DOCSLIB.ORG

Burnt River Subbasin Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Burnt River Subbasin Plan DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Burnt River Subbasin Plan May 28, 2004 Prepared for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council Lead Writer M. Cathy Nowak, Cat Tracks Wildlife Consulting Subbasin Team Leader Doni Clair, Baker County Association of Conservation Districts DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Burnt River Subbasin Plan Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary................................................................................................................. 8 2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Description of Planning Entity ...................................................................................... 11 2.2. List of Participants......................................................................................................... 11 2.3. Stakeholder Involvement Process.................................................................................. 13 2.4. Overall Approach to the Planning Activity ................................................................... 13 2.5. Process and Schedule for Revising/Updating the Plan.................................................. 14 3. Subbasin Assessment ............................................................................................................ 14 3.1. Subbasin Overview........................................................................................................ 15 3.1.1. General Description............................................................................................... 15 3.1.2. Subbasin Existing Water Resources...................................................................... 20 3.1.3. Hydrologic and Ecologic Trends in the Subbasin ................................................. 26 3.1.4. Regional Context................................................................................................... 28 3.2. Focal Species Characterization and Status .................................................................... 30 3.2.1 Native/non-native Wildlife, Plant and Resident/anadromous Fish of Ecological Importance............................................................................................................................. 30 3.2.2 Focal Species Selection ......................................................................................... 39 3.2.3. Aquatic Focal Species Population Delineation and Characterization ................... 40 3.2.4 Terrestrial Focal Species Population Delineation and Characterization ............... 52 3.2.5 Plant Focal Species.......................................................................................................74 3.3. Out-of-Subbasin Effects ................................................................................................ 76 3.3.1 Aquatic .................................................................................................................. 76 3.3.2. Terrestrial .............................................................................................................. 77 3.4 Environment/Population Relationships ......................................................................... 78 3.4.1 Aquatic .................................................................................................................. 78 3.4.2 Terrestrial .............................................................................................................. 78 3.4.3 Interspecies Relationships ................................................................................... 106 3.5. Identification and Analysis of Limiting Factors/Conditions ....................................... 107 3.5.1. Description of Historic Factors Leading to Decline of Focal Species/Ecological Function-Process – Aquatic................................................................................................. 107 3.5.2. Description of Historic Factors Leading to Decline of Focal Species/Ecological Function-Process – Terrestrial............................................................................................. 108 3.6. Synthesis/Interpretation............................................................................................... 109 3.6.1. Subbasin-wide Working Hypothesis – Aquatic................................................... 109 3.6.2. Terrestrial Assessment Synthesis ........................................................................ 110 3.6.3. Desired Future Conditions – Aquatic .................................................................. 122 3.6.4. Desired Future Conditions – Terrestrial .............................................................. 122 3.6.5. Opportunities ....................................................................................................... 123 4. Inventory of Existing Activities (Private, Local, State, Federal) ........................................ 124 4.1. Existing Legal Protection ............................................................................................ 124 4.2. Existing Plans .............................................................................................................. 125 4.3. Existing Management Programs.................................................................................. 127 4.4. Existing Restoration and Conservation Projects ......................................................... 128 5/25/04 4:23 PM 2 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT 4.5. Gap Assessment of Existing Protections, Plans, Programs and Projects..................... 128 5. Management Plan ................................................................................................................ 129 5.1. Vision for the Subbasin ............................................................................................... 129 5.2 Biological Objectives .................................................................................................. 129 5.3. Prioritized Strategies ................................................................................................... 130 5.3.1. Aquatic Species ................................................................................................... 130 5.3.2. Terrestrial Species ............................................................................................... 131 5.4 Consistency with ESA/CWA Requirements ............................................................... 131 5.5 Research, Monitoring and Evaluation ......................................................................... 131 6. Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 139 6.1 Appendix 1: References .............................................................................................. 139 6.2 Appendix 2: Species Tables ........................................................................................ 149 6.3 Appendix 3: Comprehensive Species Accounts.......................................................... 165 6.3.1 Ruffed Grouse ..................................................................................................... 165 6.3.2 Blue Grouse......................................................................................................... 169 6.3.3 White-headed Woodpecker ................................................................................. 174 6.3.4 Sage Grouse......................................................................................................... 180 6.3.5 American Marten................................................................................................. 190 6.3.6 Olive-sided Flycatcher......................................................................................... 193 6.3.7 Yellow Warbler ................................................................................................... 198 6.3.8 American Beaver................................................................................................. 203 6.3.9 Bald Eagle ........................................................................................................... 205 6.3.10 Columbia Spotted Frog........................................................................................ 215 6.3.11 Great Blue Heron................................................................................................. 231 6.4 Appendix 4 - QHA Output Tables............................................................................... 242 5/25/04 4:23 PM 3 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT List of Tables Table 1. Burnt River Subbasin Planning Team ........................................................................... 12 Table 2. Notable streams in the Burnt River Subbasin and their points of confluence (RM) with the Burnt River or its tributaries............................................................................................ 20 Table 3. Water year (April 1 - Sept. 30) 1998 discharge of selected Burnt River tributaries. ...... 23 Table 4. Principal aquifers in the Burnt River subbasin, Oregon.................................................. 23 Table 5. Burnt River subbasin 303(d) listed stream segments and parameters of concern (ODEQ 2003)...................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 6. Modes of thermally induced cold-water fish
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Baker Resource Area Resource Management Plan (RMP)
    BLM Vale District Vale Baker Field Office Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management Volume 3 Appendices, Literature Cited, Glossary, Abbreviations and Acronyms October 2005 October 2011 As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interest of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. administration. Prepared by Baker Resource Area Vale District October 2011 Edward W. Shepard State Director. Oregon/Washington Don Gonzalez District Manager Vale District Office Ted Davis Field Manager Baker Resource Area Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS Table of Contents Table of Contents VOLUME 3 List of Appendices Chapter 1 Appendix 1.1. Laws, Regulations, And Policies that Apply to all Alternatives Chapter 2 Appendix 2.1. Best Management Practices Appendix 2.2. Aquatic and Riparian Management Strategy Appendix 2.3. Livestock Grazing Systems Appendix 2.4. Sagebrush Structure and Canopy Closure Appendix 2.5. Determining Stocking Carrying Capacity Appendix 2.6. Process for Relinquishment Of Preference Appendix 2.7. Recreation Management Areas Appendix 2.8.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA)
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 07/01/2018 to 09/30/2018 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact R6 - Pacific Northwest Region, Regionwide (excluding Projects occurring in more than one Region) Regional Aquatic Restoration - Wildlife, Fish, Rare plants In Progress: Expected:12/2018 12/2018 James Capurso Project - Watershed management Scoping Start 12/11/2017 503-808-2847 EA Est. Comment Period Public [email protected] *UPDATED* Notice 08/2018 Description: The USFS is proposing a suite of aquatic restoration activities for Region 6 to address ongoing needs, all of which have completed consultation, including activities such as fish passage restoration, wood placement, and other restoration activities. Web Link: https:/data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?project=53001 Location: UNIT - R6 - Pacific Northwest Region All Units. STATE - Oregon, Washington. COUNTY - Adams, Asotin, Benton, Chelan, Clallam, Clark, Columbia, Cowlitz, Douglas, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Grays Harbor, Island, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Kittitas, Klickitat, Lewis, Lincoln, Mason, Okanogan, Pacific, Pend Oreille, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Skamania, Snohomish, Spokane, Stevens, Thurston, Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, Whatcom, Whitman, Yakima, Baker, Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Coos, Crook, Curry, Deschutes, Douglas, Gilliam,
    [Show full text]
  • Baker County Transportation System Plan
    FINAL Baker County Transportation System Plan Prepared for Baker County, Oregon and Oregon Department of Transportation Prepared by H. Lee & Associates June 30,2005 This project was finded by a grant from the Transportation and Growth Management Program (TGM), a jointprogram of the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Department of Land Conservation and Development. TGM grants rely on federal Internodal Sui$ace Transportation Eficiency Act and Oregon Lottely Funds. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the State of Oregon. BAKER COUNTY FINAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Prepared for: Baker County and Oregon Department of Transportation Prepared by: H. Lee & Associates P.O. Box 1849 Vancouver, WA 98668 (360) 567-3002 June 30,2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 .WTRODUCTZON ................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Requirements ................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Planning Area ................................................................................................................ 1-4 1.3 Planning Process ........................................................................................................... 1-7 1.4 Other Planning Considerations ..................................................................................... 1-9 2-1 SECTlON 2 .TRANSPORTATION . GOALS AND POLICIES ...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Appraisal Study Report Eastern Oregon Water Storage Appraisal Study for Burnt River, Powder River, and Pine Creek Basins
    Draft Appraisal Study Report Eastern Oregon Water Storage Appraisal Study for Burnt River, Powder River, and Pine Creek Basins U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Snake River Area Office Boise, Idaho April 2011 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PROTECTING AMERICA’S GREAT OUTDOORS AND POWERING OUR FUTURE The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Draft Appraisal Study Report Eastern Oregon Water Storage Appraisal Study for Burnt River, Powder River, and Pine Creek Basins U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Snake River Area Office Boise, Idaho April 2011 Summary Introduction and Background The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in cooperation with eastern Oregon stakeholders is studying the potential to improve water supplies in the Burnt River, Powder River, and Pine Creek basins. About this Report This appraisal-level report is prepared in compliance with requirements of the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resource Implementation Studies (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1983) (P&Gs). It presents a discussion of the formulation of alternatives, a description of the appraisal level designs and cost estimates for the alternatives considered, and the results of the P&G-specific analyses. Information in this report is based on a variety of studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment DEIS
    Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Changes between the DEIS and FEIS for Section 3.1 Section 3.1 has been rewritten for clarity based on public comments and internal review. The original information from the DEIS remains, although may be numbered differently. This section adds 3.1.3 Incomplete and Unavailable Information, Section 3.1.2 Basis for Cumulative Effects - This section is reworded to describe the incremental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, both on National Forest System lands and other adjacent federal, state, or private lands. 3.1 Introduction This chapter describes both the existing conditions of the project area, and the environmental effects of implementing the alternatives described in Chapter 2. Effects are defined as: • Adverse and/or beneficial direct effects occur at the same time and in the same general location as the activity causing the effects. • Adverse and beneficial indirect effects are those that occur at a different time or location from the activity causing the effects. Both types of effects are described in terms of increase or decreases, intensity, duration, and timing. • Cumulative Effects result from the incremental impacts of the Proposed Actions/alternatives when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, both on the Forest and Wild and Scenic River corridor as well as other adjacent federal, state, or private lands. Effects include ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative (40 CFR 1508.7 and 1508.8).
    [Show full text]
  • 4. Inventory of Existing Activities (Private, Local, State, Federal)
    DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT 3.6.5.1 Aquatic Habitat for High Priority Protection The QHA analysis resulted in a list of priorities for habitat protection (Figure 28; Appendix 4, Table 32). The rankings are based on the greatest value gained by protecting a given reach. In other words, the highest ranked reach is the reach in the best overall condition resulting in the greatest benefit from protecting it. The South Fork Burnt River 2 was the reach with the highest protection ranking in the subbasin. It was followed by South Fork Burnt River 1, West Fork Camp Creek (Burnt R.), North Fork Burnt River 4 and Pritchard/Lawrence Creek to round out the top 5. 3.6.5.2 Aquatic Habitat to Reestablish Access Several of the subbasin’s reaches would benefit from reestablishment of access for fish. Notably, Clark’s Creek, Burnt River 7, Auburn Creek, Big Creek, Camp Creek East Fork (Burnt R.), Burnt River 8, Job Creek, Middle Fork Burnt River, North Fork Burnt River 2 & 3 and Trout and Camp Creeks were rated at 25% of optimum or less and would benefit from efforts to reestablish access. 3.6.5.3 Aquatic Habitat for Restoration The QHA analysis resulted in a list of priorities for habitat restoration (Figure 28; Appendix 4, Table 32). The rankings are based on the greatest habitat value gained by conducting restoration activities. Based on this ranking, the highest priority reach for habitat restoration in the subbasin is Clark’s Creek. It was followed by Sisely and Jordan Creeks, North Fork Burnt River 3, Alder Creek 1, and Pritchard and Lawrence Creeks.
    [Show full text]
  • Powder Basin Status Report and Action Plan
    Watershed Approach – Powder Basin Powder Basin Status Report and Action Plan November 2013 Water Quality Division Watershed Management 811 SW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 229-5696 (800) 452-4011 Fax: (503) 229-6762 Contact: John Dadoly www.oregon.gov/DEQ DEQ is a leader in restoring, maintaining and enhancing the quality of Oregon’s air, land and water. Last Updated: 11/07/13 By: John Dadoly Powder Basin Status Report and Action Plan This report prepared by: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 811 SW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97204 1-800-452-4011 www.oregon.gov/deq Contact: John Dadoly (541) 278-4616 Alternative formats (Braille, large type) of this document can be made available. Contact DEQ’s Office of Communications & Outreach, Portland, at (503) 229-5696, or toll-free in Oregon at 1-800-452-4011, ext. 5696. Powder Basin Status Report and Action Plan Oregon Department of Environmental Quality iii Powder Basin Status Report and Action Plan Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... vii 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 2. Basin Description ........................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Geographic Area ..................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Climate ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Review of the Powder Basin, Oregon Stream Systems, Water Storage, and Stream Health As They Pertain to the Basin and Water Science
    LITERATURE REVIEW OF THE POWDER BASIN, OREGON STREAM SYSTEMS, WATER STORAGE, AND STREAM HEALTH AS THEY PERTAIN TO THE BASIN AND WATER SCIENCE 39E 44E 38E 37E 48E 40E 43E 5S C 41E 47E l e a r 42E 46E C 45E r r B C e e a E l n i g k C Wolf l re P C e reek ek h 6S r C t C r y r k n e o tho er re n iv N A N C C ort R g Brownlee h er i l Powd B e k E a ree F r C P Reservoir Subbasin ne to C An G i n o r r E e e o 17050201 C a e s C ig e g k 7S B l r C e e k e e r C e k r r E C e a e Creek e s in r Rock k t P e r v P i C i e n R Haines s e o e o C k G r a n D S Halfway e 8S ek e e Cre r Pin r C e P re v ow e i de Cr Powder River Subbasin r R k R iv er a r c e 17050203 k d e w r 9S o Cr Richland P 36E E Baker City 35.5E D lk Sumpter e C e r 35E r e e C C k a r m e p e B C k lu e 10S re Ca e ny k on r C N r o a e r l th C F Burnt River Subbasin o r k B 17050202 11 S B ig D u ee N r C r n re C t e re R k ek O iv r B e C u O r r P e n G i n t n i R H e P iv E e 12S C r r A Burnt River R D k D O e I e e r e C r r C r p C e r v m i Unity a k R c t C 13S o rn u R Cr B k F El S r C p m 14S a Huntington C st Cr e p W am t C Eas 15S 01020 16S Miles US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SNAKE RIVER AREA OFFICE BOISE, IDAHO MAY 2008 MISSION STATEMENTS The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities.
    [Show full text]