 /l/94 (2) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 1988, 1988 Oregon Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution.
(3) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1991, Rogue Basin fish distribution estimates. Memo by Chuck Fustish
(4) Oregon Water Resources Department, 1985, Rogue River Basin Study.
(5) USDA Forest Service/USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1994, Watershed Restoration, Rogue River Basin, Little Applegate River andLittle Butte Creek.
(6) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1968, Little Applegate Stream Survey.
(7) USDA Forest Service, 1992, Stream Temperature and Fish HabitatRestoration Monitoring, Rogue River National Forest.
(8) USDA Forest Service, 1993, Water Temperature MonitoringReport, Rogue River NationalForest.
Little .-Jpplegac4 4 11194 SUB-BASIN ASSESSMENT
_ _ TRIBUTARY: iLITTLE APPLEGATE _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
-- r- I1-_ _ _ = - =_ -______=1± __LIMITINGIII FACTOR: SEDIMENTATION ==__=_==_ I IAFC AF FECzTEDD _ _II LOCATION EVIDENCE/EFFECT CAUSE SPECIES MAP OR FIGURE DATA SOURCE
-- C,-'-- CO)F Cl) - ~ ~-J o| O-----1C 0 0 z o( W 0 _j
ui O U
__TXXXI _ a XXX____ RF.cO.
0-6X L X x xX X ___ XxX REF. NO.2
6-15 X XXxi I…REF. NO.2
WSU~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------I------LL--…1F -t14
Little Applegate 11/94 r-
(ID lRIVER MILE ______>
1X I IX ______R___AI co UPLAND ~m__ -Ki CD I__Tx X!XILOIWATE +
z-~-1---f-~~~ - - xxXIHIGHTEME:URS - -- -~-1-XIX- LOW DIS. OXYGEN ]0
l tl !_ ^ t _ _ ~~~~~Ii _ _~---~ > , -, --r--- ___ ! | , I -- < t IP! PESTICIDES I-nI
l+ l ! i | t XI XES QAI PATGWT1 _-t~~~~~~~~~~~- z Z I - …~~~~~~~~~~~ 1Ft1tt i ' ' __O _ ANP_ _ OE______0 E' c = -1~ tt-l ll lI _- t I- ' l ___IRRIGATIO Xx _WITHDRAWLS ~ ~~~ ______1 {; -- t l~~~~~~~~~co 4- -~~~~ ~~i'L LIPACANOP COVERIN
W X F i I X ~~~ISRIGTINSYSTHDRWAL cU i ! I I 1x_ ~+T-hTX XI AC TLOWSRU -- __ I 1 z
1--. _ px -1 SEPt'THCS SYSETEM SE WlI f- m ,~~~~~~ I Co XX ||tIMAEL AN WAST II ___) CD XI__ILOWCANOPY__COVER E I j _ [ L 4 I x_- xlllEXCDESS QUTIC m PLN GRWT |__| z --4
I 1 ~~~~OTHER AFFECTED USE __
Ix IFALL CHINOOK M l~~)(>CXXXXSTEELXITEEHEAD om4 Ii I F XXX ~~~X XI RESIDENT TROUT
I K~~~~ I Co ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-n
- m~~~~~~~c
I ~~~~~~mmmmmm>
n-n -n -n- - n
co -
D
*o ' j _1 _ _ _ _ _ RIVEREXC ESS MILE PLANT GRWTH >_ __ _-_ - LIH ___IXI RIPARIAN 'aD 0o [D ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~ I t Zm __UPLAND _ID_ _ _ _ _ --- -~~~~~~~~ FEDERAL - -
> X X t>LOW FLOWS <
GRwI H I | 'Nt I tI |EXCESS PLANT m _ ~ __ I.2Z t__ __, ->1THIGH I l tI L i IIIIIXII TEMPERATURESI* I
I f I - - t ______I____PEAK KFLOWSi I-n
D i~ ~X XI XDR0UGHT N [ I 0 II X1 O~~~~~~~~~~~~~THAERIAFFETEDUSIR IG TI o C,,c: CLEARING F -~~ ~______H ~~RIPARIAN co DENSITY 6D _____ - ~~~~ROAD
- I~~~COMPACTION ~~~~t~-____ ?--~ 1 ______1_1_1_ I>IIIIIIIII|TEHA cllIi r T~_ - TI ______m C/, CD, m
- z I ~~~~1~~CO9.-..- -4
2i~~1IH XFALL CHINOOK rf 1.1 - X XX X( STEELHEAD I I ~~XIX >'C RESIDENT TROUT
-n
mmmiii -4~~ zzzzm
0
-~~ ______ni~
co .b. SUB-BASIN ASSESSMENT
I I I ! r I I I I I I I I I I . I . T-L- It - 1 ! 111 TRIBUTARY: LITTL EAPPLEGATE-tV
M--TIN --I -G- -f LIMITING FACTOR: FISH PASSAGE 1 ------t - - - ______
* I &~~~~ _ ._- -F. _ I7T- AFFECTED LOCATION EVIDENCE/EFFECrT 211>:L --I---- t T - = ___---Il I CAUSES SPECIES MAP OR FIGURF IDATA Rnt 1PrF -TI- co) V) CO, 0 z z w w 0 (n COU) d- w C,, w V) _ wa: a: w w I- co a: wR w 0 C.) 0 a: 0 0 I ,) L) w z w 0O a: -J I C,) -J U- 0 z w 0 -J A U- z -j -J U- 0 1-- a1: a C I- II-- -j z a: 4x z 0 I. LL C-) I w -j a: -j 2 a: Ft Ei w 0 3 C 4: -j x x Ir 0i w 0 0 4j5. C!, 0 4i a: LL z -J I' w -t 74~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~%# WJILL UJ ILL
x~ ~ ~ ~ _ x x __ REF NO.5 Xx- X ~ ~ X ~~~~~~~~~~~X ENO. 5 1.5 X xr x xx X JCP OBSERV-. 2.5 X xixx x X x i _ _I_ REF. NO. 6 .5X xf X xX x X - _ _ _ REF. NO. 6 6.9X XX XI X - x - REF. NO. 6 81X X X X X---X X REF. NO. 8 13.8 X _ X X x X _ x X REF. NO. 6 1f7-.5X {-I X - _ - -x REF. NO. 6 1x _ I i kX XI _ x_ _ REF. NO.
*Before natural barriers are rmoved or passage facilitated, contact ObFW Actionsr mus comply withwild fish policy ______
~z ~ - 4 i i1I L I_V I______II
Little Applegate 11/94 r, 0 01 - 1LL L .' ci~1 I V RIVER MILE _____ 0> <0'D I I XI X XIRIPARIAN
N IK J!FEDERAL CD 4 _L I- __ __ 1 I IUPLAND _____z _ +__ _-f1x x x - tH 1-
_ XXXX L |HIGH RIFFLE TO POOL RATIO m! _
_X 1___X I XIXDEPLETED LG WOODY MATTER I _ 1 _ _ __xXXI I _I;DEGRADED SPAWNING HABITAT ,1 G)LZ> I<~ DLOSSOFHISTORICOFF-CHANNELHAB.'M EA I HI 'n' I IIHIGH CHANNEL WIDTH/DEPTH RATIO 'm >0_ lI I I I iXIXFEWFEWCCONIFERSINRMZ ml 0
-______rtl I__ _s mw _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ .
I IIII!I i x? I} SEDIMENTATION 0o 1i m
I_ I I I - ! I I | I IXI RIPARIAN CLEARING _ >I I_! I I I I I Iil 1 IX!CHANNELIZATION m mZIm IDREDGING/GRAVEL REMOVAL- c/, CD I> I II I ; 2XUPLAND LOGGING co 1 xij !LACK OF MATURE CONIFERS
U, ___ |LOWI> | II FLOWS I z cl) :~~~~~~~X 'MININ CD m
m z
i | 0 i OTHER AFFECTED USES o
X I lxlx|COHOIlXl, I XI I j FALL CHINOOK OmI I .I111 I I X- I XIX XIXIXCOHO I Gi Z JC IX X!j |i aALLC1,NOO _ 21RESIDENT TROUT
mm_ m m ______m
zz!zzzz ) POPOOOP 0
I, ~~~~~~~~~~~0
- - Li______~i-
Co A',
I , I"I 'A Applegate Watershed I,
Basins and Sreamc LITTLE APPLEGATE MAP LA-1
0 5 1 0 Miles x SQ I ?_1"1 W- N -t-s.
3) _ M o - t - S - t s - ./ / pz10 f 7t 0 ~~~~~~~~~A-b
s}4_ G_ ^ / <'_ SsASH
X e GapX
wt_\t 'IBoaz P w nt
Baldy 7el ls- %1
mneG-o1-i _!_a _w_
acN °pActeR<
+ E\E<(\ / \\ I' < )ewr \r,7m LITTL APPLEATE MLP LA-
_ *lv\. 3B -2 l"' AC~ LITTLEPriat APPLEGAT MA
Scale = 1: 145,000
MILES f-i i l = - 0o 2 3 Id 5 From Oregon Water Resources Department. 1980 Rogue Drainage Basin. Map No 15.8
. _ _ -
2 a -t ^ _'0/te- ' __ - LANDSLIDES _ v,JV o a id JIC,SAD
/ 4 _.w 7~ - GTER EAOLOGNICMAPD _] Lj METASEDIME~~~~~LUTNTAC ROCKS O 2 47 ~~~~~~~~FROM.USFS and BLM Little Applegate Pilot Watershed \~ ~4 Analysis,1994 in progress. hK MAP LA-4 Little Applegate Watershed Roads Crossing Streams This map was created by intersecting riparian buffers with roads. The red lines indicate locations where roads cross riparian buffers. s 0 M~~~tgS("/pt; c/ , .f...... c...... h* _ 2 vL0' , < t - t C ,4'}, ,.J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lp + + + e ^>S.¢i : V 1 sf «bservation~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3 TC351 ,f-( a < - * - j . t 9 wT 4 8 N W iI ;21 tn~~s ib M~~bd, tSR'''' O Irrigation diversions, *453 \1 ~~~~~~ t -t-EO Ba los47 n 4 1-- CnAJy Y / I I - I- 'I~~~~E I (-. > g~ .1I ,, ,/OA.m - I -.* 'I - I ,,(redI 'a 9 41t.I '--J 7 \\ A i\X- * ) a, 1:1 aN' Ilush Crreek Rokad Project -;9 - 0Kp I' - - / - r. l ,> --- e t ~GuSIcTf &I; 71J11 101ilku I'S :~~7 ~~ Watershed bc)undary IA .. < 1 s u X~~~~~~~~~~~.~ Rush Creek Road Project ct I il Applegate Watershed Conservancy Project (GWEB) ': - - - ) BLM Projects `-4 RI I__0 -n QMA L Upgrade road (improve !±--- r- 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~1 drainage and spot rock) 1 2, I\ Decommission and barricade road 2 ' I' - )6 ER *. Block road (barricade/gate) 3 / i. 1\- . I ziJ' I3 Forest Service Projects LMe ~~~'( ~~~~~.A 0 0 Road projects ,- ', '>1'1~~~~-I o Other restoration projects > ;; I**~ ", , -\ MAP LA-6 LITTLE APPLEGATE WATERSHED '.U ------t III I 7~7\ RESTORATION PROJECTS *1* f tu i / Temperature Data Little Applegate River 1992 80 ::: :: :.: .:: : . . : : : : . . . . ; . . ; . . . . , . : . . : . : ; ...... : : .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...... ; P oU 9 ** *: * .. i.;.. . . .-. . . - ...... 70 wC: :Pbb +., ,;,,-,,^ ;,;+,,-;.;; +';;''...... c- -.... + -,', . . ~~~~~~~~~~.. . . . :: . ..: : : ...... 60 _ _ ... O , :__ __- : _. ~~ ~ ~ ~ . . :-.....:_ G .i ...... ;;;. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...... w ...... 50 ,,,.,,,;,,,. . AniI -rd A\q O\ DATE mperature Sites ( %.V h B.. Te R.%. a.5. * Sterling Ditch Min. *-Sterling Ditch Max. -_ Buck Jones R .AP 6Vc3 \t-Jennings Ck. -*-L. A P F!C FIGURE 1 Daily Max/Min at Sterling Ditch Site; Other readings are maximum temperatures from maximum/minimum thermometers. R.M =Ciuer ;le ------m- - - s - ( o n 4 Little Applegate River - Buck Jones #9 FIGURE22 1993 Temperature Study Temperature, F 80 Maxmum-Minimum Thenmorrter 7 5 ...... I...... 70 ...... 65 ...... 5 0 ...... 45 ...... 40 I I I: I I I I I I I I I. '**1'Ii O0Q) Cr) (0 0 C') OD -C) 04 r-- 0 o s- Cv-M t-- N- - CD _5 cI- CM CM C\J N N C')M a a -'-- N -, 5 3 O)D 0 0) 0)0 a) C0Q.OC.C -- -3 <6 < 3 M D ciCOC ° wO) < < <6 < C cl) Cl Date Ashland RD, Rogue River NF Little Applegate River - Yale Creek FIGURE 3 1993 Temperature Study Temperature, F 60 MaxinwrnwMinha Themwrmter 75 ...... 70 ...... I...... 65 ...... I...... 60 55 50 ...... 45 ...... I...... I l_ I I ,1 I I A - I _1 I I- I I 40 -- I -- I . L I -- I 1. 1_ 1_ 1 cM Il. CM f C I"-v V - 0 CM t- --cr 75 75 v- v- v- OD v- qT r- aD mt N R LO ODsC\1 LO C CM c" IM a '- 'T r CM CM CM a v- T- T- CM C t; U 75 75 5 75 5 a) 3 :3 ) 0)0 0) 0) 0) d) 3 <)(D CLQL QQL CL CQ c -- : -3 -3 -- - < < :3 :3 :3 =3 =J = cn c/ c) w1 a) qw e tD 0DV <: < < <: < COcD cn co cOuzc Date Ashland RD, Rogue River NF _ M_ M _- _ _m _ _ _- _____ - Applegate Watershed &Bsinsand Swam UP'PER APPLEGATE MAP UA-1 0 5 10 Miles A_ - = ------a= - an - an"- AMft 4=0 do* 40M d Little Applegate River - Jennings #7 FIGURE 4 1993 Temperature Study Temperature, F 80 MaximumMinium The m"Iter 7 5 ...... 7 0 ...... 6 0 ...... - - I ...... 55 ...... ----- ...... -----...... 50 I...... 4 5 ...... 4 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t* a) Cl) (D O 0 00 0) CM 1's O r- -- M1 t-1 It1 t, 1 0- 1 O 7 5 CM CM CM N N 0 N N Date Ashland RD, Rogue River NF UMUUEaRaUaSauau a Glade Creek 1993 Temperature Study FIGURE 5 Temperature, F 85 . _*_ Average 7-day High = 60.7 F 80 7/2-8/8 75 70 65 60 _. _-_- . - ._ .. _ .5 45_____._,__.__ as . S _ .. .1LJ ...... _ _ L _._ 45- - 11) - R Date Applegate RD, Rogue River NF Landscapes of the Little Applegate Valley Draft Copy - Subject to Change 11120/94 Little Applegate Pilot Watershed Analysis Team Valley Floor (VF): The landscape of the Valley Floor is characterized by gentle slope gradients and its close proximity to the major streams of the Little Applegate Valley. Formed by alluvial processes, this landscape appears as terraces, flats and floodplains. The youngest soils of the watershed are forming in recently deposited alluvial material, while older and more developed soils are found on the terraces upslope from the streams. Unique to this landscape is the early placer mining that took place in the gold bearing terraces of Sterling Creek and lower stem of the Little Applegate Valley. Deep soils and gentle slopes have made this landscape ideal for agricultural land use. This landscape also encompasses most of the residential development in the watershed. Stream diversions and wells supply water for both agricultural and residential uses. Floodplains are prone to flooding during periods of extreme rainfall events. Resistant Metavolcanics (RM): Much of the main stem of the Little Applegate is flanked by the Resistant Metavolcanic Landscape. The slopes of this landscape have long, concave profiles with steep ridge lines and moderate toeslopes. Soils grade from shallow, skeletal soils near the ridges to deeper, finer textured soils on the lower slopes. This landscape is highly dissected but is notable for the lack of perennial streams. Bald Mountain is typical of this landscape. The mid to upper reaches of the south slopes tend to be non forested due to the shallow soils, low rainfall and high evaporation rates. By contrast, the northern slopes are cooler and favorable for conifer growth. Subdued Metavolcanics (SM): At one time, this landscape probably appeared similar to the landscape of the Resistant Metavolcanics. But through erosion, the steep upper slopes have been reduced. What remains are gentler slopes, more rounded landforms and lower relief. The metavolcanic bedrock is highly fractured and weathered. Soils are deeper, finer textured and more productive. They generally support conifers. The south slopes of Quartz Gulch are typical of this landscape. Low Elevation Granitics (LG): Low relief and gentle slopes are typical of this landscape. The landscape is underlain by the northern reaches of the Squaw Peak Pluton, a granitic intrusion. Soils have developed from very weathered bedrock and have a higher clay content than the granitic soils of the Glaciated Granitics or Shallow Little Applegate 1 11/94 Pilot WatershedAnalysis Landscapes .. _ _ . H . _ Granitics. Soils are deep and relatively productive but plant growth is limited by the hot, dry summer climate. These soils are erodible when disturbed, but to a lesser degree than the soils of the Shallow and Glaciated Granitics. Erosion dislodges sands and clays which may be transported to the aquatic system. Glaciated Granitics (GG):This landscape is located in the main stem headwaters of the Little Applegate. Small glaciers and other processes associated with cold climate have formed this landscape during previous glaciations. Typical of glacial terrain, the slopes near the ridges are steep with shallow soils. Gentler slopes and deeper soils occur where the glacial till was deposited. McDonald Basin is an example of this landscape. It is heavily influenced by the cold climate and short growing season. The basin exhibits a mosaic of plant communities. South slopes tend to be non-forested with sagebrush and grass communities, while the north slopes are forested with Shasta red fir interspersed with openings. The deep soils act as a reservoir for snow melt water, releasing it as springs, seeps and glades throughout the summer months. The soils in this area are very susceptible to erosion. Where the soil cover is low or absent, rills and gullies have formed, supplying large quantities of sediments to the aquatic system. Sediment is of sand size and is the primary material that is embedding the gravels in the Little Applegate. Reforestation and revegetation of disturbed sites are difficult due to the harsh climate and relatively infertile soils. Shallow Granitics (SG): Steep slopes with long smooth profiles characterize this landscape. It encompasses the granitics at the mid to upper elevations of the Little Applegate. Debris slides are common and a major contributor to the development of the landscape. The soils are shallow, sandy and very susceptible to erosion. Where the soil cover is low or absent, rills and gullies have formed, supplying large quantities of sediments to the aquatic system. Sediment is of sand size and is the primary material that is embedding the gravels in the Little Applegate. The Wagner Butte area is typical of this landscape. The upper slope near the top is a mosaic of openings and trees due to the harsh climate while the mid to lower slopes are forested. Bench and Earthfiow (LC): Uneven, irregular slopes dominate this landscape. It is believed that a portion of this landscape was formed by large, slow moving earthflows. Some of the most obvious large landslides are associated with deeply weathered ultramafic rock surrounding the confluence of Glade and the Little Applegate. Though most of these slides are relatively dormant, areas where they are oversteepened, for instance near streams, can be reactivated during periods of high rainfall. Timber harvesting and road building activities may also reactivate these earthflows. Little Applegate 2 11/94 Pilot Watershed .4nalvsts Landscapes Some of the gentle relief found on this landscape is believed to be the remnants of high ancient valleys. These features tend to be relatively stable. Soils over much of the landscape tend to be deep and productive, supporting ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and white fir forests. Glaciated Headwaters (GH): Past glaciation and cold climate processes have helped sculpt this landscape. These processes have occurred atop a smorgasbord of rock types: amphibolites, serpentinites, and granitics. Near the ridge lines, soils are shallow but become very deep at the mid to lower slopes. Weathering is very slow at these elevations and consequently, the soils are extremely rocky. Glaciers carved out the Monogram Lakes Basin while several glaciers around Jackson Gap and Wrangle Gap deposited glacial till as much as two miles downslope. The deep soils act as an excellent reservoir for snow melt water accumulation. This water is released throughout the summer through seeps, springs and glades. Due to the rocky soils and harsh climate, reforestation and revegetation can be very slow and difficult. Hard Ampibolites (HA): This landscape rises abruptly out of the low relief of the Bench and Earthflow Landscape. It is separated by the "Wagner Fault" that bisects the watershed. The very hard amphibolite bedrock is unweathered and supports very steep and undissected slopes. Weathering is slow and resultant soils are shallow and skeletal. The Little Red Mountain area is typical of this landscape. It supports forests mainly of Shasta Red Fir near the top of the ridge and white fir at the lower elevations. At higher elevations, reforestation and revegetation can be slow due to skeletal soils and short growing season. Little Applegate 3 //,994 Pilot WatershedAnalysis Landscapes LITTLE APPLEGATE WATERSHED - LANDSCAPES Landscapes Landscapes GG GH _ HA LC LG ...... - RMRM ..- -.-...... --.-. SG ...... -.-..- . .-... _ SM VF Lw . . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...... x a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. .. -..-- .. \ ; - . A._-c _ ~ ~~~~~~...... S > . ¢. -...... -~~~~~~~...... _ \; \, ...... ~~~~~~~~~~~..,... \, ...... _ ...... g. .. fe~~f, ...... \...... , ...... , ...... a%~~~~~..4 ...... 1.+...... +.. .b. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:::::':':: ...... -...... ;::::\::::::::::: ..f- ..-''-' > - -~...... , v , ...... --- ...... -.--... : -:: W W j Ch _ j' '.'S - . . - ' -~~~. . ;,.'.\...... S.'.-...... LG - \ ...... W *) ~ ~ .....~~~~~~~~...... -..-...... ,-\ _V-'-- ' t~~i ": ' " - -" ' -- S ----I---- LITTLE APPLEGATE WATERSHED LANDSCAPES Stream Landscapes Landscapes GG GH HA LC LG RM SG SM VF LOWER APPLEGATE SUB-BASIN ASSESSMENT SUB-BASIN: LOWER ACRES: 62,159 APPLEGATE TRIBUTARIES: ACRES KEY WATERSHED Missouri Flat 22,275 No Murphy Creek 19,382 No Cheney Creek 15,685 No Baum Slough 4,816 No OWNERSHIP U.S. F. S. 0 BLM 32 % PRIVATE 68 % MAP NUMBER LWA-2 IMPACTED Cold water fish BENEFICIAL Aesthetics USES (2) Domestic water use Irrigation Stock Other aquatic life OTHER Special forest products RESOURCES Forest Products _Aggregate (gravel) CURRENT ESTIMATED FISH DISTRIBUTION (3) ITRIBUTARYICO CO MIICHF ICHF MI ISTW ISTW MI IST S ISTS MI IRT IRT MI Applegate 899 47 11155 47 17687 47 0 0YES Mainstem* * Includes all of mainstem CO=Number of coho; CO MI=Miles of coho habitat; etc. CHF=Fall Chinook; STW=Winter Steelhead; STS=Summer Steelhead; RT=Resident Trout WATER INFORMATION Annual Runoff (4) Based on precip. data 584,000 acre-feet (at Wilderville) 670,000 acre-feet (at mouth) Number of water rights (5) No. of surface water rights Date of oldest water right Total allocation rate of surface rights Consumptive uses Lower Applegate I 11/O194 _- LOCATION AND OWNERSHIP Map LWA- I shows the location of the Lower Applegate watershed in the northwestern part of the Applegate watershed. Map LWA-2 shows the distribution of ownership. Land use in the lower elevations includes irrigated agricultural farmland, rural residential, urban residential and industrial. Upper elevations are predominantly forest land. The community of Murphy, in the middle of the watershed, is located at the confluence of Murphy Creek and the Applegate River. LIMITING FACTORS RESTORATION APPROACH SEDIMENTATION To be completed later. WATER QUALITY WATER QUANTITY FISH PASSAGE INSTREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS A detailed assessment will be completed. The following issues will be included Sedimentation Bank erosion has been noted in a SCS analysis. Riparian clearing may contribute to this. Many gravel extraction sites are located within this sub-basin. Water quality High temperatures- 1993 Average 7 day high = 76.0 F. Water circulated through ditches and returned to the river probably contributes to this problem. Conditions upstream must be addressed, especially riparian conditions, to improve conditions in the Lower Applegate sub-basin. DATA GAPS No recent stream survey on the mainstem. No stream survey of Murphy Creek Little water quality data. Lower Applegate 2 I11/94 Study the effects of warm water fish on anadromous fishery. Effects of ponds on habitat and water quality. No information on the effects of urbanization on lower river. Diversion locations. REFERENCES (1) Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, 1993, Forest Ecosystem Management An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. (2) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 1988, 1988 Oregon Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution. (3) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1991, Rogue Basin fish distribution estimates. Memo by Chuck Fustish (4) Oregon Water Resources Department, 1985, Rogue River Basin Study. Lover Applegate 3 /1194 Applegate Watershed Basins and Streams LOW'ER APPLEGATE MAP LWA-1 k11 0 5 1 0 Miles 0 1_Mle I I- 06 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-. 1 t. j Wtof ,1,, / Nl ,." I- \5 YX s V Z v +LOWER APPLEGATE. Mu ' B\CE,,%iMh rtMAP LWA-2 - J Grvavieck9 LAND OWNERSHIP 'D~~j/ X \(5~Pk 5 Cop -, |; < / - / \ X Forest Service C' 175k ~t10\ G \ /f(SU9 g Private -le' 0 +>KScale = 1: 145,000 Bu~~~~~~k ~~MILES _ _ _ -lolland (4N) Puck,_ _ _ _ )) ,t~~~a~t;;n~~~a< r^ 9 _ / 0 / _ } O~~~ 1 2 3 A 5 - 4X From_ /Oregon . Water Resources Department. 1980 Rogue Drainage Basin. Map No 15.8 G~9.-{;-{>t , c ?i i \s r/ _> \ MIDDLE APPLEGATE SUB-BASIN ASSESSMENT SUB-BASIN: MIDDLE ACRES: 41,042 ______APPLEGATE______ TRIBUTARIES: ______ACRES KEY WATERSHED Spencer Gulch 6,541 No ______Humbug Creek 22,397 No ______Ferris Gulch 12,104 -______INo OWNERSHIP U.S. F. S. 0 BLM 51 % PRITVATE 49 % MAP NUMBER MA-2 IMPACTED Cold water fish ______ BENEFICIAL Aesthetics ______ U S E S (2 _ _ _ _ _ )______ OTHER Special forest products ______IRESOURCES I Forest Products ______I___ CURRENT ESTIMATED FISH DISTRIBUTION (3) TRIBUTARY CO CO MI CHF CHF MI STW STW MI ST STSTS MI RT RT Ml Applegate 8991 47 11155 47 17687 47 01 0 YES 47 Mainstemn* * Includes all of mainstem CONumber of coho; CO MI=Miles of coho habitat; etc. CHF=Fall Chinook; STW=Winter Steelhead; STS=Summer Steelhead; RT=Resident Trout WATER INFORMATION Annual Runoff (4) Based on precip data 399,900 acre-feet (at Applegate) Number of water rights (5) No. of surface water rights ______Date of oldest water right Total allocation rate of surface rights______Consum ptive uses ______ LOCATION AND OWNERSHIP Map MA- I shows the location of the Middle Applegate watershed in the north-central part of the Applegate watershed. Map MA-2 shows the distribution of ownership. Land use in the lower elevations is predominantly irrigated agricultural farmland and rural A1fiddle Applegaie I II'94 residential homes. Upper elevations are predominantly forest land. The community of Applegate is located at the confluence of Thompson Creek and the Applegate River. Provolt is located at the western edge of the watershed. LIMITING FACTORS RESTORATION APPROACH SEDIMENTATION To be completed. WATER QUALITY WATER QUANTITY FISH PASSAGE INSTREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS I SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS A detailed assessment will be completed. It will include: Water quality High temperatures - 1993 Water temperatures at Applegate 7 day average high = 71.2 F Riparian clearing is some areas Fish passage Some diversion structures may inhibit migration Several fish screen projects have been identified by ODFW. See attached. Instream structure Lack of conifers Clogged side-channels DATA GAPS No recent stream survey of mainstem. REFERENCES (I) Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, 1993, ForestEcosystem Management An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. Afiddle Applegale 2 I11194 (2) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 1988, 1988 Oregonz Statewide Assessyment of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution. (3) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 199 1, Rogue Basin fish distribution estimates. Memo by Chuck Fustish (4) Oregon Water Resources Department, 1985, Rogue River Basini Studyv. Aftddle -Ipplegate3 3 11,94I9 I) Applegate Watershed &iszm and Streams . 1' MID DLE APPLEGATE MAP MA-1 0 5 10 Miles 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ae- I fi X tS'(, A W -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J ^1~~ i~~t Uw~~omsbun _ _ / d r h l u r _ t /fYS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I >,.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N A~~~~~a /Sl % ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IL- 1 t f) I / | - - v 4 ; J+X@ ¢ j P go W ystMIDDLE APPLEGATE, Service ) 9g >S~iV\Soeas i > 4 <; 2 BLM ,,5,,rjb +>'1t ~4.q s't )~ e | ) \;0d " | := ~~~~~~~~Private Water Resources Department, 1980 f b( FromnOregon -K , g I Artt 1, ag e B; s in~, M a p N -i _1 5 _ 8 tbx\M|~lIillat F~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...R g e D ra in > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. , .. :*. r.;.t, * t.; *N***. PROPOSED FISH SCREEN SOUTH COAST I ROGUE BASIN OCTOBER 1, 1994 WATERSHED MAIN STEM WATER RIGHT TRIBUTARY DITCH IMPROVEMENT PROBLEM ______COST NEEDED ESTIMATE Applegate Applepte River 14 CFS 1899 North Side Ditch Install Control Bypass creates false S10,000.0 Noble Dairy Structure & attraction & later improve bypass. Chinook Redds are lost, when stream dries up, when point of diversion is turned out for winter. Applegate Applegate River 6 CFS Kause-VanHulzen Screen installed, Very large push-up S10,000.00 Ditch but it is unprotected dan causing fish from winter high passage problem. flow. Install ______~~~~~~~~~~controlstructure. Applegate Applegate River 2,074 CFS 1866 Kubli Ditch Relocate screen Current smolt mortality S25,000.00 upstream 2 miles to problem. .______bhead of ditch. Applegate Applegate River 10 CFS 1894 Newberry-Mann Instafl screen. Alleviate poor fish S 20,000.00 Ditch passage situation. Large push-up dam. Applegate Applegate River *Ditch #1 & #2 Offenbacher Screen present, but To protect screen. S 7,000.00 Combined: *Ditch #1 needs control 9.45 CFS 1888 structure & measuring device; ODFW request flow control ...... i I .~~~ . ' '' .' . * ...... i I WATERSHED MAIN STEM WATER RIGHT TRIBUTARY | DITCH IMPROVEMENT PROBLEM COST f l______l NEEDED ESTIMATE Applegale Applegate River *See Above. Offenbacher Improve control S 3,000.00 *Ditch #2 structure & install measuring device. Applegate Applegate River 3.98 CFS 1863 Taylor-Sturgis Install control Ditch needs to be S 6,000.00 Ditch structure & cleaned. measuring device. Applegate Applegate River Newberry Ditch Install smolt Currently causing $40,000.00 screen. Relocate extensive snolt screen I mile mortality. upstramn to head of ditclL Install control structure. Deepen channel for ______new screen box. Little Butte Rogue River South Fork 250 North & South Relocate 2 fish S30,000.00 CFS 1909 Fork Little Butte screens and South Fork 10.5 [Medford Irrigation construct 3 new CFS 1899 District] screens. Four Mile 20.0 CFS 1910 Fish Lake 708.65 ______CFS 1910 IllinoisValley Illinois River Clear Creek Instail new screen. S5,000.00 MASIEMAurC The Little Butte screens will be maintained by the Medford Irrigation District. The rest of the proposed projects will be maintained by ODFW under their current screen maintenance program. With the possible exception of the Newberry-Mann and Clear Creek screens, all the rest do not qualify for the ODFW screen cost share will include a landowner maintenance clause. program, so . ~~~~~~~~~. . . . . SLATE CREEK SUB-BASIN ASSESSM[ENT SUB-BASIN: SLATE CREEK ACRES: 28,413 TRIBUTARIES: ______ACRES KEY WATERSHED No OWNERSHIP U.S. F. S. 42% BLM 18 % ______PRIVATE 40 % MAP NUMBER MA-2 IMPACTED Cold water fish ______BENEFICIAL Aesthetics______USES (2) Domestic water use______ Irrigation ______ Stock__ _ _ _ Other aquatic life ______ OTHER Special forest products______ RESOURCES Forest Products ______ CURRENT ESTIMATED FISH DISTRIBUTION (3) TRIBUTARY CO CO NE CHF CHF ME STW STW MI ST S STS ME RT RT NU Slate Creek 75 8 300 6 200 9 545 5 YES 13 Mainstem______Slate Creek 110 4 100 2.1 0 0 569 8.4 8.6 T rib s I_ __I_ _ _I__ _I _ I__ _ I_ _ _ _ I__ _ CONumber of coho; CO MI=Miles of coho habitat; etc. CHF=FaII Chinook; STW=Winter Steelhead; STS=Summer Steelhead; RT=Resident Trout WATER INFORMATION Annual Runoff (4) Based on precip. data 77,400 acre-feet Number of water fights (5) To be completed at a later date No. of surface water fights Date of oldest water right Total allocation rate of surface fights ______ Consumptive uses______I LOCATION AND OWNERSHIP Map SC- I shows the location of the Slate Creek watershed In the western part of the Applegate watershed. Map SC-2 shows the distribution of ownership. Land use in the Slate CreekIIi9 I 11194 lower elevations is predominantly irrigated agricultural farmland and rural residential homes. Upper elevations are predominantly forest land. The communities of Wilderville and Wonder are located in the eastern portion of the watershed. Slate Creek Mainstem LIMITING FACTORS RESTORATION APPROACH SEDIMENTATION Gravels do not appear embedded, but sedimentation sources affect downstream habitat (6) (9) RM 12.8-13.2 potential bank erosion (6) On USFS property Moderate turbidity, sedimentation and erosion (2) WATER QUALITY Low dissolved oxygen and nutrients- moderate problem (2) low flows RM 9.0-9.8 good riparian veg(6) RM 9.8-10.9 good shading lacks conifers RM 10.9-12.8 low % shading, no mature conifers (6), sparse upland veg. RM 12.8-13.2 high shade % macroinvertebrates indicate good water quality (6) WATER QUANTITY FISH PASSAGE No evident barriers (6) INSTREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS Good substrate (6) RM 0-4 no few conifers in riparian Contact landowners, encourage planting conifers Gravel possibly limiting RM 2.5-3.0, 4.25-4.5, and possibly above 5.25 (9) Moderate instream structure problem (2) S/olae ('reek 2 I11194 Butcherknife Creek Fish species: Steelhead, fall chinook (RM 0-.25), resident trout, coho (10) LIMITING FACTORS RESTORATION APPROACH SEDIMENTATION _ Not evident (7) WATER QUALITY Good riparian (7) WATER QUANTITY Low flows, stream subs (7) FISH PASSAGE No evident barriers (7) Low flows trap fish (7) RM .3 4' diversion should be removed before spawning season (10) INSTREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS _ LWM lacking- drainage logged (7) Review opportunities with landowners to add logs in existing pools or along stream sides to provide cover Spawning gravel RM 0-0.5 (10) Bear Creek Fish species: Fall chinook, steelhead, coho, and resident trout ( 1) LIMITING FACTORS RESTORATION APPROACH SEDIMENTATION Not evident (I I_) WATER QUALITY Excellent shading ()I I_) WATER QUANTITY FISH PASSAGE RM 0-.5 impassable log jams (I 1) Check current conditions. INSTREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS High number of logs-good cover ()II_) Slate Creek3 3 11 194 _ Elliot Creek Fish species: Fall chinook, steelhead, coho and resident trout (12) LIMITING FACTORS RESTORATION APPROACH SEDIMENTATION Not evident (1 2)______ WATER QUALITY ______Excellent riparian shading (I12) WATER QUANTITY FISH PASSAGE______RM 1.75 impassable 6' log jam (12) Check for current fish passage problems INSTREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS Ramsay Creek LIMITING FACTORS RESTORATION APPROACH SEDIMENTATION______ WATER QUALITY Dense shading (8) WATER QUANTITY FISH PASSAGE Steep gradient (8) ______ INSTREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS ______ Little anadromous potential (8) ______ Sparse spawning gravel (8)______ Round PrairieCreek Fish species.: Fall chinook, steelhead, coho and resident trout LIMITING FACTORS RESTORATION APPROACH LGood Riparian shading (13) Encourage protection of high-quality habitat Slate (Creek4 4 11/94 WATER QUANTITY - Low summer flows (13) FISH PASSAGE INSTREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS Good quality spawning and rearing Encourage protection of high quality habitat habitat (13) Waters Creek Fall chinook, coho, steelhead and resident trout LIMITING FACTORS RESTORATION APPROACH SEDIMENTATION WATER QUALITY 60%/o shading (14) WATER QUANTITY FISH PASSAGE INSTREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS Good Riffle:pool ratio (14) Gravel not limiting (14) REFERENCES (1) Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, 1993, Forest Ecosystem Management An Ecological.Economic, and Social Assessment. (2) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 1988, 1988 Oregon Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution. (3) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1991, Rogue Basin fish distribution estimates. Memo by Chuck Fustish (4) Oregon Water Resources Department, 1985, Rogue River Basin Study (5) Oregon Water Resources department, WRIS inventory* (6) ODFW, 1991, Slate Creek Stream Survey, RM 9.0 to RM 13 2. (7) ODFW, 1994, Butcherknife Creek Stream Survey. (8) ODFW, 1969, Ramsay Creek Stream Survey Slate Creek 5s /1194 . (9) ODFW, 1969, Slate Creek Stream Survey. (10) ODFW, 1974, Butcherknife Creek Stream Survey. (11) ODFW, 1974, Bear Creek Stream Survey. (12) ODFW, 1974, Elliot Creek Stream Survey. (13) ODFW, 1974, Round Prairie Creek Stream Survey. (14) ODFW, 1974, Waters Creek Stream Survey. Slawte ('reek6 6 11 94 I Ul- Applegate Watershed Bsins add Steams SLATE CREEI MAP SC-1 0 5 10 Miles A J u c j$ ,< Ph=°y1 ~~~~~ia Map No 15.8 i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E~a~ ,SR,..,.,:}~ C - ^ Rogue Drainage BasinI 5 \ | g | ! nois | \ j X H - 'i -w ) -s t ,,,4M n , Ct,} zXr,,,, Awyt STAR/BEAVER/PALMER SUB-BASINi ASSESSMENT SUB-BASIN: STAR/BEAVERI ACRES: 52,243 ______PALMER_ _ _ TRIBUTARIES:______ACRES KEY WATERSHED Star Gulch 16,065 ______No (1) Beaver Creek 17,484 Yes Palmer Creek 18,664 ______Yes OWNERSHIP U.S. F. S. 58 % BLM _34% PRIVATE 8 % MAP NUMIBER SBP-2 RIMPACTED Cold water fish______ BENEFICIAL Other aquatic life ______ USES Aesthetics______ CURRENT ESTIMATED FISH DISTRIBUTION (3) TRIBUTARY CO ICO MI CHF JCHF MI STW STW MU ST S STS MI IRT RT MI~ ~Star Gulch 0J 0 0 0 0 0 60 41 YES 6.5 [Beaver Creek .0*1 0 0 0 0 0 275 3.81 YE S 5 tPalmer Creek 0*1 0 0 0 0 0 270. 3 YES 71 CO=Number of coho; CO MI=Miles of coho habitat; etc. CHF=Fall Chinook; STW=Winter Steelbead; STS=Summer Steelhead; RT=Resident trout * Coho listed in earlier stream surveys WATER INFORMATION Annual Runoff (4) Not available Number of water rights (5) No. of surface water rights ______ Date of oldest water right ______Total allocation Rate Consumptive uses ______ Star'BeaverPaIhner11 I 11194 LOCATION Map SBP- 1 shows the location of the Star/Beaver/Palmer watershed in the Applegate watershed and the tributary sub-watersheds (Star, Beaver and Palmer). In addition to these tributaries, this sub-basin contains 13 miles of the mainstem Applegate River from the Little Applegate confluence (RM 34) to Applegate dam at RM 47. OWNERSHIP AND LAND USES Map SBP-2 illustrates that the majority of the private lands in this sub-basin occur along the mainstem of the Applegate River, where the predominant use is rural residential and irrigated agriculture. The BLM controls most of Star Gulch, while the U.S. Forest Service controls most of Palmer Creek. Majority ownership is shared between the BLM and U.S. Forest Service in the Beaver Creek watershed with some private ownership in a checkerboard pattern mostly in the upper reaches. Predominant land uses in the sub-watersheds. * Timber management * Mining with lesser amounts of: * grazing * agriculture * recreation (6) Mainstem ADnleeate RM 34 to RM 47 LIMITING FACTORS AND RESTORATION APPROACH: LIMITING FACTOR/EVIDENCE RESTORATION APPROACH SEDIMENTATION Evident, but extent unknown (7) No existing data on point or non-point sedimentation sources FISH PASSAGE Applegate Dam (RM 47). Completed in None. 1980 with no fish ladders. Impassable. Steelhead spawning and rearing habitat most significantly affected. Coho also affected. Fall chinook benefit (see sections regarding water quality and instream habitat conditions in assessment.) Newberry Ditch (RM 40): inadequate ARWC met with irrigation association and screening causes extensive smolt mortality they support the following improvements (7) and (8) and can cause fish migration recommended by ODF&W: Star.BeaverI'PIhner 2 11/94 problems if boards aren't removed at the * evaluation of ditch grade in upper ditch appropriate time.(9) * the installation of a smolt screen * the relocation of the screen to the head of the ditch * installation of a headgate.. Estimated cost $40,000 from fish screen funds. The council will continue to work with the irrigation association and ODFW to facilitate this project. Applegate River Watershed Council is awaiting technical design plans from the field team. Check other irrigation diversions for fish screens. - 4 WATER QUALITY Riparian clearing-Residential and _ The Applegate Watershed Conservancy agricultural development has caused areas (AWC) with Forest Service assistance of sparse vegetation interspersed with well- surveyed RM 34 to RM 35.5 with vegetated areas, creating areas of little landowners who wished to participate in shading from the confluence of the Little planting projects. Other landowners will be Applegate River to the Applegate dam (10). encouraged to participate. High temperatures-August 1993 average high temperatures increased from 63.1 degrees at the dam to 71.2 degrees at Applegate. INSTREAM HABITAT channelization (10) The AWC survey identified some areas limited large wood (10) where wood or boulders could improve channel complexity and provide cover for fish. Other opportunities for these and off- channel habitat enhancement projects should be pursued. DATA GAPS No recent stream survey on mainstem Affects of livestock in the riparian zone and with unrestricted access instream on the mainstem and at the mouth of tributaries has not been evaluated. 1993 temperature increases in Middle and Lower Applegate sub-basins suggest that effects are cumulative and should be mitigated for from the dam to the mouth. Additional temperature monitoring stations should be established through cooperation with the U.S.G. S. monitoring program. Siar/Heaverl"Pahner 3 I11194 Star Gulch Since very little private lands are present in the Star Gulch watershed and one landowner near the confluence with the mainstem is selling the property, no immediate restoration is envisioned. LIMITING FACTORS AND RESTORATION APPROACH LIMITING FACTORS/EVIDENCE RESTORATION APPROACH SEDIMENTATION Embeddedness (I 1) 1,400 CFS flows during storm events (6) WATER QUALITY Sparse riparian vegetation in lower reach Current owner is selling property, no action due to livestock( 12) Low dissolved oxygen, nutrients (2) due to low flows WATER QUANTITY Low flows (2) due to low base flows and withdrawals FISH PASSAGE RM .5 - 4' diversion dam passable at med. flows (11) RM 2 impassable culvert INSTREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS channelization (13) few conifers in riparian area R.M 0-3 (13) ______Lack of structure (2) Lack of pools ()I I_) Marginal spawning gravel RM 0-2 (I I_) Beaver Creek LIMITING FACTORS/EVIDENCE RESTORATION APPROACH SEDIMENTATION Sedimentation due to erosion and road Review road systems on private lands. If locations (2) poor conditions exist, work with High number of roads crossing drainages landowners who wish to participate to (6) facilitate improvements. Sedimentation from roads landings and skid Cooperate with federal agency restoration trails and easily erodible granitic soils (6) efforts. Star'lceaver,'Pah/ner 4 11,194S - - I~~~~~~~~~ See Plate 1 for geology info. ... Highest road densities: Hanley Gulch, Has- kins Gulch, and Beaver Ck headwaters. (6) 1,250 cfs flows from rain on snow storm events - elevated erosion potential (6) Drought has stored large volumes of Stabilize sediment in drainages with sediment in intermittent drainages (6) structures or planting Upper sections -RM 4.25 heavily logged Encourage and support reforestation (14) Heavily logged areas include Beaver Ck. Encourage and support reforestation headwaters, Pete's Camp Ck. headwaters, and Haskins, Hanley, Charley Buck and Armstrong Gulches. (6) Grazing allotment in headwaters; cattle in riparian areas. WATER QUALITY Low dissolved oxygen (2) due to low flows Roads in riparian area (6)______High temps in summer-> 68 (6) pH, conductivity and total dissolved solids OK (6) WATER QUANTITY Low flows due to withdrawals (2) Promote conservation through education and irrigation improvement incentives 3 known diversions (6) FISH PASSAGE RM 2.0 - 15' falls may be passable (14) INSTREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS High riffle to pool ratio (14) Roads prohibit lateral stream movement (6) Simplified structure - no refuge from high flows (6) No connectivity of habitat in summer due to low flows causing fish mortality (6) Few conifer in riparian area (6) Encourage landowners to participate in _planting project Deplete large woody debris (6) Add large wood where appropriate Impaired habitat complexity limits macroinvertebrate productivity (6) Slar/lleam'er/PnImer 5s 11.941 DATA GAPS Conditions on private lands need to be assessed. Additional temperature data is needed. Some outreach to landowners has been initiated. More needs to be done. Palmer Creek Because little of Palmer Creek is held by private interests the completion of this assessment is a lower priority and will be completed as soon as possible. REFERENCES (1) Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, 1993, Forest Ecosystem Management An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. (2) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 1988, 1988 Oregon Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution. (3) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1991, Rogue Basin fish distribution estimates. Memo by Chuck Fustish (4) Oregon Water Resources Department, 1985, Rogue River Basin Study. (5) ORWD WRIS (6) Beaver/Palmer Watershed Analysis, 1994 (7) ODFW, 1973, Mainstem Applegate Stream Survey, on file at ODFW (8) ODFW personal communication (9) SWMG October 11, 1994 Update on Fish Screen Program (10) ODFW, 1993, Draft Rogue Basin Fish Management Plan (I 1) ODFW, 1970, Star Gulch Stream Survey (12) personal observation ARWC ( 13) ODFW, 1993, Star Gulch Stream Survey (14) ODFW, 1970, Beaver Creek Stream Survey Star:IBeaverslz'aner 6 11194 S , X o ' h _ f / Uln l~~~~~~~~~~~~oz~~~~~n,9,>,_~~~~~~~~~ Z- 17" PL Q %°'/ S -S>~~~~iB vS'< R. ( ¢ ; g ~~~~~~~~~~~~~2F J MD, I Lmlg R- * 40X\ s Ds J anZ * v 9 tz~~~~~Ga -. % 1\t DaS, 83Fd,.zi.1 I^ I wi''~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~el _ ~ ~~~~Lose ~~t Mtn z 4C5 ' Pk t % 4 g A <~~~~~~~ MAPSB angaroo~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ducmn lznm~g _ L fj~~~tn 3 -P&2 RogueDrainage Bason Map No15 2 Applegate Watershed Ratils and Streams STAR/BEAVER/PALMER MAP SBP-1 0o0 5 101 0 Miles THOMPSON CREEK SUB-BASIN ASSESSMENT SUB-BASIN: THOMPSON ACRES: 20,029 CREEK ______ TRIBUTARIES:______ACRES KEY WATERSHED No (1) Nine Mile Creek No OWvNERSHIP U.S. F. S. 0 BLM 60 % ______PRIVATE 40 % MAP NUMBER TC-2 IMPACTED Cold water fish______ BENEFICIAL Aquatic life ______ USES (2) Aesthetics ______ OTHER Special forest products ______RESOURCES Forest Products______ CURRENT ESTIMATED FISH DISTRIBUTION (3) TRIBUTARY CO CO MI CHF CHF MI STW STW MI ST S STS MI *RTIRT Ml Thompson 25 3 20 1 3 3 670 6.5 YES 10.5 Ck. M ainstem ______I__ Thompson 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 1 YES~ 25 C k. T ribs I ______I_ _ _ _ CO=Number of cwho; CO MI=Miles of coho habitat; etc. CHF=Fall Chinook; STW=Winter Steelhead; STS=Summer Steelhead; RT=Resident Trout WATER INFORMATION Annual Runoff (4) Based on precip. data 28,100 acre-feet Number of water rights (5) ______No. of surface water rights Date of oldest water right Total allocation rate of surface rights ______Consumptive uses LOCATION AND OWNERSHIP Map TC- I shows the location of the Thompson Creek watershed in the west-central part of the Applegate watershed. Map TC-2 shows the distribution of ownership. Land use in the lower elevations is predominantly irrigated agricultural farmland and rural residential homes. Upper elevations are predominantly forest land. LIMITING FACTORS RESTORATION APPROACH SEDIMENTATION To be completed later. WATER QUALITY WATER QUANTITY FISH PASSAGE INSTREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS I SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS Sedimentation Logging on private lands in and adjacent to Thompson Creek has lefi a high potential for sedimentation. Logging many years ago has activated landslides which remain active today. Water quality High temperatures due to low flows Septic systems need upgrading Livestock in the stream Riparian clearing in some areas Water quantity Thompson Creek drainage basin is small and summer flows are low. Water from the 'highline ditch' supplements natural stream flows. Ditch repairs are necessary to maintain dependable flows. Irrigation association is willing to commit to instream flows; however the conservation statute is difficult to understand and has few incentives and many unknowns which they are not willing to subject the association to. Fish passage Some diversion structures may inhibit migration and spawning. Most have screens, check. DATA GAPS No recent stream survey. No water quality data. T/hompson Creek 2 /1/,9X REFERENCES (1) Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, 1993, Forest Ecosystem Management An ELcological, Economic, and Social Assessmen. (2) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 1988, 1988 Oregon Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution. (3) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1991, Rogue Basin fish distribution estimates. Memo by Chuck Fustish (4) Oregon Water Resources Department, 1985, Rogue River Basin Study 7hompsofn Creek 3 11194 I Applegate Watershed Basins and Streams THOMPSON CREEK MAP TC-1 ) 5 10 M files 4/~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ O ~~~~~~SO NAtS Old BtA > >\,-, M~tn telleb \fbS> | - gw~~~~ Susga\ .Z iOMvtn I -^ _r4;"~^R~ ^: l VJtvW 5? -- r,iet/C o\ v/ Wellxngt~n. S ,s *(rr _ (R jW ! : Je > / 2 1~~~3~ Is < z , f s ~ z~ g^:i |' S .,..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I ,,, Hj; t SoR'|Pk . 12 J(7\4 5 >,9v_ 3 sVb ^n -C/\X~~~~~~~~~~xm t S~~~~C; r ~~~ F S v jv0 \ \ - -~~~~~~~~le Mtn 0 g t\< ~X~lrs8^S10 THOMPSON CREEK MAP TC-2 a gg;~~~P/ la \ !V LAND OWNERSHIP _0X \;, tn: tv Forest Service r S / .... hI P J*)CoU,^ / JL-nle Craggs Z ~~~""* / G.P BLM.. C Private Scale = 1: 145,000. ,en H -- s w< A~~~~t t Mt i/ @ MI LES. O 2 3 A S From Oregon Water Resources Departrnent. 1980 Rogue Drainage Basin, Map No 15 8 i>5~~~M,, '0),,, ~~ UPPER APPLEGATE SUB-BASIN ASSESSMENT SUB-BASIN: UPPER ACRES: 142,167 APPLEGATE TRIBUTARIES: ACRES KEY WATERSHED Butte Fork 11,646 No (1) Middle Fork 20,653 No Silver Fork 16,704 No Dutch Creek 6,818 No Joe Creek 3,443 No Elliot Creek 9,190 No Carberry Creek 19,068 No O'Brien Creek 2,465 No Sturgis Creek 10,510 No Brush Creek 15,367 rRull No Squaw Creek 18,813 No Applegate Lake 7,490 No OWNERSHIP U.S. F. S. 88 % BLM I % PRIVATE 10 % MAP NUMBER UA-2 IMPACTED Not included BENEFICIAL USES (2) OTHER RESOURCES CURRENT ESTIMATED FISH DISTRIBUTION (3) TRIBUTARY CO CO Ml CHF CHF MI STW STW MI ST S STS MI RT RT MI Carberry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes . French Gulch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes _ Elliot Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes Steve Fork 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes Sturgis Fork 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes CO=Number of coho; CO MI=Miles of coho habitat; etc. CHF=Fall Chinook; STW=Winter Steelhead; STS=Summer Steelhead; RT=Resident trout lOpper Applegale I 11194 WATER INFORMATION - -- -- ---- - I Annual Runoff (4) Based on Drecin- data Squaw Creek 44,200 acre-feet Carberry Creek 107,300 acre-feet Number of water rights (5)_ No. of surface water rights Date of oldest water right Total allocation rate of surface rights Consumptive uses LOCATION AND OWNERSHIP Map UA- I shows the location of the Upper Applegate watershed in the southern part of the Applegate watershed. Map UA-2 shows the distribution of ownership. The entire sub-basin is above Applegate Dam and does not support anadromous fish. The area is predominantly mid to high elevation forest land with the ownership predominantly U.S. Forest Service. LIMITING FACTORS RESTORATION APPROACH SEDIMENTATION To be completed at a later date. WATER QUALITY WATER QUANTITY FISH PASSAGE rNSTREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS REFERENCES (1) Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, 1993, ForestEcosystem Management An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. (2) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 1988, 1988 Oregon Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution. (3) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1991, Rogue Basin fish distribution estimates. Memo by Chuck Fustish (4) Oregon Water Resources Department, 1985, Rogue River Basin Study. Upper .4pplegale 2 I11/94 Applegate Watershed Basins and Srreams UP PER APPLEGATE MAP UA-1 0 5 10 Miles _ UPPER APPLEGATE MAP UA- -~ ' t< ) X L AI)N D O W N E R S H I P I.gar I _ 17 , I _ForestSevic *~~~tr~~~~ck ~~~~~ B L M Mln > Grayba Private_ _ Ufl~~~~~~~~~~~ Scale =1:145= 0O eke Bu l Mtf, l aid_ MILES From Oregon Water Resources Department 1980 Rogue Drainage Basin, Map No. 15.8 C _p WOO?~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~a MI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ j Phanlo~ VrmS ~~T48 Figuee / Rattlesna Mtn ~~~~anpauoo WILLIAMS CREEK SUB-BASIN ASSESSMENT SUB-BASIN: WILLIAMS CREEK |_ |_ACRES: 51,911 TRIBUTARIES: ACRES KEY WATERSHED E. Fork Williams Ck. 11,207 No (1) W. Fork Williams Ck. 21,077 No Williams Creek 19,627 No Total 51,911 OWNERSHIP U.S. F. S. 3% BLM 38% PRIVATE 5/9% MAP NUMBER WMS-2 IMPACTED Cold water fish BENEFICIAL Domestic water supply USES Aquatic life (2) Irrigation Aesthetics Stock water OTHER Forest products RESOURCES Special forest products CURRENT ESTIMATED FISH DISTRIBUTION (3) TRIBUTARY CO CO MI CHF CHF Ml STW STW MI ST S STS MI RTRT Ml Williams Ck. 45 6.5 200 6.5 400 6.5 0 0 YES 6.5 Mainstem Williams Ck. 97 10.8 75 5.3 173 12 907 7.8 YES 25 Tributaries _ CO=Number of coho, CO MF=Miles of coho habitat; etc. CHF=Fall Chinook; STW=Winter Steelhead; STS=Summer Steelhead; RT=Resident trout WATER INFORMATION Annual Runoff (4) Based on precip. data Williams Creek 100,700 acre-feet Powell Creek 14,900 acre-feet Number of water rights (5) 390 No. of surface water rights 33 1 Date of oldest water right 1858 Total allocation rate of surface rights 128.89 cfs Consumptive uses Irrigation, mining, agriculture, domestic, 110iIahas l I / 94 I industrial, and livestock LOCATION AND OWNERSHIP Map WMS- I shows the location of the Williams Creek watershed in the west-central part of the Applegate watershed. Map WMS-2 shows the distribution of ownership. The community of Williams is located in the central portion of the watershed near the confluence of the West and East Forks of Williams Creek. many of the names of the individual streams and tributaries which comprise the Williams watershed are shown on this map. Most of the private land follows a broad valley along the mainstem and East and West Forks of Williams Creek which is characterized by irrigated agricultural lands, range lands and rural residential homes. Upslope areas are predominantly forest lands (4). LIMITING FACTORS FOR FISHERIES AND RESTORATION APPROACH Williams Creek In addition to cold water fisheries, water quality factors also affect domestic water supplies, irrigation, stock watering, other aquatic life and aesthetics in Williams Creek (2). LIMITING FACTORS RESTORATION APPROACH SEDIMENTATION Some evidence, but overall good to marginal (5) Some actively eroding stream banks, RM 0-1.2 and 2.0-7.1 (5) Some embeddedness, needs further investigation Moderate affects from erosion and Encourage and support riparian planting. sedimentation and turbidity, probable causes-vegetation removal (2) WATER QUALITY Low shade along some pasture land (6) Moderate affects from pesticides and excessive plant growth - possible cause elimination of thermal cover(2) Severe affects from low dissolved oxygen- low flows (2) WATER QUANTITY Low flows (5) Severe affects from low flows - Identify diversions and encourage withdrawals(2) conservation lU'lliains 2 11,1/94 FISH PASSAGE 5' push up dam RM 0-1.2, potentially a Review and seek solutions if deemed barrier; 4' concrete dam RM 1.2-2.0 necessary. possible barrier, 5' push up damn RM 2.0- 7.1 possible barrier (5) INSTREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS No backwater pools, beaver ponds or Increase winter rearing habitat. alcoves (5) Gravel, probably not limiting (5) Large woody material(LWM) lacking (5) Add LWM to existing pools to increase cover. Good pool to riffle ratio (5) Riffles wide and shallow (5) DATA GAPS DATA GAP PROPOSED ACTION No temperature data (5) Conduct summer temperature study to deter- mine if temperature is a limiting factor (5) Habitat surveys were conducted in Conduct a winter habitat survey. summer and do not reflect habitat conditions during the rest of the year. (5) East Fork of Williams Creek LIMITING FACTORS RESTORATION APPROACH SEDIMENTATION Some embeddedness. (7) WATER QUALITY Moderate riparian shading. (7) WATER QUANTITY FISH PASSAGE No barriers. (7) INSTREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS High riffle:pool ratio (7) Willialms 3 11/94 DATA GAPS DATA GAP ; PROPOSED ACTION No recent stream surveys. Conduct stream surveys to assess current conditions. Powell Creek LIMITING FACTORS RESTORATION APPROACH SEDIMENTATION RM 3.75 earthslide into creek (8) See if slide is still active. If, so analyze and support any efforts to stabilize conditions. WATER QUALITY WATER QUANTITY FISH PASSAGE RM 3 - 6' falls impassable except at high flows (8) INSTREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS High riffle: pool ratio (8) Enhance rearing habitat DATA GAPS DATA GAP PROPOSED ACTION No recent stream surveys West Fork of Williams Creek LIMITING FACTORS RESTORATION APPROACH SEDIMENTATION Moderate affects from erosion and sedimentation and turbidity; probable causes-vegetation removal (2) WATER QUALITY Severe affects from low dissolved oxygen - low flows (2) WATER QUANTITY Severe affects from low flows - withdrawals (2) II'ilhants 4 4I194 FISH PASSAGE _ No passage problems. (9) RM 2.5 on Mungers Ck. 12' falls impassable (10) INSTREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS RM 0-1.5 extremely high riffle: pool ratio Investigate possibilities for instream (9) structures. RM 1.5-3.0 riffle:pool ratio good (9) RM >3.0 Riffle:pool ratio high (9) Mungers Ck. high riffle:pool ratio High riffle:pool ratio in Right Hand Fork (I 1) and in Bill Creek (12) DATA GAPS DATA GAP | PROPOSED ACTION |No recent stream surveys._ll WETLANDS The BLM Resource Management Plan identifies two perennial wetlands in the Williams watershed. They are the 6 acre Powell Creek Pond (T38S, R5W, Sec. 11) and the one acre Swamp Creek Ponds (T39S, R6W, Sec. 1). RESTORATION STRATEGY I Determine is high summer temperatures are a critical limiting 2 Increase rearing habitat Alcoves, side-channels beaver ponds. MONITORING STRATEGY Prior to and following habitat improvement, fish population surveys should be conducted to evaluate responses to habitat enhancement. REFERENCES (I) Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, 1993, Forest Ecosystem Management An Ecological, Economic, and SocialAssessment. (2) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 1988, 1988 Oregon Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution. Wilhan 5s 111/94/ts (3) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1991, Rogue Basin fish distribution estimates. Memo by Chuck Fustish (4) Oregon Water Resources Department, 1985, Rogue River Basin Study. (5) ODFW, 1994, Williams Creek Stream Survey, RM 0 to RM 7. 1. On file at ODFW. (6) ODFW, 1966, Williams Creek Stream Survey. On file at ODFW. (7) ODFW, 1965, East Fork of Williams Creek Stream Survey. On file at ODFW. (8) ODFW, 1965, Powell Creek Stream Survey. On file at ODFW. (9) ODFW, 1965, West Fork of Williams Creek Stream Survey. On file at ODFW. (10) ODFW, 1965, Mungers Creek Stream Survey. On file at ODFW. (I 1) ODFW, 1965, Right Hand Fork Stream Survey. On file at ODFW. (12) ODFW, 1965, Bill Creek Stream Survey. On file at ODFW. Ujiliams 6 II194 I --- z) Applegate Watershed Basins and Streams VVfILLIAMS CREEK MAP WM-1 0 5 10 Miles _ I ' " 6 Lj\ ~~~~~~~~~~tn cell 01 1 .1. ,.Vut.. t < - ~~~~Bo&*Mtn \ .11el90n .H,r §; Pk/ SSQ S , Sa w ,u F.II S - 'Sp~~~BckJ , T.u~ riM;',t't# I I ,j k - >'S~~~~~~~~~~ S~~~~~~~~I- Y V ",', R.1,,, aH''' X. 71A s4,, ' -~~~~~~ra Min 8.8|t1 G) +\;<1 , ; )O; qr u 5 / o > s G ih C "-sei =s, ,, .. I, #i t; ' Hoise^/t~o I -,^- . M~t ^ k e 0I~ a / WILLIAMS CREEKMVAP WMV-2 LAND OWNERSHIP o ^ -- r Forest Service S.i |9BLM Private ."leidCraggyI ; % L V-S wtnW Scale = 1: 145,000 MILES 0 2 3 From Oregon Water Resources Department, 1980 Rogue Drainage Basin, Map No 15 8 .1411, '-11,., -- w s A\,9.; SPECIES LIST FOR THE LITTLE APPLEGATE MAERSHD (Terrestrial vertebrates only) Compiled by: Matt Broyles, wildlife biologist (BLM) 1994 CODE DEFINITIONS FOR SPECIES LIST LT = LISTED, THREATENED SPECIES ** LE = LISTED, ENDANGERED SPECIES ** C2 = FEDERAL CATEGORY 2 CANDIDATE FOR LISTING PS = FEDERAL PROTECTED SPECIES NGN = STATE NONGAME, NOT PROTECTED NGP = STATE NONGAME, PROTECTED GA = STATE GAME AMPHIBIAN GB = GAMEBIRD STATE AND/OR FEDERAL GM = STATE GAME MAMMAL F = STATE FURBEARER SCP = STATE SENSITIVE, CRITICAL, PROTECTED SVP = STATE SENSITIVE, VULNERABLE, PROTECTED SRP = STATE SENSITIVE, NATURALLY RARE OR PERIPHERAL, PROTECTED SCF = STATE SENSITIVE, CRITICAL, FURBEARER, (NOT PROTECTED) NS = NO STATUS ** The state of Oregon and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service maintain their own seperate lists of Threatened and Endangered Species 10/24/94 Standard Report PagePg Species-description Fed-status State-status ------…------PS---- American bittern PS NGP American crow PS NGP-- American dipper PS NGP - American goldfinch PS kestrel NGP - American PS NGP~ American robin PS NGP' hummingbird Annals PS NGP-- BLACK PHOEBE NS SRP1 BLACK SALAMANDER NGP _~ BLACK-BILLED MAGPIE PS PS NGPL-_ BLUE -GREY GNATCATCHER NGN BOTTA' S POCKET GOPHER NS BAT NS NGN BRAZILIAN FREE-TAILED NGP Bewick's wren PS waxwing PS NGP-'- Bohemian NGP1_ Brewer's blackbird PS KANGAROO RAT NS NGN CALIFORNIA NS SRP- CALI FORNIA KINGSNAKE KINGSNAKE NS SRP~ CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN NGP-' TOWHEE (BROWN) PS CALIFORNIA NS NGN CALIFORNIA VOLE PS NGP--' COMMON POORW ILL NGP' COSTA'S HUMMINGBIRD PS squirrel NS NGN California ground NGP- California gull PS NGN California myotis NS GB California quail GB goose GB GB Canada NGP- finch PS Cassin's NGP- Cooper's hawk PS PS NGP" Cordilleran flycatcher NGN WOODRAT NS DUSKY FOOTED NS NGP- Douglas' squirrel NGN ansatina NS NGN European starling NS LEGGED FROG SUP FOOTH ILL YELLOW NS21 SvP FRINGED MYOTIS NS NGN I{OUSE CAT (FERAL) PS NGP lIammond' s flycatcher PS NGP 4utton's vireo NS VOLE NGN .gONG-TAILED PS SCP .jewis' woodpecker PS sparrow NGP Aincoln's PS NGP iacGillivray' s warbler PS warbler NGP Jashville NGN lorway rat NS mie- -, ____ '" - - " - 10/24/94 Standard Report Page Species description Fedstatus State status OREGON GARTER SNAKE NS NGN PALLID BAT NS SVP PINON MOUSE NS NGN PLAIN TITMOUSE NS NGP Pacific giant salamander NS NGN Pacific slope flycatcher PS NGP Pacific treefrog NS NGN Pacific water shrew NS NGN RED SHOULDERED HAWK PS NGP SAGEBRUSH LIZARD NS NGN SAY'S PHOEBE PS NGP SISKIYOU CHIPMONK NS NGP SISKIYOU MOUNTAIN SALAMANDER C2 SVP STRIPED WHIPSNAKE NS NGN Sora PS NGP Steller's jay PS NGP Swainson's thrush PS NGP Townsend's big-eared bat C2 SCP Townsend's chipmunk NS NGP Townsend's solitaire PS NGP Townsend's vole NS NGN Townsend's warbler PS NGP Trowbridge's shrew NS NGN Vaux's swift PS NGP Virginia opossum NS NGN Virginia rail PS NGP WESTERN HARVEST MOUSE NS NGN Williamson's sapsucker PS SUP Wilson's warbler PS NGP Yuma myotis NS NGN acorn woodpecker PS SUP ash-throated flycatcher PS NGP bald eagle LT LT band-tailed pigeon GB GB bank swallow PS SUP barn owl PS NGP barn swallow PS NGP barred owl PS NGP beaver NS F belted kingfisher PS NGP big brown bat NS NGN black bear NS GM black-backed woodpecker PS SCP black-capped chickadee PS NGP black-chinned hummingbird PS NGP black-headed grosbeak PS NGP black-tailed deer NS GM I ME Standard Report Page 10/24/94 Fedstatus State-status Species-description …______NGN black-tailed rabbit NS gray warbler PS NGP black-throated GB blue grouse NS bobcat NS F PS NGP brown creeper NGP brown-headed cowbird PS brush rabbit NS NGN GA bullfrog NS bushtit PS NGP bushy-tailed woodrat NS NGN calliope hummingbird PS NGP cedar waxwing PS NGP chestnut-backed chickadee PS NGP chipping sparrow PS NGP clark's nutcracker PS NGP cliff swallow PS NGP clouded salamander NS SCP coast mole NS NGN common garter snake NS NGN common merganser GB GB common nighthawk PS NGP common raven NS NGP common snipe GB GB common yellowthroat PS NGP coyote NS NGN dark-eyed junco PS NGP deer mouse NS NGN downy woodpecker PS NGP dusky flycatcher PS NGP elk NS GM ermine NS NGN evening grosbeak PS NGP fisher C2 SCP flammulated owl PS SCP fox sparrow PS NGP golden eagle PS NGP golden-crowned kinglet PS NGP golden-crowned sparrow PS NGP golden-mantled ground squirrel NS NGP gopher snake NS NGN gray flycatcher PS NGP gray fox NS F gray jay PS NGP NGP great blue heron PS great gray owl PS SVP great horned owl PS NGP green-backed heron PS NGP -- I 10/24/94 Standard Report Page Species-description Fed-status State-status …______PS ------NGP______hairy woodpecker PS NGP hermit thrush PS NGP hermit warbler PS NGP hoary bat NS NGN horned lark PS SUP house finch PS NGP house mouse NS NGN house sparrow NS NGP house wren PS NGP killdeer PS NGP lark sparrow PS NGP lazuli bunting PS NGP lesser goldfinch PS NGP little brown myotis NS NGN long eared owl PS NGP long-eared myotis NS NGN long-legged myotis NS NGN long-tailed weasel NS NGN long-toed salamander NS NGN mallard GB GB marsh wren PS NGP marten NS SCF merlin PS NGP mink NS F mountain beaver NS NGN mountain bluebird PS NGP mountain chickadee PS NGP mountain lion NS GM mountain quail C2 GB mourning dove GB GB muskrat NS F northern alligator lizard NS NGN northern flicker PS NGP northern flying squirrel NS NGP northern goshawk C2 SCP northern harrier PS NGP northern oriole PS NGP northern pygmy-owl PS SUP northern rough-winged swallow PS NGP northern saw-whet owl PS NGP northern shrike PS NGP northern spotted owl LT LT northwestern garter snake NS NGN olive-sided flycatcher PS NGP orange-crowned warbler PS NGP oregon meadow vole NS NGN osprey PS NGP -",- - , ------ 10/24/94 Standard Report PgPage Species-description Fed-status State-status ------…------NGN mouse NS pacific jumping LE falcon LE peregrine PS SCP pileated woodpecker NGP siskin PS pine NS NGN porcupine NGP prairie falcon PS PS NGP purple finch PS SCP purple martin F raccoon NS NS NGN racer NGP red crossbill PS NS F red fox NGN red tree vole NS nuthatch PS NGP red-breasted NGP red-breasted sapsucker PS frog C2 NGP red-legged NGP red-naped sapsucker PS red-tailed hawk PS NGP red-winged blackbird PS NGP ring-billed gull PS NGP ring-necked pheasant NS GB ring-tailed cat NS SUP ringneck snake NS NGN F river otter NS rock dove NS NGN NGP rock wren PS rough-legged hawk PS NGP roughskin newt NS NGN rubber boa NS NGN ruby-crowned kinglet. PS NGP ruf fed grouse NS GB rufous hummingbird PS NGP rufous-sided towhee PS NGP SvP sandhill crane GB savannah sparrow PS NGP NGP scrub jay PS NGP sharp-shinned hawk PS sharptail snake NS SCP NGN shrew-mole NS NGN silver-haired bat NS snowshoe hare NS NGN NGP solitary vireo PS song sparrow PS NGP southern alligator lizard NS NGN spotted sandpiper PS NGP spotted skunk NS NGN NGN striped skunk NS I 10/24/94 Standard Report Page Species description Fed-status State-status ______- …__- _ - - ______tailed frog NS SVP tennessee warbler PS NGP tree swallow PS NGP turkey vulture PS NGP vagrant shrew NS NGN varied thrush PS NGP vesper sparrow PS NGP violet-green swallow PS NGP warbling vireo PS NGP water pipit PS NGP water shrew NS NGN western bluebird PS SVP western fence lizard NS NGN western gray squirrel NS GM western kingbird PS NGP western meadowlark PS NGP western pocket gopher NS NGN western pond turtle C2 SCP western rattlesnake NS NGN western red-backed vole NS NGN western screech-owl PS NGP western skink NS NGN western tanager PS NGP western terrestrial garter snake NS NGN western toad NS NGN western wood-pewee PS NGP white-breasted nuthatch PS NGP white-crowned sparrow PS NGP white-footed vole C2 SRP white-headed woodpecker PS SCP white-throated sparrow PS NGP wild turkey NS GB willow flycatcher PS NGP winter wren PS NGP wood duck GB GB wrentit PS NGP yellow warbler PS NGP yellow-bellied marmot NS NGN yellow-breasted chat PS NGP yellow-pine chipmunk NS NGP yellow-rumped warbler PS NGP CHAPTER IIn PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT STRATEGY The Applegate Partnership is an association of local citizens, environmental groups, and timber industry representatives, who joined together in 1992 to try to reach agreement on forestry issues which had reached political gridlock in the Applegate watershed and across the country. This diverse group struggled at first to find areas of agreement. One objective rose to the top which was important to all involved: Improve and maintain forest health to preserve ecological, economic and social stability in the watershed. Achieving this goal, as basic as it seems, is more than just understanding the scientific principles behind the interaction between soil, water, and growing trees. The trees are part of an integrated ecosystem, and people are also an essential part of this equation. The Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service found that pursuing projects without public input often leads to confrontations and costly reevaluations or court challenges after considerable investments of time and money. The Applegate Partnership realized that the community had very strong and diverse feelings about the management of the watershed, but often did not express these feelings until something happened 'in their own backyard'. To learn more about the concerns of the Applegate Valley citizens, the Partnership contracted with the Rogue Institute for Ecology and Economy to conduct a community assessment. The objectives of this assessment were to: Help the Partnership understand how the community works so it could anticipate community concerns and improve management decisions. Improve community participation in planning and implementing forest management in order to gain the support of the community. Create jobs to provide diversified economic opportunities in the community consistent with ecosystem management. The resulting study, Words into Action: A Commninty Assessment of the Applegate Valley (Kevin Preister, May 1994), identified five neighborhoods, each with unique economies, histories, demographics, community issues, and reactions to recent changes in land uses and population. This study documented the social diversity of the area and common concerns such as availability of water, forest management practices and the growing population. The success of the Watershed Health Program (WSH) depends on the cooperation of residents in the watershed. The Applegate River Watershed Council has already held many public meetings with local groups and has found that in spite of publicity in major news sources, many people either do not know about the Watershed Health Program or have many misconceptions. Public Involvement I I11194 The need to communicate with area residents is great. The Partnership has learned that the most effective way of reaching people is through small informal meetings. The working assessment was developed with little input from the community because of the very short time line given the council. Residents have information regarding current and historic conditions which is not available in public sources. Residents who have witnessed changes in the ecosystem over the years may have an understanding of local processes which are important to developing strategies for maintaining and improving the watershed. It is also important to incorporate people's vision of the future into the planning process. OUTREACH PROPOSAL The volunteer capabilities of the watershed council are already taxed by the weekly meetings and many special projects. It is unrealistic to expect them to conduct a professional and systematic outreach effort. The Applegate River Watershed Council has developed a proposal to conduct an outreach effort directed by Kevin Preister (author of the community assessment), using council staff members familiar with the Watershed Health Program and respected community members. This team will contact neighborhood leaders and schedule meetings at local gathering places, schools, and in private homes. They will discuss information regarding the watershed assessment and the Watershed Health Program and record information received from the residents. The objectives of this project are to: * Engage in outreach and educational activities designed to raise the awareness of the valley residents about watershed issues; * Increase the capacity of community members to respond to current and future funding opportunities for watershed enhancement, * Record for the council and the community a summary of the major issues, ideas for projects, informal leaders, and interested participants in each sub-basin of the watershed; and * Develop projects in conjunction with local residents. The Partnership views such community outreach to be a critical ongoing component of any watershed assessment or action plan, because community investment in these activities is a primary determinant of long-term community involvement. This proposal is being reviewed by the South Coast Field Team and will be submitted on a fast track schedule to the Watershed Health Program. This project will continue for three months and is the cornerstone of our short-term outreach strategy. NEWSLETTER Public involvement 2 11.194 Our newsletter, the Applegator, fimded through WSH funds, has been very well received. It provides an educational and informational link with residents and landowners in the watershed. We will continue to develop ties with the community through this medium. Additional funding will be sought to continue publication of the newsletter. Long term community involvement and education will be encouraged in the following ways: * Project participation * Monitoring participation * Educational programs at schools, e.g. STEP program * Workshops for all ages * Field trips * Train high school students inresource management activities to create a new generation of land stewards * Develop brochures to educate and inform residents about watershed issues Efforts will be made to involve all segments of the community. These activities will be coordinated with existing programs already offered to area residents. REFERENCES Rogue Institute of Economy and Ecology. Preister, Kevin. Words into Action: A Community Assessment of the Applegate Valley. May 1994. Public involvement 3 111 94 , CHAPTER IV WATERSHED HEALTH STRATEGY This section will be further defined by the beginning of 1995. The Applegate River Watershed Council coordinator and those who assisted in the compilation of the assessment are meeting with representatives from other groups working in the watershed on November 21, 1994 to discuss alternative strategies for promoting watershed health in the Applegate watershed . A preliminary approach is outlined below. Further development of this strategy will evolve from public outreach programs which will be implemented as soon as possible. ASSESSMENT REVIEW The assessment of existing conditions in the watershed has identified limiting factors in each of the sub-basins. A summary of these findings is shown on Table 1. This table and the individual sub-basin assessments will be used to focus restoration efforts to the most important conditions in the sub-basin. Using the existing data, priorities for certain types of restoration projects were determined for each sub-basin. These priorities are shown on Table 2. Opportunities and local support for these types of projects in specific sub-basins can then be assessed. PUBLIC OUTREACH Through the public outreach proposal outlined in Chapter III, contacts will be made in each of the sub-basins. Residents will be encouraged to share their concerns about the watershed and to contribute additional information to the assessment and to suggest ideas for possible projects. The watershed council will integrate these ideas into the sub-basin strategy and will follow up on all offers of participation. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION Project ideas will be reviewed in the field and analyzed in the context of the assessment and the priorities outlined in Tables 1 and 2. The council coordinating staff will provide the initial review and determine the need for further technical review. Projects which address high priority needs will be given priority. In areas where limiting conditions are known to exist that need restoration, landowners will be contacted to determine if local support exists for developing a solution. Consideration will also be placed on the geographic distribution of projects. Even though conditions in some areas of the watershed may warrant greater emphasis, involving as many segments of the population in the watershed as possible is also a goal. Therefore projects may be recommended that may not have the obvious immediate benefits to Watershed health strategy l I I 9nJ fisheries that others may on the basis of community involvement and education. The future of this program is dependent on widespread public support not on isolated scientific success stories. The council will cooperate with local, state and federal agencies to develop projects which complement objectives identified by these agencies. Proposals for projects which address these critical needs of the watershed will be submitted for funding. IMPLEMENTATION Projects will be implemented in a professional and timely manner. All opportunities for public involvement and education will be incorporated into each project. Watershed health strategv 2 I1/194 TABLE 2 .SUB-BASIN PROJECT PRIORITIES POTENTIAL PROJECTS SUB-BASIN - {ROADULVRT t FISH RIPARIAN UEADGATEQUPLAND FENCING INSTREA1M WATER QUAUTY SLOPE WETLAND FISH PASSAGE EDUCAllON ______IEMENTs SCREENS , PLANTI NG PLANTING STRUCTUREPISMPPOVEMENTS STABII-ZATION MEVELPMEN IMPROVEMENTS_ UPPER APPLEGATE L - M M M - M L STAR/BEAVER/PALMER _- _ __ Uptands- -- - - H H M- _ H M H V81by~ ______H_ __ H _ _ _ H ,______, L H LITTLE APPLEGATE _ _ { _Upbnds H __H H M L H L H Valley L H H H N/A L M M M H H FOREST CREEK_ H M H H _ H M __H M M H H THOMPSON CREEK _ H H H M L M__ L H L L L H MIDDLE APPLEGATE Upinds ______M ______L _- : ,M, ------___ ------t ______L______M______H__ Ualnds _ _ _ _ _ L_ MM_ L_,_M ___ H H__ HH _ _ - M L ~~~~ M ~~~~~~~L__ __ _ WILLIAMS CK. Uplands H __ __ M H M I L H H Velby __ L 7 H __ H M H H H M M H LOWER APPLEGATE Upnds ______H__ _ L__ __H _ M H , _ L -> _- _ L______M______Va~ey ______L__ _ __?__ 4 .H _ _ L ___ M i__ H H H H _ SLATE CK_ H _ _L L L H L I __ _ _ H _L L M H L * Low Priority M - Medhim PrborltyH High Priority _L _ _ s irqeymprovements _ would Include projects to address chemical quality - problems rather then sedimentalaon or lemperature which ore addressed by other liled projecis. I Watershed Health Strtegy1 11/94 to CD a to cC -jG-i -nrjcoc A M M r , _____-m >) >X > X X>> 1LO LW ;UII X XIx ANMLWSEC >DX X XCSAOTIPLN RT I ( m|l | I X: | |BATERSLNIRS ME: Zl PNS/ICE E7l l WX XIXXI XI DIBLEH SOILS 1 IXXX X X|XXIRGTO IHRWL £2 'o Ic I GlxlROAZIDNSIT | >1m n> |IIDENPATIALRESl COSTRUCION ! II c ol XIZl 1IIII X _ 1I 91Xl LACKDOFLIDSH SCEN 1X > 1X: IXI XXXIXIMINFLWSINGS °l x-,I I,X X X, I.;'|NATURALOWS IESI H1IXlXl X X Xl xI XlcANUATO O|IX | _ XMLIRRIGATI:ON WIHRAWALS11 i1 IXXIX XXRIPARIANX CLEARING 1ll m~~xl~xl xl xG |AK FMTR OIFR |0 )x ;xlX ll{OWLW o 0x ixI IXIX X| | |BACTRIAVIWOD AERA 0 z 1I X Xl X_X lXMNN MONITORING PLAN (The monitoring plan will be revised before 1995 to include information which will be generated at a meeting, November 21, 1994, with other groups who are working and conducting monitoring programs in the Applegate watershed.) BACKGROUND The Applegate River Watershed Council will be coordinating activities among many individuals, organizations and agencies and will be helping these groups vie for public moneys to address resource management issues. Any program that spends large sums of public money must be accountable to the public and to interest groups affected by the program. The best way to provide that accountability is through a coordinated monitoring program that recognizes the importance of trend and program effectiveness (cumulative) monitoring on a basin-wide level, and defines an implementation strategy to accomplish these kinds of monitoring. A monitoring program should include: identification of what conditions need to be monitored; summary of existing monitoring efforts; identification of overlaps/gaps; a strategy to address gaps, including coordination of priorities, funding, and stafffrom existing agency programs; and, recommendations on achieving funding of monitoring strategy. Following is a description of a monitoring program for the Applegate watershed. In developing a monitoring program, a basic understanding must be reached on the kinds of monitoring. There are at least four different and distinct kinds of monitoring relevant to a watershed monitoring program. Ambient monitoring provides information on current and past conditions and trends over a broad area (sometimes called baseline or trend monitoring). This level of monitoring looks at indicators of watershed health as measured over space and time in a defined sub-basin or watershed. It involves collecting samples (to be analyzed for many parameters) from a specific location on a defined schedule usually for a period of many years. Because of the need for an ongoing commitment of resources, this kind of monitoring is generally done by permanently funded agencies at a limited number of sites. For example, DEQ maintains an ambient monitoring network for water quality. This network provides for only a few sampling locations in a given watershed. It provides general information on the quality of water but it usually cannot provide detailed information on subtle changes caused by an individual program or project. Other agencies do similar kinds of monitoring for fish, range conditions, etc. This kind of monitoring is outside the scope of a watershed association. The Applegate River Watershed Council should, however, be aware of this monitoring, make use of it where possible, and provide a coordination role for information storage and distribution. Monitoring I I /194 Proeram effectiveness monitoring provides information on changes in conditions that result from carrying out a plan of action designed to improve conditions (relevant to specific parameters of interests; cumulative effects). This involves the collection of samples (to be analyzed only for specific parameters of interest) from several locations within a limited geographic area on a defined schedule for a period of a few years. This is the only way to measure effects of action plan implementation, including groups of projects on a cumulative basis. It does not necessarily require the establishment of many new, dedicated monitoring sites. Data being collected by a variety of agencies for similar purposes may be used. In most cases, however, some new sites will need to be established (especially on or below private land) in order to evaluate change resulting from implementation of a program of restoration and resource management activity. Project effectiveness monitorinf provides information on whether or not a specific project resulted in the environmental change it was intended to produce. This involves tailoring monitoring strategies to each project. This can be a very large task when there are many projects involved in a program. It is often very difficult, or impossible, to measure the effect of an individual project on a specific parameter when that parameter is being influenced by many diffuse sources that may be unrelated to the project. For this reason, it may be more appropriate to monitor cumulative project effects under program effectiveness (cumulative) monitoring as specified in action plans. Example: It is intuitive that stabilizing a streambank will reduce sediment, but measuring the effect of fixing that one spot will be difficult if there are 100 similar spots up-stream all contributing sediment. Proeect implementation monitoring provides information on whether or not the elements of a project (structures, practices, seminars, etc.) were actually installed or carried out on a previously agreed to schedule. This generally involves site visits, taking photographs, reviewing billings and reports. Implementation monitoring is the only way to document that grant agreements or contracts have been adhered to. If done properly, and if some assumptions are made, it can also provide some qualitative information about effectiveness. This is a relatively inexpensive type of monitoring. MONITORING STRATEGY The setup of an effective monitoring program is dependent on what question the monitoring is intended to answer. For the purpose of Watershed Health, monitoring needs to answer: I. What is the trend of watershed health in Applegate watershed ? (Ambient Monitoring) 2. How effective are Watershed Health actions in improving watershed conditions in the basins and sub-basins? (Program effectiveness monitoring) 3. How effective are individual projects in treating watershed health conditions? (Project effectiveness monitoring) 4 Are projects being implemented correctly? (Project implementation monitoring) Ambient Monitorine Long term ambient monitoring is important and should continue to be (or be established) promoted to maximize the Applegate River Watershed Council's ability to document llfonitonlng 2 I1/194 watershed conditions-and contributions to improvements as a result of Council activities. Since conducting ambient monitoring is outside the scope and ability of the Council, agencies and organizations that have historically done long-term trend monitoring will be encouraged to continue these activities. In this regard, the Applegate River Watershed Council can play an important role by giving support to agency requests for budgets to continue long term monitoring. Known long term ambient monitoring that is presently being conducted in the Applegate Basin is summarized in Table 1. TABLE 1. CURRENT MONITORING IN THE APPLEGATE WATERSHED DATA METHOD LOCATION AGENCY/GROUP Spawning surveys- Summer Redd counts Palmer Creek ODFW steelhead Cheney Creek Carcass counts- Fall Mainstem Applegate to RM ODFW chinook 1978-1988 13 to 15 and RM 32-34 and Jackson Park to Applegate dam Williams Ck RM 0-1 Carcass counts- fall chinook Mainstem Applegate RM 0- ODFW 1974 to present 5, 1 1 to 13 and 20-25; Slate Ck RM 0-3 Water chemistry Hwy. 199 DEQ Water temperature, flow Wilderville, Applegate and OWRD and turbidity .75 miles below Applegate .______Dam Stream temperature Little Applegate, Star Gulch USFS Recent stream surveys Little Applegate in progress Pilot watershed team Yale Creek ODFW Star Gulch ODFW Williams Creek ODFW Slate Creek ODFW? USFS An initial analysis of the existing ambient monitoring program suggests that monitoring in the following areas is deficient. We suggest the following strategy to address these data gaps and propose a method to coordinate efforts to accomplish this level of monitoring. MUonitoring 11 94 TABLE 2. MONITORING DATA NEEDED IN THE APPLEGATE WATERSHED DATA NEEDS METHOD LOCATION AGENCY/GROUP Stream temperatures hobos Williams Creek Slate Creek Thompson Creek Forest Creek New stream surveys Murphy Creek ODFW Forest Creek BLM/ODFW Thompson Creek ODFW Powell Creek ODFW W. Fk. Williams Ck. ODFW E. Fk. Williams Ck. ODFW Mainstem Applegate ODFW Water chemistry pH, DO Forest Creek, Little Applegate, Williams Creek, Thompson Creek A strategy for program effectiveness monitoring tiers off of the summary of who is already doing monitoring, where, what parameters are being measured, and what are the expectations for the future describe above. While all of the additional monitoring needs identified above are important to filling the gaps in knowledge necessary to achieve watershed health, we do recognize that constraints exist. With limited financial and human resources to conduct monitoring and the short -term needs to reduce immediate risks, in a social and biological view, a strategy has been developed for implementing the monitoring components. The strategy developed is dependent on how the monitoring components related to the following criteria: * an immediate need to reduce risk * a need to obtain basic knowledge * the need to address complex ownership, resources, and sociological concerns * a need to develop an interdisciplinary research effort to evaluate interactions, tradeoffs and risks * the need to improve/promote good management practices From that the Applegate River Watershed Council will devise a strategy to facilitate the implementation of this monitoring through existing agencies and organizations Mfonitoring" I11Z94 Progect Implementation and Effectiveness Project implementation and effectiveness monitoring provides a role of illustrating and documenting the success of projects implemented as a result of activities associated with the Applegate River Watershed Council. Project monitoring provides a means by which individual land owners and organizations can prove to themselves and interested parties that they have indeed made a difference and support their beliefs that they are good stewards of the land. For these reasons implementation and effectiveness monitoring for individual projects should be promoted in such a way that individuals and organizations can document the results of their projects without these efforts being excessively burdensome, either through time or expense. Examples of project monitoring that would be acceptable would be photo documentation, and plant, animal and pool counts. Copies of monitoring data will be maintained by the individuals associated with the project and will be stored in the Applegate River Watershed Council file cabinet at the Star Ranger Station. Monitorine Proerams for local schools Environmental education programs at local schools will participate in some aspects of the monitoring process. The following schools have expressed an interest in developing curriculum involving project implementation and monitoring in the Applegate watershed. A good portion of the personnel needs of long-term monitoring can be met with student participation. It is essential to the success of restoration work that a well trained local work force is available. Students will be able to follow the progress of restoration projects from elementary through high school. Hidden Valley High School Grants Pass High School Lincoln Savage Middle School Madrona Elementary Applegate Elementary Ruch Elementary The following monitoring information is provided to assist in the identification of appropriate monitoring of projects. Monitoring design will vary per project based upon the project goals. The parties responsible for monitoring will also vary per individual site proposal. As a result, monitoring commitments and what entity the information will be reported to will be identified in detail on individual project applications. Some monitoring reference materials that are good sources of information are: Bauer, Stephen B., Timothy A. Burton. 1993. Monitoring protocols to evaluate water quality effects of grazing management on Western rangeland streams. EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, Surface Water Branch. EPA 91 O/R-93-017. AIom boring 1//,9 Cook, C.W., and J. Stubbendieck. 1986. Range research; Basic principles and techniques. Society for Range Management, Denver, CO. 317 p. Hayslip, G.A., editor. 1992. EPA Region 10 in-stream biological monitoring handbook for wadable streams in the Pacific Northwest. Draft. EPA, Reg. 10, Seattle, WA, 56 p. MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. EPA Region X, 910/9-91-001, Seattle, WA. Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA. Office of Water, Wa., D.C., EPA/444/4-89-001. Platts, W.S., W.F. Megahan, and G.W. Minshall. 1983. Methods for evaluating stream, riparian and biotic conditions. Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-138. USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UT. Whitfield, P.H. 1988. Goals and data collection designs for water quality monitoring. Water Resources Bulletin, 24:775-780. Project Effectiveness Monitoring. Physical or "on-the-ground" restoration projects will be in place for years. We need to keep this perspective when selecting monitoring parameters. Although this guidance focuses on monitoring conducted within the stream channel and/or riparian zone, the concepts for developing a monitoring plan are applicable to upland sites. These kinds of projects often require years or decades to fully achieve their goals. Monitoring is our only means for measuring progress and determining project success. Numerous books have been written on how to monitor habitat restoration projects. The equipment needs of most protocols are generally quite minimal (e.g. measuring tape and rod), but they require trained personnel and consistency in application. There are three main criteria that may assist in parameter selections: 1. Applicability to the projects objectives. 2. Objectivity and ability to detect change. 3. Cost and labor requirements. Photo documentation is an important component for any project which will produce visible changes in the environment. The establishment of set photo points increases the value of photographic data. Permanent markers make excellent reference points for long- term photo documentation. For example, a marker on the bank can be used as a reference point for a cross-channel photo. A tape stretched between opposing markers can be used to locate a reference point for upstream and downstream photos. This site-specific information needs to be recorded when the photo point is established. All photos MUST dated. Monitonng 11194 Following are examples of restoration objectives and the parameters and/or methods that should be considered for monitoring. 1. Riparian restoration: a. Hardwoods and conifers planted at a minimum density of xx trees per acre and have a survival rate of xx/o. Define who and how stocking surveys will be done. Survival of plantings will be monitored by landowners and/or agency personnel on an annual basis and follow up treatment will occur as needed utilizing volunteers, landowners, or agency resources as funding allows, until the outlined survival goals are achieved. b. Water quality monitoring will target stream temperatures and flow. Turbidity measurements during peak flows will indicate sediment transport. Water chemistry monitoring will provide data on pH and dissolved oxygen. Evaluation will occur on a yearly basis at selected sites as continued staffing allows. Long term monitoring may be included in landowner agreements. Local schools will also conduct long term monitoring programs. This information will be compared to established baseline data to evaluate conditions. c. Canopy coverage/shading will be measured by densitometer at the time of project implementation to document baseline conditions. Vegetation inventory plots will describe status of vegetation in riparian areas. These conditions will be monitored on a regular basis (annually, and every three or every five years). 2. Riparian Planting Protection: Protection of newly planted riparian areas will be accomplished by whatever means may be necessary including fencing and individual tree protection. Where fencing is chosen, a livestock management plan will be developed that ensures protection of riparian areas. If vegetation inventories indicate threatened survival of planted areas due to competition with non-native species, such as Himalayan blackberry, a manual release program will be implemented. 3. Off Channel Habitat: Seeding levels and spawning surveys will be generated at selected sites on a yearly basis to determine resource use of this habitat component. Water quality monitoring at these project sites will include dissolved oxygen, temperature, turbidity, and flows. 4. Instream Structure: Selected instream structures will be inspected to determine resulting functions. Any changes in structure will be documented including recruitment of woody debris and sedimentation. Follow up habitat surveys will document changes in pool riffle ratios . lomloring I11194 within restored watersheds and instream fish counts will document fish usage around these structures. Water quality monitoring parameters will include temperature, flow, chemistry, and turbidity. 5. Upland Vegetation: Status of upland vegetation and periodic inventories will provide a landscape perspective of changes in plant community structure and diversity. SAMPLE EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PLAN. Rational: Riparian plantings are planned for three separate reaches of the Little Applegate. The reaches are relatively short (500 -1500 ft), and monitoring will be restricted to site specific improvements. Monitoring protocol developed for this region will be followed throughout the greater Applegate watershed. Methods: The top and bottom corners of each reach will be marked with re-bar stakes. Monitoring transects (also staked) will be established on each reach to include a minimum of two pool/slow water, and two riffle/fast water habitats. The exact locations of monitoring sites have not yet been determined, but approximate river miles for each reach are listed on the monitoring worksheet. Latitudes and longitudes will be determined for the downstream end of each site (Transect # 1), and the locations of additional transects will be measured from this baseline. The parameters monitored will be: (list of parameters and methods to monitor these parameters), All parameters listed on a Project Monitoring Worksheet will be monitored annually for the initial 0-5 year period, and every 5 years thereafter. Additional information on the parties involved in monitoring activities, parameter selection, and data storage are provided on the Project Monitoring Worksheet. DATA COORDINATION The following units of measure will be utilized for tracking and recording restoration projects implemented within the Applegate watershed. This information should be provided on a sub-basin as well as basin scale. 1. fencing: linear miles per drainage 2. off channel stock watering: number of off channel stock watering opportunities developed per drainage 3. planting: hardwoods/acre, total acres per drainage conifers/acre, total acres per drainage shrubs/acre, total acres per drainage Monitoring /11194 _stream miles per drainage of riparian diversification techniques live-staking/acre, total acres per drainage 4. riparian setbacks: acres/stream mile, total acres per drainage 5. instream structures: structures/mile, total structures per drainage log weirs boulder deflectors scour structures cover structures spawning gravel 6. off-channel alcoves: number/size, total structures per drainage sediment removal, cubic yards (cy) per project, cy per drainage vegetation management, square yardage 7. pool development: total projects per drainage, sediment removal, cy per project, cy per drainage 8. culvert treatment: number of culverts treated per drainage miles of stream reach opened to fish 9. soil bio-engineering (resloping, willow waddles, rock barbs etc.): acres/stream mile total acres per drainage miles of roads and skid trails stabilized acres of erosion control initiated 10. species diversity Mlonitoring I 1/94 CHAPTER VI MECHANISM FOR UPDATING THE WATERSHED ASSESSMENT REVIEWING NEW DATA Watershed assessments are living' documents, subject to change as new information becomes available through monitoring and assessment, and as projects are completed. Improved information on the condition of the watershed will accumulate continually. For example, as assessments are performed and projects are completed, additional tasks required to improve watershed health will probably be identified. Also, watershed analyses by other groups, such as the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management, may be useful to the councils, and this may be a good place to review their status. Other types of information, such as changes in the willingness of landowners to participate, changes in regulations, and new funding opportunities, also affect the assessment and the strategy. After new information is reviewed, if it is considered appropriate, it will be submitted to the Applegate River Watershed Council for review and approval through consensus. The council coordinator will be responsible for updating the assessment. SCHEDULE An updated revision of the assessment will be brought before SWMG annually, at the February meeting, if changes have been made. If new information must be included between annual reviews, a special request to present the new additions will be made to SWMG Update 1 I11/94 - APPENDICES APPENDIX A LINKAGES TO EXISTING PROGRAMS This section is being developed by the central staff and will be inserted at a later date. _. . .^ APPENDIX B REVIEW OF PERTINENT REGULATIONS This section is being developed by the central staff and will be inserted when completed. APPENDIX C COOPERATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING Building understanding and networking among individuals with diverse needs and beliefs is one of the major goals of the Applegate River Watershed Council. State agencies, local governments, and concerned citizens throughout the Applegate watershed and Oregon are being faced with complex natural resource issues which historically have been resolved through costly and frequently combative litigation. This has led to increased polarization of interests and less communication and negotiation. Resolving disputes through channels other than litigation promotes the understanding and networking among individuals in the Applegate watershed who represent diverse needs and beliefs. The Applegate River Watershed Council shall make decisions on the basis of consensus. Consensus is an agreement that is reached by identifying the interests of all concerned parties and then building an integrative solution that maximizes satisfaction of as many of the interests as possible. The process does not involve voting but a synthesis and blending of solutions. Consensus does not mean unanimity in that it does not satisfy all participant's interests equally or that each participant supports the agreement to the same degree Instead, consensus is considered to be the best decision for all participants in that it addresses to some extent all interests (from Oregon Dispute Resolution Commission). DISPUTE RESOLUTION Ways available to assist in resolving disputes about natural resource management and public policy outside of litigation that can be used by the Applegate River Watershed Council include negotiation, mediation and facilitation. These methods of resolving disputes focus on overcoming issues through collaborative problem solving. NEGOTIATION Negotiation is a bargaining relationship between two or more parties who have a perceived or actual conflict. The participants join voluntarily in a temporary relationship to educate each other about their needs and interests, exchange specific resources or resolve one or more intangible issues such as the form their relationship will take in the future. Negotiation can be approached from a basis of scarcity or abundance of resources (Leritz 1987). The former yields negotiations based on fear while the latter yields negotiations based on understanding (Krueger 1992). Krueger (1992) suggested that by changing a negotiation for resources from allocation of scarcity to sharing in abundance, 'we can find a way to move from limiting peoples' wants through allocation to meeting peoples' needs through abundance of resources'. By approaching natural resources negotiations with a philosophy of abundance and open communication among citizens with common interests in the land, it is possible to come to a common understanding and work toward consensus on understanding the potential of the resource. Prohlem Solving I 11 94 MEDIATION There are some instances in which the council may reach impasse in its negotiation over natural resource issues. In such circumstances, mediation is an alternative available for resolution of the issue. Mediation involves the use of an impartial third party to facilitate discussion in a way that helps parties generate solutions that meet their respective concerns. Unlike court, arbitration, or settlement conferences, the mediator does not make decisions or impose settlement terms. The mediator, who is impartial, serves as a third party negotiator. The advantages of mediation are: * It is fast. Many disputes are resolved in a single three hour session. * It is cost-efficient. Much less than litigation. * It is less adversarial. More time is spent on how to resolve future issues instead of establishing the "facts" of the past. * It produces more winners. An agreement is signed onlv if all parties agree to its terms. * It addresses the 'real' issues that may be driving the dispute. * It gives parties control over outcome and procedures. The parties can chose the time, place, ground rules and the mediator. FACILITATION Facilitation is the use of a third party, who is impartial toward issues being discussed, to provide procedural assistance to group participants to enhance information exchange or promote effective decision-making. Facilitation can assist in negotiated rule-making sessions, administration, multi-party discussions and intergovernmental relations. The facilitator does not necessarily help the parties resolve issues. Instead, the facilitator works to keep the group focused on their agenda and goals. RESOURCES AVAILABLE The Oregon Dispute Resolution Commission is a state resource available for resolving disputes over Watershed Health issues. The Commission's program objective is to support the use of collaborative dispute resolution and problem solving in all aspects of public policy development and implementation involving conflicts between public agencies or between citizens and agencies. Oregon's Public Policy Program was established in 1990 to promote the use of means other than litigation for resolving disputes affecting the public interest. The program provides technical assistance, training and information services to organizations and all state and local government agencies in Oregon. The program: * helps agencies and citizens evaluate cases and use the dispute resolution process as an alternative to litigation or contested case proceedings; * helps agencies obtain the services of trained mediators or facilitators, Problem Solving 2 11194 * sponsors training seminars to improve the collaborative problem solving skills of public employees; and * informs and educates government officials, interest groups, and the public about alternative means for resolving their disputes. The program's dispute resolution services may be requested by state agency officials, local government officials, legislators and the public. The program staff can perform one or more of the following tasks: * work with all parties to assess the potential for settlement; * advise parties on the most appropriate dispute resolution procedures based on the characteristics of the dispute; * assist in selecting a qualified, impartial, third party or team of neutrals; * provide parties with grants to fund dispute resolution services; and * provide administrative and case management support until the collaborative dispute resolution process is concluded. More information about the Public Policy Program and the services provided can be received at (503) 378-2877. VOTING AS A LAST RESORT If after all attempts at dispute resolution a consensus is not. reached, the issue can either be laid aside until a future date or it can be resolved by a 2/3 vote of the members Because voting on issues leads to polarization and because laying an issue aside until a future date allows individuals to synthesize information, develop an understanding and respect for other individuals viewpoints, and generate unique alternatives to perceived issues, the Applegate River Watershed Council strongly recommends that voting be held to a minimum and as a last resort. REFERENCES Leritz, L. 1987. No-Fault Negotiating. Pacific Press. Portland, Ore. 293 p. Krueger, W. C. 1992. Building consensus for rangeland uses. Rangelands. 14: 38-41. Oregon Dispute Resolution Commission. 1994. Program information. ProleniSolving 3 11/ 94 _ _ _ _ APPENDIX D BUILDING LOCAL CAPABILITIES: LONG TERM STRATEGY The long-term strategy for the Applegate River Watershed Council will be defined as we complete the planned public outreach and the refinement of our program strategy. A list of funding sources is follows. L.ong lrenn s.raregv 1 I11/9 wiiri~~ ------ Potential Funding Sources Aoencv|y ooa Assi~stncee Recipients Purpose |Comments FmHA Watershed Loans Municiplities, Watershed projects Used in conjunction with Protection & SWCDs, Local Including irrigation, flood CSCs Small Watershed Flood Nonprofit control, recreation, and Program Protetlon organizations torage Resource Loans States, Counties, Water storage facilities, Used in conjunction with Conservation Cities, & Local water-based recreation SCS's Resource & Nonprofits facilities Conservation and Development Development Program SCS Small Technical State Agencies, Planning and Covers up to 100% flood Watershed Assistance Municipalities, construction of projects control and up to 50% for Program and Grants Districts which utilize resources most other purposes (P.L. 588) of small watersheds Resource Advisory States, Local Flood prevention. Available only for RC&D Conservation Service and Governments, erosion control, water- authorized areas. Pays up & Construction Nonprotits based recreation, fish & to 100% for flood control; Development Grants wildlife development & up to 50% for other agricultural pollution projects. Up to $ 50,000year ASCS Rural Clean Direct Private To solve water Cannot be-used as local Water Payments Landowners problems resulting from cost share on Federal Program agricultural non-point projects surface pollution Agriculture Direct Private Land and water Up to $30,000.yr/produced. Conservation Payments Landowners conservation Covers 75% of out-of- Program Technical pocket costs Assistance Conservation Contracts Private Plant permanent Economic incentives for 10- Reserve Landowners vegetative on highly year contracts. Annual Program erodible cropland rental payment limited to ______$50,000 per operator Water Direct Private Assist large water Emphasis on hot spots Quality Payments Landowners quality projects identified by Water Quality Special involving many Board, National Competition Projects partiants Water Direct Private Direct incentives for Quality Payments Landowners improvement measures, no Incentive cost share Program Wetland Not yet available in Oregon Reserve Program USBR Small Loans and Cities, Counties. Flood control, fish & Cannot claim other Federal Reclamation Grants Irrigation wildlife, recreation, funds as local cost share for Projects Act Districts, Water irrigation, and SRPA funding Districts hydropower - ' - ' - ' Agencyrogram Assistance Reciplents Purpose Comments USFw Partners for Wildlife wetlands Grants Private Restore aridior enhance - Restoration Technical Landowners wetlands Assistance ______ __ state ______OEDD Regional Grant - Lottery Counties Economic Development - strategies Funds _ _ _ Program______OWRD Water Loans Municipalities Irrigation or drainage of Important to have secondary Development under 30,000 agricultural lands, or benefits of recreation, flood Loan population municipal water control, or hydropower _ _ Programr______Governor's Grants. individuals, Watershed Must have potential to Watershed Technical Municipalities, improvements improve water quality or Enhancement Assistance Agencies increase water holding Program capability of stream banks; priority given to non-state funded pr~ojects GWEB Grants, Districts Watershed $1 .000 annually to each Grants to Technical improvements district for water ouantity improvements Districts Assistance ______and quality Stream Grants, Local entities Developing and Pilot orograms oesno Restoration Technical implementing integrateo prooosed tor 1990 funding Program Assistance stream restoration plans for subbasins______ ODA Planning of Grants Soil and Water Gather data to develop Projects to consider erosion Soil and Conservation strategy and costs for control, water conservation Water Districts conservation project and development and water Conservation quality enhancement Practices ______(SB61 7) ______Implemente- Grants SWCD's Construction & start-up (See above) tion of Soil costs for conservation and Water and development Conservation projects ______Practices ______ODFW Restoration Grants Public or private Restore/enhance fish and non-prof it production. Provide Enhancement organization additional public access. Program Support on-the-ground non-point source water ______qual-ity projects. ODFW tGreen ForagePlnigsedg Prouram______A=ency Program -Assistance RPcipient Purpose Comments ODFW General Public owned Develop or enhance Sites should have potential Habitat and Private habitat for wildlife for establishment or Improvement ownerships maintenance of perennial forage. Includes forage seeding, tree and shrub planting, vegetation control, etc. DEQ Clean Water Grants (1991 State or Federal Improvement of natural Basin must be in State's Act Section Oregon target governmental watershed and quality Clean Water Strategy. 40% 319 is $537K) entitles of surface and ground non-Federal cost share water required ODF Forestry Private, Non- Assist in planting forest Ownerships of 10-1,000 Incentives Technical industrial trees and improve acres. Program Assistance Landowners production of timber and Cost share up to 65 percent related forest resources of average annual cost of practice Stewardship Grants Woodland Improve land Ownerships of 5-1 ,000 Incentive Owners with 5- management acres Cost share is 50-75 Program 1,000 acres of percent and up to forest land S10,000/ownerlyear. 9 program practices including riparian, wetland, and fisheries protection Regional NPPC Fish and Direct State and Planning, construction Can be used as local cost (BPAI Wildlife Payment Federal agencies and 0 & M of fish and snare on Federal projects Progrbaram and Tribes wildlife projects Blue Mt Blue Restora- Varies Restoration of Elk Partnership of 22 tribal. Ntl Res Mountains tion projects habitat governmental and private Inst Elk Initiative organizations Private Nature Conservancy Direct State or local Planning, construction, Payment entities and 0 & M of watershed enhancement projects. Land and water purchase/lease Water Heritage Trust Direct State or local Planning, construction, Payment entities and 0 & M of watershed enhancement projects. Land and water purchasellease Oregon Trout Direct State or local _ Payment, entities Volunteer Assistance Isaac Walton League Volunteer Assistance Rocky Mountain Elk Potential source of funding Foundation for land purchase Trout Unlimited Volunteer Assistance