R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 1 of 31
FOREST SERVICE MANUAL
PORTLAND, OREGON
TITLE 1500 - EXTERNAL RELATIONS
R-6 Supplement No. 1500-90-12
Effective December 26, 1990
POSTING NOTICE. Supplements to this manual are numbered consecutively.
Check the last transmittal sheet received for this manual to see that the above
supplement number is in sequence. If not, obtain intervening supplement(s) at once
from the Information Center. Do not post this supplement until the missing one(s)
is received and posted. After posting, place the transmittal at the front of the title
and retain until the first transmittal of the next calendar year is received.
Document Name
Superseded New
Number of Sheets
1561-1561.9
12
31
Digest:
1561.5 - MOA between the USDA Forest Service and the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality is updated. MOA between the USDA Forest Service
and the Washington Department of Environmental Quality remains the same.
JOHN F. BUTRUILLE
Regional Forester
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 2 of 31
FSM 1500 - EXTERNAL RELATIONS
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
CHAPTER 1560 - STATE, COUNTY, AND LOCAL AGENCIES;
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS
1561.5 - Water Department (Irrigation and Flood Control).
Exhibit 1
FS #90-06-58-21
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
between the
United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region
and the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
I.
PURPOSE
In accordance with ORS 190.110, this Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is
entered into by and between the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality, hereinafter referred to as DEQ, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, hereinafter referred to as USFS, for the purpose of
delineating the responsibilities and activities to be performed by each agency
pursuant to the implementation of Oregon's nonpoint source (NPS) pollution
control program developed under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act of 1987.
The purpose of the agreement is to create a framework within which the
agencies involved can effectively cooperate on projects of mutual concern to
protect water quality statewide and to benefit the people of the State of
Oregon. The attached Action Plan describes site-specific objectives and
measures for implementing and evaluating the program.
II.
ROLES AND AUTHORITIES
WHEREAS land management activities can be the source of water pollutants
such as sediment, nutrients, pesticides, herbicides, salts, chemical and
bacterial contamination; and
WHEREAS the above pollutants can degrade water quality and impair
beneficial uses of waters of the state; and
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 3 of 31
WHEREAS the USFS, through various legislative directions, has been
assigned the responsibility for managing the public National Forest lands
which includes water quality recognition in the management of these lands;
and
WHEREAS the USFS is the Designated Management Agency (DMA) charged
with implementing and enforcing natural resource management programs for
the protection of water quality in National Forest lands under its jurisdiction;
and
WHEREAS nonpoint source water quality problems are best controlled
through the development, adoption, and implementation of sound resource
management practices referred to as "best management practices" (BMPs);
and
WHEREAS the Oregon Forest Practices Act is the basic framework for BMPS
for forestry-related activities and the USFS BMPs will meet the substantive
requirements of the state practices; and
WHEREAS the DEQ is the state agency which under Oregon Revised Statutes
(ORS) 468.035 has the responsibility and authority to encourage voluntary
cooperation by the people, municipalities, counties, industries, agriculture and
other pursuits, in restoring and preserving the quality and purity of the waters
of the state in accordance with rules and standards established by the State
Environmental Quality Commission; and
WHEREAS the DEQ under ORS 468.035 shall advise, consult and cooperate
with other agencies or political subdivisions of the state, other states and the
agencies of the federal government, in respect to any proceedings and all
matters pertaining to control and protection of water pollution; and
WHEREAS the DEQ under ORS 468.730 is designated as the lead agency for
planning and implementing the Federal Water Quality Act (PL 92-500 as
amended):
WHEREAS recently passed legislation (HB 3515) requires the DEQ and other
state agencies to cooperate and work with federal agencies to prevent
contamination of Oregon's ground water resource while striving to conserve
and restore this resource and to maintain the high quality of Oregon's ground
water resource for present and future uses:
Therefore the undersigned agencies enter into the following agreement:
III. PROGRAM EFFECTIVE DATE AND IMPLEMENTATION
(A)
This MOA will be in effect when signed by the Director/Regional
Forester of each participating agency.
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 4 of 31
(B)
The signed agreement replaces all existing MOAs between the DEQ and
USFS.
(C)
The signed MOA will be implemented through an attached action plan.
The MOA in combination with the action plan will:
(D)
(1)
Provide for an opportunity to coordinate and review nonpoint
management progress by each agency.
(2)
Provide for joint exchange and dissemination of documented
water quality related information, particularly water monitoring
and evaluation of BMPs.
(3)
Provide for joint coordination of mutual technical assistance
needs.
(4)
Provide for joint identification and prioritization of mutual
nonpoint source problem areas.
In addition the action plan will:
(1)
Identify specific nonpoint source pollution control projects.
(2)
Describe the overall water quality objectives of the projects.
(3)
Outline the roles and responsibilities of the DEQ and USFS in the
projects.
(4)
Identify time lines for completion of the projects.
(5)
Be signed by the Director/Regional Forester or his/her designee
concurrently with this MOA or within a reasonable period after
the effective date of this MOA.
IV. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
(A)
Annually the directors (or their representatives) of DEQ and USFS will
meet with the heads of the state and federal agencies involved in
Oregon's NPS program to discuss issues of strategic importance to the
NPS program including research needs and funding options.
(B)
As necessary and appropriate other coordination mechanisms including
occasional progress reports on specific projects may be stipulated in the
action plan.
(C)
DEQ and USFS will provide each other with the names, addresses, and
phone numbers of primary and secondary contact persons within the
agencies who will have the responsibility to facilitate the intent and
provisions of this agreement.
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 5 of 31
V. REVIEW OF THIS AGREEMENT
(A)
At least annually the DEQ and USFS will meet to discuss items agreed
to in this agreement and the action plan and to share relevant program
information. The progress of each agency will be reviewed, coordination
and resource sharing needs will be explored. Minutes of the meeting
including a status report on the MOA will be provided by DEQ to EPA
and USFS as part of the annual report required under Section 319(h) of
the Clean Water Act.
(B)
Two years after the effective date of this agreement and every two years
thereafter, unless otherwise stipulated in the action plan, the parties to
this agreement will conduct a formal program review of the agreement
and action plan. The formal review will:
(1)
Examine the provisions of the MOA and evaluate its continued
effectiveness,
(2)
Evaluate the accomplishments of the action plan and the
performance of the participating agencies,
(3)
Identify needed changes in the MOA or action plan,
(4)
Set new objectives, if necessary, for the next two year period, and
(5)
Propose amendments or revisions to the MOA and/or action plan
as needed, and
(6)
Recertify BMPs.
(C)
The formal program review will be carried out by an advisory review
panel consisting of staff from DEQ and the USFS. By mutual agreement
other parties can be added to the review panel.
(D)
The product of the formal program review will be a written report which
describes the outcome of the process in B above. The draft report will be
made available for public review. The final report will be transmitted to
the executive directors and governing bodies of the agencies.
(E)
Pursuant to the recommendations of the formal program review report,
the review panel or other representatives of the agencies may prepare a
new agreement or action plan or propose amendments or revisions for
adoption by the agencies.
(F)
By mutual consent, the parties to this agreement may initiate a formal
review cycle before the end of two years.
VI. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
(A)
(B)
(C)
1561-1561.9
Page 6 of 31
Whenever appropriate, public involvement in the pollution control
programs resulting from this agreement will be actively sought by all
parties to the agreement. Opportunities for public involvement are
listed below.
(1)
During the planning stages of programs and projects as
determined by USFS.
(2)
During the implementation of the project specific pollution control
program, if appropriate and as agreed in the action plan.
(3)
During Best Management Practice adoption and modification as
described in the attached action plan.
(4)
During the formal program review.
DEQ and USFS will review the public involvement process as part of
the formal program review to determine if:
(1)
A broad cross-section of the interested public has been provided
an opportunity to participate,
(2)
Public input into final decision making has occurred,
(3)
Adequate time has been provided for public response,
(4)
Records have been maintained of comments received and
responses made, when responses are warranted.
It is recognized that not all of the opportunities are necessary or
appropriate to all phases of project development and construction. They
will not apply where application could cause delay or expense; i.e.
during bidding or construction or when they are not a part of agency
policy or when public lands are not involved.
VII. RECORD KEEPING AND OWNERSHIP OF DATA
(A)
As specified in the attached action plan, certain records, data, and other
information must be kept in good order by the USFS and must be made
available for review by other parties to this agreement and by the public
in conformance with the Freedom of Information Act and the Right of
Privacy Act.
(B)
Records, data, and other information acquired, developed, collected, or
documented under this agreement shall be the property of the agency
responsible for origination of the information. Other parties to this
agreement may, at their own expense, make, retain, and distribute
copies of this information.
VIII. AGREEMENT TERMINATION
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 7 of 31
(A)
This agreement will remain in force until terminated by either party on
sixty (60) days notice to the other.
(B)
No Member or Delegate to Congress, or Resident Commissioner, shall be
admitted to any share or part of this agreement, or to any benefit that
may arise therefrom; but this provision shall not be construed to extend
to this agreement if made with a corporation for its general benefit.
(C)
Nothing herein shall be construed as obligating USFS or DEQ to expend
or as involving either party in any contract or other obligation for the
future payment of money in excess of appropriations authorized by law
and administratively available for this work.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
STATE OF OREGON
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
/s/ John F. Butruille
Regional Forester
/s/ Fred Hansen
Director
7-9-90
Date
7-9-90
Date
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 8 of 31
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL ACTION PLAN
between the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
and the
United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
I.
PURPOSE
In accordance with ORS 190.110, this Action Plan delineates the activities and
responsibilities to be performed by the Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) and the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
(USFS) in implementing Oregon's nonpoint source pollution control program
developed under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act of 1987. The purpose of
this Action Plan is to:
(A)
Detail a series of program objectives designed to protect water quality
statewide,
(B)
Identify specific nonpoint source pollution control projects,
(C)
Describe the objectives of the projects, and
(D)
Distribute responsibilities for meeting the objectives.
This plan will be attached to a signed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
which provides the framework for cooperation between the two agencies. Each
of the parties to this plan will undertake the tasks agreed to by their
respective agency.
II. PLAN EFFECTIVE DATE
(A)
This action plan will be in effect when signed by the
Director/Administrator of each participating agency or his/her designee.
(B)
This plan may be signed concurrently with the Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) or within a reasonable period after the effective date
of the MOA.
III. PLAN REVIEW
(A)
At least annually the DEQ and USFS will meet to discuss items agreed
to in this Action Plan and to share relevant program information. The
progress of each agency will be reviewed, coordination and resource
sharing needs will be explored. Minutes of the meeting including a
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 9 of 31
status report on the MOA and supporting evidence of progress in
meeting the objectives of this Action Plan will be used to meet the
reporting requirements of Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Copies
will be provided by DEQ to the EPA and USFS.
(B)
As part of the annual report requirements, USFS will provide to the
DEQ an accounting of NPS implementing activities resulting from 319
management programs or other NPS initiatives.
Implementing
activities can be reported by watershed or forest and should include a
summary of any new significant BMPs installed, information and
education activities, legislative actions, enforcement actions, and a
summary account of the funds expended from federal, state and local
funding sources for 319 related work.
(C)
Two years after the effective date of this plan, the parties in this plan
will conduct a formal program review of the plan. The review will:
(1)
Evaluate the accomplishments of the plan and the performance of
the participating agencies,
(2)
Identify needed changes,
(3)
Set new objectives for the next 2 year period,
(4)
Propose revisions to the plan.
(D)
The formal program review will be carried out by an advisory review
panel consisting of staff from DEQ and the SCS. By mutual agreement
other parties can be added to the review panel.
(E)
The product of the formal program review will be a written report which
describes the outcome of the process in C above. The draft report will be
made available for public review. The final report will be transmitted to
the executive directors and governing bodies of the agencies.
(F)
Pursuant to the recommendations of the review report, the review panel
or other representatives of the agencies may prepare a new action plan
or a revision to the old plan for adoption by the agencies.
(G)
By mutual consent, may be revised or terminated at anytime.
ACRONYMS
BLM - U.S. Bureau of Land Management
BMP - Best Management Practices
DEQ - Dept of Environmental Quality
DMA - Designated Management Agency
MOA - Memorandum of Agreement
NPS - Nonpoint Source Program
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
ODF - Oregon Dept. of Forestry
USFS - U.S. Forest Service
1561-1561.9
Page 10 of 31
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 11 of 31
IV. STATEWIDE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
DEQ and USFS will, consistent with their legal authorities and programs and
to the extent possible within their approved budgets, carry out the following
nonpoint source program objectives for forest management activities within
the State of Oregon. These forest management activities include: timber
harvest, grazing and rangeland management, mining, recreation and road
construction projects.
A.
EXISTING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
USFS in cooperation with DEQ will continue coordination of BMP
implementation in their resource management activities in pursuit of
the overall goal of protecting beneficial uses of water in conjunction with
multiple use resource management.
Schedule: Work ongoing
Output: Reports on program achievements due at program review.
B.
MOAs AND ACTION PLANS
DEQ will establish MOAs and Action Plans with other appropriate
federal, state and local agencies to address the prevention and control of
NPS pollution resulting from resource management activities and to
complement existing agreements.
Schedule: To be undertaken during 89-91 biennium.
Output: Signed MOAs and Action Plans
C.
PRIORITY WATERBODIES
(See Section V for site specific projects)
D.
1.
DEQ in cooperation with the other Nonpoint Source DMAs will
set up a Technical Specialists Panel to further refine the
predictive capability necessary to set load allocations for meeting
total maximum daily load requirements in water quality limited
waterbodies.
Schedule: Committee meeting on regular basis.
Output: TMDLs for water quality limited waterbodies.
2.
USFS with assistance from DEQ will develop and implement
strategies for control of NPS pollution problems resulting from
Forest management activities in water bodies identified as high
priorities.
Schedule: Work ongoing.
Output: Reports on achievements due at program review.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs) FOR WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
E.
1561-1561.9
Page 12 of 31
1.
DEQ will assist USFS as needed in developing or updating BMPs.
Schedule: Work ongoing.
Output: Updated lists presented at Program Review.
2.
DEQ will assist USFS as needed in establishing new BMPs for
resource management activities as necessary based on results of
BMP effectiveness evaluations.
Schedule: Work ongoing.
Output: New BMPs reported at Program Review.
3.
DEQ will assist USFS as needed in evaluating BMPs to
determine if practices that protect rivers and lakes also protect
wetlands and groundwater aquifers.
Schedule: To be developed as resources allow.
Output: A list of BMPs for wetland and groundwater protection.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
(Water quality monitoring activities for specific projects are described in
Section V).
F.
1.
DEQ will maintain an ambient water quality monitoring program
for surface and groundwaters statewide.
Schedule: Work ongoing.
Output: Data presented in 305b Water Quality Report.
2.
DEQ with assistance from other water quality monitoring
agencies will develop a strategy for monitoring water quality in
high quality waterbodies.
Schedule: To be developed as resources allow.
3.
USFS with assistance from DEQ will continue existing water
quality monitoring activities to evaluate the effectiveness of
existing BMPs.
Schedule: Work ongoing.
Output: Results presented at Program Review.
EDUCATION
DEQ will assist USFS and other agencies in maintaining and enhancing
existing education programs and to establish new programs where
needed to inform federal land managers and users of new and existing
BMPs and pollution control needs. The focus of new programs will be on
priority waterbodies.
Schedule: Work ongoing.
Output: Program achievements reported in Program Review.
G.
RESEARCH
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
H.
I.
1561-1561.9
Page 13 of 31
1.
DEQ in cooperation with other agencies will design and
implement research to identify the effects on aquatic life of
temporary disturbances caused by resource management
activities.
Schedule: To be developed as resources allow.
2.
DEQ with assistance from USFS and other land management
agencies and applicable industry and interest groups will conduct
an annual forum to identify research necessary to answer
questions concerning effective NPS prevention and control in
resource management activities.
Schedule: Annual meetings prior to October 1 of each year in
conjunction with annual director's meeting.
3.
All DMAs designing or revising BMPs will ensure that the results
of research are reflected in new or revised BMPs, in technology
transfer programs, and in demonstration projects.
Schedule: Work ongoing.
Output: Reported in Program Review.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
1.
DEQ has the lead for coordinating the NPS program in Oregon
with all appropriate government agencies, citizen groups, private
industry and the Indian tribes.
Schedule: Coordination effort ongoing.
Output: Progress evaluated in Program Review.
2.
All DMAs participating in the program will act according to
appropriate regulations and requirements.
Schedule: Ongoing.
Output: Progress evaluated in Program Review.
ADMINISTRATIVE RULE REFINEMENT
1.
DEQ and participating DMAs will adopt or modify administrative
rules as necessary to be consistent with the goals of the NPS
program.
Schedule: Rules developed and adopted as necessary.
Output: Appropriate rules.
2.
DEQ with the assistance of USFS and other agencies, will review,
and refine if necessary, DEQ administrative rules to control the
temporary disturbance of water quality resulting from resource
management activities.
Schedule: To be developed as resources allow.
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
3.
J.
K.
1561-1561.9
Page 14 of 31
DEQ with the assistance of USFS and other agenices, will review
the appropriateness and effectiveness of current water quality
standards in protecting beneficial uses from NPS pollution caused
by resource management activities.
Schedule: To be undertaken during 1990.
Output: Report to EQC.
FUNDING AND STAFFING
1.
DEQ and participating DMAs will identify the funding and
staffing requirements and priorities necessary to accomplish its
NPS program objectives during their normal budget cycle.
Schedule: As per DMA budget schedule.
Output: Requests for necessary resources, as determined by each
agency. To accomplish NPS program included in each Agency's
budget proposal.
2.
DEQ will provide funding for these NPS program objectives to
participating agencies through the grant program established by
Section 319(h & i) of the Federal Clean Water Act.
Schedule: Funding available mid-1990.
Output: Necessary funding for program implementation.
3.
DEQ with the assistance of other government agencies and the
public, will explore other sources of funding and support for these
NPS program objectives.
Schedule: Ongoing.
Output: Grant proposals, cost share agreements, etc.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT
DEQ in cooperation with other resource management agencies will
involve local governments and districts in the planning and
implementation of the NPS pollution control program to the extent
possible.
Schedule: Ongoing.
Output: MOAs, contracts, cost share agreements, etc.
L.
HIGH QUALITY WATERS
1.
DEQ in cooperation with other agencies will seek to expand water
quality monitoring to develop additional information on high
quality waters.
Schedule: To be developed as resources allow.
2.
DEQ with the assistance of USFS will seek the implementation of
BMPs throughout the state to prevent the pollution of high
quality waters.
Schedule: Ongoing.
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 15 of 31
Output: BMPs implemented in high quality waters.
M.
N.
WETLANDS
1.
DEQ will develop and implement a wetlands strategy focused on
expanding the inventory of wetlands in DEQ's computerized NPS
database and on increasing water quality monitoring in wetlands
throughout the state.
Schedule: To be developed as resources allow.
2.
DEQ will develop cooperative relationships with other agencies
which have wetlands interests and program responsibilities and
develop appropriate agreements.
Schedule: Ongoing.
Output: Cooperative efforts to protect wetlands and water
quality.
BIOLOGICAL STREAM CLASSIFICATION
DEQ in cooperation with other agencies will explore the utility and
feasibility of a waterbody classification system which reflects in greater
detail the biological values and ecosystem complexity of Oregon's
waters. EPAs Rapid Bioassessement Protocols will be evaluated as part
of this effort.
Schedule: Evaluation and use of the Rapid Bioassessment Protocols will
begin by spring, 1990.
Output: The longterm goal is a standardized biological assessment
approach to identifying and evaluating NPS problems and BMPs.
O.
P.
TEMPORARY DISTURBANCES
1.
DEQ in cooperation with other agencies will develop a better
understanding of the effects disturbances to water quality
resulting from resource management activities on aquatic life and
other beneficial uses.
Schedule: To be developed as resources allow.
2.
DEQ in cooperation with other agencies will develop a policy for
dealing with temporary exceedences to water quality.
Schedule: To be developed as resources allow.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
DEQ in cooperation with other agencies will attempt to develop a better
understanding of the cumulative effects of low level continous loads on
NPS pollution.
Schedule: To be developed as resources allow.
Q.
ECOREGIONAL ANALYSIS
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 16 of 31
DEQ will develop a program to further refine and test ecoregional
analytical techniques as tools in the fevelopment of NPS load allocation
models, in the application of best management practices for NPS
prevention and control. The EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
identified in part N above will be used in this effort.
Schedule: To be developed as resources allow.
R.
V.
NPS DATABASE VERIFICATION AND UPDATE
1.
DEQ with the assistance of the land management DMAs will
develop a process for:
Resolving the water quality status of waterbodies on the A2
list;
Determining necessary actions for improving conditions on
A1 waterbodies.
Schedule: Committee action ongoing.
Output: Criteria for A2 streams, investigations of A1 streams.
2.
DEQ with the assistance of other agencies collecting relevant
water quality data will continually update and expand the NPS
database.
Schedule: Work ongoing.
Output: Update biennially and incorporate into 305b Water
Quality Assessment.
PRIORITY WATERBODY
OBJECTIVES
A.
B.
NPS
PROJECT
DESCRIPTIONS
AND
PRIORITY WATERBODY SELECTION
1.
The waterbodies described below were determined to be a high
priority for attention by the State Clean Water Strategy (SCWS)
ranking system. Waterbodies where forestry nonpoint sources
were known to contribute to the overall problem were selected
from the top ranked waters. Legal constraints and current
projects were also considered. These are grouped either by
waterbody type or water quality designation (e.g. "D1", "D2",
"A1"). In some cases where different segments of the same
waterbody have different SCWS rankings or designations, but
similar problems, those segments are listed together.
2.
Nothing in this agreement restricts parties to this agreement
from also implementing NPS control programs on sites not listed
below, nor are they restricted from doing more on a particular site
than is specified herein.
303(d)(1) WQL SURFACE WATERS
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 17 of 31
The following waterbodies are at least partially on federal forest land and have
been designated "water quality limited" (WQL) according to the criteria of
Section 303 (d)(1) of the federal Water Quality Act of 1987--that is, they have
serious water quality problems even though "best available technologies" or
"best management practices" have been applied. Although the following
waters have major point source contributions, nonpoint sources are also known
to contribute significantly to pollution concerns. "Load allocations" for NPS
pollutants have been or will be set as part of the process of implementing
mandatory "total maximum daily loads" (TMDLSs) of certain pollutant types.
Due to legal requirements, 303(d)(1) waters are high priority to DEQ
regardless of their SCWS ranking.
1.
COQUILLE RIVER AND ESTUARY
(R.M. 0-39, NPS
Assessment segments 163 and 426, below the town of Coquille)
a.
Problems and causes: The Coquille River regularly suffers
from low dissolved oxygen concentrations, affecting
beneficial uses of aquatic life. Elevated fecal coliform
bacteria levels, and excessive nutrient levels leading to algal
growth, and sediment loadings are also of concern. Related
problems include high temperature, excess plant growth,
turbidity, streambank erosion, and debris. Probable causes
include human waste, landslides, surface erosion,
elimination of thermal cover to stream, vegetation removal,
dredging/aggregate removal, and animal waste. Municipal
point sources, on-site septic systems, irrigated and nonirrigated cropland and pastureland, animal waste
management, timber harvesting, forest road construction,
and natural sources contribute to these conditions.
b.
Status: A Coquille Estuary was selected as a Near Coastal
Water Pilot Project in 1988. An intensive assessment of
problems and sources was established in summer 1988. A
TMDL for ultimate (BOD) has been proposed. The proposed
TMDL must be reviewed and adopted, and Waste Load and
Load allocations distributed. A forestry nonpoint source
program plan may be required.
c.
Objectives:
1)
DEQ will continue the Coquille Estuary Study which
was initiated to examine the pollutant sources and
implement innovative management actions to
improve water quality and restore areas where
habitat or living resources have been impaired.
a)
Establish a public/interagency task force with
numbers from local, state, and federal agencies,
and interested citizens to advise and assist the
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 18 of 31
Department in setting the direction for the
project, set tangible and measurable goals,
assign responsibilities, review applicable land
use plans, and monitor progress.
Schedule: Task force formed. Work to be
completed by September, 1990.
Outputs: List of goals. Reviews of land use
plans.
2)
b)
Identify and compile data available on the
environmental conditions in the Coquille
Estuary to develop an inventory of water
quality and biological resources.
Schedule: Completed in 1990.
Outputs:
Inventory of water quality and
biological resources. Trend analysis.
c)
Document wetland resources and inventory
potential sites for wetland mitigation.
Schedule: Completed in 1990.
Output: Wetland inventory.
d)
Trace the history of woody debris removal in
the estuary, and determine the role of woody
debris in estuarine and riverine processess. In
addition, methods for strategic placement of
woody debris to aid habitat conservation, but
allow continued use of navigation channels, will
be developed.
Schedule: Completed in 1990.
Outputs:
Report woody debris findings at
review.
e)
Monitor water quality for conventional and
non-conventional pollutants to assess whether
beneficial uses may be impaired, and to what
degree they may be affected.
DEQ will
coordinate with the forestry DMAs to control
the sources of pollutants. This effort will
include a review of best management practices,
and public education where appropriate.
Schedule: Monitoring complete in 1990.
Outputs: Water quality and sediment data,
BMP findings reported at review.
DEQ will establish a final TMDL for biological oxygen
demanding material on the Coquille River.
Schedule: TMDL proposed 1988. Final expected
1991.
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 19 of 31
Output: Adopted rule.
2.
3)
DEQ, with assistance from USFS, the other land
managemenet agencies and the local advisory
committee, will develop a water quality management
plan for the Coquille River. The management plan
will be incorporated into the South Coast Basin
management plan. The revised management plan
will include the final TMDL, implementation
strategies, and compliance schedules for meeting the
final TMDL.
Schedule:
Plan expected 18 months after rule
adoption.
Output: Revised South Coast Basin Management
plan.
4)
USFS will continue watershed improvement related
work on lands within their jurisdiction and assist
where appropriate in designing and implementing
new BMPs as per the recommendations of the
management plan.
Schedule: 1992-1993.
Output: Report of number of BMPs implemented at
program review.
d.
BMPs: BMPs to be applied will be specified in the Program
Plan. Until the plan is adopted, BMPs identified in the
USFS General Water Quality Best Management Practices
guide will be applied.
e.
Funding: $355,000 from EPA will be used for the Coquille
Estuary Study.
Of that, $100,000 will be held for
implementation.
f.
Timeline: The DEQ's Near-Coastal Water Quality pilot
project was initiated in 1988 and will be completed in 1990.
The TMDL will be developed through the estuary study, and
will be considered by the EQC in 1991.
UMATILLIA RIVER (TMDL SECTION, R.M. 35-79, from the
confluence with Meacham Creek to below Pendleton near Nolin,
NPS Assessment segments 261, 262, 263).
a.
Problems and causes:
The Umatillia River frequently
exceeds standards for pH (summer) and fecal coliform
bacteria.
Related problems include excess nutrients,
dissolved oxygen concentrations above saturation, excessive
algal growth, and suspended solids.
Aquatic life and
aesthetics are affected. Other problems were reported to
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 20 of 31
include elevated temperature conditions, concern about
pesticides and toxics, sedimentation and erosion. Probable
causes include surface erosion, elimination of thermal cover,
vegetation removal, water withdrawal, altered physical
characteristics, dredging and aggregate removal, and animal
waste. Sources include municipal point sources, on-site
septic systems, and natural factors. Irrigated and nonirrigated cropland and pastureland, grazing, forestry,
mining, urban stormwater management and surface runoff,
and construction contribute to these conditions.
b.
Status/Needs: A TMDL for phosphorus has been proposed.
An intensive assessment is needed before the final TMDL is
adopted and management programs developed. A Dryland
Wheat 208 Water Quality Management plan has been in
place since 1979.
c.
Objectives:
1)
DEQ will begin an intensive assessment of water
quality and pollution sources in the basin.
Information gained from this assessment will be used
to evaluate and refine the propsed TMDLs.
Schedule: (Tentative) Begin Spring 1991.
Output: Water quality data summarized at review
and in 305(b) report.
2)
DEQ will establish a local advisory group to help
develop a water quality management plan for the
Umatilla River.
Schedule: (Tentative) Begin Spring 1991.
Output: Recommendation for management plan.
3)
USFS will participate, as appropriate, on the local
advisory group developing the management plan.
Schedule: As in 2) above.
4)
DEQ will propose a final TMDL for adoption through
the Environmental Quality Commission rule-making
process.
Schedule: (Tentative) Summer 1992.
Output: Adopted Rule.
5)
DEQ will revise its Umatilla Basin Water Quality
Management Plan to include the final TMDLs,
implementation strategies, and compliance schedules
for meeting the final TMDL.
Schedule: 1992.
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
Output:
Revised
Management Plan.
6)
3.
1561-1561.9
Page 21 of 31
Umatilla
Water
Quality
USFS will continue to implement watershed
improvement related work on lands within their
jurisdiction. Much of the work has been done on
tributaries to the South Fork of the Umatilla. The
USFS will also assist as appropriate in designing and
implementing new BMPs to reduce erosion and
sedimentation and improve low flows and dissolved
oxygen.
Schedule: 1989-1991.
Output: Number of BMPs installed reported at
review.
d.
BMPs: BMPs to address forestry related water quality
concerns will be specified in the forestry section of the
Program Plan. Until the plan is adopted, BMPs identified in
the USFS General Water Quality Best Management
Practices document will be applied.
e.
Funding: Federal (205j) funds will be used for intensive
monitoring and TMDL development.
f.
Timeline: TMDL proposed 1988. Monitoring effort to begin
spring 1991.
Other 303 (d) (1) waters that require the setting of TMDLs
include:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
The Tualatin River RM 0-63, and tributaries McKay Creek,
Dairy Creek, Beaverton Creek, Rock Creek, Fanno Creek,
Lake Oswego and Springbrook Creek.
Bear Creek in the Rogue Basin RM 0-27.
The Pudding River RM 0-30.
The Yamhill River RM 0-11 and South Fork RM 0-5.
The Coast Fork of the Willamette River RM 0-29.
The South Umpqua River RM 0-15.
The Klamath River below Klamath Lake RM 223-250.
The Grande Ronde RM 82-160.
Most of the pollution probelems in these rivers are related to
point sources. None of the segments in these river basins
where identified NPS problems exist include significant US
Forest Service lands so they are not included in this Action
Plan. It should be noted, however, that the USFS does have
significant watershed improvement work going in the upper
South Umpqua, the upper Grande Ronde and in the upper
Klamath watershed above Klamath Lake on tributaries to
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 22 of 31
the Williamson River. This work must continue so that
downstream conditions do not deteriorate further.
As
downstream improvements occur, continued maintenance
and enhancement of upper watershed conditions will be
essential to maintain these improvements.
C.
303(d)(3) WQL SURFACE WATERS
The following waterbodies which are at least partially on federal forest
land have been designated "water quality limited" according to the
criteria of Section 303(d)(3) of the federal Water Quality Act of 1987-that is, they have serious water quality problems, but "best available
technology" or "best management practices" have not yet been fully
applied to control pollution. Nonpoint sources are known to contribute
significantly to pollution of the following waters, and "load allocations"
for NPS pollutants have been or may be set as part of the process of
establishing non-mandatory "total maximum daily loads" to be used as
guidance in further pollution control efforts.
1.
JOHN DAY RIVER (R.M. 145-265, Twickenham to Prairie City,
NPS Assessment segments 125-127 are Water Quality Limited
under section 303(d)(3); John Day River segments 124-127 and
446-447, North Fork segments 128-129, South Fork segments
134-137 are high priorities due to conditions reported by the
Nonpoint Source Assessment).
a.
Problems and causes:
Problems vary throughout this
system. Standards are frequently exceeded for fecal coliform
bacteria in the upper mainstem (R.M. 212-265), and for pH
in the lower river (R.M. 0-185) in summer. Water contact
recreation and aquatic life are affected. Other parameters of
concern include suspended solids, low dissolved oxygen,
elevated temperature, sedimentation, streambank erosion,
and excessive algal growths The most frequently cited
probable causes include surface erosion, changes in flow
pattern and timing, elimination of thermal cover to stream,
animal traffic, decline in alluvial water table, water
withdrawal, and channelization or wetland drainage.
Municipal point sources, irrigated and non-irrigated
cropland and pastureland, orchards, grazing, recreation,
forestry, and natural storms, floods and droughts contribute
to these conditions.
b.
Status/needs:
Further study is needed to determine
background pH concentrations. A management plan, and
possibly an estimated TMDL, is needed to control bacteria
pollution. GWEB has funded three projects (Cottonwood
Creek, Pine Creek and Mud Creek) to improve riparian and
associated upland areas. BLM is proposing watershed
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 23 of 31
enhancement work in the upper S. Fk. John Day River.
Bonneville Power has funded about $160,000 for planting
and fencing in the John Day Basin during 1985/86 to
support
fisheries
enhancement
through
riparian
improvements. The Water Resources Department conducted
a study of irrigation return flow in the upper main stem in
1985-86, finding water quality was not adversely affected.
c.
d.
2.
Objectives:
1)
DEQ will seek funding for a study to determine
background pH concentrations in the John Day basin,
and to develop a management program for the control
of bacteria.
Schedule: Begin immediately.
Output: Report search activities at review.
2).
DEQ will seek funding through its Section 319 grant
to conduct intensive biomonitoring projects on
Cottonwood Creek and Pine Creek in the John Day
basin to evaluate the effectiveness and practicality of
using EPAs Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for
identifying NPS impacts and evaluating the
effectiveness of BMPs.
Schedule: Begin spring 1990.
Output: Report on findings due 1/91.
3).
USFS will continue to implement its watershed
improvement related projects throughout the John
Day system. The USFS will assist when possible in
the bioassessment project and will participate where
appropriate in the TMDL development and
implementation process.
Schedule: Ongoing.
Output: Progress reported at Program Review.
Funding: Funding for pH study and bacteria management
strategy to be sought. Funding for the bioassessment has
been requested through the 319 grant at $35,000 for each
intensive sample site. Funding for USFS work exists.
HOOD RIVER AND EAST FORK HOOD RIVER (Hood River
R.M. 0-12 NPS Assessment segment 1 is Water Quality Limited
under section 303(d)(3); East Fork Hood River, segment 9 is a
high priority due to conditions reported by the Nonpoint Source
Assessment).
a.
Problems and causes: On the mainstem, problems include
low dissolved oxygen concentrations, excessive bacteria,
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 24 of 31
sedimentation and decreased streamflow. Probable causes
include surface erosion, water withdrawal, irrigation return
flows, and chemical usage.
Irrigated cropland and
pastureland, rangeland, forestry, recreation, urban runoff,
and natural geologic hazards contribute to these conditions.
Problems on the East Fork include excessive turbidity,
nutrients, bacteria, sedimentation, and streambank erosion,
and insufficient stream structure. Probable causes include
surface erosion, vegetation removal, road location, water
withdrawal, altered physical characteristics of the stream,
and streambank filling.
Irrigated and non-irrigated
cropland and pastureland, animal waste management,
orchards or vineyards, grazing, forestry, recreation, road
construction or location, and natural storms, floods and
geologic hazards contribute to these conditions.
b.
Status: DEQ has determined that Hood River (R.M. 0-12), is
Water Quality Limited for contact recreation because it
occasionally violates standards for fecal coliform bacteria.
Municipal point sources and on-site septic tank and
drainfield systems have been identified as the likely sources.
Little or no water quality data has been collected by DEQ on
the East Fork.
c.
Objectives:
d.
3.
1)
DEQ will seek funding for an intensive assessment of
water quality in the Hood River Basin.
Schedule: Begin funding search immediately.
Output: Report search activities at review.
2)
USFS will continue to implement its watershed
improvement projects on the East Fork and
participate as appropriate in TMDL development and
implementation process.
Schedule: Ongoing.
Output: Progress reported at program review.
Funding: Funding for USFS work exists. Funding for DEQ
efforts will be sought immediately.
MALHEUR RIVER (R.M. 0-69, NPS Assessment segments 237239; also tributaries Bully Creek R.M. 0-14 segment 244, and
Willow Creek R.M. 0-27 segment 234).
a.
Problems and causes: Problems include bacteria, excess
nutrients, algal growths, suspended solids, metals, and
pesticides. Other reported problems include turbidity, low
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 25 of 31
dissolved oxygen, salt water intrusion, sedimentation,
streambank erosion, and decreased streamflow. Probable
causes include surface erosion, elimination of thermal cover,
human or animal traffic, vegetation removal, decline in
alluvial water table, water withdrawal, baseflow depletion,
reservior storage and releases, bank filling, channelization
and wetland drainage, animal waste, irrigation return flows,
leaching salts and exposed minerals. Irrigated cropland or
pastureland, rangeland, and natural sources contribute to
these conditions.
4.
b.
Status/Needs: DEQ has determined that Malheur River is
Water Quality Limited due to bacteria, nutrients and
suspended solids and that an estimated TMDL under section
303 (d) (3) is needed. Additional data is needed to develop a
management plan.
Surface water management efforts
should be coordinated with groundwater efforts currently
underway in Northwest Malheur County.
c.
Objectives:
1)
DEQ will seek funding for additional surface water
monitoring in the Lower Malheur basin.
Schedule: Begin search immediately, try to begin
monitoring in 1990.
Output: Report search activities at review.
2)
USFS will continue to implement watershed
improvement related projects on Malheur basin lands
within their jurisdiction and will participate where
appropriate in the TMDL development and
implementation process.
d.
Funding: Funding for USFS work exists. Funding for DEQ
efforts to be sought through Section 319 grant and other
sources.
e.
Time line:
Begin search for funding immediately.
Coordinate surface water assessment with development and
implementation of Ontario area groundwater quality
management program.
NESTUCCA RIVER AND BAY, LITTLE NESTUCCA RIVER
(North Coast Basin, Nestucca Bay NPS Assessment segment 265,
Nestucca River R.M. 0-15 segment 266, and Little Nestucca River
R.M. 0-5 segment 263).
a.
Problems and causes: Fecal Coliform Bacteria standards are
often exceeded in the Nestucca drainage, threatening
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 26 of 31
shellfish harvesting activities and contact recreation. Other
problems (on the rivers) include high temperature, excess
nutrients, sediment, streambank erosion, and low stream
flows. Probable causes include animal waste, chemical
application, alteration (channelization) of the stream, water
withdrawal, vegetation removal, reservior releases, road
location, elimination of thermal cover, surface erosion, and
landslides.
Irrigated and non-irrigated cropland and
pastureland, animal waste management, rangeland,
forestry, recreation, aggregate quarry mining, urban runoff,
construction, transportation and natural sources contribute
to these conditions.
5.
b.
Status/Needs: Nestucca Bay, Nestucca River (R.M. 0-15),
and Little Nestucca River (R.M. 0-5) violate fecal coliform
bacteria standards and have been designated Water Quality
limited for shellfish harvesting and contact recreation. On
the Little Nestucca, the primary source has been identified
as agriculture. On Nestucca River and Bay, on-site septic
tank and drainfield systems and municipal point sources
contribute in addition to agriculture. Several dairies on the
lower Nestucca have applied for funding to develop animal
waste management farm plans. Tillamook County has
scheduled a septic tank survey in the area.
c.
Objectives:
1)
SCS will conduct a river basin study of the natural
resource problems on the Nestucca River.
Schedule: October 1989-September 1992.
Output: Study report submitted at review following
its completion.
2)
DEQ, USFS and other DMAs will work with SCS to
develop management strategies as appropriate to
control NPS problems on the Nestucca River and
Little Nestucca River.
Schedule: To be determined.
d.
Funding: $245,000 from ASCS through the National Water
Quality Project; $320,000 from SCS for the river basin
study.
f.
Timeline: River basin study to begin fall of 1989 and end
fall of 1992.
Other 303 (d) (3) waters include:
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
1561-1561.9
Page 27 of 31
Tillamook Bay and tributaries: Tillamook River RM 0-15,
the Trask River RM 0-9, Kilchis River RM 0-8, Wilson River
RM 0-7.
Yaquina River RM 0-19.
South Umpqua River RM 15-47 and tributary Deer Creek.
Umpqua River RM 103-112 and tributaries Calapooya Creek
and Elk Creek.
S.F. Coquille River RM 0-62.
N.F. Coquille River RM 0-36.
Rogue River RM 95-132 and tributaries Little Butte Creek
and Evans Creek.
Willamette River RM 0-150 and tributaries Amazon Creek,
Long Tom River RM 0-17, Mary's River RM 0-17, Calapooia
River RM 0-35, Luckiamute River RM 0-45, Bashaw Creek,
Santiam RM 0-37, S. Santiam 0-37, S. Yamhill RM 20-25,
and Johnson Creek RM 0-24.
Crooked River RM 0-117.
Wallowa River RM 0-50.
Burnt River RM 0-42.
Powder River RM 0-131.
Willow Creek RM 0-27.
Owyhee River RM 0-28.
Lost River RNM 5-65
Forestry management related problems were not identified as
significant NPS sources in any of the above river and stream
sections, however, the USFS has watershed improvement projects
in many of the upper reaches and tributaries. It's important that
USFS continue this work so that downstram conditions do not
deteriorate further.
As efforts are undertaken to improve
downstream conditions, the continued maintenance and
enhancement of upstream sources will be critical to maintaining
improved conditions.
E.
A1 SURFACE WATERS
The following waterbodies were identified by respondents to the 1988
NPS Assessment survey as having serious water quality problems due
to nonpoint sources of pollution. Although no conflicting reports were
received, DEQ has not yet confirmed the NPS-linked water quality
problems and associated causes reported for these waters.
1.
FIFTEENMILE CREEK (Hood Basin, segment 19)
a.
Problems and causes: Lower Fifteenmile Creek suffers from
excessive turbidity, nutrients, bacteria, sedimentation, and
streambank erosion, low dissolved oxygen concentrations,
objectionable discoloration or scum, decreased streamflow,
and insufficient stream structure. Probable causes include
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 28 of 31
surface erosion, decreased ground surface permeability,
changes in flow pattern or timing, riparian vegetation and
bank disturbance, human or animal traffic, water
withdrawal, baseflow depletion, reservior storage and
releases, altered physical characteristics of the stream, and
pumping of aquifers. Irrigated cropland or pastureland,
animal waste management, orchards or vineyards,
rangeland, forestry, and recreation contribute to these
conditions.
b.
Status: Problems were reported in DEQ's 1988 Oregon
Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Water
Pollution. Water quality monitoring is needed.
c.
Objectives:
d.
2.
1)
DEQ will seek funding for a water quality monitoring
program to confirm severity of the problems and
further define the sources and possible solutions.
Schedule: Begin funding search immediately.
Output: Report search activities at review.
2)
USFS will continue to implement watershed
improvement related work on forest lands within
their jurisdiction and participate as appropriate with
development of a monitoring strategy and
management plan.
Funding: Funding for USFS work exists. Funding for DEQ
efforts to be sought immediatley.
SPRAGUE RIVER (Klamath Basin, segments 24-27, below
confluence with Sycan River)
a.
Problems and causes: Primary concerns are for excessive
turbidity and nutrients, and high temperatures. Other
problems are related to low dissolved oxygen concentrations,
pesticides, sedimentation, streambank erosion, decreased
streamflow, and insufficient stream structure. Probable
causes include surface erosion, changes in flow pattern and
timing, riparian vegetation and bank disturbance,
elimination of thermal cover to stream, disturbance by
human or animal traffic, vegetation removal, water
withdrawal,
baseflow
depletion,
altered
physical
characteristics of the stream, channelization or wetland
drainage, and irrigation return flows. Non-irrigated and
irrigated cropland or pastureland, timber harvesting, forest
road construction/maintenance/use, timber management,
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 29 of 31
grazing, recreation and natural storms or floods contribute
to these conditions.
b.
Status/Needs: Problems were reported in DEQ's 1988
Oregon Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Water
Pollution. Water quality monitoring is needed.
c.
Objectives:
d.
3.
F.
1)
DEQ will seek funding for a water quality monitoring
program to confirm severity of the problems and
further define the sources and possible solutions.
Schedule: Begin funding search immediatley.
Output: Report search activities at review.
2)
USFS will continue to implement watershed
improvement related work on the Sprague River and
its tributary the Sycan River and participate as
appropriate in the development of a water quality
monitoring plan and management plan.
Funding: Funding for USFS work already exists.
for DEQ efforts to be sought immediately.
Funding
Many other waterbodies in the state were identified by
respondents to the 1988 NPS Assessment survey as having
serious water quality problems doe to nonpoint sources of
pollution.
Forest management activities including timber
harvest, grazing and rangeland management, mining, recreation
and road construction were identified as contributing sources of
pollution on many of these waterbodies. The DEQ will work with
the USFS to identify those waterbodies where activities on
federal forest lands may be contributing to nonpoint source
pollution. Sites where enhancement work is ongoing will be
identified and new strategies will be developed for controlling
pollution where problems persist.
Other DEQ nonpoint source priorities
One of the DEQ nonpoint source programs key objectives is to develop
water quality monitoring tools for assessing the effects of NPS pollution
on beneficial uses and for determining the effectiveness of BMPs that
have been implemented. $145,000 of DEQ's Section 319 grant proposal
for FY 1990 is directed at evaluating EPA's Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols (RBP) for use as a NPS monitoring tool. Three intensive
monitoring projects using RBP are proposed for FY 1990. This includes
two tributaries to the John Day River and one from either the Tillamook
or Tualatin River Basins. In addition, eight biomonitoring screening
assessments will be undertaken in other watersheds around the state to
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 30 of 31
determine the need for further monitoring. It is anticipated that the
USFS and other resource management agencies will be assisting the
DEQ in this effort as resources allow.
G.
Other US Forest Service Projects
The USFS is conducting an inventory of riparian habitats for about 2000
miles of streams in Oregon. This inventory can be used (among other
things) as a monitoring tool to assess long term trends or changes in
riparian habitat. Many of the streams inventoried are also identified in
the 1988 NPS Assessment as having serious NPS problems. There are
opportunities for shared monitoring responsibilities and information
sharing between the DEQ and USFS in these areas.
These
opportunities will be explored at the annual meeting between the DEQ
and USFS and will be ongoing as the NPS Management Plan is
implemented.
VI. TERMINATION AND SIGNATURES
If the Memorandum of Agreement to which this Action Plan is attached
is terminated by one or both parties, then this Action Plan will also
terminate.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
STATE OF OREGON
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
/s/ John F. Butruille
Regional Forester
/s/ Fred Hansen
Director
7-9-90
Date
7-9-90
Date
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 31 of 31
Exhibit 2
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
AND
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
This Memorandum of Understanding, together with Attachment A, is entered into
by and between the Washington State Department of Ecology, hereinafter referred
to as DOE, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, hereinafter
referred to as USFS, for the purpose of delineating the responsibilities and
activities to be performed by each agency pursuant to the implementation of the
State Water Quality Management Plan on lands administered by the USFS. The
plan is being developed to meet the requirements of state law (Chapter 90.48 RCW)
and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA).
Preamble
Congress, through various legislative directions, has assigned the responsibility for
managing the Public National Forest Lands to the Forest Service. Some of these
same legislative directions provide for water quality recognition in the management
of these lands. The cooperation and participation of the USFS will be in harmony
with this federal legislation and subsequent regulations.
Chapter 90.48 RCW gives the DOE broad authority and responsibility to protect
beneficial uses of water, identify sources of water pollution, develop plans,
promulgate and enforce rules, implement pollution control measures, and levy fines.
DOE is required to use all available and reasonable methods necessary to carry out
public policy and specifically, to work on a cooperative basis with people, industry,
and other governmental agencies to control pollution.
DOE has been designated by the Governor, under the authority of Chapter 90.48
RCW, as the lead agency for water quality management planning in the state to
implement the applicable provisions of the FWPCA.
Mutual Agreements
Under this memorandum of understanding, the USFS and DOE mutually agree to
the following provisions to prevent duplication of effort and provide the necessary
coordination to meet the implementation requirements of the FWPCA:
A.
Agency Roles
USFS will exercise its statutory authority and responsibility as the lead
agency for implementing and enforcing natural resource management
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 32 of 31
programs for the protection of water quality on federal lands under its
jurisdiction.
DOE will exercise its statutory authority and responsibility as the lead agency
for coordinating state and federal water quality programs in the planning and
development of the State Water Quality Management Program.
B.
Implementation Program
The implementation program has six major areas, including: (1) nonpoint
source problem assessment; (2) identification and development of best
management practices; (3) public involvement program; (4) implementation
mechanisms; (5) monitoring program; and (6) program review, evaluation and
update process.
1.
Problem Assessment
The problem assessment is divided into two discrete sections which
correspond to the two implementation concepts of prevention and
correction or restoration. The USFS processes to identify geographic
areas or terrain risk areas that are a potential water quality hazard
area are developed at various planning levels (ref. Attachment A). This
is used to prescribe the recommended management program designed to
minimize potential adverse water quality impacts.
The USFS problem identification process coupled with the DOE
nonpoint source assessment will be utilized, where possible, to identify
basins which have critical instream water quality problems. The USFS
and DOE will jointly, on an annual basis, develop a priority list of these
basins to which the more detailed project level problem identification
programs and restoration actions might be directed. This priority list
will be attached to the Governor's annual certification letter.
2.
Best Management Practices
Nonpoint source water quality problems are best controlled through the
development, adoption, and implementation of sound resource
management practices, commonly referred to as "best management
practices" (BMPs). For the state program these practices must be
identified and incorporated into the State Water Quality Management
Plan. The USFS will meet or exceed the prescribed state forest practice
criteria and standards.
The Washington Forest Practice Regulations have been certified as
BMP's for silvicultural activities on nonfederal land, and an initial
comparison has been made with USFS practices. It was determined
that the USFS practices meet or exceed the state BMP's. Subsequent
comparisons will be predicated on the revision of the rules and
regulations of the Washington Forest Practice Act.
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 33 of 31
Additional comparisons will be needed for other resource management
activities affecting water quality. However, until such time as the DOE
has developed a list of state practices in these other areas (e.g.,
rangeland), the USFS practices are conditionally approved for use in the
State Water Quality Management Plan.
3.
Public Involvement
The FWPCA emphasizes the need to insure public involvement in the
development and implementation of standards, plans and programs.
Section 101(e) of the act describes the basic framework for public
participation, which is further delineated in Federal regulations (40
CFR 105).
The USFS is required by many federal laws, federal regulations, and
internal agency requirements, to involve the public in agency decisions.
It will utilize these measures (described in Attachment A) to bring
public involvement into water quality decision making processes.
4.
Implementation Mechanisms
The USFS and DOE agree that the program described in Attachment A
is the nonpoint source Water Quality Management Plan for federal
lands under USFS jurisdiction. In the ongoing Continuing Planning
Process and implementation of the 208 water quality program, this plan
may be periodically revised, updated, and refined as necessary.
5.
Monitoring
Monitoring of the best management practices will be performed by the
USFS to meet two objectives. The first is to determine how well the
actual implementation of BMP's is being accomplished on the ground.
The USFS will keep suitable records on inspection and enforcement
actions addressing BMP implementation.
The second monitoring objective is to measure the effectiveness of
BMP's. The USFS will perform water quality monitoring to determine
the effectiveness of BMP's and guide decisions on possible modifications.
6.
Program Review, Evaluation and Update
The USFS and DOE agree to meet annually to evaluate the program
and progress being made. At this annual meeting, to be held prior to
October 15 each year, the following items, at a minimum, will be
addressed:
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
C.
1561-1561.9
Page 34 of 31
(a)
Available USFS and DOE monitoring information will be
reviewed to determine if program goals are being met, and to
prescribe procedures for more effective program implementation.
(b)
Since the DOE must report annually to the Environmental
Protection Agency on progress in meeting the requirements of the
FWPCA, the USFS will provide a written report on the work
described in this memorandum.
(c)
Proposed revisions or additions to BMP's as provided beforehand
by the DOE, the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources or other designated state agencies.
(d)
Constraints of manpower and funds on more immediate and
effective program implementation.
Coordination
The USFS and DOE mutually agree to assign a contact person within each
agency to coordinate the execution of this memorandum of understanding.
D.
Designation
DOE will recommend, pursuant to this understanding, that the Governor
formally designate the USFS as the implementing agency for nonpoint source
pollution control on lands under its jurisdiction.
E.
Administrative
1.
This memorandum of understanding will remain in effect unless
replaced by another memorandum of understanding, or is terminated
either by mutual consent of the parties, or by cancellation by thirty days
written notice from one party to the other party.
2.
No Member or Delegate to Congress, or Resident Commissioner, shall be
admitted to any share or part of this agreement, or to any benefit that
may arise therefrom; but this provision shall not be construed to extend
to this agreement if made with a corporation for its general benefit.
3.
Nothing herein shall be construed as obligating USFS or DOE to expend
or involve either party in any contract or other obligation for the future
payment of money in excess of appropriations authorized by law and
administratively available for this work.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
R-6 SUPPLEMENT 1500-90-12
EFFECTIVE 12/26/90
1561-1561.9
Page 35 of 31
/s/
Regional Forester,
Pacific Northwest Region
/s/
Director
Date: 7-2-79
Date: July 7, 1979