DOCSLIB.ORG

Powder Basin Status Report and Action Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 ................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Current Land Uses/Cover and Land Ownership ...................................................... 4 2.4 Fisheries ................................................................................................................. 6 2.4.1 Fish Species Status .......................................................................................... 6 2.4.1 Redband Trout ................................................................................................. 8 2.4.3 Bull Trout ......................................................................................................... 9 2.5 Hydrology and Beneficial Water Use ..................................................................... 11 2.5.1 Hydrology ....................................................................................................... 11 2.5.2 Dams and Diversions ..................................................................................... 12 2.5.3 Surface Water Beneficial Use ........................................................................ 15 2.5.4 Groundwater Beneficial Use ........................................................................... 28 References ..................................................................................................................... 29 3. Pollutant Sources ...................................................................................................... 30 3.1 Point Sources ....................................................................................................... 30 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) ..................................... 30 General Permits ....................................................................................................... 33 Water Pollution Control Facilities (WPCF) ................................................................ 34 3.2 Nonpoint Sources ................................................................................................. 35 3.2.1 Urban/Rural Residential ................................................................................. 36 3.2.2 Forestry .......................................................................................................... 37 3.2.3 Agriculture ...................................................................................................... 39 3.2.4 Recreational ................................................................................................... 42 3.2.5 Reservoirs and Diversions .............................................................................. 42 3.2.6 Transportation ................................................................................................ 44 3.2.7 Invasive Plant Species ................................................................................... 45 3.2.8 Mining ............................................................................................................ 46 3.2.9 Landslides/Stream Channel Stability ............................................................... 48 References ..................................................................................................................... 52 4.0 SURFACE WATER QUALITY STATUS AND TRENDS........................................... 54 4.1 Water Quality Monitoring ...................................................................................... 54 4.1.1 DEQ Ambient Sites ......................................................................................... 54 4.1.2 Oregon Water Quality Index ........................................................................... 54 4.1.3 Flow/Temperature Monitoring Sites ................................................................ 58 4.1.4 TMDL Bacteria, Nutrient and Sediment Sampling Sites ................................. 59 4.1.5 Biomonitoring Sites ........................................................................................ 62 4.2 Water Quality Limited Streams ............................................................................. 63 4.3 Pollutant-Specific Surface Water Quality Conditions and Water Quality Standards 66 4.3.1 Bacteria........................................................................................................... 66 4.3.2 Sedimentation ................................................................................................. 73 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality iv Powder Basin Status Report and Action Plan 4.3.3 Turbidity .......................................................................................................... 74 4.3.4 Chlorophyll ...................................................................................................... 75 4.3.6 pH ................................................................................................................... 87 4.3.8 Temperature .................................................................................................. 96 4.3.9 Toxics ...........................................................................................................103 4.3.10 Altered Hydrology .......................................................................................109 4.3.11 Habitat Modification (i.e. Sumpter Valley and other channelized and dredged streams) ....................................................................................................110 4.3.12 Biocriteria ....................................................................................................112 4.3.13 Hazardous Algae Blooms ............................................................................114 References ....................................................................................................................116 5. Groundwater Quality Status and Trends ................................................................117 5.1 Groundwater Monitoring ......................................................................................117 5.2 Groundwater Quality and Support of Beneficial Uses ..........................................118 Haines Groundwater Investigation ..........................................................................118 Baker Landfill Groundwater Data ............................................................................118 Northern Malheur County Groundwater Management Area ....................................118 Real Estate Transaction Database ..........................................................................119 6. General Water Quality Priorities in the Powder Basin ...........................................120 7. Status of Current DEQ Water Quality-Related Actions ..........................................121 7.1 TMDL Program ....................................................................................................121 7.2 Waste Water Control – Point Source Program .....................................................121 7.2.1 Domestic Waste Water Permitting .................................................................121 7.2.2 Pre-Treatment Program ................................................................................121 7.2.3 Stormwater Program .....................................................................................121 7.2.4 Biosolids Program .........................................................................................122 7.2.5 Water Re-Use Program .................................................................................123 7.2.6 Underground Injection Control Program ........................................................124 7.2.6 On-Site Septic Program ................................................................................125 7.3 Compliance and Enforcement ..............................................................................125 7.4 Groundwater Program .........................................................................................126
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Burnt River Water Temperature Study Commitee Final Report
    BURNT RIVER WATER TEMPERATURE STUDY STEERING COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT Prepared for the Burnt River Steering Committee by David Duncan and Associates Boise, Idaho April 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 Study Description ...................................................................................................................... 1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 1 OBJECTIVE 1: FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO STREAM TEMPERATURES ...................... 2 Baseline Temperatures............................................................................................................... 2 Upper Watersheds .............................................................................................................. 2 Lower Watersheds .............................................................................................................. 2 How Does Heat Energy Enter and Leave a Stream? ................................................................. 3 Radiation.................................................................................................................................... 5 Atmospheric Radiation....................................................................................................... 7 Radiation from Riparian Vegetation and Topographic Features.......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Baker County Community Sensitivity and Resilience
    Baker County Community Sensitivity and Resilience This section documents the community’s sensitivity factors, or those community assets and characteristics that may be impacted by natural hazards, (e.g., special populations, economic factors, and historic and cultural resources). It also identifies the community’s resilience factors, or the community’s ability to manage risk and adapt to hazard event impacts (e.g., governmental structure, agency missions and directives, and plans, policies, and programs). The information in this section represents a snapshot in time of the current sensitivity and resilience factors in the community when the plan was developed. The information documented below, along with the findings of the risk assessment, should be used as the local level rationale for the risk reduction actions identified in Section 6 – Mission, Goals, and Action Items. The identification of actions that reduce a community’s sensitivity and increase its resilience assists in reducing the community’s overall risk, or the area of overlap in Figure G.1 below. Figure G.1 Understanding Risk Source: Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup, 2006. Northeast Oregon Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Page G-1 Community Sensitivity Factors The following table documents the key community sensitivity factors in Baker County. Population • Baker County has eight distinct geographic populations, as well as eight unincorporated communities. Incorporated cities are: Baker City, Greenhorn, Haines, Halfway, Huntington, Richland, Sumpter, and Unity. Unincorporated communities include: Durkee, Hereford, Pinetown, McEwen, Keating, Sparta, New Bridge, and Oxbow. Communities are geographically dispersed with little communication or interconnection. If communities need to be warned of an event, or require disaster assistance, distance and dispersal will be communication barriers.
    [Show full text]
  • MINING in BAKER COUNTY, 1861 to 1959* by Norman S
    Vol.21, No.3 THE ORE.- BIN 21 March 1959 Portland, Oregon STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL INDUSTRIES Head Office: 1069 State Office Bldg., Portland I, Oregon Telephone: CApitol 6-2161, Ext. 488 Field Offices 2033 First Street 239 S. E. "H"Street Baker Grants Pass *************************** MINING IN BAKER COUNTY, 1861 to 1959* By Norman S. Wagner** Introduction Baker County mining began with the discovery of gold in 'Griffin Gulch in 1861. This and the develop­ ment which followed at Auburn represent gold mining at its historic best. Since 1861, much water has flowed down the sluice boxes with respect to mineral resource development within the county. As a result, the dis­ covery story is left for historians to tell, and the following paragraphs are devoted to the high points of the many kinds of mining endeavors that occurred in Baker County between 1861 and 1959. Hydraulic and sluicing operations All of the earlier placer operations have one thing in common with Griffin Gulch and Auburn. This is that they were carried out by means of ground sluicing and hydraul icking, using generous amounts of hand labor. These means of handl ing placer ground continued in exclusive use throughout the first forty years of Baker County mining history. It wasn't until the present century that the more familiar bucket-line dredges and other kinds of mechanized digging and washing plants made their appearance. Even yet the old methods are still employed on a small scale in circumstances where ground conditions permit. The Rye Valley placers on Dixie Creek represent a notable example of an early discovery made shortly after 1862.
    [Show full text]
  • Bull Trout Recovery Plan App Introduction
    Chapter 13 - Hells Canyon INTRODUCTION Recovery Unit Designation The Hells Canyon Complex Recovery Unit is 1 of 22 recovery units designated for bull trout in the Columbia River basin (Figure 1). The Hells Canyon Complex Recovery Unit includes basins in Idaho and Oregon, draining into the Snake River and its associated reservoirs from below the confluence of the Weiser River downstream to Hells Canyon Dam. This recovery unit contains three Snake River reservoirs, Hells Canyon, Oxbow, and Brownlee. Major watersheds are the Pine Creek, Powder River, and Burnt River drainages in Oregon, and the Indian Creek and Wildhorse River drainages in Idaho. Inclusion of bull trout in the Oregon tributaries (i.e., Pine Creek and Powder River) in one recovery unit is based in part on a single gene conservation unit (i.e., roughly the major drainages in Oregon inhabited by bull trout) recognized by the Figure 1. Bull trout recovery units in the United States. The Hells Canyon Complex Recovery Unit is highlighted. 1 Chapter 13 - Hells Canyon Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Kostow 1995), which is supported by the genetic analysis conducted by Spruell and Allendorf (1997). Although the genetic composition of bull trout in the two tributaries in Idaho has not been extensively studied, the streams were included in the recovery unit due to their close proximity to the tributaries in Oregon containing bull trout, and the likelihood that bull trout from all tributaries were able to interact historically. Administratively, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife established a working group to develop bull trout conservation strategies in Pine Creek, and the streams in Idaho were included in the Hells Canyon Key Watersheds in the Idaho Bull Trout Conservation Plan (Grunder 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Nesting Colonial Waterbirds in the Hells Canyon Study Area
    A Survey of Nesting Colonial Waterbirds in the Hells Canyon Study Area Von R. Pope Wildlife Technician Technical Report Appendix E.3.2-13 January 2001 Revised July 2003 Hells Canyon Complex FERC No. 1971 Copyright © 2003 by Idaho Power Company Idaho Power Company Nesting Colonial Waterbirds TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents............................................................................................................................. i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures................................................................................................................................ iii Abstract............................................................................................................................................1 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................2 2. Study Area ..................................................................................................................................3 2.1. Location .............................................................................................................................3 2.2. Physiography......................................................................................................................4 2.3. Land Features and Geology ...............................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • July 24, 2013 East Face Field Trip Notes
    WALLOWA WHITMAN FOREST COLLABORATION FULL GROUP ASSEMBLY July 24, 2013 East Face Project Field Trip MEETING NOTES In Attendance: Mark Penninger, Ray Osterpovich, Mark Jacques, Paul Oester, Jon Paustian, Vince Naughton, Jenny Reinheardt, Rex Storm, Bruce Dunn, Bill White, John Laurence, Tom Montoya, Dick Flemming, Dave Powell, David Salo, Dan Kinney, Joe Sciarrino, Kat Naughton, Gretchen Sausen, Susan Jane Brown, Julie Tarvin, Arlene Blumton, Laura Navarrete, Lindsay Warness, Fred Warner, Nils Christoffersen, Tim Lillebo, Patrick Shannon, Brian Kelly, Paul Hessburg, Willie Crippen, John Buckman, Lane Parry, Chris Heffernan, Larry McCalden, Ken Gebhardt, Gunner Carwash, Nick Myatt, Bill Gamble, Mark Davidson 6 stops on East Face Project Agenda of Field Trip Stops and Discussion: Primary Objective today is dialogue and discussion through the collaboration process and ideas. STOP 1 - Overview of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife – Elkhorn Wildlife Area – Pilcher Creek Reservoir – • Overview of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Elkhorn Wildlife Area • Interface between State, private and public lands, and wildland urban interface • Opportunities to implement/integrate treatments across ownerships to reduce risk of fire/enhance forest resiliency, and achieve wildlife habitat objectives Overview of stop: Public Lands – Forest Service a. Interface along boundary – 20 miles with private and ODF&W wildlife area (3 miles are Elk Horn Wildlife Area) b. Lands along Forest Service boundaries include: Hancock Timber, Private landowners, BLM and ODF&W Elk Horn Wildlife Refuge c. Forest Service objectives would be consistent with the Cohesive Wildfire Strategy Elk Horn Wildlife Refuge: ODF&W d. Not managed since 1971 – North portion is overstocked - excess trees/acre resulting in minimal ground vegetation and little to no wildlife use.
    [Show full text]
  • North Burnt River Fuel & Forest Health Project
    NORTH BURNT RIVER FUEL & FOREST HEALTH PROJECT Environmental Assessment # DOI-BLM-OR-V050-2009-015 Introduction: The Vale District Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Baker Resource Area proposes the treatment of approximately 700 acres of forested BLM-administered lands within the Ebell Creek, Alder Creek, Hill Creek and Deer Creek drainages. The legal description of the project area is as follows: T. 11 S., R. 41 E., Section 7: NW ¼ NE ¼, E ½ NE ¼; Section 8: W ½ SW ¼, SE ¼ SW ¼; Section 11: W ½ NW ¼; Section 14: NW ¼ NW ¼, SE ¼ SW ¼; Section 23: N ½ NE ¼ SE ¼ NE ¼; Section 24: S ½ NW ¼, S ½ NE ¼ and T. 11 S., R. 42 E., Section 17 N ½ SW ¼; Section 18 NE ¼ SE ¼; Section 19 S ½ NW ¼. The project objective is to apply a three-tiered approach (e.g., a combination of Commercial Thinning (CT), Precommercial Thinning (PCT), and Prescribed Burning) to reduce fire fuels and restoring forest health, which includes the reduction of ground, ladder, and crown fuels. Proposed Action: The Baker Field Office of the Vale District, BLM proposes to remove fuels and improve forest health in the North Burnt River Area on lands administered by the BLM. Type of Statement: Environmental Assessment (EA) Agency: Bureau of Land Management, Department of Interior For further information: Bureau of Land Management Baker Field Office 3285 11th St. Baker City, OR 97814 (541) 523-1339 E-Mail: [email protected] Contents Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Introduction Chapter 1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action 1.1 Conformance with Existing Land Use Plans 1.1.a
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Water Utilizatjq^ in the Snake Rivm Basin
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Harold L. Ickes, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. C. Mendenhall, Director Water-Supply Paper 657 WATER UTILIZATJQ^ IN THE SNAKE RIVM BASIN ""-^r B<5 °o ^ «-? %*-« ^t«4 ____ ^n -" wC> v r v*> ^ /-^ T"i --O ^ o f^* t TA ^-- ± BY ^^^ W. G. HOYT \, ^ r-^ Co WITH A PREFACE ^ -^ "^ o o. ^ HERMAN STABLER ' ^ ^ e 'r1 t<A to ^ ^ >Jt C---\ V*-O r&1 """^*_> ® p <,A -o xi CP ^3 P* O ^ y» * "^ 0V - f\ *"^ . , UNITED STATKS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1935 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C. - - - Price $1.00 (Paper cover) CONTENTS Page Preface, by Herman Stabler._______________________________________ ix Abstract _________________________________________________________ 1 Introduction__ _ _________________________________________________ 2 Purpose and scope of report.___________________________________ 2 Cooperation and base data.____________________________________ 3 Index system.._______________________________________________ 6 General features of Snake River Basin.______________________________ 6 Location and extent.__________________________________________ 6 Geographic and topographic features.___________________________ 7 Snake River system._____-_-----_____-_________-_____-_-__-_.._ 7 Tributaries to Snake River.____________________________________ 9 Historical review-__________________________________________________ 20 Scenic and recreational features.-...________________________________ 21 Climate____________________________A____ ___________________ 23 Natural vegetation_________________-_____-____________----__-_---._
    [Show full text]
  • (E.3.2-44) Effects of Constructing and Operating the Hells Canyon
    Effects of Constructing and Operating the Hells Canyon Complex on Wildlife Habitat Charles Blair, CH2M HILL Jeff Braatne, University of Washington Robert Simons, Simons & Associates Stewart Rood, University of Lethbridge and Brandy Wilson, CH2M HILL Technical Report Appendix E.3.2-44 April 2001 Revised July 2003 (Minor Typographical Changes) Hells Canyon Complex FERC No. 1971 EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTING AND OPERATING THE HELLS CANYON COMPLEX ON WILDLIFE HABITAT Charles Blair, CH2M HILL Jeff Braatne, University of Washington Robert Simons, Simons & Associates Stewart Rood, University of Lethbridge and Brandy Wilson, CH2M HILL Prepared for: Environmental Affairs Department Idaho Power Company P.O. Box 70 Boise, Idaho 83707 April 2001 Effects of Constructing and Operating the Hells Canyon Complex on Wildlife Habitat Table of Contents Section Page Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... i List of Tables.................................................................................................................................iii List of Figures............................................................................................................................... iv List of Photographs ...................................................................................................................... iv List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Or Wilderness Protection in the Blue Mountain Ecoregion Have Been Identified by the Nature Conservancy As Vital to Protect Biodiversity in the Area
    172 OREGON WILD Neither Cascades nor Rockies, but With Attributes of Both Blue Mountains Ecoregion xtending from Oregon’s East Cascades Slopes and Foothills to the from 30 to 130 days depending on elevation. The forests are home to Rocky Mountain intersection of Oregon, Idaho and Washington, the 15.3 million acres elk, mule deer, black bear, cougar, bobcat, coyote, beaver, marten, raccoon, fisher, of the Blue Mountains Ecoregion in Oregon are a conglomeration of pileated woodpecker, golden eagle, chickadee and nuthatch, as well as various species Emountain ranges, broad plateaus, sparse valleys, spectacular river canyons of hawks, woodpeckers, owls and songbirds. Wolves, long absent from Oregon, are and deep gorges. The highest point is the Matterhorn that rises to 9,832 making their return to the state in this ecoregion. Individuals from packs reintroduced feet in the Wallowa Mountains. The ecoregion extends into southeastern Washington in nearby Idaho are dispersing into Oregon. Fish species include bull and rainbow and west central Idaho. trout, along with numerous stocks of Pacific salmon species. Most of the mountain ranges in the Blue Mountains Ecoregion are volcanic. The Depending on precipitation, aspect, soil type, elevation, fire history and other Crooked River separates the Maury Mountains from the Ochoco Mountains, which are factors, one generally finds various combinations of Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, lodge- separated from the Aldrich Mountains by the South Fork John Day River. The Aldrich pole, western larch, juniper and Engelmann spruce throughout the Blue Mountains. Mountains are separated from the Strawberry Mountain Range by Canyon Creek. Beginning approximately at the Lower Deschutes River and rising eastward, the These ranges generally run east-west.
    [Show full text]