DOCSLIB.ORG

Highlights Contents Bradshaw Drop Irrigation Improvement Project Page 7 Manager’S Message Inside Cover

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Highlights Contents Bradshaw Drop Irrigation Improvement Project Page 7 Manager’S Message Inside Cover JACKSON SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT “Turning natural resource concerns into opportunities” Annual Report July 1, 2016 - June 30, 2017 Highlights Contents Bradshaw Drop Irrigation Improvement Project page 7 Manager’s Message Inside Cover Financial Report i Oregon Department of Our Board 1 Agriculture’s Strategic Implementation Areas pages 10 & 12 Our Staff 2 Our Partners in 3 Conservation Project Achievements 6 & Success Stories Community 14 Education 2017 Oregon Envirothon Champions page 14 The Jackson Soil and Water Conservation District is dedicated to helping the people of Jackson County protect and improve their natural resources. We work with both individuals and communities to analyze and implement science-based solutions to various natural resource concerns, while still protecting the cultural, social and economic values of Jackson County. Manager’s Message on 3 creeks to monitor pesticide levels. Staff also participated in meetings to evaluate Another great year has come and gone and the data and plan for future monitoring. our remodeling, annex, and parking lot This will help all partnering organizations construction projects provide improved “Better Management are complete. Our Practices” for pesticide application, workload increased through education and outreach events. to the level that we hired a Natural Partnership development was instrumental Resource Technician, in the implementation of natural resource Jenna Sanford, to stewardship projects. Working with help landowners the Rogue River Watershed Council plan and implement their stewardship (RRWC), 2 very successful ODA Strategic projects. Our short-term staffing will Implementation Areas (SIA’s) were initiated include hiring an Office Assistant to within Jackson County, totaling just under greet and help clients find the needed $300,000.00. The District is also working resources, people and information, with Rogue River Valley Irrigation District to initiate their planning process. and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) on the design, engineering Our outreach efforts included 13 workshops and funding to pipe 3.2 miles of with 281 participants, the distribution conveyance ditch. Once completed the of several fact sheets and brochures. District, working with RRWC, NRCS and Additionally, 3 newspaper articles, our other organizations will help individual web-site and Facebook helped inform landowners with on-farm irrigation the general public about the work of the conversion projects. The District and RRWC District and its partners. This helped the are monitoring pre-project implementation District provide 153 on-site visits and 218 of return flows into Antelope Creek to landowners receive technical assistance, help evaluate water quality and quantity while developing 5 new conservation plans improvement, post implementation. and funding 7 landowner projects, utilizing the District Funds program. The District Please review the following pages of this report continued working with the Oregon for more in-depth information on these and Department of Agriculture’s (ODA) other great JSWCD projects and programs. Pesticide Stewardship Partnership and Randy White several local partners, sampling several sites District Manager Jackson SWCD Year End Financial Statement Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2017 Statement of Activities-Cash Basis Receipts of Income Property Taxes $920,311 Oregon Department of Agriculture Grant $72,674 Tours, Workshops, Classes 10 Interest $11,983 Grant Revenue $122,259 Lease Revenue $61,255 Miscellaneous $1,950 Total Receipts $1,190,442 Disbursements Personnel Services $426,883 Materials & Services $597,120 Captial Outlay $464.248 Total Disbursements $1,488,251 Balance of Receipts over Disbursements -$297,809.00 Change in net position - cash basis -$297,809.00 Beginning of Fiscal Year $1,254,256 End of Fiscal Year $956,447 i Legend . o C Jackson h ñ t Summit Lakes a m a Soil and Water l About Our Board Stream Section K Conservation District Interstate TownRange Cop T30S eland C Jackson County, Oregon re Hwy/Road R 3E Bybee Creek ek T30S T30S R 4E 1:470,000 R 2E Castle k Cr e Urban k eek e e r e C r ñ f C f Quartz Mountain t u n order to represent the varied a T31S l k dr ee R 2E F r C oo l il W ñ M Miles k ek r re o F 0 2.5 5 10 15 C T31S k h c t T31S i r R 4E interests of Jackson County, L o r N k R 1E e ee t r t C i l Heck Rock Mi l e B Cr ek nkgo ñ S Gi I u g a Date: r p i n e the Oregon Department of C r ñ Bald Mt. e e k e Red Blanket Mt. Signature:__________________________ T32S k ñ e Cr T32S rr R 1W a Larry Ojua R 2W B T32S R 4E ñ W e ek Agriculture has identified five s Pilot Butte e t r B C r lk W a E e n T33S s c ork Rogu k t h dle F e R Douglas Co. e Mid iv F er R 4W e E r o l r k C k C Josephine Co. k T r c k r e k Rogu k district “zones”. Five board o e Fawn Butte or ee e e r e a k h F C R r i ñ t R Round Top l ou i a C C S ve a h t r n k ñ I m T33S l re e a e ñ e k r S Boundary Butte R 4E C M e v o a W r T r e r r s i ai G k t s Board Mt. l L Round Mt. positions represent these zones e F o C o o n e rk r s ñ r Ev ñ e a t n C e C s r C k eek C r t e n r e Battle Mt. e a k s ñ e a k ñ Creek le Camel Hump ark P ñ Cl L Sprignett Butte ong and two are “at-large” positions. Br SShhaaddyy CCoovvee an T34S ch T34S k R 4W e e R 4E r C ek e s Zone 4 e False Face Mt. k Rocky Hill r eek k e C Cr y re Zone 3 e a ñ t ri S C C ñ t e s ch an u an ñ o v B R Zoned directors live in the E n Aqueduct rd g s dfo i eria C Sn t e B h reek id a M k inc e n r w k r o T e c F re C e th r C r C o Oak Mountain e N e e r e in k e ñ d r S k T35S a a Green Top BBuuttttee FFaallllss S m T35S k district zone they represent and s R 4W ñ r F C o R 4E o ur F r bit e C eek t r e h k eek g r i C R k k EEaaggllee PPooiinntt ic e L e S r ke C ñ e Lyman Mt. t all directors must be registered d S e r alt r Cree s a k C W Meyers Hill r e RRoogguuee RRiivveerr ñ ek T36S Gold Hill ñ W Gold Hill Esmond Mt. e s T36S R 4W t B ra U nc R 4E to vote in Jackson County. K pto h a W k n L e n S i Cre lo a l e ¦§¨5 u low g k C h e r C e Bybee Peak e Central Point Central Point r k e ñ e A n k te lo p e Board members are elected by Robinson Butte Johns Peak C S r outh Fo ñ e r T37S ñ e k k L itt R 4W le T37S Zone 1 Bu Eagle Butte S tte C k R 4E o ree ñ d L JJaacckkssoonnvviillllee o a D C Cox Butte Medford r st the voters of Jackson County Medford y C r e ñ C r e e r e k e k k e F e o k e r r es C t C Billy Mt. r n e e a k Phoenix i ñ rmans Phoenix d oo C P r n e I e Grizzly Peak and serve a 4-year term before Wellington Butte k d T38S ñW a ñ a e T38S R 4W lk D e k r R 4E e TTaalleenntt C e r r e e k C k e e an E r a k m s C e e t S e l id ñ r e e C the position is open for re- n o L v r Woodrat Mt. a o e o C C t C ek s e G p r g a r m n l e i e o l h r n T e t k C S e r e k e r e ek T39S C e Ashland r g r Ashland erlin Ditch C T39S R 4W S t e election. n n R 4E g o s Bald Mt. a E p Chinquapin Mt. k Palmer Peak ñ W a m e a k s S e ñ t ñ e r F e C r or ñ d C k y A n an n k e hl s J s h e e l a r A k nd C r Billy Mt. k l o e C i t e e ñ F K r Summarized from t r N e Hells Peak s e e C e n Y e e T40S k C a W ree de ñ k Zone 2 l T40S e R 4W a l Rosebud Mt.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • South Fork of Little Butte Creek Area Naming Proposals
    South Fork of Little Butte Creek Area Naming Proposals Presented by Dr. Alice G. Knotts INTRODUCTION We begin by thanking the Oregon Geographic Names Board for its careful work exhibited and accomplished in recent years for naming geographical features in the State of Oregon. We have identified some physical features in the area of the South Fork of Little Butte Creek located in Jackson County and put forth name suggestions and proposals. We believe that most of them are located on public lands of the U.S. Forest Service or the BLM, but the Knotts Cliff is on private land. 1 Naming Proposals for the South Fork of Little Butte Creek Area Identified in geographic order of approach from Medford, the road up the South Fork of Little Butte Creek and the Soda Springs trail 1009 that follows upstream Dead Indian Creek that is proposed to be named Latgawa Creek. 1. Hole-in-the-Rock Name a rock arch located on top of a hill NW of Poole Hill. Hole-in-the-Rock has been recorded on a BLM map but not with GNIS. 2. Pilgrim Cave Name a rock shelf with ancient campfire smoked walls. A shelter for travelers for thousands of years. 3. Knotts Bluff Name a cliff that defines the northern side of a canyon through which runs the S. Fork of Little Butte Creek. 4. Ross Point Name a prominent point on Knotts Cliff above the cave. 5. Latgawa Pinnacles Name a group of rocky pinnacles located near Camp Latgawa. 6. Marjorie Falls Name a water slide on Latgawa Creek upstream from the soda springs.
    [Show full text]
  • Temperatures Cool by Shading the Stream from Solar Radiation. These
    Chapter 3 Affected Environment Conde Shell temperatures cool by shading the stream from solar radiation. These trees and shrubs also contribute nutrients to the system as coarse organic material that is crucial to the macroinvertebrate communities that support fish and other aquatic organisms. Large wood has been identified as a limiting factor in Dead Indian and Conde Creek systems.5 The effects of large wood on stream form and function are positive, creating pools, trapping sediment, providing cover for fish and other aquatic species, and stabilizing banks during high flow events. Beaver have historically contributed wood in the form of beaver dams, to these systems. Beaver dams are present in the upper section of Dead Indian but absent in Conde Creek. Two dams were observed on Dead Indian Creek, below the confluence with Conde Creek.6 South Fork of Little Butte Creek and tributaries have been identified by Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) (1994) as water quality limited under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. From the mouth to Beaver Dam Creek, South Fork of Little Butte Creek is water quality limited due to flow modification, habitat modification, sediment, and summer temperature. Dead Indian and Conde Creeks are limited by summer high temperatures, exceeding the maximum 7-day average for temperature (>64 F). Temperature monitors placed throughout Conde Creek and upper Dead Indian Creek during the summer of 1998 found water temperatures ranging from 65 - 77 F in late July. 7 The geology of an area plays an important role in describing fish habitat through the physical processes driving a system.
    [Show full text]
  • Little Butte Creek Watershed Assessment
    Little Butte Creek Watershed Assessment Little Butte Creek Watershed Council August 2003 Abstract The Little Butte Creek Watershed Assessment has been prepared for the Little Butte Creek Watershed Council with funding from the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). The Assessment was prepared using the guidelines set forth in the Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board’s 1999 Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual. The purpose of this document is to assess the current conditions and trends of human caused and ecologic processes within the Little Butte Creek Watershed and compare them with historic conditions. Many important ecological processes within the watershed have been degraded over the last 150 years of human activity. This Assessment details those locations and processes that are in need of restoration as well as those that are operating as a healthy system. The Assessment was conducted primarily at the 5th field watershed level, that of the entire Little Butte Creek Watershed. List and describe field watershed levels below. Where possible, the analyses was refined to the smaller 6th field watershed level, thirteen of which exist within the Little Butte Creek Watershed. The assessment also notes gaps in data and lists recommendations for future research and data collection. It is intended that this document, and the Little Butte Creek Watershed Action Plan be used as guides for future research and watershed protection and enhancement over the next decade. The document was developed using existing data. No new data was collected for this project. Where data was lacking, it was detailed for future work and study. Acknowledgements This assessment was compiled and written by Steve Mason.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Reports - Number 96-8
    INFORMATION REPORTS - NUMBER 96-8 Review of Capacity Utilization at ODFW Salmon Hatcheries Mark A. Lewis Fish Propagation Section Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2501 S.W. First Avenue P.O. Box 59 Portland, Oregon 97207 August 1996 CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION................................................................ 1 SUMMARY...................................................................... 1 INDIVIDUAL HATCHERY EVALUATIONS..................................... 3 Bandon Hatchery.......................................................... 4 Big Creek Hatchery........................................................ 6 Bonneville Hatchery........................................................ 8 Butte Falls Hatchery....................................................... 10 Cascade Hatchery......................................................... 12 Cedar Creek Hatchery..................................................... 14 Clackamas Hatchery....................................................... 16 Cole Rivers Hatchery.............................................. ........ 19 Elk River Hatchery........................................................ 21 Fall Creek Hatchery........................................................ 24 Klaskanine Hatchery....................................................... 25 Lookingglass Hatchery..................................................... 27 Marion Forks Hatchery.................................................... 29 McKenzie Hatchery.......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Inland Rogue Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan
    Inland Rogue Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan Developed by the: Inland Rogue Local Advisory Committee Oregon Department of Agriculture With support from the: Jackson, Two Rivers, and Illinois Valley Soil and Water Conservation Districts February 28, 2018 Oregon Department of Agriculture Water Quality Program 635 Capitol Street NE Salem, Oregon 97301 Phone: (503) 986-4700 oda.direct/AgWQPlans Jackson SWCD 89 Alder St., Central Point, OR 97502 (541) 664-1070 https://jswcd.org/ Two Rivers (Josephine) SWCD 1440 Parkdale Drive, Grants Pass, OR 97527 (541) 474-6840 Illinois Valley SWCD PO Box 352 102 S Redwood Highway Cave Junction, OR 97523 (541) 592-3731 http://www.ivstreamteam.org/ Inland Rogue Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan February 6, 2018 Table of Contents Acronyms and Terms Used in this Document ............................................................................... i Foreword .................................................................................................................................................. ii Required Elements of Area Plans .................................................................................................... ii Plan Content ............................................................................................................................................ ii Chapter 1: Agricultural Water Quality Management Program Purpose and Background ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ECR Summary.Pdf
    ISSUES AND CONCERNS AS RELATED TO EXISTING CONDITIONS Introduction The stakeholders who participated in the scoping process, through six four hour meetings, identified over 100 issues that were of concern to landowners, educators, conservationists, farmers, foresters, recreationists, and agency representatives. These issues were categorized into fourteen groups, and from these, the Watershed Advisory Committee (WAC) defined the top ten issues and concerns for the watershed. Please note that the numbers in parentheses after each issue/concern correspond to the order in which issues were raised. They are in no way intended to indicate rank or priority. These concerns were further refined for consensus on exact wording. The top ten issues are as follows: 1. Increased population over the last ten years in the canyon and surrounding areas, as well as future growth, has increased recreational pressures in the watershed without an increased infrastructure to accommodate the use. (Note: infrastructure has not kept up with the increase in population, i.e. the number of wardens.) 2. The decline of the fisheries mainly due to water diversions and lack of screening has resulted in Endangered Species Candidate listing for the spring run Chinook salmon leading to restrictions on Sport fishing and elimination of salmon and trout fishing, and could lead to further watershed-wide restrictions for multiple uses: agriculture, timber management, recreation, urban development, and property rights. 3. The current fuel load in the watershed is at an unacceptable level due to natural response and man- made interventions. 4. Inadequate timber management regulations and practices have potential impact on water quality. 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Methods for Value of Watershed Restoration 2.2.12B
    A Brief Economic Analysis of Watershed Restoration Investments: A Case Study of Southwestern Oregon This methodology report was prepared for the Whole Watershed Restoration Initiative and accompanies Ecotrust’s brochure: “The Restoration Economy: Investing in natural capital for the benefit of communities and salmon in Southwestern Oregon” Prepared by Ecotrust Taylor Hesselgrave, Economic Analyst Cathy Kellon, Water & Watersheds Program Director Kristen Sheeran, Ph.D. Updated May 15, 2012 721 NW 9th Ave, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97209 www.ecotrust.org Table of Contents ABOUT THE WWRI AND THIS STUDY ...................................................................................... 3 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 4 2. RESTORATION & THE LOCAL ECONOMY: Southwestern Oregon ................................ 2 2.1. Methods ............................................................................................................................. 2 2.2. Results ............................................................................................................................... 6 2.3. Single Project Analysis: The Rehabilitation of Little Butte Creek ....................................... 8 3. ADDITIONAL BENEFITS FROM RESTORATION ............................................................... 9 3.1. Non-Market Benefits Of Restoration ................................................................................ 10 3.2. The Value
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Streamflow Records in Rogue River Basin, Oregon
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 187 \ EVALUATION OF STREAMFLOW RECORDS IN ROGUE RIVER BASIN, OREGON B!y Donald Rkhaideon UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 187 EVALUATION OF STREAMFLOW RECORDS IN ROGUE RIVER BASIN, OREGON By Donald Richardson Washington, D. C., 1952 Free on application to the Geological Surrey, Washington 25, D. C. ' CONTENTS Page Page Abstract................................. 1 Syllabus of gaging-stations records--Con. Introduction............................. 1 Gaging-station records-Continued Purpose and Scope...................... 1 Rogue River Continued Acknowledgments........................ 1 Little Butte Creek at Lake Creek... 25 Physical features- of the basin........... 2 Little Butte Creek above Eagle Utilization of water in the basin........ 2 Point............................ 25 Water resources data for Rogue River basin 5 Little Butte Creek near Eagle Streamflow records ..................... 5 Point............................ 25 Storage reservoirs..................... 6 Little Butte Creek below Eagle Adequacy of data....................... 6 Point............................ 26 Syllabus of gaging-station records....... 13 Emigrant Creek (head of Bear Creek) Explanation of data .................... 13 near Ashland..................... 27 Gaging-station records................. 13 Emigrant Creek below Walker Creek, Rogue River above Bybee Creek........ 13 near Ashland..................... 28 Rogue River above
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Spring Chinook Salmon Spawning in Big Butte Creek, 2009
    ROGUE RIVER SPRING CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN Evaluation of spring Chinook salmon spawning in Big Butte Creek, 2008 Rogue Watershed District Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife March 2009 Introduction A conservation plan for Rogue River spring chinook salmon, developed in cooperation with a public advisory committee, was approved by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission in 2007. The conservation plan lists several management strategies to bring numbers of naturally produced spring chinook back up to a desired status level that is sustainable and will support economically important fisheries. Management strategy 9.2 calls for enhancement of spring chinook (CHS) in Big Butte Creek through an increase in the amount of available spawning habitat. A small falls on lower Big Butte Creek (Crowfoot Falls, rivermile 0.6) is considered a partial barrier, limiting the upstream passage of adults, and thus limiting natural production in upstream areas. Two allied action items (Action 2.1 and 2.2) relate to this issue. Upstream passage at Crowfoot Falls might be enhanced if additional ambient flow of cool, spring-fed water can be realized during the upstream migration of adult CHS in Big Butte Creek. Determination of the amount of flow needed to enhance upstream migration would be valuable because flows during the critical migration period are significantly affected by water withdrawal from the creek. As part of conservation plan implementation, ODFW conducted enhanced surveys in 2008 on Big Butte Creek to verify current conditions and explore enhancement opportunities. To facilitate the work, ODFW Restoration and Enhancement Program (R&E) grant funding was utilized to hire two seasonal employees to complete the enhanced surveys.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Little Butte Creek Analysis Area Water Quality Restoration Plan
    Water Quality Restoration Plan Southern Oregon Coastal Basin Lower Little Butte Creek Analysis Area Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Medford District Ashland Resource Area Butte Falls Resource Area October 2010 Lower Little Butte Creek Analysis Area at a Glance Hydrologic Unit Code Number (Little 1710030708 Butte Creek) WQRP Area/Ownership Total: 112,922 acres BLM: 27,828 acres (24.6%) Private: 85,094 acres (75.4%) 303(d) Stream Miles Assessed Total: 62.7 miles BLM Ownership: 9.1 miles 303(d) Listed Parameters Temperature, Bacteria, Dissolved Oxygen, Sedimentation Key Resources and Uses Salmonids, domestic, aesthetic Known Human Activities Agriculture, forestry, roads, rural residential development, and recreation Natural Factors Geology: volcanics (basaltic andesite, basalt, and andesite) Soils: various series and complexes Water Quality Restoration Plan for BLM-Administered Lands in the Lower Little Butte Creek Analysis Area – October 2010 Statement of Purpose This water quality restoration plan is prepared to meet the requirements of Section 303(d) of the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act. Water Quality Restoration Plan for BLM-Administered Lands in the Lower Little Butte Creek Analysis Area – October 2010 Table of Contents Page Element 1 Condition Assessment and Problem Description 1 A. Introduction 1 B. Watershed Characterization 1 C. Temperature 13 D. Bacteria 20 Element 2 Goals and Objectives 23 Element 3 Proposed Management Measures 25 Element 4 Time Line for Implementation 26 Element 5 Responsible Parties 27 Element 6 Reasonable Assurance of Implementation 27 Element 7 Monitoring and Evaluation 27 Element 8 Public Involvement 29 Element 9 Costs and Funding 30 Element 10 Citation to Legal Authorities 30 References 31 List of Preparers 32 Water Quality Restoration Plan for BLM-Administered Lands in the Lower Little Butte Creek Analysis Area – October 2010 List of Tables Page 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Coho Salmon Peak Counts in Random Spawner Surveys
    SUMMARY OF RANDOM COHO SPAWNER SURVEYS 2001 SPAWNING SEASON PEAK COUNTS (LIVE AND DEAD) ESTIMATED RUN SIZE (AUC) ADULTS JACKS ADULTS JACK NUMBER PER PER PER PER SURVEYS MILES VISITS MILE MILE MILE MILE COAST WIDE 503482.1 5106 15 1 31 1 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 15-Aug-02 PAGE 1 SUMMARY OF RANDOM COHO SPAWNER SURVEYS 2001 SPAWNING SEASON PEAK COUNTS (LIVE AND DEAD) ESTIMATED RUN SIZE (AUC) ADULTS JACKS ADULTS JACKS SEG- NUM PER PER DATE PER PER REACH MENT SURV MILES VISITS PEAK MILE DATE PEAK MILE AUC MILE AUC MILE North Coast 7069.3 717 21 1 39 1 Necanicum River88.4 88 25 2 64 4 Main Stem 8 8.4 88 25 2 64 4 Beerman Cr1 26198.00 3 0.6 10 11 18 12/5/01 2 3 11/1/01 32 53 3 5 Circle Creek1 26204.00 2 1.1 12 27 24 12/5/01 3 3 11/1/01 92 81 7 6 Klootchie Cr1 26214.00 2 1.0 11 23 22 11/18/01 3 3 11/18/01 54 52 5 5 Mail Cr 1 26218.00 1 1.0 12 35 36 11/26/01 4 4 12/4/01 96 98 6 6 Necanicum 1R, N Fk 26228.00 2 1.2 10 19 16 11/27/01 1 1 12/21/01 33 27 1 1 Joe Cr 1 26239.00 1 1.1 11 23 21 12/21/01 2 2 11/8/01 32 29 3 3 Joe Cr 1 26239.00 2 0.8 11 35 43 11/17/01 2 2 11/17/01 104 128 2 2 Necanicum 1R, 26243.00 2 1.5 11 34 23 12/21/01 1 1 12/31/01 66 44 1 1 Bergsvik Cr To Grindy Cr Arch Cape Creek10.8 10 10 0 16 0 Main Stem 1 0.8 10 10 0 16 0 Arch Cape Cr3 26163.00 1 0.8 10 8 10 11/9/01 0 0 13 16 0 0 Nehalem River 61 60.1 619 21 1 36 1 Main Stem 47 45.6 467 18 1 35 1 Vosburg Cr5 25832.00 10.31000000000 Foley Cr 5 25887.00 10.6800000000 Foley Cr 5 25889.00 1 1.2 9 1 1 11/12/01 0 0 1 1 0 0 Foley Cr 5 25893.00 2 0.3 9 4 12 11/12/01 0 0 3 9
    [Show full text]
  • North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed Water Quality
    Water Quality Restoration Plan Southern Oregon Coastal Basin North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Medford District Ashland Resource Area Butte Falls Resource Area Lakeview District Klamath Falls Resource Area May 2006 North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed at a Glance Hydrologic Unit Code Number (Little 1710030708 Butte Creek) WQRP Area/Ownership Total: 125,778 acres BLM: 26,959 acres (21%) U. S. Forest Service: 59,875 acres (48%) Bureau of Reclamation: 5 acres (<.01%) Private: 38,939 acres (31%) 303(d) Stream Miles Assessed Total: 65.4 miles BLM Ownership: 15.7 miles 303(d) Listed Parameters Temperature, Sedimentation, E. Coli, pH Key Resources and Uses Salmonids, domestic, aesthetic Known Human Activities Agriculture, forestry, roads, recreation, rural residential development Natural Factors Geology: volcanic Soils: various series and complexes Statement of Purpose This water quality restoration plan is prepared to meet the requirements of Section 303(d) of the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act. Table of Contents Page Element 1 Condition Assessment and Problem Description 1 A. Introduction 1 B. Watershed Characterization 4 C.Temperature 16 D. Sedimentation 23 E.E.Coli 31 F.pH 34 Element 2 Goals and Objectives 36 Element 3 Proposed Management Measures 39 Element 4 Time Line for Implementation 40 Element 5 Responsible Parties 41 Element 6 Reasonable Assurance of Implementation 41 Element 7 Monitoring and Evaluation 42 Element 8 Public Involvement 44 Element 9 Costs and Funding 44 Element 10 Citation to Legal Authorities 45 References 46 List of Preparers 48 List of Tables Page 1.
    [Show full text]