lower rogue river basin watershed condition assessment

Transcription

LOWER ROGUE RIVER BASIN
WATERSHED CONDITION
ASSESSMENT
Lower Rogue River Watershed Council
Febniarv7 1995
LOWER ROGUE RIVER BASIN
WATERSHED CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Prepared for:
State of Oregon Watershed Health Program
and
Strategic Water Management Group
Prepared by:
Mark Weinhold
Lower Rogue Watershed Council Staff
February 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMLA.RY .1.................................................1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ........................
4..............
CHAPTER lI PHYSICAL ASPECTS .................................................
LOCATION & DESCRIPTION ..............................................
CLIMATE .................................................
GEOLOGY .................................................
TOPOGRAPHY .................
................................
HYDROLOGY .................
.................................
VEGETATION ..................................................
5
5
6
7
9
9
11
................
CHAPTER III WATERSHED RESOURCE VALUES ...............
COMMODITY VALUES ..................................................
Mining .................................
.................
Timber Harvest ...............................................
Fishing .................................
.................
Agriculture & Ranching .................
..................
Special Use .................................................
AMENITY VALUES: Scenery ...............................................
PUBLIC USE VALUES .................................................
Access and Travel ............................................
Recreation .................................................
Municipal .................................................
Land Ownership & Management ..........
............
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ..............
.................
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM HEALTH .........................
..............
Landslides and Surface Erosion ..........
.............
Water Quality .................................................
Large Wood Supply ................................ ..........
Stream Flow .................................................
Fish Habitat, Distribution, and Populations .....
Estuarine Environment ..................
.................
13
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
16
17
19
19
21
23
23
24
25
26
27
31
CHAPTER IV SUBWATERSHED ASSESSMENT ..................................
LOBSTER CREEK ............................................................
SHASTA COSTA CREEK ...................................................
QUOSATANA CREEK .......................................................
FOSTER CREEK ..............................................................
LAWSON CREEK .............................................................
INDIGO CREEK ...............................................................
MULE CREEK .................................................................
LOW ELEVATION PRIVATE TRIBUTARIES .........................
Jim H unt Creek .............................................
Saunders Creek ..............................................
Edson Creek ..................................................
Indian Creek ..................................................
Silver Creek ...................................................
39
40
43
46
49
51
53
55
57
57
59
61
62
64
CHAPTER V WATERSHED HEALTH STRATEGY ................................ 66
CHAPTER VI MONITORING PLAN ...................................
.................
71
CHAPTER VII PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT STRATEGY ..........
................
77
CHAPTER VIII MECHANISMS FOR UPDATING ASSESSMENT .........
78
References .............................................................
79
Appendix A Linkages to Existing Programs ................
.........................
81
Appendix B Review of Pertinent Regulations ...............
........................
83
Appendix C Cooperative Problem Solving ..................
..........................
89
Appendix D Building Local Capabilities ....................
.........................
92
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1
Lower Rogue Basin Boundary and Stream Network ..............
FIGURE 2
Lower Rogue Basin Geologic Substrates ..............
FIGURE 3
Rogue River Yield at Agness ..............................................
10
FIGURE 4
Lower Rogue Basin Road System .......................................
18
FIGURE 5
Lower Rogue Basin Land Ownership ..................................
20
FIGURE 6
Lower Rogue Basin Coho Salmon Distribution ..........
......... 34
FIGURE 7
Lower Rogue Basin Fall Chinook Distribution ..........
.......... 35
FIGURE 8
Lower Rogue Basin Winter Steelhead Distribution ........
FIGURE 9
Lower Rogue Basin Sea-run Cutthroat Distribution ............ 37
6
............... 8
FIGURE 10 Lower Rogue Basin Resident Trout Distribution ..........
...... 36
........ 38
FIGURE 11 Peak Counts of Fall Chinook Spawning in Lobster Creek .....
41
FIGURE 12 Peak Counts of Fall Chinook Spawning in Shasta
Costa Creek
......................................................................
44
FIGURE 13 Peak Counts of Fall Chinook Spawning in Quosatana
Creek...............................................................................
47
FIGURE 14 Peak Counts of Fall Chinook Spawning in Jim Hunt
Creek...............................................................................
58
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
L GENERAL
The lower Rogue basin as defined herein includes all of the Rogue River and its
tributaries downstream from river mile 55, including the Illinois River and its tributaries below
river mile 6.6.
The basin lies entirely within the Klamath Mountains Physlographic province, an area
noted for steep, rugged terrain, narrow winding valleys, and sharp divides. Due to the geologic
substrates present, most of the region is subject to varying degrees of instability. The topography
of the basin reflects long-term erosion of a slowly rising upland; the result being a ridge system
of roughly uniform elevation. Due to the climactic and geomorphic conditions, the streams in
the basin have evolved with high sediment loads and highly variable stream flows from intense
rain storms.
Land use within the basin is primarily forestry related. No major urban areas, industrial
centers, or agricultural operations are present In the lower Rogue basin.
II. RESOURCE VALUES
The evolutionary history of the physical and biological aspects of the basin have given
rise to a wide variety of watershed resource values. The most notable include:
Commodity Values such as mining, timber harvest, fishing, agriculture & ranching, and special
use.
Amenity Values or scenery.
Public Use Values such as access & travel, recreation, municipal, and land ownership &
management.
TerrestrialEcosystem Health
Aquatic Ecosystem Health
Of all the resource values associated with the lower Rogue basin, those values that are
most at risk are aquatic in nature. The most visible example of aquatic resources at risk are
anadromous fish, several runs of which are currently in decline. Consequently the bulk of the
restoration and protection activities focus on maintaining and improving the overall aquatic
ecosystem health of the basin. Those major tributaries that help to maintain the health of the
basin, especially related to anadromous fish, are listed below.
Tributary
Watershed
Lobster
Creek
Anadromous
Miles
Species
Present
Contribution
to Rogue
Habitat
Value
24.2
CH CO
ST CT
HIGH
HIGH
Shasta Costa
Creek
8.5
CH CO
ST CT
HIGH
HIGH
Quosatana
Creek
4.5
CH CO
ST CT
HIGH
HIGH
Foster
Creek
3.6
CH CO
ST CT
HIGH
HIGH
1
Tributary
Watershed
Habitat
Miles
Present
to Rogue
Value
5.5
CH CO
ST CT
HIGH
MOD
HIGH
HIGH
Lawson
Creek
Indigo
Contribution
Species
Anadromous
Creek
Mule Creek
Private Low Elevation
Small Tributaries
CH ST CT
32.8
12.1
CO ST
MOD
MOD
8.5
CH CO
ST CT
HIGH
LOW
CH = Fall Chinook; CO = Coho; ST
=
Winter Steelhead; CT = Sea-run Cutthroat
III. WATERSHED HEALTH STRATEGY
The watershed health strategy supported by the Lower Rogue Watershed Council
includes three complimentary components: Education, protection of high quality areas, and
restoration of degraded areas. Any approach that does not incorporate all three of these
components is likely to be unsuccessful over the long term.
Education
The educational component will focus on bringing about an awareness of current
watershed conditions and trends and how these conditions are affected by societal pressures for
commodities.
Protection
Much of the remaining high quality riparian and aquatic habitat within the basin has
been protected to various degrees in order to provide the cornerstone refugia and populations to
recolonize and eventually restore disturbed areas. Areas receiving particularly high levels of
protection are shown below.
Subwatershed
Designation
Relevant Land
Allocations
Shasta Costa Creek
Key Watershed
99% Late Successional
Reserves
Quosatana Creek
Key Watershed
Reserves
Lawson Creek
Key Watershed
Reserves
Indigo Creek
Key Watershed
Reserves
Mule Creek (West Fork)
(Arrasta Fork)
Wildemess
Wilderness
Restoration
Watershed restoration is an attempt to recover damaged ecosystems faster than they
would actually do so themselves. The goal is to contribute to the restoration of the historic
composition and biodiversity of ecosystems, and bring disturbance regimes back into their
natural range. Restoration treatments to be employed include hillslope restoration, riparian
area restoration and stream channel restoration.
2
Restoration activities on federal lands have begun under the President's Forest Plan. The
USFS is completing the watershed analysis for Lawson Creek with upland and riparlan
treatments to be implemented soon after. Watershed analyses and associated restoration
activities for Shasta Costa, Quosatana, and Indigo creeks will follow. Priority basins and
restoration activities for the privately owned lands are shown below.
Subwatershed
Probable Limiting
Factors
Lobster Creek
Rearing Habitat
Sediment
Add Complexity
Storm Proof Roads
Land Stability and
Sensitivity Mapping
Jim Hunt
Creek
Temperatures
Sediment
Riparian Silvaculture
Storm Proof Roads
Habitat Surveys
Monitor Temperature
Macroinvert. Samples
Sensitivity Mapping
Saunders
Creek
Temperatures
Sediment
Rearing Habitat
Storm Proof Roads
Add Complexity
Habitat Surveys
Monitor Temperature
Sensitivity Mapping
Edson Creek
Temperatures
Rearing Habitat
Add Complexity
Habitat Surveys
Monitor Temperature
MacroInvert. Samples
Sensitivity Mapping
Silver Creek
Temperatures
Sediment
Rearing Habitat
Storm Proof Roads
Add Complexity
Habitat Surveys
Monitor Temperature
Restoration
Opportunities
Data Needs
Sensitivity Mapping
Indian Creek
Sediment
Fish Passage
Rearing Habitat
Treat Landslides,
Storn Proof Roads
Remove Barrier
Add Complexity
3
Habitat Surveys
Monitor Temperature
Sensitivity Mapping
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Lower Rogue Watershed Assessment is the initial step for providing a
framework for all members of the community to address natural resource
issues in the basin. The objectives of this process, and the Lower Rogue
Watershed Council are to:
- protect, enhance and restore the watershed for all species, including humans.
- promote the recovery of anadromous fish stocks in the Rogue Basin by
improving habitat conditions and restoring natural processes in the
Lower Rogue River and its tributaries.
- involve the community in caring for their watershed.
- provide educational opportunities.
- prioritize restoration and educational efforts.
- provide avenues to accomplish our objectives.
The assessment was prepared by the Lower Rogue Watershed Council
coordinating staff for the State of Oregon Watershed Health Program and the
Strategic Water Management Group. Assistance was provided by the
Watershed Health Field Team and many local experts who sit on the Council
and make up the technical advisory team. The accelerated schedule imposed
on the assessment process did not allow necessary public input from the
community. In the near future this input will be requested and incorporated
into the next updated version of this living document. The preliminary draft of
the assessment was reviewed by the watershed council and the technical
advisory tearn.
Although a watershed consists of countless relationships in and
between the aquatic and terrestrial arenas, this assessment will largely focus
on the aquatic component. The reason is that the primary resources and
watershed values at risk are aquatic in nature. It is important to note that the
integrity of the aquatic ecosystems within the watershed depend on the
integrity of the riparian and upland areas, as well as the multitude of energy
transfers and processes among participants to maintain ecological health.
Species, stands, streams, landscapes, and regions compose an inter-linked
system in which the health of the parts cannot be considered separately from
the health of the whole. Therefore, as time and new information permits,
this document will be updated to provide a more holistic focus.
Additionally, while this assessment will focus entirely on watershed conditions
and restoration potential between the estuary and tributary headwaters, we
realize the importance of ocean conditions on the life cycle of Rogue River
salmonids. Ocean conditions are outside the scope of this assessment and our
area of potential influence.
4
CHAPTER II
PHYSICAL ASPECTS
I. LOCATION & DESCRIPTION
The lower Rogue basin includes all of the Rogue River and its tributaries
downstream from river mile 55, including the Illinois River and its tributaries
below river mile 6.6. The boundaries of the basin are the Umpqua River Basin
to the north, the Middle Rogue and Illinois River drainages to the east and
south respectively, and the South Coast Basin and Pacific Ocean to the West.
The Rogue River divides the South Coast Basin into two sections. The
watershed boundary and associated stream network are shown in Figure 1.
II. CLIMATE
The climate of the Lower Rogue Basin is generally mild as a result of
moderating effects of its proximity to the Pacific Ocean. The coastal climate is
characterized by high precipitation and humidity, abundant fog, and a more
limited range of temperature extremes. Mean temperatures during winter
months are in the low to mid 400 F range, with infrequent short period
extremes as low as 00 F. Mean summer temperatures are in the mid 600 F range
with infrequent short period extremes ranging near 1000 F. Temperature
fluctuation in both degree and duration tend to increase with distance from
the coast and its moderate marine influence (USDA, 1979). The average frostfree period varies from 205 days at Illahe to 300 days at Gold Beach (OWRD,
1985).
Deep low pressure systems from the Pacific Ocean bring heavy rains and
strong winds during winter months. The general movement of nearly all large
moist air masses crossing the area is from southwest to northeast. Local wind
patterns influence rainfall distribution by funneling rain up specific drainages.
Average annual precipitation is high in the Lower Rogue Basin, ranging from
about 80 Inches at Gold Beach to 120 inches in the northwest corner of the
basin. Rainfall averages along the river generally increase from 80 inches per
year at the mouth to 100 inches per year at Marial. Precipitation levels begin to
drop past Marial down to about 50 inches at the mouth of Graves Creek.
Snowfall along the coast Is minimal and transient. With increasing distances
and elevation from the coast, snowfall becomes more common and more
persistent. However, the last traces of snow have usually melted by mid to late
spring (USDA, 1979).
Summers are relatively dry with only 20 percent of the average annual
rainfall occurring between May 15 and October 15 (OWRD, 1985). Summer fog
is common on the coast, providing important moisture along the coast range
and up into river valleys. Late summer typically produces extremely dry
conditions and fire hazards above the influence of the coastal fog.
5
.
*
*.-. :.
AREA5 NTH LIMITED DATA AVAILAULE FOR
LOYtORDER 5TREAMS
NORTH
NT.
FIGURE l; LONER ROGUE BA51N BOUNDARY AND 5TREAM NETW4ORK
JAN
m. GEOLOGY
The Lower Rogue Basin lies entirely within the Klamath Mountains
Physiographic province, which contains some of the oldest rocks in western
Oregon and may contain some of the oldest rocks in the state. The Klamath
region is typically mature and rugged with narrow winding valleys and sharp
divides. The region has experienced multiple successive cycles of erosion and
considerable faulting, folding, and weathering. The result is a very complex
geologic structure with a wide variety of geologic units present. Natural forces
have further complicated these formations by obscuring both age and geologic
history, making interpretation difficult. Due to rock types present and their
formative processes, most of the region is subject to varying degrees of
instability. The most apparent geomorphic processes occurring in the basin are
fluvial erosion and mass wasting. Fluvial processes are most evident on the
steep, rugged slopes which dominate the terrain of the basin. Mass wasting is
widespread and commonly occurs along geologic contacts, fault zones, in
highly fractured parent material, and in areas of moisture accumulation and
stream channel cutting of toe slopes (USDA, 1979). Although the ecosystem
has evolved under these constraints, the time frames and numbers of
disturbances are directly proportional to the intensity of human activities in
the area.
Geologic substrates In the basin are dominated by the Colebrook Schist,
Otter Point, and Dothan (Franciscan) formation, and to a lesser extent Rogue
formation, Galice formation, Serpentinite and peridotite, and marine
sedimentary rocks of cretaceous and tertiary origin. Geologic substrates for the
basin are shown in Figure 2.
Colebrook Schist is a diverse assemblage of quartz-mica phyllite, and
schist, well foliated sandstone and meta-volcanics. The unit is highly contorted
and sheared (USDA, 1979). The rocks in this formation were metamorphosed in
the late Jurassic or early Cretaceous time period . Hazards include mass
movement and surface erosion (Beaulieu and Hughes, 1976).
Otter Point formation is a complex structural association of highly
varied rocks of diverse origin and is commonly referred to as a "melange" due to
its pervasive shearing and apparent lack of structural continuity. Rock types
include poorly sorted sandstone and siltstone, submarine basalts, chert,
conglomerate, and pods of medium to high grade metamorphic rock called
blueschists. This formation is dated to the late Jurassic period. Hazards
include mass movement on irregular or moderately steep slopes and severe
earthflow along shear zones (Beaulieu and Hughes, 1976).
7
H
- COLEBROOK SCHIST (MESOZOIC OR FALEOZOIC?
c5
Tm5o - MARINE SANDSTONE AND sILTSTONE OF UIMlPUA FORMATION
(MIDDLE EOCENE)
- SEDIMENTARY ROcKS OF &ALICE FORMATION (J.UPAr-lIC)
b
KJds - SEOIMENTARY ROCrKS OF DOTHAN FORMATION
(LOER CRETACIOUS AND UPPER JJRASSIC)
mll
NOm
K
- MYRTLE 6ROUF CLOER CRETACIOUS AND UPPER JRAESIC)
J-op
-
I
OTTER POINT FORMATION ANV RELATED ROGKS
|OJFFER JUSRA5I1C)
- ULTRAMAFIC AND RELATED ROCKS
OPHIOLITE SEOUENCES (JWRASSIC)
Agd - 6RANITE AND DIORITE (JuRAssIrc
AND TRIAE',51E)
NC
LaE
Tt - TYEE FORMATION (MIDDLE EOCENE)
acl - ALLWVIAL DEPOSITS (HOLOCENE)
Tmc
J
- MARINE SILTSTONE, SANDSTONE, AND2
CON&LOMERATE (LOrER eocENE)
- VOLCANIC ROCKs (JJRA551C)
NORTH
NT.S.
SOURCE, 5EOLOGIC MAP OF ORE60N BY 56A rALKER AND N5. MACLEOD (I)
MAFPED AT 1I500,O SCALE, FOR MORE DETAILED INFORMATION
BY' L. RAMF.
SeE 6EOLC61C MAP OP cuRRY COUNTy, ORE6ON (IqTr)
FIGURE 2
LOVIER ROGUE BASIN GEOLOGIC 5UB5TRATE5
.AN,.-
Dothan Formation consists of hard, thin to thick bedded sandstone and
mudstone with minor amounts of volcanic rock, chert, and conglomerate. This
formation is not pervasively sheared like the Otter Point Formation, nor is it as
varied in rock type in most areas. This formation is dated to the late Jurassic
period. Hazards include debris slides on steep slopes, caving and gully
formation on moderately steep slopes with thick weathering zones, and locally
highly variable mass movement (Beaulieu and Hughes, 1976).
Soils in the basin are derived from granitic, metamorphic, and
sedimentary substrates. The variety of the rock parent material results in high
variability of the soil types. Soil productivity ranges considerably based on
parent material, slope, aspect, disturbance history, ect. (ADD MORE FROM
NEW CURRY COUNTY SOIL SURVEY AS AVAILABLE)
IV. TOPOGRAPHY
Topography of the basin reflects long-term stream erosion of a slowly
rising upland. This has resulted in a ridge system with a roughly uniform
altitude. Although stream patterns are locally controlled by geologic structure,
the basin's general drainage patterns are dendritic.
The elevations of the Klamaths are typically higher than the Coast
Range. This basin is nearly all mountainous with slopes up to 30 degrees being
common. River bottom elevations range from mean sea level at the mouth to
400 feet near river mile 55. The highest point in the basin is Brandy Peak,
elevation 5316 feet, located near the Curry-Josephine County line at the head
of Shasta Costa Creek. Elevations within the basin are generally less than
3000 feet.
The main stem of the Rogue River above Agness has a gradient averaging
13 feet per mile. The lower 28 miles to the mouth drop a total of only 100 feet.
Gradients in most tributaries are orders of magnitude larger.
IV. HYDROLOGY
The lower Rogue basin as previously defined drains approximately 530
square miles of land. Significant tributaries adding to the flow of the mainstem
include Lobster Creek (44,253 acres), Quosatana Creek (16,416 acres), Illinois
River (634,000 acres), and Shasta Costa Creek (23,256 acres)
Peak flow in the basin typically occurs in January as a result of winter
rains. Snow melt in the Cascades has little effect in the Lower Rogue Basin
compared to the effects from heavy winter rains. The only active gauging
station with historical data is at Agness, operational since 1961. The annual
yields and associated monthly distributions through 1982 are shown in Figure
3. The completion of Lost Creek Dam in 1977 and Applegate Dam in 1980
have added considerable flow augmentation to the Rogue mainstem during the
dryer portion of the year.
9
tjn
ti)
m
I"IO
0
o
I4
PERCENT OF AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF
z
0
Cf
0
z
0
n
co
0
0
-4
I
0
I
I
I
I
4 -----
I
U
I
±
-
i
>
I
a
K
a)
m
>
z
C
r
>
Z
Z
z
OD
I
mm
*
±
0
I
1
;z
II
,
4
I
Ml
moloMm
Ia-s=am
I
I
I
__I-
F ----
w
ACRE-FEET IN MILLIONS
+------
N
c/)
cl)
CD
W
CD
z
(D
2:)
CD
0
co
-n
0
Water quality in the mainstem Rogue and the Illinois is still an issue in
late summer due to high water temperatures. Recent temperature monitoring
by the USFS show peak temperatures in the Rogue at Crooked Riffle (RM 25.1)
and the mouth of the Illinois (RM 27.1) at 72.30 F and 72.00 F, respectively
(USDA, 1993).
The December 1964 flood produced the highest peak flows recorded on
the Rogue River at the Agness gauge. The peak discharge was estimated at
290,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). The 1964 flood was considered a 100-year
return frequency flood for the Rogue River and was due to a rain on snow
storm event. Historic accounts prior to the Agness gauging station note floods
of a similar or slightly higher magnitude in 1861 and 1881 (OWRD, 1985).
V. VEGETATION
The Klamath region supports a complex pattern of natural communities
in relation to steep climatic gradients, diverse parent materials, and a
transitional geographic location where species common to the Pacific
Northwest and California merge (USDA, 1979). The large variation in climatic
conditions and soil types combined with a severe fire history have led to a
comlex vegetative cover in relation to site, density, and species composition.
Red alder dominates along draws and waterways, especially in wet disturbed
areas. Douglas-fir is the dominant timber species. Port-Orford-cedar and
western hemlock are found on the wetter, more protected sites. Huckleberry,
ceanothus, salal, rhodendron, and Oregon myrtle are common understory
species.
Peridotite and Serpentine bedrock areas display dramatic species
composition changes. Jeffrey pine and incense cedar become dominant
overstory species. Stocking is usually low and crown closure seldom exceeds 10
to 40 percent. Whiteleaf manzanita, sedgeleaf ceanothus, silk-tassle, western
azalea, and grasses are common understory species (USFS, 1977).
Occasional oak forests with grassy prairies on drier, south facing slopes
and ridge tops may have existed naturally. Burning by Native Americans and
grazing by early settlers have maintained these grassy prairies until recently
when fire suppression has become the norm (Curry County, 1990).
Private land within the basin has typically seen intensive management,
especially for timber production. Consequently, these lands contain young
stands or Douglas fir or red alder. Much of this land which was harvested in
the 1950's was naturally reforested with alder. These stands are currently
being converted to fir tree plantations.
Land within Federal management shows considerably more diversity in
terms of successional stages and plant communities. This is primarily due to
11
management history, distance inland from the coast, and variation in elevation
across ownership. Lower elevations typically are home to the tanoak and
Douglas-fir associations, with true fir associations in the upper elevations
(USDA, 1991). Successional stages run the gambit from pioneer stage following
recent disturbances to relatively undisturbed climax forests. The watershed
also includes brush fields, dry grassy meadows, wet meadows and bogs, and
pure deciduous woodlands as geology, climate, elevation, etc. dictate.
12
CHAPTER III
WATERSHED RESOURCE VALUES
Commodity Values
Amenity Values
Public Use Values
Terrestrial Ecosystem Health
Aquatic Ecosystem Health
I. COMMODITY VALUES
Mining
Timber Harvest
Fishing
Agriculture and Ranching
Special Use
The lower Rogue watershed was first inhabited by several tribes of native
americans, most notably the Takelman at Marial and above, and the
Tututunne on the lower river. These early inhabitants lived for thousands of
years prior to European influence, subsisting on salmon and other fish,
shellfish, game, roots, acorns, etc. They regularly burned the hills, especially
near the mouth of the river, to produce better forage and hunting for game.
Early European explorers to reach the area were charting new territory
and later looking for furs. Vessels from several countries navigated the waters
off the Oregon coast in the late 1700's and early 1800's. Early explorations
were primarily accomplished by the Spanish and later the English. In the
1790's British and American maritime explorers visited the coast looking for
furs, but found them lacking in the numbers necessary for a profitable trade.
The beaver trade never flourished along the Rogue as it did in other portions of
the west, although the sea otter did provide a short term trade before becoming
scarce.
Mining - It was the lure of gold that brought the first settlers to Curry
County and the mouth of the Rogue river in the early 1850's. Gold had been
discovered first in the eastern portions of the Siskiyou Mountains, but in 1852
it was discovered in the beach sands along the southern Oregon coast. Starting
at the beaches, it was not long until the miners headed up the Rogue river to
find the source of the gold. Most of the mining during the 1850's and 1860's
was placer mining using pans, rockers and sluice boxes. While this did muddy
the streams and make salmon fishing difficult for the Indians, it in no way
compared to the devastation to occur from mining years later. By the mid1880's hydraulic mining was widely employed. The giant "monitors", huge
13
nozzles that looked like a cannon, washed the gold bearing materials in the
river banks. These operations are believed to have had serious detrimental
effects on the aquatic environment.
Hard rock mining also occurred for chrome, nickel, silver, borax,
asbestos, and several other minerals. These generally occurred on a smaller
scale than gold mining and never provided a large, continuous market supply.
Present day commercial mining activities are limited to sand and gravel
operations or rock quarries. Alluvial deposits of sand and gravel along the
lower river are mined and crushed for aggregate, road construction, and
commercial and residential building construction. Several rock quarries
operate within the watershed and provide stone for fill, road construction, and
revetment depending on the quality of the material. The Oregon Department of
Geology and Mineral Industries projects a continually increasing supply of
sand, gravel, and stone for the near future (Curry County, 1990). However, any
federal threatened or endangered species listing on any element of the Rogue
River fishery will likely have large economic impacts on instream gravel
operations.
Timber Harvest - Very little sawed lumber was used by the earliest
settlers in the 1850's. Necessary lumber was shipped in from San Francisco.
The first mills in Curry County were near Port Orford in 1854. Some small
scale logging was done on private lands along the Rogue all during the 1900's
but it wasn't until the 1950's that the industry blossomed. Following World
War II the Siskiyous became more accessible to vehicles and by 1960 Curry
County was the fastest growing county in the state. A mix of private and
government timber fueled the logging boom such that almost every little valley
had a saw mill or plywood mill. One of the largest mills was located along the
Rogue River near Gold Beach. By the 1970's most of the better private oldgrowth forests had been logged. Forest Service and Bureau of Land
management timber sales supplied logs to the mills until the late 1980's.
Harvest levels on federal lands were curtailed due to court injunctions to
protect old-growth habitat for the threatened spotted owl. By 1990 second
growth logs from private land constituted the majority of logs entering the few
remaining mills.
With the implementation of the Record of Decision and Standards and
Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth
Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (herein
after called the President's Forest Plan) by the federal agencies, some limited
amount of local timber harvest is expected to occur within the watershed. Due
to the land allocations defined for the lower Rogue watershed, harvest levels
from federal lands will be considerably lower than historic levels. Private lands
will undoubtedly continue to play a large roll in the timber supply for the area.
Fishing - Salmon became a commercial fishery in the Rogue in 1857
14
when A.F. Myers established a fishery in Ellensburg (later named Gold Beach)
for taking, salting, and barreling salmon. Riley and Stewart bought out Myers
and began a canning operation in the late 1860's or early 1870's. The operation
was eventually sold to R.D. Hume in 1876, whose brothers has run similar
operations on the Sacramento and Columbia Rivers. Through his tenure,
Hume witnessed the decline of the once immense salmon runs which he
attributed to civilization in general (Hume, 1893). He was a proponent of
hatchery propagation and started the Indian Creek hatchery in attempt to
supplement the wild populations. The cannery used seining and gill nets to
catch fish up into the 1930's. No inland commercial fishery for salmon exists
today. Conversely, the Rogue River has become famous for salmon and
steelhead fishing. Employment and income associated with the sport fishery
vary from year to year, but continues to be an important and highly visible part
of tourism and recreation in the basin. An estimated 30,000 people per year
take commercially guided fishing trips on the lower Rogue. Declining fish runs
and an uncertain economy have hurt this industry in the last few years and it
will likely get worse with several stocks of anadromous fish being petitioned for
listing as threatened or endangered species.
Agriculture and Ranching - Agricultural activity is and has been
relatively light in the lower Rogue basin, largely due to topography and
population. In a 1985 study of the Rogue Basin, the Oregon Water Resources
Department inventoried only about 800 acres or potentially irrigatible land.
The actual irrigation of these lands may be Infeasible due to lack of water or
some other limiting factor (OWRD, 1985). Agricultural activity is generally
centered at Agness and the lower four miles of the river.
Livestock grazing was historically larger than current levels, especially in
the surrounding hills. Small numbers of cattle graze along the lower few miles
of the river and at some scattered locations near Agness. Total population is
less that 200 animals. This is not likely to increase radically in the future due
to development pressure in suitable grazing lands.
Special Use - The last several years has shown an increase in the
harvest of renewable forest products on a small scale. The most notable are
collection of Port Orford cedar boughs for seasonal decorations, beargrass, and
commercial harvest of several varieties of mushrooms. Although these
activities account for a very small financial Impact on the area as a whole, they
do provide livelihoods for many area residents.
In conclusion, the economy still depends on the area's natural resources,
though not as completely as in decades past. As logging and commercial
fishing decline, tourism has increased. The scenic Rogue River jet boat
excursions attract thousands of visitors annually. Ridership has increased
from 35,000 in 1970 to approximately 60,000 in 1993. Additionally, retired
15
persons have moved to the area because of its mild climate, sparse population,
and natural setting. Service and construction employment remain steady, and
there is a growing arts community.
Intensive land use practices between 1900 and 1970 have accounted for a
disproportionate amount of degradation within the basin. Hydraulic mining,
timber harvest with associated road construction, and over fishing in
conjunction with severe fire and several large floods altered the ecological
systems and still affect ecosystem function today.
II. AMENITY VALUES: Scenery
The scenic quality within the river corridor and watershed results from a
combination of rock formations, water clarity, water features, vegetative
features and landforms. The variety of vegetative types in the watershed
creates visual diversity. Large old growth conifers, big-leaf maple, red alder and
other deciduous trees and shrubs, meadows and moss covered rocks within the
corridor provide variety to the setting.
The most popular sections for scenery are from or along the river. This is
primarily owing to the opportunity for access along the Agness road or down
the Rogue River by boat. The Rogue River above is federally designated as a
Scenic River between Slide Creek (RM 18) to Blue Jay Creek (RM 25.1). The
Stretch from Blue Jay Creek to Watson Creek (RM 35.2) is designated as
Recreational. Watson Creek to Grave Creek (RM 68.5) is designated as a Wild
and Scenic River. These designation limits certain activities within that area in
order that visual quality is maintained. Consequently, the scenic values of the
river corridor within these designations should never be impacted by intensive
land use activities. Additionally, the federal land adjacent to the river above
mile 36 is within the Wild Rogue Wilderness.
III. PUBLIC USE
Access and Travel
Recreation
Municipal
Land Ownership & Management
Access and Travel - In prehistoric times, trails along the Rogue River
corridor provided a travel route between the coast and the interior. Current
foot travel now occurs via the Lower Rogue Trail, running along the north bank
from just above Silver Creek to Agness.
The main road between Gold Beach and Agness was developed in the
early 1960's, primarily for transportation of logs. As the logging industry
developed, roads were developed that connected Agness to Galice and Powers.
The Galice road is the main travel route between the coast and the Interior of
16
the Lower Rogue watershed. It receives local use from private landowners,
logging companies, tourists and recreationists.
There are nearly 1200 miles of road within the lower Rogue watershed,
the vast majority owned and maintained by the Forest Service. The primary
purpose of most of these roads was to facilitate timber harvest. Most roads,
with the exception of the North Bank and Agness road, have a rock or nativesoil surface. An issue of particular importance within the watershed is the
existence of early vintage logging roads built on steep, unstable terrain with
side cast construction. This, coupled with a trend toward decreasing
maintenance, will likely result in chronic sediment yields to adjacent steams.
The existing road network for the basin is shown in Figure 4.
Some forest roads have recently undergone seasonal closures in attempts
to curtail the spread of phytophthera lateralis, a pathogen affecting the roots of
Port-Orford-cedar. The fungus quickly kills the tree. Mortality is highest in
riparian areas where the water-borne disease has easy access to cedar roots.
Additionally, the fungus is prevalent along roads where vehicles transport the
spores in wet or muddy seasons (USDA, 1994). Closures are typically met with
opposition from recreationists, but are one of the few practical options
available to stop the spread of the disease.
Recreation - Recreational use within the river corridor has increased
over the years, largely due to better access to the river mouth with the
completion of highway 101 in the 1920's. Recreational use varies considerably
depending on season and the persons involved. Opportunities are afforded by
several RV parks along the river, guided horse trail rides, to wilderness hiking
expeditions. The dominant form of recreation is fishing. Local residents and
visitors fish from boats or from the banks throughout the entire length of the
river. Most activity is typically concentrated in the lower river near the estuary.
Hunting of large game (deer, elk, bear, etc.) is also an extensively
practiced recreational opportunity.
Guided jet boat trips from Gold Beach to Agness, Watson Creek, or to
Blossom Bar are a large attraction for summer tourists. Summer float trips
through the lower canyon are also very popular, with a limited number of trip
permits being allotted in a lottery style selection process. Nearly 10,000 people
raft through the Rogue River canyon each year.
Many people camp and hike in the area, especially along the lower Rogue
trail, but these activities are limited by wet winters and steep terrain.
Developed, well used campgrounds are found at Lobster Creek, Huntley Park,
Quosatana Creek, 1llahe, and Foster Bar. Dispersed camping is available at
Elko and Game Lake and a variety of other locations on the Siskiyou National
Forest.
17
, I
DA51N
DRAINsASE
DRAINAGE
DA~~IN
LOBSTER CREEK
1,
ROAD DENSI1TY
(MILE5/SO. MILE)
3.6
SHASTA COSTA CREEK
2.1
GIOSATAA CREEK
2k
FOSTER CREEK
3.4
LAYiSON CREEK
1.1
ItVI&o CREEK
1k
MULE CREEK
25
JIM HUNTCREEK
3.7
SAUNDER5 CREEK
2.4
EDSON CREEK
2.7
INDIAN CREEK
3.b
5ILVER CREEK
3.5
NORTH
NT5
FIGURE 4:
I
LOWER ROGUE BA51N ROAD NETWORK
M R yq
IAN. IqqS
The Siskiyou National Forest Plan FEIS (1989) identified four
classifications of recreation experience along the Lower Rogue River corridor.
The classifications are based on an inventory system which recognizes the
quality aspects of recreation experience. The first class, Semi-Primitive NonMotorized (SPNM), is characterized by a predominantly natural or naturalappearing environment of moderate to large size. User interaction is low, but
there may be evidence of other users, this area includes the wild section of the
river. The second type is Roaded Natural (RN), which includes most of the
watershed and the Recreation section of the river. The third classification is
Rural, encompassing the section near Agness. The remaining classification is
Wilderness (WRS-Semi-primitive) where recreation opportunities are
predominantly unmodified and user interaction is moderate. This includes the
Wild Rogue Wilderness section above river mile 36.
Municipal Use - The Rogue River as a whole serves a variety of municipal
uses including but not limited to domestic and industrial water supply,
irrigation, and discharge of treated domestic and industrial wastewaters. The
Lower Rogue basin sees the results of each of these activities, albeit somewhat
diluted, by virtue of its downstream location. Within the lower Rogue basin
itself, municipal water use affecting the river consists of public drinking water
withdrawals for the City of Gold Beach and the Nesika/Ophir water district.
The intakes draw from the porous gravel substrate, well below the water
surface. Water rights for each of the users are administered by the Oregon
State Department of Water Resources.
As population continues to increase in the upper basin, water quality
affected by increased withdrawals and effluent discharges will likely become a
primary issue of concern in the entire basin.
Land Ownership and Management Policy - The US Forest Service,
Bureau of Land Management and a variety of private land owners manage the
land within the Lower Rogue Basin (See Figure 5). Of the 530 square miles
within the basin, approximately 80% of the land base falls under federal
jurisdiction. Private lands within the basin are managed primarily for timber
production, with a small amount of livestock ranching and farming. Land uses
and zoning on private lands within Curry County are generally dictated by the
Curry County Comprehensive Plan. Federal management of the Siskiyou
National Forest is subject to multiple use, and consequently sees a larger
variety of uses. Major land allocations set forth in the President's Forest Plan
for the Lower Rogue basin are as follows:
Congressionally & Administratively Withdrawn:
Late Successional Reserves:
Matrix:
12%
74%
10%
Currently, cumulative effects analysis relating to watershed health
pertaining to either federal or private land use activities are poorly coordinated
across ownership boundaries.
19
L-EGEND .
7
Z
m
PMVATE OV1NERSHIP
U.S.FOREST
U.S.
SERVICE
EMJU OF LAND MANA6EMENT
NORTH
N.TS.
IFIGURE 5; LOW4ER ROGUE 1A51N LAND OMNERGHIF
,` -
JAN,
IV. TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
The overall health of the terrestrial system is a complex web of
interconnected processes, many of which are not fully understood. These
processes of growth, nutrient cycling, and decay have all evolved within a
specific range of geologic, climatic, and disturbance characteristics. Typical
attributes which are key to ecosystem are abundance and ecological diversity,
process and function, and connectivity. Abundance and ecological diversity
refer to the acreage of a particular successional stage present and the
occurrence of the full range and distribution of associated species. Processes
refer to ecological changes or action that lead to the development and
maintenance of a successional stage while function refers to ecological values
or components that maintain populations of species within that ecosystem and
contribute to the diversity and productivity of other ecosystems. Finally,
connectivity is a measure of the extent to which landscape patterns provide for
biological and ecological flows that sustain animal and plant species across
the region (FEMAT, 1993).
The FEMAT assessment addressed these three attributes in detail for the
federal lands within the range of the northern spotted owl. Consequently, a
region wide strategy and series of land allocations were designed to allow some
preferred level of ecological, social, and economic benefits to co-exist. This plan
is largely structured to promote the attainment of late-successional and oldgrowth characteristics, niches which were noted to be lacking or threatened in
relation to other seral stages across the region. It should be noted, however,
that while this plan recognizes the role of private lands to overall ecosystem
health, it does not evaluate their function. This may be a significant concern
since private holdings are typically lower in elevation and occupy different
ecological zones that federal lands and many species of plant and animals
inhabit both areas. Since the federal plan cannot dictate private land
management, it tended to protect more federal land in contiguous blocks,
assuming private lands would be harvested or developed.
Lists of threatened, endangered, and sensitive animal and plant species
within the Lower Rogue watershed are as shown in Table 1 and Table 2. The
Lower Rogue Watershed Action Plan has no restoration strategy for any of
these T&E species or their habitat. Refer to local USFS and BLM offices for
additional information on these and other species of interest. Continued
viability of the sensitive plant and animals will depend largely on the land
allocations and land uses implemented across the landscape along with the
future disturbance regime.
21
Table 1. Threatened and Endangered Vertebrate Species of the
Lower Rogue Watershed
Status
Animal Species Name
L
L
L
L
C
C
C
C
C
American peregrine falcon
Bald eagle
Northern spotted owl
Marbled murrelet
Northwestern pond turtle
Clouded salamander
Pacific western big-eared bat
Pine marten
Brown pelican
Data Source: Oregon Natural Heritage Program L=listed species C=candidate species
Table 2: Threatened and Endangered Plant Species of the
Lower Rogue Watershed
I
Plant Species Name
Status
L
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Umpqua mariposa-lily
Bensonia
Howell's camas
Clustered lady's slipper
Umpqua swertia
Large-flowered goldfields
Slender meadowfoam
Rogue River stonecrop
Western senecio
Western sophora
Leach's brodiaea
a_
can .didate
T_1io~ol
,=emoors:
___ A X~z.._1 ]:+z D#S
Data Source: Oregon Natural Heritage Program L=llstecl specles
%_=can
species
The lower Rogue basin is a collection of distinct ecosystems that form an
ecological mosaic. This mosaic is largely a product of disturbance history,
climate, topography and geology. Vegetation types differ from variations in
location, climate, topography, and geology. Plant habitats result from
differences in exposure, soil moisture, and parent geology. Finally, wildlife
diversity results from this habitat composition (USDA, 1991).
Disturbance history, frequency, and severity are the major components of
the ecosystem mosaic that can be significantly altered by management. The
primary agents of disturbance within the Klamath province are fire, winds,
insects, disease, and timber harvest and road construction (USDI, 1992). Fire
22
has had the greatest historical influence in the area. Timber harvest and
related management activities have played an increasing role in the last fifty
years. Insects and disease play a small but important role while wind is
typically only a significant agent of disturbance in coastal areas. Each
disturbance agent operates at various temporal and spatial levels, each serving
a role in energy transfer and resetting of successional characteristics to
maintain diversity across the landscape.
Watershed disturbances, however, are not isolated events. Rather they
are catalysts for change that ripple throughout the environment, especially
downhill under the influence of gravity. The current disturbance regimes that
offer the largest likelihood of causing large scale impacts to both the terrestrial
and aquatic environments are fire and timber harvest. The probability of large,
stand replacement fires resulting from excessive fuel build up from decades of
intensive fire suppression looms large on the horizon. Such a disturbance
could have significant impacts on landscape patterns and vegetation
distribution, which may affect lower elevation aquatic environments
susceptible to changes in hydrology and sediment input. Wildfire intensity and
effects are likely to be exacerbated by the current drought cycle in southern
Oregon. Given the land allocations for the federal lands in the basin and the
young age of private timberlands, effects from new timber harvest should be
moderate. Of greater concern are future landscape effects from past harvests. A
large portion of the logging and road construction in the basin has occurred
after the 100-year storm of 1964. The largest flow event since that time is a
25-year recurrence interval storm in 1974. Not only have the newer stream
crossings and road fills not been subjected to a storm of significant size, but
the stream crossings were generally sized to handle a 25 to 50 year event with
associated debris. Without further storm proofing and upgrading of these
facilities, devastating amounts of sediment could be released into the aquatic
environment in a major storm. These conditions will be discussed further
under "Aquatic Ecosystem Health".
V. Aquatic Ecosystem Health
Landslides and Surface Erosion
Water Quality
Large Wood Supply
Stream Flow
Fish Habitat, Distribution, and Populations
Estuarine environment
Each of the above components relating to aquatic health will be
generally discussed below at a watershed level. A more specific evaluation (as
available data allows) will occur at a subwatershed level for the larger
tributaries.
Landslides and Surface Erosion - Sediment entering stream channels
may be transported or stored, depending on the amount, particle size, and
23
timing of input. Increase sediment loading can cause channel widening and
braiding, increased bed mobility, decreased pool frequency and depth. These
effects are typically manifested in low gradient reaches with typical velocities
too low to transport sediment out of the reach. Consequently, the stream
storage of sediment serves a buffering capacity by delaying downstream
sediment transport until very large flow events. This is typical of many
tributaries in the lower Rogue that have received large sediment inputs during
recent storms, and are still slowly moving that sediment through the system.
Although landslides and fluvial erosion have acquired a negative
connotation in regards to stream health, both are natural and essential
elements which help form the landscape. Problems occur when sediment yields
are substantially increased over background levels by management related
activities. As an example, management related landslides in the Elk River
basin delivered 2.2 times more sediment to the river than naturally occurring
landslides from 1952 to 1986. Road and timber harvest related landslides and
surface erosion differ from naturally occurring processes in timing, amount of
sediment delivered to a stream channel, amount of large wood included, and
degree of disruption of the surface and subsurface flow of water (USDA, 1994).
Roads significantly alter the hydrology of a basin by increasing soil
disturbance and intercepting surface and subsurface water, both of which can
cause landslides or erosion. Actual sediment delivery to streams from road
related failures depends on the steepness, substrate, concave/convex slope,
and proximity to an active water course. Timber harvest can also affect
sediment delivery to streams via landslides induced by loss of root strength and
changes in patterns of soil moisture (USDA, 1994). Additionally, harvests in or
near riparian allows more sediment delivery by eliminating buffering and
filtering capabilities.
A proactive watershed level approach should be implemented to remove
unstable road and landing fills and storm proof stream crossings to allow the
road system to tend toward "self maintaining" since future maintenance
funding will likely be shrinking.
Water Quality - Water quality has components ranging from
temperature and sediment loads to chemical constituency and pH. The
primary concerns within the lower Rogue basin relate to thermal problems and
their associated negative impacts on stream health.
Stream temperature is a function of several factors including solar
intensity, climate, channel morphology, and shade from either vegetation or
topographic features (USDA, 1994). Large storms and management activities
have the potential to influence stream temperature by changing the amount of
shade producing vegetation and by changing the channel width to depth ratio
in low gradient stream reaches (Frissell and Liss, 1986).
Water temperature is a determining factor in the composition and
24
productivity of the stream ecosystem and typically reaches its peak between
mid-July and mid-August. Elevated temperatures affect levels of dissolved
oxygen and pH of the water. Sustained temperatures above 700 F will result in
mortality for anadromous salmonids. When under stress from water
temperatures above 700 F, fish populations may have reduced fitness, greater
susceptibility to disease, decreased growth, and changes in behavior, activity
level, and time of migration/reproduction (Beschta et al., 1987). The
availability of thermal refuges in cooler stratified layers of pools, undergravel
seeps, and tributary junctions can partially compensate for such effects (USDA,
1987). Perhaps a more immediate and direct indicator of stream temperature
problems (as well as other water quality problems) is the abundance and
diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates. The USFS has recently implemented a
macroinvertebrate sampling program on a five year rotation.
The most critical temperature problems occur in the mainstems of the
Rogue and Illinois Rivers. The USFS 1993 temperature monitoring program
shows peak summer temperatures (7 day max) of 72.3 degrees on the Rogue at
Crooked Riffle (RM 25.1) and 76.0 degrees on the Illinois at Kerby. The dams
at Lost Creek and Applegate have led to substantial improvements in summer
peak temperatures in the upper Rogue, but lengthy exposure to high ambient
temperatures through the canyon during low flow periods still causes excessive
heating. Tributaries with cool water are critical in helping to lower mainstem
temperatures in the lower Rogue (See subwatershed section).
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife have noted decreases in prespawning mortality from disease in spring chinook as a result of flow
augmentation from upstream dams. However, there is some concern that
changes in seasonal water temperatures from historic levels have led to
changes in migration and spawning timing of spring and fall chinook.
Competition and other effects of such a timing shift have yet to be fully
evaluated by the department.
The 1988 Oregon Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Water
Pollution indicate that water quality is severe in the lower Illinois River and
moderate in most of the lower Rogue and lower sections of Lobster Creek and
Quosatana Creek, largely due to the effects of sediment and temperature.
Large Wood Supply - Large woody material is an important component
of streams, influencing the form and structure, or morphology, of a channel.
The size and location of pools are strongly influenced by the position, location,
and flow around large wood, boulders or other geomorphic constraints. Large
wood located in pools provides hiding cover for fish and shelter in high flow
events. It also provides shade and nutrients as well as habitat for aquatic
insects. Inorganic and organic sediments stored upstream of large wood serve
several functions for fish populations including development of food production
sites, formation of spawning areas, and retention of fines. The storage of fines
and organic matter also influences the sediment transport rate, which buffers
the channel against rapid change in sediment loading (Bisson et. al. 1987).
25
Large wood is delivered to channels by landslides, by falling from
adjacent riparian areas, and by transport from upstream sites as debris flows.
Decreases in the recruitment of large wood to streams is largely due to timber
harvest in riparian areas and adjacent geologically unstable areas which would
have delivered wood upon eventual failure. The loss of Port-Orford cedar in
riparian areas due to infection from phytophthera laterals will likely have long
term negative impacts on large wood supply in many streams.
Riparian areas in many tributaries of the lower Rogue are dominated by
small hardwood species such as red alder. These are generally too small and
decay too rapidly to create any long term habitat complexity. Large wood
occurrence in specific tributaries will be evaluated more specifically in the
subwatershed section. The mainstem of the Rogue and Illinois rivers have
minor amounts of large wood because the high stream power during storms
flushes the wood through the system.
Stream Flow - The average annual yield for the Rogue at Agness (Figure
1) is estimated to be 4,455,000 acre feet. Low mean monthly flows of 1500 to
2000 cubic feet per second (cfs) occur between July and October. Peak flows
occur between November and April. Low flows are largely determined by releases
from Lost Creek and Applegate reservoirs. Because of the large undammed
portion below the Rogue Valley, high flows at Agness in the winter are only
moderately affected by dam releases. Stream flows for the tributaries are
currently extrapolated from the USGS gauge on the South Fork Coquille at
Powers, Oregon. However, a new gauge is being cooperatively proposed by the
USFS and BLM on the South Fork of Lobster Creek in an effort to more
accurately quantify discharges in smaller streams in lower Rogue and
southcoast watersheds. Significant storms within the lower Rogue basin (from
Coquille gauge) are shown below.
Year
Recurrence Interval
1964
1969
1970
1971
1972
1974
1980
1981
1983
100 year
<5
<5
10
5
25+
<5
5
<5
Several aspects of stream flow have direct effects on the aquatic
environment. Low flows restrict migration and reduce available habitat for fish
and other aquatic organisms. Peak flows affect channel morphology and fish
survival. The magnitude of peak flows in relation to the frequency of channel
forming events has direct bearing on the viability of various aquatic
26
populations. Throughout the basin, the 1955 floods had the most dramatic
effects on the tributary streams. The result was aggradation and loss of
riparian vegetation in the low gradient reaches.
All aspects of stream flow and the associated hydrology are affected by
timber harvest, road construction and other significant natural or
anthropogenic disturbances. Road surfaces and cutslopes intercept water, and
road ditches act as intermittent streams. Both mechanisms tend to transport
water more rapidly than natural processes, thus changing the timing and
magnitude of peak flows. The potential for effects from increased peak flows
are the greatest where road densities are high and stream banks are unstable
(USDA, 1994))
Harvested areas can increase snow accumulation. If harvested areas are
located in the transient snow zone, a rain on snow event could cause rapid
melting of snow and radically increase peak flows. In the coast range of the
Rogue basin the transient snow zone is above 2000 feet in elevation, a small
percentage of which has been harvested. Consequently, it is not likely that
peak flows have been greatly affected by existing harvested areas that may be
susceptible to rain on snow events. Additionally, typical snow packs in the
coast range are not large. This phenomena is likely to be more significant
higher in the Rogue system.
Fish Habitat, Distribution, and Populations - The Rogue River supports
one of the largest and most diverse runs of anadromous fish in the Northwest.
The major anadromous species found in the Rogue basin are spring and fall
chinook salmon, coho salmon, summer and winter steelhead, and sea-run
cutthroat trout. The following is a brief description of the anadromous species
present, along with relevant life history characteristics and requirements, and
population status. Figures 6 through 10 show the distribution of various
salmonids in the basin.
Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch): Coho salmon have been considered the
most important commercially caught salmonid in Oregon. Adult coho migrate
into fresh water in the fall, migrate upstream and hold in the main river until
rains allow them to move into tributaries to spawn in December and January.
Spawning and rearing of juvenile coho salmon take place in small low gradient
(generally <3%) tributary streams. During the summer, coho prefer pools in
small streams, whereas during winter, they prefer off-channel alcoves, beaver
ponds, and dam pools with complex cover. Complexity, primarily in the form of
large and small wood is an important element of productive coho streams.
Little Is known about residence time or habitat use of estuaries during seaward
migration, although it is usually assumed that coho salmon spend only a short
time in the estuary before entering the ocean (Nickelson, et.al., 1992)).
Historical coho spawning occurred primarily in the tributaries and upper
third of the main Applegate, Illinois, and Rogue Rivers. Currently, the bulk of
the wild run spawns in the Illinois River basin. The majority of coho entering
27
the upper Rogue River are of hatchery origin. Coho salmon use of the lower
Rogue Basin, other than as a highway to and from the ocean, is slight. Known
distributions of coho are shown on Figure 6. They are primarily found in
Lobster, Quosatana, Silver, Foster, Shasta Costa, Lawson, Mule and Billings
Creeks.
Excluding sea-run cutthroat, coho salmon are the least abundant native
anadromous salmonids in the Rogue River basin. Due to such factors as ocean
conditions, degraded habitat, unscreened diversions, irrigation withdrawals,
commercial ocean and freshwater fishing, the abundance of wild Rogue River
coho has had major impacts. The coho is currently listed as a sensitive species
by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and is expected to be
federally listed as threatened by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
in the near future. Current status of wild coho populations in the Rogue River
are summarized in Table 3.
Spring Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): Adult spring chinook
salmon enter the Rogue River from March through June and spawn from
September to mid-November. Juvenile spring chinook rear in the mainstem for
a short period, migrate downstream, and enter the ocean in August and
September. Once in the ocean, the juveniles migrate south to rear off the coast
of California (Fustish, et.al., 1993).
Nearly all wild spring chinook spawn in the main stem or major
tributaries above Gold Ray Dam, while most of the hatchery fish return to Cole
Rivers Hatchery at Lost Creek Dam (Fustish, et.al., 1993). Spring chinook
salmon do not enter the tributaries of the Lower Rogue, and use the mainstem
as a transportation link between the upper river and the ocean/estuary.
This species of salmonid in the Rogue basin is one of few considered to
have a healthy population. See Table 3 for current status of Rogue salmonids.
Fall Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): Adult fall chinook salmon enter the
Rogue river from July through October and peak from mid-August through
mid-September. They spawn from October through late January, peaking in the
mainstem Rogue and Applegate rivers in November, and in the Illinois and
tributaries of the lower portions of the Rogue and Applegate rivers in December
(Fustish, et.al., 1993). Only a small portion of the run (around 10%) spawns
above the fish counting station at Gold Ray Dam. This run is considered by
ODFW to be comprised of two distinct populations based on run timing and
differences in life history characteristics. The early entry adults are upper river
fish that spawn most heavily between Grave Creek (RM 68) and Gold Ray Dam
(RM 127) and in the lower 25 miles of the Applegate River. The late entry adults
typically spawn below Watson Creek (RM 35) and in the Illinois basin.
The fall chinook have the same general habitat requirements as the
spring chinook, although river conditions (especially water temperature) play a
different role in their life cycle. Prespawning mortalities attributed to low flows
28
and high temperatures were as high as 85% in 1979 (Fustish, et.al., 1993).
Fish are susceptible to various fatal bacteria while under stress from elevated
water temperatures.
The early entry fall chinook which utilize the mid and upper Rogue river
are considered to have a healthy population. The late entry fish of the lower
river are severely depressed from historic levels. See Table 3 for current status
of populations. ODFW has conducted redd counts on the mainstem of the
lower Rogue River at 20 year increments since the 1950's. While the data set is
scant, and conclusions may be skewed due to a variety of factors, the general
trend is noteworthy:
Survey Year
1953
1954
1974
1976
1993
Method
Boat
Boat
Plane
Plane
Helicopter
Redds/Mile
5.1
5.7
4.0
4.3
0.2
Production in the major tributaries of the Lower Rogue will be evaluated in
more detail in the subwatershed section. Known fall chinook distributions are
shown in Figure 7.
The Indian Creek Fish Hatchery, located approximately one mile from
the mouth of the river, is currently being operated to "rehabilitate" the fall
chinook population in the lower Rogue River and tributaries below Watson
Creek. The hatchery is operated and maintained by volunteers under the STEP
program in conjunction with ODFW. The hatchery has yet to achieve its
projected impact due to low numbers of returning adults (Fustish, et.al., 1993).
ODFW is currently evaluating the benefits of the hatchery and STEP programs
in relation to possible negative genetic impacts on wild stocks from hatchery
supplementation.
Winter Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Steelhead are rainbow trout that
migrate as juveniles to the ocean to rear and then migrate back as adults to
fresh water to spawn. Unlike salmon, steelhead can spawn more than once but
the number that actually survive to do so is small (Nickelson, et.al., 1992)).
Winter steelhead enter the Rogue river from November through March with a
peak in late January. Since steelhead occupy most of the Rogue basin,
spawning can occur from December to May.
Winter steelhead spawn primarily in tributary streams of the Rogue,
although they may use the mainstem when a barrier blocks their preferred
tributary or when elevated winter flows do not occur. Their swimming ability
allows them access to habitat that salmon are unable to reach. Juvenile
residence in fresh water can vary from one to four years, making them very
adaptable to changing habitat conditions. Recent drought and associated low
29
flows in tributaries have forced more mainstem spawning throughout the
system with lower juvenile survival as a result.
Within the lower Rogue basin, relatively small populations occur in
many tributaries. While selected populations may be small, each is significant
to the overall numbers. Steelhead are currently active in Saunders, Edson,
Kimble, Jim Hunt, Lobster, Quosatana, Silver, Fox, Lawson, Horse Sign,
Indigo, Shasta Costa, Two Mile, Foster, Billings and Mule Creeks. See Figure 8
for known winter steelhead distributions.
Populations of winter steelhead are considered healthy in the Rogue
basin and meet the guidelines of ODFW's wild fish policy. See Table 3 for
general status of anadromous fish populations in the Rogue basin.
Summer Steelhead (Oncorhynchus myktss): Summer steelhead enter the Rogue
River starting in late spring through summer. This run is comprised of both
adults and half pounders. The majority of adult summer steelhead spawn
between the mouth of the Applegate (RM 95) and Gold Ray Dam (RM 126). No
summer steelhead use the Illinois River to spawn, although they may take
refuge there when temperatures in the Rogue River are too high. Half pounders
reenter fresh water three months after first entering the ocean as a smolt, but
do not spawn that year. Rather they will reenter the ocean and migrate upriver
a year later. Half pounders typically over winter within the lower 50 miles of
the Rogue mainstem before returning to the ocean. Over 95% of the summer
steelhead have a half-pounder life cycle (Fustish, et.al., 1993). Winter rearing
occurs more uniformly at lower densities across a wide range of fast and slow
habitat types. Summer steelhead juveniles often move Into larger tributaries
and the mainstem river to rear because the streams in which they spawn go dry
by early summer.
Current runs of summer steelhead are declining, likely are result of
increased domestic water use and irrigation withdrawals within their preferred
small spawning and rearing streams. While winter steelhead populations
appear healthy, summer steelhead is listed as a species of concern by ODFW.
See Table 3 for general status of summer steelhead populations.
Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki): Coastal cutthroat trout
exhibit diverse patterns in life history and migration behavior. Population
characteristics range from anadromous to nonmigratory. The fish tend to
spawn in very small (first and second order) tributaries. Juvenile habitat
preference of low velocity pools and side channels with large wood tends to be
affected by interactions with other salmonids. Juvenile and adult cutthroat
trout spend considerable time in the estuary during spawning and feeding
migrations. Large wood is likely an important habitat component for cutthroat
trout during their estuarine residence (Nickelson, et.al., 1992). Many
tributaries of the lower Rogue support their largest populations of cutthroat
trout above migration blockages for anadromous fish, largely because of
competition. Little research emphasis has been dedicated to these
30
populations, consequently no quantifiable information on status and trends is
readily available. See Figures 9 & 10 for general distribution of trout in the
lower Rogue Basin.
Table 3: Current Status of Wild Fish Stocks in the Rogue Basin
Species Present
Nehlsen et. al.
Nickelson et. al.
Fall Chinook
Lower Rogue
High Risk of Extinction
Depressed
Fall Chinook
Upper & Middle Rogue
N/A
Healthy
Spring Chinook
N/A
Healthy
Coho Salmon
High Risk of Extinction
Summer Steelhead
Moderate Risk of Extinction
Depressed
Winter Steelhead
N/A
Healthy
Sea-Run Cutthroat
Moderate Risk of Extinction
N/A
*
*
Depressed
Believed to have high probability of introgression with hatchery stocks.
Estuarine Environment - Among Oregon coastal rivers the Rogue River
is second only to the Columbia River In size of drainage basin; however, it has
one of the smallest and least productive estuaries of the entire coast. The
Rogue estuary is typical of those located in the Klamath Mountain province in
that the geological faulting and folding of the rocks in the coastal area have
resulted in the recent uplift of the coastline thereby limiting the landward
extent of the tide and hence the size of the estuary. The Rogue estuary is a
drowned-river valley estuary with head of tide 4.5 miles up river. There are no
broad tidal flats, marshes, or bay and slough subsystems typically found in
other coastal estuaries north of Cape Blanco (Curry County, 1990)
The sediments in the estuary are predominantly terrestrial in origin.
High river flow and sediment deposition in the river channel prevent large scale
deposition of marine sediment within the mouth of the river. The estuary floor
is characterized by sand and gravel sediments and a lack of silts, mud and
organic substrates. A sand spit at the mouth historically formed from marine
sediments prior to construction of the jetties in the early 1960's.
The estuary is subject to critical stream bank erosion and areas of
geologic instability. The most pronounced area of erosion is along the south
bank of the river for approximately a mile and a half east of Indian Creek. Most
sites of bank erosion have typically been protected with riprap. The most
31
pronounced site of geologic instability is located on the south side of the Rogue
River from the bridge east to the mouth of Saunders Creek. This area is a
steeply sloping hillside which has failed in various places. Remedial measures
have been taken to stabilize the failures and the problem has become less
critical in recent years.
The Rogue estuary is dominated by river flows. The construction of the
jetties and dikes along the boat basin have channelized the flow in relation to
historic conditions. Consequently, salt water intrusion is limited. Water
quality within the estuary is generally good and is maintained within DEQ
standards even during low flows. The poorest area for water quality is the Port
of Gold Beach boat basin due to its limited flushing (Curry County, 1990).
Two general biological subsystems define the Rogue estuary; a marine
subsystem and a riverine subsystem with the dividing line near the Highway
101 bridge. The Marine subsystem is almost continually influenced by the
ocean with some salt water penetration during each tidal cycle. Sands and fine
gravel in this area, especially near the Coast Guard dock, contain benthic
fauna that are important to the diet of juvenile salmonids. Subtidal areas
within the riverine subsystem are prime feeding and rearing areas for fish with
juvenile salmon and cutthroat trout being abundant.
The Rogue estuary lies in an area that has a combination of land uses.
The lower part of the estuary lies within the City of Gold Beach Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB). The part of the estuary outside the UGB generally has
resource related uses in upland areas with clustered residential uses in various
places along both shores. The combined impacts of various land uses and
economic development activities have altered the historic form and function of
the estuary. These alterations have apparently changed the productivity of the
estuary. The historic shoaling at the mouth of the Rogue which occurred before
construction of the jetties may have increased estuarine productivity, providing
more food to enable juvenile chinook salmon to attain optimal size prior to
ocean migration. A comparison of 1945 and 1975 adult scales indicate that
juvenile spring and fall chinook spend much less time rearing in the estuary
than they did twenty years ago. It is possible that channelization at the
estuary mouth has reduced estuarine productivity and, consequently decreased
the residence time by juvenile chinook salmon. If an extended period of
estuarine rearing increases the probability that juveniles will return as adults,
then extensive modifications to the mouth of the Rogue may have had
significant impacts on the chinook populations in the river (Curry County,
1990).
Additionally, large woody material, characteristic of low velocity
estuarine areas, is currently at very low levels. This is likely due to the
velocities associated with the current channel configuration and also to wood
removal operations conducted by early commercial freshwater fishing
operations near the mouth of the river. Large wood in an important
component for anadromous fish by providing cover for migrating adults and
32
rearing juveniles.
More detailed information regarding the Rogue estuary is available from
the Gold Beach office of ODFW and from the Curry County Comprehensive
Plan.
33
|
..
|
AREA5 NITH LIMITED DATA AVAILADLE FOR
LOYWO9DER STREAM5
NORTH
NT.
_________.
-
COHO SALMON P1IETRIBUTION
FIGURE 6:
S=URCE.
VS1`
LOPER ROGUE BA51N COHO SALMON D15TRIBUTION
&OLD EACH 4 &ALICE RD. MEDFOWD DIST. BLH, AN* ODFA
L40V4
JAR I<<%
I
I
I-
i
i
k-
I
I
I-
r--
F-
17-
I
I
I
r-
i
AJEA5 WITH LIMITED DATA AVAILADLE FOR
LON*Y
ORDER STREAMS
NORTH
N.T.5
FALL CHINOOK D15TRIBUTION
I
F1TURE 1.
SCURCE.
LOkNER R06UE BASIN FALL CHINOOK
ISTRIBUTION
VCFS &OLD DCACH * 6ALICE RD, MEDFORD D15T. D1LM.AND OD1FI
H.R.YN. .JAN. I-S1
AREAS WITH LIMITED DATA AVAILAVLE FOR
LONYORDER STREAMS
NORTH
NT5.
-
~YiINTER STEELHEA1 V1TRI BUTION
IFI&URE 5. LONER ROGUE BASIN 5TEELHEAD
SOURCE.
ULFS SOLD VEACH
ISTRIBUTION
* 6ALICE R D1 ME7FORV DIST. ELM, AND ODrA
.
JAR
--
I
II
I
s - t- - -
I
I
t--
--
I
I
-
APZA5 WITHLIMITEP DATA AVAILADLE FOR
LON ORDER STREAMS
NORTH
N.TS.
-
-
SEA-PUJN CUTTHROAT P15TRIBUTION
FIG)URE
SCUKRE
1
LONER ROGUE BA5IN SEA-RUN CUITHROAT P15TRIBUTION
V5F51750 L
DEACH 4 6ALICE RD- TEDFORD DIST. DLM, AND OVFH
MR.N. JAR I-M5
-
AREAS WITH LIMITED DATA AVAILAVLE FOR
LONt ORVER STREAMS
NORTH
NT.S.
RESIDENT TROUT 11STRIEiUTION
FIURE 10: LONER ROcUE 5A51N RE51DENT TROUT D15TRIBUTION
SOURCEG V5F5 &OLD BEACH 4 CALIC.E Rnw MEDFORD DIST. ELM, AND OPFY1
'-'
JAK '---
CHAPTER IV
SUBWATERSHED ASSESSMENT
Salmonid fish production at a watershed scale is driven largely by the
production of the tributary streams. Tributaries are particularly important for
species such as coho and steelhead whose life histories have evolved to avoid
competition with other salmonid species by using smaller streams. Tributaries
with protected side channels and low velocity areas also serve as refuge for
juvenile salmonids during high flow periods. Larger tributaries that maintain
adequate flow serve as summer habitat.
Of the approximately 80 tributaries to the lower Rogue basin, only a
handfull will be evaluated in detail. Realizing that all tributaries and
intermittent steams are sources of cool water, nutrients, and sediment, only
the larger salmonid producing streams with reasonable potential for
restoration are evaluated further. These wtill include: Lobster, Shasta Costa,
Quosatana, Foster, Lawson, Indigo, and Mule creeks. Additionally, several
smaller streams on private lands in the lower basin will also be evaluated to
the extent that available information allows. While each of the small streams
make a small contribution to the aquatic health and fish populations of the
Rogue, their cumulative effect is significant. These smaller tributaries include
Jim Hunt, Saunders, Indian, Edson, and Silver Creeks. See Chapter V,
Watershed Health Strategy, for a more detailed analysis for prioritizing
restoration efforts. Table 4 below provides a generalized description of tributary
characteristics and contributions to the Rogue system.
Table 4: Generalized Characteristics for Selected Subwatersheds.
Anadrornous
Miles
Species
Present
Contribution
to Rogue
Habitat
Value
Lobster
Creek
24.2
CH CO
ST CT
HIGH
HIGH
Shasta Costa
Creek
8.5
CH CO
ST CT
HIGH
HIGH
Quosatana
Creek
4.5
CH CO
ST CT
HIGH
HIGH
Foster
Creek
3.6
CH CO
ST CT
HIGH
HIGH
Lawson
Creek
5.5
CH CO
ST CT
HIGH
MOD
HIGH
HIGH
Tributary
Watershed
Indigo
Creek
Mule Creek
Private Low Elevation
Small Tributaries
32.8
CH ST CT
12.1
CO ST
MOD
MOD
8.5
CH CO
ST CT
HIGH
LOW
CH = Fall Chinook; CO = Coho: ST = Winter Steelhead: CT = Sea-run Cutthroat
39
LOBSTER CREEK
Lobster Creek is a northern tributary that enters the mainstem Rogue at
river mile 10. The drainage basin ownership Is roughly split with the
headwaters under USFS management, and the mainstem under private
ownership (see Table 6 below).
The Lobster Creek basin has undergone significant surficial change due
to timber harvest within the last 50 years. Yet, with the exception of the
Illinois system, Lobster Creek is arguably the most important anadromous fish
producing tributary on the lower Rogue River. Despite recent and historic
sediment producing events, habitat conditions and water quality with respect
to sediment are fair to good. Since the ownership is roughly divided, no
comprehensive inventory of road and harvest histories and landslide sensitivity
mapping exists for the entire basin. Road construction in the lower basin is
quite dense with a large number of low- and mid-slope roads. Road
construction in the upper basin is less dense and are typically located on
ridges. The large number of roads within the Colebrook schist geologic
substrate allow for the potential of large sediment inputs from road failures in
a large storm event.
Habitat quality within the mainstem varies from poor at low gradient
aggraded reaches to good at diverse pool habitat. Structural diversity is largely
due to boulders as few conifers remain in the riparian area. Rearing habitat is
lacking in the lower mainstem. The headwater tributaries show considerably
less management and typically contain more diversity of habitat. Large wood is
the most common structural element contributing to complexity.
A macroinvertebrate sampling program was Initiated in 1992. Results are
not yet available.
In 1993, the 7-day average maximum water temperature recorded at the
mouth of Lobster Creek was 65.0 degrees fahrenheit. The 7-day average
maximum temperature at the mouth of the North Fork was 62.6 degrees
fahrenheit. The temperature at the Old Diggins on the South Fork was 60.0
degrees. Each of these temperatures fall within the range of less than optimal
for fish but are well below the lethal limit (USDA, 1993).
Fall chinook smolts were released in Lobster Creek under the STEP
program from 1979 to 1981 with varying levels of success. Chinook fry were
also released during the early 1980's. Coho fry were released several years
between 1979 and 1987 with no recorded indication of success.
Fish species presence and habitat availability are shown below.
40
Table 3: Lobster Creek Fish Data.
FISH SPECIES
MILES OF POPULATION
HABIT*
TRENDS"*
Fall Chinook
17.1
Decreasing
Coho
17.2
Decreasing
Winter Steelhead
22.8
?
Sea-run Cutthroat
18.6
?
Resident Trout
33.1
Source: * USFS Gold Beach District Fish Distribution Map.
** (Unterwegner. et.al., 1994)
The only quantitative evaluation of salmonid numbers on anl annual
basis are fall chinook peak count spawning surveys and peak counts of coho
observed on chinook spawning surveys. Since 1989, peak counts for coho
inIcude six fish observed in 1991 in upper Lobster Creek while lower Lobster
Creek had one coho In 1990 and seven in 1991. Systematic data collection for
fall chinook by ODFW began in the mid-1980's with the results shown below.
LCBSTER CREEK SPAWNING SURVEYS
300
S
P 200
A
W
N
R 100
S
RUN YEAR
I
UPPER LOBSTER E
LOWER LOBSTER]
Figure 11: Peak Count of Fall Chinook Spawning in Lobster Creek.
41
Basin land ownerships with corresponding zoning or land allocation are
shown below.
Table 6: Lobster Creek Land Use Data.
Basin Acreage:
Basin Road Mileage:
44,253 ac
250 mi
USFS Ownership:
BLM Ownership
60%
<3%
Private Ownership:
37%
Percent Harvested:
15%
Percent Harvested:
? % (high)
Land Allocations
Matrix:
Late Succ. Reserves:
Withdrawn:
24%
74%
2%
Land Zoning
Forest/Grazing:
Timber
Residential
5%
95%
0%
The Lobster Creek watershed is likely to see more intensive timber
harvest and related management in the future, especially on private land.
Private lands harvested in the 1950's and 1960's that naturally reforested with
alder are currently being converted to fir plantations. This represents a possible
sediment source due to the extensive ground disturbance involved. Possible
restoration activities within the basin are storm proofing the existing road
system and planting conifers in the lower reaches to stabilize banks, add
shade, and provide a future source of large wood. Adding instream complexity
for rearing habitat to the lower mainstem may be appropriate.
Available Data/Analysis:
Stream habitat surveys for 1991 and 1993.
Juvenile smolt trap records for the last few years.
Macroinvertebrate sampling for 1992.
Data Gaps/Needs:
Coordinated cumulative effects analysis across ownerships.
Road system and condition inventory.
Geologic sensitivity mapping.
42
SHASTA COSTA CREEK
Shasta Costa Creek is an eastern tributary that enters the mainstem
Rogue at river mile 28.8. The drainage basin is almost exclusively within USFS
management, with some of private land on the lower portions (see Table 8
below).
The Shasta Costa basin has historically produced large sediment
volumes to the stream. The largest single source is the Shasta Costa slide, a
natural feature reactivated in the 1980's. Additionally, other landslides in the
steep inner gorges of tributaries contribute large sediment volumes. The basin
has seen small levels of timber harvest with relatively small, localized adverse
aquatic effects. Early vintage roads built with side cast construction (Bear
Camp road) continue to be chronic sediment sources on a yearly basis.
The most significant effects to the stream channel occurred as a result of the
1955 floods. Aerial photo analysis as part of the Shasta Costa EIS revealed
aggradation and channel widening of 30 to 40 feet in the low gradient reaches
near the confluence of the Rogue. This reach remains aggraded today.
Due to the relatively light harvest levels, riparian areas have not been
widely impacted. Large wood in the stream and recruitment of wood In the
upper reaches are at good levels. The aggraded nature of the lower reaches are
not favorable for recruitment of large wood over the long term. Stream surveys
by ODFW in 1974 characterized the surveyed area as having diverse habitat
conditions. Habitat quality was generally described as good to excellent (USDA,
1991).
An aquatic macroinvertebrate sampling program was initiated in 1992.
Results are not yet available.
In August of 1989 the 7-day average maximum water temperature
recorded at the mouth of Shasta Costa Creek was 67.8 degrees fahrenheit
(USDA, 1991). The 7-day average maximum temperature in 1993 was 67.9
degrees fahrenheit. Both of these temperatures fall within the range of less
than optimal for fish but are well below the lethal limit (USDA, 1993).
The ODFW STEP program planted coho fry in the early 1980's. In recent
years, fall chinook were planted in 1984 and 1986. Winter steelhead were
planted in 1984, 1985, 1987, and 1989.
43
Table 7: Shasta Costa Creek Fish Data.
FISH SPECIES
MILES OF
HABIT*
POPULATION
TRENDS**
Fall Chinook
3.3
Decreasing
Coho
3.3
Decreasing
Winter Steelhead
9.2
?
Sea-run Cutthroat
3.3
Resident Trout
10.6
9
Source: * USFS Gold Beach District Fish Distribution Map
** (Unterwegner, et.al., 1994)
The only quantitative evaluation of salmonid numbers on an annual
basis are fall chinook peak count spawning surveys and peak counts of coho on
chinook spawing surveys. Since 1989, peak counts for coho include four fish in
1990, six in 1991, and one in 1992. Systematic data collection for fall chinook
by ODFW began in the mnid- 1980's with the results shown below.
I-IIt
TA COSTA CREEK SPAWNING SURVEYS |
80
70
S
p 60
A 50
N 40
E
R 30
S
20
10
0
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Figure 12: Peak Count of Fall Chinook Spawning in Shasta Costa Creek.
shown below.
44
Table 8: Shasta Costa Creek Land Use Data.
Basin Acreage:
23,536 ac
Basin Road Mileage:
101 mi
USFS Ownership:
99%
Private Ownership:
<1%
Percent Harvested:
10%
Percent Harvested:
?%
Land Allocations
Matrix:
Withdrawn:
<1%
99%
<1%
Land Zoning
Forest/ Grazing:
Timber
Residential
0%
100%
0%
The Shasta Costa Creek watershed was designated as a key watershed in
the Presidents forest plan, therefore a watershed analysis will be performed on
this basin in the near future. This designation, in conjunction with the large
percentage of late-successional and riparian reserves, significantly reduces the
likelihood of future negative anthropogenic change. Possible restoration
activities within the basin are storm proofing the existing road system,
planting conifers and hardwoods in the lower reaches to stabilize banks and
add shade to the area aggraded by the 1955 storm, and monitoring and
rehabilitating the instream structures placed by the USFS in 1985 and 1986.
Data/Analysis Available:
Shasta Costa Creek EIS, 1991.
Watershed analysis in progress.
Data Gaps/Needs:
45
gUOSATANA CREEK
Quosatana Creek is a southern tributary that enters the mainstem
Rogue at river mile 14.0. Two thirds of the drainage basin are within USFS
management, the private lands occupy the middle portion of the basin (see
Table 10 below).
Sediment production has played a large roll in the history of Quosatana
Creek. A number of large historic landslides within the Colebrook schist have
been identified within the basin, one of which blocked and diverted the
mainstem for a period of time. Consequently, the lower gradient reaches near
the mainstem Rogue are wide and aggraded. The entry point at the Rogue is in
slack water so sediment is not readily discharged to the Rogue. Additionally,
summer stream flows are not adequate to move sediment out of Quosatana
Creek. The result is loss of surface flow during the late summer. This strands
juvenile salmonids within the system, exposing them to increased
temperatures, water quality problems, and predation.
Riparian areas have been considerably more impacted on the private
lands than on federal. However, large wood in the stream and recruitment of
wood in the upper reaches are at good levels. The aggraded nature of the lower
reaches are not favorable for long term recruitment of large wood.
In August of 1991 the 7-day average maximum water temperature
recorded at the mouth of Quosatana Creek was 66.4 degrees fahrenheit
(USDA, 1992). The 7-day average maximum temperature in 1993 recorded at
river nmile 2.5 was 69.7 degrees fahrenheit. Both of these temperatures are less
than optimal for fish but are below the lethal limit (USDA, 1993).
Table 9: Quosatana Creek Fish Data.
FISH SPECIES
MILES OF POPULATION
HABIT*
TRENDS**
Fall Chinook
2.7
Decreasing
Coho
2.7
Decreasing
Winter Steelhead
6.3
?
Sea-run Cutthroat
2.7
?
Resident Trout
6.3
?
Source:
*
USFS Gold Beach District Fish Distribution Map ** (Unterwegner. et.al., 1994)
46
The only quantitative evaluation of salmonid numbers on an annual
basis Is fall chinook peak count spawning surveys and peak counts of coho on
ch~iook spawning surveys. Since 1989, peak counts for coho have been one in
1989, one in 1990, 13 in 1991 and two in 1993. Systematic data collection for
fall chinook by ODFW began in the mid- 1980's with the results shown, below.
IQUOSATANA
120 --
A
. ................. ....- ......
...............
I IC100 g0 S
P: 80-
CREEK SPAWNING SURVEY
.
.-.---
...
......
.-.-
........-
.....
.
.-
...-... -...
...._
-..........-
1............
...-
..-
--.
.......
...... 4 -- .*
.
..
. .-.-.
.
...
.. .. .
....
1
------.-.
70 60 -
......
.. .
I....
R 40 -
0-1
10 01986
1987
1988
1989
1990
RUN Y{EAR
199 1
1992
19935
Figure 13: Peak Count of Fall Chinook Spawning in Quosatana Creek.
shown below.
47
Table 10: Quosatana Creek Land Use Data.
Basin Acreage:
Basin Road Mileage:
16,416 ac
67 ml
USFS Ownership:
84%
Private Ownership:
16%
Percent Harvested:
21%
Percent Harvested:
100%
22%
73%
3%
Land Zoning
Forest/Grazing:
Timber
Residential
0%
100%
0%
Land Allocations
Matrix:
Withdrawn:
The federal portion of the Quosatana Creek watershed was designated as
a key watershed in the Presidents forest plan, therefore a watershed analysis
will be performed on this basin in the near future. This designation, in
conjunction with the large percentage of late-successional and riparian
reserves, significantly reduces the likelihood of future negative anthropogenic
change. Possible restoration activities within the basin are storm proofing the
existing road system (especially mid-slope roads in Colebrook schist), planting
conifers in harvested riparian areas, and monitoring the effectiveness of the 36
instream structures placed by the USFS in 1986.
Data/Information Available:
Quosatana/Bradford EIS, 1992.
Watershed analysis in progress.
Data Gaps/Needs:
Cumulative effects analysis of land use practices across ownerships.
Watershed sensitivity mapping.
48
FOSTER CREEK
Foster Creek is a northern tributary that enters the mainstem Rogue at
river mile 33.6. The drainage basin is primarily within USFS management, with
some small amounts of private land on the lower portions (see Table 12 below).
The majority of the basin is underlain by serpentine or Colebrook schist.
Beaulieu and Hughes (1976) identified approximately 30% of the basin as
earthflow and slump topography. One large natural slide associated with this
area annually contributes significant sediment volumes to the stream.
Sediment appears to be a problem in the low gradient reaches. Habitat surveys
in 1991 identified high bankful width to depth ratio (20+) and residual pool
depths less than 3 feet. The lower mile of the stream flows primarily over
exposed bedrock.
In 1993 the 7-day average maximum water temperature recorded at the
mouth of Foster Creek was 65.0 degrees fahrenheit. This temperature falls
within the range of less than optimal for fish but is well below the lethal limit
(USDA, 1993).
Table 11: Foster Creek Fish Data.
FISH SPECIES
MILES OF POPULATION
I
HABIT *
TRENDS**
Fall Chinook
3.5
Decreasing
Coho
3.5
Decreasing
Winter Steelhead
3.5
?
Sea-run Cutthroat
3.5
?
Resident Trout
5.3
?
Source: * USFS Gold Beach District Fish Distribution Map
Peak spawning count information for fall chinook is only available since
1989. Since that time, a peak count of seven adults was recorded in 1989, three
adults in 1992, and one in 1993. Additionally, peak counts of coho sighted on
fall chinook spawning surveys have been recorded since 1989. The only recorded
coho was sighted in 1991.
49
shown below.
Table 12: Foster Creek Land Use Data.
Basin Road Mileage:
Basin Acreage: 7,736 ac
41 mi
USFS Ownership:
95%
Private Ownership:
5%
Percent Harvested:
11%
Percent Harvested:
?%
Land Zoning
Forest/Grazing:
Timber
Residential
0%
100%
0%
Land Allocations
0%
Matrix:
Late Succ. Reserves: 100%
0%
Withdrawn:
Possible restoration activities within the basin are storm proofing the
existing road system with special attention to historic construction techniques
in unstable areas, planting conifers in disturbed riparian areas, and
monitoring, rehabilitating or removing the instream structures placed by the
USFS and private landowners. The 1991 habitat survey spoke of several failing
instream structures.
Stream habitat surveys for 1991.
Data Gaps/Needs:
Watershed sensitivity mapping.
Road inventory and condition survey.
Analysis of riparian conditions.
50
LAWSON CREEK
Lawson Creek is a eastern tributary that enters the mainstem Illinois at
river mile 4. The drainage basin is almost exclusively within USFS
management, with some private land on the lower portions (see Table 14
below).
The 1990 habitat survey conducted by the USFS spoke of significant
numbers of natural stream side slides, especially in ultramafic rock formations.
Despite the number of slides, residual pool depths in each of the reaches were
greater than 3 feet. Sediment loading has affected the riparian vegetation
structure in a number of reaches with a subsequent effect on stream
temperatures.
Large wood is scant in the lower reaches, with an increasing trend
upstream. The 1990 stream survey identifies considerable amounts of future
large wood in the upper most surveyed section (mile 9 to 10). Habitat structure
and diversity are very good above mile 4.
mouth of Lawson Creek was 67.2 degrees fahrenheit. The 7-day average
maximum temperature at section 16 was 61.9 degrees fahrenheit. Both of these
temperatures fall within the range of less than optimal for fish but are below
the lethal limit (USDA, 1993). Considerable warming occurs in the last 5+
miles of Lawson Creek.
Table 13: Lawson Creek Fish Data.
FISH SPECIES
MILES OF POPULATION
Fall Chinook
HABIT*
4.1
Coho
4.1
?
Winter Steelhead
6.1
?
Sea-run Cutthroat
4.4
Resident Trout
20.0
TRENDS
?
?
Source: *USFS Gold Beach District Fish Distribution Map
No spawning counts have been discovered to date.
shown below.
51
Table 14: Lawson Creek Land Use Data.
Basin Acreage:
25,241 ac
Basin Road Mileage:
76 ml
USFS Ownership:
99%
Private Ownership:
1%
Percent Harvested:
15%
Percent Harvested:
?%
Land Zoning
Forest/Grazing:
Timber
Residential
0%
100%
0%
Land Allocations
27%
Matrix:
70%
Reserves:
Late Succ.
3%
Withdrawn:
The Lawson Creek watershed was designated as a key watershed in the
Presidents forest plan, therefore a watershed analysis will be performed on this
basin in, the near future. This designation, in conjunction with the large
activities within the basin include storm proofing the existing road system, and
planting conifers and hardwoods in the lower reaches to stabilize banks and
add shade. The opportunity also exists for adding instream habitat complexity
within the lower reaches although high stream power and lack of suitable
anchor points may preclude this.
USFS Watershed Analysis in progress.
Data Gaps/Needs:
Aquatic macroinvertebrate sampling.
52
INDIGO CREEK
Indigo Creek is an eastern tributary that enters the mainstem Illinois at
river mile 6.5. The drainage basin is almost exclusively within USFS ownership,
with some small isolated private holdings in the lower section. A small area in
the headwaters is controlled by the Bureau of Land Mangement (see Table 16
below).
A major contact zone between the Dothan formation and units of Rogue
formation, Umpqua group, and gabbro runs north-northeast through the North
Fork and lower mainstem. Relatively small natural landslides are common
throughout the basin although sediment is generally not a limiting factor for
fish. The 1964 storm triggered a natural lanslide on the West Fork that blocked
the stream and created a lake which is still present.
Due to relatively light harvest levels, riparian areas have not been widely
impacted. The 1987 Silver Fire did burn throughout the watershed with some
localized effects on riparian vegetation. Stream surveys by the USFS identify
adequate amounts of large wood and short term recruitment potential is high
from trees burned in the 1987 fires. Indigo Creek is considered one of the most
important tributaries of the Illinois River drainage in terms of fish production,
natural flow, and cool summer water temperatures. The Galice District of the
USFS classifies the lower reaches of the East Fork as good fish habitat with no
real limiting factors. Anadromous fish habitat was described as excellent for
both the East and West forks. The mainstem habitat and fish populations were
also described as excellent.
A monitoring program for macroinvertebrates was Initiated following the
Silver Fire of 1987. In both 1988 and 1989, results showed the aquatic
macroinvertebrate community to be in good to excellent shape. There is some
speculation that nutients from burned areas in the watershed increased the
macroinvertebrate community with a correponding increase in juvenile fish.
mouth of the North Fork was 64.0 degrees fahrenheit. The 7-day maximums
recorded on the East Fork above Breezy Creek and above Chiefton Creek were
60.6 degrees and 59.3 degrees, respectively. Temperatures less than 60 degrees
fahrenheit are considered optimal for fish.
No peak spawing counts have been discovered to date. Fish species
presence and habitat availability are shown below.
53
Table 15: Indigo Creek Fish Data.
MILES OF POPULATION
TRENDS
HABIT*
FISH SPECIES
8.2
?
Winter Steelhead
32.8
?
Sea-run Cutthroat
27.3
?
Resident Trout
42.3
?
Fall Chinook
Source:
* USFS Galice R.D. Stream Surveys, West Indigo EIS.
shown below.
Table 16: Indigo Creek Land Use Data.
Basin Acreage:
48,962 ac
Basin Road Mileage:
123 mi
USFS Ownership:
BLM Ownership:
99%
<1%
Private Ownership:
<1%
Percent Harvested:
10%±
Percent Harvested:
? %
Land Allocations
Matrix:
Withdrawn:
8%
91%
1%
Land Zoning
Forest/Grazing:
Timber
Residential
0%
100%
0%
The Indigo Creek watershed was designated as a key watershed in the
President's forest plan, therefore a watershed analysis will be performed on this
basin in the near future. This designation, in conjunction with the large
activities within the basin include storm proofing the existing road system and
restoring riparian corridors burned in the 1987 fires.
Stream habitat surveys for 1970 and 1988 through 1991.
Macroinvertebrate sampling for 1988 and 1989.
1990 Wildfire and recovery and monitoring.
West Indigo Draft EIS.
Data Gaps/ Needs:
Fall chinook spawning surveys.
Watershed sensitivity and stability mapping.
54
MULE CREEK
Mule Creek is a northern tributary that enters the mainstem Rogue at
river mile 48.4. The drainage basin is almost exclusively within Bureau of Land
Management ownership with some dispersed private holdings (see Table 18).
A major contact zone between the Rogue formation and Dothan
formation runs north-northeast along the Mule Creek drainage from Marial to
east of Mt. Bolivar. As a result, the entire unit east of Mule Creek is prone to
translational and rotational slides. The southern most portion of the drainage
near Kelsey Creek also shows considerable soil movement in the past years
(USDI, 1994).
The only physical and biological data available for Mule Creek is a 1970
stream survey of the lower mainstem. Numerous references are made to
bedrock dominated channels with little available spawning gravel. No recent
detailed information on key components of stream habitat (flow, temperatures,
large wood, pool depths, and instream and riparian cover) have been collected
for any of Mule Creek. However, fish habitat conditions are generally described
by the BLM as excellent in the West Fork, good in the mainstem and Arrasta
Fork, and fair in the East Fork (USDI, 1994).
A monitoring program for macroinvertebrates was initiated in 1993 at the
mouth of Mule Creek. No data from this monitoring is available yet.
No systematic temperature monitoring Is occurring within the basin. The
1970 habitat survey listed the stream temperature in the lower mainstem near
the confluence with the Rogue at 620 F.
Table 17: Mule Creek Fish Data.
FISH SPECIES
Fall Chinook
Coho
MILES OF POPULATION
HABIT*
TRENDS
0
?
2.4
?
Winter Steelhead
12.1
Resident Trout
14.6
Source:
* (USDI, 1994)
No peak spawning counts have been discovered to date.
55
?
shown below.
Table 18: Mule Creek Land Use Data.
Basin Road Mileage:
77 mi
USFS Ownership:
99%
Private Ownership:
1%
Percent Harvested:
30%±
Percent Harvested:
? %(High)
Land Allocations
Matrix:
50%±
Late Succ. Reserves: 10%+
Withdrawn:
40%±
Land Zoning
Forest/Grazing:
Timber
Residential
0%
100%
0%
Approximately 40 percent of the Mule Creek drainage is within the Wild
Rogue Wilderness. The remainder, primarily the mainstem and East Fork, has
seen very intensive timber management. Road densities in this area are 3.3 and
4.9 miles per square mile, respectively. These represent some of the highest
densities within the Lower Rogue Basin. Harvest has disturbed riparian habitat
along small headwater streams by removing future sources of downed large
woody debris and drastically reducing structural diversity. Future consequences
of this activity may be accelerated erosion from roads and down-cutting of
small, steep stream channels. It is probable that sediment may be limiting
aquatic productivity in some of these areas (USDI, 1994). Other areas within
the basin are lightly roaded or unroaded and are not significantly influenced by
human activities.
The portion of Mule Creek outIside of the wilderness area will continue
to see intensive timber managment due to its designation as matrix in the
President's forest plan. Restoration opportunities within the basin include
storm proofing (and possibly reducing) the existing road system in the
mainstem and East Fork areas to reduce or eliminate accelerated sediment
input to the stream. Addtionally, riparian function could be restored by
planting conifers in the harvested areas to stabilize banks,add shade and
provide a future source of large wood..
Preliminary BLM watershed analysis for 1994.
Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Program initiated in 1993.
Data Gaps/Needs:
Stream temperature monitoring.
Stream habitat and spawning surveys.
56
LOW ELEVATION PRIVATE TRIBUTARIES
Several small low elevation tributaries enter the mainstem Rogue that
historically sustained sizeable populations of anadromous fish. Each are
primarily under private ownership and have seen intensive management
activities. While each subwatershed has a relatively low contribution to the
Rogue system as a whole, collectively they have the potential to greatly help in
the recovery of both coho and fall chinook. The subwatersheds to be discussed
in more detail below include Jim Hunt Creek, Saunders Creek, Edson Creek,
Indian Creek, and Silver Creek.
I. Jim Hunt Creek
Jim Hunt Creek is a southern tributary that enters the mainstem Rogue
at river mile 5. The drainage basin is primarily privately owned, with some
small amounts of public land in the headwaters (see Table 20 below).
No comprehensive information has been gathered on harvest history and
slope stability for the basin. The lower section of the basin is in the Dothan
formation. The headwaters are in a mixture of serpentine and Colebrook schist.
Beaulieu and Hughes (1976) identified approximately 15 percent of the basin as
being earthiflow and slump topography. These areas are inherently unstable and
management activities should be tailored accordingly. The two primary areas of
earthflow and slump terrain are at mid-slope on both sides of the main
channel and at the bottom of the basin along the east bank. Basin road
densities are high.
Riparian cover is variable so high summer temperatures are likely a
problem. The channel is deficient of large wood and the potential for future
recruitment is poor. The stream flow goes subsurface at the mouth during the
summer. Root wads and boulders were recently added by ODFW to create a
more defined channel in the aggraded reach near the mouth. The work occurred
on John Hancock Insurance Company property.
Table 19: Jim Hunt Creek Fish Data.
FISH SPECIES
MILES OF POPULATION
HABIT
TRENDS**
Fall Chinook
1
Winter Steelhead
1?
Sea-run Cutthroat
1?
Resident Trout
1?
Source:
*
(Confer, 1995)
** (Unterwegner,
et.al., 1994)
57
Decreasing
Jim Hunt Creek is an index stream for the lower Rogue system.
Therefore, peak spawning count data for fall chinook salmon is available since
1964 and is shown below. Peak counts of coho sighted on fall chinook
spawning surveys are also available since 1989. One coho was seen in 1990 and
six in 1991. The stream historically has had light coho use and ODFW has not
recently documented the presence of any juvenile coho.
IJIM HUNT CREEK SPAWNIING SUR VEYSI
10
----11:L11
100
90
S
60
P
A
70
I
I
-
I
3
w 60
N 50
E 4
s Mo
20
IN
I
I
r
--
2I
:
El
a
4--L-4II
I I I
I
__i
""ElIM
-1
~~~~~~~~4414-
I
I0E,010. 10l I.'.'.'
Ii
1
k
I;
_-§
i
I
I
t
I
I
i
10
0
i
II
I
I
FT-
1965
1I
I0
I
I
I
1T-
J
rn
i
I
1I
M
I
I
I
I
I
1*
I
I
1I
I
1990
1993
Figure 14: Peak Count of Fall Chinook Spawning in Jim Hunt Creek.
Basin land ownerships with corresponding zoning or land allocations are
shown below.
58
Table 20: Jim Hunt Creek Land Use Data.
Basin Road Mileage:
USFS Ownership:
27%
Private Ownership:
BLM Ownership:
7%
Percent Harvested:
?%
Percent Harvested:
Land Allocations
Matrix:
Withdrawn:
21%
79%
0%
Land Zoning
Forest/Grazing:
Timber
Residential
21 mil
66%
? % (High)
0%
100%
0%
Possible restoration activities within the basin include planting conifers
in harvested riparian areas, storm proofing the existing road system, and
monitoring the effectiveness of instream structures placed by ODFW.
ODFW spawning surveys for fall chinook.
Data Gaps/Needs:
Stream habitat surveys.
Stream temperature/water quality monitoring.
Road system and condition survey.
Macroinvertebrate sampling.
H. Saunders Creek
Saunders Creek is a southern tributary that enters the mainstem Rogue
at river mile 2.8, within the estuary. The drainage basin is completely privately
owned (see Table 22 below).
Riparian cover in the lower reaches is good although the channel is
deficient in large wood. No information is available on stream temperatures. No
comprehensive information is available on management history and stability.
The primary geologic substrate within the basin is the Dothan formation.
Beaulieu and Hughes (1976) identified approximately 20 percent of the basin as
being earthflow and slump topography. These areas are inherently unstable and
management activities should be tailored accordingly. The primary area of
earthflow and slump terrain is along both sides of the channel for
approximately 60% of Its length. There are also small isolated areas in the
headwaters.
There is anecdotal evidence that the low gradient reaches of Saunders
Creek once supported relatively large runs of anadromous fish. The lower part
of the basin has significant residential development while the headwaters have
59
all been harvested by private landowners and timber companies. Rearing
habitat is limited in the low gradient reaches. An eroded culvert outlet beneath
Jerry's Flat Road was a fish barrier for a number of years. This culvert was
recently upgraded to allow fish passage.
Table 21: Saunders Creek Fish Data.
MILES OF POPULATION
FISH SPECIES
HABIT *
TRENDS **
Decreasing
Fall Chinook
1.5
Winter Steelhead
2
?
Sea-run Cutthroat
2
?
Resident Trout
3?
Source: * (Confer, 1995)
Peak spawning count data by ODFW for fall chinook salmon are
available since 1988. Only two years showed records of spawning chinook: 15
fish in 1988 and 1 fish in 1990.
shown below.
Saunders Creek Land Use Data.
I
Basin Road Mileage:
Table 22:
14 mi
BLM Ownership:
1%
Private Ownership:
Percent Harvested:
?%
Percent Harvested:
? % (high)
Land Zoning
Forest/Grazing:
Timber
Residential
0%
90%
10%
Land Allocations
100%
Matrix:
0%
Withdrawn:
0%
99%
Possible restoration within the basin includes restoring riparian
vegetation and function in residential and harvested areas, adding instream
complexity for rearing habitat, and storm proofing the existing road system. More habitat, population and land use information is necessary to prioritize
any other restoration.
ODFW spawning surveys.
60
Data Gaps/Needs:
Habitat surveys.
Temperature/water quality information.
III. Edson Creek
Edson Creek is a northern tributary that enters the mainstem Rogue at
river mile 4.6. The drainage basin is completely privately owned (see Table 24
below).
Edson Creek is unique in the lower Rogue system in that the topography
of the subwatershed is relatively flat. The lowest reach of the creek passes
through flat alluvial deposits of the Rogue. This area is primarily used for
grazing cattle. The upper portions of the basin are comprised of primarily
second growth fir and rolling meadows over serpentine substrate.
Riparian cover in the lower reaches is poor due to grazing. Some alder
and brush line the channel but thermal protection is limited. Although no
water temperature information is available, summer temperatures are likely a
problem. The stream channel is narrow and deep and has multiple areas with
vertical, unstable banks; rearing habitat is limited as a result.
Due primarily to the low gradient of the channel, ODFW considers
Edson Creek to have good potential to support coho. There are anecdotal
reports of coho use in recent history, but no systematic spawning surveys have
ever been conducted. Historical chinook usage is considered to be low. The
STEP program released unfed coho fry into Edson Creek in the mid-1980's with
no success.
Table 23: Edson Creek Fish Data.
FISH SPECIES
________
______
________
MILES OF POPULATION
HABIT *
Coho
Winter Steelhead
Sea-run Cutthroat
Resident Trout
5
~ax~fl~P. *
I
TRENDS
2
2__
?
2
2
?
I
shown below.
61
Table 24: Edson Creek Land Use Data.
Basin Road Mileage:
Basin Acreage: 3040 ac
Private Ownership:
USFS Ownership:
0%
13 mi
100%
Percent Harvested:
N/A
Percent Harvested:
40%±
Land Allocations
Matrix:
Withdrawn:
N/A
N/A
N/A
Land Zoning
Forest/Grazing:
Timber
Residential
80%
0%
20%
Possible restoration within the basin Includes restoring riparian
vegetation and function with fencing and plantings in the lower reaches and
adding channel complexity for rearing in the low gradient reaches. More
habitat, population and land use information is necessary to prioritize any
other restoration.
None
Data Gaps/Needs:
Habitat surveys.
Spawning surveys.
Macroinvertebrate sampling.,
IV. Indian Creek
Indian Creek is a southern tributary that enters the mainstem Rogue at
river mile 1.3, within the estuary. The drainage basin is completely privately
owned (see Table 26 below).
No information is currently available on management related activities in
the upper basin. The stream does have high suspended sediment and bed load
during large storms, so stability may be an issue upstream. Beaulieu and
Huges (1976) identified approximately 25 percent of the basin, primarily in the
south-west corner, as being earthflow and slump topography. These areas are
inherently unstable and management activities should be tailored accordingly.
Anadromous fish passage is blocked at mile 0.5 by a water diversion dam
constructed in the late 1800's. Riparian cover in the lower reaches is poor due
to residential and recreational development. Some alder and brush line the
channel in the lower reaches but topography provides considerable shade. No
62
information is available on summer temperatures. The stream channel is
relatively steep and velocities below the hatchery are high. There is limited
pool habitat and no large wood.
Some wild chinook may spawn in Indian Creek below the blockage
although most returning adults are hatchery fish. The hatchery had over 200
fall chinook return to spawn in the winter of 1994. Winter steelhead and searun cutthroat also use Indian Creek; their historic range was reduced by the
construction of the diversion structure.
Table 25: Indian Creek Fish Data.
FISH SPECIES
MILES OF
HABIT*
POPULATION
TRENDS
Fall Chinook
0.5
?
Winter Steelhead
0.5
?
Sea-run Cutthroat
0.5
?
Resident Trout (Exclusive)
2.5
2
Source: * (Confer, 1995)
shown below.
Table 26: Indian Creek Land Use Data.
Basin Acreage:
2670 ac
Basin Road Mileage:
16 mi
BLM Ownership:
10%
Private Ownership:
90%
Percent Harvested:
? %
Percent Harvested:
?%
Land Zoning
Forest/Grazing:
Timber
Residential/Recrea
75%
20%
5%
Land Allocations
Matrix:
Withdrawn:
100%
0%
0%
Possible restoration within the basin includes restoring riparian
vegetation and function with plantings in the lower reaches, removing the
unstable road fill just below the diversion structure, storm proofing the
existing road system and replacing the failing diversion structure to provide
flow to the hatchery while allowing fish passage. More habitat, population and
land use information is necessary to prioritize any other restoration.
63
None
Data Gaps/Needs:
Habitat surveys.
Spawning surveys.
V. Silver Creek
Silver Creek is a northern tributary that enters the mainstem Rogue at
river mile 14.4. The drainage basin is predominantly privately owned (see Table
28 below).
Private land within the basin is heavily roaded and has seen intensive
timber harvest activities. No stability information is available although the
entire basin is underlain by Colebrook schist.
The USFS conducted habitat surveys in 1992, but only on the lowest
reach of the stream (publicly owned). This section of the channel has a well
developed hardwood canopy in the riparian area. In 1993 the 7-day average
high stream temperature recorded at the mouth of Silver Creek was 67.4'F. This
is considered to be with the range of less than optimal for fish but well below
the lethal limit (USDA, 1993). Several in-stream structures were added by the
USFS in the mid- 1980's and the majority are still functional. Rearing habitat
is limited above the USFS boundary.
Silver Creek currently supports coho salmon. No spawning data is
available for any of the fish species present.
Table 27: Silver Creek Fish Data.
FISH SPECIES
MILES OF POPULATION
HABIT
Fall Chinook
Coho
1?
3
Winter Steelhead
Sea-run Cutthroat
Resident Trout (Exclusive)
3
3
4
*
TRENDS
?
Source: * USFS Gold Beach District Fish Distribution Map. (Confer, 1995).
64
shown below.
Table 28:
Silver Creek Land Use Data.
Basin Acreage:
6170 ac
Basin Road Mileage:
USFS Ownership:
BLM Ownership:
5%
10%
Private Ownership:
Percent Harvested:
?%
Percent Harvested:
Land Allocations
Matrix:
67%
Late Succ. Reserves: 33%
Withdrawn:
0%
Land Zoning
Forest/Grazing:
Timber
Residential
37 mi
80%
? %(High)
0%
100%
0%
Possible restoration within the basin includes inter-planting conifers in
the riparian area, adding instream complexity for rearing habitat, inventorying
and storm proofing the existing road network and monitoring the effectiveness
of the instream structures placed by the USFS. More information is needed on
stream channel and riparian conditions on the private land.
USFS stream habitat survey for federal lands, 1992
Data Gaps/Needs:
Habitat surveys of private lands.
Spawning surveys.
65
CHAPTER V
WATERSHED HEALTH STRATEGY
I. GENERAL
While the actual health of the Lower Rogue watershed is dependent on
countless components, the watershed health strategy to be employed by the
council has but three components: Land owner and public education,
protection of remaining high quality habitat, and watershed level restoration.
Any approach that does not incorporate all three of these components is likely
to be unsuccessful over the long term. Due to the geographic location of the
watershed in relation to the remainder of the Rogue system, upstream
watershed conditions and trends (both good and bad) eventually appear in the
lower Rogue basin. As a result, a vital part of the effective implementation of
the watershed health strategy for the Lower Rogue Watershed Council is
cooperation and communication with all upstream watershed councils.
II. EDUCATION
The educational component will focus on bringing about an awareness of
current watershed conditions and trends and how these conditions are affected
by societal pressures for commodities. Although educating the community can
occur on a variety of fronts, the primary means of public outreach will be
through media coverage of council events, local school involvement, and
demonstration and interpretive projects.
The Council currently is planning to distribute educational literature on
caring for streams and aquatic systems. This project is in conjunction with the
USFS and ODFW and will target local schools and landowners within the
watershed. Additionally, a demonstration project for biotechnical bank
stabilization and an interpretive wetland viewing site are also planned for the
lower river. The USFS, in conjunction with the State and private land owners,
is currently evaluating the feasibility of an overall interpretive plan for the
entire lower Rogue River.
III. PROTECTION OF HIGH QUALITY HABITAT
Within the watershed, federal lands have assumed the responsibility of
ensuring the existence of large areas of high quality aquatic and terrestrial
habitat. Privately owned lands within the basin have been developed into
ranches, farms, urban areas, transportation corridors, and industrial forests
and are typically expected to create an economic return to the land owner. As a
result, private land owners may not have the same management options
available as federal land managers.
The Forest Ecosystem Management and Assessment Team (FEMAT)
evaluation and the President's Forest Plan recognized this condition and the
66
importance of the Lower Rogue watershed to the long term success of various
aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Consequently, Quosatana Creek, Shasta
Costa Creek, Lawson Creek, and Indigo Creek were all federally designated as
key watersheds. The vast majority of USFS land within the lower Rogue basin
is also designated as either riparian reserves, late successional reserves,
administratively withdrawn or congressionally withdrawn. These areas will not
see any significant road construction and timber harvest related activities
under the President's Forest Plan. Barring widespread, stand replacement
disturbances such as fire, the subwatersheds under federal ownership will
provide the cornerstone refugia and populations to recolonize and eventually
restore disturbed areas.
With the adoption of the new Oregon State Forest Practice Rules,
riparian areas on private lands in the watershed will receive considerably more
protection than in the past and will undoubtedly benefit aquatic life in the
associated streams.
IV. WATERSHED RESTORATION
Watershed restoration is an attempt to recover damaged ecosystems
faster than they would actually do so themselves. While individual restoration
projects are very specific, they must be part of a comprehensive approach that
attempts to address the entire ecosystem and/or watershed. It quickly becomes
obvious that some types of restoration that are desirable may not be feasible
due to fiscal constraints. Practical restoration must start by identifying all
restoration needs, then sifting through these for the most important processes
of concern. Next such factors as treatabilty, cost effectiveness, funding
expectations, management constraints, and socio-political considerations
must be applied to arrive at the best implementable program (FEMAT, 1993).
General guidelines to determine the suitability of a particuar restoration
activity are as follow (Adapted from FEMAT, 1993):
- Restoration projects should be preceded by a watershed assessment.
- Projects should provide a broad range of benefits to terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems.
- Projects should address causes of degradation rather than symptoms.
- Projects should have a well defined life span.
- Completed projects should be self-sustaining, requiring minimum
maintenance or operation.
- Projects should contribute to the restoration of historic composition
and biodiversity of ecosystems, and bring disturbance regimes back
into the range of natural variability.
67
- Projects should restore linkages between refugia and other isolated
habitat units.
- Projects should integrate watershed protection, including adjustment
or cessation of management practices responsible for the habitat
degradation.
Within this context, restoration activies on federal lands will primarily
focus on identifying and correcting existing and potential sources of
degradation from past management activities. Restoration on the private lands
will focus more on speeding recovery of damaged systems and implementing
land use activities more conducive to ecosystem health. It must be pointed out
that watershed restoration within any ownership is not mitigation for the
continuation of damaging land use practices.
General restoration opportunities and their effects on associated
watershed resource values are shown below in Table 29 *.
Table 29: General Restoration Opportunities.
WATERSHED VALUES
PROJECTS
TOPICS
All Projects Contribute
Commodity
Amenity
Scenery
Decomission Roads
Restore View Points
Public Use
Recreation
Upgrade Recreation Facilities
Terrestrial Environmental
Quality
Vegetation
Eradicate Non-Natives
Control POC Root Disease
Vegetation Management
Prescribed Burns, Thinning
Disturbance Frequency
Maintain Meadow Habitat
Aquatic Environmental
Quality
Landslide and Erosion
Large Wood Supply
Stream Temperatures
Streamflow
Fish Habitat
* Adapted
Storm Proof Roads
Plant Conifers
Plant Conifers, Hardwoods
Storm Proof Roads
Stabilize Road Drainage
Storm Proof Roads
Stabilize Road Drainage
Plant Conifers
Install Structures
from (USDA, 1994).
Of the five watershed resource values listed above, the primary
restoration focus of the Lower Rogue Watershed Council will be directed toward
aquatic ecosystem health. The types of restoration treatments affecting the
aquatic ecosystem generally fall into three categories: Hillslope restoration,
riparian area restoration, and stream channel restoration.
68
Hillslope Restoration - Hillslope restoration consists of activities such
as upgrading roads to control and prevent erosion, deommissioning or
obliteration of unneeded or unstable roads, and controlling erosion on bare
slopes or areas where soils have become impoverished.
An inventory of the existing road network and stream crossings is the
precursor to any hillslope restoration. This process must identify the past,
present, and potential future effects of each road on the terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems. This process has been initiated on federal lands as part of the
President's Forest Plan, and to a much lesser extent on private lands.
Potential for hillslope restoration exists throughout the basin. Heavily
roaded basins within suspect geologic substrates such as Lobster Creek will
receive primary focus. Specific hillslope restoration activities for various
tributaries are described more completely in Chapter IV, Subwatershed
Assessment.
Riparian Area Restoration - Planting, thinning and other vegetation
management in degraded riparian areas to restore the natural succession of
riparian plant communities is necessary for restoring sustainable salmonid
habitat (FEMAT, 1993). Restoration prescriptions most applicable to the lower
Rogue are fencing, interplanting multiple species of native conifers among
even-aged riparian hardwoods such as alder, thinning to promote growth and
vigor of riparian trees, and planting on disturbed areas such as streamside
landslides, hot-burned streamside areas, skid trails, landings, degraded
meadows, etc.
Fencing of the riparian area is primarily an issue on Edson Creek and
the lower mainstem. Most of the lower tributaries on private lands have
simplified vegetative structures in need of conifer interplantings. Both
hardwood and conifer plantings are necessary in the low gradient, aggraded
reaches in many tributaries such as Quosatana Creek, Shasta Costa Creek,
and Lawson Creek to provide shade and bank stabilization. Specific riparian
area restoration activities for various tributaries are described more completely
in Chapter IV, Subwatershed Assessment.
Stream Channel Restoration - In-stream restoration activities that are
based on accurately interpreted watershed, stream, and biological processes
and deficiencies can be an important component of an overall progam of
restoring fish habitats. In-stream restoration measures are inherently shortterm and must be implemented within the context of a comprehensive, longterm restoration and protection strategy (FEMAT, 1993).
Stream channel restoration projects were commonplace in the mid1980's. These projects, primarily on federal land, had varying levels of success.
The basin has not had a sizeable storm since the placement of many of these
structures. Recently, ODFW and John Hancock Insurance have collaborated
on projects on Jim Hunt Creek and Lobster Creek to add habitat complexity to
the channels. While the need exists for stream channel restoration within the
69
lower reaches of several tributaries, future in-stream structures will only be
implemented after a complete and specific biological and physical evaluation of
the subwatershed in question. Specific stream channel restoration
opportunities for various tributaries are described more completely in Chapter
IV, Subwatershed Assessment.
70
CHAPTER VI
MONITORING PLAN
(Adapted From Coquille Watershed Association)
I. BACKGROUND
The Lower Rogue Watershed Council will be coordinating activities among many
individuals, organizations and agencies and will be helping these groups vie for public
moneys to address resource management issues. Any program that spends large sums of
public money must be accountable to the public and to interest groups affected by the
program. The best way to provide that accountability is through a coordinated monitoring
program that recognizes the importance of trend and program effectiveness (cumulative)
monitoring on a basin-wide level, and defines an implementation strategy to accomplish
these kinds of monitoring. A monitoring program should include: identification of what
conditions need to be monitored; summary of existing monitoring efforts; identification of
overlaps/gaps; a strategy to address gaps, including coordination of priorities, funding, and
staff from existing agency programs; and, recommendations on achieving funding of
monitoring strategy. Following is a description of a monitoring program for the Lower
Rogue watershed.
In developing a monitoring program, a basic understanding must be reached on the
kinds of monitoring. There are at least four different and distinct kinds of monitoring
relevant to a watershed monitoring program.
Ambient monitoring provides information on current and past conditions and
trends over a broad area (sometimes called baseline or trend monitoring). This level of
monitoring looks at indicators of watershed health as measured over space and time in a
defined sub-basin or watershed. It involves collecting samples (to be analyzed for many
parameters) from a specific location on a defined schedule, usually for a period of many
years. Because of the need for an ongoing commitment of resources, this kind of
monitoring is generally done by permanently funded agencies at a limited number of sites.
For example, DEQ maintains an ambient monitoring network for water quality. This
network provides for only a few sampling locations in a given watershed. It provides
general information on the quality of water but it usually cannot provide detailed
information on subtle changes caused by an individual program or project. Other agencies
do similar kinds of monitoring for fish, range conditions, etc. This kind of monitoring is
outside the scope of a watershed association. The Council should, however, be aware of
this monitoring, provide input on sampling plan design, make use of acquired data, and
provide a coordination role for information storage and distribution.
71
Program effectiveness monitoring provides information on changes in conditions
that result from carrying out a plan of action designed to improve conditions (relevant to
specific parameters of interests; cumulative effects). This involves the collection of
samples (to be analyzed only for specific parameters of interest) from several locations
within a limited geographic area on a defined schedule for a period of a few years. This is
the only way to measure effects of action plan implementation, including groups of
projects on a cumulative basis. It does not necessarily require the establishment of many
new, dedicated monitoring sites. Data being collected by a variety of agencies for similar
purposes may be used. In most cases, however, some new sites will need to be established
(especially on or below private land) in order to evaluate change resulting from
implementation of a program of restoration and resource management activities.
Project effectiveness monitoring provides information on whether or not a
specific project resulted in the environmental change it was intended to produce. This
involves tailoring monitoring strategies to each project, but as a general rule, the
parameters of interest are easy to measure and require infrequent data collection. The
intent is primarily to monitor localized project benefits such as the re-establishment of
streamside vegetation. Site specific project benefits can often be detected within a few
months to a few years. In contrast, cumulative program benefits such as a reduction in
summer stream temperatures may take many years or decades to show improvement.
Project implementation monitoring provides information on whether or not the
elements of a project (structures, practices, seminars, etc.) were actually installed or
carried out on a previously agreed to schedule. This generally involves site visits, taking
photographs, reviewing billings and reports. Implementation monitoring is the only way
to document that grant agreements or contracts have been adhered to. If done properly,
and if some assumptions are made, it can also provide some qualitative information about
effectiveness. This is a relatively inexpensive type of monitoring.
II. MONITORING STRATEGY
Ambient Monitoring - Long term ambient monitoring is important and should
continue (or be established) to be promoted to maximize the Lower Rogue Watershed
Council's ability to document watershed conditions and contributions to improvements as
a result of Council activities. Since conducting ambient monitoring is outside the scope
and ability of the Council, agencies and organizations that have historically done long
term trend monitoring will be encouraged to continue these activities. In this regard, the
Council can play an important role by contributing to program direction and giving
support to agency requests for budgets to continue long term monitoring.
Program Effectiveness Monitoring - Program effectiveness needs to be
coordinated with the organizations and agencies presently doing ambient monitoring. The
Lower Rogue Wateshed Council needs to become involved in and provide input to their
program of work for this reason.
72
Project Implementation and Effectiveness - Project implementation and
effectiveness monitoring provides a role of illustrating and documenting the success of
projects implemented as a result of activities associated with the Council. Project
monitoring provides a means by which individual land owners and organizations can prove
to themselves and interested parties that they have indeed made a difference. For these
reasons implementation and effectiveness monitoring for individual projects should be
promoted in such a way that individuals and organizations can document the results of
their projects without these efforts being excessively burdensome, either through time or
expense. Examples of project monitoring that would be acceptable would be photo
documentation, and plant, animal and pool counts. Copies of these monitoring efforts
should be maintained by both the individual(s) associated with the project and in a
centralized location that can be managed by the Council.
The following information is provided to assist in the identification of appropriate
monitoring of projects. Monitoring design will vary per project based upon the project
goals. The parties responsible for monitoring will also vary per individual site proposal.
As a result, monitoring commitments and what entity the information will be reported to
will be identified in detail on individual project applications. Monitoring plans need not be
elaborate but should answer the following questions:
*
What are the monitoring objectives?
*
What agencies and/or persons will conduct the monitoring? Specific
responsibilities? Phone number or address? Who receives the data?
*
What parameters will be monitored? On what frequency? How long?
*
What are the proposed number and locations of monitoring sites?
*
In what form and at what location will the data be stored?
*
Where data quality assurance measures are required, identify measures to be taken
such as replicate sampling and instrument calibration?
III. MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION
Project Effectiveness Monitoring. Physical or "on-the-ground" restoration
projects will be in place for years. The Council will need to keep this perspective when
selecting monitoring parameters. This guidance focuses on monitoring conducted within
the stream channel and/or riparian zone, but these concepts are applicable to upland sites.
These kinds of project often require years or decades to fully achieve their goals.
Monitoring is our only means for measuring progress and determining project success.
The equipment needs of most monitoring methods are generally quite minimal (e.g.
73
measuring tape and rod), but they require trained personnel and consistency in application.
There are three main criteria that may assist in parameter selections:
1. Applicability to the projects objectives.
2. Objectivity and ability to detect change.
3. Cost and labor requirements.
Photo documentation is an important component for any project which will
produce visible changes in the environment. The establishment of set photo points
increases the value of photographic data. Permanent markers make excellent reference
points for long-term photo documentation. For example, a marker on the bank can be
used as a reference point for a cross-channel photo. A tape stretched between opposing
markers can be used to locate a reference point for upstream and downstream photos.
This site-specific information needs to be recorded when the photo point is established.
All photos M!UST be dated.
Following are examples of restoration objectives and the parameters and/or
methods that should be considered for monitoring. All work will be approved by and in
coordination with the landowner.
1) Riparian restoration:
Define who and how stocking surveys will be done. Survival of plantings will be
monitored by landowners and/or agency personnel on an annual basis and follow up
treatment will occur as needed utilizing volunteers, landowners, or agency resources as
funding allows, until the outlined survival goals are achieved.
Water quality monitoring will target stream temperatures and flow. Evaluation
will occur on a yearly basis during the summer months at selected sites as continued
staffing allows. Long term monitoring may be included in landowner agreements. This
information will be compared to established baseline data to evaluate temperature
reductions.
Canopy coverage/shading will be measured by densiometer at the time of project
implementation to document baseline conditions. These conditions will be monitored on a
regular basis (annually, every three or every five years.
2) Riparian Planting Protection:
Protection of newly planted riparian areas will be accomplished by whatever means
may be necessary including fencing and individual tree protection. Riparian protection
shall be deemed a success if a healthy and diverse riparian area is protected during
establishment and through the time specified in the landowner permission document.
74
3) Off Channel Habitat:
Seeding levels and spawning surveys will be generated at selected sites on a yearly
basis to determine resource use of this habitat component. Water quality monitoring at
these project sites should include dissolved oxygen, temperature, turbidity, and flows.
4) Instream Structure:
Selected instream structures will be inspected to determine resulting functions.
Any changes in structure will be documented including recruitment of woody debris and
sedimentation. Follow up habitat surveys will document changes in pool riffle ratios
within restored watersheds and instream fish counts will document fish usage around these
structures. Water quality monitoring parameters should include temperature, flow, and
turbidity.
5) Upland Vegetation:
Status of upland vegetation will provide a landscape perspective of changes in
plant community structure and diversity.
VI. DATA COORDINATION
The following units of measure will be utilized for tracking and recording
restoration projects implemented within the Lower Rogue Watershed. This information
should be provided on a sub basin as well as basin scale. All units will be defined to the
nearest 0.10, unless otherwise specified.
1. Fencing: linear miles per drainage.
2. Off channel stock watering: number of sites developed per drainage.
3. Planting:
hardwoods/acre, total acres per drainage.
* conifers/acre, total acres per drainage.
* shrubs/acre, total acres per drainage
* stream miles per drainage of riparian diversification
. techniques.
* live-staking/acre, total acres per drainage.
4. Riparian setbacks: acres/stream mile, total acres per drainage.
75
5. Instream structures: structures/mile, total structures per drainage.
* log weirs.
* boulder deflectors.
* scour structures.
* cover structures.
6. Off-channel alcoves:
* number/size, total structures per drainage.
* sediment removal, cubic yards (cy) per project, cy per drainage
7. Pool development:
* total projects per drainage.
* sediment removal, cy per project, cy per drainage.
8. Culvert treatment:
number of culverts treated per drainage.
* miles of stream reach opened to fish.
9. Road treatment: sediment prevented from entering stream channel, cubic yards
per project, cubic yards per drainage
10. Soil bio-engineering (resloping, willow waddles, rock barbs etc.):
* acres/stream mile
* total acres per drainage
* miles of roads and skid trails stabilized
* acres of erosion control initiated
76
CHAPTER VII
PUBLIC INVOLVMENT STRATEGY
The mission of the Lower Rogue Watershed Council is to help foster, develop and
coordinate a basin-wide approach to resource planning and management so as to protect,
enhance and restore the natural resources of the basin. The only conceivable way to
accomplish this goal is to enlist broad public support and involvement. In order to educate
the land owners and the general public in a non-threatening way about watershed
restoration, a multi faceted approach will be employed.
The first component of the public involvement strategy is to encourage public
attendance at watershed council meetings. People in the community need to become more
knowlegeable of the council and its purpose. This will be accomplished using local radio
and newspapers to advertise council activities and accomplishments. Additionally, the
Lower Rogue Watershed Council, in concert with the Coos and Coquille Associations and
the Southcoast Council, will develop a newsletter to be printed and distributed by local
newspapers. The articles within this newsletter will be suitable as "stand alone"
information pieces on individual subjects. The council will also continue to utilize existing
technical information delivery systems such as the OSU Extension Service and the Natural
Resource Conservation Service.
The second component of the public involvement strategy is to contact landowners
within the watershed and assess their willingness to participate in restoration projects. This
can initially be accomplished by mailing flyers or by contacting local landowner
associations, but personal contact by telephone and field visits will be most effective. It
must be made clear to the landowners that the council will not engage in any activity that
may limit control of their land.
The third component of the public involvement strategy is to showcase successful
restoration efforts within the watershed. This is the best method for displaying the
effectiveness of the council. The local newspaper will be the primary avenue for
disseminating this information.
The final component is to provide educational opportunities for the local schools
and general public. This will be accomplished through establishment of interpretive
displays at appropriate projects, distribution of educational literature, and solictiation of
student and teacher volunteers for participation in project development, implementation,
and monitoring.
77
CHAPTER VIII
MECHANISM FOR UPDATING THE ASSESSMENT
I. BACKGROUND
Watershed Action Plans are "living" documents, subject to change as new
information becomes available through monitoring and assessment, and as projects are
completed. Revisions of the Action Plan will be brought before SWMG at planned
intervals or as updates and amendments are made. In addition, novel or problematic
projects may be directly referred to SWMG.
II. NEW INFORMATION
Improved information on the condition of the watershed and actions required will
accumulate continually. The watershed coordinator will be responsible for storing or
being knowledgeable about the location of such information. As watershed analyses and
other watershed-level information are generated, this information will be analyzed by the
Technical Advisory Group and the coordinator, which will make recommendations to the
Council. Additional information will be available from a variety of sources, such as federal
agencies (as watershed analyses mandated by FEMAT), state natural resources agencies,
private interest groups, large industrial landowners, and other groups. On a voluntary and
cooperative basis this knowledge will also serve as a basis for an update. All council
members will be responsible for reviewing research publications and other sources and
providing the coordinator with references or copies of pertinent documents.
New information needs to be included in the watershed action plan at all levels,
especially the working assessment and watershed health strategy. This will be a fixed
discussion item at the periodic Technical Advisory Group meetings. The watershed
coordinator will be responsible for accumulating information that will be used to update
the Action Plan.
III. COUNCIL APPROVAL PROCESS
The Council must reach concensus on all proposed changes to the Action Plan.
IV. SCHEDULED UPDATES
One annual update will be scheduled. A timeline for review and approval of this
update will be set such that it can be done at the February SWMG meeting. Interim
updates will be scheduled to take advantage of funding opportunities or important new
information.
78
REFERENCES
Beaulieu, John D.; Hughes, P.W. 1976. Bulletin 90: Land use geology of
western Curry County. State of Oregon Department of Geology and
Mineral Industries. Portland, Oregon.
Beschta, R.L.; Bilby, R.E.; Brown, G.W.; HoItby, L.B.; Hofstra, T.D. 1987.
Stream temperature and aquatic habitat: Fisheries and forestry
interactions. In: Salo, E.O.; Cundy, T.W., eds. Forestry and Fisheries
Interactions. Contributuion Number 57. Seattle, Washington: University
of Washington, Institue of Forest Resources.
Bisson, P.A.; Bilby, R.E.; Bryant, M.D.; Dolloff, C.A.; Grette, G.B.; House,
R.A.; Murphy, M.L.; Koski, K.V.; Sedell, J.R. 1987. Large woody debris in
forested streams in the Pacific Northwest: Past, present, and future. In:
Salo, E.O.; Cundy, T.W., eds. Forestry and Fisheries Interactions.
Contributuion Number 57. Seattle, Washington: University of
Washington, Institue of Forest Resources.
Confer, Todd. 1995. Personal communication. Assistant district biologist,
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Southwest Region. Gold Beach,
Oregon.
Curry County. 1990. Curry County comprehensive plan. Curry County, Oregon.
Fustish, C.A.; Satterthwaite, T.P.; MacLeod, J.R.; Unterwegner, T.; Haight,
D.R.; Nemeth, D.; Mullen, B. 1993. Rogue basin fish management plan Draft. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, Oregon.
FEMAT. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: An ecological, economic, and
social assessment. Final report of the Forest Ecosystem Management
and Assessment Team.
Frissell, C.A.; Liss, W.J. 1986. Classification of stream habitat and watershed
systems in south coastal Oregon, and an assessment of land use
impacts. Progress report prepared for Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife. Oak Creek Laboratory of Biology, Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife, Oregon State University. Corvallis, Oregon.
Hume, R.D. 1893. Salmon of the pacific coast.
Nehlsen, W.; Williams, J.E.; Lichatowich, J.A. 1991. Pacific salmon at the
crossroads: Stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and
Washington. Fisheries. Volume 16. Number 2.
79
Nickelson, T.E.; Nicholas, J.W.; McGie, A.M.; Lindsay, R.B.; Bottom, D.L.;
Kaiser, R.J.; Jacobs, S.E. 1992. Status of anadromous salmonids in
Oregon coastal basins. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Portland, Oregon.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1988. Oregon statewide
assessment of nonpoint sources of water pollution. Portland, Oregon.
Oregon Water Resources Department. 1985. Rogue River basin study. Salem,
Oregon.
Unterwegner, T.; Nemeth, D.; Confer, T. 1994. Fish management review.
Southwest Region. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland,
Oregon.
USDA Forest Service. 1979. Siskiyou National Forest soil resource inventory.
Siskiyou National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon.
USDA Forest Service. 1989. Final environmental impact statement: Land and
resource management plan. Siskiyou National Forest. Pacific Northwest
Region. Portland, Oregon.
USDA Forest Service. 1991. Final environmental impact statement: Shasta
Costa timber sales and integrated resource projects. Siskiyou National
Forest. Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon.
USDA Forest Service. 1992. Draft environmental impact statement:
Quosatana/ Bradford timber sales and integrated resource projects.
Siskiyou National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon.
USDA Forest Service. 1993. 1993 Temperature monitoring report for the Rogue
River basin. Siskiyou National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region.
Portland, Oregon.
USDA Forest Service. 1994. Elk River watershed analysis. Sisklyou National
Forest. Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery plan for the Northern Spotted
Owl - Draft. Portland, Oregon.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. A preliminary analysis of the Rogue
Frontal West watershed analysis unit. Glendale Resource Area. Medford
District. Medford, Oregon.
80
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LINKAGES TO EXISTING PROGRAMS
Below is a list of cooperating agencies and programs generally involved in
watershed level restoration. Although the focus of each organization varies, each possess
valuable insights and information on the condition of particular aspects of the watershed.
In order to maintain the restoration momentum begun by the USFS and ODFW, the
Lower Rogue Watershed Council will work to coordinate this wide array of existing
restoration programs across ownerships in order to promote a basin wide focus.
Interagency and interprogram coordination has been initiated and will be invaluable to
accomplishing the proposed restoration efforts.
*
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest
Service (USFS)
*
US Army Corps of Engineers
*
Oregon Division of State Lands
*
Oregon Water Resources Department
*
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
*
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW).
*
Salmon Trout Enhancement Program (STEP).
*
Natural Resource Conservation Service.
*
Curry County Soil and Water Conservation District (CSWCD).
*
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS).
*
Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF).
*
Bring Back the Natives.
*
Port of Gold Beach.
*
Oregon State University Extension (OSU), Sea Grant.
*
Oregon State Department of Agriculture (ODA).
81
*
Curry Anadromous Fishermen.
*
Curry County.
*
The Presidents Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team
(FEMAT)
*
Coastal Zone Management Act - 6217 (CZMA).
*
Governors Watershed Enhancement Board (GWEB).
*
South Coast Coordinating Watershed Council.
82
APPENDIX B
REVIEW OF PERTINENT REGULATIONS
Different state and federal agencies are required by statutes to regulate activities
such as archaeological disturbances, confined animal feed lots, and activities that affect
the waters of Oregon and the United States. An important and necessary component of
watershed restoration and enhancement work will be identifying pertinent statutes and the
associated regulatory agencies and obtaining the necessary permits to conduct restoration
and enhancement activities.
Permits are required for activities such as removal or dredging and fill of waters,
wetlands and waterways. Watershed restoration or enhancement work requires any of
several permits prior to beginning work beyond the planning stages. Removal-Fill permits
for dredging and fill of waterways and wetlands are regulated by the Division of State
Lands (DSL) and The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). A separate permit process
is involved though it may be a joint permit. Send a copy of the application to each agency.
Public review is a statutory requirement for individual permit approval. A
Nationwide Permit issued by the COE does not have to go out for public review; thus, the
approval is faster. However, the decision for individual or nationwide permit process is
made by the COE.
According to the details of the project, contact the regulatory agency listed below
for an application and a packet of information. The packet will contain examples of what
details are expected in the application, especially for Removal-Fill applications. Follow
the instructions in the packet to the letter, or expect delays. Apply and pay fees upon
request to the agency. Do not begin work in the field without approval of permits.
Permits contain special conditions within which work is to be conducted. Follow these
conditions. By law, approved Removal-Fill permits should be displayed on the work site.
The following State and/or Federal agencies issue permits (some include fees) that
may be required prior to beginning any work in waters of the state:
The Division of State Lands (DSLQ. Environmental Planning and Permits Section. 775
Summer Street NE. Salem 97310: phone (503) 378-3805 _
*
Prior to conducting excavation or fill activities (this includes in-stream structures,
logs, and boulders, but see Fish Habitat Enhancement below) in any waters of the
state of Oregon, you will be required to submit an application for a removal-fill
permit from the Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) if the materials to be
removed or for fill in waters of the state (wetlands included) exceed fifty (50)
cubic yards. The threshold for the number of cubic yards may be far less for the
COE permits. This review and approval process could take from 90 to 120 days.
83
Permits include special conditions for work with time limits for work in-stream. If
the area has endangered species, then special conditions will apply. There are
several different types of removal-fill permits for which to apply depending on the
proposed project: the removal-fill permit and two (2) types of General
authorizations. General authorizations are free of charge and include wetland
enhancement/ restoration, and fish habitat enhancement. Be advised that removal
activities are within an annual limit, but fill activities are cumulative over the years.
For an overview of the Oregon Revised Statutes pertaining to these issues see
ORS 196.800-196.990. For more information contact: DSL.
*
Any removal or fill activities in Oregon Scenic Waterways have to be approved by
the State Land Board. Most state Scenic Waterways overlap with the Federal
Wild and Scenic Waterways; thus, requiring approval from the managing agency.
This review and approval process could take 120 days or more. If the work
consists of fish habitat enhancement and an Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife
representative is the applicant for the General Authorization, then Land Board
approval is not necessary. For an overview of the Oregon Revised Statutes
pertaining to these issues see ORS 390.805-390.925. For more information
contact DSL.
*
If the overall project is designed for fish habitat enhancement, then only a Fish
Habitat Enhancement General Authorization is required unless the total volume of
materials used for fill or to be removed from waters of the state exceeds one
hundred (100) cubic yards per individual site. Contact DSL or Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Submit a completed form. This review and
approval process could take up to three weeks, but is usually sooner. If the
number of cubic yards of materials exceeds one hundred (100) per site, then a
regular Removal/Fill permit is required from DSL.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). RegulatorU and Resource Planning Branch.
Attn.: CENNP-PE-RP. PO Box 2946. Portland 97208-2946. phone (503) 326-6995.
*
The U.S. Congress has given the Corps the responsibilities under sections 404 of
the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for
regulation of construction and other work conducted in the waters of the United
States. A permit may be required for any excavation and fill activities in navigable
waters of the United States, or for the placement of any structure in waters of the
United States. This includes coastal and inland waters. Permits are required even
when land next to or under the water is privately owned. Both the property owner
and contractor may be held liable for violation of Federal law if work begins before
permits have been obtained. Typical activities that require a permit are the
following:
*
Construction of such structures as piers, wharves, bulkheads, dolphins, marinas,
ramps and floats.
84
*
Placement of wires and cables over the water, pipes or cables under the water, and
intake and outfall pipes.
*
Dredging, excavation and depositing of fill and dredged material.
*
Transport of dredged material for the purpose of dumping into ocean waters.
*
Any construction of revetments, groins, breakwaters, levees, dams, dikes, tide
gates and weirs.
*
*
Placement of riprap and building site fills. For more information contact: the COE.
Any project requiring a federal permit or license also requires under section 401 of
the Clean Water Act a certification by the State of Oregon as issued by the
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). This process is initiated under the
DSL-COE joint Removal/Fill permit.
Additional statutes that affect the COE regulatory policy decisions are:
*
Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
regulates transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping into ocean
waters.
*
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 defines the national policy for
encouragement of productive harmony between man and his environment, as
evaluated through Environmental Impact Statements.
*
Under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the Corps coordinates efforts with U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
*
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires coordination to insure protection of
endangered species. The Corps coordinates with U. S Fish and Wildlife Service
and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service whenever a waterway or area with
threatened and endangered species are involved. Under the Endangered Species
Act, an applicant is required to demonstrate that the proposed project will have no
adverse effects on the threatened or endangered species; otherwise the permit is
denied.
*
Under the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, any dredging or fill
activities in these designated areas also (COE approval too) require approval of the
Federal agency that manages the area: i.e., U.S. Forest Service, or Bureau of Land
Management. There are about 40 river segments designated in Oregon.
85
*
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 requires that activities comply with and be
certified by a local coastal zone management program. The Department of Land
Conservation and Development determines whether the local program is consistent
with the Federal law.
*
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires coordination on matters
concerning historic and archaeological preservation
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) office; or DEQ. Water Quality Division.
Standards and Assessments Section. 811 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland. 97204: phone
(503) -229-5279.
*
If five (5) or more acres are disturbed for construction, then a National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit may be required under Section
402(b) of the Clean Water Act. This review and approval process could take
about two weeks. For more information contact: nearest regional DEQ office; or
the DEQ, Water Quality Division.
Water Resources Department (WRD). Commerce Building. 158 12th. Street NE. Salem.
OR 973 10-0210. (503) 378-8455. or Water Master (WRD) or regional office (1-800-6243199).
*
A permit from the Water Resources Department is required to appropriate waters
of the State of Oregon. To appropriate means to pump, store, or divert or
otherwise use water from ground or surface water sources. State statutes and
administrative rules may prevent or restrict new appropriation from some water
sources. This review and approval process time varies for different areas. For
more information contact: the nearest Water Master or regional office (1-800624-3199).
Local Planner, contact local City or County offices
*
Approval by local city or county planners for any activities in the Coastal area will
be required to meet the Coastal Zone Management Act and to insure that activities
are consistent with the local comprehensive plan. The local city or county planners
may be of assistance with these guidelines. For example, local city or county
planners review all Removal/Fill permits under current procedures; this is included
in the permit review process at the Oregon Division of State Lands. Watershed
council representatives should contribute to the local periodic review process for
land use as a method for incorporating watershed restoration and protection into
the comprehensive plan. For additional information contact the Department of
Land Conservation and Development, 1175 Court Street NE, Salem 97310-0590.
86
Oregon Department of Forestry. 2600 State Street. Salem 97310: phone (503) 9457200.
*
A plan and/or permit is required for any removal of commercial timber products
during land clearing, and related forest management activities such as road
construction for timber harvest, chemical application, slash disposal, and for the
operation of heavy equipment. This process takes about 15 days. For more
information contact: nearest District Forester; or the Salem office.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2501 SW First Ave.. P.O. Box 59,
Portland 97207: phone (503) 5403.
*
Any work requiring in-stream or in-water blasting requires a permit from ODFW.
For more information contact: the district biologist at the nearest regional office
of ODFW. Further assistance from state office in Portland is available at (503)
229-5403.
*
ODFW sets guidelines for in-water work periods for protection of fish and wildlife
resources. Guidelines are available from the ODFW, or DSL. For more
information contact: the district biologist at the nearest regional office of ODFW.
*
A Permit is required from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife if fish are to
be transported or released into any body of water, including storage reservoirs; or
for the propagation of Pacific salmon; or to release domestically raised wildlife;
or for the release of wildlife brought into the state.
*
Projects that may impact threatened and endangered animals on state lands will
require a permit from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. No fee is
required to obtain this permit. For more information contact: ODFW Habitat
Division in Portland at (503) 229-5454.
Oregon Department of Agriculture. 635 Capital Street, NE. Salem 97310: phone (503)
378-3810.
*
Projects that may impact threatened or endangered plants on state,county, or city
lands require a permit from the Oregon Department of Agriculture. Rare species
databases should be consulted prior to initiation of work to determine if additional
site inspections will be required. No fee is required to obtain this permit. For
more information contact: ODA Plant Conservation Biology Program in Salem at
(503) 986-4700.
Permits are required for Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO).
87
*
If at any time, water is diverted from a stream that does not both originate and
terminate on same single private property, then a permit for water withdrawal is
required. This is coordinated with the Water Resources Department and the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. A fee is required. For additional
information contact ODA or WXRD.
Department of Parks and Recreation. State Historic Preservation Office. 1115 Commercial
Street NE. Salem 97310-1001: phone (503) 378-6508 ext. 232
*
The staff manages the use of lands in state parks, on ocean beaches (ocean shore
permits), and in state scenic waterways ( in corporation with DSL).
*
Prior to beginning work that disturbs the ground a permit may be required from
the State Historic Preservation Office. Upon disturbance of any archaeological
artifacts the State Historic Preservation Office should be notified immediately:
*
Archaeological Sites and Historical Material: Permits and conditions for
excavation or removal of archaeological or historical material. (1) (a) A person
may not excavate or alter an archaeological site on public lands, make an
exploratory excavation on public lands to determine the presence of an
archaeological site or remove from public lands any material of an archaeological,
historical, prehistoric or anthropological nature without first obtaining a permit
issued by the State Parks and Recreation Department. Pursuant to ORS 358.920
(1) (a) A person may not knowingly and intentionally excavate, injure, destroy or
alter an archaeological object or remove an archaeological object located on public
or private lands in Oregon unless that activity is authorized by a permit issued
under ORS 390.235. For an overview of the Oregon Revised Statutes pertaining
to these issues see ORS 358.905 to 358.955; 390.235; 97.740 to 97.760; and
192.501 to 192.505.
*
Archaeological sites means a geographic locality in Oregon, including but not
limited to submerged and submersible lands, and the bed of the sea within the
state's jurisdiction, that contains archaeological objects and the contextual
associations of the archeological objects.
*
Other rules may apply as set forth by the Department of Parks and Recreation.
Contact Leland Gilsen, Department of Parks and Recreation, Salem at (503) 3786508 ext. 232 for additional information.
The Oregon Department of Transportation. State Highway Division. 135 Transportation
Bldg. Salem 97310: phone (503) 378-6546.
*
A permit may be required prior to placing any signs on State highway right-ofway.
88
.
APPENDIX C
COOPERATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING
Building understanding and networking among individuals with diverse needs
and beliefs is one of the major goals of the Lower Rogue Watershed Council. State
agencies, local governments, and concerned citizens throughout the Rogue watershed and
Oregon are being faced with complex natural resource issues which historically have been
resolved through costly and frequently combative litigation. This has led to increased
polarization of interests and less communication and negotiation. Resolving disputes
through channels other than litigation promotes the understanding and networking among
individuals in the watershed who represent diverse needs and beliefs.
The Lower Rogue Watershed Council shall make decisions on the basis of
consensus. Consensus is an agreement that is reached by identifying the interests of all
concerned parties and then building an integrative solution that maximizes satisfaction of
as many of the interests as possible. The process does not involve voting but a synthesis
and blending of solutions. Consensus does not mean unanimity in that it does not satisfy
all participant's interests equally or that each participant supports the agreement to the
same degree. Instead, consensus is considered to be the best decision for all participants
in that it addresses to some extent all interests (from Oregon Dispute Resolution
Commission).
Ways available to assist in resolving disputes about natural resource management
and public policy outside of litigation that can be used by the Council include negotiation,
mediation and facilitation. These methods of resolving disputes focus on overcoming
issues through collaborative problem solving.
I. NEGOTIATION
Negotiation is a bargaining relationship between two or more parties who have a
perceived or actual conflict. The participants join voluntarily in a temporary relationship
to educate each other about their needs and interests, exchange specific resources or
resolve one or more intangible issues such as the form their relationship will take in the
future. Negotiation can be approached from a basis of scarcity or abundance of resources
(Leritz, 1987). The former yields negotiations based on fear while the latter yields
negotiations based on understanding (Krueger, 1992). Krueger (1992) suggested that by
changing a negotiation for resources from allocation of scarcity to sharing in abundance,
we can find a way to move from limiting peoples' wants through allocation to meeting
peoples' needs through abundance of resources'. By approaching natural resources
negotiations with a philosophy of abundance and open communication among citizens
with common interests in the land, it is possible to come to a common understanding and
work toward consensus on understanding the potential of the resource.
89
II. MEDIATION
There are some instances in which the council may reach impasse in its negotiation
over natural resource issues. In such circumstances, mediation is an alternative available
for resolution of the issue. Mediation involves the use of an impartial third party to
facilitate discussion in a way that helps parties generate solutions that meet their respective
concerns. Unlike court, arbitration, or settlement conferences, the mediator does not
make decisions or impose settlement terms. The mediator, who is impartial, serves as a
third party negotiator. The advantages of mediation are:
*
*
*
*
*
*
It is fast. Many disputes are resolved in a single three hour session.
It is cost-efficient. Much less than litigation.
It is less adversarial. More time is spent on how to resolve future issues instead of
establishing the "facts" of the past.
It produces more winners. An agreement is signed only if all parties agree to its
terms.
It addresses the 'real' issues that may be driving the dispute.
It gives parties control over outcome and procedures. The parties can chose the
time, place, ground rules and the mediator.
ILL. FACILITATION
Facilitation is the use of a third party, who is impartial toward issues being
discussed, to provide procedural assistance to group participants to enhance information
exchange or promote effective decision-making. Facilitation can assist in negotiated rulemaking sessions, administration, multi-party discussions and intergovernmental relations.
The facilitator does not necessarily help the parties resolve issues. Instead, the facilitator
works to keep the group focused on their agenda and goals.
IV. RESOURCES AVAILABLE
The Oregon Dispute Resolution Commission is a state resource available for
resolving disputes over Watershed Health issues. The Commission's program objective is
to support the use of collaborative dispute resolution and problem solving in all aspects of
public policy development and implementation involving conflicts between public agencies
or between citizens and agencies. Oregon's Public Policy Program was established in
1990 to promote the use of means other than litigation for resolving disputes affecting the
public interest. The program provides technical assistance, training and information
services to organizations and all state and local government agencies in Oregon. The
program:
90
*
*
*
*
helps agencies and citizens evaluate cases and use the dispute resolution process as
an alternative to litigation or contested case proceedings;
helps agencies obtain the services of trained mediators or facilitators;
sponsors training seminars to improve the collaborative problem solving skills of
public employees; and
informs and educates government officials, interest groups, and the public about
alternative means for resolving their disputes.
The program's dispute resolution services may be requested by state agency
officials, local government officials, legislators and the public. The program staff can
perform one or more of the following tasks:
*
*
*
work with all parties to assess the potential for settlement;
advise parties on the most appropriate dispute resolution procedures based on the
characteristics of the dispute;
assist in selecting a qualified, impartial, third party or team of neutrals;
provide parties with grants to fund dispute resolution services; and
provide administrative and case management support until the collaborative
dispute resolution process is concluded.
More information about the Public Policy Program and the services provided can
be received at (503) 378-2877.
V. VOTING AS A LAST RESORT
If after all attempts at dispute resolution a consensus is not reached, the issue can
either be laid aside until a future date or it can be resolved by a majority vote of the
members. Because voting on issues leads to polarization and because laying an issue aside
until a future date allows individuals to synthesize information, develop an understanding
and respect for other individuals viewpoints, and generate unique alternatives to perceived
issues, the Council strongly recommends that voting be held to a minimum and as a last
resort .
VI. REFERENCES
Leritz, L. 1987. No-Fault Negotiating. Pacific Press. Portland, OR. 293 p.
Krueger, W.C. 1992. Building Concesus For Rangeland Uses. Rangelands. 14: 38-41.
Oregon Dispute Resolution Commission. 1994. Program Information.
91
APPENDIX D
BUILDING LOCAL CAPABILITIES
Although the formation of the Lower Rogue Watershed Council was initiated by
the Watershed Health Program, the Council's long term success will depend entirely on the
its ability to continue future restoration efforts independent of State guidance and
support.
The Lower Rogue Watershed council needs to become an organization where
people come to get ideas and help for resolving their resource based issues and
opportunities. The Council needs to effectively work with regulatory agencies and their
permit processes and help landowners and others accomplish their work by providing on
the ground guidance. The Council must know the general conditions within the watershed
and have a prioritized list of projects ready for implementation that will cost effectively
expend public and/or private funds. Knowledge of the availability of such funds and skill
in applying for them will be vital to the continued success of the Council. Refer to the
table below for a summary of some potential funding sources.
92
Potential Funding Sources
Agency
Program
Assistance
Recipients
Purpose
Comments
Federal
FmHA
SCS
Watershed
Protection & Flood
Protection
Loans
Resource
Conservation &
Development
Loans
Small Watershed
Program
(P.L. 566)
Municipalities,
SWCD's. Local
Nonprofit
Watershed projects
including irrigation,
flood control,
organizations
recreation, and storage
States, Counties,
Cities, & Local
Nonprofits
Water storage
facilities, water-based
recreation facilities
Technical
Assistance
and Grants
State Agencies,
Municipalities,
Districts
Planning and
construction of
projects which utilize
resources of small
Resource
Conservation &
Development
Advisory
Service and
Construction
Grants
States, Local
Governments,
Nonprofits
Rural Clean Water
Program
Direct
Payments
Private
Landowners
Agriculture
Conservation
Program
Direct
Payments
Technical
Private
Landowners
Land and water
conservation
Up to
$30,000/yr/produced.
Covers 75% of out-ofEconomic incentives for
10-year contracts.
Annual rental payment
limited to $50,000 per
Used in conjunction with
SCS's Small Watershed
Program
Used in conjunction with
SCS's Resource
Conservation and
Development Program
Covers up to 100% flood
control and up to 50% for
most other purposes
watersheds
ASCS
Flood prevention,
erosion control, waterbased recreation, fish
& wildlife
development &
Available only for RC&D
authorized areas. Pays
up to 100% for flood
control: up to 50% for
other projects. Up to
agricultural pollution
$50,000/year
To solve water
problems resulting
from agricultural non-
Cannot be used as local
cost share on Federal
projects
point surface pollution
Assistance
pocket costs
Conservation
Reserve Program
Contracts
Private
Landowners
Plant permanent
vegetative on highly
erodible cropland
Water Quality
Special Projects
Direct
Payments
Private
Landowners
Assist large water
quality projects
involving many
Emphasis on hot spots
identified by Water
Quality Board, National
participants
Competition
Water Quality
Incentive Program
Direct
Payments
Private
Landowners
operator
Direct incentives for
improvement measures,
no cost share
93
Agen
Program
Wetland Reserve
Recipients
Purpose
Cities, Counties,
Irrigation
Districts, Water
Flood control, fish &
wildlife, recreation,
irrigation, and
Districts
hydropower
Grants
Technical
Private
Landowners
Restore and/or
enhance wetlands
A ssistance
__
Assistance
Oregon
Program
USBR
Small Reclamation
Projects Act
USFW
Partners for
Comments
Not yet available in
Loans and
Grants
Cannot claim other
Federal funds as local cost
share for SRPA funding
Wildlife Program
Wetlands
Restoration
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
l
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
State
OEDD
OWRD
Regional
Strategies
Program
Water
Development
Loan Program
Governor's
Watershed
Enhancement
Program
Grant Lottery
Funds
Loans
GWEB Grants to
Districts
Grants,
Technical
Grants,
Technical
Assistance
Counties
Economic
Development
l
Municipalities
under 30,000
population
Individuals,
Municipalities,
Agencies
Irrigation or drainage
of agricultural lands.
or municipal Nvater
Watershed
improvements
Districts
Watershed
improvements
Local entities
Developing and
implementing
integrated stream
restoration plans for
subbasins
Gather data to develop
strategy and costs for
conservation project
Important to have secondary
benefits of recreation, flood
control, or hydropower
Must have potential to
improve water quality or
increase water holding
capability of stream banks;
priority given to non-state
finded
and quality improvements
Assistance
Stream
Restoration
Program
ODA
Grants,
Technical
Assistance
Grants
Planning of Soil
and Water
Conservation
Practices (SB617)
Grants
Implementation
of Soil and Water
Conservation
projects
$1,000 annually to each
district for water quantity
Soil and Water
Conservation
Districts
Pilot programs being
proposed for 1990 funding
Projects to consider erosion
control, water conservation
and development and water
quality enhancement
SWCD's
Construction & startup costs for
conservation and
development projects
Practices
94
(See above)
Agency
ODFW
[
Program
Restoration and
Enhancement
Program
[
Assistance
Grants
Green Forage
Program
General Habitat
Improvement
DEQ
Clean Water Act
Section 319
ODF
Forestry
Incentives
Program
1
Recipients
Public or private
non-profit
organization
{
Comments
Planting, seeding
Public owned and Develop or enhance
Private
habitat for wildlife
ownerships
Grants (1991
Oregon target
is $537K)
State or Federal
governmental
entities
Private. Nonindustrial
Landowners
Technical
Assistance
Stewardship
Incentive
Program
Purpose
Restore/enhance fish
production. Provide
additional public
access. Support on-theground non-point
source water quality
projects.
Grants
Woodland
Owners with 51.000 acres of
forest land
Improvement of
natural watershed and
quality of surface and
ground water
Assist in planting
forest trees and
improve production of
timber and related
forest resources
Improve land
management
Sites should have potential
for establishment or
maintenance of perennial
forage. Includes forage
seeding, tree and shrub
planting, vegetation control,
etc.
Basin must be in State's
Clean Water Strategy. 40%
non-Federal cost share
required
Ownerships of 10-1,000
acres.
Cost share up to 65 percent
of average annual cost of
practice
Ownerships of 5-1,000 acres
Cost share is 50-75 percent
and up to
$10,000/owner/year. 9
program practices including
riparian, wetland, and
fisheries protection
Regional
NPPC
(BPA)
Fish and Wildlife
Program
Direct
Payment
State and Federal
agencies and
Tribes
Blue Mt.
Ntl.
Res.Inst
Blue Mountains
Elk Initiative
Restoration
projects
Varies
95
Planning,
construction, and 0 &
M of fish and wildlife
projects
Restoration of Elk
habitat
Can be used as local cost
share on Federal projects
Partnership of 22 tribal,
governmental and private
organizations
Agency
Assistance
Recipients
Purpose
Comments
Private
Nature
Conservancy
Direct Payment
State or local
entities
Water
Heritage
Trust
Direct Payment
State or local
entities
State or local
entities
Direct Payment, Volunteer
Oregon
Trout
Assistance
Isaac Walton Volunteer Assistance
League
Rocky
Mountain
Elk
Foundation
Trout
Volunteer Assistance
Unlimited
Potential source of
funding for land
purchase
I
96
.
.
,
Planning, construction,
and 0 & M of watershed
enhancement projects.
Land and water
purchase/lease
Planning, construction,
and 0 & M of watershed
enhancement projects.
Land and water
purchase/lease
;

lower rogue river basin watershed condition assessment

Transcription

Similar documents

Slotomania Big Win - Bingo Card Game For Ipad

Lower Pen. - Great Mall 9-1-11.indd

U.S.A. - Raisin-South Nation Source Protection

Brochure - Canyon Cruise

Utah Watershed Review - Utah State University Extension

Brochure - Habitat for Zoomanity A Life Science Webquest

Building Code Training – August 30th at Burgundy Basin Inn

Fish Spawning Areas - Raisin Region Conservation Authority

Newsletter 29th May 2015 - Bull Creek Primary School