DOCSLIB.ORG

Malheur Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Malheur Plan Malheur River Subbasin Assessment and Management Plan For Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Management Plan Malheur Watershed Council And Burns Paiute Tribe May, 2004 Prepared with assistance of: Watershed Professionals Network, LLC Boise, Idaho. Malheur River Subbasin Assessment and Management Plan For Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Management Plan Submitted to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon Prepared Jointly by: Malheur Watershed Council Ontario, Oregon And Burns Paiute Tribe Burns, Oregon May, 2004 Prepared with technical assistance of: Steve Bauer, Ed Salminen, Nancy Napp, Kirk Prindle (EDAW) Watershed Professionals Network, LLC Boise, Idaho. Malheur River Subbasin Assessment and Management Plan For Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Management Plan Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ....................................................................................................................1 1.2 ORGANIZATION OF DOCUMENT........................................................................................................1 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF PLANNING ENTITY ................................................................................................2 1.4 PARTICIPANTS IN THE MALHEUR SUBBASIN PLAN.............................................................................3 1.5 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PROCESS..........................................................................................4 1.6 OVERALL APPROACH......................................................................................................................6 1.7 PROCESS AND SCHEDULE FOR REVISING/UPDATING THE PLAN ........................................................7 2 Vision for the Subbasin ......................................................................................... 9 2.1 EXISTING STAKEHOLDER PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES................................................................11 2.1.1 Soil and Water Conservation Goals ......................................................................................11 2.1.2 Aquatic Species Goals ..........................................................................................................12 2.1.3 Bull Trout Recovery Goals ....................................................................................................12 2.1.4 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Goals ........................................................................................12 3 Subbasin Physical Setting .................................................................................. 14 3.1 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................................................14 3.2 GEOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................16 3.3 SOILS ..........................................................................................................................................16 3.4 CLIMATE ......................................................................................................................................16 3.5 WATERBODIES AND WATER USE...................................................................................................17 4 Aquatic Assessment Summary........................................................................... 19 4.1 AQUATIC FOCAL SPECIES .............................................................................................................19 4.1.1 Bull Trout ...............................................................................................................................20 4.1.2 Redband Trout.......................................................................................................................22 4.1.3 Spring Chinook Salmon.........................................................................................................24 4.2 PERFORMANCE MEASURES ..........................................................................................................25 4.2.1 Introduction to Performance Measures .................................................................................25 4.2.2 Channel Stability or Channel Geomorphology ......................................................................26 4.2.3 Riparian Condition.................................................................................................................27 4.2.4 Flow Conditions.....................................................................................................................28 4.2.5 Reference Condition for Other Habitat Attributes..................................................................29 4.3 SUMMARY OF AQUATIC LIMITING FACTORS AT THE BASIN SCALE....................................................30 4.3.1 Methods.................................................................................................................................30 4.3.2 Channel Conditions ...............................................................................................................31 4.3.3 Riparian Conditions ...............................................................................................................33 4.3.4 Low Flow Conditions .............................................................................................................35 4.3.5 Obstructions ..........................................................................................................................37 4.4 AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES ...............................................................................................40 4.4.1 Channel Conditions ...............................................................................................................41 4.4.2 Riparian Conditions ...............................................................................................................41 4.4.3 Low Flow Conditions .............................................................................................................42 Malheur River Subbasin i Management Plan May, 2004 4.4.4 Obstructions ..........................................................................................................................43 4.4.5 Other Attributes .....................................................................................................................44 4.5 BASIN SCALE LIMITING FACTORS NOT ADDRESSED IN QHA ...........................................................44 4.5.1 Major Dams ...........................................................................................................................44 4.5.2 Exotic Species.......................................................................................................................45 4.6 SUBBASIN WIDE HYPOTHESIS........................................................................................................45 5 Terrestrial Assessment Summary ...................................................................... 48 5.1 TERRESTRIAL FOCAL SPECIES......................................................................................................48 5.2 TERRESTRIAL HABITAT CONDITIONS..............................................................................................50 5.2.1 Characterization of Historic Condition...................................................................................50 5.2.2 Characterization of Current Habitat.......................................................................................51 5.3 BIOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES AND LIMITING FACTORS..........................................................................52 5.3.1 Terrestrial Focal Species Status and Limiting Factors..........................................................53 5.3.2 Optimal Habitat Characteristics for Focal Species................................................................54 5.3.3 Biological Objectives for Focal Species ................................................................................55 5.3.4 Key Limiting Factors for Habitats ..........................................................................................56 5.3.5 Biological Objectives for Habitats..........................................................................................58 5.3.6 Summary Tables of Biological Objectives.............................................................................59 5.3.7 Habitats for High Priority Protection ......................................................................................62 5.3.8 Habitat to Reestablish Access...............................................................................................62 5.3.9 Habitat for Restoration ..........................................................................................................63 5.4 SUBBASIN WIDE HYPOTHESIS........................................................................................................63 6 Strategies.............................................................................................................. 65 6.1 INTRODUCTION TO STRATEGIES ....................................................................................................65 6.2 PROJECTS AND RESTORATION METHODS ......................................................................................66 6.3 STRATEGY TABLES.......................................................................................................................68
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Malheur River Basin TMDL and WQMP
    Water Quality Report Malheur River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) September 2010 Last Updated: 09/2010 DEQ 10-WQ-023 This report prepared by: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 811 SW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97204 1-800-452-4011 www.oregon.gov/deq Primary Authors: John Dadoly and Ryan Michie For more information contact: John Dadoly, Basin Coordinator 700 SE Emigrant Avenue, Suite 330 Pendleton, OR 97801 (541) 278-4616 [email protected] Cheryll Hutchens-Woods, Water Quality Manager Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 SE Emigrant Avenue, Suite 330 Pendleton, OR 97801 (541) 278-4619 [email protected] Eugene Foster, Manager of Watershed Management Section Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 811 SW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97204 (503) 229-5325 [email protected] Malheur River Basin TMDL September 2010 Table of Contents Executive Summary Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Scope of TMDL Chapter 3 Basin Assessment Chapter 4 Pollutant Sources Chapter 5 Summary of Current and Past Pollution Control Efforts Chapter 6 Dissolved Oxygen, Chlorophyll a, pH, and Phosphorus Chapter 7 Bacteria Chapter 8 Pesticides Chapter 9 Temperature Water Quality Management Plan Appendix A Bacteria TMDL Technical Information Appendix B Temperature TMDL Technical Data Appendix C Baseline Beneficial Use Status of the Malheur River Basin Appendix D Quality Assurance Project Plan/Sample & Analysis Plan: Malheur River Basin TMDL Nutrient Water Quality Study
    [Show full text]
  • Or Wilderness Protection in the Blue Mountain Ecoregion Have Been Identified by the Nature Conservancy As Vital to Protect Biodiversity in the Area
    172 OREGON WILD Neither Cascades nor Rockies, but With Attributes of Both Blue Mountains Ecoregion xtending from Oregon’s East Cascades Slopes and Foothills to the from 30 to 130 days depending on elevation. The forests are home to Rocky Mountain intersection of Oregon, Idaho and Washington, the 15.3 million acres elk, mule deer, black bear, cougar, bobcat, coyote, beaver, marten, raccoon, fisher, of the Blue Mountains Ecoregion in Oregon are a conglomeration of pileated woodpecker, golden eagle, chickadee and nuthatch, as well as various species Emountain ranges, broad plateaus, sparse valleys, spectacular river canyons of hawks, woodpeckers, owls and songbirds. Wolves, long absent from Oregon, are and deep gorges. The highest point is the Matterhorn that rises to 9,832 making their return to the state in this ecoregion. Individuals from packs reintroduced feet in the Wallowa Mountains. The ecoregion extends into southeastern Washington in nearby Idaho are dispersing into Oregon. Fish species include bull and rainbow and west central Idaho. trout, along with numerous stocks of Pacific salmon species. Most of the mountain ranges in the Blue Mountains Ecoregion are volcanic. The Depending on precipitation, aspect, soil type, elevation, fire history and other Crooked River separates the Maury Mountains from the Ochoco Mountains, which are factors, one generally finds various combinations of Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, lodge- separated from the Aldrich Mountains by the South Fork John Day River. The Aldrich pole, western larch, juniper and Engelmann spruce throughout the Blue Mountains. Mountains are separated from the Strawberry Mountain Range by Canyon Creek. Beginning approximately at the Lower Deschutes River and rising eastward, the These ranges generally run east-west.
    [Show full text]
  • Bull Trout Biological Assessment May 2017
    Bull Trout Biological Assessment United States Department of May 2017 Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Bluebucket, Dollar Basin, and Northwest Region Star Glade Allotments Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest Grant, and Harney Counties, Oregon Page 1 of 165 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD- 3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992.
    [Show full text]
  • C:\Bull Trout Final\WPD Final\Chapter 14 Malheur Recovery Unit, Oregon
    Chapter: 14 State(s): Oregon Recovery Unit Name: Malheur Recovery Unit Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed necessary to recover and protect listed species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and in this case, with the assistance of recovery unit teams, State and Tribal agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery plans represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Director or Regional Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature Citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 14, Malheur Recovery Unit, Oregon. 71 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Members of the Malheur Recovery Unit Team who assisted in the preparation of this chapter include: Wayne Bowers, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Jason Fenton, Burns Paiute Tribe Tom Friedrichsen, U. S. Forest Service, Burns Ranger District Dan Gonzalez, Burns Paiute Tribe Gina Lampman, Bureau of Land Management Sam Lohr, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • North Fork Malheur River for the National Wild
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Valeg District Office 100 Oregon Street Vale, Oregon 97918 September 1993 North Fork Malheur River Final Eligbility Study Report for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interest of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. administration. BLM/OR/W A/PL-93/44+ 1792 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Vale District Office ®- - IN REPLYREFER- TO:. 100 Oregon Street Vale, Oregon 97918 8354 N. F. Malheur September 2, 1993 Dear Interested Citizen: The Final Eligibility Study Report for the congressionally designated North Fork Malheur Study River finds the river meets the eligibility requirements for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. The report incorporates the pertinent information received during a 30-day public comment period ending October 23, 1992 on the draft study report and information we have gathered since completing the draft report. The primary purpose of the report is to determine if the study river, or any portion of it, is "free flowing" and possesses any "outstandingly remarkable values", as described in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Assessment for a Greater Sage-Grouse
    Draft Environmental Assessment for A Greater Sage-Grouse Programmatic Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for Private Rangelands in Harney County, Oregon Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service December 13, 2013 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................... 5 2 Description of Alternatives............................................................................................................... 7 2.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Landowner Specific Alternative .............................................................................................. 10 2.3 Proposed Action Alternative ................................................................................................... 10 3 Affected Environment .................................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Covered area .......................................................................................................................... 13 3.2 Sagebrush Habitat .................................................................................................................. 13 3.2.1 Sage-Grouse ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Vale District Integrated Noxious Weed
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97266 Phone: (503)231-6179 FAX: (503)231-6195 Reply to: 8330.0133 (4) File Name: RestorBO.doc TS Number: 05-0262 Memorandum To: State Supervisor, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland, Oregon From: Assistant Project Leader, Endangered Species/Land and Water Development Program, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland, Oregon Subject: Intra-Service Formal and Informal Section 7 Consultation for the Oregon Restoration Programs: Coastal, Greenspaces, Jobs in the Woods, Partners for Fish and Wildlife, and Private Stewardship Grants Programs: 2004 to 2009 (ref. no.1- 7-F-04-0133) This document transmits the Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion (BO) based on our review of the Service’s Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (OFWO), Non-Federal Lands Conservation Division’s January 16, 2004 biological assessment (BA) for the Coastal, Greenspaces, Jobs in the Woods, Partners for Fish and Wildlife and Private Stewardship Grants Programs (hereafter collectively referred to as the Restoration Program) for a five year period upon signature of this BO. This BO covers the OFWO and suboffices (Bend, Newport, Roseburg and La Grande) and the Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program restoration efforts throughout Oregon, excluding those areas of Klamath, Lake, and Jackson counties administered by the Service’s Klamath Basin Office (Appendix A). The BA addresses the effects of the Service’s Restoration Programs on those Federally listed species in Table 1 for which the Service is responsible under the Endangered Species Act (Act) as amended (16 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service North Pacific District S R-6 Timber Surveys, Malheur Malheur River Project January 7, 1931
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service North Pacific District S R-6 Timber Surveys, Malheur Malheur River Project January 7, 1931 The Forester, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: The Forest Supervisor’s copy of the descriptive report covering this project, dated May 24, 1928, was loaned to prof. Matthews, of the Forest School of the University of Michigan, in the fall of 1928, to be used by Junior Forester Hulett, who was then working for his Master’s degree. This report was lost. Prof. Matthews has now offered to copy the report for us, but before asking him to undertake it I am writing to inquire whether you have use for the report, or whether your copy might be returned to us for the use of the Supervisor. The report contains a large number of detailed tabulations which make it a very heavy job of stenographic work and I am rather reluctant to accept Prof. Matthews’ offer unless it is necessary. Very truly yours, C. J. BUCK, Regional Forester By J Kavanagh Acting. DESCRIPTIVE REPORT; MALHEUR RIVER TIMBER SURVEY PROJECT (FILE: MALHEUR3) PAGE 1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service North Pacific District S R-6 Timber Surveys-Malheur Malheur River Project April 26, 1929. The Forester, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: There is forwarded, herewith, a memorandum which is self-explanatory and which should be attached to the timber survey project report in this case. Very truly yours. C. M. GRANGER, District Forester By Kavanuagh Acting DESCRIPTIVE REPORT; MALHEUR RIVER TIMBER SURVEY PROJECT (FILE: MALHEUR3) PAGE 2 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service North Pacific District S R-6, Timber Surveys, Malheur Malheur River Project.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Restoration Environmental Assessment
    Aquatic Restoration Environmental Assessment Malheur National Forest August 2014 Malheur National Forest Aquatic Restoration Environmental Assessment For More Information Contact: Steve Namitz PO Box 909 / 431 Patterson Bridge Road John Day, OR 97845 541-575-3000 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720- 6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Malheur National Forest Aquatic Restoration Environmental Assessment Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for the Proposal ................................................................................ 6 Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • 10. Wilderness
    are eventually removed or allowed to deteriorate naturally. Ths is done after creating a written and pictonal record in comphance with Section 106 of the Historic Preser- vation Act of 1966. There is no maintenance, rehabilitation, or on-site interpretation. Prehstoric sites may be stabilized through use of nonmechamzed (hand) methods Any research studies must be consistent with the concept of Wilderness. Mineral management effects would occur during exploration, development, and extraction of minerals, when surface-distnrbing activities take place. These activities may identify prenously unknown cultural properties at some sites, wlnle damaging or destroying his- toric values at others The degree of interaction varies by commodity bang explored, developed, or mined The type of mining operation, degree of environmental alteration required, and location of the development are also key factors. Research on fire effects for cultural resonrces is incomplete and, on this Forest, completely lacking. However, impacts appear to be determned by the nature (controlled versus nnldfire) and intensity of the fire, type of cultural resources within the area affected, and magnitude and location of fire suppression efforts Fire d consume wooden structures unless they are protected through fire suppression activities Fire’s affect on nonperishable artifacts and below-ground features is less severe. However, temperatures above 590° Fahrenheit can canse stone artifacts to spall, break, or crack (Pdles 1982). Fire can also contaminate dating properties at the site Fire may scorch or burn away rock art features Combustion temperatures may also affect faunal and shellfish remans, soil constituents, and site factors that are important in archaeological research. Fire and subsequent erosion may expose artifacts to nndesirable weathering processes and to vandahsm (Pilles 1982; Kelly and Mayberry 1979) Suppression activities associated with fire are also of concern.
    [Show full text]
  • Malheur Resource Area July 2017 100 Oregon Street Vale, Oregon 97918
    Malheur Resource Area July 2017 100 Oregon Street Vale, Oregon 97918 The Northwest Malheur County Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration Project FINAL Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-OR-V040-2015-001-EA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 9 1.1 RELEVANT BACKGROUND ..................................................................................... 11 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................. 12 1.3 CONFORMANCE WITH SOUTHEASTERN OREGON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN OBJECTIVES .................................................................................. 14 1.4 DECISION TO BE MADE ............................................................................................ 18 1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT............................................................................................ 18 1.6 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES ........... 19 1.7 TOPICS NOT ADDRESSED IN THIS EA ................................................................... 20 2.0 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ....................................... 20 2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ..................................................................................... 20 2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................................... 20 2.2.1 Treatment Descriptions ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Malheur River Subbasin Assessment and Management Plan for Fish and Wildlife Mitigation
    Malheur River Subbasin Assessment and Management Plan For Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Appendix A, Part 2 – Aquatic Assessment Malheur Watershed Council And Burns Paiute Tribe May, 2004 Prepared with assistance of: Watershed Professionals Network, LLC Malheur River Subbasin Assessment and Management Plan For Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Appendix A, Part 2 –Assessment Aquatic 1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 7 2 FOCAL SPECIES CHARACTERIZATION AND STATUS ...................................... 8 2.1 NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES OF ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE .......................8 2.1.1 Pacific lamprey ........................................................................................................................8 2.1.2 Mountain whitefish...................................................................................................................8 2.1.3 Other fish species....................................................................................................................8 2.2 BULL TROUT (SALVELINUS CONFLUENTUS): CURRENT POPULATION DATA AND STATUS...................10 2.2.1 Bull Trout: Abundance...........................................................................................................11 2.2.2 Bull Trout: Capacity ...............................................................................................................13 2.2.3 Bull Trout: Productivity ..........................................................................................................14
    [Show full text]