MEMORANDUM u WATER TO: Water Resources Commission 3t23d-- RESOURCES FROM: /.!~ir DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: Agenda Item ~une5, 1992 Water Resources Commission meeting
cuaand Nestucca Rivers scenic waterwav flows for Diack findings
Background
The Oregon Supreme Court decision, Diack vs. Ciry of Portland, requires that the Commission must find that recreation, fish and wildlife uses in the scenic waterway will not be impaired before issuing new water rights in areas above or tributary to a scenic waterway. A "Diack flow" fact sheet explaining the decision and how it is implemented is attachment 5.
/ Staff has completed the final in a series of eight reports on streamflows in state scenic waterways. The Commission has approved scenic waterway flows for the Grande Ronde, Wallowa, Minam, Owyhee, McKenzie, Little North Santiam, North Fork of the Middle Fork of the Willamette, Waldo Lake, Rogue, Illinois, Elk, Clackamas, bw Sandy, Deschutes, Metolius, John Day and Klamath Scenic Waterways. Flows supporting recreation, fish and wildlife uses on the North Umpqua and Nestucca Scenic Waterways are shown in Attachment 1. The Scenic Waterway flow assessment report is Attachment 2.
The Commission directed staff to hold public meetings in areas affected by scenic waterway flow assessments. Accordingly, public workshops were held on April 8 in Tillamook and April 9 in Roseburg. Representatives from the "Friends of the Nestucca" and Tillamook County Soil and Water Conservation District attended the Tillamook workshop and representatives from the Steamboaters, the Western Oregon Livestock Association, the Oregon Farm Bureau, Douglas County, US Forest Service and Pacific Power and Light attended the workshop in Roseburg. In addition, interagency briefings were held in Tillamook on April 8, 1992 and Roseburg on April 9 to review the assessment process and discuss any issues and concerns. Representatives of the Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, McMinnville Water and Light, Tillamook and Douglas Counties, and OSU Extension attended the interagency meetings. Agency and public comments were used in revising the assessment. An analysis of public comments can be found in Attachment 3. Written comments comprise Attachment 4.
3850 IJclrtlnnd RJ NE Salcm, OR 97310 (503) 378-3739 FAX (50.1) 378-8130 Agenda Item D Oregon Water Resources Commission Meeting of June 5, 1992 Page 2 of 4
Discussion
The scenic waterway flow assessment documents flow ranges &at support current scenic waterway uses and values. The Commission wuld use this information for making findings on pending and future water right applications in or upstream from scenic waterway reaches, these areas are known as "Diuck"areas. Currently the City of McMinnville is the only applicant with any permit pending in the Nestucca "Diack"area. There are eleven water use permits pending in the North Umpqua "Diuck"area from three private landowners and one federal agency.
The flows for recreation, fish and wildlife in the scenic waterways vary by use and season. The major flow-dependent uses are recreation and fisheries. Flows supporting existing levels of recreation were identified through literature review and interviews with experts. Flows identified for fish life and aquatic habitat were taken from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife studies, instream water rights, or instream water right applications.
The North Umpqua scenic waterway reach is also designated as a National Wild and Scenic River in the same area listed as the Lower North Umpqua Section of the assessment. Pursuant to the federal law, the Umpqua National Forest and the Roseburg District of the Bureau of Land Management are formulating management plans for the federally designated portion of the River. These agencies shared information from current and past planning efforts for the scenic 4 waterway flow assessment.
Because of the scenic waterway flow assessment, Pacific Power and Light has included the Water Resources Department in their agency work group which is examining the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hydroelectric license on the North Umpqua which is due to expire in 1995. If new information becomes available through this process the Commission will be informed.
The Upper North Umpqua River, Nestucca River and Walker Creek are not included in the National Wild and Scenic River system. However, resource information was shared by the federal agencies and used to write the assessment.
Evaluation a) Scenic Waterway Flows: In general, for each scenic waterway section, the assessment identifies a range of flows which support current recreational uses and fish and wildlife habitat. Streamflow statistics, fish and recreation flows and recommended scenic waterway flows are displayed in Attachment 1. Agenda Item D Oregon Water Resources Commission Meeting of June 5, 1992 Page 3 of 4
Lower North Umpqua River: Recommended scenic waterway flows on the Lower North Umpqua River exceed the average flow in August and September. Flows for these months were determined from the current ODFW instream water right application.
Upper North Umpqua River: No scenic waterway flows are recommended. No data are available on flow-dependent recreation or fish and wildlife needs. It is likely that there is not any significant flow-dependent recreation in this area. In order to make findings in this area a study by ODFW or others to determine fish and wildlife needs would be required.
Nestucca River: Recommended scenic waterway flows exceed the average flow in August and September. Flows for these months were determined from the current ODFW instream water right application.
Walker Creek: No scenic waterway flows are recommended. No data are available on flow- dependent recreation or fish and wildlife needs. It is likely that there is not any significant flow- dependent recreation in this area. In order to make findings in this area a study by ODFW or others to determine fish and wildlife needs would be required. b) Public Comment: Comments from the public on information gathered for the assessment were mixed. Many felt the flows were too high. Others contended that further development of municipal storage on the Nestucca would be detrimental. Some felt that the comment period on scenic waterway flows should be lengthened. Some felt the data were faulty and encouraged trespassing. Others felt that the out-of-stream uses should have a reservation. The US Forest Service suggests waiting until further studies connected with the Wild and Scenic River Management plan and the FERC relicensing effort are completed. Public comments are addressed in Attachment 3.
Summation
Staff has identified flows needed to support recreation, fish and wildlife in the North Umpqua and Nestucca Scenic Waterways. Approving use of identified flows will assist the Commission in making findings on pending applications and future water rights. Most of the pending water use applications in the Umpqua Basin are the Bureau of Land Management. The application by the McMinnville Water and Light is the only pending application in the Nestucca Basin. The proposed flows would allow these storage applications to be processed. Agenda Item D Oregon Water Resources Commission Meeting of June 5, 1992 Page 4 of 4
Staff recommends that the Commission approve the North Umpqua, Nestucca and Walker Creek scenic waterways flow assessment and the use of the recommended scenic waterway flows in Attachment 1 for making findings pursuant to the Scenic Waterway Act.
Attachments: 1) Flow Tables for Scenic Waterways 2) Draft North Umpqua and Nestucca Rivers Scenic Waterway Assessment 3) Workshop Comment Analysis 4) Written Comments 5) "Diack flow" factsheet
Bill Fujii 378-8455 ex 286 May 19, 1992 Attachment 1
Table 1 FLOW DATA FOR THE LOWER NORTH UMPQUA RIVER SCENIC WATERWAY
Mean Monthlv Flow (cfs measured Above Copeland Creek (gage # 14316500)
Minimum Maximum Avenge Flow for Recrution Flow Rclimi~ry Flow Flow Fishery Scenic Waterway Rows
1 March 1 873
1) May 1 1070
11 October 758 I November 805 I December 803 Attachment 1 d Table 2 FLOW DATA FOR THE LOWER NORTH UMPQUA RIVER SCENIC WATERWAY
Mean Monthly Flow (cfs) measured Above Rock Creek (gage #14317500)
Minimum Maximum Avenge Flow for Recrration Flow Preliminary Flow Flow Flow Fishery Scenic Waterway Flowa January 818 7200 3860 lo20 800 - 6700 3300 Febn~ry 1340 7160 3980 lo20 800 - 6700 3300 March 1400 7260 3710 lo20 800 - 6700 3400 April 1320 6060 3560 lo20 800 - 6700 2900
May 1180 4500 2980 lo20 800 - 6700 2200 Junc 833 4960 1870 lo20 800 - 6700 1800 July 696 1630 1120 lo20 800 - 6700 1020 Auguat 588 1 100 920 lo20 800 - 6700 1020 September 588 997 890 lo20 800 - 6700 1 020 Oclober 649 1590 1070 lo20 800 - 6700 1020 November 65 1 6210 2490 lo20 800 - 6700 1700 December 943 10300 3960 1 020 800 - 6700 3500
Recreation flows are calculated and rounded to the nearest 100 cfs. Attachment 1
Table 3 FLOW DATA FOR THE NESTUCCA SCENIC WATERWAY
Mean Monthly Flow (cfs) measured at Beaver (gage #14303600)
Minimum Maximum Average Flow for Recmlion Flow Preliminary Flow Flow Flow Filhery Scenic Watcnvay Flows
January 273 4890 21 10 250 500 - 2500 lo00
Februnry 453 2980 1920 250 500 - 2500 lo00 March 634 2830 1600 250 500 - 2500 lo00 April 469 1640 1030 250 500 - 2500 lo00
May 285 1190 560 2501183 2501183
June 183 917 3 20 123 123
July % 542 170 123 123
L August 49 25 1 100 12.3 123
September 53 412 1SO 250 250
October 91 842 320 250 250
November 209 3980 1500 250 500 - 2500 loo0 December 257 4440 2630 250 500 - 2500 loo0
ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT WESTERN OREGON SCENIC WATERWAYS FLOW ASSESSMENT
LOWER NORTH UMPQUA RIVER UPPER NORTH UMPQUA RIVER NESTUCCA RIVER WALKER CREEK
OREGON WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Section I: Lower North Umpqua River 4
Section II: Upper North Umpqua River 16
Section 111: Nestucca River 18
Section IV: Walker Creek 24
Draft May 11, 1992
INTRODUCTION
A) PURPOSE
In 1988, the Oregon Supreme Court (Diack vs. City of Portland) ruled that before authorizing a diversion of water from within or above a scenic waterway, the Water Resources Commission must find that the requirements of the Scenic Waterways Act are met. The principal requirement is that the free-flowing character of these waters must be maintained in quantities necessary for recreation, fish and wildlife.
This report analyzes the instream flow requirements for current uses of the scenic waterway within the North Umpqua and Nestucca Rivers. Recommended scenic waterway flows, if approved, will be utilized by the Water Resources Commission to make findings on future and pending water permit applications within or above the scenic waterway. Additional water use permits may be granted if findings can be made that additional water use would maintain flows in quantities necessary for recreation, fish and wildlife. Any water permit application would, however, be subject to all other regulations and statutory limitations.
Scenic Waterway sections of the North Umpqua and Nestucca Rivers Section Description Date and Method of Designation Upper North Umpqua River Wilderness Boundary to 1988 initiative Lemolo Reservoir North Umpqua River Soda Springs to Rock Creek 1988 initiative
Walker Creek The entire length 1988 initiative Nestucca River McGuire Dam to Blaine 1988 initiative
B) METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING SCENIC WATERWAY FLOW REQUIREMENTS
1) RECREATION The method used to determine the quantity of water for recreation is based on current activities and uses. Recreational use of the scenic waterways was broken down into flow-dependent and flow-related uses. Flow-dependent activities must have a certain volume and/or velocity to occur Draft May 11, 1992 Introduction and may cease when there is too much or too little flow. Examples of this type of activity include boating, angling and swimming. Flow-related activities are those that are enhanced by d the presence of water but could occur without a specific flow, such as camping, hiking, sightseeing and picnicking. This assessment focuses on flow-dependent activities. Unless specific flow needs are identified, angling, aesthetic needs, swimming and wading are assumed to be met by fish habitat flows.
Agency reports, guidebooks and interviews with river experts, river users, United States Forest Service (Forest Service) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) personnel and recreation resource specialists were used to determine recreation flow ranges. Additional data sources for flow-dependent activity needs (boating) were found in the Willamette Kayaking and Canoe Club's Soggy Sneakers Guide to Oregon Rivers (WKCC 1990) and Oregon River Tours (Garren 1990). Extensive background information on North Umpqua boater use patterns and intensities came from National Wild and Scenic River documents and agency personnel. Additional background information and identification of flow-related uses came from river resource assessments by the Forest Service, BLM and the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD). Water Resources Department staff also used comments and information from staff of other agencies and the public.
The objective in identifying recreational flows is to preserve the existing range of major recreational uses. Each flow-dependent recreational use known to occur in a river reach is identified, along with a flow range and season in which the use takes place. Where data are available, the flow below which a recreational experience would significantly degrade is 4 identified .
These point-of-degradation flow levels for major uses within a reach are then compared. Generally, the highest of these flows is selected to represent the recommended average recreation flow for the month. This flow not only preserves the most flow-sensitive of the major uses but also assures protection of other uses as well. In some cases, the major flow-sensitive use is an opportunistic use which depends on infrequent flow conditions. Flows for such activities, although not available on the average, would be available as peak flows under current conditions.
2) FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT In most cases, values provided by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) are used for fish and wildlife flows. Generally, this is the only source for identifying fish habitat needs. Some of the flows are current or proposed instream water rights. Some flows recommended by ODFW for the Western Oregon Scenic Waterways are flows identified in the "Basin Investigation of the Umpqua River" (Oregon State Game Commission, 1972) and the "North Coast Basin Investigation" (Oregon State Game Commission, 1972). Flows in the Basin Investigation were developed using the Oregon Method, also called Thompson's Usable Width Draft May 11, 1992 Introduction 'L Method, which takes into account different fish species, age classes and life cycles, ODFW maintains that fish habitat flows are sufficient to provide for wildlife needs within the scenic waterways.
3) RECOMMENDED SCENIC WATERWAY FLOWS Once recreation and fish flows are identified, they are compared. The higher of the two is then selected as the recommended scenic waterway flow. This protects fishlife and current recreation activities. In situations where flow-dependent recreation does not occur, flows necessary to support fish and wildlife will be the recommended scenic waterway flow. If no flow data exist for fish habitat or recreation, no findings can be made to recommend scenic waterway flows.
C) As part of the Oregon Rivers Initiative, two sections of the North Umpqua River, one section of the Nestucca River and three miles of Walker Creek were designated state scenic waterways in 1988. For purposes of this report the scenic waterways will be described in the following sections:
SECTION I. LOWER NORTH UMPQUA RIVER This section of the designation begins below Soda Springs Powerhouse and extends 33.8 miles to Rock Creek. The lower North Umpqua Scenic Waterway is the most widely known area of the North Umpqua River. The area is dominated by federal lands, jointly administered by the Umpqua National Forest and Roseburg District of the BLM. L SECTION 11. UPPER NORTH UMPQUA RIVER The upper section of the North Umpqua Scenic Waterway includes the area from the western boundary of the Mt. Thielsen Wilderness Area to Lemolo Reservoir. This 5.7 mile reach of the river is very high in the watershed. All of the lands in this section are managed by the Umpqua National Forest.
SECTION 111. NESTUCCA RIVER The Nestucca River Scenic Waterway includes the 23 miles from McGuire Dam to Blaine. The area is a mix of private lands and lands administered by the Siuslaw National Forest and Salem District BLM.
SECTION IV. WALKER CREEK The Walker Creek Section of the Nestucca River Scenic Waterway includes the lower three miles of Walker Creek from its confluence with the Nestucca River.
Draft May 11, 1992
't, SECTION I: LOWER NORTH UMPQUA RIVER
I) ENVIRONMENTAL SEWING Originating at Maidu Lake (RM 106.2), high in the Mt. Thielsen Wilderness, the North Umpqua River flows entirely within Douglas County. The upper reaches of the river flow through a deep narrow canyon with forested slopes. The community of Glide (Rh4 29.5), the most populated area of the North Umpqua River, is six miles below the scenic waterway. The populated areas within the scenic waterway are unincorporated communities and various dispersed developments. Communities within the scenic waterway include Steamboat (RM 53), Dry Creek (RM 62.5), Frontier Store (RM 36.7), Rock Creek (RM 35.6), North Umpqua Village (RM 39) and Susan Creek (RM 43). The major industries of the North Umpqua River are timber harvest and tourism.
A) Location/Back_eround The Lower North Umpqua section of the scenic waterway begins below Soda Springs Powerhouse (Rh4 69.4) and extends to Rock Creek. This same 33.8 mile section of river was designated a National Wild and Scenic River as part of the Oregon Omnibus Rivers Bill of 1988. This area will be managed jointly under a single River Management Plan by the Umpqua National Forest, Roseburg District BLM and the OPRD. The majority of the land in the comdor is managed by the Forest Service (73 percent) and the BLM (20 percent). The rest of L the land is state, county and privately owned.
The major tributaries within the scenic waterway are Rock Creek, Steamboat Creek (RM 53), Limpy Creek (RM 58.6), Copeland Creek (RM 66.5) and Boulder Creek (RM 67.9).
The river is paralleled by the North Umpqua Highway (Highway 138), recently designated as a National Scenic Byway. From Soda Springs powerhouse to Marsters Bridge four miles downstream, the highway borders the south side of the river. Downstream for the remaining 30 miles, the highway is located on the north side of the river. There are 15 intersecting roads to the north and 6 to the south. These dirt/gravel/paved roads provide access to state, county, federal and private lands.
Other areas of interest in the scenic waterway and directly accessible from Highway 138 include the Boulder Creek Wilderness, the Limpy Rock Research Natural Area, North Umpqua National Recreation Trail and the Umpqua Rocks Geologic Area.
B) Topo~raphv Dropping close to 1,000 feet in elevation over the length of the scenic waterway, the river forms a V-shaped canyon 2,500 feet deep in spots. The river itself exhibits the "classic" pool and drop Draft May 11, 1992 Lower North Umpqua characteristics favored by many whitewater enthusiasts. The volcanic beginnings of this canyon combine with the river to form a unique resource of basalt cliffs and spires mixed with various 4 ash and pumice deposits. These geologic features give the canyon both spectacular scenery qid natural capacity to store water for late summer flows.
C) Vegetation The steep slopes of the river canyon are covered with old growth Douglas fir forest interspersed with dry-slope grassy openings and various hardwoods. These hardwoods include bigleafed maple, vine maple, red alder, dogwood, golden chinquapin and madrone. Other plants associated with the forest cover in the North Umpqua are ocean spray, salal, sword fern, western rhododendron and Oregon grape. One plant species of special interest is Kalmiopsis leuchiana found uniquely in the North Umpqua and within the Kalmiopsis Wilderness in southwest Oregon. The fall colors of the North Umpqua are spectacular.
D) Hvdrology The North Umpqua River rises near the crest of the Cascade Range in the Mt. Thielsen Wilderness. With a drainage area of about 1,308 square miles, it flows westward for 106 miles, then joins the South Umpqua a few miles northwest of Roseburg to form the mainstem of the Umpqua River. The North Umpqua River has higher summer and fall flows than other rivers in the basin.
Water quality and quantity, and the high summer flows of the North Umpqua River in particular, have been recognized by the BLM and the Forest Service as "outstandingly remarkable values" 4 - as established by the National Wild and Scenic River management policies. By virtue of the identification of these flows as being "outstandingly remarkable values," the Forest Service will be obligated to preserve and enhance the flows in the river management plan.
There are three major impoundments on the North Umpqua River: Lmolo Dam (RM 93), Toketee Dam (RM 75.5) and Soda Springs Dam (RM 69.9). During summer, the river flow drops slowly. The natural flow is influenced by the operation of Pacific Power and Light's (PP&L) Soda Springs powerhouse at the beginning of the lower Scenic Waterway reach.
While storage in the dam cannot contain more than a few hours of typical summer flow of the river, daily and hourly fluctuations are common. Up to 1,600 cubic feet per second (cfs) of river flow is diverted through the powerhouse generator, and in summer its outflow is the entire river flow. PP&LYsinternal policy limits river fluctuations to 4 inches per hour at the U.S. Geological Survey Gaging Station No. 14316500 above Copeland, approximately 50 cfs change in an hour at a summer flow of 1,000 cfs.
The mean monthly minimum, maximum and average flows for the North Umpqua River above Copeland Creek (USGS gage #14316500) are presented in Table 1. The minimum and Draft May 11, 1992 Lower North Umpqua
maximum flows are the lowest and highest mean monthly flows, based on mean daily discharges L for the period of record 1949 to 1987.
Average flow is the 50 percent exceedance mean monthly streamflow as estimated by the Water Resources Department in the Water Availabilify Study (WRD, 1991). The percent ex&ance is the percent of time a given mean monthly flow is met or exceeded. For a 50 percent exceedance flow, flows are met or exceeded half the time, or one out of two years.
The highest flow ever recorded for the section was 40,700 cfs, on December 22, 1964. The lowest flow was 370 cfs in September of 1981 (USGS 1990). Highest average mean monthly flows for this section of the river typically occur December through June. May typically has the highest monthly percent of annual runoff. The Copeland Creek gage is shown for its relationship to recreation and fishery values.
The mean monthly minimum, maximum and average flows for the North Umpqua River above Rock Creek (USGS gage #14317500)) are presented in Table 2. The minimum and maximum flows are the lowest and highest mean monthly flows, based on mean daily discharges for the period of record 1955 to 1985 extended from gaged flows from period 1928 to 1944.
The highest flow ever recorded for the section was 53,000 cfs, on February 20, 1927. The lowest flow was 521 cfs in October of 1931 (USGS 1990). Highest average mean monthly flows for this section of the river typically occur January through April. May typically has the highest monthly percent of annual runoff. Recreation values are calculated based on a ratio of the IC average flows and rounded to the nearest 100 ds.
Data from the Copeland Creek, Rock Creek and Winchester gages are relied on in this report because either recreation or fishery flows are based on these measurements at these locations. The Rock Creek gage is shown for its relationship to fishery values. The Winchester gage is referred to for recreational uses even though it is situated below the scenic waterway. The information for the Copeland Creek gage is generally considered to be more reliable on a year- round basis because of basin characteristics.
11) RECREATION The North Umpqua River is nationally and internationally known for its recreational opportunities. The area has various local, state and federal designations recognizing the recreation resource. In addition to being a state scenic waterway and a national wild and scenic river, Douglas County recognizes the river comdor with a special parks and recreation zone.
A historic site of particular interest within the river comdor is the Zane Grey fishing camp located near the mouth of Fisher Creek (RM 51.2). Some believe the author spoke of the Rogue River when describing his outdoor experiences on the North Umpqua River in an effort to Draft May 11, 1992 Lower North Umpqua maintain the high quality of fishing and solitude on the North Umpqua. According to the Forest i Service, another historic site of some significance is Mott Bridge, which is the last example of its construction style left. 3 I Four waterfalls located near the North Umpqua River attract visitors to the scenic waterway area. Two of these falls, Susan Creek and Fall Creek Falls, have nearby special interest sites, Susai'i Crdk Modnds and Fall Creek Petroglyph, respectively. The trail leading to Fall Creek Falls is a 1-mile National Recreation Trail. Job's Garden Geology Special Interest Area is also accessed from this trail. F-s F-s The USFS recognizes sightseeing, driving for pleasure, camping, bicycling and hiking as major recreational uses of the North Umpqua River. High-angle rock climbing, horseback riding, photography and nature study have also been cited as recreational activities in the area.
1) SCENIC VIEWING Opportunities for scenic viewing are from the highway, developed recreation sites along the river, various hiking trails and from the river itself. The scenic quality of the North Umpqua National Wild and Scenic River has been recognized as an "outstandingly remarkable value" by the BLM and Forest Service. In addition to its designation as a National Scenic Byway, Highway 138 is' designated as a Discovery Drive Loop Tour by the Southwest Oregon Visitor Association as well as being listed by the MAas a scenic highway. According to the Forest Service, driving for pleasure and sightseeing has increased 4 percent annually since 1971. This 1 route serves as a access to Diamond WeRecreation Area and Crater Lake National 3 Park. Surveys indicate visitors from all over the world travel through the area to enjoy these major attractions.
2) HIKINGIMOTORIZED TRAIL USWBICY CLING There are a total of 60 miles of developed hiking trails within the North Umpqua Scenic Waterway Comdor. Trail challenges vary from gentle to most difficult.
The North Umpqua Trail, a National Recreation Trail, parallels Highway 138 on the opposite side of the river for the entire length of the Wild and Scenic River section. This trail begins at the trailhead at Swiftwater Park (beginning of the Scenic Waterway at Rock Creek) and when completed will span the remaining 79 miles to Maidu Lake. The completed portion of the trail follows the scenic waterway to Soda Springs and includes eight segments with seven trailheads. I
Fall Creek and Susan Creek trails lead to water falls ranging from 80 to 100 feet in height. According to the Forest Service, these trails account for approximately 80 percent of total trail use in the corridor. SECTION I
'ere, LOWER NORTH UMPQUA RIVER
Draft May 11, 1992 Lower North Umpqua
The Riverview Trail, running along the north side of Highway 138 from Steamboat Inn west to the Williams Creek trailhead, is currently 1.5 miles long and offers the corridor's only mot~rizedtrail opportunity.
Mountain bicycle use of the North Umpqua Trail is becoming a popular activity with bicycle enthusiasts. Another type of bicycle use in the river comdor is bicycle touring, which brings to the river corridor groups varying in size from a few individuals to touring groups of several hundred.
3) CAMPING The North Umpqua Comdor has a total of eight developed campgrounds, with 133 campsites providing for a 685-persons-at-one-time (PAOT) capacity. Three of these campgrounds are non- fee with 26 sites while five are fee areas with 107 sites. The Forest Service reports that recreation visit totals for these campgrounds have increased 113 percent from 31,400 in 1985 to 67,005 in 1990. Approximately 40 percent of campground use is by out-of-state visitors.
Apple Creek, Boulder Flat and Horseshoe Bend reach capacity most weekends in July and August. Island Campground is near or at capacity most days during the full service season.
Flow-Dependent Uses bw 1) BOA,, The Forest Service rates the whitewater boating opportunity on the North Umpqua River as excellent intermediate to advanced with Class I1 to IV rapids. Dependable summer flow allows whitewater boating most of the year. Whitewater boating on the North Umpqua River is rated from Class 111 to Class V depending on the flows. At normal flows most experts rate the river from Class III to Class IV. At higher flows several of the rapids are Class V challenges.
a) TYPES/SEASONS/PA?TERNS OF USE Forest Service records show that equipment used for boating varies slightly by year, but the largest percentage of use is by kayaks on a year-round basis and during periods of low flow when other craft have difficulty maneuvering the main channel. Of the total, kayak use represents 55 percent, rafts 42 percent and canoes 3 percent. Motorized craft and angling from boats are prohibited above Rock Creek. Easy bank access and the prohibition of angling from boats probably account for the absence of drift boat use.
Both Soggy Sneakers Guide to Oregon Rivers (WKCC 1990) and Oregon River Tours (Garren 1990) indicate that the boating season is year-round. Peak uses by month have varied from year to year, but the aggregate totals identify June through July as peak use months for all private uses. According to the Forest Service, whitewater boating trends have exhibited the following Draft May 11, 1992 Lower Nonh Umpqua pattern: 1) an extension of the boating season into the winter and spring months with the advent of coldwater gear; 2) an increase of whitewater use on weekends (as much as 70 percent) and holidays; and 3) a substantial increase of boating use June through August. Although the Forest Service has noted a trend for longer seasons, data are only available for April through September.
River segments from Boulder Flat to Gravel Bin and Bogus Creek to Susan Creek provide two different one-day trips lasting five to seven hours. The significant launch sites are Boulder Flat, Horseshoe Bend, Eagle Rock, Marsters Bridge, Dry Creek, Apple Creek, Island Camp, Gravel Bin and Bogus Creek. Forest Service records show the Boulder Flat to Gravel Bin float as the most popular. In order to decrease conflicts with anglers, the whitewater boaters have utilized voluntary guidelines on time and location of float trips. From July to October, boating is restricted to between 10 am and 6 pm, except for an area closed to boating between Island Camp and Bogus Creek. The area from Boulder Flats to Wilson Creek is closed to boating during September and October to protect salmon spawning. The restricted hours and section closures do not seem to have decreased boating activity in the context of the entire conidor. b) INTENSITY OF USE Commercially guided whitewater use as well as private use of the river have been on a constant rise since 1976. For commercial outfitters the period from 1986 to 1990 showed a 105 percent increase in client service days from 1030 to 2050 per year. The same period showed a 98 percent increase for noncommercial users from 2050 to 4000 user days. One rafting user day equals an average 8 hours. c) BOATING FLOWS Flow data for boating are outlined in Soggy Sneakers Guide to Oregon Rivers (WKCC 1990), Oregon River Tours (Garren 1991) and were confirmed with contacts with local experts.
WKCC suggests boating flows of 800 to 3,000 cfs, noting that in the area between Boulder Flat to Horseshoe Bend, the lower flows from 800 to 2,000 cfs are a Class 11 whitewater experience and from 2,000 cfs the whitewater experience becomes Class III. WKCC ranks the Horseshoebend to Steamboat trip one Class more difficult at these same flows, which are based on the gage at Winchester. The guide goes on to identify optimum stage to be between 2 and 5 feet, or the equivalent of between 895 and 5,250 cfs at Winchester. (This gage may be less precise for estimating early spring runs.) A ratio of the average flows for May indicates that 50 percent of the North Umpqua flows are contributed at the Copeland Creek gage. This same ratio in August shows 87 percent of the flow coming in at the Copeland Creek gage. For the purposes of basing trips, this information would likely be more valuable during periods of minimum flow.
Garren suggests an optimal flow range of 1,000 to 2,000 cfs, estimating the river to be bank full at 2,340 and at flood stage at 4,800 cfs based on the Copeland gage. Draft May 11, 1992 Lower North Umpqua 4" Randy Riddle, a local guide and expert boater, has seen boating uses from 800 to 3,000 cfs based on the stage level at the Copeland Creek gage. For this report this stage information has been converted to cubic feet per second (USGS rating table 1991). Riddle suggests that the optimum spring flow range for experienced users in rafts should be 1,500 to 2,000 cfs. The highest he has ever rafted the river has been at 2,340 cfs though he has kayaked the river at higher levels and notes that from 2,800 to 3,450 cfs the river becomes a Class level more difficult, especially at Pinball Rapids. At flows lower than 890 cfs, the quality of the float experience decreases significantly. Riddle also indicates that the Weir and Calf Creek Bridge rapids become hazardous at low flow levels (890 cfs). Other rapids with passage problems at low flow include African Queen, Apple, Happy Rock and Dry Creek. Riddle feels that the differences in optimum kayaldng and rafting are small. Kayaks may well be able to negotiate the river at much lower flows, but the quality of this experience is degraded at flows less than 890 cfs.
Ken Wickham, a professional guide and Vice President of the Oregon Guides and Packers Association, uses the stage information at the Winchester gage to base his operations on the North Umpqua. For this report this stage information has been converted to cfs (USGS rating tables 1991). Wickham says the river has been run at flows ranging from 300 to 10,600 cfs. At flows near 300 cfs (at Winchester), he cannot operate commercial trips on the river. At flows of 7,550 cfs or higher, Wickham feels that the river becomes a Class level more difficult.
6~ These sources concur that one of the enjoyable challenges of the North Urnpqua is the "technical" water or those stretches of river in which maneuvering and navigational skills are called into play. This aspect of the experience is best at flows less than peak but higher than the minimum clearance flows. This more technical aspect of the river is present during the lower flows of the summer and fall when there are sharper, more defined rapids, when the river is slower and the hydraulics are less "pushy." These factors are similar to the late fall flows on the lower Rogue River Scenic Waterways.
2) ANGLING The presence of anadromous fish, fly-angling-only segments and majestic scenery attracts anglers from all over the world. A major attraction of the river is its summer-run steelhead. Nearly the entire scenic waterway was designated by ODFW in 1952 for fly-angling-only, and only on the lower section of the scenic waterway (300 feet upstream from Rock Creek) is bait angling allowed. According to the ODFW angler creel survey, a total of 14,000 angler trips were estimated form June 1 through october 31. By comparison, a similar study estimated 6,400 trips in 1977.
A substantial recreational fishery for all coldwater species exists immediately above Rock Creek although fly angling for summer steelhead is the fishery's greatest attraction. According to the Forest Service, the North Umpqua is considered by many to be one of the finest rivers in North Draft May 11, 1992 Lower North Umpqua America for its wild beauty and superb fly fishing. The New Hennings Guide to Fishing in Oregon (Casali and Diness 1984) refers to the North Umpqua as "one of Oregon's most 3 treasured streams beloved for its pristine quality and majestic setting, for the size and number of its trout, and for its enormous and thriving run of summer steelhead."
The popularity of the fishery is such that the Forest Service estimates it accounted for 95 percent of the on-forest anadromous angling use or about 165,000 wildlife and fish user days in 1988. That year the Umpqua National Forest was the highest-use forest in the Pacific Northwest Region and the second highest in the entire National Forest system.
111) FISH AND WILDLIFE A) Fishlife The Northwest Power Planning Council has designated the North Umpqua River and all its major tributaries as protected areas. This protected status recommends that no new hydroelectric development be allowed in these areas for protection of the fishery resource.
1) Anadromous fish species include summer steelhead trout, winter steelhead trout, spring Chinook salmon, fall Chinook salmon, searun cutthroat trout, coho salmon and Pacific lamprey.
Summer-run steelhead returns result from both hatchery and natural production. A hatchery program for summer steelhead was initiated in 1958. In the last 3 years, wild fish numbers have dropped slightly but are still within the historic range. Ratios of hatchery to wild fish have 4 increased to 2: 1 or even 3: 1 during the last 6 years. Winter-run steelhead in the North Umpqua are almost entirely wild fish. Winter steelhead are consistently the most abundant wild anadromous adults returning to the basin.
Spring Chinook runs are also a combination of hatchery and natural production, with a hatchery to wild fish ratio of 1:2 or 1:3.
Like summer steelhead and spring chinook, coho runs stem both from hatchery and natural production, Hqwever, the wild fish population is currently considered depressed by the Forest Service and by ODFW.
The migratory cuttthroat trout is considered to be severly depressed by ODFW. It is recommended to be placed on the sensitve species list based on very low returns in recent years. ODFW has closed the area for taking any unmarked migratory cutthroat trout.
2) Resident Fish Among resident game fish are rainbow trout, cutthroat trout and brown trout. Non-game species include redside shiner, Umpqua long-nosed dace, speckled dace, suckers, sculpins, brook lamprey, golden shiner and Tui chubs. Draft May 11, 1992 Lower North Umpqua B) Wildlife Lands within the North Umpqua River corridor provide habitat for a number of wildlife species, and the riparian habitats provide the needed food, water and shelter to sustain a diverse wildlife community. Big-game species include blacktail deer, black bear and Roosevelt elk. Other river- related species include beaver, racoon, mink and otters. Upland game and nongame species are also abundant in numbers and varieties.
The large, old-growth timber found along the river provides excellent habitat for cavity-dependent species and raptors. The old-growth Douglas fir forest is prime habitat for the northern spotted owl (federally listed as a Threatened Species) and other species of birds, mammals and amphibians. Several spotted owl nesting territories encompass both sides of the North Umpqua River. The osprey is another species occupying the North Umpqua River. The old growth paralleling the river provides large dominant snags and broken-top live trees required for nesting. There are an estimated 15 occupied nesting territories along the North Umpqua River corridor. During the fall, winter and spring months, bald eagles (federally listed as a Threatened Species) use the North Umpqua River as a staging area or migration corridor on their routes to primary wintering sites, and the eagles' presence in the area is habitual but seasonally intermittent.
IV) FLOW ANALYSIS A) Data Sources Flow data from the Oregon River Tours (Garren 1991) and from Randy Riddle were used to L establish boating flows. Data from Soggy Sneakers Guide to Oregon Rivers (WKCC 1990) was based on a gage significantly downstream; because the lower basin hydrology is different during the wet months, data obtained from WKCC does not consistently corroborate that of the other sources throughout the year. However, in the context of low-flow periods, WKCC does verify the minimums identified by the other sources.
B) Flow-De~endentUse and Value Summm The following activities and flow ranges were identified from the data given above.
FLOW-DEPENDENT USES AND VALUES NORTH UMPQUA RIVER I. USE FLOW RANGE SEASON OF USE INTENSITY OF (cfs) USE Angling - all year high Canoe 800 - 3000 all year low Kayak 800 - 3000 all year high Raft 800 - 3000 all year high Draft May 11, 1992 Lower North Umpqua C) Recommended Scenic Waterwav Flows 19 Scenic waterway flows above Copeland Creek are based on the recreational flows for boating. River guides show a range of flows consistent with spring flows. The springlwinter flow range shown is the lower end of Riddle's optimum flow range for rafts and kayaks. This is mid-range for Garren's overall optimum. The flows for the summer and fall (890 cfs) are based on Riddle's estimate of the minimum necessary for a quality recreational experience. Fishery values are based on the ODFW basin investigation optimum flows for fish habitat.
Scenic waterway flows above Rock Creek are based on a combination of recreation flows and fishery flows. Fishery values are based on the ODFW basin investigation optimum flows for fish habitat. Recreation values are calculated based on a ratio of the average flows of the Copeland Creek and Rock Creek gages, rounded to the nearest 100 cfs. Draft May 11, 1992 Lower North Umpqua
Table 1 FLOW DATA FOR THE LOWER NORTH UMPQUA RIVER SCENIC WATERWAY
Mean Monthly Flow (cfs) measured Above Copeland Creek (gage #I43 16500)
Minimum Maximum Avenge Flow for Recreation Flow Preliminary Flow Flow Flow Finhery Scenic Watenvay Flows
January 788 3420 1750 680 800 - 3000 1500 Febmary 670 3250 1790 680 800 - 3000 1500 March 873 4220 1610 680 800 - 3000 1500
April 1070 2880 1820 680 800 - 3000 1500
May 1070 3190 1990 680 800 - 3000 1500 June 904 2930 1560 680 800 - 3000 1500
July 689 1650 1040 680 800 - 3000 890 August 684 1180 870 680 800 - 3000 890 September 653 1110 840 680 800 - 3000 890 October 758 1570 I 920 680 800 - 3000 890 I I I 11 November 1 805 1 2300 1 I280 1 680 1 800 - 3000 1 890 - - December 803 I 5160 1690 680 800 - 3000 1 1500 , Draft May 11, 1992 Lower Nonh Umpqua Irrls Table 2 FLOW DATA FOR THE LOWER NORTH UMPQUA RIVER SCENIC WATERWAY
Mean Monthly Flow (cfs) measured Above Rock Creek (gage #14317500)
Minimum Maximum Average Flow for Recmtion Flow Preliminary Flow Plow Flow Fiahery Scenic Waterway Flows
January 818 7200 3860 I020 800 - 6700 3300
February 1340 7160 3980 1020 800 - 6700 3300 March 1400 7260 3710 1020 800 - 6700 3400 April 1320 6060 3560 lo20 800 - 6700 2900
May 1180 4500 2980 lo20 800 - 6700 2200 June 833 4960 1870 lo20 800 - 6700 1800 July 696 1630 1120 lo20 800 - 6700 1020 Auprt 588 1100 920 lo20 800 - 6700 lo20 September 588 997 890 lo20 800 - 6700 lo20 October 649 1590 1070 lo20 800 - 6700 1020 November 65 1 6210 2490 lo20 800 - 6700 1700 December 943 10300 3960 1020 800 - 6700 3500
Recreation flows are calculated and rounded to the nearest 100 cfs. SECTION I1
UPPER NORTH UMPQUA RIVER
Draft May 11, 1992
SECTION 11: UPPER NORTH UMPQUA RIVER
I) ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The upper section of the North Umpqua River Scenic Waterway is a small mountain stream 4,200 feet above mean sea level. The lower three miles of the stream flow adjacent to a large pumice flat. At RM 98.5, the area becomes part of the Oregon Cascades Recreation Area. Further up the river near Bradley Creek (RM 99), the river flows out of the Mt. Thielsen Wilderness Area. Bradley Creek is the major tributary contained in this scenic waterway, which has no communities within its corridor. Lemolo Lake Resort (RM 93) on the southwest comer of the reservoir is the closest settlement.
A) Location/Background The upper section of the North Umpqua River Scenic Waterway begins at the western boundary of the Mt. Thielsen Wilderness Area (RM 100.7) and flows through the Kelsay Valley to the lower terminus of the scenic waterway, slackwater in Lemolo Reservoir (RM 95).
A paved road follows the lower three miles of the scenic waterway. Near river mile 97.5, the river is crossed by a gravel road that comes from Thielsen Campground. Just upriver from this junction the road splits again. The main road leaves the scenic waterway corridor for Windigo Pass, and the other spur follows the river for a short distance, terminating at the Kelsay Valley Trail Head. '4" B) To-pographv Much of the river corridor is a typical western Oregon High Cascades valley. The scenic waterway flows through two wetland/meadow areas. While the valley floor is relatively gentle, various ridges and buttes tower above the U-shaped valley. The slopes of Tenas Peak (elevation 6,558 ft.) can be viewed from the scenic waterway (average elevation 4,300 ft.).
C) Vegetation The scenic waterway is a small stream at this elevation, the channel braided and complex. The vegetation near the river is typical of the grasses, sedges and forbs of western alpine meadows. The upland areas of the corridor contain a mixed conifer forest in transition from Douglas fir to alpine fir.
D) Hvdrologv There are no river gages within this reach of the river.
II) RECREATION This reach of the scenic waterway is fairly remote and, according to Forest Service officials, relatively undiscovered by the general public. * Draft May 11, 1992 Upper Nonh Umpqua Section Flow-Related Activities 4 The major flow-related recreation activities here include camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting and driving for pleasure.
1) SCENIC VIEWING The entire scenic waterway comdor offers opportunities for scenic viewing, most of which takes place from the roads or the hiking trails in the comdor. There are no developed viewing facilities. Use figures are unavailable.
2) HIKING Maidu Lake Trail offers an easy 8.9 mile hike from Kelsay Valley Trail Head. Approximately one mile of the trail is contained in the scenic waterway comdor.
3) CAMPING Two campgrounds, Kelsay Valley Campground (RM 98.2) and Kelsay Valley Trail Head Campground (on Bradley Creek), are located within the scenic waterway comdor.
Flow-Dependent Uses
1) ANGLING Angling for resident trout is the only known flow-dependent use. III) FISH AND WILDLIFE 4 A) Fishlife Fish species in this reach of the river include rainbow trout, brook trout and possibly some Kokanee salmon from the reservoir.
B) Wildlife Big-game species include blacktail deer, black bear and Roosevelt elk. Other river-related species include beaver, racoon, mink and otters. Upland game and nongame species are also abundant in numbers and varieties.
IV) FLOW ANALYSIS A) Data Sources The only data source for scenic waterway flows is the ODFW basin investigation. Available information for the reach of the river under study is minimal as the above investigation was undertaken on the reach of river near Toketee Lake (RM 75.5).
B) Recommended Scenic Waterwav Flows Since little applicable or relevant data exist, in terms of both accurate flow and fishery values, no findings can be made, at this time. Before any findings could be made,an assessment of the fish and wildlife needs would need to be made. SECTION I11
NESTUCCA RIVER
Draft May 11, 1992
SECTION 111: NESTUCCA RIVER
Introduction The Nestucca River and one of its tributaries, Walker Creek were added to the scenic waterway system in 1988 as part of the Oregon Rivers Initiative. Although the Nestucca River was part of the original study rivers in the Oregon Omnibus Rivers Act of 1988, it was not designated a National Wild and Scenic River.
I) ENVIRONMENTAL SETT'ING The headwaters of the Nestucca River are located in the northern Coast Range mountains of northwest Oregon, at an approximate elevation of 2,200 feet. From its source, the river flows west and slightly south to Nestucca Bay, its outlet to the Pacific Ocean. The Nestucca River is approximately 53 miles long, drains 259 square miles, and has an average gradient of 37 feet per mile.
A) Location/Backeround The Nestucca River was designated from immediately below the McGuire Dam downstream to its confluence with East Creek (near Blaine). However, East Creek flows into Moon Creek (RM 24), rather than directly into the Nestucca. Parks and Recreation Department staff determined that the intent was to designate the confluence of the Nestucca and Moon Creek as the downstream terminus of the Scenic Waterway.
The major tributaries along the scenic waterway include Elk Creek (RM 38), Bible Creek (RM 33), Moon Creek, Niagara Creek and Clarence Creeks (RM 29.5), and Powder Creek (RM 28.9).
Land ownership along the scenic waterway corridor is a mixture of private, state and federal lands. The lower portion from Blaine (RM 24.5) up to River Mile 35 is a mixture of federal government ownership (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management) and privately owned parcels. About 65 percent of this lower segment of the river is fronted by private land and the remaining 35 percent is fronted by public land. Approximately 41 percent of the area in this segment of the waterway is in private ownership - the remaining 59 percent is public. In the reach between Rh4 35 and approximately Rh4 45.5, the river flows through a fairly contiguous block of BLM-administered lands. Upstream from RM 45.5, most lands in the scenic corridor are owned by timber companies. Most of the river from McGuire Dam to the lower end of old Meadow Lake (RM 46.5) is fronted by property owned by McMinnville Water and Light. Residential and agricultural development is concentrated on privately owned land adjacent to the lower segment of the scenic river between the community of Blaine (RM 24) and river mile 34. Draft May 11, 1992 Nestucca Section The Nestucca River Access Road parallels the Nestucca River through the entire Scenic Waterway, crossing the river four times between McGuire Dam and Blaine. The road is accessible year-round. The 2.5-mile graveled portion of the road (east of Elk Creek) is slightly more difficult to travel in the rainy season. Other roads are prevalent along the Nestucca, many associated with timber harvest. The BLM has designated the area from river mile 34.5 to river mile 46.5 an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). The purpose of the ACEC is to protect important scenic, fishery, wildlife, botanical and recreational values within an area of high-quality commercial timberlands.
B) Topography The upper river has a V-shaped canyon that is steep and highly dissected. The lower river canyon, below Niagara Creek, widens in places. Relatively flat alluvial areas are surrounded by steep hillsides. Elevations range from 600 to approximately 2,800 feet. In the autumn, bigleaf maple and vine maple provide a splendid show of fall color. At several riverbank locations, centuries-old fir trees tower high above the river.
C) Veeetatioq Douglas fir is the dominant forest evergreen and red alder the major deciduous tree. Other trees include western hemlock, western red cedar, red alder, vine maple and bigleaf maple. Understory species include huckleberry, salmonberry, Devil's club, Oregon grape, swordfern, salal and various wildflowers.
D) Hvdrologv Flow on the upper Nestucca is affected by McGuire Dam. There are no other major 4 impoundments in the drainage. Two dams in the upper drainage have failed. The main stream channel is still degraded, to some degree, from the scouring that occurred when the Meadow Lake Dam washed out in 1962. The BLM modified various portion of this reach of the river for fish habitat enhancement. In the winter of 1989, Shadden Dam, a small dam in the Walker Creek drainage,failed. According to McMinnville Water and Light, this failure was due to vandalism.
The mean monthly minimum, maximum and average flows for the Nestucca River near Beaver (USGS gage #14303600) are presented in Table 3. The minimum and maximum flows are the lowest and highest mean monthly flows, based on mean daily discharges for the period of record 1964 to 1987. Average flow is the 50 percent exceedance mean monthly streamflow as estimated by the Water Resources Department in the Water Availubilify Study (WRD, 1991). The percent exceedance is the percent of time a given mean monthly flow is met or exceeded. For a 50 percent exceedance flow, flows are met or exceeded half the time, or one out of two years.
The highest flow ever recorded for the section was 29,400 cubic feet per second (cfs), on January 11, 1972. The lowest flow was 32 cfs in September of 1967 (USGS 1990). Highest Draft May 11, 1992 Nestucca Section IC average mean monthly flows for this section of the river typically occur in December and January.
IT) RECREATION The BLM considers the Nestucca River area an important area for recreation under Salem District jurisdiction.
Flow-Related Activities Flow-related recreation activities in the Nestucca Scenic Waterway include driving for pleasure and general sightseeing, wildlife observation, fishing, hunting, camping, picnicking, and photography as the major recreation activities which the BLM recognizes in this area.
1) SCENIC VIEWING The upper 11 miles of the Nestucca Road within the BLM land have been designated a National Scenic Byway. Vehicular travel on the narrow two-lane roadway during summer and fall seasons is estimated at 120 trips per day (Cork, 1990).
2) CAMPING AND PICNICKING Alder Glen, Elk Bend, Fan Creek and Dovre are developed recreation sites operated and maintained by BLM and available to the general public yearlong on a 24-hour-a-day basis. All four sites are situated between the Nestucca River Road and the river. Alder Glen, Fan Creek (t and Dovre are relatively small and designed to accommodate either overnight camping or picnicking. Elk Bend is also relatively small and is designed for walk-in picnic and day use only.
Flow-Dependent USQ 1) BOATING Only one reference, Soggy Sneakers Guide to Oregon Rivers (WKCC 1990), cites boating activities.
a) TYPESISEASONSlPAlTERNS OF USE The Nestucca is a narrow steep stream. Given its size, it is likely only small rafts, kayaks and whitewater canoes utilize the stream. According to the Soggy Sneakers Guide to Oregon Rivers (WKCC 1990), the upper river has a series of Class IV rapids and one Class V rapid. Below the Class V rapid the whitewater becomes Class 111.
The Soggy Sneakers Guide to Oregon Rivers (WKCC 1990) cites the use period as "rainy." Their general definition for this time period lists the months from November through May. However, the Nestucca tends to be a very "flashy" stream in the late spring. According to the statistical summaries (USGS 1990) flows over 1000 cfs occur less than 10 percent of the time. May should be considered an opportunistic time period rather than part of the Nestucca's regular boating season. , Draft May 11, 1992 Nestucca Section b) INTENSITY OF USE No information is available. c) BOATING FLOWS Soggy Sneakers Guide to Oregon Rivers (WKCC 1990) lists 1000 cfs at the Beaver gage as the flow for this reach. The flow range cited is a stage reading of 4 ft (too low) to 6 ft optimum. The conversion tables list this flow range to be 500 to 2500 cfs.
2) ANGLING According to the BLM, the Nestucca River now rivals the Siletz, Rogue and Umpqua Rivers in numbers of summer steelhead caught each year and is a close second to the Rogue River in numbers of winter steelhead caught. Large numbers of fall Chinook salmon are also caught in the river.
ITI) FISH AND WILDLIFE A) Fishlife The Nestucca is managed for both wild and hatchery fish. There are wild stocks present in the scenic waterway, but there is not much information concerning these stocks. Ninety percent of summer steelhead caught are hatchery fish. Fall Chinook are predominantly wild, but this is not unique to North Coast streams (Braun, 1990).
1) Anadromous Fish The Nestucca River is one of the state's foremost producers of summer and winter steelhead d trout, and also supports spring and fall Chinook, coho salmon, and sea-run and resident cutthroat trout. The associated timing of upstream migrations by adults results in virtually year-round usage of portions of the Nestucca River by adult anadromous fish.
2) Resident Fish Resident game fish include resident cutthroat trout.
B) Wildlife Big game within the scenic waterway includes Roosevelt elk, black-tailed deer and black bear. Roosevelt elk use most of the area and have been expanding in range and numbers. Black-tailed deer inhabit essentially all of the area. Black bear range throughout the area but are only occasionally observed.
Northern spotted owl, on the listing of federally designated threatened species, inhabit the river comdor. Pileated woodpeckers are the largest primary excavators, using snags and decaying older trees for foraging and nesting. Draft May 11, 1992 Nestucca Section b IV) FLOW ANALYSIS A) Data Sources The only data source for boating flows was the Soggy Sneakers Guide to Oregon Rivers WCC 1990). Information on angling flows comes from ODFW. Generally it is assumed that angling needs are normally met by flows for fish habitat. Minimum flows for boating are mid-range for angling. Recommended flows of 1000 cfs would serve both recreation activities during the time the flows are likely to occur. Fishery flows come from the ODFW basin investigation. The same amounts have been applied for as an instream water right.
B) Flow-Dewndent Use and Value Summary The following activities and flow ranges were identified from the data given above.
FLOW-DEPENDENT USES AND VALUES NESTUCCA RNER USE FLOW RANGE SEASON OF USE INTENSITY OF (cfs) USE Angling 500 - 2500 all year high Canoe 500 - 2500 November - April unknown Kayak 500 - 2500 November - April unknown Raft 500 - 2500 November - April unknown
C) Recommended Scenic Waterway Flows Recommended scenic waterway flows are based on recreational flow during November through April. During the May through October period, fishery flows determined the recommended scenic waterway flows. Draft May 11, 1992 Nestucca Section
Table 3 FLOW DATA FOR THE NESTUCCA SCENIC WATERWAY
Mean Monthly Flow (cfs) measured at Beaver (gage #14303600) - -
Minimum Maximum Avenge Flow for Recreation Flow Preliminary Flow Flow Flow Fishery Scenic Waterway Flows
January 273 4890 2160 250 500 - 2500 loo0 February 453 2980 1920 250 500 - 2500 loo0 March 634 2830 1590 250 500 - 2500 lo00 April 469 1640 1020 250 500 - 2500 loo0
May 285 1190 550 2501183 2501183 June 183 917 300 123 123
July 96 542 160 123 123
Augua 49 25 1 100 123 123
September 53 412 130 250 250
October 91 842 350 250 250 November 209 3980 1550 250 500 - 2500 loo0 December 257 4440 2440 250 500 - 2500 loo0 SECTION IV
WALKER CREEK Walker Creek Scenic Waterway Draft May 11, 1992 L SECTION IV: WALKER CREEK
I) ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Walker Creek is one of the uppermost tributaries of the Nestucca River, located in the northern Coast Range mountains of northwest Oregon, at an approximate elevation of 2,200 feet. All of the Walker Creek drainage is located in Yamhill County. The Walker Creek area is a combination of hills and wetlands. This wetland is one of only nine wetland sites larger than 25 acres in the northern Coast Range,
Approximately two and one-half miles of Walker Creek is Scenic Waterway designation. About two-thirds of that distance is fronted by land administered by BLM. The remaining frontage is owned privately by either McMinnville Water and Light or other owners.
The A & B Road parallels the downstream portion of Walker Creek. In several places the creek passes beneath the roadway in culverts. Spur roads extending from A & B Road provide access to upper portions of the creek and are heavily used year-round for recreation, hunting, timber hauling and forestry administration work.
The BLM has proposed an ACEC for the Walker Flat area of Walker Creek to protect a sensitive species of wild flower, Nelson's checkermallow.
B) Topography Walker Creek is a meandering stream, flowing through meadows and wetlands. Tall conifers on the surrounding hills frame the wetland and meadow areas. According to OPRD this landscape feature is unique and is rarely found in interior valleys along the east slope of the North Oregon Coast Range. Beyond the point at which A & B Road diverges from the creek, the Walker Creek wetlands dominate the stream channel. The wetlands are positioned at the confluence of the mainstem and two east-west aligned forks of Walker Creek. The marsh consists of small ponds populated by skunk cabbage and other aquatic plants.
C) Vegetation The channels of Walker Creek intertwine amongst islands of willow. As one moves away from the marsh in a westerly direction, a meadow area unfolds. In the central part of the meadow, slough sedge and bulrush predominate. On this drier ground, native red fescue grasslands are interspersed with early blue violet, strawberry, and Nelson's checkermallow. Nelson's checkermallow is listed as a state threatened species and is a federal candidate for listing as a threatened species. The hillsides are dominated by second-growth Douglas fir. Most of the private ground in this area has been recently logged. Draft May 11, 1992 Walker Creek Section 4 D) Hvdroloey Recently, McMinnville Water and Light and the USGS established a staff gage on Walker Creek. However, the Water Resources Department has not estimated flow.
11) RECREATION The Walker Creek area is not well known for its recreation opportunities. The major recreational activities include hunting and nature study.
Flow-Related Activitig 1) SCENIC VIEWING Some bird watching is credited to the Walker Creek area. This use may be limited to a few individuals. No use records have been kept in this area.
2) HUNTING The Walker Creek area is popular for hunting both deer and elk. No specific use records have been kept for this activity.
Flow-Dependent Uses 1) ANGLING Some attempts at angling may occur in this area. No documentation of use can be found. m) FISH AND WILDLIFE A) Fishlife 1) Anadromous Fish Small numbers of sea-run cutthroat trout, coho salmon and steelhead have been found as far as two miles up the mainstem of Walker Creek.
2) Resident Fish Native resident cutthroat trout have been found in the mainstem of Walker Creek as high as two and one-quarter miles upstream of the confluence with the Nestucca and tributaries to Walker Creek.
B) Wildlife Big game with scenic waterway includes Roosevelt elk, black-tailed deer and black bear. Beaver, mink, ramn and other mammals associated with wetlands are also present. Various birds associated with the Northern Coast Range are present during most of the year. Draft May 11, 1992 Walker Creek Section 6w IV) FLOW ANALYSIS A) Data Sources There are no data available for flow-dependent values.
B) Recommended Scenic Waterwav Flows Since little applicable or relevant data exist, in terms of both accurate flow and fishery values, no findings can be made at this time. Before any findings could be made, an assessment of the fish and wildlife needs would need to be made.
References
REFERENCES
Diack et al. v. City of Portland, et al., 1988. Oregon Supreme Court decidon, 306 OR 287.
Garren, John. 1991 and 1987 Oregon River Tours Touchstone Press and Garren Publishing. Portland, OR
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1992. Oregon Sport Fishing Regulations for Fin Fish, Shellfish, Bullfrogs, and Marine Invertebrates. Portland, OR.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1986. North Umpqua River Fish Mangement Plan.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1990. Progress Report 1988 - 1990 North Umpqua River Fish Mangernent Plan.
Oregon State Game Commission. 1972. Supplement to Investigation Repon. The Fish and Wildlife Resources of the North Coast Basin and Their Water Use Requirements.
Oregon State Game Commission. 1972. Investigation Report. The Fish and Wildlife Resources of the Umpqw Basin and Their Water Requirements. L Oregon State Parks and Recreation Division. 1980. North Umpqua River and Steamboat Creek Scenic Waterway Study
Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department. 199 1. Nestucca River/Walker Creek Scenic Waterway Management Plan
OWRD. 1989. Scenic Waterways and Wild and Scenic Reaches of the North Umpqua Rivec A Water Resources Swrvnary. Salem, OR.
OWRD. 1989. Scenic Waterways and Wild and Scenic Reaches of the Nestucca Rivec A Water Resources Swnmary. Salem, OR.
OWRD. 1989. Scenic Waterways and Wild and Scenic Reaches of the Owyhee Rivec A Water Resources Summary. Salem, OR.
OWRD. 1989. Scenic Waterways and Wild and Scenic Reaches of the Wallowa Rivec A Water Resources Swnmary. Salem, OR.
Robison, E. George. 1991. Water Availability for Oregon Rivers and Stream. OWRD, Salem, OR. References USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management and Oregon State Parks and 4 Recreation Department 1992. Preliminary River Management Plan for the North Umpqua River.
USDA Forest Service. 199 1. Drafr Resource Assessment for the North Umpqua River.
USDA Forest Service. 1986. Nestucca River Basin Anadromous Salmonid Habitat Overview.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1984. Management Plan for the Nestucca River Area Of Critical Environmental Concern.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1990. Environmental assessment of timber sales in Walker Creek Basin Memory Meaabws/Walk-on-by timber harvest and reforestation plan.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1986. Environmental Assessment for Nestucca River and Elk Creek Fisheries Projects.
Unites States Geological Survey Open-File Report 90-118 with Oregon Water Resources Department. 1990. StanansticalSwnmaries of Streamflow Data in Oregon: v. 1--Monthly and Annual Streamflow, and Flow-duration Values. Portland, OR.
Willamette Kayak and Canoe Club. 1990. Soggy Sneakers: Guide to Oregon Rivers. WKCC, wmI4 Corvallis, OR. Personal Contacts
Personal Contacts
Eixenburger, ~ondd.1992. Research Analyst - Instream water rights coordinator, OPRD
Ericson, Dave. 1992. Recreation Planner, Roseburg District BLM
House, Bob. 1992. Fisheries Biologist Salem District BLM
Klumph, Rick. 1992. District Biologist, ODFW
Loomis, David. 1992. District Biologist, ODFW
Mirati, Albert. 1992. Instream Water Rights Coordinator, ODFW
Prather, Richard. 1992. Resource Area Manager, Salem Distric BLM
Stone, Jamie. 1992. Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinator Umpqua National Forest
Murphy, Ron. 1992. Wild and Scenic Rivers Planner, Umpqua National Forest
11, 11, Riddle, Randy. 1992. Owner Cimmaron Whitewater Outfitters
Wickham, Ken. 1992. Vice President, Oregon Guides and Packers Association
Attachment 3 hi* Analysis of Public Comment I. Nestucca:
Comment; Flows that would prevent fire fighting would have a negative impact on the resource values.
The WRD has never required a water use permit for fighting wildfires. Where water is used for non-emergency forest management purposes such as road watering, slash burning, or chemical application, a permit is required and would be subject to "Diack"findings.
Comment: Optimum flows for angling on the Nestucca appear to be from 516 cfs to 1956 cfs.
R& R& Normally the flows for fish habitat are assumed to meet the needs on angling. Flows for boating are mid-range for the angling flows, this would protect both recreation activities.
Comment: Single literature sources should not be used to establish any flows.
Reply: Whenever possible several sources are used to confm the literature search. When this is not possible, the literature is used as the best available information.
Comment: Flows for fishery are too high. No flows should be established that are not met less than 60 to 85 % of the time.
Re~lv; Flows for fishery are based on fish fife requirements in the instream water right application from ODFW. Even flows that might onIy be met occasionally may still be of great importance to maintaining values within the scenic waterway.
Comment; Establishing boating flows on the Nestucca will encourage trespassing at Silver Falls.
Repls The Water Resources Department does not encourage trespass. The Water Resources Department is attempting to quantify flows that will allow recreation to occur at its present levels. Comment: The flows for fishery purposes on the Nestucca are sound because they are based on some sort of scientific fact. However, flows for recreation on the Nestucca are inappropriate because they will prevent us from getting new water rights.
Re~ly:The flows for fisheries on the Nestucca are not met in all months. The recommended flows for recreation are met in the months they are proposed.
-t -t The discussion of the lower boundary for the Nestucca should not be in the report.
Re~lsThe Water Resources Commission must know what areas lie upstream of the scenic waterways in order to process future water use applications. Because the language of the e* designation is not clear, the purpose of the description of the lower boundary for the Nestucca Attachment 3 is to clarify the size of the "Diack" area. Without this discussion there is the potential of including more area than is needed.
Comment: McGuire Dam already impacts the Nestucca. The expansion of the McGuire Dam will cause more harm to the river.
Re~lr;Operation of the dam is covered under an existing water right. Issuance of any new rights will be subject to "Diack" findings.
Comment; The establishment of flows for the Nestucca will not do any good as long as the seals and sea lions are allowed to eat the fish in the bays.
Re~lv:Flows for fishery purposes will protect whatever fish may be in the river.
Comment; The language of the repealed spring registration statutes indicated that people would not need to have water rights for springs.
Repl~If a spring leaves the property it arises from, a water use permit is required. The purpose of the original spring registration bill was to protect the potential water rights of the original owners of springs. This was to protect the property owner that may have subdivided this land after developing a water source from a spring.
11. North Umpqua:
Comment: The scenic waterway assessment process appears to be a rule. There should be a longer comment period.
Revlu; The scenic waterway flow assessment process is not a rulemaking process. The requirements of findings for "Diack" areas are for each application. Each assessment compiles information to use in making mandatory "Diuck" findings The information may be used in the permit process, but it is only used as data. If and when newer information is available, the recommended flows can be adjusted.
Comment: The "Oregon Method" does not use hydrologic records to establish the instream needs for fish habitat. Therefore "Diack" flows should not use the "Oregon Method" numbers.
Re~lv:The fishery flows for the "Diack" flows are based on the instream water right application by ODFW. The Oregon Method utilizes an analysis of the stream-flow, channel characteristics and life stage of the fish to develop the required depth and velocity for various times of the year.
CommenL The "Diack" flows should be coordinated with Douglas County. There should be a reservation (condition on instream water rights) for certain uses such as irrigation, stockwater, domestic, recreation, commercial and limited licenses. A flow of 10 cfs is not unreasonable to reserve for these purposes considering the flow of the North Umpqua. Attachment 3
8, Reuly: The sole focus of the assessment is to document streamflows to support recreation, fish and wildlife in the scenic waterway. If Douglas County has information, now or in the future, about such streamflows, the information will be passed on to the Commission. The appropriate forum to address allocation issues is either through a formal request for a reservation or through the opportunities afforded concerned parties in the instream water rights process.
Comment; The federal agencies propose monitoring the recreation uses of the North Umpqua as part of the National Wild and Scenic River management plan. Pacific Power and Light are going to study the instream flow values as part of their five-year hydroelectric relicensing effort.
Red& The Water Resources Department supports this effort for better information. The WRD will be active in this study and analyze this information when it is available.
Comment: The flow for recreation should be based on use between Steamboat Creek and Rock Creek, a wider, shallower reach.
R~D~Y:Experts interviewed on recreational boating did not indicate that the flows between Steamboat Creek and Rock Creek are different than those that support recreation for the entire reach.
Attachment 4
Comments on North Umpqua
1. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2. Umpqua National Forest 3. Douglas County Public Works Department 4. Jim Berl , Oregon Guides and Packers Association
: "DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND April 21, 1992 WILDLIFE
Southwest Regional Office
Bill Fujii Recreation Coordinator Water Resource Department 3850 Portland Road NE Salem OR 97310 Dear Bill: Thank you for the presentation on the North Umpqua Scenic Waterways Flow Assessment. I am sorry I could not attend the public meeting in the evening to listen to any comments regarding fisheries issues. I have a few comments to the draft report you made available(March, 1992). Overall, the report is a very good documentation of the fisheries resources. pg 10 (2) Angling-The ODFW conducted a angler creel survey in 1990. A total of 14,000 steelhead angler trips were estimated from June 1-October 31 in the Lower Umpqua corridor. This compares to a similar statistical creel survey estimate of 6,400 trips in 1977. The ODFW has recognized through its history of angling regulations that this summer steelhead fishery on the North Umpqua is very important and valuable. pg 11 (1) Anadromous Fish-The coho salmon population in the North Umpqua is designated as "documented depressed" status by the ODFW. The migratory cutthroat trout population is currently designated as severely depressed status by our Department and is recommended as a sensitive species based on its very low returns in recent years (10 fish in 1991.) ODFW initiated a total angling closure on all unmarked migratory cutthroat trout in 1992. ,. .-A:?C :"i.9 8.39 - 4192 N Umpqua Hwp. Roscburg, OR 97470 (503) 410-3353 FAX 673-0672 pg 11 (2) Resident Fish-Brook trout should not be included in the list for the lower section. Umpqua squawfish should be added to the non-game species list. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely,
Dave Loomis Umpqua District Fish Biologist c-Gail McEwen Forest Unpqua National Forest Service PO Box 1008 L L- Roseburg, OR 97470 >- . . -8. L... ( 503 672-660 1 / q. I , , .! I.'. ; - TO: ' 8.AEPLY 2540 DATE: April 24, 1992
Mr. Bill Fujii, Recreation Coordinator Oregon Water Resources Department 3850 Portland Road NE Salem, OR 97310
Dear Mr. Fujii:
Thank you for meeting with us last week concerning the North Umpqua River Scenic Waterway Assessment. Umpqua National Forest Representatives Mikeal Jones and James Stone attended the agency and public meetings you held on April 9, 1992. The assessment proposes preliminary scenic waterway flows of 890 cubic feet per second measured on the North Umpqua above Copeland Creek from July through November and 1,020 cfs measured above Rock Creek (gage discontinued 1945) from July through October. Applications for new water uses would not be approved if they would reduce flows below these levels. This letter is our formal cmnt on the assessment. b 1. We urge you to consider information collected in the future before issuing instream water rights for fish, recreation, or water quality on the North Umpqua River. We appreciate the necessity of establishing llDiack flowsll on the scenic waterways and the difficulty establishing fish and recreation-dependent flows. The Umpqua National Forest will sign a management plan soon for the North Umpqua National Wild and Scenic River, and we propose monitoring flow-dependent uses. Pacific Power also plans instream flow studies of fish and recreation values over the 5-year relicensing study of their Toketee hydroelectric project (beginning the su;nmer of 1992 1. 2. There is presently no stream gage iinnediately above Rock Creek on the tiorth Unpqua River. :ie request that the Preliminary Flow Assessment for the Scenic 'daterway reach from Steamboat Creek to Rock Creek, be administered according to tne assessn~entprelirriinary flor~syou proposed for the upper reach, measured at Gage #14316500 rlorth Urnpqua above Copeland Creek. Administering assessment flows from the single gagin3 station above Copeland Creek will require an initial assumption that, for exanple, when the upper reach is flowing 890 cfs, the lower reach flows are at least 1,020 cfs. Since the lower reach flows are based on fishery values only, future work may identify different recreztion-reiated flows. The Preliminary Scenic Waterway Flows above Rock Creek should be based on boating experiences between Steamboat Creek and Rock Creek, a wider, shallouer reach. The North
Car~ngfor the Land and Serv~ngPeople Unpqua Wild and Scenic Ibnagernent Plan, if approved, proposes a strean gage on the North Umpqua above Rock Creek and administration based on that location could begin when the gage is installed. 3. Finally, wz ask that you consider dornestic water for existing and future recreation in the basin, as well as flow-dependent recreation, before' instream water rights are issued. If you have any questions, please contact Mikeal Jones. Sincerely,
LEE F. COONCE U Forest Supervisor
Caring for the Land and Serving People PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Adminislnlion Enlintcring and Cnntlrurtion Oprarions mnd Maintraancr Watrr Rr6ources Sumry Rcom 2IY / Ctunh.u,c Rgum 301 . C.,unh~wrc ?.'lib St. Dmmond Lair Blbd Rmm 103 ;Jusricr Building Ro,cbu.f Orcgcn Y7470 R April 23, 1992 Bill Fujii, Recreation Coordinator Oregon Water Resources Department 3850 Portland Road, NE Salem, Oregon 97310 Dear Mr. Fujii: The following is Douglas County's comments to the proposed scenic waterway streamflows as discussed at the interagency meeting in Roseburg April 9, 1992. These comments reflect the thoughts of the Douglas County Water Advisory Board and Water Resources Survey staff . 1. Based on the comments made by Rick Bastash and yourself at the meeting, it appears that the proposed flows will be used to limit future appropriations on the North Umpqua River above Rock Creek. In lieu of a guide for the Commission, Rick indicated these flows would be the determining factor as to the availability of water for consumptive use. If this is the case, the proposed flows would have the affect and weight of rules not guidelines. I suggest you process the report on the North Umpqua River as a rule, not as a guide with two tlopen housett discussions. There has not been sufficient public involvement to adopt the paper as a regulatory tool. 2. It is my understanding that the tlDiackwflows are to be the minimum flows needed to support the purposes of the scenic waterway. I note that the fishery flows for the segments are the optimum flows as identified by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department (ODFW) in their 1972 report. I would point out that the Oregon Method which identified the flow levels does not consider actual hydrologic conditions as one of the flow development criteria. Diack flows should be based on historic hydrologic records not studies which do not consider available hydrologic information. 3. The analysis of flows was based on USGS gages on the North Umpqua River at Copeland Creek and above Rock Creek (now discontinued), The County, in cooperation with the Oregon JI Water Resources Department, has had a continuous recording station on the North Umpqua River Below Steamboat Creek (14- 3168) since 1972; This data should be incorporated in the analysis. 4. The Diack flow levels should be coordinated with the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan, Water Resources Management Program and the County's response to the ODFW's instream water right request. Based on those data, up to 10 cfs should be set aside for additional appropriative uses. Some examples of appropriative uses are: OStockwater ODomestic OIrrigation under 10 acres OCommercial (Steamboat Inn pending application) recreation (additional BLM/USFS/County Parks) OLimited License (road repair, construction, etc.) A finding that up to 10 cfs would not injure the scenic qualities of the waterway by the Oregon Water Resources Commission should meet the criteria of the Diack decision. Certainly, 10 cfs out of 700 - 1000 cfs would not affect the 4 qualitylquantity of the waterway. In fact, current measurement methods could not identify the quantity requested. The County believes the information considered to date and the process selected to develop staff's recommendation to the Commission is not sufficient to present to the Commission at their June meeting. Because the "guidelinesN proposed will, if fact, become criteria for issuing future water rights, additional consideration and public involvement is warranted. Thank you for your consideration. M . d~hn/bu$~uist Water esources Coordinator March 30, 1992 Mr. Bill Fujii, Recreation Coordinator Scenic Waterway Flow Assessment Water Resources Department 3850 Portland Road N.E. Salem, OR 97310 Dear Mr. Fujii, Subject: North Umpqua and Nestucca Scenic Waterway Flow Assessment This letter is in response to the above mentioned Assessment Sheet. As a licensed outfitter on the North Umpqua I want to stress the need for instream water flows for recreation and fish. As an outfitter, I support Randy Riddle's idea to lower flow releases at night (maintaining safe minimum levels) and increasing daytime flows for recreation. I am also Region 2 Vice President for Oregon Guides and Packers (OG&P). OG&P strongly supports instream water riqhts for fish and recreation. Please take these factors into consideration. Sincerely. Jim Berl Jim's Oreaon Whitewater Reaion 2 Vice President, OG&P Attachment 4 Comments on Nestucca 1. Oregon State Parks and Recreation 2. Oregon State Marine Board 3. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 4. Tillamook Resource Area Bureau of Land Management 5. Jack Nichols (McMinnville Water and Light) 6. Ralph and Dorthy Pieren 7. Friends of the Nestucca 8. George Williams PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT DATE : May 11, 1992 TO: Rick Bastash Water Resources Department FROM : Steve Brutscher p.1.' Planning and Grants Manager SUBJECT: Nestucca Scenic River Recreational Stream Flow Assessment The recommended recreational flows for the State Scenic Waterway segment of the Nestucca River are based on those found appropriate for kayaking, canoeing and rafting from November through May. Intensity of use during this time period is currently unknown. Concern has been raised whether such use is of a significance to warrant the recommended flows. This concern apparently equates significance with intensity of use. While present intensity may be one factor in considering significance, it is only one among many. The current impression is that the identified uses on the Nestucca are not intense; however, in our opinion, that does not lessen their significance. This is based on several factors: 1. As identified in the 1987 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), many boaters prefer boating on rivers with some degree of social isolation. The SCORP advocates provision of such opportunities as maintaining a diversity of recreational opportunity as defined by the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum. Rivers with low frequency of use can be defined as significant because of this desired quality. 2. The Nestucca, by virtue of its designation as a State Scenic Waterway directs present and future enhancement of recreational values. By definition identified recreational opportunities such as non- motorized boating are significant. 525 Trade Street SE Salem, OR 97310 (503) 378-6305 FAX (-503)378-6417 73-1 10-800 Rick Bastash May 11, 1992 Page 2 3. Non-motorized boating in the geographic area of the Nestucca is projected to increase by 38% by the year 2000. Its proximity to the growing population centers in the Willamette Valley suggest that boating on the Nestucca can be expected to grow, especially as other rivers grow more crowded. Maintaining flows for present and future recreational demand is crucial. Based on these factors, we believe that canoeing, rafting; and kayaking opportunities on the Nestucca Scenic River are significant and the recommended recreational flows should be approved. DE:jn FLOW. MMO - May 13,1992 a, i STATE Bill Fujii, Recreation Coordinator ',', ,. MARINE Scenic Waterway Flow Assessment Water Resources Department BOARD 3850 Portland Road N.E. Salem, OR 97310 Dear Bill: We have reviewed the Department's report assessing flow needs for the North Umpqua and Nestucca scenic waterways. For both rivers we support the adoption of the preliminary flows as listed. In addition, we have discussed with State Parks' Scenic Waterway program staff the specific issue surrounding the "significance" of recreational boating uses on the Nestucca River. We support their position as articulated in their May 11, 1992 memorandum to Rick Bastasch. Based on the proximity of this resource to the metropolitan Portland area, we must assume that demand for technical whitewater boating like the Nestucca provides exists and will only increase. In addition, since the amount of actual whitewater boating use currently taking place on the Nestucca is unknown it is inappropriate to h~ determine significance on the sole basis of assumed amounts of use. In conclusion, the minimum flows identified in the Department's assessment will protect and enhance the resource values of the Scenic Waterway; be consistent with the proposed allocation policies of the Department; and, in fact, constitute a beneficial use of water and fulfillment of the public trust. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, Waterway Planne April 9, 1992 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND Bill Fujii Scenic Waterway Flow Assessment WILDLIFE Water Resources Department 3850 Portland Rd. N.E. Salem, OR 97310 T~llarnookDistrict Office Dear Bill; After attending your meet,ing(s) on April 8 in Tillamook and being able to hear some of the other agencies and publics concerns I would like to submit the following corrections, comments, and information that may be helpful for flow assessment in the Nestucca Scenic Waterway. On page 21 of the draft under the heading of resident fish, rainbow trout and brook trout should be deleted. Under the wildlife heading, the specific reference to the nest on Creek should also be deleted for the same reasons stated by BLM personnel. BLM personnel expressed concerns over the potential need of water rights for silvacultural practices, specifically fire fighting. The immediate negative impact to the riverine resource that would be associated with water withdrawal during a fire situation may likely be far less than the potential long term impacts that might result from an uncontrolled or potentially catastrophic fire. There should be emergency provisions to address such events; this should also include rural fire districts which may have need to draft water for domestic firefighting needs. General provisions might be as simple as standard screening requirements and not allowing a section of the river to be "dried up". This whole area is one that probably needs attention statewide, not just in scenic waterways, given the current direction of water related issues. Other practices that would require water use, such as herbicide mixing, dust abatement, etc. should be .% - .. mc9'. ,,*d required to obtain limited use permits which could .1-+I -A: be evaluated and cor~ditionedas necessary to protect .,*4 the resource. 4009 Tlurd Street Attached is a sheet showing gauge readings in feet. Tlllan~()LOR97141 and favorable fishing conditions for several coastal (503)s42-1'41 FAX 842-8385 river systems. '1'0 my knowledge this is based on the "Beaver gauge" on the Nestucca. As best I could run down it was developed in the mid to late 1960's by the local biologist based on observations, personal cont,acts with anglers and guides, and gauge readings. Over time, depending on watershed conditions, it tends to get minor modifications; but by and large the flow ranges pretty well appear to reflect fishable conditions. Not many people seem to "plunk" anymore so we currently consider the fishable range to be in the area of 3.5' to 6.5' with the better angling in the 4.0' to 5.5' range. Two individuals that are very familiar with the river who may be able to provide a current assessment of fishing flows are: Ray Hammar John Bracke 31020 Hwy 101 S. 21405 SW Breenslope Rd. Hebo, Or 97122 Beaverton, OR 97007 392-4269 642-9174 Also attached for your information are some species life history graphs and a map showing the angling closure periods and locations. On the life history graphs only the chum would not be found in the scenic waterway area; all other species listed will be present for all the stages shown. The map with angling closures makes the written regulations a little easier to understand and to visualize. I would estimate that 90% of the angling on the Nestucca takes place below Blaine, even before the winter steelhead closure went into effect in 1992. The salmon closure has been in- effect for a number of years. If you have questions regarding this additional information, or about concerns noted at the public meeting that we may be able to address please contact me or Rick Klumph at 842-2741. Sincerely, Keith Braun Assistant Fisheries Biologist cc: Mirati Region w/o attachments file Nestucca Fishing Regulations fAN ac cc 2 ALDER ULN CG - Closed to Adult Salmon Aug 1 - Oct 15 3 Closed to Adult Salmon Entire Year Closed to Steelhead Nov 1 - May 22 En tire Scenic Waterway Closed to Trout April 1. - May 22 Closed to-- Coho Angling Entire Yea va Fovorab/e for P/unking. 1 TILIAMOOK DISTRICT I JAN 1 FEB 1 MAR^ APR! MAY^ JUN 1 JUL I AUG~SEP 1 OCT~NOV~ DEC~ SEARUN CUTTHROAT Adult migration / holding I Spawning Incubation Juvenile rearing JAN I FEB I MAR^ APRI MAY 1 JUN I JUL I AUG~SEP I OCTI NOV~DEC' RESIDENT CUlTHROAT Adult migration / holding Spawning Incubation Juvenile rearing I I SYSTEMS PRESENT SEARUN CUTTHROAT: MIAMI, KILCHIS, WILSON, TRASK, NESTUCCA, L NESTUCCA, NESKOWIN, POSSIBLY DIRECT OCEAN TRIBUTARIES RESIDENT CUTTHROAT: MIAMI, KILCHIS, WILSON, TRASK, TILIAMOOK, NESTUCCA, L. NESTUCCA, NESKOWIN, POSSIBLY DIRECT OCEAN TRIBUTARIES & ABOVE BARRIERES Adult migration / holding Juvenile rearing Adult migration / holding Juvenile rearing SYSTEMS PRESENT SUMMER STEELHEAD: KILCHIS, WILSON, TRASK, NESTUCCA WINTER STEELHEAD: MIAMI, KILCHIS, WILSON, TRASK, TILLAMOOK, NESTUCCA, L. NESTUCCA, NESKOWIN United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT TILLAMOOK RESOURCE AREA OFFICE 4610 THIRD STREET IN REPLY REFERTO. TILLAMOOK. OR 97141 (086.0) . , 8534 Oregon Scenic Mr. Bill Fuji Recreation Coordinator Oregon Water Resources Department 3850 Portland Road NE Salem, OR 97301 Dear Mr. Fuji: We recently reviewed the document "Preliminary Draft Western Oregon Scenic Waterways Flow Assessment - Nestucca River" dated March 1992 and attended both the Interagency meeting and the Public Workshop held in Tillamook on April 8, 1992. We have several concerns and comments, both general and specific, that you should consider before publishing the Final Flow Assessment. In accordance with Oregon's Water Rights System, "When the water level in a stream Ic is below the minimum streamflow.... holders of water rights issued after the priority date of an instream flow will be required to stop diverting water." As such, if minimum streamflows established for the Nestucca Scenic Waterway were inflated or unnecessarily high due to weak assumptions, ignoring of existing data or other reasons, then future water rights could be unfairly jeopardized without need. This concern will be discussed in more detail in comments on Table 3. We are particularly concerned about setting winter recreation levels based on one individual's assessment (opinion?), and share local resident's concerns that the river is not legally available for surface recreation in the first place. Recreation flows should mirror the most frequent recreation uses (swimming, wading, fishing). Page 18, 4th paragraph: Other major tributaries include Bald Mtn Fork, Bear Creek and Ginger Creek. (Note: Map on opposite page missing many major tributaries). Page 19, 5th paragraph: Minimum and maximum flows presented in Table 3 are taken from Statistical Summaries of Streamflow Data in Oregon (USGS, 1990), which should be referenced here. Page 20, 1st paragraph: Please change the word "most" to "more". We do not know 4 anyone in the Salem District that would consider the Nestucca River area one of the "most" important areas and do not want to give that impression to the public. ' Page 20, 3rd paragraph: Replace the word "designated with the words "identified as". In addition, BLM uses the term "National Back Country Byway", not scenic byway as noted in your document. Page 21, last paragraph: It is against our policy and the T&E Species Act to identify specific locations of threatened species. Please delete 3rd, 4th and 5th sentences, or the entire paragraph. Page 23, Table 3: We have some concerns regardirrg adoption of instream water right flows for fisheries as Scenic Waterway Flows. The Preliminary Flows in Table 3 are 123 cfs for Aug., and 250 cfs for Sept. and Oct. These flows have exceedance levels of 25% in Aug., 15% in Sept. and 40% in Oct. (from Statistical Summaries of Streamflow Data In Oregon, USGS, 1990). We question the validlty of minimum streamflows which are not met from 60 to 85% of the time. A logical interpretation of these numbers is that the Scenic Waterways requirement that sufficient water be available for fish and wildlife is not and will not in the future be met during the Aug. through Oct. period. We believe that Scenic Waterway flows for the summer low flow period should be 4 based on 80% exceedance flows at the Beaver gage. Using the USGS Summaries, the minimum flows would be 72 cfs in August, 71 in Sept. and 100 in Oct. This would more accurately relate the current flow situation to the proposed action and provide the Water Resources Commission with a reasonable benchmark from which to evaluate future water right applications. Thank you for the opportunity to review and ccmment on this document. Sincerely Yours, I Dana R. Shuford 0 Area Manager cc: Prather, Salem D.O. Novak, Salem 0.0. Brooks Bill, YCIU ri~ay want. t.1~1considel- the follctwing factual tjata cumme1its: NESTUCCA SECTION A. Paae 19 at. D) : The Shadtjen dans dild not. f ai1 on i t.s own. It. was vandalized. WALKER CREEK SECTION fi . Map: :3ee F'al-I::s da t.a and t.op13 rilaps . Y13u ' 11 f i nd t.hat. the ri~ainst.emelf Walker gtr~eswestel-ly t11 the sc~urcein sect.il~n .- &,TC:S, R6W. (Trash:: ri~t.~i.7.5' quad. l fils~n1:lt.e 1ocst.iun of Walker Flat. 111n same map. 6. Patqe 24 at. E:): Walkel- Creek xetlsnds is not. a prc~per ge~~graphicalname, 1i1:1 capital letter. C. f'aqe Zb at CT: Nelson's ch~.ck:erri~all~=~wis a candidate species and is in the Federal listing process now. b C. f'al2e 2.5 at. D : There is now a gage I:I~ WalC::el- C:reei:: . Funded hy MWL. Quick and dirty cl~rilrtient.~concerning facts clnly at. t.his t.iri~e. Ot.hel- cl:~ri~riientsniay fs~llowtly close of cor~\ri~ent.periud. OREGON WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SCENIC WATERWAY L FLOW WORKSHOP COMMENT CARD (PLEASE PRINT) NAME: R~lph& 9orothy Pieren ADDRESS: 23305 Rorha Road Beaver, OR ZIP CODE 971°8 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 399-5301 COMMENTS: Our c~mmentis as 10% as the seals ~ndsea lions are ~rotectedit wIll not matter how much water is in the Nestuccariver and other rivers there will he less ~ndless salmon and steelhead. The seals and sea lions are in the mouth of these rivers hy the thousands when the fish run especially and any and all times gou ------can see them in the water. We have watched hun?re4s of them lasinn ------in the sun at the mouth or the river. Thep nee1 off hv the dozens - - - - at a time nnd catch fish PC take one bite oC cish and turn loose k PO for noth her. That is not all these seals rind sea lfons and especially seals are seen miles up the rivers oettio~the fiah. Don't hlame other thinca Ifke lo~oinp,d~ms end too mnny fishermen on these rivers. FTowever if the 'JatJep k Mc'P.!innville keep t~kin~ more & more water out none will he left ?or irrip~tinpk stock ?c people u.se &nd reel-ention on this river (Neetucca). me protection law of these seals find sea livs must be chanoed or soon we will h~veno Cishlna. "he last rew y~arsvery few 8 fishermen are roinv by our door^ he~eon the river as thev are wisino up tr, the fact wh~tis the use to come down with their Fonts anymore. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS PLEASE KEEP ME POSTED ON FLOWS FOR: (CHECK THE SPACE) ALL SCENIC WATERWAYS -0R- THE JUST THE FOLLOWING SCENIC WATERWAYS: JOHN DAY DESCHUTES METOLIUS CLACKAMAS ROGUE ILLINOIS WALLOWAIGRANDE RONDE & MINAM NORTH UMPQUA McKENZIE NF MF WILLAMETTE LITTLE NF SANTIAM ELK OWYHEE NESTUCCA X WALDO LAKE KLAMATH (COMPLETED) SANDY TO MAKE IT EASIER TO SEND YOU THIS INFORMATION, GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS AGAIN (PLEASE PRINT) NAME: Rnlnh Pc Torotby Pierea ADDRESS: 23895 norba Rd !3e,aver. OR ZIP CODE 971q9 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 398- 5301 (FOLD HERE) ---*C.-.-- - RECREATION COORDINATOR C/O OREGON WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 3850 PORTLAND ROAD NE SALEM, OREGON 97310 OREGON WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SCENIC WATERWAY L FLOW WORKSHOP COMMENT CARD (PLEASE PRINT NAME: FRIE NdS OF !RE W1TiCCA ADDRESS; -{CODE -{CODE wqnR TELEPHONE NUMBER: (593) 398-5965 COMMENTS: Frieado of the NEY~UCCB, hc. bas forllre~d lbr ti116 plk-yose vf cuneurvlng the natural resources of the Nestucca Rivor basin in a nsnner that is consistent with the existonce of private property ri~hts, Included in our oreanizetion are 12 individual landowners who would be affected by the propscd "Diack FlowsR for the Upper Xestucca River, It is abeolutoly astounding that an ai~atuerpide book (~ogmsneakers) can 'lie relied upon as the single aource for Ndata* rogardfng the virtually non+xisfcnt use of tho Upper. ~eatuccafor boating. IJe are currently collecting affidavits from federal agencies rogsrding the type of use typically k" occuring on tho Upper Nostucca, including the numbor of parmits issuod for*comerciaZ guiding on this sriia*n:coastal atream. B'rlonaa of tna r.ros.tucca -11 tnere~v1.eomusllycontest these THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMnYENTS APR-24-92 FRI 14 : 12 ROBEH-T. ROOT P-a1 PLEASE KEEP ME POSTED ON FLOWS FOR: (CHECK THE SPACE) ALL SCENIC WATERWAYS THE JUST THE FOLLOWING SCENIC WATERWAYS: JOHN DAY t. DESCHUTESv METOLTUS CLACKAMAS ROGUE ILLINOIS WALLOWAIGRANDE RONDE & MINAM NORTH UMPQUA McKENZTE ., NF MF WILLAMETTE LTTTLE Nl? SANTIAM ELK OWYHEE NESTUCCA IC WALDO LAKE KLAhlATH (COMPLETED) ,SANDY TO MAKE IT'EASIER TO SEhDbYOU THIS INTORMATION, GIVE US YOUR ADDRFSS AGAIN (PLEASE PRIW) NAME: F- OF ADDRESS; ~~0805r;rrr%R NEsTUCCA RD. BBAW, OR ZIP CODE TELEPHONE NUMBER: 398 -5965 (FOLD HERS) place postage here RECREATION COORDINATOR C/O OREGON WATER'RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 3850 PORTLAND ROAD NE SALEM, OREGON 97310 NESTUCCA 40005 Upper Neatucca River bad, Beaver, Oregon 97108 (605) 908-5966 April Up,1992' Nartha Pagal Senior Policy Advisor for Natural Resources 160 State Capitol Salem, OR 973x0 Dear Ib, &gala f am writing to you concerning a: disturbing pattern of inappropriate scenic waterway policy developrcent on the part of the Oregon Depaxtmont of Parks & Rocreation (OPRD), the Division of State Lmds (DSL), and the Water Resources: Department (wN)). As you may already know, the Nostucca Rivor has been used prlnarily for recreational fishing purposoe. Boating on the sconfo waterway soction of this small coaetal stream has boon virtually non-odstent, despite a reference. in nSoggy Sneakers" 2nd edition L(1966) published by the Willamette Kayak & Canoe Club describing a whitevoter run from Rocky Bond Campground to Blaine (about 8 m5.) . This whitewater run was not mentioned in the first edition of the guide and traversee lands that are 86% privately ownod.. Unfortunately, the guide instructs people to use my property and that of neighboring landownar, S. Douglas Jones, for public purposes (see enclosure), As a result, eevoral persons wore recently apprehended for critr~ihltrespass by the 'l'5llamook County Shariff, They atatod they were representinn the Willmette Kayak & Canoe Club (W'CC) and wore conducting a prbfcssionaily guided trip, In othor words, they were using private proporty for their personal financial gain without permission. Since 1986 only five poople havo attempted to run ffSilvor all^" and all of them have made use of my propertyt as well as that of sovoral neighboring landowners, In additton, the guide indicates that the run can bo rnade only under certain extromo high water conditions (which occur only once or twlcs each winter), In conclusion, I find it hard to believe that heresay and criminal trespass wuld be admissable as evidonce in a court of law regardine tha takine of our constitutional property rights. Yet OPN) ia using the guide as evidence to require ocreening of any new rural resi8sntirsl (Low-density) devolopmcrnt from the river. DSL is attempting to use the guide as evidonce of navigability, thoreby assm~ineownership of the bod and banks of the non-navigable Upper Nostucca River,. IJRD is using tho @do as sole evidence for e~tablishingso-callod "Diack Flowsn on the Upper Kestucca R, that would completely preclude any furthor 1agitin:ata lowdensity dovelogment here- IS it just coincidence that tmD planner Bill Fuji and DSL plannor John Lilly used to work for OPRD? Is Bill vujits relationship with hXCC just another coincidence? Does it matter that WKCC states L &PR-24-92 FRI 14r14 ROBERT ROOT I. in testimony to tho Scsnic Watomay Ilearines Officer (10/ql) that the falle Itis too difficult for moat kaydcera to run and therefore noccs~iLatesa portage,..# and "currently to do so is considorod trespaosine, not to do so is considorod suicidefl? How can such a small group of elitists comnand these exorbitant Vfavorsn from the. State of Oregon? Is th3.s what the *conversation with Oregonw is all about? Perhaps it is finally time to formally investigate the relationships of OPRD, DSL, and WID with the WKCC. Perhaps thls might bring to light tho roasona why those agencies are rooking admlnistrutive dobisions, policias, and rules regarding tho Nestucca River that are basod on heresay and unverifiable dopa, Resident cc t b'r, William H. Holmes 1%. Gail L. Achtemvl HESTUCCA -- - 40806 Upper Neaturra Rver Road, Beaver, Oregon 97108 (603) 898-6966 April 14, 1992 Martha Pa~al Sonlor Pol5cy Adviaor for Natural Resourcoa 160 State Capitol Salem, OR 97310 I am writing Co you concei~lingI disturbitlt: pbliern of Snappmpriate scenfc wate policy dnvn'lnpmnt on the part of the Oregon Department of Pwko k Rocreation (03, the Division of State Landa (DSL), and the tlntw RAsO?lrces Department (w). As you may already know, the Nostucca Mvor haa been used primarily for recreational fishing purpooos. Boating on +ha ~a~nfawatalwuy sectlun of thin small ooaotnl otrom has been virtually non-existent, despite a referenae in If~egySneakeren 2hd edition (19S6)' published b;y the Willmette Kayak & Canoe Club deaoribing a whitewater run from C Rodcy Bbnd Cumppund to Dlalile (about 8 ~1.). Thtu whitewater rwt was not mentioned in tha firat edition of ltho guide and frsvarssd land3 that are 86;b privately owned, Unfortunately, the guide instructs poop1.e to use my property and that of neighboring landokmer, 3.. Douglas Jones, for public purposes (see enolosure). As a result, sev~ral pcraons were recently apprehended for crirnlfi,al freepass tho ~'illrunook County Qloriff. They stated they were representing thn 'sltl.lmet,te Kayak & Cmo~Club (WKCC) and wore conduoting a professionally &dod trip. In other words, they wero usix private property for their parsolla1 financial gain without permission. Since 1986 only five people have attempted to run "Silver FaX1sf"and all of th~nhave made una of my property, as wsll as that of several neighboring landownera, In addition, the pJde indicates that the run can be ~adeonly under certadn extren~ohigh water conditions (which occur only once or twice each winter). In concluoion, 1 fjnd it hard to believe that harocny and crMn& trespac~w6uJ.d to admissable aa ev5dsnoa 111 m court of law rogsrding the t&ing of our consti-tutional proporty rights. Yet OPRO is usEng the guide a9 evidance to require acroening of any new rural rssldontial (low-denc5.t~) dovolo2.lment from the riv~r,DSII; is atteuptlnfi to ua~tlk~ &.do ae eviilcrtrrxi of ~i~vigability,thereby acoutning ownerohip ef the bed mid banks of the non-navigable Upper Nestucca River. I\rRD is ushg the pids a9 eole evidence for eulublishine so-called "Diack Ylows* on tlla Uppsr Geatucca R. that would completely preclude any fnrthar lczitimate low-donel tjr dcvslopalont here. Is It just coincidence that WRD plru~rrurRill Fuji nnd D9L glmnsr John Ltill:i uood to work for OPRD? 13 Dill Fuii'a rs?.atir?nship ~dthWI:CC just another ooinoidonoo? Doc3 it trlattor that WI:CC otated in testimony to the Scenic Waterway Iloarings Officar (10/91) that the falls flis too difficvlt fvr wvrrt kdyukerd to rut1 rrlrd Il~eref'oren~ccssitntes a portage,. .a and 11currently to do so ja onnndflnrod traopesfng, not to do so ia conaidered ~uioiden? IIov can euch a small group of elitists command these exorbitant tffavorsNfrom the: State of' Oregun? Is this what the wcoqversation with Oregonn is all about? Yorhpo if is finally time to for~~allyinvestigate the relationehips of OPRD, DSL,. and WN) w14h llse UI(CC9 F+r;lrwyu t1J.u LJAGLCLrlnw Lv llghli .Lhw rsnnonn why these agenolee are ~fi&f.t~ucl~~inistrativa get if lion^, pol j.cj.n,g, and rules regardin6 the. Nos#accn River that are ba.forl on h~rasnyand ~mverifiahla dopa, Resident STATE PAXIS AND 2ECREATION OEPARlMEI.(T 1991 October 23 Gary Minisxewski River Hanagement Flanning Oregon State Parks Dept 525 Trade Street SE Salem, OR 67310 Re. Sestuoca Ri\'or/Valkur Creek Soenlo Waterway Hanagement Plan Thank you for the Draft COPY of the Management Plan, Baslcaliy it 1001;s like n 83od plan. I do have one maJor concern, namely. the lack ui boaters rights to use private land Immediately adjacent to the river when it is noocasary LO ~mrtagea difsiault or danders part of the river. One place in partiaular !s at Xenamtrwi Falls, lt 16 too u~ftic~rltfor most kaynkera to run and therniore nrcessitat~sa portage along abaut 100 ytls of prl\'att property. As you may have hcard at the hearing. the present lando~~nersdo not want boaters to set toot on tneir property and i~11Icol! out the sherlff to lssuc a citation. As long h8 this Jituatlon pfr~ists. the upper ;;estur:ca River i8 egsentlslly olos~dto bahting. Phcrr is also the possibility of R downed tree in the river that may necoss1ta:e a portage at other ylscus on private propar ty. Your plan ciccs recroatLon t~sa resource ol rhe river. But it appears that the lanaownoro hnv* the POwQP Co ~~~ftniiallyOIUSC t.he ~;vcrto tccraatlonal boating. chera anpthlnp that can be done by 3 scenlc waterway managemdnt plan that will allow boaters to use the riverbank for portages? As you 1;now from your rofertnsc on pagc 57 to SO~QSncalt'ers., I have kayaked the Sestucca Rlvbr and think It is an escellent whitewater run, As whitewater boating cont lnues to grow rapid1 y throughout the U.S. and especially in Oregon, the need for whitewater rivers will increase. The Nestucca River should be available to boaters. My postticn represents hundreds of present boa.iars and thousands of future boaters. Thank you for your conaideration. . Doputiec: (503) 042-3410 WILLIN4 0, PORTER FAX (503) 842-2721 BRIM L. ERXCKSON SUPPORT ENF. 842-3411 LEOMARD W HI LLIAWGON TILCAMWK COWVrY Land of Cheese, Tiaes and bar,Oreore NANCY A. NORDLANDER TILLAMOOK COUNTY DISTRICT Al7'OFNEY Tillamook County Courthouse a01 Laurel Avenue, ~illamook,Oregon 97141 Willamette Kayak & Canoe Club June 10, 1992 P.0. BOX 1062 Corvallis, Oregon 97339 ' Dear WXCC, A resident of thia county, hes nelgeson, has been attempting to get thie office to enforce Criminal Trespass in the Second De ree charge6 against persons, generally those on canoe or kayak tw1 ps, who trespass on hie property while avviding some boulders at river mile 32 on the Nestucca ~iver. It appears from what I have seen in your publication, Boggy 8neakere Guide to Oregon Rivere, tl~atyuu &re advising people to kalh over or around these boulders. Hr. Helgeson believes that he owns these boulders and the river bottom, and that persons on the boulders are trespassing. Since there has never been a judicial determination. as to whether that portion of the Neatucca River is nnavigablen or not, this offiae can only warn you that persona on these boulders could face a civil suit against them should Mr. Helgeson decide to proceed civilly on the trespass matter, Whether that portion of the Nestucca River is navigable or not, persons can NOT be on property beyond the high water mark, ae that would clearly be Hr. Helgeawnfe property. If Mr. Helgeson's property te posted "NO TRESPASSING,~~or if he has previously warned people bbobt being on his property above the high water mark, or if they refuse to leave when asked to, we will probably accept a criminal case againet thoee persone. I have enclosed is a cwpy 0% a letter from attorney Lois Albright ' dated April 5, 1991, e~ copy of a Oregon Division of Lands letter and a 1973 letter from Lee Yohnson that will give some of the k~asot~ihgbehind my position in this batter. AN EWAL OPPOUWNITY EMPLOYEfl By this letter, I hope that you will change your advisa Ln your book to those chosing to kayak or canoe on the Nestucca, so they do not find thamecelves facing crlmihaf and/or civil penalties, Very truly youre, bistkf ct Attorney cc: Les Helgeson Attachment 5 "DUCK FLOW" FACT SHEET &at are "Diack flows"? How are streamflow quantities for these purposes determined? "Diack flows" are water levels which support recreation, fish and wildlife The Department uses existing uses in state scenic waterways. In 1988, information to document the range the Oregon Supreme Court in Diadc V. and timing of flows needed for City of Portland ruled that the Oregon recreation, fish and wildlife. Water Resources Department may not Information sources include reports issue permits for new water uses that from federal and state agencies, would reduce flows below levels technical studies, guidebooks and needed in scenic waterways. Before interviews with experts. "Diack flows" approving new applications, the generally encompass at least the department is required to make official minimum identified needs of each findings that the new uses would not scenic waterway use. For each scenic reduce flows below the "Diack flow" waterway, information is presented to levels in downstream scenic the Water Resources Commission. waterways. "Diack" findings are not The commission reviews this required for federally-designated wild information and, if acceptable, and scenic rivers, unless they overlap approves it for use in developing the scenic waterways. required commission findings. Why are they needed? What happens when "Diack flows" are L. identified? "Diack flows" are needed so the deparhnent does not issue new First, it allows the Department to permits to divert water out of stream process water right applications that when sufficient water is not available. have been held pending while flow The Oregon Scenic Waterways Act needs were being determined. Once requires that the free-flowing character the scenic watehvay flow levels are of the waters be maintained in identified, the commission is then able quantities necessary for recreation, fish to process pending applications and and wildlife. Thus, before issuing a make findings on new ones. Pennits water right, the Water Resources can be issued only if the proposed Commission must have clear water uses would not harm evidence that the proposed use of the downstream scenic waterways. water would not adversely affect flows Streamflow analysis often shows needed for any downstream state existing flows may be more than scenic waterway. enough for recreation, fish and wildlife. In some periods, though, existing flows are insufficient for the scenic waterway. Water rights could be issued only for the parts of the year where there is a surplus. Do "Diack flows" change my existing applicants would have to demonstrate ,- water right or permit? to the satisfaction of the commission that their proposed. tpse would not 4 No. "Diuck flaws" are information the have a net adverse impact on scenic commission will use in deciding waterways. ,, f j whether to grant new water rights. )I The department wil not refwe to - Can more water rights ever be issued if ' accept applications solely beca&e the "Diack flows" are not being met? water use is proposed c&ring periods ' when downstream 'scenic watqway . If str~arnflowis less than the approved are * flows not being met ~&v,kwr, , "Diack floaus" pernib could be issued unless applicants supply c~pdling if information was provided that informatio~an J-tream&+v oz provide .. . demonstrated that such a use, at a evideqce tliat their%s&s Wdnot specific location md for a specific adveqely imp;ct [email protected]~senic * volume, would not affect the needed waterways, &a n?~ii~iff~~ii@. x scenic watehay flows. For example, could inqt-'& rritdP. A:$~liq&tshave rights codd be issued to use w rter 2.- .: recourse a>cc~~?est~'case kwg to from an upstream storage dam and fsr disauie ,approve-i -*k~&.acrqg.A certain non-consumptive uses such as c~ntested cq: ;z hcaringTs a fohal instream water rights or hydroelectric ., court-like y~oc~rdinj:where evihnce, projects if they would have no adverse both for and against' hppiiantsy: effect on flow in the scenic waterway. contentiorzs, wouki-be submitted and evaluated. Oil the basis of thip How about additional consumptive evidence, khe commis'siori could 3 uses, li&e municipal use or irrigation? revise the "Diack flows" up or dovin. --& It is possible new consumptive *uses could be permitted during months when streamflows were below approved "Diack flows," but only in ' For add~tiond..information on how "Di ~ckO.C~YS" are identified, contact unusual circumstances. The adopted "Diack flows" are simply data the Bill Fujii at 378-3455, ext. 286. To find commission has ageed to use in out more about water rights issues and scenic waterways; call water making findings, and they remain . the .. open to further information or Rights Znfocir~ationGroup at ,3783739. rebuttal.' New data may become available or other sources of existing ' data may be uncovered, and applicants , may bring fornard new information that better defines flow. Alternatively, applicants might be allowed to consumo*walerupstream, after making arrangements for compensating storage releases or reduced use by other existing water right holders. In other words, .I February 1992 Continue upstream to the pu-In. ellher at Ihs I- bridge. 6.6 milm updream from the take-out or d Rccky Berd CarTp. 8 miles ups4rsarn. Atemate put-ins are at either of two bridges u~tsearnfrom the camp. W- temately, the hrmay be reached from the Wlllarneltr! Valley by driving wxt on the paved road out d: Carleton. Afler $3 rriiles. pass M&e# bke. the Mmters ol the Nermxa River. and conhue to the desired pa-in. Gatage: The gauEla i.; tocared am2 miles bdw Bzavw. Contact the River Forecast Center in Pordand Weral local newspac'm Dl3 the gauge reading duhg 1t-e wirirer seethead flshing =son. A reading of 4 ft fstocslow.~y6ftorsols good. NESTLICCA RIVER Blalne to Hebo Kalhy Sercu Class Ftow 43mdlerrt Miles Chsmcler Season I-2 500- 25 PP 14 rdSng hills rainy m rural Desaipllon: Thk sedkm of the Nesbma starts In the 6ptmety popdated coastal mauntdns and oontinw through the rdlln Mils and dabfarms af Y~%lsnmokCounty. The lrst several miles beZow tZ,Ina are the st €bwem Blalrrp and Beaver them ere numems rWep and a GUI~; Bdw the aonfiuenx wtth Beaver Creek, lust pas ti# cwvfng ledgemete drogsd ga Mslde Ihe tmof Bwer. me rhrf.r characier ch3nges, Hero it becorns wider e!dflaner, yet it stll cmlahs fles. The ImNs- tuma Rivet to the bay Is d-bed by Jones (19321- AIl d the dmp are and can be easHy ,scMed hwn a boat. Many can be vleww hwn tho shuttle mad. At low water Whnlml sna~ewerlrog is renuired to avoid expo& wb-s LQWlevels also projmsevera- good surfing spots Mth nearby eddies. Higher fluas ormlde additional play- spats and ntab most d the dlaljs more slral.ghforvuard, but IncTtssserhe d-mltyof t)re ledye dmp. ThqhmA the run the river sptb into cham rids. All appear to be nrn~MeH there is enough water and there are n, log Jam& Swwpes are present at several spofs arid extra cautlcln sfwnld be taken a! hlgher flows. During cenain dines of the year &hem abwM Remember to be mrteous. The run is witable for open boaters with dass 2 am. DFRlcukl~~:NLW in particuhr: mks at fow wcter. !5hsrtlle: US 101 and c~~nltyroa-3 858 follow the Neslucca River and make muhip4 sxcssngr; d h throughout this secticrn Meny of the bridges an w,nty road 856 Aave bxt laurn. thus allowing baWs to change thf? ie h and d*cvlly ofthe run. The takmut for the emire M is localed on US 101 me mile north d Kebo at the sled trridge, Turn east onto Evergreen Dr. ak the soulh snd d the bridge and park at the pulfoul. An alternate take-w? Is a wayside boat ramp on US 701 I2mess nonh clthe st4brkjge. To reach the put-In. drive ncrth on US 101 to Beaver and turn -st on county road 858 towed 8lalne. The Blaine put-h is 6.3 miles from Beaver at a wtde pulout next to the ther and across fram a large schod-llloe house. Blaine Is 0.3 mile fanher -qxtream. Sk bridges truss the river ktueen Beaver and the Blaine put-In, offer- ing alternate prt-ins and mke-outs. Mdeage horn 6eaver lo each bridge: 1 : 0.3 rn#es:2; 0 9 mbes; 3. 1.5 rnles: 4. 2.5 miles; 5: 3 6 miles; 6: 4-43 mile& Gauge: Contact the Rluer Forecast Canter in Pc.rtland. Readir~gsaye phlisMIn Ical news pers in Ihe winter. A reacilng ot 4.0 It is aboul the mirdmum desirable lever GEORGE W. WILLIAMS 1348 MELROSE AVENUE McMINNVILLE, OPEGW 87126 .. , / , . , -. ' 2,. ? - . . .' :,: ,; ; - : i ., . , . ,, . -...... I . .'.i .; . ;j!- j; , -.. . .<:, <; , ,,,;z.$]: ! r. - ;3 . . . .+,, >.,A I *' . 'A. ;. .%, . +... ?, .., ::; ..& . . 3 ,. .'. , .. ;.,. ... I' . 1 ., .* - A, 'j ' . * .. ' , . , .. ,..I , , ,, :*; '. ' , . , . . > . , . : ,. , . i ,. , ,. !.. -. :,: . ' , p. .>, .'. .! ,. . - .$ >7 :7. . . .: . ..'. . ,,' .... : ..c, . . ,IQ , ,,?, I I .II . , . ). I" .. '.. . , 6, ?'.: ;i Ti, . I I I. . , ,: :!. '. f q.,! < 2 ,e 1 ,,.!..'. , -, . . '. . .. $ .< *.}:,.. ; 1.. ' .I . . 3 I.< >* c. I 'I ,. ' :,. ., - "i:.., - ..;:9;~!*,? 7 , . : ::. , . . .. .??. ; - - .. .5. . . ..,,..: '" , . . . !.+ .' . .. - , >,L! !?a? . . . : , .. , : , < :':;F ;rl+ ;:'I,;< I.:,A ;; I,:.-, , ;% 2. , ...... - . ,..,.-I.- . -,--. .. " ...... ; . . , . : P, , + : ,r.ii..,;.*.-,.4 , -' . , ,. .;; " - '2) ,. .re;?, . , ~ .., , . ,;3 , ,i!!,:{ <,I. ,.$# ,j'., ; ( , .f. ::.>,3",:!, .,.... .:* ..<. . I. I>, . .) -- . ., . . ". , 3 .' ':,: #..,. x.?;. ..., 2;:c L.:s.:=.;..j: :, . .- . .. . .,I i ' !, a.; - -, ,, , ','. " : .. ::; . !i;;.:.. :. ;?.: $I$:, ;;i;:.Y[. L,,.,, -, , . .. . - - iI . . . ,:. : - , .... h .# .,. .' ,.!, ; 1) . .:,*: rJ..- , . >,,: :.,:3.~,;:! ;;:y,,k: , ,.;.J"+i;; +, - ...... -,- I- .+ ..:, !;. el*. Jj,,:.. .. %?r:;:& .:,.! . . . t 4 . m~irrlirv~by increnrills orcars siras $~tdpr~vidi~7d kldcquuia P~~!'''$ :;mitation fJcilitiea Sibp cirar!;~Jemjrkifi~r Q? ublic Lnds and increawd pr~trc-ionsn:vrtill,+ncc should diminish :respassma and '~andausm- C described t-r our guide to whitetirater rivers in Oreoon, a@! Snefiker~boatenfloat the tecreationel section from Rocky cam wround to Bhine. The u per section lo class m-v, and the lower skction is &mile ofpaslocal class 1& We would like 0 rrc same fom of a gn~mnteeof safe passage around the two class IV-V drops in the vicinlty of rivet mile 32, This section known as Silvet Falls Is choked with downed logs. The two bUnd &ups, wl~iLhwe 1uiby expeit borslsrs ca~~isdby &itsr.rnsdiale lave1 boaters. call brcaution and scouting from the shore. Currently to do so is comideied kespnssb?g. not to do so 1s considered suicide. One possible 3olution mag be tebuv a 20' xiW wide swath at the water's edge in the vicinity of these two dro s. Addi tionnlly, Uro putin for the lower see tion is resen$' Vn private tang 1% would like to see the BLM or VSFS wrthare a 70.wide river ~CE~SSlite appreximatecr 1.1 miIes downsban ho$ Rock;, C-G*at the locadon of dilapidated 102 btidp. rnersis parking here for or car* And fhdly. a hka uut site could be dev5bped0.5 "?Stream from Blnine on USFS lend,