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. Numerous helpful people including Lu Anthony, Chuck Fustich and Tom Dover provided editorial comments and suggestions. However, this document and its companion, the LBCW Action Plan, were completed through the collaborative efforts of the Little Butte Creek Watershed Council; local, state, and federal agencies and their representatives including BLM, ODFW, USFS, Jackson SWCD, and Jackson County government; as well as the numerous other private citizens and public and private organizations.

For more information about the Little Butte Creek Watershed Council or to obtain electronic copies of this report, please contact:

Lu Anthony, Coordinator Little Butte Creek Watershed Council 1094 Stevens Road Eagle Point, OR, 97524

(541) 826-2908 [email protected]

Table of Contents

Chapter I - Introduction 1 Physiographic Characteristics 1 History 2 Climate and Weather 5 Geology 5 Land Use – Ownership 7 Water Use 7 Watershed Function 8 Document Organization 8

Chapter II – Channel Habitat Type 10 Introduction 10 Methods 10 Results and Discussion 11

Chapter III – Hydrology and Water Use 13 Introduction 13 Results 14 Discussion 43 Data Gaps 43

Chapter IV – Fish and Fish Habitat 45 Introduction 45 General Salmonid Life History Pattern 45 Spring Chinook Life History Pattern 46 Fall Chinook Life History Pattern 46 Coho Life History Pattern 46 Winter Steelhead Life History Pattern 47 Summer Steelhead Life History Pattern 47 Sea-run Cutthroat and Resident Trout Life History Pattern 48 Fish Summary 48 Fish Habitat 48 Methods 50 Results 52 Discussion 69 Data Gaps 71

Chapter V – Water Quality 72 Introduction 72 Methods 75 Results 76 Discussion 93 Data Gaps 94

Table of Contents (continued)

Chapter VI – Riparian Zone 95 Introduction 95 Results 96 Discussion 99 Data Gaps 100

Chapter VII – Sediment Sources 101 Introduction 101 Results 102 Discussion 111 Data Gaps 112

Chapter VIII – Channel Modification 113 Introduction 113 Results 114 Discussion 118 Data Gaps 119

Chapter IX – Conclusions 121 Hydrology 121 Fish and Fish Habitat 122 Water Quality 123 Sediment Sources 123 Riparian 124 Channel Modification 124 Overall Watershed Health 124

List of Tables

CHT1 – Channel Types 10 CHT2 – Channel Type Distribution (%) at the 6th field watershed level 11 CHT3 – Channel Habitat Types 12 HT1 – General Characteristics of the Little Butte Creek Watershed and the 13 subbasins 16 HT2 – Precipitation regime within the Little Butte Creek Watershed 19 HT3 – Risk of peak flow enhancement due to forestry practices 21 HT4 – Breakdown of land use zoning in the Little Butte Creek Watershed and the 13 subbasins 21 HT5 – Soil groups within the Little Butte Creek Watershed 22 HT6 – Potential impact of forest roads on peak flow enhancement 24 HT7 – Potential impact of rural agricultural area roads on peak flow enhancement 24 HT8 – Potential impact of rural residential roads on peak flow enhancement 25 HT9 – OWRD’s Beneficial Use Codes for the Little Butte Creek Watershed 26 HT10 – Water rights breakdown for the Little Butte Creek Watershed 27 HT11 – Water rights breakdown for the Mainstem subbasin 28 HT12 – Water rights breakdown for the Antelope subbasin 29 HT13 – Water rights breakdown for the Dry subbasin 30 HT14 – Water rights breakdown for the Salt subbasin 31 HT15 – Water rights breakdown for the Lick subbasin 32 HT16 – Water rights breakdown for the Lake subbasin 33 HT17 – Water rights breakdown for the Lost subbasin 34 HT18 – Water rights breakdown for theNorthfork subbasin 35 HT19 – Water rights breakdown for the Southfork subbasin 36 HT20 – Water rights breakdown for the Soda subbasin 37 HT21 – Water rights breakdown for the Dead Indian subbasin 38 HT22 – Water rights breakdown for the Beaver Dam subbasin 39 HT23 – Water rights breakdown for the Upper Southfork subbasin 40 HT24 – Water availability for the 13 WABs in the Little Butte Creek Watershed 42 HT25 – Restoration potential for WABs based on % water allocated to consumptive uses 42 HT26 – Hydrologic issue identification summary 44 F1 – Current estimated fall Chinook distribution in Little Butte Creek Watershed 52 F2 – Current estimated spring Chinook distribution in Little Butte Creek Watershed 52 F3 – Current estimated coho distribution in Little Butte Creek Watershed 52 F4 – Current estimated summer steelhead distribution in Little Butte Creek Watershed 53 F5 – Current estimated winter steelhead distribution in Little Butte Creek Watershed 53 F6 – Current estimated distribution for anadromous salmonids in Little Butte Creek Watershed 54 F7 – Salmonid population counts at the ODFW smolt trap on Little Butte Creek 63 F8 – Pool habitat conditions in Little Butte Creek Watershed 64 F9 – Riffle habitat conditions in Little Butte Creek Watershed 65 F10 – Large woody debris habitat conditions in Little Butte Creek Watershed 66 F11 – Riparian habitat conditions in Little Butte Creek Watershed 67 WQ1 – Beneficial uses of water within Little Butte Wastershed 73 WQ2 – Criteria for metal contaminants parameter 75

List of Tables (continued)

WQ3 – Level of impairment for water quality parameters based on number of Data points that exceed the criteria 76 WQ4 – Streams in Little Butte Creek Watershed Listed on 2002 DEQ 303d list 77 WQ5 – Breakdown of 303d listed streams by subwatershed as % of streams in subwatershed 78 WQ6 – Streams flowing during 2001 FLIR project 86 WQ7 – Temperature ranges for streams assessed during 2001 FLIR project 90 R1 – Breakdown of vegetation classification for larger streams in Little Butte Creek Watershed 96 R2 – Breakdown by subwatershed of vegetation classification for larger streams In Little Butte Creek Watershed (acres) 96 SS1 – Erosion potential of soils in Little Butte Creek Watershed 103 SS2 – Road densities in Little Butte Creek Watershed 104 SS3 – Percent of road miles within 60 meters of a stream 107 SS4 – Stream crossings in Little Butte Creek Watershed 108 CM1 – Channel modification activities 113 CM2 – Instream diversion within LBCW 115 CM3 – Miles of roads within 10 m of streams 117 C1 – Impacts of land uses practices in LBCW 122 C2 – Summary scoring of the subwatersheds in the LBCW 125 C3 – Data gaps and information needs in LBCW 126

List of Figures

HM1 – Little Butte Creek Watershed 15 HM2 – Precipitation pattern for Little Butte Creek Watershed 17 HM3 – Zoning types in Little Butte Creek Watershed 18 HM4 – Transient snow zone in Little Butte Creek Watershed 20 F1 – Fall Chinook counts at Gold Ray Dam 60 F2 – Spring Chinook counts at Gold Ray Dam 60 F3 – Coho counts at Gold Ray Dam 60 F4 – Winter steelhead counts at Gold Ray Dam 61 F5 – Summer steelhead counts at Gold Ray Dam 61 WQ1 – Surface water temperatures for Little Butte Creek 91 WQ2 – Surface water temperatures for Antelope Creek 91 WQ3 – Surface water temperatures for NF of Little Butte Creek 92 WQ4 – Surface water temperatures for SF of Little Butte Creek 92 WQ5 – Surface water temperatures for Upper SF of Little Butte Creek 93

List of Maps

I1 – Location of Little Butte Creek Watershed within state of Oregon 1 I2 – Little Butte Creek Watershed shaded relief elevations 2 I3 – Little Butte Creek Watershed 3 I4 – Human population distribution in Little Butte Creek Watershed in 2000 4 I5 – Ecoregions in Little Butte Creek Watershed 6 CHT1 – Channel habitat types 12 HM1 – Little Butte Creek Watershed 15 HM2 – Precipitation pattern for Little Butte Creek Watershed 17 HM3 – Zoning types in Little Butte Creek Watershed 18 HM4 – Transient snow zone in Little Butte Creek Watershed 20 F1 – Current estimated fall chinook distribution in Little Butte Creek Watershed 54 F2 – Current estimated spring chinook distribution in Little Butte Creek Watershed 55 F3 – Current estimated coho distribution in Little Butte Creek Watershed 56 F4 – Current estimated summer steelhead distribution in Little Butte Creek Watershed 57 F5 – Current estimated winter steelhead distribution in Little Butte Creek Watershed 58 F6 – Barriers to anadromous fish passage 68 F7 – Barrierse to anadromous fish passage 69 F8 – Core salmonid areas in Little Butte Creek Watershed 71 WQ1 – Temperature impaired streams in Little Butte Creek Watershed in 2002 DEQ 303d list 79 WQ2 – Sedimentation impaired streams in Little Butte Creek Watershed in 2002 DEQ 303d list 80 WQ3 – E. Coli impaired streams in Little Butte Creek Watershed in 2002 DEQ 303d list 81 WQ4 – Fecal coliform impaired streams in Little Butte Creek Watershed in 2002 DEQ 303d list 82 WQ5 – Dissolved oxygen impaired streams in Little Butte Creek Watershed on 2002 DEQ 303d list 83 WQ6 – pH impaired streams in Little Butte Creek Watershed on 2002 DEQ 303d list 84 WQ7 – Chlorophyll impaired streams in Little Butte Creek Watershed on 2002 DEQ 303d list 85 WQ8 – FLIR coverage for Little Butte Creek, 2001 FLIR project 86 WQ9 – FLIR coverage for Antelope Creek, 2001 FLIR project 87 WQ10 – FLIR coverage for NF Little Butte Creek, 2001 FLIR project 88 WQ11 – FLIR coverage for SF Little Butte Creek, 2001 FLIR project 89 WQ12 – FLIR coverage for Upper SF Little Butte Crek, 2001 FLIR project 90 R1 – Vegetation classification in Little Butte Creek Watershed 97 R2 – Percent riparian area within LBCW in poor condition 98 R3 – Percent riparianv network associated with low gradient streams 99 SS1 – Soil erosin potential in Little Butte Creek Watershed 103 SS2 – Road densities in Little Butte Creek Watershed 105 SS3 – Road density on slopes greater than 30% 106 SS4 – Stream crossings in Little Butte Creek Watershed 108 SS5 – Stream crossing density in Little Butte Creek Watershed 109

List of Maps (continued)

SS6 – Areas in Little Butte Creek Watershed most susceptible to mass wasting 110 SS7 – Locations where landslides have occurred recently 111 CM1 – Instream diversions in LBCW 115 CM2 – Lakes, ponds, and water impoundments in LBCW 116 CM3 – Roads within 10m of stream in LBCW 118

Introduction - 1 Chapter I Introduction

PHYSIOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

The Little Butte Creek Watershed (LBCW) is located in southern Oregon in the eastern portion of the Rogue River basin (see Map I1) and lies almost entirely in within the Cascade Mountain Range. The LBCW is classified as a 5th field watershed, and is a tributary of the Rogue River. Major tributaries within the LBCW include Antelope Creek, North Fork Little Butte Creek, South Fork Little Butte Creek and Antelope Creek. South Fork Little Butte Creek’s headwaters are at the Cascade Divide while the headwaters for North Fork Little Butte Creek originate at Fish Lake in Klamath County.

Map I1. Location of the Little Butte Creek Watershed within the state of Oregon.

The LBCW contains approximately 373 square miles in Jackson County and 19 square miles in Klamath County. It is bounded on the north by Big Butte Creek and on the south by Bear Creek. Little Butte Creek is a class 1, order 5 stream system and flows 43 miles from its headwaters until it empties into the Rogue River to the west (see Map I2). Elevations in the watershed range from 1200 feet above mean sea level at the mouth to over 9,300 feet. The upper portion of the

Introduction - 2 watershed is located on the High Cascade plateau and is a low gradient system. As it flows toward the Rogue River it takes on a steeper stream profile until the lower 19 miles where it returns to a low gradient system.

Map I2. Little Butte Creek Watershed shaded relief elevations.

HISTORY

Eagle Point, located near river mile 3 on Little Butte Creek, is the only incorporated city within the watershed, although the small rural communities of Brownsboro, Lake Creek and Climax provide a “neighborhood” focus up on the tributaries (see map I3). The population of Eagle Point, as of the 2000 census, is 4575 (see Map I4). The population for the rest of the watershed is approximately 5600. The White City area, with a 1990 population of over 5000 is located in both the LBCW and the Bear Creek Watershed. The percentage of the population base that is within the LBCW is unknown. The economic activity of White City affects the Little Butte Creek, Bear Creek and 7 Basins watersheds and is the major industrial area in the eastern Rogue Basin.

Introduction - 3

Little Butte Creek Watershed

N

2

6

r Y e

v

i W

R H e Brownsboro u

g

o

R

e k C re ick L L ittle B k u tt S# e # e C re S re C ek t al S 40 Y 1 HW S S# o Eagle Point u k th e F A e o n r rk t e C L lo it e t p le e k B

a N C u orth F ork D L L t ittle r t e Butte Cr r e C eek y e

k r k e C

e e k r

e e

r

e

C

k

t

s

k

o

e

L

e

r

C

r

e e ek D re am C er D Lake Creek S# Beav

k e e r C

n ia Climax d n I d a e D

Map I3. Little Butte Creek Watershed. The two main tributaries of Little Butte Creek, North and South Forks, flow from the upper elevations in the Cascade mountain range down to the Rogue River. Eagle Point, located in the lower elevations, is the only urban area in the watershed.

Introduction - 4

Little Butte Watershed 2000 Census Blocks

N

Census blocks 2000 0 - 18 19 - 64 65 - 131 132 - 280 281 - 759 Little Butte Watershed

Map I4. Human population distribution in the Little Butte Creek Watershed in 2000.

Agriculture was the impetus for the settlement of the Little Butte Creek Watershed. During the early days the food produced provided for the gold miners in the neighboring Bear Creek Watershed. The forest in the upper portion of the watershed provided timber for houses, flumes, and commercial buildings during the gold mining period. When the railroad was built through Medford, an outside market became available for the agricultural and timber products. Settlers arrived in the area that is now Eagle Point in 1852 and the town was incorporated in 1911. It remained a small community for the first 30 years (the population in 1940 was 250). World War II saw the construction of Camp White Southwest of White City. Many servicemen and construction personnel selected Eagle Point as home after WWII.

The agricultural sector has not kept up with the population increase. Employment declines in the wood products and agricultural industries have been partially counteracted by increases in service and trade sectors of the economy. The upper portion of the watershed is used primarily for timber production, but recreation is an important and increasing use of this area. Fish Lake is a very popular recreational area on North Fork Little Butte Creek.

Commercial and industrial activity has been increasing in the lower portion of the watershed. Eagle Point is a regional service center for both Little Butte Creek and Upper Rogue watersheds. Commercial activity such as grocery stores, restaurants, and shopping centers have increased with the growing population. There is a world-class 18-hole golf course with accompanying

Introduction - 5 high-end housing, hotel, commercial and eating facilities within the city limits of Eagle Point. There is a second full 18-hole golf course down from Agate Lake in the Antelope subwatershed.

The LBCW is rich in Native American history. All of the reference books citing use by the local tribes, predominantly the Takelma, indicate continued use of the Little Butte Creek watershed until the appearance of European settlers. The South Fork subwatershed in particular has much evidence of early occupation and use by Native Americans. One of the last battles in the area was a massacre of women and children in their village in the South Fork subwatershed.

The area was settled in 1852 and was a bustling agricultural center for a large surrounding area, including ranchers and their families bringing grains from the Klamath and northern California areas to the gristmill on the Mainstem of Little Butte Creek.

Historic pride in the LBCW has resulted in the formation of two historical societies by the Southern Oregon Historical Society. The societies are funded with county taxes. The Lake Creek Historical Society has a building and exhibits on Lake Creek, a tributary of Little Butte Creek. The Eagle Point Historical Society, has acquired a historic schoolhouse for a museum on the banks of Little Butte Creek and has added a new addition which almost doubles the building size and exhibit space.

CLIMATE AND WEATHER

The LBCW has a Mediterranean climate that is wet and mild during the winter and hot and dry during the summer. Precipitation varies from almost 19 inches annually around Eagle Point to over 50 inches in the higher elevations. Fall, winter and early spring may bring some below freezing nights, but temperatures much below 20 F are uncommon. Some morning and evening fog during the height of winter often keeps the temperature from falling. Summer conditions are hot and dry. Mid-summer days are 90 F and above, with night temperatures dropping 30 F. The area is currently experiencing another drought cycle and the last two years have been exceptionally dry.

GEOLOGY

Two subregions split the Cascade Range province longitudinally from north to south: the High Cascades in the eastern third of the watershed and the dissected Western Cascades (see Map I5). The High Cascade area, which is generally considered to be above 4,800’ elevation, has an irregular plateau land surface floored by lava. Young volcanic cones rise above the rolling upland plateau and the most prominent of these in the watershed is Brown Mountain (show on map). From these geologically youthful cones and from other vents came the extensive lava flows underlying the present land surface. The valley profile may represent valley-in-valley forms, where more recent lava flows filled old valleys. These flows have been partially eroded by drainage patterns. There are several peaks greater than 5,000-feet in elevation, nearly all of which are in or near the southeast corner of the watershed.

Introduction - 6

Ecoregions in the Little Butte Creek Watershed N

Little Butte Watershed Little Butte Creek Watershed Ecoregions Cascade Subalpine/Alpine High South Cascade Montane Forest Rogue/Illinois Valleys Siskiyou Foothills South Cascade Slopes Southern Cascades

Map I5. Ecoregions in the Little Butte Creek Watershed.

Below 4,800’ the watershed lies mostly in the Western Cascade region, which is geologically much older than the High Cascades. The land surface in this region is a deeply dissected, irregular plateau underlain by 3,000 to 4,000 feet of lava. This part of the watershed is characterized by rugged topography with many moderately steep-walled canyons, a few gentle- sloping canyons, and high sharp ridges.

A well-developed dendritic drainage pattern has occurred over the watershed area in response to approximately 25-30 inches of annual precipitation. Basin streams descend rather gently on the surface of the upland plateau, but plunge steeply down the western slope before leveling out on the Mainstem. Steep gradients of 200 to 300 feet/mile on the upper reaches of the North and South Forks have resulted in deep canyons cut mostly in jointed lava of the western slope. In areas underlain by softer, more easily eroded materials, such as tuff or tuff-breccia, broad canyons have developed with rather gently sloping walls. The gradient of Little Butte Creek averages about 25 feet of drop per mile.

The soils of the lower portion of the watershed are used intensively for agriculture and home sites. Derived from volcanic alluvium, these soils are generally deep, but may contain a clay hardpan that restricts drainage. The soils usually contain a high proportion of clay and water infiltration is often slow. Drainage tiles have been used to facilitate the removal of excess

Introduction - 7 irrigation water and the use of sprinkler irrigation techniques has also reduced the problem. These soils produce a variety of crops including forage crops, grains, and pears.

The same soil characteristics that affect the irrigation drainage patterns also limit the use of these soils for septic tanks. The use of larger drain fields can often compensate for the slow percolation rates, but as the population in the watershed continues to increase, the capacity of the soil to effectively absorb the effluent may be exceeded.

LAND USE – OWNERSHIP

Agriculture and logging are the basis for the economy in the watershed. Irrigated agriculture and livestock grazing dominate the lower portion of the watershed. This accounts for 32% of the watershed and extends up Little Butte Creek and into the lower five miles of the North and South Forks. Forestlands make up over 65% of the watershed. Most of the watershed above the five- mile mark is publicly owned (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management). Federal lands account for about 25% of the available year round habitat for anadromous fish. Extensive logging has taken place on both public and private lands.

The economic character of the watershed is undergoing change due to rapid population growth. Many retired people located in the watershed, along with the people living in the LBCW but working elsewhere in the Rogue Basin, are responsible for significant “imported” income.

WATER USE

The water resources of the LBCW are an important part of the total resources available to the Rogue River Basin. In addition to supplying the basic needs for human and livestock consumption, water is also needed to maintain or develop other resources such as fish habitat and irrigated agriculture.

The watershed has a history of water shortages mainly because of the high level of trans-basin diversion and irrigation withdrawals for local uses. Four irrigation districts operate in the watershed: Medford Irrigation District, Rogue River Valley Irrigation District, Talent Irrigation District and Eagle Point Irrigation District. Water from Little Butte Creek is also diverted through canal systems for use in the Bear Creek watershed. Fish Lake and the Cascade Canal have significant impacts on the flows in the North Fork during the irrigation season. Water levels can vary dramatically during the winter when Fish Lake is being filled. There are no guaranteed flows during this time. Although ODFW has developed minimum instream flow requirements for the watershed, the instream rights are very junior in the priority system and thus do not get met during most years. Diversions just above the confluence of the North and South Forks deplete stream flows to the point where there usually is only enough water left to satisfy prior downstream water rights. Antelope Creek is also heavily diverted for irrigation purposes. Further appropriations for irrigation are not allowed on Antelope Creek.

Existing and future requirements for water in the watershed include, domestic, livestock, municipal, industrial, irrigation, agriculture, power, development, recreation, wildlife and fish habitat uses. There are, in normal rainfall years, sufficient supplies of water to supply these needs, although economic development in the watershed may be slowed without development of

Introduction - 8 additional supplies in the future. Little potential exists for developing ground water to meet existing and future needs in the watershed because of geological constraints. It should be noted that the City of Eagle Point has a municipal water system with sources outside of the LBCW. All lands outside of the city limits rely on wells utilizing ground water.

The watershed consists mostly of tertiary volcanic rocks. These are low permeability rocks capable of yielding only small quantities of ground water. Generally, wells drilled in these rocks are only adequate for domestic, livestock, or other small uses. The area at the mouth of Antelope and Little Butte Creeks consists of alluvium similar to the Bear Creek watershed. The best water bearing materials within the alluviums are sand and gravel beds. Generally, these materials are only a few feet thick and too small in extent to be sources of major quantities of groundwater. In general, the alluvium contains a large percentage of clay and yields only small to moderate quantities of water to wells. The alluvium is recharged mainly by precipitation and, less importantly, by infiltration of excess irrigation waters.

WATERSHED FUNCTION

Watersheds range in size from very small to very large, with the delineation dependant on the needs of the analyst. The basic definition is that a watershed includes all the land from ridge top to ridge top in which the water flows into a stream system. Boundaries will follow the ridgeline around the basin, meeting at the mouth of the stream. The LBCW is a large watershed made up of many smaller subwatersheds such as the Antelope, South Fork and North Fork basins. These basins in turn are made up of smaller watershed and so on.

The connectivity of the stream systems is the major reason why this assessment has been conducted. This connectivity refers to the close relationship between tributaries and rivers, groundwater and surface water, between upland and lowland areas. Because water moves downhill, all activities and conditions up stream affect the watershed condition downstream.

DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION

This watershed assessment is divided into eight components: Channel Habitat Type, Hydrology and Water Use, Fish and Fish Habitat, Water Quality, Sediment Sources, Riparian, Channel Modifications and Conclusion. Each chapter introduces a specific subject, including a basic description of the issue, before analyzing the existing data. Each chapter ends with a discussion of the current conditions and how human activities have impacted the watershed. This discussion includes a brief outline of data gaps that exist for that watershed component.

The Channel Habitat Type Chapter details the different stream types that exist in the LBCW. This is based on channel formation type and the stream gradient. The Hydrology and Water Use chapter reviews the impacts of human development and activity on the hydrological cycle, including forestry, agriculture and roads. The Fish and Fish Habitat chapter examines the current condition of fish habitat for the native anadromous salmonids that exist in the LBCW. There is also a brief analysis of population trends. The Water Quality chapter analyses the conditions of the streams in the LBCW with respect to a list of water quality parameters developed by the State, including temperature, flow and sedimentation. The Sediment Source chapter examines the potential sources of excess sediment to the streams of the LBCW, including road runoff, road

Introduction - 9 instability, and mass wasting. The Riparian chapter analyzes the current condition of the riparian zone along the streams throughout the LBCW. The Channel Modification chapter details the different types of changes and the results of these changes on habitat types and stream channels. The final chapter summarizes the results from the previous chapters, giving an overall assessment of the LBCW. A compete outline of the data gaps is include as well.

Channel Habitat Type - 10

Chapter II Channel Habitat Type

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the streams systems in the Little Butte watershed (LBW) based on their channel types. A map was produced of the stream systems to allow users to make inferences of the impacts of land use practices on channel form, processes, and fish habitat (WPN, 1999).

The stream classification system used here is based on the scale of stream reaches, and incorporates factors such as gradient and valley type. The scale of this evaluation is small enough to predict patterns in channel physical characteristics and changes over time, but large enough to be developed using topographic maps, GIS and limited fieldwork (WPN, 1999). This is an initial evaluation of the streams habitats in the Little Butte watershed and in rough form. However, the succeeding chapters will build on the evaluation presented here, refining the data and evaluation.

METHODS

Using the OWEB Watershed Assessment Manual, there are eleven different channel types (CT) in the LBW (see Table CHT1). Stream gradient and confinement are the prime factors in determining which CT to assign to a stream reach. The methods used for determining CT were those spelled out in the OWEB Watershed Assessment Manual. Reaches were determined by changes in gradient and by the presence of important tributaries, with a reach never extending past the mouth of an important tributary.

The gradient for each reach was determined using GIS. The topographic layer used was a one hundred foot contour layer. The stream layer used was provided by the Rogue Basin Restoration Technical Team and was at a scale of 1:100000. Once the gradient was determined, the confinement was estimated using the topographic layer and the reach position in the stream system. With these two criteria established, an initial CT was assigned for each reach.

Table CHT1. Channel Types Code Channel Type Gradient Channel Confinement FP1 Low Gradient Large Floodplain <1% Unconfined FP2 Low Gradient Medium Floodplain <1% Unconfined FP3 Low Gradient Small Floodplain <1% Unconfined LM Low Gradient Moderately Confined <2% Moderately Confined LC Low Gradient Confined <2% Confined MM Moderate Gradient Moderately Confined 2-4% Moderately Confined MC Moderate Gradient Confined 2-4% Confined MH Moderate Gradient Headwater 1-6% Confined MV Moderately Steep Narrow Valley 3-10% Confined SV Steep Narrow Valley 8-16% Confined VH Very Steep Headwater >16% Confined

Channel Habitat Type - 11

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

The CT designations for all the streams in the LBW were mapped using GIS (see Map CHT1). This information was then broken down as percentages of total stream distance for the entire LBW and to the sixth field watershed level (see Table CT2). The CTs Moderately Steep Narrow Valley (MV) and Steep Narrow Valley (SV) make up the largest percentage of CT in the LBW, a combined 46% of the total stream length. The CTs with moderate confinement are the next most common designations making up 25% of the total stream length. The LBW does not have an extensive amount of steep terrain with over 75% of the reaches surveyed having gradients less than or equal to 10%.

Table CT2. Channel Type distribution (%) at the 6th field watershed level. Subwatershed FP1 FP2 FP3 LM LC MM MC MH MV SV VH Stream Dist (km) Mainstem 19 0 0 39 0 13 0 0 21 8 0 73 Antelope 0 6 0 22 19 0 5 0 22 26 0 68 Dry 0 0 43 0 0 0 19 0 29 9 0 18 Lick 0 0 0 10 0 11 0 0 63 16 0 29 Salt 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 15 23 46 0 28 Lake 0 0 0 0 0 18 7 3 45 27 0 26 South Fork 0 0 0 0 8 26 12 6 13 27 9 54 North Fork 0 0 0 5 17 7 17 7 22 18 5 52 Lost 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 6 32 34 17 33 Soda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 52 31 0 10 Dead Indian 0 0 0 13 0 17 20 21 17 11 0 29 Beaver Dam 0 0 0 7 9 10 16 28 27 2 0 44 Upper South Fork 0 0 0 55 0 27 0 0 0 18 0 15 Total 3 1 2 13 6 12 8 7 26 20 3 480

The responsiveness of the stream channel network is mostly due to the lack of confinement or terrain control of the stream channel (WPN, 1999). Stream reaches with moderately confined or unconfined channels represent areas that will be most responsive to land use practices and dramatic hydrological events. This responsiveness for each CT has been defined for four characteristics (see Table CT3). It should be noted that this is just an initial scoping of the habitat responsiveness, and will be built upon in the succeeding chapters.

Due to the relatively gentle terrain in the LBW, most streams fall under the High or Moderate responsiveness classification for the four characteristics. This indicates that there is a high potential for the natural habitat to have been impacted by human land use practices. It is most likely that majority of the changes in channel habitat have occurred in the lower parts of the LBW, in particular, the Mainstem, Antelope and Dry subwatersheds. However, there is moderate potential for habitat impacts throughout most of the LBW, except perhaps the most confined areas (SV and VH CTs). This will be further analyzed in the following chapters.

Channel Habitat Type - 12

C h a n n e l H a b i t a t T y p e s

N

C h a n n e l H a b i t a t T y p e s F P 1 F P 2 F P 3 L C L M M C M H M M M V S V V H S u b w a t e r s h e d s

Map CHT1. Channel Habitat Types.

Table CT3. Channel Responsiveness CT Large Woody Debris Fine Sediment Coarse Sediment Peak Flows FP1 M – H M H L – M FP2 H M H L – M FP3 H M – H H L LM M – H M – H M - H M LC L – M L M L – M MM H M M - H M MC L L M M MH M M M - H M MV M L M M SV M L L – M L VH M L L - M L

Hydrology & Water Use - 13

Chapter III Hydrology and Water Use

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate the potential impacts of land and water use practices on the hydrology of the Little Butte Creek watershed. The hydrologic cycle is simply the movement of water through a system, in this case a watershed. A brief outline of the hydrologic cycle includes precipitation, runoff and infiltration, and flows through the creek and groundwater systems. The natural watershed characteristics that affect this cycle include local climate, topography, soil types, slope and vegetative cover.

The second and third stages of this cycle, (1) runoff and filtration and (2) streamflow, can be impacted and affected by land use practices such as road building, development, grazing, mining, agriculture, irrigation, forestry practices, and ditching. These impacts include changes in the timing and quantity of streamflow, specifically higher peak flows and lower low flows. Indirectly, energy transfer, soil transfer and nutrient cycling are affected.

Forestry practices affect the greatest percentage of lands in the Pacific Northwest and result in the removal of vegetative cover, compaction of soils, road building and culvert installation. The removal of vegetation usually leads to a reduction of water loss from evapotranspiration, which results in an increased amount of water reaching the streams. Thus causing an increase in peak flows and flooding potential. Additionally, the loss of shade causes the snowpack to melt earlier with a corresponding reduction in late summer flows.

Grazing often results in the removal of natural vegetation and alteration of the floral community composition as well as impacting soil characteristics. These effects are especially critical in the riparian zone where livestock tend to aggregate. Stream incision can also occur in areas of grazing, resulting in a lowering of the water table, which in turn can alter the plant community by reducing species complexity. Grazing activities can also lead to soil loss through erosion and thus increased sedimentation in the stream channel.

Although agriculture does not cover as much area as forestry in the Little Butte Creek watershed, the impacts may be more severe and longer lasting. Most agricultural practices lead to permanent alterations in soil characteristics, resulting in increased runoff and reduced infiltration. Water use practices associated with agriculture affect seasonal streamflow patterns resulting in increased high flows, lower water tables and reduced summer base flows. Another major impact of agricultural practices is contamination from the nutrients and pesticides that are commonly, and often extensively used. These products make their way into the streams reducing water quality.

Urbanization and development affect a limited amount of land but the effects are severe and long lasting. Development leads to increased amounts of impervious areas, reduced infiltration and increased surface runoff. Parking lots, storm drains, ditches, gutters and roads divert and channel precipitation quickly to the streams. This results in increased frequency and magnitude of peak

Hydrology & Water Use - 14 streamflows and reduced summer flows. Additionally, stream channel simplification often accompanies urban development. This results in the increased erosive capability of streams at increased peak stream flows. Stream channelization exacerbates this problem, especially bank reinforcement using concrete and riprap.

Mining activities can have a substantial effect on watershed hydrology. The most obvious impacts are the morphological changes to the stream channel from extraction and excavation. In addition, mining can increase stream channel erosion and alter substrate composition. Downcutting and stream channel simplification can also result from mining and lead to increased flood peaks, increased sediment transport, increased stream water temperatures and reduced base flows.

Irrigation and water withdrawals from streams can cause changes in seasonal flow patterns, including reductions in summer flows, stream velocities and stream discharge. Drawdowns in streams channels reduce the habitat area for fish and aquatic invertebrates, which can lead to increased predation and disease. Also, return flows from irrigation are typically high in sediment loads, turbidity, pesticides and nutrient levels. Lower stream flows and slower stream velocities lead to increased water temperature, and lower dissolved oxygen content; a further source of fish habitat degradation. Agricultural runoff is often warmer than the stream water it is entering.

By evaluating impacts from land use practices that occur within the Little Butte Creek Watershed, we can determine the degree to which hydrological processes are impacted. More importantly, it will be possible develop strategies, best management practices, for restoring degraded areas or minimizing the impacts from the land use practices. This chapter characterizes the hydrology of the Little Butte Creek Watershed as a whole, but also breaks it down into 5 sub- watersheds where the data is available. The locations and types of potential impacts within the watershed are assessed. Additionally, the consumptive water uses within the watershed are identified both by location and type.

RESULTS

The Little Butte Creek watershed encompasses 373 square miles and includes the drainage area of Little Butte Creek and its tributaries (see Map HM1). The City of Eagle Point is the main urban center. Other important communities include White City, Brownsboro, Lake Creek and Climax.

Hydrology & Water Use - 15

Little Butte Creek Watershed

N 2

r

6

e

v Y i

R W

e H

u

g

o

R

#· 40 Y 1 HW Eagle Point

Map HM1. Little Butte Creek Watershed.

Elevation within the Little Butte Creek Watershed ranges from 1200 feet to 9400 feet at Mt. McLaughlin with a mean elevation of 3496 feet (see Table HT1). The mean annual precipitation is 35.4 inches but varies from 25.3 inches to 49.4 inches across the 13 subbasins (see Map HM2).

Hydrology & Water Use - 16

Table HT1. General characteristics of the Little Butte Creek Watershed and the 13 subbasins.

Subwatershed Mean Minimum Maximum Mean Annual Subwatershed Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) Precipitation (in) Mainstem 52.9 2085 1200 3800 25.3 Antelope 57.7 3136 1300 5900 29.6 Dry 17.7 2579 1400 4300 25.3 Lick 16.4 2629 1500 4100 31.2 Salt 17.3 3188 1600 4900 34.0 Lake 14.5 2984 1700 4900 30.3 Lost 17.2 3933 1900 5400 36.4 North Fork 56.3 4477 1700 9400 42.6 South Fork 41.8 3467 1700 5800 35.5 Soda 11.2 3787 2200 5100 38.5 Dead Indian 22.4 4605 2600 5900 42.7 Beaver Dam 27.9 5122 4000 6300 46.6 Upper SF 19.8 5379 4000 7300 49.4 Total 373.0 3496 1200 9400 35.4

Hydrology & Water Use - 17

Little Butte Watershed Precipitation

N

Little Butte Watershed Subwatersheds Precipitation 22 26 30 34 38 42 46 50 54 58

Map HM2. Precipitation pattern for the Little Butte Creek Watershed. Number in inches is the upper limit for each area.

Land Use

There is a variety of land use zoning types within the Little Butte Creek Watershed (see Figure HM3). The three zoning types that are assessed to determine the hydrologic risk potential are forestry, agriculture and urban/rural residential. The major zoning type in the Little Butte Creek Watershed is forestry comprising 65.6% of the land area (see Table HT2). Agriculture makes up most of the remainder of the land area (32.0%) of the land use zoning and the only truly urban zoning is the City of Eagle Point. Urban, Rural Residential, and Aggregate Resource make up the remaining 2.4% of the area within the watershed. The distribution of the zoning patterns roughly correlates to the elevation with higher elevations being zoned for forestry uses.

Hydrology & Water Use - 18

Little Butte Creek Watershed Zoning

N

Little Butte Watershed Subwatersheds Little Butte Zoning Agriculture Forestry Mixed Ag and RR Natural Resource Rural Residential Urban

Map HM3. Zoning types in the Little Butte Creek Watershed.

As mentioned above, forestry zoning comprises the majority of the land in the Little Butte Creek Watershed. The two main mechanisms through which forestry practices impact hydrologic processes are (1) the removal and disturbance of vegetation, and (2) the road system and related harvesting systems. The greatest likelihood of problems arising from forestry practices is through increases in peak flows associated with rain-on-snow events (Harr, 1981). Rain-on- snow events occur at intermediate elevations where the snowpack does not accumulate to a great degree. Removal of vegetation reduces the crown closure, thus increasing rain-on-snow events. For the Little Butte Creek Watershed this zone lies between 2500’ and 4000 feet’ (see Figure HM4).

Peak stream flows can be a result of three precipitation regimes: rain, rain-on-snow, and spring snowmelt. In the Little Butte Creek Watershed, the precipitation is almost evenly divided among the three regimes (see Table HT3).

Hydrology & Water Use - 19

Table HT2. Precipitation regime within the Little Butte Creek Watershed

Subwatershed Subwatershed Rain Rain-on-Snow Spring Snowmelt Subwatershed Area (mi2) Area (acres) Acres % Acres % Acres % Mainstem 52.9 33837.9 31104.7 91.9 2733.2 8.1 0.0 0.0 Antelope 57.7 36937.0 17578.7 47.6 13866.2 37.5 5492.1 14.9 Dry 17.7 11356.7 7748.7 68.2 3551.2 31.3 56.8 0.5 Lick 16.4 10467.5 5216.0 49.8 5251.4 50.2 0.0 0.0 Salt 17.3 11060.4 3014.8 27.3 8045.6 72.7 0.0 0.0 Lake 14.5 9272.5 3191.4 34.4 5705.1 61.5 376.0 4.1 Lost 17.2 10991.7 1723.7 15.7 4099.8 37.3 5168.3 47.0 North Fork 56.3 36040.6 4556.2 12.6 14875.0 41.3 16609.3 46.1 South Fork 41.8 26770.6 6486.5 24.2 11711.9 43.7 8572.1 32.0 Soda 11.2 7176.3 147.8 2.1 3099.1 43.2 3929.3 54.8 Dead Indian 22.4 14316.3 0.0 0.0 1030.0 7.2 13282.6 92.8 Beaver Dam 27.9 17835.9 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 17832.3 100.0 Upper SF 19.8 12643.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 12641.3 100.0 Total 373.0 238717.7 80784.1 33.8 73972.8 31.0 83960.7 35.2

Hydrology & Water Use - 20

Little Butte Transient Snow Zone

N

Little Butte Watershed Subwatersheds Transient Snow Zone

Map HM4. Transient snow zone in the Little Butte Creek Watershed.

The potential for peak flow enhancement due to forestry practices is considered low for the Little Butte Creek Watershed as well as each of the 13 subwatersheds (see Table HT4).

Hydrology & Water Use - 21

Table HT3. Risk of peak flow enhancement due to forestry practices.

Percent of Risk of Peak- Percent of Rain-on-Snow Flow Historic Crown Subwatershed areas with Enhancement Closure in Rain- in Rain-on- <30% Current (Potential, Subwatershed Area Area on-Snow Areas Snow Areas Crown Closure Low, or Name (sq mi) (acres) (%) (%) (%) Unknown) Mainstem 52.9 33837.9 Not Available 8.1 Not Available LOW Antelope 57.7 36937.0 Not Available 37.5 Not Available LOW Dry 17.7 11356.7 Not Available 31.3 Not Available LOW Lick 16.4 10467.5 Not Available 50.2 Not Available Salt 17.3 11060.4 Not Available 72.7 Not Available Lake 14.5 9272.5 Not Available 61.5 Not Available Lost 17.2 10991.7 Not Available 37.3 Not Available North Fork 56.3 36040.6 Not Available 41.3 Not Available South Fork 41.8 26770.6 Not Available 43.7 Not Available Soda 11.2 7176.3 Not Available 43.2 Not Available Dead Indian 22.4 14316.3 Not Available 7.2 Not Available Beaver Dam 27.9 17835.9 Not Available 0.0 Not Available Upper SF 19.8 12643.0 Not Available 0.0 Not Available Total 373.0 238717.7 Not Available Not Available

Table HT4. Breakdown of land use zoning in the Little Butte Creek Watershed and the 13 subbasins.

Agriculture and Subwater Forestry Urban Rural Residential Other Subwatershed shed Area Range Land (mi2) Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Mainstem 52.9 5203.5 15.4 24871.6 73.5 1802.7 5.3 1304.8 3.9 655.3 1.9 19355.088 57.7 16839.8 45.6 52.4 102.4 0.3 595.2 1.6 44.5 0.1 Antelope 0 Dry 17.7 1253.0 11.0 9115.6 80.3 0.0 0.0 883.2 7.8 104.8 0.9 Lick 16.4 8342.0 79.7 2125.0 20.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Salt 17.3 8715.0 78.8 2345.0 21.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lake 14.5 4755.0 51.3 4517.0 48.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lost 17.2 9497.0 86.4 1495.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 North Fork 56.3 31574.0 87.6 4467.0 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 South Fork 41.8 21200.0 79.2 5571.0 20.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Soda 11.2 6886.0 96.0 290.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dead Indian 22.4 12840.0 89.7 1476.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Beaver Dam 27.9 17204.0 96.5 632.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Upper SF 19.8 12643.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 373.0 156634.5 65.6 76271.8 32.0 1905.6 0.8 2783.3 1.2 804.7 0.3

Hydrology & Water Use - 22

Agricultural practices have been predominantly implemented along the valley floor, within floodplains and other adjacent low gradient lands. The conversion to agriculture has changed the vegetative cover from the historical forested woodland and grassland. Ditches have accompanied agricultural development in the Little Butte Creek Watershed as well as channelization of streams. This has resulted in increased velocities of surface water flows and subsurface flows that correspondingly decrease infiltration opportunities. Decreased infiltration produces increased run-off and subsequent decreased flows during the low-flow season.

The impact of agriculture on the hydrologic cycle depends on the specific practices being implemented, as well as the characteristics of the soil being farmed. The practices that alter the rate of infiltration are most important in causing changes in the hydrology of the area. In areas where soils have a high infiltration rate, agricultural practices have the greatest impact on the local hydrology.

The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has characterized and mapped the soils throughout Oregon. As part of this process, soils are classified into one of four hydrologic soil groups as a function primarily of their minimum infiltration rate on wetted bare soil (A = least runoff potential, increasing to D = greatest runoff potential) (It would be nice if this could be incorporated into Table HT5.).

Most of the agricultural soils in the Little Butte Creek Watershed are in soil class D (see Table HT5). The runoff potential for the watershed can be computed using runoff curve numbers generated by NRCS, which are based on (1) soil type, (2) cover type, and (3) treatment or farming practice. Comparing the current runoff curve numbers and how they have changed from the runoff curve numbers before agricultural practices were implemented, the potential risk of peak flow enhancement can be estimated.

Table HT5. Soil groups within the Little Butte Creek Watershed.

Area of Hydrologic Soil Groups in Agricultural Subwatershed in Lands or Grazed Range Lands (%) Subwatershed Agriculture or Name Range-Land Use (%) A B C D Mainstem 73.50 0.08 8.05 10.56 81.31 Antelope 52.40 0.00 8.27 14.31 77.42 Dry 80.27 0.00 2.80 7.09 90.11 Lick 20.30 0.00 0.42 18.73 80.85 Salt 21.20 0.00 0.04 14.84 85.12 Lake 48.71 0.00 4.58 5.82 89.59 Lost 13.60 0.00 5.95 9.83 84.15 North Fork 12.39 0.18 7.72 5.98 86.12 South Fork 20.81 1.29 10.68 11.72 75.05 Soda 4.04 0.00 4.83 18.62 76.55 Dead Indian 10.31 0.00 25.27 29.74 44.99 Beaver Dam 3.54 0.00 21.36 24.53 12.66 Upper SF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 31.95 0.13 7.38 11.49 80.55

Hydrology & Water Use - 23

The average change of current curve numbers from background curve numbers indicates that the potential for peakflow enhancement due to agricultural practices in the Little Butte Creek Watershed is low. Although the prevalent soil type in the Little Butte Creek watershed is conducive to enhanced runoff under agricultural regimes, the limited rainfall in the area limits the potential for this impact.

Roads

Road networks associated with forestry can alter the rate of infiltration on the road surface, potentially impacting the hydrologic cycle, and ultimately increasing peak flows. Most road surfaces are compacted soils that greatly restrict infiltration of precipitation. Forest roads generally increase streamflows by replacing subsurface with surface runoff pathways, the latter of which operates on a greatly shortened timescale.

Roads can impact peak flows during all three precipitation regimes, rain, rain-on-snow and snowmelt. Therefore the determination of the percent of the forestry lands occupied by roads can provide an indication of the relative impact of forestry roads on the hydrologic cycle.

Rural roads associated with agricultural and rangelands can have the same impacts on the hydrology of an area as forest roads. Rural roads are generally accompanied by roadside ditches and can significantly affect the hydrologic cycle as the ditches extend the stream network density, as their presence is additional to the stream channel.

Roads along stream channels restrict lateral movement and can cause a disconnect between the waterway and its floodplain. Restricting lateral movement can result in downcutting of the channel and decreased accessibility of floodwaters to overbank storage, resulting in decreased flood peak attenuation.

The relative potential impact of forest roads on the hydrologic cycle in the Little Butte Creek Watershed is low. Though the majority of the watershed is zoned forestry, the percent of the forestlands in roads is only 1.62% for the entire watershed with a maximum of 2.14% in the Soda subbasin. The potential only increases to moderate at a percentage of >4% while a percentage of >8% indicates a high potential for peak flow enhancement.

Hydrology & Water Use - 24

Table HT6. Potential impact of forest roads on peak flow enhancement. (In order to put these in a more comparable ratio, you might try (miles of road/section) for each area.) Area Total Linear Distance Percent Relative Forested of Forest Roads Roaded Area in Potential Subwatershed Area (mi2) (mi2) (miles) Area (mi2) Roads Impact Mainstem 52.9 8.1 14.2 0.067 0.82 LOW Antelope 57.7 26.3 81.1 0.381 1.45 LOW Dry 17.7 2.0 3.2 0.015 0.78 LOW Lick 16.4 13.0 28.0 0.132 1.01 LOW Salt 17.3 13.6 60.8 0.286 2.10 LOW Lake 14.5 7.4 29.1 0.137 1.84 LOW Lost 17.2 14.8 57.0 0.268 1.81 LOW North Fork 56.3 49.3 168.2 0.790 1.60 LOW South Fork 41.8 33.1 103.2 0.485 1.46 LOW Soda 11.2 10.8 49.0 0.230 2.14 LOW Dead Indian 22.4 20.1 77.3 0.363 1.81 LOW Beaver Dam 27.9 26.9 104.8 0.493 1.83 LOW Upper SF 19.8 19.8 70.3 0.330 1.67 LOW Total 373.0 245.2 846.2 3.977 1.62 LOW

The relative potential impact of roads in rural agriculture areas on the hydrologic cycle is low for the Little Butte Creek Watershed (see Figure HT7). The overall percentage of roads on agriculturally zoned lands is 1.55%, well short of the cutoff of 4%. The Lost subbasin is the only one with greater than 2% of its area as roaded surfaces. Additionally, not all land zoned for agriculture is actually being farmed or grazed.

Table HT7. Potential impact of rural agricultural area roads on peak flow enhancement.

Total Linear Distance Percent Relative Rural Area of Rural Roads (Range Roaded Area in Potential Subwatershed Area (mi2) (mi2) + Ag) (miles) Area (mi2) Roads Impact Mainstem 52.9 38.9 100.5 0.664 1.71 LOW Antelope 57.7 30.2 67.3 0.444 1.47 LOW Dry 17.7 14.2 19.6 0.130 0.91 LOW Lick 16.4 3.3 9.1 0.060 1.81 LOW Salt 17.3 3.7 9.9 0.066 1.79 LOW Lake 14.5 7.1 20.3 0.134 1.90 LOW Lost 17.2 2.3 7.7 0.051 2.16 LOW North Fork 56.3 7.0 17.2 0.114 1.63 LOW South Fork 41.8 8.7 20.9 0.138 1.58 LOW Soda 11.2 0.5 0.9 0.006 1.26 LOW Dead Indian 22.4 2.3 4.1 0.027 1.16 LOW Beaver Dam 27.9 1.0 2.6 0.017 1.76 LOW Upper SF 19.8 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.00 LOW Total 373.0 119.2 280.1 1.8 1.55 LOW

Hydrology & Water Use - 25

The relative potential impact of roads in rural residential and urban areas on the hydrologic cycle is moderate to high for areas of the Little Butte Creek Watershed that contain these types of zoning (see Figure HT8). The overall density (mi/mi2) is 0.1 but this is misleading as urban and rural residential zoning only occurs in the Mainstem, Antelope and Dry subbasins. Anything greater than 5.5 mi/mi2 is considered to have a high potential for peak flow enhancement. The potential for impacts on the hydrologic cycle due to impervious surfaces in the Mainstem and Antelope subbasins is high. However, the fact that urban and rural residential zoning make up a small percentage of the Little Butte Creek watershed and its subbasins, limits the potential impacts from this land use practice.

Table HT8. Potential impact of rural residential roads on peak flow enhancement.

Urban - Rural Total Linear Relative Potential Residential Area Distance of Rural for Peak Flow Subwatershed Area (mi2) (mi2) Roads (miles) Road Density Enhancement Mainstem 52.9 4.86 28.22 5.8 HIGH Antelope 57.7 1.09 6.51 6.0 HIGH Dry 17.7 1.38 5.74 4.2 MODERATE Lick 16.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 LOW Salt 17.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 LOW Lake 14.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 LOW Lost 17.2 0.00 0.00 0.00 LOW North Fork 56.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 LOW South Fork 41.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 LOW Soda 11.2 0.00 0.00 0.00 LOW Dead Indian 22.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 LOW Beaver Dam 27.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 LOW Upper SF 19.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 LOW Total 373.0 7.33 40.47 0.1 ---

Water use

Water rights have been granted as far back as 1856. The water rights are valid for 24 different beneficial uses within the watershed (see Table HT9). There are a number of consumptive uses including irrigation, agriculture, industrial, municipal, domestic, fish & wildlife and recreational uses. Water rights are managed by the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) which manages them on a prior appropriation doctrine which means that the most senior (older) water right is entitled to first access to the water and then progressing towards the most junior water right. A total of 581 water rights are recorded for the Little Butte Creek watershed (see Tables HT10-HT23). Most of the water rights are held in the lower subbasins where most of the population lives and where the agriculture is centered.

Hydrology & Water Use - 26

Table HT9. OWRD’s Beneficial Use codes for the Little Butte Watershed. Beneficial Use Code Description AS Miscellaneous (aesthetic) CS Recreation (campground) DI Domestic (incl. Lawn and Garden) DN Domestic (incl. Commercial) DO Domestic DS Domestic (stock) FI Fish FP Miscellaneous (fire protection) FR Agriculture (frost protection) I* Irrigation (domestic and stock) IC Irrigation (primary and supplemental) ID Irrigation (irrigation and domestic) IL Irrigation (irrigation and stock) IM Industrial (manufacturing) IR Irrigation IS Irrigation (supplemental) LV Livestock LW Livestock (wildlife) PW Power QM Municipal (quasi-municipal) RC Recreation ST Storage TC Agriculture (temperature control) WI Wildlife

Hydrology & Water Use - 27

Table HT10. Water rights breakdown for the Little Butte Creek watershed. # of Primary Supplemental Primary & Supplemental Rights Beneficial Gallons/ Gallons/ Gallons/ Use AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AS 6.20 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 CS 0.00 0.015 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 DI 0.00 0.075 3.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 8 DN 0.00 0.000 4.2 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 DO 0.00 0.765 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 18 DS 0.00 0.050 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 3 FI 0.00 3.030 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 FP 7.03 0.020 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 16 FR 16.10 9.660 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 3 I* 0.00 27.650 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 20 IC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 5967.88 16.400 0.0 7 ID 22550.00 2.280 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 15 IL 0.00 1.100 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 IM 525.10 4.060 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 6 IR 6703.91 620.373 17.1 0.00 0.000 0.0 5.65 5.100 0.0 286 IS 0.00 0.000 0.0 7201.55 357.575 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 58 LV 22.11 0.325 1.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 28 LW 6.16 0.001 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 39 PW 0.00 24.400 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 QM 0.00 0.120 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 RC 669.25 1.836 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 15 ST 1528.00 0.000 0.0 455.10 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 18 TC 43.10 70.600 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 27 WI 1.33 0.002 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 4 Total 32078.29 766.362 25.3 7656.65 357.575 0.0 5973.53 21.500 0.0 581

AcreFeet 45708.47 CFS 1145.437 Gallons/mi nute 25.3

Hydrology & Water Use - 28

Table HT11. Water rights breakdown for the Mainstem subbasin. # of Primary Supplemental Primary & Supplemental Rights Beneficial Gallons/ Gallons/ Gallons/ Use AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 CS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DI 0.00 0.025 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 DN 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DO 0.00 0.615 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 4 DS 0.00 0.030 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 FI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FP 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FR 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 I* 0.00 13.320 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 10 IC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 547.44 1.880 0.0 3 ID 0.00 0.660 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 3 IL 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IR 1328.06 32.061 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1.65 2.500 0.0 131 IS 0.00 0.000 0.0 570.40 84.480 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 21 LV 1.85 0.010 1.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 6 LW 3.04 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 12 PW 0.00 24.400 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 QM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 RC 614.50 1.070 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 8 ST 0.00 0.000 0.0 150.10 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 TC 0.00 0.700 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 WI 1.20 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 Total 1948.65 72.891 1.0 720.50 84.480 0.0 549.09 4.380 0.0 207

AcreFeet 3218.24 CFS 161.751 Gallons/mi nute 1.0

Hydrology & Water Use - 29

Table HT12. Water rights breakdown for the Antelope subbasin. # of Primary Supplemental Primary & Supplemental Rights Beneficial Gallons/ Gallons/ Gallons/ Use AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AS 1.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 CS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DI 0.00 0.010 3.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 DN 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DO 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FP 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FR 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 I* 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 ID 0.00 0.360 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 IL 0.00 0.550 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 IM 0.00 1.530 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 IR 1849.45 7.615 15.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.940 0.0 22 IS 0.00 0.000 0.0 4614.00 230.176 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 6 LV 3.10 0.040 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 9 LW 1.21 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 PW 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 QM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 RC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 ST 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 TC 7.00 3.480 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 4 WI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 Total 1861.76 13.585 18.0 4614.00 230.176 0.0 0.00 0.940 0.0 51

AcreFeet 6475.76 CFS 244.701 Gallons/minute 18.0

Hydrology & Water Use - 30

Table HT13. Water rights breakdown for the Dry subbasin. # of Primary Supplemental Primary & Supplemental Rights Beneficial Gallons/ Gallons/ Gallons/ Use AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AS 5.20 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 CS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DN 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DO 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FP 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FR 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 I* 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 4850.00 0.000 0.0 1 ID 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IL 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IR 0.00 0.790 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 IS 0.00 0.000 0.0 404.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 LV 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 LW 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 PW 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 QM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 RC 5.00 0.016 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 ST 230.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 TC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 WI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 Total 240.20 0.806 0.0 404.00 0.000 0.0 4850.00 0.000 0.0 9

AcreFeet 5494.20 CFS 0.806 Gallons/minute 0.0

Hydrology & Water Use - 31

Table HT14. Water rights breakdown for the Salt subbasin. # of Primary Supplemental Primary & Supplemental Rights Beneficial Gallons/ Gallons/ Gallons/ Use AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 CS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DN 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DO 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FP 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FR 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 I* 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 ID 0.00 0.075 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 IL 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IR 765.40 8.246 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 19 IS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 2.230 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 LV 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 LW 0.43 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 4 PW 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 QM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 RC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 ST 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 TC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 WI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 Total 765.83 8.321 0.0 0.00 2.230 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 27

AcreFeet 765.83 CFS 10.551 Gallons/minute 0.0

Hydrology & Water Use - 32

Table HT15. Water rights breakdown for the Lick subbasin. # of Primary Supplemental Primary & Supplemental Rights Beneficial Gallons/ Gallons/ Gallons/ Use AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 CS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DN 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DO 0.00 0.010 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 DS 0.00 0.010 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 FI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FP 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FR 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 I* 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 ID 0.00 0.140 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 IL 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IR 293.00 0.170 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 7 IS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 LV 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 LW 0.14 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 3 PW 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 QM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 RC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 ST 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 TC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 WI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 Total 293.14 0.330 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 14

AcreFeet 293.14 CFS 0.330 Gallons/minute 0.0

Hydrology & Water Use - 33

Table HT16. Water rights breakdown for the Lake subbasin. # of Primary Supplemental Primary & Supplemental Rights Beneficial Gallons/ Gallons/ Gallons/ Use AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 CS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DI 0.00 0.010 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 DN 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DO 0.00 0.005 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 DS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FP 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FR 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 I* 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 23.00 14.520 0.0 2 ID 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IL 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IR 2286.00 15.695 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 4.00 0.000 0.0 23 IS 0.00 0.000 0.0 1579.00 36.600 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 11 LV 0.00 0.010 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 LW 0.21 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 PW 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 QM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 RC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 ST 205.00 0.000 0.0 305.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 TC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 WI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 Total 2491.21 15.720 0.0 1884.00 36.600 0.0 27.00 14.520 0.0 42

AcreFeet 4402.21 CFS 66.840 Gallons/minute 0.0

Hydrology & Water Use - 34

Table HT25. Water rights breakdown for the Lost subbasin. Primary Supplemental Primary & Supplemental # of Rights Beneficial AcreFeet CFS Gallons AcreFeet CFS Gallons/ AcreFeet CFS Gallons/ Use /minute minute minute AS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 CS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DN 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DO 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FP 0.37 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 5 FR 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 I* 0.00 1.060 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 3 IC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 ID 0.00 0.390 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 IL 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IR 165.20 4.451 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 1.660 0.0 11 IS 0.00 0.000 0.0 23.40 3.609 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 11 LV 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 LW 0.25 0.001 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 5 PW 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 QM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 RC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 ST 856.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 10 TC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 WI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 Total 1021.82 5.902 0.0 23.40 3.609 0.0 0.00 1.660 0.0 47

AcreFeet 1045.22 CFS 11.171 Gallons/ 0.0 minute

Hydrology & Water Use - 35

Table HT18. Water rights breakdown for the Northfork subbasin. # of Primary Supplemental Primary & Supplemental Rights Beneficial Gallons/ Gallons/ Gallons/ Use AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 CS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DN 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DO 0.00 0.050 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 5 DS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FI 0.00 3.030 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 FP 0.08 0.020 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 FR 0.00 4.695 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 I* 0.00 13.220 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 6 IC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 547.44 0.000 0.0 1 ID 22550.00 0.045 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 IL 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IM 525.10 2.530 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 4 IR 0.00 280.565 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 26 IS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.380 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 LV 1.25 0.120 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 4 LW 0.18 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 4 PW 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 QM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 RC 2.25 0.050 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 ST 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 TC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 WI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 Total 23078.86 304.325 0.0 0.00 0.380 0.0 547.44 0.000 0.0 60

AcreFeet 23626.30 CFS 304.705 Gallons/minute 0.0

Hydrology & Water Use - 36

Table HT19. Water rights breakdown for the Southfork subbasin. # of Primary Supplemental Primary & Supplemental Rights Beneficial Gallons/ Gallons/ Gallons/ Use AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 CS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DI 0.00 0.030 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 3 DN 0.00 0.000 4.2 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 DO 0.00 0.075 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 5 DS 0.00 0.010 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 FI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FP 5.44 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 6 FR 16.10 4.965 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 I* 0.00 0.050 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 IC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 ID 0.00 0.610 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 3 IL 0.00 0.550 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 IM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IR 16.80 258.660 2.1 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 36 IS 0.00 0.000 0.0 10.75 0.100 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 3 LV 6.80 0.015 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 4 LW 0.22 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 PW 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 QM 0.00 0.120 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 RC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 ST 237.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 3 TC 36.10 66.420 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 22 WI 0.13 0.002 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 Total 318.59 331.507 6.3 10.75 0.100 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 97

AcreFeet 329.34 CFS 331.607 Gallons/minute 6.3

Hydrology & Water Use - 37

Table HT20. Water rights breakdown for the Soda subbasin. # of Primary Supplemental Primary & Supplemental Rights Beneficial Gallons/ Gallons/ Gallons/ Use AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS Minute AS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 CS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DN 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DO 0.00 0.010 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 DS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FP 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FR 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 I* 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 ID 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IL 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IR 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 LV 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 LW 0.24 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 3 PW 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 QM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 RC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 ST 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 TC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 WI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 Total 0.24 0.010 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 4

AcreFeet 0.24 CFS 0.010 Gallons/minute 0.0

Hydrology & Water Use - 38

Table HT21. Water rights breakdown for the Dead Indian subbasin. # of Primary Supplemental Primary & Supplemental Rights Beneficial Gallons/ Gallons/ Gallons/ Use AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 CS 0.00 0.015 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 DI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DN 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DO 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FP 1.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 FR 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 I* 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 ID 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IL 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IR 0.00 11.370 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 8 IS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 LV 0.11 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 LW 0.25 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 3 PW 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 QM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 RC 47.50 0.700 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 3 ST 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 TC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 WI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 Total 48.86 12.085 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 19

AcreFeet 48.86 CFS 12.085 Gallons/minute 0.0

Hydrology & Water Use - 39

Table HT22. Water rights breakdown for the Beaver Dam subbasin. # of Primary Supplemental Primary & Supplemental Rights Beneficial Gallons/ Gallons/ Gallons/ Use AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 CS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DN 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DO 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FP 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FR 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 I* 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 ID 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IL 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IR 0.00 0.750 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 IS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 LV 9.00 0.130 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 2 LW 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 PW 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 QM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 RC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 ST 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 TC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 WI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 Total 9.00 0.880 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 3

AcreFeet 9.00 CFS 0.880 Gallons/min ute 0.0

Hydrology & Water Use - 40

Table HT23. Water rights breakdown for the Upper Southfork subbasin. # of Primary Supplemental Primary & Supplemental Rights Beneficial Gallons/ Gallons/ Gallons/ Use AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS minute AcreFeet CFS Minute AS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 CS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DN 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DO 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 DS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 FP 0.14 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1 FR 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 I* 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 ID 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IL 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IR 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 IS 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 LV 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 LW 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 PW 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 QM 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 RC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 ST 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 TC 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 WI 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0 Total 0.14 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.0 1

AcreFeet 0.14 CFS 0.000 Gallons/minute 0.0

Hydrology & Water Use - 41

Streamflow

The Oregon Water Resources Board has divided the state into Water Availability Basins (WABs). There are 13 WABs within the Little Butte Creek Watershed. OWRD has generated models to determine natural streamflows for these basins as well as to determine the net water available.

Water run-off in the Little Butte Creek Watershed generally follows the seasonal precipitation pattern, being driven by rainfall (see figure HF2). Low flows normally occur from July through October, which is the period of least rainfall and heaviest irrigation use. Peak flows are generally found between December through April.

Currently, most streams in the Little Butte Creek Watershed are over allocated, meaning that there is more water allocated to users through water rights than exists naturally in the streams in an average flow year (see Table HT24). The upper subbasins are the least over-allocated as there are fewer water rights on the high elevation streams.

Those basins that have a larger percentage of consumptive water use, greater than 10%, represent areas that have the greatest opportunity for restoration (see Table HT25). This flow restoration can be accomplished through numerous avenues such as improving irrigation efficiency and delivery and growing less water intensive crops.

Hydrology & Water Use - 42

Table HT24. Water availability for the 13 WABs in the Little Butte Creek Watershed (cubic feet per second (cfs)). WABs Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Little Butte @ mouth 187.00 251.00 252.00 340.00 208.00 50.10 -7.97 -14.60 -107.00 -102.00 -60.70 94.20 Antelope @ mouth 20.20 31.70 29.20 32.20 16.70 1.59 -2.31 -3.36 -18.30 -18.60 -21.00 3.22 Antelope above Rio 0.09 0.48 1.73 13.10 0.86 -5.08 -2.23 -1.39 -1.21 -1.72 -2.79 -0.72 Lake @ mouth -16.70 -17.80 -17.50 -8.41 -3.54 -3.80 -5.76 -4.97 -10.40 -8.03 -12.50 -15.00 Northfork @ mouth -2.52 7.97 11.30 33.50 19.50 4.06 -0.79 -2.59 -0.38 -9.85 -13.30 -12.80 Northfork above unnamed -14.30 -16.00 -19.10 -1.11 19.00 1.10 -1.77 -3.96 -2.95 -8.70 -16.10 -16.80 Southfork @ mouth 15.80 46.90 66.30 125.00 69.80 -8.22 -24.10 -30.90 -32.30 -27.50 -34.90 -3.00 Southfork above Dead Indian -0.08 -0.08 -0.08 -6.72 49.50 2.02 -9.42 -6.44 -6.46 -0.68 -0.08 -0.08 Southfork above Beaver Dam 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.19 22.20 7.18 5.96 3.66 2.72 -0.20 0.00 0.00 Dead Indian @ mouth 13.30 12.50 17.20 23.60 11.60 -13.10 -26.20 -23.50 -15.90 0.34 0.24 6.90 Dead Indian above Conde 5.20 4.50 6.90 7.26 -1.30 -17.20 -29.00 -24.80 -15.90 0.08 0.06 0.00 Beaver Dam @ mouth 8.63 5.03 9.13 20.40 45.50 15.40 4.68 7.65 9.96 8.13 3.83 11.10 Daley @ mouth 0.61 0.03 0.01 -2.09 -1.97 -14.50 -24.00 -19.70 -11.20 -0.05 0.01 -0.05

Table HT25. Restoration potential for WABs based on percentage of water that is allocated to consumptive uses. Those that are highlighted blue represent those with the greatest restoration potential. WABs Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Little Butte @ mouth 13.3 13.6 14.3 3.9 10.3 41.1 85.3 91.3 73.4 39.5 36.0 16.3 Antelope @ mouth 9.8 9.8 9.8 1.1 4.8 24.3 52.8 59.9 48.1 14.3 11.3 9.8 Antelope above Rio 25.2 25.2 25.2 1.4 5.2 25.0 52.3 57.8 44.7 26.0 25.9 25.2 Lake @ mouth 210.4 167.4 161.8 21.6 83.2 437.3 1157.8 1688.0 1139.1 110.3 185.2 261.3 Northfork @ mouth 31.4 27.7 29.8 3.3 8.4 24.6 47.9 46.6 31.0 49.7 70.7 44.4 Northfork above unnamed 100.0 100.0 100.0 3.4 4.6 16.3 34.3 34.5 26.1 99.8 100.0 100.0 Southfork @ mouth 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.2 8.8 32.1 64.6 67.8 54.3 3.3 3.2 3.0 Southfork above Dead Indian 0.2 0.2 0.2 8.4 10.9 33.8 61.6 53.6 41.9 0.3 0.2 0.2 Southfork above Beaver Dam 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 4.7 14.0 25.1 23.6 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dead Indian @ mouth 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 35.8 128.5 279.7 324.1 287.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dead Indian above Conde 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.8 70.9 243.7 532.4 621.1 566.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Beaver Dam @ mouth 0.4 0.4 0.3 14.9 18.7 48.5 76.5 67.0 46.7 0.3 0.4 0.4 Daley @ mouth 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.5 73.1 192.9 303.9 293.2 185.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hydrology & Water Use - 43

DISCUSSION

The land use practices within the Little Butte Creek Watershed do not appear to represent a great potential for impacting the hydrologic cycle (see Table HT18). However, since forestry lands cover over 65% of the Little Butte Creek Watershed, practices on these lands should be operated using best management practices to improve the current hydrologic condition of the watershed. This is particularly true on private forestlands, which make up a significant portion of the watershed.

Roads do represent a potential factor for affecting the hydrologic cycle. In particular, roads in urban and rural residential zoned areas represent the most important land use activity in regards to impacting the hydrologic cycle. Once again, though forest roads do not appear to represent an important factor, the fact that the total amount of forest roads represents the greatest portion of roads in the watershed, there is potential for an impact on the hydrology of the Little Butte Creek Watershed.

Most of the streams in the Little Butte Creek Watershed are over allocated, meaning there are rights for more water than exists in the streams. During most of the summer months there is potential for stream flow restoration on almost all of the streams based on the fact that greater than 10% of the flow is used by consumptive water rights. However, water conservation projects must take into account the seniority of the water right in question in order to ensure that the benefit to the stream is recognized instead of consumed by a senior water right.

The overall condition of the hydrological cycle in the Little Butte Creek Watershed is somewhat moderate. There has been and continues to be development throughout the watershed. This, along with resource development will continue to increase the negative impacts on the hydrological cycle. However, there is potential for restoration, through in-stream projects, up- slope projects and landowner education. The most severe hydrological issues in the watershed are low flows in the streams caused by large amounts of irrigation that support the local agricultural community. These low flows have repercussions to stream stability, vegetation and fish and wildlife. These issues will be discussed in the following chapters.

DATA GAPS

Actual stream flow data for the entire year on streams would be more useful than the modeled flows from OWRD. The actual amount of water diverted from streams, both legal and illegal would allow for a better understanding of how stream flows are being impacted. Better data regarding historic and recent timber activities both on public and private lands would allow for a better estimation of the impact on the hydrologic cycle. An accurate assessment of the losses of water in the irrigation delivery systems would allow for an analysis of how water can be conserved. An analysis of the amount of irrigated lands in the LBCW and how they are irrigated and at what efficiency.

Hydrology & Water Use - 44

Table HT26. Hydrologic Issue Identification Summary. Subwatershed Timber Harvest Agriculture Forest Roads Ag. Roads Rural/Urban Roads Result Risk Result Risk Result Risk Result Risk Result Risk Mainstem <0.50 LOW 0.82 LOW 1.71 LOW 5.81 HIGH Antelope <0.50 LOW 1.45 LOW 1.47 LOW 5.97 HIGH Dry <0.50 LOW 0.78 LOW 0.91 LOW 4.16 MODERATE Lick <0.50 LOW 1.01 LOW 1.81 LOW 0 LOW Salt <0.50 LOW 2.10 LOW 1.79 LOW 0 LOW Lake <0.50 LOW 1.84 LOW 1.90 LOW 0 LOW Lost <0.50 LOW 1.81 LOW 2.16 LOW 0 LOW North Fork <0.50 LOW 1.60 LOW 1.63 LOW 0 LOW South Fork <0.50 LOW 1.46 LOW 1.58 LOW 0 LOW Soda <0.50 LOW 2.14 LOW 1.26 LOW 0 LOW Dead Indian <0.50 LOW 1.81 LOW 1.16 LOW 0 LOW Beaver Dam <0.50 LOW 1.83 LOW 1.76 LOW 0 LOW Upper SF <0.50 LOW 1.67 LOW 0.00 LOW 0 LOW Total <0.50 LOW 1.62 LOW 1.55 LOW ---- LOW

Fish & Fish Habitat - 45

Chapter IV Fish and Fish Habitat

INTRODUCTION

There are four native anadromous salmonids that spawn within the Little Butte Watershed (LBW): chinook salmon (spring and fall runs), steelhead (summer and winter runs), coho salmon, and sea-run cutthroat trout. Regarding the latter, while a few cutthroat are caught that appear to have smolt-like characteristics, there does not appear to be a significant population of searun cutthroat in Little Butte or the Upper Rogue Watershed as a whole. In addition to these species, there are numerous other fish that live within the LBW including anadromous fish such as pacific lamprey as well as resident fish including rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, and sculpins.

GENERAL SALMONID LIFE HISTORY PATTERN

The life history of anadromous salmonids varies between species and even runs but the general characteristics are the same. The adults make their way up stream, generally to the waters where they were hatched themselves. There is a small amount of straying, return migration to a stream other than the natal stream, that occurs which provides protection for the species in case of a catastrophic event such as a landslide or flood destroying all of the rearing or spawning habitat in a stream for a year or more. The females then dig redds (nests) made of clean gravel Egg in which they lay their eggs. Males then fertilize the eggs. The number of eggs laid is dependant upon the Alevin species and size of the Adult individual female. Incubation time of the eggs depends upon the species and is temperature dependant. The eggs then hatch, becoming Smolt Fingerling alevin in which the yolk sac is still attached to the young fish. The alevin stay Parr within the gravel until the yolk sac is Figure 1. Salmonid life history. Anadromous salmonids are completely absorbed. born in fresh water streams, and after maturing for a variable period of time depending upon species and habitat conditions, migrate to the ocean. They then return to the fresh water stream where they were hatched, where after reproducing, they die. Fish & Fish Habitat - 46

At this point they emerge from the gravel as juvenile salmonids. The juveniles stay in fresh water from six months to three years depending on the species. These young fish use the slower waters near the shore and instream structures for protection against predation and strong currents. Eventually, they begin making their way down towards the mouth of the river. Once the juvenile salmonids reach the brackish waters of the estuary they finish going through a physiological change in preparation for moving from fresh water to the salt water of the ocean. This process is known as smoltification, which begins in freshwater prior to entry into an estuary, and at this time the young are called smolts. After the smoltification process is complete, the fish make their way into the ocean where they will live from one summer up to eight years depending on species and life history strategy.

SPRING CHINOOK LIFE HISTORY PATTERN

Spring chinook generally begin entering the Rogue River in mid-March and have entered the LBW by the end of July, with the peak migration period occurring during June. However, it is difficult to differentiate between spring and fall chinook and it is possible that spring chinook do not enter Little Butte Creek until early fall. They spawn in the mainstem and lowest reaches of the larger streams, with most spawning in the Rogue River between Gold Ray Dam and Cole M. Rivers Hatchery at Lost Creek Dam (upstream of the LBW). Spawning occurs from September through mid-November with a peak normally during early October (ODFW, 1991). Spring chinook fry complete their emergence from redds by mid-May (Satterthwaite et. Al., 1992).

FALL CHINOOK LIFE HISTORY PATTERN

The fall chinook run in the Rogue River is the largest in Oregon excluding the Columbia River stocks (Nicholas and Hankin, 1988). Fall chinook begin entering the Rogue River in mid-July. In contrast to spring chinook, fall chinook runs in the Rogue River are not supported through hatchery production. This population appears somewhat stable. It is believed that the bulk of the spawners found in Little Butte Creek are fall chinook, however, on spawning grounds it is difficult to tell them from spring chinook.

Spawning in the Rogue River and lower reaches of the major tributaries occurs from mid- September to late December with the peak spawning occurring from late October through mid- November. Fall chinook spawn in the mainstem of Little Butte Creek up to the confluence of the North and South Forks. Fall chinook fry emerge from redds in the LBW between late February and May (ODFW, 1992b). Most chinook spend 3-4 years in the ocean before returning to fresh water. Some will return as jacks after only 1.5 years at sea and some will stay in the ocean for up to eight years.

COHO LIFE HISTORY PATTERN

Adult coho salmon enter the Rogue River in mid-September. Wild adults remain in the river until flows in the tributaries are sufficient for them to enter. Spawning and rearing occurs mostly in the tributaries. Adults, which average about seven pounds and produce approximately 2,500 eggs per female spawn in the low gradient riffle areas over small gravel. Fry emerge from the

Fish & Fish Habitat - 47 gravel between late March and early June (ODFW, 1991). After hatching, most coho spend about 15 months in their natal stream, preferring pools and slack water areas associated with woody debris, undercut banks and overhanging vegetation. Emigration to the river and ocean occurs during February through early June, peaking from late April to late May (Vogt, 2001). Approximately 200,000 smolts are reared and released annually at Cole M. Rivers hatchery (ODFW, 1992b). Most coho spend 1.5 years at sea though some return after only one summer and are known as jacks. It is not known whether or not the LBW population is hatchery or wild. Now that all hatchery fish are marked with an adipose clip, carcass surveys in the mainstem would tell what proportions are hatchery and wild.

WINTER STEELHEAD LIFE HISTORY PATTERN

Winter steelhead enter the Rogue River from November through March. Wild fish comprise more than 90 percent of all winter steelhead that return to spawn in the Rogue River. This run is the largest on the Oregon coast (ODFW, 1990). During years with adequate precipitation and streamflows, most adults spawn in tributaries. However, in drought conditions when many tributaries have inadequate flow to permit access, adults are forced to spawn in the mainstem. Spawning occurs from March to June with the peak activity in March or April. About 30 percent of winter steelhead adults return after four months at sea and are known as half-pounders. Approximately 15 percent of wild winter steelhead are repeat spawners (ODFW, 1990) (This figure varies depending on the flow in the stream. After low flow years the number of repeat spawners tends to be lower and higher after high flow years. Adults average seven pounds but can reach up to 15 pounds. They spawn on low gradient riffles with small to medium size gravel and lay approximately 2,500 eggs per female. Steelhead of all sizes most often choose territories in large rubble substrate and move from shallow, slow water at the stream margin to deeper, faster water as they mature. Fingerlings in tributary streams move to pools almost exclusively as streamflow diminishes during the summer. The majority of winter steelhead migrate to the ocean during late spring after two years living in fresh water, with peak migration occurring between mid-April to late May (Vogt, 2001).

Small percentages of juvenile steelhead in the Rogue River fail to smolt and become resident rainbow trout. The ODFW has discontinued stocking resident rainbow trout in the Rogue River between Indian Mary Park and Grants Pass.

SUMMER STEELHEAD LIFE HISTORY PATTERN

Adults enter tributaries to spawn from January through March. Averaging 3 to 4 pounds, females produce about 2,300 eggs. Although they favor smaller streams than winter steelhead, there is considerable spatial overlap. Many spawning streams are intermittent or dry during the summer, some as early as April or May. Alevins remain in the gravel several weeks.

Fry emigrate from their natal streams to the mainstem Rogue River from March through July where they rear, generally near the mouth of their natal stream. Rearing also occurs in Little Butte Creek and some of its larger tributaries such as the North and South Forks and other streams with adequate flow and suitable temperatures during the summer. Juveniles frequently move between the river and tributaries, especially during winter storms. The majority of summer

Fish & Fish Habitat - 48 steelhead migrate to the ocean during late spring after two years living in fresh water, with peak migration occurring between mid-April to late May (Vogt, 2001).

SEA-RUN CUTTHROAT AND RESIDENT TROUT LIFE HISTORY PATTERN

Resident cutthroat trout are relatively common in the Rogue River. They generally prefer the upper reaches of tributaries that are not being utilized by juvenile steelhead and coho salmon. Their life history in the middle and upper river is poorly understood. Adults residing in the river appear to move into tributaries to spawn from February through March. They remain there for a short time and then return to the river and larger tributaries.

The status of sea-run cutthroat, the anadromous life history pattern of this species, in the Rogue River Basin is uncertain. The relatively small number of sea-run cutthroat in the lower river did not appear to migrate upstream of the Illinois River (Tomasson, 1978).

FISH SUMMARY

The Rogue River and its tributaries are the largest salmon and steelhead producers of Oregon’s coastal streams south of the Columbia River and the most important on the Pacific Coast. The LBW is one of the best coho and steelhead producing watersheds in the Rogue River Basin (Vogt, 2001).

FISH HABITAT

Streams are complex environments subject to many physical, chemical and biological influences. All stream organisms must constantly adapt to changing environmental conditions. Because salmonids live in streams during their most critical and vulnerable life stages, stream habitat conditions are critical to survival and population strength. Any disruption caused by human activity has a profound impact on salmonid survival. Three factors influence streams as habitat for salmonids: water quality (temperature, turbidity/sedimentation, chemistry/pH balance), water quantity (low stream flow, diversions), and physical structure (pool habitat, riffle-pool-glide ratio).

Water Quality – Temperature

For salmonids, water temperature is critical. Although survival is possible between 42F and 77F (5.6C-25C), salmonids are very sensitive to changes in water temperature. Salmonid rearing becomes seriously impaired when water temperatures exceed 64F. As mentioned in the previous chapter, most of the streams in the LBW suffer from very low flows during the summer months, resulting in higher temperatures throughout the system.

Water Quality – Turbidity/Sedimentation

Water clarity is the most visible characteristic of water quality and is affected by suspended sediment (turbidity). Steep stream gradients throughout the LBW have produced narrow

Fish & Fish Habitat - 49 canyons and ridges with steep slopes subject to mass wasting. Soil depth is generally shallow and rocky. Periods of winter and spring high run-off are often accompanied with high turbidity due to readily weathered granitic rock..

A major source of stream sedimentation is road construction. Logging and the concomitant road building have caused extensive upland erosion, in some cases causing or exacerbating landslides. This results in sedimentation of streambeds and consequent loss of spawning and rearing habitat. Salmonids require clean well oxygenated gravels for their redds and the survival of alevins. Much of the upland road system consists of natural or unpaved roads that are a major source of surface erosion.

Grazing practices allowing livestock in riparian zones, over grazing that removes substantial vegetative cover, and residential clearing in and outside of the riparian zone have also contributed to increases sedimentation.

Water Quality – Chemistry/pH Balance

The proper chemical balance is crucial to fish survival in the dynamic stream environment. Salmonids require highly oxygenated water, a condition that varies dramatically with flow rates, water temperature, and biological activity. Salmonids also prefer water with a neutral pH balance. Dissolved solids such as calcium and magnesium have a direct impact on aquatic plants and animals. Calcium acts to make heavy metals less toxic to fish. Phosphates and nitrates affect the entire food chain. Their abundance makes algae and other aquatic plant life bloom rapidly. This can be harmful to fish as decomposing organic material consumes dissolved oxygen.

Low flows and elevated water temperatures can stimulate various diseases that can significantly affect fish. Low flows from drought and domestic and irrigation withdrawals reduce stream flows and lead to an increase in stream temperatures. Logging, drought caused mortality of conifers and residential and agricultural development have decreased riparian vegetation that shades the streams, exacerbating the problem. Excess runoff from agricultural lands as a result of flood irrigation is another significant source of stream warming.

Water Quantity – Low stream flow and Diversions

Water needs are greatest during the summer months when water is in high demand for irrigation, recreation, domestic use, road construction and power generation. This is also the time of lowest water yield. Low flows are the combined result of naturally low seasonal flows and withdrawals for irrigation and domestic use. Low flows can lead to higher stream temperatures and lower oxygen levels. The Little Butte Mill Dam is located at rivermile 5 on the mainstem of the Little Butte Creek. It has a non-consumptive water right that diverts up to 24.4 cfs to power the grinding stone in the gristmill in order to make flour. The fact that this water right is the most senior in the LBW helps ensures flows to the lower reaches of the watershed.

Fish & Fish Habitat - 50

Water Quantity – Soil compaction

Soil has a large infiltration and storage capacity for water. Water from this storage reservoir is released slowly back to the stream, usually cooler than the water already flowing in the stream, and is a major source of stream flows during the summer months. Road construction and logging activities as well as intense livestock grazing often result in compacted soils. This consequently reduces the systems capacity to store water for later releases. The loss of riparian vegetation is also a major cause of reduced water storage capacity of the soil, and is of primary importance in keeping the stream cool.

Physical Structure – Pools, Riffles and Glides

The quality of stream habitat for salmonids is closely related to its structure – the number and arrangement of pools, riffles and glides as well as woody debris and barriers.

Pools offer deep water, shade, the protective cover of boulders and logs, and reduced current and turbulence. In pools, fish can expend relatively little energy as drifting food comes to them and offer resting areas while migrating upstream to spawn. Downed logs in the stream are crucial to the formation of pools and “stepped pools” as habitat.

Riffles and glides are habitat for aquatic insects and important sources of oxygen. Many insect forms thrive in the rocks of riffles. For coho, cutthroat, and steelhead juveniles, the number of feeding stations often determines fish density: the more boulders and greater diversity of bottom textures, the more fish.

Water Quantity – Barriers

Fish passage barriers have the most obvious structural impact on salmonid habitat in streams. Poorly designed dams and culverts make it more difficult or even impossible for fish to use otherwise useful habitat. Barriers to fish passage can prevent salmonids from reaching spawning habitat and can prevent juveniles from finding safe rearing areas or safely migrating to the ocean. Barriers can be both man-made and natural and can change the flow regimes of the stream system. Unscreened or improperly screened ditches cause direct and indirect juvenile salmonid mortality.

METHODS

Fish Distribution

Fish distribution data for fall chinook, spring chinook, coho, summer steelhead and winter steelhead was generated using data supplied by ODFW. GIS layers were generated for each species using ArcView software. Maps were generated using the GIS layers created for this chapter.

Fish & Fish Habitat - 51

Fish Population Trends

Data for fish stock status was collected from ODFW. The counts for this data were made at Gold Ray Dam.

Fish Habitat Conditions

Data for the fish habitat condition section was obtained from the ODFW office in Corvallis. The GIS information was first translated so that it had the same projection as the other GIS data being used in this assessment. The data was then transferred to Microsoft Excel where it could be organized into the format required by the OWEB Assessment Manual. The data was then graded based on the benchmarks provided in the manual.

ODFW Habitat Benchmarks

Habitat Condition Undesirable Desirable POOLS ---Pool Area (% total stream area) <10 >35 ---Pool Frequency (channel widths between pools) >20 5-8 ---Residual Pool Depth <0.2 >0.5 ---Complex Pools (pools w/wood complexity >3km) <1 >2.5 RIFFLES ---Width/Depth Ratio (active channel based) >30 <15 ---Gravel (% area) <15 >35 ---Silt-Sand-Organics (% area) >20 <10 SHADE ---Shade (reach average %) <60 >70 LARGE WOODY DEBRIS ---Pieces/100m Stream Length <10 >20 ---Volume/100m Stream Length <20 >30 ---“Key” Pieces (>60cm and 100m long)/100m <1 >3 RIPARIAN CONIFERS ---Number >20in DBH/1000ft Stream Length <150 >300 ---Number >35in DBH/1000ft Stream Length <75 >200

Fish Passage Barriers

Fish barrier data was generated using the GIS layer provided by the Rogue Basin Fish Access Team.

Fish & Fish Habitat - 52

RESULTS

Fish Distribution

Each of the six anadromous salmonid populations (searun cutthroat are not included in this discussion due to a lack of data) uses at least some portion of the LBW. Both spring and fall chinook use the waters of the LBW for spawning and migration only, as the young fish rear in waters lower in the Rogue River (see Tables F1, F2, Maps F1, F2).

Table F1. Current estimated fall chinook distribution in the Little Butte Watershed. The distance of stream used is measured from the mouth of the creek. Fall Chinook Distance (miles) Little Butte Creek 17

Table F2. Current estimated spring chinook distribution in the Little Butte Watershed. The distance of stream used is measured from the mouth of the creek. Spring Chinook Distance (miles) Little Butte Creek 17 SF Little Butte Creek 1 Total Miles 18

Coho use smaller tributaries than chinook, and they use the streams of the LBW for rearing as well as spawning and migration (see Table F3, Map F3). Coho use a total of 52.7 miles of streams within the LBW.

Table F3. Current estimated coho distribution in the Little Butte Watershed. The distance of stream used is measured from the mouth of the creek. Coho Distance (miles) Little Butte Creek 17 South Fork Little Butte Creek 16.4 North Fork Little Butte Creek 7.5 Antelope Creek 6.3 Lake Creek 2.5 Lick Creek 2.25 Dead Indian Creek 0.5 Soda Creek 0.25 Total Miles 52.7

Like coho, steelhead use the smaller tributaries of the LBW for rearing as well as spawning and migration. Summer steelhead utilize the most streams of the local anadromous fish (see Table

Fish & Fish Habitat - 53

F4, Map F4). Based on ODFW surveys, winter steelhead are less common in the LBW than summer steelhead (see Table F5, Map F5).

Table F4. Current estimated summer steelhead distribution in the Little Butte Watershed. The distance of stream used is measured from the mouth of the creek.

Stream Distance (miles) Stream Distance (miles) Antelope Creek 13 Rock Creek 1.1 Burnt Canyon 0.5 Salt Creek 5 Dead Indian Creek 0.9 Schoolhouse Creek 1 Deer Creek 0.25 Soda Creek 2.6 Grizzly Creek 1 South Fork Little Butte Creek 16.4 Lake Creek 3.1 Trib 1 (Soda) 0.3 Lick Creek 3 Trib A (SF Little Butte) 0.7 Little Butte Creek 17 Trib B (Antelope) 0.5 Long Branch Creek 3.5 Trib B (Salt Creek) 1.6 Lost Creek 3.7 Trib C (Trib A SF Little Butte) 0.8 Mud Creek 0.1 Trib Y (Salt) 0.06 Nichols Branch 1 Wasson Canyon Creek 1.5 North Fork Little Butte Creek 10 Whiskey Creek 1 Peck Gulch 0.3 Yankee Creek 1 Rio Canyon Creek 0.2 Total Miles 91.11

Table F5. Current estimated winter steelhead distribution in the Little Butte Watershed. The distance of stream used is measured from the mouth of the creek.

Stream Distance (miles) Little Butte Creek 17 South Fork Little Butte Creek 16.4 North Fork Little Butte Creek 10 Total Miles 43.4

Fish & Fish Habitat - 54

Table F6. Current Estimated distribution for anadromous salmonids within the Little Butte Watershed. Subwatershed Fall Chinook Spring Chinook Coho Summer Steelhead Winter Steelhead Mainstem 17 17 17 22.5 17 Antelope 0 0 6.3 15.2 0 Dry 0 0 0 0 0 Lick 0 0 2.3 5.1 0 Salt 0 0 0 6.66 0 North Fork 0 0 7.5 11.8 10 South Fork 0 1 16 19.15 16.4 Lake 0 0 2.5 3.2 0 Lost 0 0 0 3.7 0 Soda 0 0 0.3 2.9 0 Dead Indian 0 0 0.5 0.9 0 Beaver Dam 0 0 0 0 0 Upper South Fork 0 0 0 0 0 Total Miles 17 18 53 91.11 43.4

Li tt l e B u tt e

Map F1. Current estimated fall chinook distribution in the Little Butte Watershed. Fall chinook use the waters of the LBW solely for spawning and migration.

Fish & Fish Habitat - 55

L itt le Bu tte

So uth Fo rk LB

Map F2. Current estimated spring chinook distribution in the Little Butte Watershed. Spring chinook use the waters of the LBW solely for spawning and migration.

Fish & Fish Habitat - 56

k ic L L itt A le ntelope Bu tte N ort h F or k L e B

k

a

L S ou th F or k LB

Map F3. Current estimated coho distribution in the Little Butte Watershed. Coho use the streams of the LBW for spawning, migration and rearing.

Fish & Fish Habitat - 57

R

o

c

k k ic L L lt itt a le S Bu Y tt a e nk ee N ort S h e o Fo

k r A ut k n a h L te B lo L Fo p rk e L

t B

s

o S

L o d a

Map F4. Current estimated summer steelhead distribution in the Little Butte Watershed. Summer steelhead use the streams of the LBW for spawning, migration and rearing.

Fish & Fish Habitat - 58

L ittl e B ut te N or th Fo rk LB

S ou th F or k LB

Map F5. Current estimated winter steelhead distribution in the Little Butte Watershed. Winter steelhead use the streams of the LBW for spawning, migration and rearing.

Fish & Fish Habitat - 59

Fish Population Trends

There is limited data regarding the population numbers for anadromous salmonids in the LBW. Downstream of the LBW is the ODFW fish counting station at Gold Ray Dam. Numbers from this do not give accurate numbers of fish in the LBW but the counts do reflect population trends for the various species, both for wild and hatchery fish. This is because fish that pass over Gold Ray dam spawn in the Rogue River and its many tributaries including Little Butte Creek. Since 1998, ODFW has been using a smolt trap in the Little Butte Watershed in order to estimate coho and steelhead production in the watershed (Vogt, 2001).

Fall chinook are doing relatively well in the Rogue Basin. Numbers of wild fish are far greater than hatchery fish, with wild fish making up over 95% of the entire population (see Figure F1). One explanation for this is that the operation of Lost Creek Dam does not negatively impact fall chinook. Rather the water releases improve habitat for fall chinook by helping to keep water temperatures in the main stem Rogue River lower during the summer months.

Spring chinook are almost the exact opposite, in that the numbers of wild fish make up a dwindling percentage of the total population (see Figure F2). Additionally, they are negatively impacted by the operations of Lost Creek Dam. The water released from the dam early in the year is warm enough to trigger the hatching of spring chinook eggs. However, the river habitat is not adequate for them due the higher flows and the resultant lack of refugia as well as because in January, insect and other food items in the river are at their lowest population levels.

Numbers of wild coho in the Rogue Basin are very low, showing only minor population increases in the past decade (see Figure F3). The early years of the 1990’s were extremely bad for wild coho with counts numbering less than 1000, including zero in 1992. There was a small recovery in the mid 1990’s but the numbers have dropped again to between 1000-2000.

The wild winter steelhead population has been highly variable over the past two decades with no significant trends (see Figure F4). Hatchery fish are a small component of the entire winter steelhead population.

Hatchery fish make up roughly two thirds of the summer steelhead population. There seems to be a general decline in the population since 1987, though the numbers were relatively high in 1995 (see Figure F5). ODFW has performed redd counts on two streams, Antelope Creek and Salt Creek, in the LBW over the past decade (see Figures F6 and F7). For Salt Creek, the surveys show a general decline in summer steelhead redds which suggests a continuing decline in summer steelhead numbers for this location. However, the surveys on Antelope Creek seem to indicate that steelhead population is improving slightly over the past decade (Vogt, 1999).

Numbers from the ODFW smolt trap seem to indicate that salmonid populations in the LBW are improving in recent years (see Table F7).

Fish & Fish Habitat - 60

Fall Chinook counted at Gold Ray Dam

16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 Wild 8,000 Hatchery 6,000 Total 4,000 Number of fish 2,000

0

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Figure F1. Fall chinook counts at Gold Ray Dam. The fish counted had migrated through the LBW. The figure can only show general population trends for the species in the LBW, not actual numbers.

Spring Chinook Counts at Gold Ray Dam

100,000 80,000 Wild 60,000 Hatchery 40,000 20,000 Total

0

Number of FishNumber

1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

Figure F2. Spring chinook counts at Gold Ray Dam. Some of the fish counted spawned in the LBW. The figure can only show general population trends for the species in the LBW, not actual numbers.

Coho counts at Gold Ray Dam

20,000 15,000 Wild 10,000 Hatchery 5,000 Total

0

Number of FishNumber

1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Figure F3. Coho counts at Gold Ray Dam. Some of the fish counted spawned in the LBW. The figure can only show general population trends for the species in the LBW, not actual numbers.

Fish & Fish Habitat - 61

Winter Steelhead Counts at Gold Ray Dam

20,000

15,000 Wild 10,000 Hatchery Total

5,000 Number of Fish

0

1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

Figure F4. Winter steelhead counts at Gold Ray Dam. Some of the fish counted spawned in the LBW. The figure can only show general population trends for the species in the LBW, not actual numbers.

Summer Steelhead counts at Gold Ray Dam

30,000 25,000 20,000 Wild 15,000 Hatchery 10,000 Total

5,000 Number of Fish of Number

0

1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997

Figure F5. Summer steelhead counts at Gold Ray Dam. Some of the fish counted spawned in the LBW. The figure can only show general population trends for the species in the LBW, not actual numbers.

Fish & Fish Habitat - 62

Antelope Creek Summer Steelhead Redds/Mile

30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 # # Redds/mile 5.0

0.0

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year

Figure F6. Summer steelhead redd counts on Antelope Creek.

Salt Creek Summer Steelhead Redds/Mile

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0 # # Redds/Mile 5.0

0.0

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Year

Figure F7. Summer steelhead redd counts on Salt Creek.

Fish & Fish Habitat - 63

Table F7. Salmonid populations counts at the ODFW smolt trap on Little Butte Creek.

Species/Lifestage 1999 2000 2001 Coho Fry 775 916 23,341 Trout Fry* 6314 3418 16992 Steelhead (60-89 mm) 1253 854 2340 Steelhead (90-119 mm) 1998 6176 11554 Cutthroat Trout (60-89 mm) 0 2 1 Cutthroat Trout (90-119 mm) 2 11 4 Cutthroat Trout (120-159 mm) 29 54 33 Cutthroat Trout (>160 mm) 10 18 24 Chinook 2438 8728 100350 Pacific Lamprey (Adults) 0 3 4 Lamprey (Ammocetes) 1631 1469 4034

Federal and State Listing Status

The Southern Oregon Northern California coho was listed as threatened in May of 1997 through the Federal Endangered Species Act. Klamath Mountain Province steelhead were reviewed and left as a candidate species in 1998. Since this time the National Marine Fisheries Service has reviewed the Rogue steelhead again and decided that these populations merit no status. Within the LBW the ODFW has designated that coho and fall chinook populations are critical while steelhead, cutthroat trout and Pacific lamprey are vulnerable.

Fish Habitat Conditions

Quality stream habitat is critical for fish populations to thrive, or even maintain population levels. Four types of habitat information can give a general sense of the fish habitat condition within the LBW: (1) pool habitat condition, (2) riffle habitat condition (3) woody debris habitat condition, and (4) riparian habitat condition. The ODFW has developed benchmarks for each of these habitat conditions, and they have been rated accordingly. Additionally, ODFW has been conducting stream surveys throughout the state, but only a limited number of streams have been surveyed to date (ODFW, 1997). There is no data of this type available for streams in the Dry Creek, Upper South Fork and Beaver Dam subwatersheds. Additionally, some of the data was gathered before the high water event during the winter 1996/97. This early data may not be valid as the stream channel and habitat may have been dramatically altered by the high water event. All of the data used to determine the habitat conditions are contained in Appendix F1.

Pool habitat condition:

Only 10.5% of the reaches surveyed had desirable conditions for pool area while 38.6% had undesirable conditions for pool area (see Table F8). Pool frequency had slightly higher numbers in both categories. The residual pool depth was average with over 60% in the Between category. The number of complex pools per reach was extremely poor with over 98% in the undesirable category. This is due to the general lack of large woody debris. The overall pool habitat

Fish & Fish Habitat - 64

condition was very poor with over 50% in the undesirable (U) category and 0% in the desirable (D) category.

Generally, the subwatershed broke down similar to the overall numbers. However, Lost Creek has noticeably better conditions except for the Complex Pool category.

Table F8. Pool habitat conditions in the Little Butte Watershed (U = undesirable, D = desirable). Residual Pool Subwatershed Pool Area Pool Frequency Depth Complex Pools Overall

Mainstem U = 0%; D = 100% U = 0; D = 100 U = 50; D = 0 U = 100; D = 0 U = 0; D = 0 Antelope U = 0%; D = 0% U = 100; D = 0 U = 0; D = 66.7 U = 100; D = 0 U = 100; D = 0 Dry Lick U = 0%; D = 0% U = 0; D = 0 U = 0; D = 25 U = 75; D = 0 U = 0; D = 0 Salt U = 71.4%; D = 14.3% U = 42.9; D = 14.3 U = 14.3; D = 14.3 U = 100; D = 0 U = 42.9; D = 0 North Fork U = 50%; D = 0% U = 50; D = 0 U = 0; D = 25 U = 100; D = 0 U = 25; D = 0 South Fork U = 33.3%; D = 13.3% U = 53.3; D = 33.3 U = 13.3; D = 20 U = 100; D = 0 U = 60; D = 0 Lake U = 100%; D = 0% U = 80; D = 0 U = 20; D = 0 U = 100; D = 0 U = 100; D = 0 Lost U = 12.5%; D = 12.5% U = 25; D = 37.5 U = 12.5; D = 50 U = 100; D = 0 U = 12.5; D = 0 Soda U = 66.7%; D = 0% U = 66.7; D = 0 U = 0; D = 33.3 U = 100; D = 0 U = 66.7; D = 0 Dead Indian U = 66.7%; D = 0% U = 66.7; D = 0 U = 33.3; D = 0 U = 100; D = 0 U = 100; D = 0 Beaver Dam Upper S.F. Total U = 38.6%; D = 10.5% U = 50.9%; D = 19.3% U = 12.3%; D = 26.3% U = 98.2%; D = 0% U = 52.6%; D = 0%

Riffle habitat condition:

In general, riffle habitat conditions are better than pool habitat conditions, but they are not at desirable conditions overall (see Table F9). Rather, most of the subwatershed rate between desirable (D) and undesirable (U) conditions. The indicator of riffle/depth ratio rates the best in the LBW with over 47% of reaches sampled in the desirable category. Silt-Sand-Organics rated extremely poor with over 82% of the reaches being rated as undesirable (U) in this category. However, by far most of the reaches sampled fell in between the desirable and undesirable benchmarks, indicating that there is room for improvement but that it is not a top priority. However, some of this analysis is based on data from before the flood event of the winter of 1996/97, thus these conditions could have changed significantly from what the data shows. As stated at the end of the chapter, continued habitat surveys are needed to better understand the current conditions.

Fish & Fish Habitat - 65

Table F9. Riffle habitat conditions in the Little Butte Watershed. Silt-sand- Riffle Width/Depth organics Subwatershed Ratio Gravel (% area) (% area) Overall Mainstem U = 100%; D = 0% U = 0%; D = 100% U = 50%; D = 0% U = 50%; D = 0% Antelope U = 0%; D = 66.7% U = 0%; D = 100% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 0%; D = 0% Dry Lick U = 0%; D = 50% U = 0%; D = 0% U = 75%; D = 0% U = 0%; D = 25% Salt U = 0%; D = 85.7% U = 14.3%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 28.6%; D = 0% North Fork U = 0%; D = 75% U = 0%; D = 0% U = 50%; D = 0% U = 0%; D = 50% South Fork U = 46.7%; D = 26.7% U = 0%; D = 33.3% U = 66.7%; D = 0% U = 33.3%; D = 13.3% Lake U = 40%; D = 20% U = 0%; D = 80% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 40%; D = 0% Lost U = 25%; D = 25% U = 25%; D = 12.5% U = 87.5%; D = 0% U = 37.5%; D = 0% Soda U = 0%; D = 66.7% U = 0%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 0%; D = 0% Dead Indian U = 0%; D = 100% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% Beaver Dam Upper S.F. Total U = 22.8%; D = 47.4% U = 10.5%; D = 31.6% U = 82.5%; D = 0% U = 28.1%; D = 8.8%

Woody debris habitat condition:

Large woody debris is very important for providing fish habitat and for generating pools. In the LBW, large woody debris is severely lacking with an overall rating of less than 9% in the desirable category for all of the reaches surveyed (see Table F10). In all three woody debris habitat conditions types, the rating is greater than 60% in the Undesirable category for all of the reaches surveyed. This also helps explain the poor state of pool complexity in the LBW.

Similar to the Pool Conditions data, the Lost Creek subwatershed rates noticeably better than all the other subwatersheds with regards to LWD. However, the overall rating for Lost Creek subwatershed has 50% of all reaches surveyed in the Undesirable category.

Fish & Fish Habitat - 66

Table F10. Large woody debris habitat conditions in the Little Butte Watershed. Volume Subwatershed LWD Pieces/100m LWD/100m Key LWD/100m Overall Mainstem U = 100%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% Antelope U = 100%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% Dry Lick U = 75%; D = 0% U = 75%; D = 0% U = 75%; D = 0% U = 75%; D = 0% Salt U = 57.1%; D = 0% U = 57.1%; D = 14.3% U = 42.9%; D = 0% U = 57.1%; D = 14.3% North Fork U = 50%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% South Fork U = 53.3%; D = 20% U = 73.3%; D = 6.7% U = 60%; D = 6.7% U = 66.7%; D = 20% Lake U = 80%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 80%; D = 0% U = 80%; D = 0% Lost U = 37.5%; D = 12.5% U = 75%; D = 12.5% U = 50%; D = 0% U = 50%; D = 12.5% Soda U = 33.3%; D = 0% U = 66.7%; D = 0% U = 0%; D = 0% U = 33.3%; D = 0% Dead Indian U = 100%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% Beaver Dam Upper S.F. Total U = 63.2%; D = 7% U = 80.7%; D = 5.3% U = 66.7%; D = 1.8% U = 71.9%; D = 8.8%

Riparian habitat condition:

The results of the riparian condition indicators seemingly give mixed results (see Table F11). The number of conifers of small and large diameter close enough to impact the stream and riparian area is extremely low. For both size categories, the habitat condition ratings are greater than 89% in the Undesirable category. However, the shade habitat condition rates over 91% in the Desirable category. The reason the shade factor is so high despite the lack of significant numbers of tall trees is mostly due to the narrow width of the streams. Therefore, restoration projects aimed at improving the amount of conifers in the riparian zone should be designed to improve stream bank stabilization and large woody debris capture rather than as a means to improve shade conditions. It should be noted that other non-conifer species such as cottonwoods can reach significant heights, exceeding 100 feet. Many of these streams are devoid of conifers in the riparian area from past logging practices. The alders and cottonwoods tend to grow faster than the conifers.

The Lost and South Fork subwatersheds are the only ones that have any reaches that rated Desirable with regards to large conifers.

Fish & Fish Habitat - 67

Table F11. Riparian habitat conditions in the Little Butte Watershed. DBH= Diameter at breast height. Numbers were measured per 100 meters. Subwatershed Conifers #>20in dbh Conifers #>36in dbh Shade Mainstem U = 100%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 0%; D = 100% Antelope U = 100%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 66.7%; D = 33.3% Dry Lick U = 100%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 0%; D = 100% Salt U = 100%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 0%; D = 100% North Fork U = 100%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 0%; D = 100% South Fork U = 80%; D = 6.7% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 0%; D = 100% Lake U = 100%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 0%; D = 100% Lost U = 75%; D = 12.5% U = 75%; D = 0% U = 0%; D = 100% Soda U = 66.7%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 0%; D = 100% Dead Indian U = 100%; D = 0% U = 100%; D = 0% U = 33.3%; D = 66.7% Beaver Dam Upper South Fork Total U = 89.5%; D = 3.5% U = 96.5%; D = 0% U = 8.8%; D = 91.2%

Erosion and secondary channel habitat condition:

Stream bank erosion ranks as a moderate concern overall for the streams reaches surveyed with an average of 27% of each reach actively eroding. However, some streams, Lake Creek in particular, have serious bank erosion potential (see Appendix F1). Only 21%, 12 of 57, stream reaches surveyed had greater than 10% of their area in secondary stream channels (see Appendix F1). This may indicate a lack of good complex habitat for fish.

Fish Passage Barriers

A major characteristic of the life history pattern of anadromous fish is their migration patterns. Barriers to this migration can severely impact the stability of populations. There are numerous man-made barriers to fish passage in the LBW (see Map F6). The Rogue Basin Fish Access Team (RBFAT) has developed a barrier prioritization list for the entire Rogue River Basin (RBFAT, 2000). Currently, this prioritization list has 84 barriers for the LBW. However, that number is known to be much lower than the number of barriers actually in existence.

The most severe barriers to anadromous fish passage are located either on the Mainstem of Little Butte Creek or South Fork Little Butte Creek. Part of the reason for this is that these two streams possess most of the potentially good quality fish habitat based on the three criteria used by the RBFAT prioritization process. Steelhead and coho are the species most impacted by the barriers that have been surveyed so far (see Map F6). Summer steelhead in particular are impacted as they have the most extensive distribution in the LBW. Coho are only affected by those barriers lower in the tributaries (see Map F7).

Fish & Fish Habitat - 68

According to the RBFAT barrier prioritization, of the 84 barriers in the LBW, there are 11 concrete dams, 24 pushup dams, 47 culverts, and 3 miscellaneous barriers. Although there are more irrigation diversions still to be surveyed, most of the unsurveyed structures are most likely culverts since most of the stream reaches that have yet to be surveyed are up in the higher reaches of the watershed.

#

# m # te s ## k t ## in # ic al a # L # # S # # M # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # #

## # # # # # # N ort # h # S F # # ou or # # t k # h LB A Fo n t t # rk e s L # lo o B #

p L # # e # # # # # # S # o # # # d a # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # #

#

Map F6. Barriers to anadromous fish passage. Green tracing represents the distribution of summer steelhead in the LBW.

Fish & Fish Habitat - 69

#

# # ## # ## # # # # # # # # M # ## # ain # # # # A ste # ## # nt m # # elo # pe ## # # # # # N # o # e rth k # S F # a o # ou rk # L # t # h LB Fo # rk L # B # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # #

#

Map F7. Barriers to anadromous fish passage. Green tracing represents the distribution of coho in the LBW.

DISCUSSION

There are five main stocks of anadromous salmonids in the LBW: fall chinook, spring chinook, coho, summer steelhead, and winter steelhead. However, the chinook runs use a very limited amount of the basin, and this only for spawning and migration. Coho and summer steelhead use a large portion of the watershed for spawning, rearing and migration. Coho salmon are listed as threatened on the federal endangered species act.

The quality of the stream habitat for these species is variable. Riffle and pool habitat conditions are generally intermediate in quality. The amount of large woody debris and standing conifers within the riparian zone is extremely low. These two factors in particular should be addressed in order to improve stream habitat conditions for the native anadromous salmonids. Projects to address these issues should be concentrated primarily within the distribution zones of coho and steelhead. ODFW has designated numerous stream sections as core area, meaning they are important to salmonid stocks (see Map F8). Restoration work aimed at improving coho habitat in the LBW should perhaps focus initially on these stream reaches.

Fish & Fish Habitat - 70

Shade did not seem to be an issue although temperature levels in many of the streams are above those optimal for healthy salmonid populations. This suggests that lack of shading is not the primary cause of the elevated temperatures. Projects to determine the cause of the high temperatures are merited and should focus on stream flow, water diversions and land use activities.

Stream bank erosion is a factor of concern, especially in Lake Creek, Soda Creek, Lost Creek and the lower reaches of the South Fork of Little Butte Creek. Riparian planting in these areas could be targeted to improve the erosion potential. This would provide woody debris capture benefits and organic material capture in addition to the bank stabilization.

Very few of the reaches surveyed had adequate secondary channel area. Only the upper reaches surveyed on South Fork Little Butte Creek had adequate secondary channel area. Projects that would improve this habitat condition should be implemented, particularly in the distribution range of coho and steelhead. Most likely, improving secondary channel habitat will be a secondary benefit of a project.

There are numerous fish passage barriers within the LBW. There has been ongoing work within the LBW to improve fish passage. It is important that this work continue with a focus on those barriers affecting coho salmon. Improving passage at these sites can and should include project aspects that improve other aspects of fish habitat such as stream flow. One of the benefits of fish passage work is that it can extend fish use in streams, making available higher quality habitat in the upper reaches of the streams. This is especially true for summer steelhead, which use smaller tributaries including intermittent streams. Another issue to consider is protecting the existing trees in the stream and in the riparian area of the stream, particularly on private lands. Rural development that occurs near streams often is accompanied by clearing of the riparian areas for aesthetic reasons. Public education regarding the importance of the riparian area would go a long way to protecting the existing fish habitat.

Fish & Fish Habitat - 71

k

e

A e S r o n u t th e C F lo o e r p k k L i e tt a le C B L u r t e te e

k

Map F8. Core salmonid areas in the Little Butte Watershed as designated by ODFW. Purple = coho. Orange = summer steelhead.

DATA GAPS

The major data gap that exists is the lack of habitat information for most of the anadromous salmonid bearing streams in the LBW (see Appendix F1). Currently, ODFW has not conducted any habitat surveys in the Dry, Beaver Dam and Upper South Fork subwatersheds. Future surveys should first be concentrated in those streams that support anadromous salmonids. In the past, ODFW has concentrated its surveys on streams it thinks have the best probability of being good salmonid streams.

Information about the distribution of the local anadromous salmonids is currently acceptable. The ODFW does annual surveys on many of the streams in the LBW. Each year new streams are surveyed by both ODFW and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). However, surveys of those streams not covered by ODFW and BLM should be considered, particularly those most likely to be used by anadromous salmonids. These should include carcass and spawning surveys in order to get information about both distribution and abundance.

There is a lack of information on barriers to anadromous fish passage in the LBW. Barrier surveys need to be conducted throughout the LBW; in particular, the South Fork Little Butte and Lake subwatershed. Any projects aimed at gathering this type of data should coordinate with the Rogue Basin Fish Access Team and ODFW.

Water Quality - 72

Chapter V Water Quality

INTRODUCTION

Water quality is an issue that affects all living organisms, humans included. The federal Clean Water Act has a mandate “to protect and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.” (WPN, 1999). The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has set standards for the parameters of water quality that are most important for maintaining the quality of Oregon’s waterbodies for all beneficial uses.

Water quality is influenced by natural and human activities. Point and nonpoint source pollution, land use activities in riparian zones, instream disturbances that affect flows, substrate particle size, and water withdrawals or diversions can all affect water quality. Natural conditions of streams, such as low summer flows and low stream gradient can make streams more susceptible to water quality changes.

The parameters that are of most importance for water quality are: temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, nutrients, bacteria, chemical contaminants and turbidity. For this assessment, evaluation of water quality is done by comparing key indicators against the criteria set by the DEQ for that parameter. These parameters are based on the beneficial uses that have been determined for the water. The list of beneficial uses varies from basin to basin depending on the land use patterns and aquatic life that exists there (see Table WQ1).

Table WQ1. Beneficial uses of water within the Little Butte Creek Watershed. ODEQ website. Beneficial Uses Mainstem Rogue River Tributaries Public Domestic Water Supply1 X X Industrial Water Supply X X Irrigation X X Livestock Watering X X Anadromous Fish Passage X X Salmonid Fish Rearing X X Salmonid Fish Spawning X X Resident Fish & Aquatic Life X X Wildlife & Hunting X X Fishing X X Boating X X Water Contact Recreation X X Aesthetic Quality X X Hydro Power X Commercial Navigation & Transportation X 1 With adequate pretreatment (filtration and disinfection) and natural quality to meet drinking water standards.

Water Quality - 73

Temperature

Water temperature is a parameter of water quality that has a dramatic effect on many aquatic species. Cold clear water is characteristic of the streams of the Northwest and is essential for the survival of anadromous fish as well as native resident trout, amphibians and macroinvertebrates. During warm summer months, the temperature standard has been set at 64F (17.8C). At this time of year, the life stages that are present in the streams are rearing juvenile, adult holding and adult migration for summer chinook. Above 64F, salmonids begin to suffer physiologically. A second criteria (55F/13C) has been set for the spawning months of mid-fall through spring and applies in those areas where spawning occurs. When the water temperature is above 55F, salmonid spawning is negatively affected.

Solar radiation is the primary source of increases in water temperature, the more sunlight that hits the stream the greater the temperature. Deeper streams take more energy to warm than shallow streams due to the difference in surface area to volume ratio. Streamside shading will prevent sunlight from hitting the stream, thus keeping it cooler. Shade dramatically slows the rate of heating but does not cool the stream. At night there is usually a lowering of stream temperature because the ambient air temperature is lower than the stream temperature. Thus there is a diurnal variation in stream temperature which makes it important to measure instream temperatures over 24 hour periods.

Dissolved Oxygen

For fish and macroinvertebrates, the level of dissolved oxygen (DO) is very important. Nearly saturated levels (10mg/L) are required for salmonids to maintain normal metabolic function. A table of saturation values versus temperature would be a good illustration. Lower levels of DO make it difficult for salmonids to seek food and shelter. The early life stages of salmonids, eggs and fry, are particularly sensitive to low levels of dissolved oxygen. For the purpose of this screening level assessment, the criterion has been set at 8mg/L DO.

There are several factors that affect the level of DO. Both higher water temperature and higher elevations reduce the solubility of oxygen in water. Increased rates of photosynthesis within the stream raise the level of DO. Levels of dissolved oxygen are generally highest in the afternoon due to photosynthesis and respiration of aquatic organisms and lowest late at night due to oxygen uptake by organisms, both plant and animal. Like temperature, it is important to measure dissolved oxygen over a 24-hour cycle due to the diurnal variation. pH

The pH is a measurement of how acidic or basic water is. The scale is logarithmic with 7 being neutral. Values below 7 indicate acidic conditions and values greater than 7 indicate alkaline or basic conditions. The measurement of pH is especially important in areas of mining due to the potential for generation of heavy metals and decreases in pH. With acidic conditions, metal ions transform to more toxic forms.

Water Quality - 74

The pH levels of Oregon’s waters naturally vary across the state due to rainfall and the chemical composition of the rocks and soils the water flows through. East of the Cascades the values range from 7.0 to 9.0 while west of the Cascades the values range from 6.5 to 8.5. Salmonids are adversely affected by pH values outside of the latter range.

Nutrients

Phosphorus and nitrogen are the major growth limiting nutrients in water and are therefore the two nutrients that are most typically measured to monitor water quality. In streams, increased levels of these two nutrients promote increases in the growth of algae and other water plants. Excessive growth can cause low or no dissolved oxygen. In moderation, these nutrients promote a healthy stream system, plant growth that provides for macroinvertebrates and increased levels of oxygen, but at high levels the streams can become unhealthy for fish and other aquatic organisms and can inhibit the recreation value of the water as well.

To measure phosphorus, Total Phosphorus is generally used. This is a primarily a measurement of the phosphates in the water column and phosphorus in suspended organic material. In non- agricultural areas, minerals leached from rock are the main source of phosphate (AWRC, 1998). The indicator level for this parameter is 0.05 mg/l. Total Nitrate, nitrites plus nitrate, provides a measurement of the majority of the nitrogen in the water. The indicator level for this parameter is 0.30 mg/l.

Bacteria

Coliform bacteria are used as indicators to test for the sanitary quality of water for drinking and recreational use such as swimming. There are two standards for fresh water with regards to human contact for this parameter: 126 E. Coli/100ml (30-day log mean – minimum 5 samples) and 406 E. Coli/100ml (no single sample can exceed this level).

Chemical Contaminants: Organic Compounds, Pesticides and Metals

The term contaminant refers to any compound that may cause toxicity in aquatic organisms such as industrial compounds and pesticides. Because of the large number of organic compounds that are used, it is not feasible to establish standards for each one in a screening level assessment such as this. Organic compound values above detection levels are considered a red flag and should be investigated. The standards for metals are expressed as either acute or chronic values. For most metals, toxicity is based on the hardness of the water, and therefore the standard is based on a formula. For this process, two maximum hardness levels are used for fresh water, 25mg/l and 100mg/l (see Table WQ2).

Water Quality - 75

Table WQ2. Criteria for Metal Contaminants parameter.

Hardness 100 mg/l 25 mg/l Arsenic 190 g/l Cadmium 1.1 g/l 0.4 g/l Chromium (Hex) 11.0 g/l Copper 12.0 g/l 3.6 g/l Lead 3.2 g/l 0.5 g/l Mercury 0.012 g/l Zinc 47.0 g/l 32.7 g/l

Turbidity

Turbidity is a measure of the clarity of water. Since in most cases, increases in turbidity are due to sediment runoff, turbidity is a surrogate for a measure of suspended sediment. High levels of suspended sediment can cause damage to the gills of fish and inhibit the feeding of fish, such as salmonids, that rely on sight to find their food. Suspended sediments are also potential carriers of other pollutants such as pesticides, nutrients and bacteria and therefore are a concern of water quality in general. High levels of suspended sediments can also degrade recreational and aesthetic values of water.

The indicator level for turbidity has been set at 50 NTU above background. At levels above this, the sight feeding ability of salmonids is impaired. This level of turbidity is not lethal to fish but represents a useful screening level for this parameter.

Alkalinity and Conductivity

Alkalinity is a reflection of dissolved minerals and represents ability of the water to resist changes in pH, the higher the alkalinity the more difficult it is to alter pH levels. High alkalinity levels can cause the formation of calcium deposits on eggs and limit reproduction by killing them. High alkalinity is just as lethal as high acidity. Alkalinity levels higher than 50 mg/l (CaCO3) are considered to be healthy.

Conductivity is a measure of the ability of water to conduct electrical current and is dependent upon the amount of dissolved salts and minerals. It is an important tool in monitoring the exchange of groundwater, which is usually higher in dissolved salts than surface water, and septic tank influences. The range for potable water in the U.S. is 30-1500 μmhos/cm3. In the Pacific Northwest, the conductivity of streams emanating from forested areas is almost always at the low end of the range (ARWC, 1998).

METHODS

No new data was collected for the purposes of this analysis. Stream mile data is from the SWOP CD (PIEC, 1998).

Water Quality - 76

303(d) listing

This data was downloaded from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality website, www.deq.state.or.us. The files include all streams in the state that are listed for exceedance of any of the parameters detailed in the introduction of this chapter. GIS-define data was generated using the data from this website.

Water Quality parameters

When possible, the data for each parameter was listed by value. Then, the percentage of values that exceed the standard for that parameter was determined. As per the Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual, exceedance percentages were then rated (see Table WQ3).

Table WQ3. Level of impairment for water quality parameters based upon the number of data points that exceed the criteria. Percent exceedance of Impairment level parameter <15% No Impairment (no or few exceedances) 15 – 50% Moderately Impaired (exceedance occurs on a regular basis) >50% Impaired (exceedance occurs majority of the time) Insufficient or no data Unknown

RESULTS

Water quality data from the LBCW has been collected by numerous sources including the LBCWC. ODEQ has determined that many of the major tributaries as well as the Mainstem of Little Butte Creek exceed the parameters for many of the tested criteria and thus are listed on the 1998 DEQ 303d list for the LBCW (see Table WQ4, Maps WQ1-WQ7). Since the 1998 303d list was completed, water quality testing has continued, resulting in additional streams in the LBCW being placed on the draft 2002 DEQ 303d list.

Water Quality - 77

Table WQ4. Streams in the Little Butte Creek Watershed listed on 2002 DEQ 303d list. Stream Rivermile Parameter Season 303d Date Antelope Creek 0 to 19.7 E. Coli June 1 - September 30 2002 Antelope Creek 0 to 19.7 Temperature Summer 1998 Burnt Canyon 0 to 3.2 Temperature Summer 1998 Conde Creek 0 to 4.4 Temperature Summer 1998 Dead Indian Creek 0 to 9.6 Temperature Summer 1998 Deer Creek 0 to 3.2 Sedimentation 1998 Fish Lake/North Fork Little Butte Creek 15.9 to 17.6 Chlorophyll a Summer 1998 Fish Lake/North Fork Little Butte Creek 15.9 to 17.6 pH Summer 1998 Lake Creek 0 to 7.8 E. Coli June 1 - September 30 2002 Lake Creek 0 to 7.8 E. Coli October 1 - May 31 2002 Lake Creek 0 to 7.8 Sedimentation 1998 Lake Creek 0 to 7.8 Temperature Summer 1998 Lick Creek 0 to 6.8 Dissolved Oxygen June 1 - September 30 2002 Lick Creek 0 to 6.8 E. Coli June 1 - September 30 2002 Little Butte Creek 0 to 16.7 Dissolved Oxygen Spring/Summer 2002 Little Butte Creek 0 to 16.7 Dissolved Oxygen October 1 - May 31 2002 Little Butte Creek 0 to 16.7 Fecal Coliform Summer 1998 Little Butte Creek 0 to 16.7 Fecal Coliform Winter/Spring/Fall 1998 Little Butte Creek 0 to 16.7 Sedimentation 1998 Little Butte Creek 0 to 16.7 Temperature Summer 1998 Lost Creek 0 to 8.4 Sedimentation 1998 Lost Creek 0 to 8.4 Temperature Summer 1998 Nichols Branch 0 to 0.5 E. Coli June 1 - September 30 2002 North Fork Little Butte Creek 0 to 6.5 E. Coli June 1 - September 30 2002 North Fork Little Butte Creek 0 to 6.5 Temperature Summer 1998 Salt Creek 0 to 9 E Coli June 1 - September 30 2002 Soda Creek 0 to 5.6 Sedimentation 1998 Soda Creek 0 to 5.6 Temperature Summer 1998 South Fork Little Butte Creek 0 to 16.4 Sedimentation 1998 South Fork Little Butte Creek 0 to 16.4 Temperature Summer 1998

Over 61% of the listed streams are in the Mainstem, Antelope, South Fork and Dead Indian subwatersheds (see Table WQ5). The appearance of the Dead Indian subwatershed on this short list is surprising due to its relatively limited amount of stream miles. Conversely, North Fork subwatershed is noticeably absent from the list since it contains a significant amount of stream miles but only limited miles of 303d listed stream. More than half of the streams miles have impaired water quality in the Antelope, Salt, South Fork, Soda and Dead Indian subwatersheds. The Lake and Mainstem subwatersheds are impaired for multiple criteria and for more than just the summer months.

For the entire LBCW, over 40% of the stream miles (479.8 km) are on the 2002 DEQ 303d list for at least one water quality criteria.

Water Quality - 78

Table WQ5. Breakdown of 303d listed streams by subwatershed and as percent of streams in the subwatershed.1 Percent of Subwatershed Percent of Total Stream Dist. Streams that are Listed Streams in Percent of LBCW Subwatershed 303d (km) (km) Listed LBCW Streams Mainstem 27.7 73.4 37.7 14.4 15.3 Antelope 36.8 68.0 54.2 19.2 14.2 Dry 0.0 18.1 0.0 0.0 3.8 Lick 10.9 28.7 38.2 5.7 6.0 Salt 14.5 27.7 52.3 7.5 5.8 Lake 12.6 26.3 47.7 6.5 5.5 Lost 13.5 33.1 40.8 7.0 6.9 North Fork 13.2 52.5 25.2 6.9 10.9 South Fork 31.5 53.6 58.9 16.4 11.2 Soda 9.0 10.1 89.6 4.7 2.1 Dead Indian 22.5 29.1 77.5 11.7 6.1 Beaver Dam 0.0 44.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 Upper SF 0.0 15.4 0.0 0.0 3.2 Total 192.3 479.8 40.1 100.0 100.0

1 Statistics based on a 1:100,000 scale map. Many of the smaller tributaries are not included at this level.

Water Quality - 79

Li ttl e Bu tte C re ek

N o r th Fo S rk o L u itt t le h Bu F t t o e r C k L i tt A le n te B u lo t p te e C C re L

o e L

s

k a

t

k

C

e

r S

C e

e o n r

e d o k

y e a

n k a C D C r e e t a e n d r k u I B n d

i a

n

C

r

e

e

k

reek C onde C

Map WQ1. Temperature impaired streams in the Little Butte Creek Watershed on the 2002 DEQ 303d list.

Water Quality - 80

L it tle B u tte C re e k

South Fork Little B utte C

L

a

k

e

C S o

r

e d

e a

k C

r e L e o k st C re e k

Map WQ2. Sedimentation impaired streams in the Little Butte Creek Watershed on the 2002 DEQ 303d list.

Water Quality - 81

Cr. . r ick B L ls o h ic N reek Salt C

No rth Fo rk Li A ttle n B t ut e te lo C r p . e C re e L

k a

k

e

C

r

e

e

k

Map WQ3. E. Coli impaired streams in the Little Butte Creek Watershed on the 2002 DEQ 303d list.

Water Quality - 82

L itt l e Bu tt e Cr

Map WQ4. Fecal Coliform impaired streams in the Little Butte Creek Watershed on the 2002 DEQ 303d list.

Water Quality - 83

r C ck Li

L it tle B u tte C r

Map WQ5. Dissolved Oxygen impaired streams in the Little Butte Creek Watershed on the 2002 DEQ 303d list.

Water Quality - 84

Cr. tte Bu ittle r k L Fo r th N o

Map WQ6. pH impaired streams in the Little Butte Creek Watershed on the 2002 DEQ 303d list.

Water Quality - 85

Cr. tte Bu ittle r k L Fo r th N o

Map WQ7. Chlorophyll a impaired streams in the Little Butte Creek Watershed on the 2002 DEQ 303d list.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) undertook a thermal remote sensing project within the Little Butte Creek Watershed on July 13th, 2001 (Watershed Sciences, 2002). The technology used is Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR). This technology is used to take a “snapshot” of the surface temperatures of a stream at small intervals. This allows for assessing sources of cooling and heating throughout a stream profile. The flight was scheduled for the warmest time of the year as well as the late afternoon (between 2:04 and 3:48 pm), to help determine the maximum temperatures of the streams. Five streams were flown during this project (see Table WQ6, and maps WQ8-WQ12).

Water Quality - 86

Table WQ6. Streams flown during 2001 FLIR project.2

Stream Extent Little Butte Creek Mouth to Forks Antelope Creek Mouth to Quarter Branch N.F. Little Butte Creek Mouth to Fish Lake S.F. Little Butte Creek Mouth to Headwaters Fish Lake Lake Shoreline

MAP WQ8. FLIR coverage for Little Butte Creek, 2001 FLIR project.

N

########## ### ## ## ### #### #### #### #### #### ###### #### ##### ### ### ######## # ### # ### ## ### ## ### ### # ### ### #################### #### ## ### ########### ### ### ######## ## ############## ## # ##### #### # # ## #### # ## # ######## #### ######## ##### ##### ##### ### ##### ### ### ## ## # ### ### ## ### ########### #### #### #### ## # ## # ## #### ###### #### ### ### #####

FLIR coverage (C) # 22.7 - 24.1 # 24.1 - 24.7 # 24.7 - 25.1 # 25.1 - 25.7 # 25.7 - 26.6 5 0 5 Miles Streams Watershed Boundary

If for public, please convert to degrees F.

2 Table from Watershed Sciences, 2002.

Water Quality - 87

MAP WQ9. FLIR coverage for Antelope Creek, 2001 FLIR project.

## ### ## N ## ####### ####### ## ## #### ######

FLIR Coverage (C) # 21.7 - 22.2 # 22.2 - 22.7 # 22.7 - 23.1 # 23.1 - 23.6 # 23.6 - 24.1 Streams 6 0 6 Miles Watershed Boundary

N

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## #

FLIR Coverage (C) # 21.7 - 22.2 # 22.2 - 22.7 # 22.7 - 23.1 0.8 0 0.8 Miles # 23.1 - 23.6 # 23.6 - 24.1 Watershed Boundary

Water Quality - 88

MAP WQ10. FLIR coverage for N.F. Little Butte Creek, 2001 FLIR project.

N

#### ########### ###### ### ##### ## ###### ## ### ## ### #### ##### ###### ### ## # ## #### ###### #### #### ####### #### ### #### ## ########### ## ########### ########### #################### ############## ########### ######### ##################### ######### ### ###### ##### ### ## ### ###########

FLIR Coverage (C) # 14.7 - 16 # 16 - 17.4 # 17.4 - 18.7 5 0 5 Miles # 18.7 - 20.1 # 20.1 - 21.4 Streams Watershed Boundary

Water Quality - 89

MAP WQ11. FLIR coverage for S.F. Little Butte Creek, 2001 FLIR project. ## ### #### ### ## ## N # # # # ## ## # # # ### ### ### ## ## ## ## # ## ## ## ### ## # # # ## ## ### ### ## #### #### ### ## ### ## # # # ## ## ######## ####### ###### ######## ##### #### ### ##### ### ##### ## ## ### ## ### ################## ## ###### ## ## ## ####### ### ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #### ########### #### ### ### ## ## # # ################# ####### ############## #############

FLIR Coverage (C) # 13.3 - 16.2 # 16.2 - 19.1 # 19.1 - 22.1 # 22.1 - 25 # 25 - 27.9 Streams Watershed Boundary 4 0 4 Miles

Water Quality - 90

MAP WQ12. FLIR coverage for Upper S.F. Little Butte Creek, 2001 FLIR project.

N

#### ## # ### ## ## ## ######## ##### # # # ##### ## # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## ## # # # # # ## # # # # ### # ## # ## ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## #### ###

FLIR Coverage (C) # 12.4 - 13.9 # 13.9 - 15.3 # 15.3 - 16.8 # 16.8 - 18.2 # 18.2 - 19.7 2 0 2 Miles Streams Watershed Boundary

The average temperatures for all the streams, except for the Upper South Fork Little Butte segment, exceed the 17.8C standard. The headwaters of both North Fork and South Fork Little Butte Creeks were cool and well below the summer temperature standard of 17.8C (see Table WQ7). However, they soon exceeded 17.8C and were well over this level at their mouths. Both Antelope Creek and Little Butte Creek exceeded the temperature standard for their entire length.

Table WQ7. Temperature ranges for the streams assessed during the 2001 FLIR project. Miles Surveyed Minimum Temp Maximum Temp Average Temp Stream (km) (C) (C) (C) Little Butte 26.8 22.7 26.6 24.9 Antelope 3.8 21.7 24.1 23.5 N.F. Little Butte 24.8 14.7 21.4 17.9 S.F. Little Butte 26.3 13.3 27.9 22.7 Upper S.F. Little Butte 8.5 12.4 19.7 14.1

For all of the streams surveyed, the tributaries, with very few exceptions, were supplying water to the streams that was cooler than that in the streams (Watershed Sciences, 2002). This can be seen visually in figures WQ1-WQ5. However, the solar radiation soon increased the temperature of the streams back to and beyond what it was before the input of the tributaries.

Water Quality - 91

27.0

26.0

25.0

24.0

SurfaceWater Temperature (C) 23.0

22.0

0 1 3 4 5 6 8 9

10 11 12 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 Rivermile (km)

Figure WQ1. Surface water temperatures for Little Butte Creek.

25

24

23

22 Surface Water Temperature (C) Temperature Water Surface

21 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.6 3.8 Rivermile (km)

Figure WQ2. Surface water temperatures for Antelope Creek.

Water Quality - 92

24

22

20

18

16 Surface WaterSurface Temperature (C)

14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 21 22 23 24 25 Rivermile (km)

Figure WQ3. Surface water temperatures for N.F. Little Butte Creek.

30.0

26.0

22.0

18.0

14.0 Surface WaterSurface Temperature (C)

10.0

0 1 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 25 26 Rivermile (km)

Figure WQ4. Surface water temperatures for S.F. Little Butte Creek.

Water Quality - 93

20

18

16

14

12 Surface WaterSurface Temperature (C)

10 0.0 1.1 2.0 2.9 3.7 5.1 6.1 7.5 Rivermile (km)

Figure WQ5. Surface water temperatures for Upper S.F. Little Butte Creek.

DISCUSSION

Most of the major tributaries in the Little Butte Creek Watershed are listed on the 2002 ODEQ 303d list for at least one criterion. This indicates that the overall water quality of the watershed is relatively poor in the major tributaries. The most significant issues are high temperature, which is a serious issue for anadromous salmonids, and very high summer bacteria levels. The latter represents a potentially hazardous situation for humans.

The exceedance of the temperature criteria is for the summer months only and is due to a combination of factors including: lack of riparian shading, water withdrawals, return flows, and poor groundwater recharge. The exact cause will vary from site to site and projects aimed at improving water temperature should determine the site specific causes of the elevated temperatures. This issue is most important in those streams that have the greatest amount of anadromous salmonid habitat, including Little Butte, S.F. Little Butte and Antelope Creeks.

The ODEQ will use the FLIR data to generate a water quality model for the Little Butte Creek watershed. This model will help determine which factors are most important in causing high water temperatures. However, based on the fact that the tributaries flowing into the streams are almost always cooler than the streams themselves, it is likely that a lack of significant riparian coverage is the most limiting factor with regards to temperature. Aerial photographs were throughout the entire length of the FLIR flights, thus making it possible to analyze the riparian vegetation coverage along these streams.

The location and causes of the other water quality issues, such as bacteria, dissolved oxygen and sedimentation are not known at this time. However, there are some likely causes that should be investigated. Runoff from agricultural lands can act as a source of nutrients and bacteria. Poor

Water Quality - 94 quality roads in steep terrain areas and locations with highly erosive soils can cause high levels of sedimentation.

DATA GAPS

The reasons why criteria are exceeding the listing parameters should be determined. This should include assessing land use activities, instream modifications and flow diversions as well as riparian condition.

Similarly, data should be collected for those larger tributary streams that have yet to be surveyed. As above, surveys should begin with those streams that support anadromous salmonids. A second selection criteria would be the land use practices and activities that are occurring in and near the streams. While non-fish bearing tributaries have no salmonids, they add water to anadromous salmonid bearing streams and have a major temperature impact on the mainstem and major tribs.

Riparian Zone - 95

Chapter VI Riparian Zone

INTRODUCTION

The vegetated area found along streams and rivers is known as the riparian zone. The character of a local riparian zone is determined by many factors including, hydrologic, geomorphic and biotic processes, as well as human activities and land use patterns. In riparian zones, soils moisture and vegetative cover is generally higher than in adjacent areas.

Riparian zone health is important to fish and aquatic organisms as well as water quality. Healthy riparian zones help filter out sediment and pollutants. The root systems of riparian vegetation provide stream bank stabilization, helping to reduce bank erosion and downcutting. Riparian vegetation also provides habitat for insects and aquatic macroinvertebrates, both food sources for fish. Additionally, riparian material that makes it into the streams provides nutrients to the system. Riparian zones also provide hydrological benefits such as reducing stream velocities during high flow events and dissipating the energy of the floodwaters. Riparian zones also provide woody debris to the system, helping to maintain fish habitat and stream complexity. This aspect of riparian health is assessed in the fish habitat component.

The above list of benefits provided by a healthy riparian zone is difficult to quantify. Therefore, this chapter will assess the potential for the riparian zones in the LBCW to provide shade for temperature control. Additionally, the maturity of the riparian zones will be assessed at a very general level based on the canopy coverage provided. It may be assumed that the more mature riparian vegetation will have a deeper and more complicated root structure, thus providing for greater bank stabilization.

Other factors influence stream temperature, but riparian shading can provide the greatest impact in preventing water temperature increases. This is because it directly reduces or prevents solar radiation, which is the greatest source of heating during the summer. It is important to remember that riparian shading does not reduce the temperature of the water. Rather it reduces the amount of solar radiation reaching the stream and therefore reduces the increase in heating. On hot days the air above the stream surface transmit heat to the water, but air temperatures in the shade are well below those in unshaded areas. The riparian canopy itself does radiate heat to the stream, but this is very small compared to the amount of energy from direct solar radiation. The slope and aspect of the stream topography can also play an important role in the amount of solar radiation that reaches the stream surface.

The vegetation density in the riparian zone, or more accurately the extent to which the stream surface is shaded, is the most important factor in water temperature. It is also the process most influenced by human activities. There is very little site-specific data for riparian zones in the LBCW. Some data does exist about the general vegetation patterns (PIEC 1998). This data has been used, along with information about stream temperature and local topography, to develop a general assessment of the riparian zones in the LBCW.

Riparian Zone - 96

RESULTS

Vegetation Breakdown

More than 43% of the riparian zone on the larger streams in the LBCW is described as either dense forest or young dense forest (see Table R1). Most of this classification is found on smaller streams and in higher reaches. The areas with this type of riparian vegetation are most likely to function as a healthy riparian zone. Over 53% of the riparian zone within the LBCW is categorized as either Urban Ag or Young Nonforest. These two categories of riparian vegetation do not provide adequate shading or root structure. This indicates that over half of the riparian zone within the LBCW is unable to function as a healthy riparian zone.

Table R1. Breakdown of the vegetation classification for the larger streams in the Little Butte Creek Watershed. Percentage of total riparian Riparian Category Mi (sq) Acres area Dense Forest 8.55 5470.96 38.42 Sparse Forest 0.70 447.05 3.14 Urban Ag 5.57 3566.33 25.05 Young Dense Forest 1.05 672.22 4.72 Young Nonforest 6.38 4081.66 28.67 Total 22.25 14238.22 100.00

The riparian zones lower down in the LBCW are dominated by Urban Agriculture and Young Non-forest category vegetation (see Table R2, Map R1). The riparian zone improves in quality and in ability to provide function as you move up the watershed. Much of this most likely has to do with historic and current land use patterns. Human activities have cleared much of the native riparian vegetation along the streams in the lower reaches of the LBCW.

Table R2. Breakdown by subwatershed of the vegetation classification for the larger streams in the Little Butte Creek Watershed (acres).3 Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage of total of total of total of total of total riparian riparian riparian riparian riparian Subwatershed DF area SF area UA area YDF area YN area Mainstem 103.14 1.88 4.25 0.95 1160.60 32.53 10.86 9.06 548.65 13.44 Antelope 986.96 18.04 12.91 2.89 877.18 24.58 105.68 18.04 466.13 11.42 Dry 48.35 0.88 3.10 0.69 401.56 11.25 0.79 0.88 144.03 3.53 Lick 29.51 0.54 1.88 0.42 65.61 1.84 34.04 0.54 585.74 14.35 Salt 159.93 2.92 24.77 5.54 126.85 3.56 70.19 2.92 468.10 11.47 Lake 84.76 1.55 21.73 4.86 186.83 5.24 17.21 1.55 369.41 9.05 Lost 425.15 7.77 21.44 4.80 90.54 2.54 101.62 7.77 258.79 6.34 North Fork 699.93 12.79 18.47 4.13 340.01 9.53 137.37 12.79 317.69 7.78

3 DF=Dense Forest. SF=Sparse Forest. UA=Urban Ag. YDF=Young Dense Forest. YN=Young Nonforest.

Riparian Zone - 97

Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage of total of total of total of total of total riparian riparian riparian riparian riparian Subwatershed DF area SF area UA area YDF area YN area South Fork 734.35 13.42 41.25 9.23 318.52 8.93 111.31 13.42 402.95 9.87 Soda 339.18 6.20 9.41 2.10 0.50 0.01 73.35 6.20 106.17 2.60 Dead Indian 410.05 7.49 120.75 27.01 0.00 0.00 9.80 7.49 296.41 7.26 Beaver Dam 732.47 13.39 159.25 35.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 109.00 2.67 Upper SF 718.20 13.13 7.87 1.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.58 0.21 Total 5471.98 100.00 447.08 100.00 3568.20 100.00 672.22 100.00 4081.65 100.00

Map R1. Vegetation classification in the Little Butte Creek Watershed.4

Much of the riparian habitat in the Mainstem, Lick, Salt, Lake and lower portion of the Northfork subwatersheds is in poor condition (see Map R2). The riparian areas in the Mainstem subwatershed have been greatly affected by urbanization. The Antelope, Southfork, Lost, Soda, Dead Indian and Beaver Dam subwatersheds have moderate riparian conditions. In areas of steeper slopes, and or lower population densities, riparian conditions are slightly better (see Map

4 Green = Dense Forest. Red = Sparse or Nonforest.

Riparian Zone - 98

R3). As stated above, the conditions in the lower reaches are most likely a result of urban and rural development. This includes forestry practices on private lands.

Map R2. Percent of riparian area within LBCW that is poor condition.5

5 Red < 36% (in poor condition) Orange 15% - 36%. Green < 15%.

Riparian Zone - 99

Map R3. Percent of riparian network associated with low gradient streams (slope <4%).6,7

DISCUSSION

Human activities such as mining, logging, farming and rural development have seriously impacted the health of the riparian zones in much of the LBCW. This is especially true on private lands. Federal lands are under tighter restrictions, and, as recent riparian management laws are implemented, the riparian conditions on public lands are improving.

This is not as true, however, on private lands. Riparian restoration needs to occur in much of the low gradient streams of the LBCW. This is especially true for those streams that have high summer temperatures, see the Water Quality chapter for this information. Much of the riparian zone on private lands has been altered in condition as well as composition. Many of the large conifers necessary for woody debris recruitment have been replaced with hardwoods such as alders and maples. Conifers often provide longer and larger logs than hardwoods, thus providing

6 Red > 30%.(low gradient) Orange 10% - 30%. Green < 10%. You might want to consider moving footnotes for maps or charts from the bottom of the page, to the bottom of the map or chart. 7 Riparian shading is most important in areas of gentle slope where streams tend to be wider and shallower, thus more susceptible to increased temperature from solar radiation. Consider putting this in the text.

Riparian Zone - 100 significant habitat potential when recruited to streams. And although these species are native riparian trees, the percentage of the riparian habitat that they compose is generally higher than reference conditions.

Site-specific information on riparian habitat condition is extremely limited. This means that any current information on riparian conditions in the watershed is general in nature. More information is needed on the condition of riparian zones on lands lower in the watershed. Most of this land is in private ownership.

On a final note, blackberries represent a major hazard to riparian zone health. The non-native species of the plant is highly invasive, especially in areas where there is little over structure. And although blackberries often cover much of the stream bank, they provide very little shade or stream bank stabilization. Actions should be taken to reduce the level of blackberries in the watershed, replanting the areas with native riparian plants in a fish friendly prescription.

DATA GAPS

As stated above, there is a great need for riparian information on private lands. This is particularly true on streams that have high stream temperatures. Any surveys conducted should be coordinated with ODFW and their stream habitat, spawning and fish presence surveys.

The type of information that is needed includes: shade provided, shade potential, species composition, and size of trees.

Sediment Sources - 101

Chapter VII Sediment Sources

INTRODUCTION

Erosional processes occur naturally and lead to sedimentation of streams (WPN 1999). Fish and other aquatic life are adapted to deal with the natural range of sedimentation that occurs within a watershed. The amount of erosion varies throughout the year, with most occurring during the winter months with the highest stream flows and rainfall. However, human activity can increase the sediment load reaching the streams, potentially causing harm to the habitat for fish and other aquatic wildlife. Like natural processes, human induced sedimentation varies over time and occurs predominantly during the times of high flows and rainfall.

Although it is difficult to determine exactly how much sedimentation is too much for local fish populations and other aquatic animals, deviations beyond those occurring naturally have a greater chance of causing harm. In the Little Butte Creek Watershed (LBCW), the most likely sources of excess sedimentation are road runoff, road instability, and slope instability.

Roads can transport large amounts of sediments through the associated drainage ditch system. Sediment that is captured in the ditch system, from ravel, sliding, and erosion of the road itself, is transported to the stream channel. The surface of the road itself can also provide sediment, depending on the surface material and condition of the road, weather conditions and the amount of traffic. Natural surface roads have the greatest potential for generating sediment, especially if they are heavily used. Wet weather and heavy truck traffic lead to the most rapid breakup of the road surface. Low quality rock rapidly breaks down, forming potholes, which can lead to ruts if the road is not maintained. The location of the road in the watershed is also a factor in how much sediment is delivered to the stream system. Roads on ridge crests generally produce less sediment than a road that runs adjacent to a stream. Additionally, roads on steeper slopes are more prone to transport sediments than roads in more level areas.

The stability of a road depends upon how well the road was constructed and the inherent stability of the materials used during construction. Generally, roads built on ridgelines or low gradient slopes are most stable. The roads that are likely to be the most unstable are those constructed near streams and on steep terrain in the middle of the slope. Most road failures occur during times of high subsurface water flows. Thus most road failures occur during times of high intensity rainstorms or rain on snow events. There are two general types of road construction on slopes, sidecast and full-bench, with the later being more stable. Sidecast construction describes a process in which soil dug from the inside of the road is used to build up the outside of the road. On steep terrain, this fill can be unstable and can be transformed into a landslide. A full-bench road does not use soil dug from the hillside for fill. Rather, the excavated soil is transported to a different location and the road is built on the excavated area. The inside slope can also become unstable and lead to small failures which divert water onto the road surface. This type of failure is generally dependant on the stability of the soil.

Sediment Sources - 102

Road crossings can also lead to large pulses of sedimentation reaching streams. This occurs when a culvert is inadequately sized to accommodate a flood flow or it becomes clogged with debris. There are two types of erosional processes related to culvert failure. The first and greater source of sedimentation is a diversion. This occurs when the culvert is clogged and the water is diverted down the road. The other type of failure is when the water crosses over the road and flows immediately back into the waterway. This type of failure generally can only erode the fill used in placing the culvert. A diversion failure can capture many times more sediment and cause much more damage to the road surface.

Slope failure is the third important potential sedimentation source in the LBCW. Three general types of erosion dominate in the LBCW: concentrated flow erosion (sheet/rill erosion and gully erosion), stream channel erosion and mass wasting. These processes are driven by gravity, water flow and soil strength. Other contributing factors are climate vegetation and fire. Concentrated flow erosion is of concern on slopes that have had most of the vegetation removed and where roads have concentrated runoff in areas where surface protection is inadequate. Soil erosion occurs when soil particles are detached by raindrop splash or overland flow of water and moved to another location. The distance soil is moved is variable depending on the terrain and vegetative condition of the land. This type of erosion is important because it reduces the amount of soil on a landscape, reducing the productivity of the land and increasing sedimentation to the local streams. Gully erosion occurs predominantly on granitic soils, the dominant soil type in the LBCW, which is highly erosive, where a disturbance has occurred. On this type of soil with little or no vegetation, a small rill can become a large gully during a single large rainfall event. These gullies can deliver very large amounts of sediment to the local streams.

Stream channel erosion occurs when large amounts of water carrying debris, rush through a channel, dislodging soil from the bank. This type of erosion can widen stream channels, causing the stream to widen and become shallower as well as directly increasing the sediment load in the stream. Deep, fine textured soils that occur at the base of upland areas on fans, footslopes and terraces are the most susceptible.

Mass wasting occurs when the soils on a slope become saturated. In the LBCW, soils on slopes are often deep with fine texture, the type that is indicative of mass movement potential.

RESULTS

Soils

Granitic soils are prevalent in the LBCW. These soils are associated with a high potential for erosion, especially when on steep slopes and in areas of disturbance. Overall, the erosion potential of soils in the LBCW is relatively evenly divided between the three classes (see Table SS1, MAP SS1). The rating of slight, moderate, or severe is based on the type of soil and its permeability and the amount of vegetative cover to provide stability. The potential for soil erosion varies across the subwatersheds based on the soils and the general terrain. The subwatersheds with the greatest percentage of highly erosive soils (> 40%) are Antelope, Lick, Lake, Lost and South Fork. Only North Fork, Beaver Dam and Upper South Fork subwatersheds have a large percentage (>40%) of the soil is classified as slight for erosion potential. It should

Sediment Sources - 103 be noted that the highly erosive soils are in a relative band across the middle (North-South orientation) of the LBCW. This corresponds roughly to the areas of higher gradient slopes in the watershed (see Map SS1).

Table SS1. Erosion potential of soils in the Little Butte Creek Watershed. This rating is based on bare soil with no vegetative cover. Subwatershed Subwatershed Area (mi2) Slight (%) Moderate (%) Severe (%) Mainstem 52.9 32.6 38.9 28.5 Antelope 57.7 15.2 38.4 46.3 Dry 17.7 26.0 58.1 15.9 Lick 16.4 9.7 45.1 45.2 Salt 17.3 10.1 59.0 31.0 Lake 14.5 5.3 31.9 62.8 Lost 17.2 9.1 47.1 43.9 North Fork 56.3 46.4 21.1 25.1 South Fork 41.8 19.5 26.0 48.6 Soda 11.2 27.2 42.1 30.7 Dead Indian 22.4 36.5 51.7 9.5 Beaver Dam 27.9 77.4 11.3 0.7 Upper SF 19.8 97.7 1.4 0.6 Total 373.0 32.9 33.7 30.7

Map SS1. Soil erosion potential in the Little Butte Creek Watershed. This rating is based on bare soil with no vegetative cover.8

8 Red = Severe. Orange = Moderate. Green = Slight. White = No data.

Sediment Sources - 104

ROAD DENSITY

Road density is a measure of the total road length for a given area. Road density is a means to determine the potential for sediment delivery to streams caused by roads. In general, road densities greater than 3.5 mi/mi2 are considered to have a high potential for delivering large amounts of sediment to the stream system. Road densities less than 2 mi/mi2 are considered to be low and not represent an important source of sedimentation. However, location of the road is important, with those adjacent to streams and on steep slopes having a high potential for increasing sediment loads.

In general, the road densities for the LBCW are high (see Table SS2, Map SS2). Only the Dry subwatershed has a total road density lower than 2.0 mi/mi2. The road densities increase as you move further up (East) the watershed. This is due to the large number of roads in Forest Service and BLM lands. An additional problem with the roads in these higher subwatersheds is that there is a greater amount of unpaved or natural surface roads than in the lower parts of the watershed. This high percentage of natural surface roads represents a major potential source for sediment delivery.

Another factor to consider is the gradient of the slope that the roads are on (see Map SS3). The subwatersheds that have the greatest percentage of roads on slopes greater than 30% are Antelope, Lake, Lost and the lower portions of North Fork and South Fork. As mentioned above, this is to be expected, as this is the area within the LBCW with the steepest gradient slopes.

Almost 50 percent of the total road distance in the LBCW is located within 60 meters of a stream (see Table SS3). The Antelope, Lick, Salt and Lake subwatershed have more than 60 percent of the roads located near a stream. This makes it more likely that sediments can be conveyed from a road to a nearby stream. The North Fork, Beaver Dam and Upper South Fork subwatersheds are the only three that have less than 40% of the roads within 60m of a stream.

Table SS2. Road densities in the Little Butte Creek Watershed. Total Linear Subwatershed Distance of all Road Density Subwatershed Area (mi2) Roads (mi) (mi/mi2) Mainstem 52.9 143.0 2.7 Antelope 57.7 154.9 2.7 Dry 17.7 28.6 1.6 Lick 16.4 37.1 2.3 Salt 17.3 70.7 4.1 Lake 14.5 49.4 3.4 Lost 17.2 64.7 3.8 North Fork 56.3 185.4 3.3 South Fork 41.8 124.1 3.0 Soda 11.2 49.8 4.4 Dead Indian 22.4 81.7 3.7 Beaver Dam 27.9 107.8 3.9 Upper SF 19.8 70.3 3.6 Total 373.0 1167.4 3.13

Sediment Sources - 105

Map SS2. Road densities in the Little Butte Creek Watershed.9

9 Red >3.5 mi/mi2. Orange 2 mi/mi2 – 3.5 mi/mi2. Green < 2 mi/mi2.

Sediment Sources - 106

Map SS3. Road density on slopes greater than 30%.10

10 Green < 0.2 mi/mi2. Orange 0.2 – 0.5 mi/mi2. Red > 0.5 mi/mi2.

Sediment Sources - 107

Table SS3. Percent of road miles within 60 meters of a stream. Road miles Stream Road Distance within 60m of a Percent of total Subwatershed Distance (mi) (mi) stream road miles Mainstem 127.6 143.0 75.3 52.7 Antelope 177.5 154.9 105.2 67.9 Dry 29.2 28.6 11.9 41.6 Lick 45.8 37.1 23.8 64.1 Salt 46.3 70.7 44.3 62.7 Lake 47.2 49.4 32.9 66.5 Lost 43.7 64.7 37.9 58.7 North Fork 75.3 185.4 64.5 34.8 South Fork 78.6 124.1 51.5 41.5 Soda 28.1 49.8 27.8 55.8 Dead Indian 51.4 81.7 47.1 57.6 Beaver Dam 38.7 107.8 36.2 33.6 Upper SF 16.5 70.3 14.3 20.3 Total 805.9 1167.4 572.8 49.1

Stream Crossings

Stream crossing have the potential for causing sediment to reach the local streams. There are over 900 stream crossings in the LBCW (see Table SS4, Map SS4). The vast majority of these crossings are culverts. Without surveying each crossing, which is impractical for this level assessment due to the large number, the density of crossings (crossings/mi2) can be used as an indicator for the potential of excess sediment delivery to streams. The Salt, Lake, Lost and Soda subwatersheds have the highest density (> 3.6/mi2) of stream crossings. This is further exacerbated by the fact that these watersheds are in the band of steeper gradient slopes within the LBCW.

The Dry, Mainstem, North Fork, South Fork, and Upper South Fork subwatersheds have a relatively low number of stream crossings. However, the situation in the Mainstem is somewhat complicated by the fact that it contains the only urbanized area within the LBCW. Eagle Point is an area of concentrated impervious surfaces that can deliver sediments to the mainstem of Little Butte Creek. This is somewhat balanced by the fact that the City of Eagle Point is very low in the watershed and thus can only impact a very small portion of the total area.

Sediment Sources - 108

Table SS4. Stream crossings in the Little Butte Creek Watershed.

Subwatershed Stream Subwatershed Area (mi2) Crossings Crossings/mi2 Mainstem 52.9 112 2.1 Antelope 57.7 191 3.3 Dry 17.7 18 1.0 Lick 16.4 49 3.0 Salt 17.3 78 4.5 Lake 14.5 59 4.1 Lost 17.2 61 3.6 North Fork 56.3 116 2.1 South Fork 41.8 88 2.1 Soda 11.2 43 3.8 Dead Indian 22.4 68 3.0 Beaver Dam 27.9 60 2.2 Upper SF 19.8 25 1.3 Total 373.0 968 2.6

# ## # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # ## # ## # # # ### # # ## # # # # #### ### ### # # # # # # ### # # # # ## # ## # # # ## # # # ## # # ###### # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # ## # # ## # # # # # # #### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### ## ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # ### ## # #### # # # # # # ## ## # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # #### # # ## # ## ## ## # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # #### ## ## # ## # ## # ### ## # # # # # # # ### # # # # # ## # # # # ### # # ## # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # ## # # # # # ## ## ## # # # # # # #### ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## ## # ## # #### # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ### ## ## ### ### # # # ## # # # # # # # ### ## ## ## ## # # # # # # # # ## ## # # ### ## # ## # # ## # # ## # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # ### # # # # ## # # # # # ## ## ### ## # # # # # # ## ## ## ### ## # # # ## # ## # # ## # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ### ## # # # # # # # # # ### ## # # # ## # ## # # ### # # # # ## # # ## ## # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## ## # # ## # # ## # # # # # # ### # # # ## # # # ## # ## ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # ### # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # ## # # #

Map SS4. Stream crossings in the Little Butte Creek Watershed.

Sediment Sources - 109

Map SS5. Stream crossing density in the Little Butte Creek Watershed.11

Mass Wasting

As mentioned above, a large percentage of the soils in the LBCW are granitic in nature and prone to severe erosion. Mass wasting, the slumping of soil not related to roads or streams has occurred in various parts of the LBCW. Mass Wasting is concentrated in the areas with steep terrain, low vegetative cover, and unstable soils (see Map SS6). As with the other potential sources of sediment delivery, this type of erosion is concentrated in the central part of the LBCW.

There have been a small number (14) of documented slide events in the LBCW in recent years (see Map SS7). However, there is little or no data on the size and cause of these events. Most of these events occurred in the South Fork subwatershed around the mouth of Dead Indian Creek.

11 Red > 3.6 crossings/mi2. Orange 2.2 – 3.6 crossings/mi2. Green < 2.2 crossings/mi2.

Sediment Sources - 110

Map SS6. Areas in the Little Butte Creek Watershed that are most susceptible to mass wasting. Those areas colored are unstable and have the potential for mass wasting when saturated with water.12

12 White = Stable. Pink = Unstable at > 80% soil saturation. Red = Unstable at <80% soil saturation. Grey = no data available.

Sediment Sources - 111

#

#

# #

### ## ##

#

Map SS7. Locations where landsides have occurred recently.

DISCUSSION

The three most likely sources of major sedimentation in the LBCW are road runoff, road instability and mass wasting. The potential for human induced sedimentation to the streams is exacerbated by the high percentage of granitic soils in the area. Human activity on steep slopes also increases the potential for human induced sedimentation. Both on private and public lands, intensive forest management practices such as fire suppression, extensive road construction and extensive logging on steep slopes have increased the potential for high levels of sedimentation in the LBCW.

Much of the LBCW is at high risk for high levels of human induced sedimentation, with the Lick, Salt, Lake and Lost subwatersheds at the greatest risks. The major concern with sedimentation is the harm it can cause to fish and other aquatic species. Other beneficial uses can be impaired as well, including drinking water and recreation.

One potential impact on sedimentation that was not discussed in this chapter was areas burned by fire. At the time of this writing, the damage from the Grizzly Peak fire has not been assessed.

Sediment Sources - 112

However, this event could likely lead to relatively high sediments loads being delivered to the nearby streams.

Much of the roads on slopes in the LBCW are on public lands. This means that the LBCWC will have to work with the local offices of the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service for many of the projects. There are numerous activities that should be pursued in order to lower the potential for sedimentation in the LBCW. A culvert survey for the roads in the areas of greatest concern should be undertaken. Road density should be lowered through road decommissioning, barricading and decommissioning. Educating off road vehicle users and mountain bikers about sedimentation and its effects on the watershed should be a priority. Removing valley bottom roads should be a major focus in order to help return proper functioning of the riparian habitat.

DATA GAPS

Most of the data in this section is at a general level. Before individual projects can be listed, site- specific surveys should be conducted. Much of this is being done by the ODFW, BLM and USFS. However, the watershed council could do surveys on private lands (culvert and road condition).

In conjunction with water quality surveys, sediment loads and their sources should be a priority. This should be focused initially on the streams in the subwatersheds of greatest concern and those areas with coho and steelhead use.

A survey of the roads on private lands could be done, detailing the surface, condition and traffic load as well as slope. This effort should be focused where high sediment levels have been documented.

Upslope surveys on private land for mass wasting sites could be done. However, more important would be determining those sites that have the greatest potential for erosion in the future. Locating areas on steep slopes that have been denuded of vegetation would be the best way to approach getting this information.

Storm drain surveys and data collection in the Mainstem subwatershed were recommended in the hydrology chapter. These surveys should include gathering data about the amount of sediment being delivered to the waterways through the city’s storm drain system.

An assessment of the damage from the Grizzly Peak fire should be undertaken. It is likely that the USFS and BLM will conduct this assessment in the near future. Once completed, the data should be incorporated into this chapter.

Channel Modification - 113

Chapter VIII Channel Modification

INTRODUCTION

Under natural conditions, the morphology of a stream channel will change over time due to a large variety of causes including high stream flows, soil erosion, sediment deposition and blockages due to instream debris. Over time, most stream channels will move, with the amount of movement depending on the channel confinement and disturbance factors. It is healthy for a stream to meander and move from one location to another, helping to provide suitable habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms.

However, many human land use practices rely on the stream location remaining static, an unnatural condition. There are numerous human activities that are used to try and stabilize the location and shape of streams (see Table CM1). For example, much of the best farmland is found in river valley bottoms where rich soil has been deposited. And although the deposition of the soil is from the streams, once land has been developed, physical structures are often added to the stream to ensure that it will not encroach on the farmland. Naturally, a riparian zone can fill this stabilization function up to a certain level of high flows. However, at very high flows, the stream will jump the bank and move into the farmland. Another factor exacerbating this problem is that riparian zones are often damaged in an attempt to gain access to more land near the stream.

Table CM1. Channel Modification Activities.13 Channel Modification Potential Impact Irrigation & hydroelectric dams Migration Barrier, loss of spawning & rearing habitat, non-native species introduction Reservoirs, artificial impoundments Flow alteration, loss of spawning gravels Small agricultural impoundments Migration Barrier, loss of spawning & rearing habitat, non-native species introduction, water quality impacts Dikes & levees Loss of side channels and floodplain function, decrease in channel length, reduction of habitat complexity, increased potential for downstream flooding Channelization (straightening, Reduction in key habitat features such as pools and sorted hardening, relocation) gravel Dredging Decrease in habitat complexity Streambank protection (riprap, Decrease in lateral scour pools, likely to incite pilings, bulkheads) Streambank erosion downstream, increased potential for downstream flooding Built-up areas in floodplain Loss of side-channels, flood attenuation, and food chain support Roads next to streams Loss of side-channels, lateral pools, and riparian function Extensive fill at road crossings Loss of habitat complexity, downstream erosion

13 Table compiled from Tables VII-1 & VII-2 WPN, 1999.

Channel Modification - 114

Channel Modification Potential Impact (>250’) – What? Tide Gates Loss of side-channels, and food chain support Water withdrawals Flow alteration, water quality impairment Push-up dams Migration barrier, habitat loss, flow alteration Mining in/near channel, tailing Pool filling decreased habitat complexity deposits

Channel modifications can impact the stream directly, by diverting water from the channel, preventing the natural meandering process, increasing the energy of a flood, adding sediment to the stream, change the flow patterns and changing water quality in numerous ways (see Table CM1). Changes to the natural channel morphology and function can also have direct as well as indirect impacts on fish and other aquatic organisms. Many instream structures act as migration barriers, impeding passage to spawning and rearing habitat. Additionally, some channel modification activities impair water quality parameters, including temperature and turbidity. They can also reduce the quality of the spawning and rearing habitat.

Not all of the channel modification activities listed in Table CMQ are present historically or even currently in the Little Butte Creek Watershed (LBCW). However, some channel modification has occurred in the watershed including, instream diversions (concrete, stop-log and push-up dams), reservoirs and small agricultural impoundments, roads next to streams and water withdrawals (associated with the instream diversions or pumps). To a lesser degree there may also be some stream bank protection (riprap) and historic mining deposits. This chapter will assess the amount of channel modification that has occurred in the LBCW.

RESULTS

There are a large number of instream diversions within the LBCW (see Table CM2, Map CM1). The majority of the diversions are used for irrigation purposes. The Mainstem and Lake subwatersheds have by far the highest concentrations of this type of channel modification. The South Fork, Lost, Salt and North Fork subwatersheds have moderate concentrations of instream diversions.

The distribution of the diversions is due to the land use practices within the LBCW. The subwatersheds that have the most diversions are the locations where most of the agricultural lands are within the watershed.

Channel Modification - 115

Table CM2. Instream diversion within the LBCW. Subwatershed Area Stream Distance Instream Subwatershed (mi2) (mi) Diversions Diversions/mi Mainstem 52.9 127.6 171 1.3 Antelope 57.7 177.5 60 0.3 Dry 17.7 29.2 7 0.2 Lick 16.4 45.8 14 0.3 Salt 17.3 46.3 19 0.4 Lake 14.5 47.2 74 1.6 Lost 17.2 43.7 20 0.5 North Fork 56.3 75.3 32 0.4 South Fork 41.8 78.6 51 0.6 Soda 11.2 28.1 3 0.1 Dead Indian 22.4 51.4 15 0.3 Beaver Dam 27.9 38.7 0 0.0 Upper SF 19.8 16.5 0 0.0 Total 373.0 805.9 466 0.6

## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # ## # # ## # ## # ## # # ### ### # # # ### # # ## #### # # # # ####### # ## # ####### # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # ## # # ## ## ## #### # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # ### # ### # # ## ## ## # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # ### # # ### # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ##

# # # ## # # #

# #

Map CM1. Instream diversions in the LBCW.

Channel Modification - 116

There are numerous small ponds and impoundments used for agricultural purposes within the LBCW (see Map CM2). However, the extent of these is not adequately known. Most of these impoundments are legally registered with the Oregon Water Resources Department. However, the quality of the structures is unknown. There may be opportunities for conserving significant amounts of water by upgrading the impoundment structures.

Map CM2. Lakes, ponds and water impoundments in the LBCW.

Roads near streams are another channel modification that is common in the LBCW (see Table CM3, Map CM3). Over 50% of stream reaches are within 10m of a road.14 This problem increases as you move up the watershed due to the increasing confinement of the valleys. The Beaver Dam and Soda subwatershed have the highest percentage of streams near a road. This is partly due to the relatively small amount of streams in the subwatersheds as well as confinement of the valleys. The Mainstem, Dry and Lick subwatersheds have the lowest percentage of streams near roads. However, the Mainstem subwatershed has the second highest amount of roads near a stream after the Antelope subwatershed.

14 Miles of stream within 10m of a road are artificially high due to the digital formatting of the roads data. However, the relative numbers are useful.

Channel Modification - 117

Table CM3. Miles of roads within 10m of streams.15

Total Linear Miles of road % of roads % of streams Subwatershed Distance of Stream within 10m of within 10m within 10m of Subwatershed Area (mi2) all Roads (mi) Distance (mi) a stream of stream road Mainstem 52.9 143.0 127.6 51.9 36.3 40.7 Antelope 57.7 154.9 177.5 82.6 53.3 46.5 Dry 17.7 28.6 29.2 9.4 32.8 32.2 Lick 16.4 37.1 45.8 18.7 50.3 40.8 Salt 17.3 70.7 46.3 31.9 45.1 69.0 Lake 14.5 49.4 47.2 23.0 46.5 48.7 Lost 17.2 64.7 43.7 28.1 43.5 64.4 North Fork 56.3 185.4 75.3 46.5 25.1 61.8 South Fork 41.8 124.1 78.6 38.7 31.2 49.2 Soda 11.2 49.8 28.1 20.1 40.2 71.3 Dead Indian 22.4 81.7 51.4 32.4 39.7 63.1 Beaver Dam 27.9 107.8 38.7 29.6 27.4 76.4 Upper SF 19.8 70.3 16.5 11.0 15.6 66.4 Total 373.0 1167.4 805.9 423.9 36.3 52.6

15 Miles of roads within 10m of a stream are artificially high due to the digital formatting of the roads data. However, the relative numbers are useful.

Channel Modification - 118

Map CM3. Roads within 10m of a stream in the LBCW.

There is some stream bank protection that has been constructed within the LBCW, mostly riprap. However, there is very little data available to determine the extent of this type of channel modification. A review of aerial photos for Little Butte and South Fork Little Butte Creeks was unable to make a reliable estimate regarding this type of modification. Additionally, the location of historic mining sites that may still be impacting the stream channel is unknown at this time.

DISCUSSION

The major sources of channel modification within the Little Butte Creek Watershed are instream diversions and the presence of roads near streams. There are over 450 instream diversions within the LBCW. The aggregate impact of these diversions on fish habitat is most likely very high. The Lake and Mainstem subwatershed in particular are highly inundated with these structures.

The large number of diversions is having a significant impact on stream flows, reducing them to very low amounts (see Hydrology chapter) as well as reducing the amount of habitat that is available for salmonid spawning and rearing. It should be noted that most diversions are not complete barriers to fish passage. However, the cumulative impact of so many diversions can

Channel Modification - 119 have serious implications to the migration habits of native anadromous salmonids. It can also reduce the amount of water in the stream, even drying many up.

The removal or improvement of these structures should be a top priority for the LBCW Council. This work will both improve the migration corridor and open up new habitat for spawning and rearing. Additionally, there are means to reduce the amount of water that is diverted by using newer technology, including pumps and piping of canals. In some cases, the water right can be left instream for flow modifications purposes.

The other major channel modification that occurs within the LBCW is the existence of roads near streambeds. The roads prevent the channel from migrating as well as reducing off-channel habitat and reducing the riparian coverage. In most cases, the removal of roads is impractical, except perhaps on public lands in the upper reaches. This means that alternative solutions to this problem need to be generated.

Although there is currently little data regarding the amount of streambank protection that has been constructed within the LBCW, this factor does impact the morphology of LBCW streams. Often, riprap is associated with roads in those locations where a stream is encroaching on the road. The hardening of a channel with the placement of riprap and other materials can reduce the amount of lateral pools for habitat as well as cause streambank erosion downstream. Currently, federal regulations make it more difficult to place riprap and other streambank hardening materials.

Another use of riprap is to protect bridge foundations. There are numerous bridges within the LBCW. Current engineering practices reduce the impact of the structures on the stream, but historic structures are most likely protected with riprap and other materials.

Probably the most effective tool at the disposal of the LBCW Council regarding streambank protection is education. There are other means for protecting land from stream encroachment that are not as detrimental to the stream habitat, including riparian planting and bioengineering. The more the general public is informed about these alternatives, the less they will use riprap.

DATA GAPS

Inventory of Streambank protection within the LBCW. This data could be collected while conducting other surveys such as spawning and carcass surveys.

Assess the stream crossings that have large amounts of fill associated with them. This work should be done in conjunction with any culvert surveys that are assessing sediment sources.

Determine the extent of mining that is occurring within or near streams in the LBCW. The larger mining operations for aggregate should be relatively simple to determine. However, the extent of small-scale recreational mining that occurs will be difficult if not impossible to assess. Of greater importance is probably the location of any existing mining tailing deposits that are in or near streams. These locations would represent important restoration sites.

Channel Modification - 120

Assess the quantity and quality of agricultural off-channel ponds in the LBCW. By improving the water retention capabilities of these structures, it should be possible to improve stream flows due to a reduction in withdrawals.

Conclusions - 121

Chapter IX Conclusions

The main goal of this assessment has been to analyze and define the current conditions of the Little Butte Creek Watershed and how severely human impacts such as land use practices have changed the natural process and conditions of the watershed. The method used to generate this analysis has been to collect existing data and synthesize it into a single document. To increase the value of this document, the data was analyzed at the subwatershed level when at all possible. In addition to analyzing the existing data, gaps in information and potential solutions to these gaps were noted for each watershed health parameter that was studied.

The Little Butte Creek Watershed (LBCW) is a large (373 square miles) yet wholly contained 5th field watershed with thirteen distinct subwatersheds. The terrain is generally of two types, plateau (both a high and low) and steep gradient (the intermediate areas). The elevations range from over 9,400 feet atop Mount McLaughin to 1,200 feet at the mouth of Little Butte Creek as it joins the Rogue River. This range of elevations means that there is a complete spectrum of precipitation events: rain, rain-on-snow, and snowmelt. This precipitation regime ensures that there are times of very high peak flows.

The overall condition of the LBCW is somewhat degraded. Over 150 years of human settlement has had an impact on the health of the watershed, significantly impairing some of the natural processes. This is most true in the plateau areas, particularly the lower, where land use practices have been concentrated.

HYDROLOGY

One of the first natural processes impacted by human settlement in the LBCW was hydrology. Historically, farming, ranching and logging were the land use practices that had the most impacts on the watershed. As the population growth has continued, however, development, home building, and road construction have become important factors impacting the hydrology of the LBCW.

Eagle Point is the only urbanized area in the LBCW and has relatively minimal impacts due to its location low in the watershed. However, the continued rural development of outlying communities, including roads and altered drainage networks, has continued to alter and degrade the natural hydrological cycle in the LBCW.

Conclusions - 122

Table C1. Impacts of land use practices in the LBCW. Subwatershed Agriculture Forest Roads Ag. Roads Rural/Urban Roads Result Risk Result Risk Result Risk Result Risk Mainstem <0.50 LOW 0.82 LOW 1.71 LOW 5.81 HIGH Antelope <0.50 LOW 1.45 LOW 1.47 LOW 5.97 HIGH Dry <0.50 LOW 0.78 LOW 0.91 LOW 4.16 MODERATE Lick <0.50 LOW 1.01 LOW 1.81 LOW 0 LOW Salt <0.50 LOW 2.10 LOW 1.79 LOW 0 LOW Lake <0.50 LOW 1.84 LOW 1.90 LOW 0 LOW Lost <0.50 LOW 1.81 LOW 2.16 LOW 0 LOW North Fork <0.50 LOW 1.60 LOW 1.63 LOW 0 LOW South Fork <0.50 LOW 1.46 LOW 1.58 LOW 0 LOW Soda <0.50 LOW 2.14 LOW 1.26 LOW 0 LOW Dead Indian <0.50 LOW 1.81 LOW 1.16 LOW 0 LOW Beaver Dam <0.50 LOW 1.83 LOW 1.76 LOW 0 LOW Upper SF <0.50 LOW 1.67 LOW 0.00 LOW 0 LOW Total <0.50 LOW 1.62 LOW 1.55 LOW ---- LOW

The main mechanisms through which logging practices can impact the hydrologic cycle are the removal and disturbance of vegetation and the related road system. The most likely result of logging practices in the upper reaches of the watershed is increased peak flows associated with rain-on-snow events.

Although stream flows in the LBCW are naturally low during the summer months, they have been extremely reduced due to human activities. Except for the smallest tributaries, all of the streams in the LBCW have been over-allocated for water rights during the summer season. This means that there are more legal rights to water than there is water in the system. There is potential for stream flow restoration in the LBCW due to the high percentage of use that is consumptive. Changes in water use practices, such as piping irrigation ditches and switching from flood irrigation to sprinklers, can have a significant beneficial impact on the amount of water in the streams. Stored water is also available from Lost Creek Dam and has been purchased by other irrigators in the Rogue basin and used in lieu of limited water amounts in the tributaries.

There are no flood control reservoirs within the LBCW. Fish Lake water is released for agricultural uses but the reservoir does not provide any flood control.

FISH & FISH HABITAT

There are five major native anadromous salmonids populations in the LBCW: fall and spring Chinook, winter and summer steelhead, and coho. Currently, coho are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Wild spring chinook and coho numbers have decreased over the last century for a variety of human induced and natural factors. Habitat degradation has limited the recovery potential for the wild anadromous fish stocks of the LBCW.

Conclusions - 123

Very few of the streams in the LBCW have had extensive stream surveys conducted. However, those that have been surveyed show that there are some relatively serious degraded conditions in the watershed. In particular, pool conditions and the lack of significant amounts of large woody debris.

There are numerous fish passage barriers to anadromous salmonids migration within the LBCW. Most of these barriers are culverts at road crossing. There is also a very large number of culverts in the upper reaches that, though not affecting anadromous fish migration, do impact the migration patters of native fish populations.

WATER QUALITY

There are numerous water quality issues in the LBCW. The most important at this time include, temperature, bacteria and sedimentation. These factors impact both native aquatic organisms as well as human recreational activities.

Over 40% of the stream miles in the LBCW are listed on the ODEQ 303d water quality impairment list. Temperature and sedimentation can severely impact the health and spawning potential of anadromous salmonids.

Nine of the thirteen subwatersheds have more than 37% of their streams on the ODEQ 303d list. Rural development, including encroachment on the riparian zone, has led to water quality issues in these streams. Poor land management practices in the rural areas have degraded much of the streams in the LBCW.

SEDIMENT SOURCES

In the LBCW the three main sources of sediment to streams are road runoff, road instability and mass wasting. The low infiltration rate of the soils in the LBCW exacerbates these problems. The problems are greatest on steep slopes where human activities are occurring.

Forest practices such as fire suppression, road building and logging on steep slopes have increased the potential for sediment delivery to streams of the LBCW. This is true on both public and private lands. The Antelope, Salt, Lake, Soda, and lower reaches of North Fork and South Fork subwatershed are most at risk to high level of human induced sedimentation. This is due to the increasing human land use activity of steep slopes in these areas.

Most of the unpaved roads in the LBCW are on public lands. However, as rural development continues to accelerate, unpaved surfaces on private lands for driveways and other uses will continue to grow as a problem and source of sedimentation. While public agencies are working to reduce the amount of sedimentation that is generated by roads, private landowners do not have access to the same resources are a requirement to follow the same strict guidelines. Thus it is important to continue to work with private landowners to reduce the potential of sedimentation.

Conclusions - 124

RIPARIAN

Logging and Agricultural practices have seriously impacted the riparian zones in the LBCW. Because the riparian zones on public lands are under much more stringent protection requirements, the riparian areas on private lands have been hit the hardest. However, these restrictions are relatively recent and thus their implementation has not been fully realized in riparian regeneration on public lands.

The quantity as well as composition of the riparian zones has been changed over the last 150 years. This is particularly true on the lower reaches of the LBCW where rural development has been the greatest. This is exacerbated by the fact that these are locations where the streams slow and widen as they leave the confined steep gradient valleys. It is in these areas that riparian shading is of greatest need. However, it should be remembered that shading does not cool a stream; rather it slows the heating of the water.

CHANNEL MODIFICATION

There has been little modification of the stream channels in the LBCW. Modifications that have occurred are limited to instream diversion structures. This watershed health factor is in relatively good condition. One other important factor though, is the presence of a large amount of roads near stream channels, confining the natural morphology of the channels.

OVERALL WATERSHED HEALTH

This assessment analyzed six watershed health factors to determine the overall health of the LBCW. The combination of these factors, hydrology, fish habitat, water quality, sediment sources, riparian health, and channel modification, gives a relative indication of the health of the watershed. A ranking of 1-5 (1 = slightly degraded, 3 = moderately degraded, 5 = severely degraded) was assigned to each subwatershed for each of the health factors. These were then averaged to determine the overall health rating.

Overall, the health of the LBCW is moderately degraded. Riparian health and Hydrology are rated as the least degraded of the watershed health parameters. However, in the lower reaches of the LBCW, these factors are very important. Fish habitat is the most degraded of the watershed health parameters. This is most important in those subwatersheds where native anadromous salmonids populations are abundant.

Conclusions - 125

Table C2. Summary scoring of the subwatersheds in the LBCW. Subwatershed Hydrology Fish Water Sediment Riparian Channel Rating Habitat Quality Sources Health Modifications Mainstem 4 4 4 3 4 4 3.83 Antelope 4 4 4 4 3 3 3.67 Dry 4 3 3 3 2 2 2.83 Lick 3 3 3 4 4 3 3.33 Salt 3 4 3 3 4 4 3.50 Lake 3 3 3 4 4 3 3.33 North Fork 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.00 South Fork 3 4 4 4 3 4 3.67 Lost 3 3 3 4 3 4 3.33 Soda 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.00 Dead Indian 3 3 4 3 3 3 3.17 Beaver Dam 2 3 2 2 2 3 2.33 Upper South 2 3 2 2 2 3 2.33 Fork LBCW 2.86 3.07 2.93 3.00 2.86 3.00 2.95

The Mainstem, Salt and South Fork subwatersheds are the most degraded. This is due to the high concentration of development is these areas for a long period of time. The Dry, Beaver Dam and Upper South Fork subwatersheds are the least degraded and are in decent shape. For the latter two, this is due to their location high in the watershed, beyond most of the rural and urban development that has occurred over the last century and a half. However, for Dry, the reason it is ranked as somewhat healthy is due to a lack of data.

Native anadromous salmonids populations have declined over the last century in the LBCW. And although the LBCW is still one of the most important watersheds in the Rogue River Basin for salmonids production, there is great potential for these populations to rebound. Coho and steelhead in particular can benefit most through habitat protection and restoration in the LBCW. Work should be concentrated in areas where these populations exist and where quality habitat is available, either through restoration or opening up of the stream channel for migration to historic locations.

This assessment has highlighted the general areas and factors of watershed health that are of concern in the LBCW. For more site-specific information, more data must be collected. The results of this assessment can help determine where data collection should occur and what types of information need to be collected. The companion document to the assessment, The Little Butte Creek Watershed Action Plan, will detail how and which data gaps should be addressed. The Action Plan will also prioritize restoration and protection projects in the LBCW based on the information synthesized in this document.

Conclusions - 126

Table C3. Data gaps and information needs in the LBCW. Assessment Component Data Need Hydrology & Water Use  Actual stream flow data for the entire year on streams would be more useful than the modeled flows from OWRD.  The actual amount of water diverted from streams, both legal and illegal would allow for a better understanding of how stream flows are being impacted.  Better data regarding historic and recent timber activities both on public and private lands would allow for a better estimation of the impact on the hydrologic cycle.  An accurate assessment of the losses of water in the irrigation delivery systems would allow for an analysis of how water can be conserved.  An analysis of the amount of irrigated lands in the LBCW and how they are irrigated and at what efficiency. Fish & Fish Habitat  The major data gap that exists is the lack of habitat information for most of the anadromous salmonid bearing streams in the LBW (see Appendix F1). Currently, ODFW has not conducted any habitat surveys in the Dry, Beaver Dam and Upper South Fork subwatersheds. Future surveys should first be concentrated in those streams that support anadromous salmonids.  Information about the distribution of the local anadromous salmonids is currently acceptable. The ODFW does annual surveys on many of the streams in the LBW. Both ODFW and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) survey each year new streams. However, surveys of those streams not covered by ODFW and BLM should be considered, particularly those most likely to be used by anadromous salmonids. These should include carcass and spawning surveys in order to get information about both distribution and abundance.  There is a lack of information on barriers to anadromous fish passage in the LBW. Barrier surveys need to be conducted throughout the LBW; in particular, the South Fork Little Butte and Lake subwatershed. Any projects aimed at gathering this type of data should coordinate with the Rogue Basin Fish Access Team and ODFW. Water Quality  The reasons why criteria are exceeding the listing parameters should be determined. This should include assessing land use activities, instream modifications and flow diversions as well as riparian condition.  Similarly, data should be collected for those larger tributary streams that have yet to be surveyed. As above, surveys should begin with those streams that support anadromous salmonids. Another selection criteria would be the land use practices and activities that are occurring in and near the streams. Riparian Habitat  As stated above, there is a great need for riparian information on private lands. This is particularly true on streams that have high stream temperatures. Any surveys conducted should be coordinated with ODFW and their stream habitat, spawning and fish presence surveys.  The type of information that is needed includes: shade provided, shade potential, species composition, and size of trees. Sediment Sources  Most of the data in this section is at a general level. Before individual projects can be listed, site-specific surveys should be conducted. Much of this is being done by the ODFW, BLM and USFS. However, the watershed council could do surveys on private lands (culvert and road condition).  In conjunction with water quality surveys, sediment loads and their sources should be a priority. This should be focused initially on the streams in the subwatersheds of greatest concern and those areas with coho and steelhead use.  A survey of the roads on private lands could be done, detailing the surface, condition and traffic load as well as slope. This effort should be focused where high sediment levels have been documented.

Conclusions - 127

Assessment Component Data Need  Upslope surveys on private land for mass wasting sites could be done. However, more important would be determining those sites that have the greatest potential for erosion in the future. Locating areas on steep slopes that have been denuded of vegetation would be the best way to approach getting this information.  Storm drain surveys and data collection in the Mainstem subwatershed were recommended in the hydrology chapter. These surveys should include gathering data about the amount of sediment being delivered to the waterways through the city’s storm drain system.  An assessment of the damage from the Grizzly Peak fire should be undertaken. It is likely that the USFS and BLM will conduct this assessment in the near future. Once completed, the data should be incorporated into this chapter.

Channel Modification  Inventory of streambank protection within the LBCW. This data could be collected while conducting other surveys such as spawning and carcass surveys.  Assess the stream crossings that have large amounts of fill associated with them. This work should be done in conjunction with any culvert surveys that are assessing sediment sources.  Determine the extent of mining that is occurring within or near streams in the LBCW. The larger mining operations for aggregate should be relatively simple to determine. However, the extent of small-scale recreational mining that occurs will be difficult if not impossible to assess. Of greater importance is probably the location of any existing mining tailing deposits that are in or near streams. These locations would represent important restoration sites.  Assess the quantity and quality of agricultural ponds in the LBCW. By improving the water retention capabilities of these structures, it should be possible to improve stream flows due to a reduction in withdrawals.

References - 128

References Cited

1. Applegate River Watershed Council. 1998. Summer Program Water Quality, Stream Ecology Report.

2. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2002. Website. http://www.deq.state.or.us/

3. Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife. 1990. Rogue Basin fisheries evaluation. Effects of Lost Creek Dam on winter steelhead in the Rogue River. Phase II completion report. Rogue Basin fisheries evaluation report, ODFW. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contract DACW57-77-C-0033.

4. Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife. 1991. Rogue Basin fisheries evaluation. Effects of Lost Creek Dam on Winter Steelhead in the Rogue River. Phase II completion report. Rogue Basin fisheries evaluation report, ODFW. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contract DACW57-77-C-0033.

5. Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife. 1992a. Unpublished data. Escapement of Anadromous fish to the Rogue River: Summer Steelhead, 1967/77 through 1991/92; Fall Chinook, 1974-1986; Spring Chinook, 1942-1990.

6. Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife. 1992b. Unpublished data. Smolt releases from Cole M. Rivers Hatchery 1973-1989.

7. Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife. 1997. ODFW Aquatic Inventories Project Stream Habitat Distribution Coverages. Natural Production Section. Corvallis. Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife.

8. Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife. 2000. Pers. Communication. Alan Ritchey, Fish Biologist. Rogue District Office.

9. PIEC. 2002. Southwest Oregon Province Resource Information GIS Data CD Set. Rogue/South Coast Assessment Unit.

10. Vogt, J. 1999. Summary of Rogue District Summer Steelhead Redd Counts, 1976-1999. ODFW unpublished report.

11. Vogt, J. 2001. Upper Rogue smolt trapping project, 2001. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Rogue Fish District, Central Point, OR.

12. Watershed Professionals Network. 1999. Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual. June 1999. Prepared for the Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board, Salem, Oregon.

13. Watershed Sciences. 2002. Aerial Surveys in the Rogue River Basin: Thermal Infrared and Color Videography. January 4th, 2002.