UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
RIVER
SUB­
BASIN
TOTAL
MAXIMUM
DAILY
LOAD
(
TMDL)

Oregon
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
April,
2000
Page
Left
Blank
Intentionally
We
descend
a
very
steep
hill
in
coming
into
Grande
Ronde,
at
the
foot
of
which
is
a
beautiful
cluster
of
pitch
and
spruce
pine
trees,
but
no
white
pine
like
that
I
have
been
accustomed
to
see
at
home.
Grande
Ronde
is
indeed
a
beautiful
place.
It
is
a
circular
plain,
surrounded
by
lofty
mountains,
and
has
a
beautiful
stream
coursing
through
it,
skirted
with
quite
large
timber.
The
scenery
while
passing
through
it
is
quite
delightful
in
some
places.
We
nooned
upon
Grande
Ronde
river.

­
The
Letters
and
Journals
of
Narcissa
Whitman
August
28th,
1836
Page
Left
Blank
Intentionally
Date:
April
24,
2000
To:
Interested
Parties
Subject:
Upper
Grande
Ronde
River
Sub­
Basin
Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
(
TMDL)
&
Water
Quality
Management
Plan
(
WQMP)

The
Upper
Grande
Ronde
River
Sub­
Basin
includes
all
lands
draining
to
the
Grande
Ronde
River
upstream
of
its
confluence
with
the
Wallowa
River.
Many
of
these
streams
do
not
meet
state
water
quality
standards.
As
a
result,
a
Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
(
TMDL)
and
a
Water
Quality
Management
Plan
(
WQMP)
have
been
developed
and
submitted
to
EPA.
The
TMDL
sets
targets
for
attaining
water
quality
standards
and
the
WQMP
outlines
the
management
steps
necessary
to
attain
TMDL
targets.
To
be
properly
understood,
the
documents
should
be
reviewed
together.

Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
(
TMDL)

The
TMDL
analyzes
the
factors
affecting
water
quality
and
identifies
the
amount
of
pollution
that
can
be
present
without
causing
state
water
quality
standards
to
be
violated.
The
standards
of
concern
include
stream
temperature,
dissolved
oxygen,
and
pH.
The
pollutants
responsible
for
these
water
quality
problems
include
excess
heat,
nutrients
and
sediments
that
enter
the
streams
as
a
result
of
human
induced
changes
to
streamside
vegetation
and
stream
channel
changes.
The
TMDL
establishes
targets
(
allocations)
for
reducing
these
pollutants
so
that
water
quality
standards
can
be
achieved.
DEQ
scientists,
with
the
assistance
of
technical
specialists
from
a
variety
of
agencies
produced
the
TMDL
as
required
by
the
federal
Clean
Water
Act.

Water
Quality
Management
Plan
(
WQMP)

The
WQMP
report
describes
the
actions
that
will
be
taken
to
reduce
the
pollutant
loads
identified
in
the
TMDL.
A
local
group,
the
Grande
Ronde
Water
Quality
Committee,
produced
the
WQMP.
This
committee
included
representatives
of
"
stakeholder"
groups
from
within
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
Sub­
Basin.
Representation
included
forestry,
agriculture,
local
government,
transportation,
environmental
interests,
business,
and
tribal.
The
committee,
appointed
jointly
by
DEQ
and
The
Grande
Ronde
Model
Watershed
Program,
identified
priorities
for
management
categories
that
will
be
implemented
to
improve
water
quality.
The
highest
priorities
included
improving
riparian
vegetation,
in­
stream
flow,
and
stream
channel
characteristics.
Management
measures
are
identified
for
point
sources
and
for
four
categories
of
nonpoint
sources:
transportation,
municipal,
forestry
and
agriculture.
Implementation
of
the
plan,
including
periodic
reviews
and
revisions,
is
expected
to
lead
to
attainment
of
the
water
quality
standards.
The
DEQ
would
like
to
thank
the
committee
for
two
years
of
precedent­
setting
cooperation
in
developing
the
WQMP.

Public
Review
A
formal
public
comment
period
on
the
draft
TMDL
and
WQMP
was
opened
on
December
10,
1999.
There
was
considerable
press
coverage
throughout
the
development
of
the
TMDL
and
WQMP
as
well
as
during
the
comment
period.
A
public
information
open
house
was
held
on
January
13,
2000.
A
formal
public
hearing
was
held
on
February
2,
2000.
The
close
of
the
public
comment
period
was
March
3,
2000.
The
Department
received
written
and
oral
comments
from
37
individuals
or
organizations.
The
Department
carefully
considered
all
comments
and
questions
and
made
appropriate
revisions
to
the
draft
TMDL
and
WQMP
prior
to
finalizing
the
documents.
The
Response
to
Comment
document
is
available
from
DEQ.
Page
Left
Blank
Intentionally
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
RIVER
SUB­
BASIN
TOTAL
MAXIMUM
DAILY
LOAD
(
TMDL)

Prepared
by:

Oregon
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
April
2000
Page
Left
Blank
Intentionally
Upper
Grande
Ronde
Sub­
Basin
Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
(
TMDL)

Table
of
Contents
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................
1
Existing
Water
Quality
Programs
1
Implementation
and
Adaptive
Management
Issues
3
Scope
4
Beneficial
Uses
6
Water
Quality
Impairments
and
Target
Identification
­
CWA
303(
d)(
1)
7
TOTAL
MAXIMUM
DAILY
LOADS
(
TMDLS)....................................................
16
Temperature
16
Dissolved
Oxygen
and
pH
30
Sedimentation
40
Bacteria
43
Ammonia
Toxicity
45
Habitat
Modification
and
Flow
Modification
47
Reasonable
Assurance
of
Implementation
48
GLOSSARY
OF
TERMS....................................................................................
51
General
Terminology
51
Statistical
Terminology
56
REFERENCES...................................................................................................
59
APPENDIX
A
 
TEMPERATURE
ANALYSIS
APPENDIX
B
 
PERIPHYTON
ANALYSIS
APPENDIX
C
 
PERMITTED
WATER
RIGHT
WITHDRAWALS
APPENDIX
D
 
APPLICABLE
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
APPENDIX
E
 
ODEQ
POINT
SOURCE
TECHNICAL
MEMORANDUMS
Table
1.
Upper
Grande
Ronde
Sub­
Basin
TMDL
Components
State/
Tribe:
Oregon
Waterbody
Name(
s):
Perennial
streams
within
the
4th
field
HUC
(
hydrologic
unit
code)
17060104.
Point
Source
TMDL:
X
Nonpoint
Source
TMDL:
X
(
check
one
or
both)
Date:
11/
22/
99
Component
Comments
Pollutant
Identification
Pollutants:
Radiant
Heat
Energy
(
Temperature)
and
Nutrients
(
DO/
pH)
Anthropogenic
Contribution:
Increased
Radiant
Energy
and
Nutrient
Input
Target
Identification
CWA
303(
d)(
1)
40
CFR
130.2(
f)
Applicable
Water
Quality
Standards:
see
Appendix
D
Loading
Capacities
Temperature:
No
increases
in
radiant
energy
above
site
potentials
and
maximum
discharge
temperatures
listed
in
Table
15.
Nutrient/
pH/
Dissolved
Oxygen:
Instream
nutrient
concentrations
listed
in
Tables
18,
19,
20,
and
21.
Existing
Sources
CWA
303(
d)(
1)
Forestry,
Agriculture,
Transportation,
Rural
Residential,
Urban,
Industrial
Discharge,
Waste
Water
Treatment
Facilities
Seasonal
Variation
CWA
303(
d)(
1)
Temperature:
Peak
temperatures
occur
throughout
June
to
October
pH:
Peak
pH
values
occur
during
July,
August
and
September
Dissolved
Oxygen:
Lowest
dissolved
oxygen
values
occur
during
July,
August
and
September
TMDL
Allocations
40
CFR
130.2(
g)
40
CFR
130.2(
h)
Temperature
Waste
Load
Allocations
(
Point
Sources):
No
measurable
increase
over
site
potential
water
temperatures.
Load
Allocations
(
Background/
Non­
Point
Sources):
100%
of
Loading
Capacity
allocated
to
natural
sources.
Nutrient/
pH/
Dissolved
Oxygen
Waste
Load
Allocations
(
Point
Sources):
Listed
orthophosphate
and
dissolved
inorganic
nitrogen
reductions
(
see
Wasteload
Allocations
for
Point
Sources,
pages
28­
31)
Load
Allocations
(
Background/
Non­
Point
Sources):
Percent
reduction
in
instream
nutrient
concentrations
listed
in
Tables
19,
20,
21
and
22.

Margins
of
Safety
CWA
303(
d)(
1)
Temperature:
Margins
of
Safety
demonstrated
in
critical
condition
assumptions.
Nutrient/
pH/
Dissolved
Oxygen:
1.
Modeling
pH
in
addition
to
dissolved
oxygen.
Since
pH
was
found
to
control
the
load
allocations,
this
approach
resulted
in
more
stringent
load
allocations,
2.
Applying
8.7
as
a
maximum
pH
standard
rather
than
9.0,
and,
3.
Ignoring
potential
benefits
of
width
reductions
expected
for
site
potential
conditions
when
establishing
load
allocations.

Water
Quality
Standard
Attainment
Analysis
CWA
303(
d)(
1)
 
Analytical
modeling
demonstrates
that
allocated
loads
will
attain
water
quality
standards
 
In
areas
where
numeric
criteria
are
not
met,
analytical
assessments
demonstrate
that
allocated
loads
represent
a
pollutant
loading
condition
where
anthropogenic
contributions
are
minimized
to
the
extent
possible.
 
A
Water
Quality
Management
Plan
(
WQMP)
is
developed
to
implement
measures
that
attain
load/
wasteload
allocations.
Public
Notice
40
CFR
25
Completed
by
Oregon
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
1
APRIL,
2000
Introduction
The
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
is
home
to
productive
forested
and
agriculture
lands
and
has
the
distinction
of
containing
streams
with
historically
viable
salmonid
populations.
Interactions
between
multiple
land
uses
(
i.
e.,
agriculture,
forestry,
transportation,
rural
residential
and
urban)
and
imperiled
salmonid
fisheries
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
have
prompted
extensive
data
collection
and
study
of
the
interaction
between
land
use
and
water
quality.
The
knowledge
derived
from
these
data
collection
efforts
and
academic
study,
some
of
which
is
presented
in
this
document,
will
be
used
to
design
protective
and
enhancement
strategies
that
address
water
quality
issues.

This
document
presents
a
Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
(
TMDL)
that
addresses
salmonid
fisheries
concerns
for
all
streams
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
(
see
Table
1).
Water
quality
impairments
in
tributaries
and
mainstem
reaches
throughout
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
have
reduced
the
extent
of
spawning
and
rearing
habitat
for
chinook
salmon,
steelhead
trout
and
bull
trout.
Primary
watershed
disturbance
activities
contributing
to
increased
surface
water
temperatures
and
other
water
quality
impairments
include
forest
disturbances
within
and
outside
the
riparian
zone,
agricultural
riparian
and
upland
disturbances,
road
construction
and
maintenance,
and
rural
residential
and
urban
development
near
streams
and
rivers.
As
a
result
of
water
quality
standards
(
WQS)
violations,
waters
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
are
included
on
Oregon's
1998
§
303(
d)
list.
Load
allocations
associated
with
this
TMDL
are
designed
to
reduce
the
input
of
pollutants
into
streams.

Several
agencies
have
developed
management
strategies
for
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
subbasin
Water
quality
management
plans
(
WQMPs)
have
been
developed
for
forested,
agricultural
and
urban
lands
that
address
both
non­
point
and
point
sources
of
pollution.
This
TMDL
builds
upon
the
current
land
management
programs
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin,
and
will
be
the
basis
for
the
development
and/
or
alteration
of
water
quality
management
efforts,
including:


Oregon's
Forest
Practices
Act
(
state
and
private
forest
lands),


Senate
Bill
1010
(
agricultural
lands),
and

Oregon
Plan
(
all
lands).

This
TMDL
should
be
used
to
evaluate
long­
term
improvements
in
water
quality,
in­
stream
physical
parameters
and
landscape
conditions
that
occur
over
time
as
WQMPs
are
implemented.
Planned
management
practices
should
be
evaluated
in
terms
of
their
adequacy
in
improving
water
quality,
meeting
in­
stream
targets
(
i.
e.
load
allocations),
and
protecting
beneficial
uses.

Existing
Water
Quality
Programs
Oregon's
Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
Program
Section
303(
d)
of
the
Federal
Clean
Water
Act
requires
that
a
list
be
developed
of
all
impaired
or
threatened
waters
within
the
State
(
§
303(
d)
List).
The
principal
agency
responsible
for
monitoring
the
quality
of
Oregon's
streams,
lakes,
estuaries
and
groundwater
is
the
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
(
ODEQ).
The
information
collected
by
ODEQ,
as
well
as
other
agencies,
is
used
to
determine
whether
water
quality
standards
are
being
violated
and,
consequently,
whether
the
beneficial
uses
of
the
waters
are
being
threatened.
Beneficial
uses
include
fisheries,
aquatic
life,
drinking
water,
recreation
and
irrigation.
Applicable
State
and
Federal
laws
and
regulations
that
protect
beneficial
uses
include
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
its
applicable
regulations
(
40
Codified
Federal
Regulations
131,
40
CFR
131),
and
Oregon's
Administrative
Rules
(
OAR
Chapter
340)
and
Oregon's
Revised
Statutes
(
ORS
Chapter
468).
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
2
APRIL,
2000
The
State
must
establish
a
Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
(
TMDL)
for
any
waterbody
designated
as
water
quality
limited
(
with
a
few
exceptions,
such
as
in
cases
where
violations
are
due
to
natural
causes).
The
term
water
quality
limited
is
applied
to
streams
and
lakes
where
violations
of
State
water
quality
standards
occur.
TMDLs
are
written
plans
and
analyses
established
to
ensure
that
waterbodies
will
attain
and
maintain
water
quality
standards.
TMDLs
must
contain
the
following
elements:
(
1)
identification
of
the
pollutant
and
quantification
of
the
pollutant
load
that
may
be
present
in
the
waterbody
and
still
allow
attainment
and
maintenance
of
water
quality
standards;
(
2)
identification
of
the
amount
or
degree
by
which
the
pollutant
load
in
the
waterbody
deviates
from
the
target
representing
attainment
or
maintenance
of
water
quality
standards;
(
3)
identification
of
source
categories,
source
subcategories
or
individual
sources
of
the
pollutant
for
which
wasteload
and
load
allocations
are
being
established;
(
4)
wasteload
allocations
for
pollutants
from
point
sources;
(
5)
load
allocations
for
pollutants
from
non­
point
sources;
(
6)
a
margin
of
safety;
(
7)
consideration
of
seasonal
variation;
(
8)
an
allowance
for
future
growth
which
accounts
for
reasonably
foreseeable
increases
in
pollutant
loads;
and
(
9)
an
implementation
plan.

The
total
allowable
pollutant
load
is
allocated
to
point,
non­
point,
background,
and
future
sources
of
pollution.
Wasteload
Allocations
are
portions
of
the
total
allowable
pollutant
load
that
are
allocated
to
point
sources
of
pollution,
such
as
wastewater
treatment
plants
or
industries.
They
are
used
to
establish
effluent
limits
in
discharge
permits.
Load
allocations
are
portions
of
the
total
allowable
pollutant
load
that
are
allocated
to
non­
point
sources,
such
as
agriculture
or
forestry
activities,
and
natural
background
sources.
Allocations
can
also
be
set
aside
in
reserve
for
future
uses.
Simply
stated,
allocations
are
quantified
measures
that
assure
water
quality
standard
compliance.
The
TMDL
is
the
integration
of
all
developed
allocations.

Oregon's
Forest
Practices
Act
The
Oregon
Forest
Practices
Act
(
FPA,
1994)
contains
regulatory
provisions
that
include
the
following
objectives:
classify
and
protect
water
resources,
reduce
the
impacts
of
clearcut
harvesting,
maintain
soil
and
site
productivity,
ensure
successful
reforestation,
reduce
forest
management
impacts
to
anadromous
fish,
conserve
and
protect
water
quality
and
maintain
fish
and
wildlife
habitat,
develop
cooperative
monitoring
agreements,
foster
public
participation,
identify
stream
restoration
projects,
recognize
the
value
of
biodiversity
and
monitor/
regulate
the
application
of
chemicals.
Oregon's
Department
of
Forestry
(
ODF)
has
adopted
Forest
Practice
Administrative
Rules
(
1997)
that
clearly
define
allowable
actions
on
State,
County
and
private
forestlands.
Forest
Practice
Administrative
Rules
allow
revisions
and
adjustments
to
the
regulatory
parameters
it
contains.
Several
revisions
have
been
made
in
previous
years
and
it
is
expected
that
the
ODF,
in
conjunction
with
DEQ,
will
continue
to
monitor
the
success
of
the
Forest
Practice
Administrative
Rules
and
make
appropriate
revisions
when
necessary
to
address
water
quality
concerns.

Senate
Bill
1010
Senate
Bill
1010
allows
the
Oregon
Department
of
Agriculture
(
ODA)
to
develop
Water
Quality
Management
Plans
for
agricultural
lands
where
such
actions
are
required
by
State
or
Federal
Law,
such
as
TMDL
requirements.
The
Water
Quality
Management
Plan
should
be
crafted
in
such
a
way
that
landowners
in
the
local
area
can
prevent
and
control
water
pollution
resulting
from
agricultural
activities.
Local
stakeholders
will
be
asked
to
take
corrective
action
against
identified
problems
such
as
soil
erosion,
nutrient
transport
to
waterways
and
degraded
riparian
areas.
It
is
the
ODA's
intent
to
establish
Water
Quality
Management
Plans
on
a
voluntary
basis.
Senate
Bill
1010
allows
the
ODA
to
use
civil
penalties
when
necessary
to
enforce
against
agriculture
activity
that
is
found
to
transgress
parameters
of
an
approved
Water
Quality
Management
Plan.
The
ODA
has
expressed
a
desire
to
work
with
the
local
stakeholders
and
other
State
and
Federal
agencies
to
formulate
and
enforce
approved
Water
Quality
Management
Plans.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
3
APRIL,
2000
Oregon
Plan
The
State
of
Oregon
has
formed
a
partnership
between
Federal
and
State
agencies,
local
groups
and
grassroots
organizations,
that
recognizes
the
attributes
of
aquatic
health
and
their
connection
to
the
health
of
salmon
populations.
The
Oregon
Plan
considers
the
condition
of
salmon
as
a
critical
indicator
of
ecosystems
(
CSRI,
1997).
The
decline
of
salmon
populations
has
been
linked
to
impoverished
ecosystem
form
and
function.
The
Oregon
Plan
has
committed
the
State
of
Oregon
to
the
following
obligations:
an
ecosystem
approach
that
requires
consideration
of
the
full
range
of
attributes
of
aquatic
health,
focuses
on
reversing
factors
for
decline
by
meeting
objectives
that
address
these
factors,
develops
adaptive
management
and
a
comprehensive
monitoring
strategy,
and
relies
on
citizens
and
constituent
groups
in
all
parts
of
the
restoration
process.

The
intent
of
the
Oregon
Plan
is
to
conserve
and
restore
functional
elements
of
the
ecosystem
that
supports
fish,
wildlife
and
people.
Specifically,
the
Oregon
Plan
is
designed
to
build
on
existing
State
and
Federal
water
quality
programs,
namely:
Coastal
Zone
Non­
point
Pollution
Control
Programs,
the
Northwest
Forest
Plan,
Oregon's
Forest
Practices
Act,
Oregon's
Senate
Bill
1010
and
Oregon's
Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
Program.

Implementation
and
Adaptive
Management
Issues
a)
The
goal
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
associated
Oregon
Administrative
Rules
is
that
water
quality
standards
shall
be
met
or
that
all
feasible
steps
will
be
taken
towards
achieving
the
highest
quality
water
attainable.
This
is
a
long­
term
goal
in
many
watersheds,
particularly
where
nonpoint
sources
are
the
main
concern,
but
implementation
must
commence
as
soon
as
possible.

b)
Total
Maximum
Daily
Loads
(
TMDLs)
are
numerical
loading
that
are
set
to
limit
pollutant
levels
such
that
in­
stream
water
quality
standards
are
met.
The
Department
recognizes
that
TMDLs
are
values
calculated
from
mathematical
models
and
other
analytical
techniques
designed
to
simulate
and/
or
predict
very
complex
physical,
chemical
and
biological
processes.
Models
and
techniques
are
simplifications
of
these
complex
processes
and,
as
such,
are
unlikely
to
produce
an
exact
and
accurate
prediction
of
how
streams
and
other
waterbodies
will
respond
to
the
application
of
various
management
measures.
It
is
for
this
reason
that
the
TMDL
has
been
established
with
a
margin
of
safety.

c)
Water
Quality
Management
Plans
(
WQMPs)
are
plans
designed
to
reduce
pollutant
loads
from
nonpoint
sources
to
meet
TMDLs.
The
Department
recognizes
that
it
may
take
some
period
of
time
 
from
several
years
to
several
decades­­
after
full
implementation
before
management
practices
in
a
WQMP
become
fully
effective
in
reducing
and
controlling
non
point
source
pollution.
In
addition,
the
Department
recognizes
that
technology
for
controlling
nonpoint
source
pollution
is,
in
many
cases,
in
the
development
stages
and
that
it
may
take
one
or
more
iterations
before
effective
techniques
are
found.
It
is
possible
that
after
application
of
all
reasonable
best
management
practices,
some
TMDLs
or
their
associated
surrogates
cannot
be
achieved
as
originally
established.

d)
The
Department
also
recognizes
that,
despite
the
best
and
most
sincere
of
efforts,
natural
events
beyond
the
control
of
humans
may
interfere
with
or
delay
attainment
of
the
TMDL
and/
or
its
associated
surrogates.
Such
events
could
be,
but
are
not
limited
to,
floods,
fire,
insect
infestations,
and
drought.

e)
In
some
cases
in
this
TMDL,
pollutant
surrogates
have
been
defined
as
alternative
targets
for
meeting
the
TMDL.
The
purpose
of
the
surrogates
is
not
to
bar
or
eliminate
human
access
or
activity
in
the
basin
or
its
riparian
areas.
It
is
the
expectation,
however,
that
WQMPs
will
address
how
human
activities
will
be
managed
to
achieve
the
surrogates.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
4
APRIL,
2000
f)
If
a
nonpoint
source
that
is
covered
by
this
TMDL
complies
with
its
WQMP
or
applicable
forest
practice
rules,
it
will
be
considered
in
compliance
with
the
TMDL.

g)
The
Department
intends
to
regularly
review
progress
of
WQMPs
to
achieve
TMDLs.
If
and
when
the
Department
determines
that
WQMP
have
been
fully
implemented,
that
all
feasible
management
practices
have
reached
maximum
expected
effectiveness
and
a
TMDL
or
its
interim
targets
have
not
been
achieved,
the
Department
shall
reopen
the
TMDL
and
adjust
it
or
its
interim
targets
and
its
associated
water
quality
standard(
s)
as
necessary.

h)
The
implementation
of
TMDLs
and
the
associated
management
plans
is
generally
enforceable
by
the
Department,
other
state
agencies
and
local
government.
However,
it
is
envisioned
that
sufficient
initiative
exists
to
achieve
water
quality
goals
with
minimal
enforcement.
Should
the
need
for
additional
effort
emerge,
it
is
expected
that
the
responsible
agency
will
work
with
land
managers
to
overcome
impediments
to
progress
through
education,
technical
support
or
enforcement.
Enforcement
may
be
necessary
in
instances
of
insufficient
action
towards
progress.
This
could
occur
first
through
direct
intervention
from
land
management
agencies
(
e.
g.
ODF,
ODA,
counties
and
cities),
and
secondarily
through
DEQ.
The
latter
may
be
based
in
departmental
orders
to
implement
management
goals
leading
to
water
quality
standards.

i)
In
employing
an
adaptive
management
approach
to
this
TMDL
and
WQMP,
DEQ
has
the
following
expectations
and
intentions:

1.
Subject
to
available
resources,
on
a
five
year
basis,
the
Department
intends
to
review
the
progress
of
the
TMDL
and
the
WQMP.

2.
In
conducting
this
review,
the
Department
will
evaluate
the
progress
towards
achieving
the
TMDL
(
and
water
quality
standards)
and
the
success
of
implementing
the
WQMP.

3.
The
Department
expects
that
each
management
agency
will
also
monitor
and
document
its
progress
in
implementing
the
provisions
of
its
component
of
the
WQMP.
This
information
will
be
provided
to
DEQ
for
its
use
in
reviewing
the
TMDL.

4.
As
implementation
of
the
WQMP
proceeds,
DEQ
expects
that
management
agencies
will
develop
bench
marks
for
attainment
of
TMDL
surrogates
which
can
then
be
used
to
measure
progress.

5.
Where
implementation
of
the
WQMP
or
effectiveness
of
management
techniques
are
found
to
be
inadequate,
DEQ
expects
management
agencies
to
revise
the
components
of
the
WQMP
to
address
these
deficiencies.

6.
When
DEQ,
in
consultation
with
the
management
agencies,
concludes
that
all
feasible
steps
have
been
taken
to
meet
the
TMDL
and
its
associated
surrogates
and
attainment
of
water
quality
standards,
the
TMDL,
or
the
associated
surrogates
is
not
practicable,
it
will
reopen
the
TMDL
and
revise
it
as
appropriate.
DEQ
would
also
consider
reopening
the
TMDL
should
new
information
become
available
indicating
that
the
TMDL
or
its
associated
surrogates
should
be
modified.

Scope
The
area
covered
by
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
TMDL
corresponds
to
hydrologic
unit
code
(
HUC)
17060104,
which
includes
all
lands
that
drain
to
Grande
Ronde
River
upstream
of
the
confluence
with
the
Wallowa
River
at
Rondowa.
The
Upper
Grande
Ronde
River
sub­
basin
is
approximately
1,640
square
miles,
bordered
by
the
Blue
Mountains
to
the
west/
northwest,
the
Elkhorn
Range
to
the
southwest
and
the
Wallowa
Mountains
to
the
east/
southeast.
Elevations
vary
from
2,300
feet
to
7,800
feet.
Lower
elevations
generally
receive
12
to
25
of
rainfall
equivalent
precipitation
annually.
Higher
elevations
commonly
receive
up
to
50
inches
of
annual
rainfall
equivalent
precipitation,
most
of
which
is
received
as
snowfall.
Highest
flows
are
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
5
APRIL,
2000
associated
with
rain
on
snowpack
events.
Low
stream
flows
are
generally
associated
with
a
long
summertime
drought
and
complete
melt
of
the
winter
received
snowpack.

Land
ownership
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
is
equally
divided
between
private
and
federal
land,
with
small
tracts
of
land
owned/
managed
by
the
State
of
Oregon
and
the
Confederated
Tribes
of
the
Umatilla
Indian
Reservation
(
CTUIR).
Total
distributions
of
ownership/
management
are
displayed
in
Figure
1,
while
spatial
distributions
of
land
ownership
is
displayed
in
Image
1.
This
TMDL
does
not
apply
to
Confederated
Tribes
of
the
Umatilla
Indian
Reservation
(
CTUIR)
lands.
Figure
1.
Land
Ownership/
Management
Distribution
Private
53.26%
USFS
45.81%
CTUIR
0.33%
State
0.19%
BLM
0.41%

Image
1.
Land
Ownership/
Management
Spatial
Distribution
Gr
ande
Ronde
Riv
er
Fly
Creek
Beaver
Creek
Catherine
Creek
Meadow
Creek
Indian
Creek
Phil
lips
Creek
McCoy
Creek
Jarboe
Creek
Lookingglass
Creek
Five
Points
Creek
Sheep
Creek
Jordan
Creek
Dark
Canyon
Spring
Creek
Gekeler
Slough
Mottet
Creek
Clark
Creek
B
ear
Creek
Little
Rock
Creek
Pelican
Creek
Sta
te
Ditch
Mill
Creek
Burnt
Corral
Creek
Ch
icken
Creek
Lick
Creek
Clear
Creek
Tanner
Gulch
Pedro
Cre
ek
M
t
Em
ily
Cree
k
Grande
Ronde
River
Mill
Cree
k
Union
La
Grande
Elgin
Cove
Imbler
Summerville
USFS
BLM
State
Lands
Indian
Reservation
Private
Lands
Land
Ownership
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
6
APRIL,
2000
Beneficial
Uses
Oregon
Administrative
Rules
(
OAR
Chapter
340,
Division
41,
Table
13)
lists
the
designated
beneficial
uses
for
which
water
is
to
be
protected
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin.
Designated
beneficial
uses
are
presented
in
Table
2.
(
Temperature,
dissolved
oxygen,
and
pH
sensitive
beneficial
uses
are
marked
in
gray.)
Numeric
and
narrative
water
quality
standards
are
designed
to
protect
the
most
sensitive
beneficial
uses.
In
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin,
resident
fish
and
aquatic
life,
salmonid
spawning,
rearing
and
migration
(
i.
e.,
anadromous
fish
passage)
are
designated
the
most
sensitive
beneficial
uses
(
Image
2).

Table
2.
Designated
Beneficial
Uses
Occurring
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
Sub­
Basin
(
OAR
340­
41­
722)

Temperature,
dissolved
oxygen
and
pH
sensitive
beneficial
uses
are
marked
in
gray
Beneficial
Use
Occurring
Beneficial
Use
Occurring
Public
Domestic
Water
Supply

Anadromous
Fish
Passage

Private
Domestic
Water
Supply

Salmonid
Fish
Spawning

Industrial
Water
Supply

Salmonid
Fish
Rearing

Irrigation

Resident
Fish
and
Aquatic
Life

Livestock
Watering

Wildlife
and
Hunting

Boating

Fishing

Aesthetic
Quality

Water
Contact
Recreation

Commercial
Navigation
&
Trans.
Hydro
Power
Image
2.
Sensitive
Beneficial
Uses
 
Salmonid
Migration,
Spawning
and
Rearing
Grande
Ronde
River
Fly
Creek
Beaver
Creek
Catherine
Creek
Meadow
Creek
Indian
Cree
k
Phillips
Creek
McCoy
Creek
Jarboe
Creek
Lookingglass
Creek
Five
Points
Creek
Sheep
Creek
Jordan
C
reek
Dark
Can
yon
Spring
Creek
Gekele
r
Slough
Mottet
Creek
Clark
Creek
Bear
Cree
k
Little
Roc
k
Creek
Pelican
Creek
State
Ditch
Mill
Creek
Burnt
Corral
Creek
Chicken
Creek
Lick
Creek
Clear
Creek
Tanner
Gulch
Pedro
Creek
Mt
Emily
Creek
Grande
Ronde
River
Mill
Creek
Union
La
Grande
Elgin
Cove
Imbler
Summerville
Chinook
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Trout
Bull
Trout
Salmonid
Fish
Distributions
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
7
APRIL,
2000
Water
Quality
Impairments
and
Target
Identification
­
CWA
303(
d)(
1)
Monitoring
shows
that
water
quality
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
frequently
violates
numeric
criteria
contained
in
State
water
quality
standards
(
WQS)
1.
Applicable
water
quality
standards
for
the
Grande
Ronde
Sub­
Basin
are
presented
in
Appendix
D.
Section
303(
d)
of
the
Federal
Clean
Water
Act
requires
that
water
bodies
that
violate
water
quality
standards,
and
thereby
fail
to
fully
protect
beneficial
uses,
be
identified
and
placed
on
the
§
303(
d)
list
of
impaired
or
threatened
waters.
Following
further
assessment,
the
Act
requires
that
Total
Maximum
Daily
Loads
(
TMDL)
and
Water
Quality
Management
Plans
(
WQMP)
be
developed
and
implemented
to
restore
water
quality.
WQMPs
must
include
long­
term
monitoring
plans
and
adaptive
management
strategies
to
insure
that
water
quality
standards
are
achieved
(
DEQ
WQMP
guidance
1997).
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
water
quality
parameters
included
in
the
1998
§
303(
d)
list
are
presented
below.

Temperature
Aquatic
life
is
sensitive
to
water
temperature.
Salmonid
fishes,
often
referred
to
as
cold
water
fish,
and
some
amphibians
are
sensitive
to
temperature.
In
particular,
Chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
and
bull
trout
(
Salvelinus
confluentus)
are
among
the
most
temperature
sensitive
of
the
cold
water
fish
species.
Oregon's
water
temperature
standard
employs
logic
that
relies
on
using
these
indicator
species,
which
are
the
most
sensitive.
If
temperatures
are
protective
of
these
indicator
species,
other
species
will
share
in
this
level
of
protection.

The
two
indicator
species,
Chinook
salmon
and
bull
trout,
that
are
referenced
in
Oregon's
water
temperature
standard
have,
coincidentally,
been
allotted
protection
(
listed)
under
the
Endangered
Species
Act
(
ESA,
1972)
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin.
Further,
Snake
River
steelhead
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
are
listed
as
threatened
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin.
Snake
River
fall
and
spring
Chinook
salmon
are
designated
under
ESA
as
threatened
species.

If
stream
temperatures
become
too
hot,
fish
die
almost
instantaneously
due
to
denaturing
of
critical
enzyme
systems
in
their
bodies
(
Posser,
1967;
Hogan,
1970).
The
ultimate
instantaneous
lethal
limit
occurs
in
high
temperature
ranges
(
upper­
90
°
F).

More
common
and
widespread,
is
the
occurrence
of
temperatures
in
the
mid­
to
high­
70
°
F
range
(
mid­
to
high­
20
°
C
range).
These
temperatures
cause
death
of
cold­
water
fish
species
during
exposure
times
lasting
a
few
hours
to
a
day.
The
exact
temperature
at
which
a
cold
water
fish
succumbs
to
such
a
thermal
stress
depends
on
the
temperature
that
the
fish
is
acclimated
and
on
particular
development
life­
stages.
This
cause
of
mortality,
termed
the
incipient
lethal
limit,
results
from
breakdown
of
physiological
regulation
of
vital
processes
such
as
respiration
and
circulation
(
Heath
and
Hughes,
1973).
Brett
(
1952)
reported
an
incipient
lethal
limit
of
77
°
F
(
25
°
C)
for
spring
Chinook
salmon.
Similarly,
Bell
(
1986)
reported
an
incipient
lethal
limit
for
Chinook
salmon
of
77
°
F
(
25
°
C).
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
and
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS)
reported
50%
mortality
to
adult
salmon
and
steelhead
trout
with
a
constant
water
temperature
of
70
°
F
(
21
°
C).

The
most
common
and
widespread
cause
of
thermally
induced
fish
mortality
is
attributed
to
interactive
effects
of
decreased
or
lack
of
metabolic
energy
for
feeding,
growth
or
reproductive
behavior,
increased
exposure
to
pathogens
(
viruses,
bacteria
and
fungi),
decreased
food
supply
(
impaired
macroinvertebrate
populations)
and
increased
competition
from
warm
water
tolerant
species.
This
mode
of
thermally
induced
mortality,
termed
indirect
or
sub­
lethal,
is
more
delayed,
and
occurs
weeks
to
months
after
the
onset
of
elevated
temperatures
(
mid­
60
°
F
to
low­
70
°
F).
Table
3
summarizes
the
modes
of
cold
water
fish
mortality.

1
For
detailed
analytical
information
pertaining
to
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
water
temperatures,
see
Appendix
A.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
8
APRIL,
2000
Table
3.
Modes
of
Thermally
Induced
Cold
Water
Fish
Mortality
(
Brett,
1952;
Bell,
1986;
Hokanson
et
al.,
1977)

Modes
of
Thermally
Induced
Fish
Mortality
Temperature
Range
Time
to
Death
Instantaneous
Lethal
Limit
 
Denaturing
of
bodily
enzyme
systems
>
90oF
>
32oC
Instantaneous
Incipient
Lethal
Limit
 
Breakdown
of
physiological
regulation
of
vital
bodily
processes,
namely:
respiration
and
circulation
70oF
to
77oF
21oC
to
25oC
Hours
to
Days
Sub­
Lethal
Limit
 
Conditions
that
cause
decreased
or
lack
of
metabolic
energy
for
feeding,
growth
or
reproductive
behavior,
encourage
increased
exposure
to
pathogens,
decreased
food
supply
and
increased
competition
from
warm
water
tolerant
species
64oF
to
74oF
20oC
to
23oC
Weeks
to
Months
A
seven­
day
moving
average
of
daily
maximums
(
7­
day
statistic)
was
adopted
as
the
statistical
measure
of
the
stream
temperature
standard.
Absolute
numeric
criteria
are
deemed
action
levels
and
indication
of
water
quality
standard
compliance.
Unless
specifically
allowed
under
a
Department­
approved
surface
water
temperature
management
plan
as
required
under
(
OAR
340­
041­
0026(
3)(
a)(
D)),
no
measurable
surface
water
temperature
increase
resulting
from
anthropogenic
activities
is
allowed
in
State
of
Oregon
Waters
determined
out
of
compliance
with
the
temperature
standard
(
see
Appendix
D).
The
numeric
criteria
adopted
in
Oregon's
water
temperature
standard
rely
on
the
biological
temperature
limitations
considering
sensitive
indicator
species
is
presented
in
Table
3.
A
much
more
extensive
analysis
of
water
temperature
related
to
aquatic
life
and
supporting
documentation
for
the
temperature
standard
can
be
found
in
the
1992­
1994
Water
Quality
Standards
Review
Final
Issue
Papers
(
ODEQ,
1995).

It
is
important
to
understand
the
State
of
Oregon's
temperature
standard
and
that
there
is
more
to
it
than
just
a
64oF
standard.
Specifically
for
the
Grande
Ronde
Basin
OAR
states
at
340­
041­
0725:

(
A)
To
accomplish
the
goals
identified
in
OAR
340­
041­
0120(
11),
unless
specifically
allowed
under
a
Department­
approved
surface
water
temperature
management
plan
as
required
under
OAR
340­
041­
0026(
3)(
a)(
D),
no
measurable
surface
water
temperature
increase
resulting
from
anthropogenic
activities
is
allowed:

(
i)
In
a
basin
for
which
salmonid
fish
rearing
is
a
designated
beneficial
use,
and
in
which
surface
water
temperatures
exceed
64.0
°
F
(
17.8
°
C);

(
ii)
In
waters
and
periods
of
the
year
determined
by
the
Department
to
support
native
salmonid
spawning,
egg
incubation,
and
fry
emergence
from
the
egg
and
from
the
gravels
in
a
basin
which
exceeds
55.0
°
F
(
12.8
°
C);

(
iii)
In
waters
determined
by
the
Department
to
support
or
to
be
necessary
to
maintain
the
viability
of
native
Oregon
bull
trout,
when
surface
water
temperatures
exceed
50.0
°
F
(
10.0
°
C);

(
iv)
In
waters
determined
by
the
Department
to
be
ecologically
significant
coldwater
refugia;

(
v)
In
stream
segments
containing
federally
listed
Threatened
and
Endangered
species
if
the
increase
would
impair
the
biological
integrity
of
the
Threatened
and
Endangered
population;

(
vi)
In
Oregon
waters
when
the
dissolved
oxygen
(
DO)
levels
are
within
0.5
mg/
l
or
10
percent
saturation
of
the
water
column
or
intergravel
DO
criterion
for
a
given
stream
reach
or
subbasin;

(
vii)
In
natural
lakes.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
9
APRIL,
2000
As
a
result
of
water
quality
standards
(
WQS)
exceedances
for
temperature,
thirty­
eight
stream
segments
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
are
included
on
Oregon's
1998
§
303(
d)
list.
Image
3
displays
1998
§
303(
d)
listed
stream
segments
for
temperature
violations,
while
Table
4
lists
the
reaches
§
303(
d)
listed
for
temperature
and
the
applicable
criterion
that
is
exceeded.
In
addition,
this
TMDL
addresses
potential
water
quality
impairment
for
streams
within
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
River
sub­
basin
that
are
not
currently
on
Oregon's
1998
§
303(
d)
list.

Image
3.
1998
§
303(
d)
Listings
for
Temperature
Grande
Ronde
River
Fly
Creek
Beaver
Creek
Catherine
Creek
Meado
w
Creek
In
di
an
Creek
Phillips
Creek
McCoy
Creek
Jarboe
Creek
Lookingglass
Creek
Five
Points
Creek
Sheep
Creek
Jordan
Creek
Dark
Canyon
Spring
Creek
Gekeler
Sloug
h
Mottet
Creek
Clark
Creek
Bear
Cree
k
Lit
tle
Rock
Cre
ek
Pelican
Cr
eek
State
Ditch
Mill
Cree
k
Burn
t
Corr
al
Cr
eek
Chick
en
Cree
k
Li
ck
Cre
ek
Clear
Creek
Tanner
Gul
ch
Pedro
C
reek
Mt
Emily
Creek
Grande
Ronde
River
Mill
Creek
Union
La
Grande
Elgin
Cove
Imbler
Summerville
1998
303(
d)
Temperature
Limited
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
10
APRIL,
2000
Table
4.
1998
§
303(
d)
Listed
Segments
and
Applicable
Numeric
Criterion
OAR
340­
41­
725(
2)(
b)(
A)

Time
Period:
 
Rearing:
July
1
through
September
30
 
Spawning
Through
Fry
Emergence:
October
1
through
June
30
or
waterbody
specified
as
identified
by
ODFW
biologist.
Supporting
Data:
 
ODEQ
(
1991
 
1998)
 
USFS
(
1992
 
1998)
Stream
Segment
Criterion
Bear
Cr.
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Beaver
Cr.
Mouth
to
La
Grande
Reservoir
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Burnt
Corral
Cr.
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Catherine
Cr.
Mouth
to
Union
Dam
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Catherine
Cr.
Union
Dam
to
N.
F./
S.
F.
Catherine
Cr.
Oregon
Bull
Trout
50oF
(
10oC)
Catherine
Cr.,
M.
F.
Mouth
to
Squaw
Cr.
Oregon
Bull
Trout
50oF
(
10oC)
Catherine
Cr.,
N.
F.
Mouth
to
M.
F.
Catherine
Cr.
Oregon
Bull
Trout
50oF
(
10oC)
Catherine
Cr.,
S.
F.
Pole
Cr.
to
S.
Catherine
Ditch
Diversion
Oregon
Bull
Trout
50oF
(
10oC)
Chicken
Cr.
Mouth
to
West
Chicken
Cr.
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Chicken
Cr.,
West
Mouth
to
end
of
meadow
in
Section
15
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Clark
Cr.
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Dark
Canyon
Cr.
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Fivepoints
Cr.
Mouth
to
Tie
Cr.
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Fly
Cr.
Mouth
to
Umapine
Cr.
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Fly
Cr.,
Little
Mouth
to
Headwater
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Grande
Ronde
R.
Limber
Jim
Cr.
To
Clear
Cr.
Oregon
Bull
Trout
50oF
(
10oC)
Grande
Ronde
R.
Wallowa
R
to
Five
Points
Cr.
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Grande
Ronde
R.
Five
Points
Cr.
to
Limber
Jim
Cr.
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Indian
Cr.
Mouth
to
Little
Indian
Cr.
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Indiana
Cr.
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Oregon
Bull
Trout
50oF
(
10oC)
Jarboe
Cr.
Mouth
to
FSR
6413
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Lick
Cr.
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Limber
Jim
Cr.
Mouth
to
Marion
Cr.
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Limber
Jim
Cr.
Marion
Cr.
to
Headwaters
Oregon
Bull
Trout
50oF
(
10oC)
Limber
Jim
Cr.,
S.
F.
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Lookingglass
Cr.
Mouth
to
Luger
Springs
(
RM
7)
Oregon
Bull
Trout
50oF
(
10oC)
Lookingglass
Cr.,
Little
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Oregon
Bull
Trout
50oF
(
10oC)
Lookout
Cr.
Mouth
to
Forest
Boundary
at
Section
35
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
McCoy
Cr.
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Meadow
Cr.
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Mill
Cr.
(
La
Grande)
Mouth
to
La
Grande
City
Limits
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Pelican
Cr.
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Rock
Cr.
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Sheep
Cr.
Mouth
to
Warm
Mineral
Springs
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Sheep
Cr.,
E.
F.
Mouth
to
headwaters
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Spring
Cr.
Mouth
to
South
Fork
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
State
Ditch
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
Waucup
Cr.
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Rearing
64oF
(
17.8oC)
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
11
APRIL,
2000
Dissolved
Oxygen
and
pH
The
Grande
Ronde
River
and
Catherine
and
Meadow
Creeks
experience
dissolved
oxygen
and
pH
water
quality
standards
violations
related
to
excessive
periphyton
growth.
The
excessive
growth
is
due
to
a
number
of
factors
including
elevated
nutrient
concentrations,
high
water
temperatures,
excessive
solar
radiation,
high
width
to
depth
ratios,
and
inadequate
stream
flow
rates.
This
excessive
periphyton
activity
causes
large
diel
dissolved
oxygen
and
pH
fluctuations
which
result
in
dissolved
oxygen
standards
violations
at
night
and
pH
standards
violations
during
the
day.

For
dissolved
oxygen,
the
applicable
standard
depends
on
whether
the
most
sensitive
species
present
are
cold
water
(
salmonid)
or
cool
water
(
non­
salmonid)
species
and
on
whether
salmonid
spawning
and
egg
incubation
occurs.
Waterbodies
identified
as
providing
for
cold­
water
aquatic
life
are
those
in
which
salmon,
trout,
cold­
water
invertebrates,
and
other
native
cold­
water
species
exist
throughout
all
or
most
of
the
year
(
OAR
340­
41­
455
Table
21)
and
in
which
juvenile
anadromous
salmonids
may
rear
throughout
the
year.
All
reaches
in
the
upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
have
been
identified
as
providing
for
cold­
water
aquatic
life
at
all
times
of
the
year
and
for
salmonid
spawning
and
egg
incubation
during
the
fall,
winter
and
spring
months
from
October
1
through
June
30.

For
time
periods
identified
as
providing
for
salmonid
spawning
and
egg
incubation,
the
applicable
water
column
standard
is
95%
of
saturation.
For
a
3000
ft.
elevation,
which
is
roughly
the
average
elevation
of
the
reaches
modeled,
95%
saturation
at
10oC
(
bull
trout
temperature
criteria)
is
9.7
mg/
L
and
at
12.8oC
(
salmonid
spawning
temperature
criteria)
is
9.1
mg/
L.

For
reaches
and
time
periods
identified
as
providing
for
cold
water
aquatic
life,
including
salmonids
(
other
than
during
spawning
and
egg
incubation),
two
sets
of
standards
are
specified:

1)
8.0
mg/
L
as
an
absolute
minimum.
Where
conditions
of
barometric
pressure,
altitude,
and
temperature
preclude
attainment
of
8.0
mg/
L,
dissolved
oxygen
shall
not
be
less
than
90%
of
saturation.
This
set
of
standards
applies
when
only
limited
data
is
available.

2)
8.0
mg/
L
as
a
minimum
30­
day
average,
6.5
mg/
L
as
a
minimum
7­
day
average
of
the
daily
minimums,
and
6.0
mg/
L
as
an
absolute
minimum.
This
set
of
standards
applies
at
the
discretion
of
the
Department
when
the
Department
determines
that
adequate
information
exists.

Due
to
the
large
amount
of
continuous
monitoring
data
available
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
subbasin
the
second
set
of
standards
has
been
applied.

For
pH,
Oregon
Administrative
Rule
specifies
that
the
pH
(­
log10{
H+}
)
shall
not
fall
outside
of
the
range
6.5
to
9.0.
The
OAR
further
requires
that
when
greater
than
25%
of
ambient
measurements
taken
between
June
and
September
are
greater
than
pH
8.7,
and
as
resources
are
available
according
to
priorities
set
by
the
Department,
the
Department
shall
determine
whether
the
values
higher
than
8.7
are
anthropogenic
or
natural
in
origin.

In
order
to
provide
for
additional
margins
of
safety
when
establishing
load
allocations,
targets
for
dissolved
oxygen
and
pH
have
been
set
to
levels
more
stringent
than
the
standards
require.
For
dissolved
oxygen,
targets
for
non­
salmonid
spawning
periods
have
been
set
to
6.5
mg/
L
as
an
absolute
minimum
(
rather
than
as
a
7­
day
average
of
the
daily
minimums)
and
8.0
mg/
L
as
a
minimum
30­
day
average.
For
spawning
periods,
the
95%
of
saturation
criterion
has
been
applied.
For
pH,
targets
have
been
set
to
8.7
as
an
absolute
maximum,
and
6.5
as
an
absolute
minimum.

Tables
5
through
12
and
Images
4
through
11
display
reaches
in
the
sub­
basin
included
in
the
1998
§
303(
d)
list
for
violating
water
quality
standards.
Stream
segments
included
in
the
§
303(
d)
list
for
dissolved
oxygen
violations
are
displayed
in
Image
6
and
Table
7.
Those
listed
for
pH
violations
are
displayed
in
Image
10
and
Table
11.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
12
APRIL,
2000
Aquatic
Weeds
or
Algae
Table
5.
Segments
on
the
1998
§
303(
d)
List
for
Aquatic
Weeds
or
Algae
Waterbody
Name
Boundaries
Catherine
Creek
Mouth
to
Union
Dam
Grande
Ronde
River
Wallowa
R
to
Five
Points
Cr
State
Ditch
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Bacteria
Table
6.
Segments
on
the
1998
§
303(
d)
List
for
Bacteria
Waterbody
Name
Boundaries
Grande
Ronde
River
Wallowa
R
to
Five
Points
Cr
Dissolved
Oxygen
(
DO)

Table
7.
Segments
on
the
1998
§
303(
d)
List
for
Dissolved
Oxygen
(
DO)
Waterbody
Name
Boundaries
Catherine
Creek
Mouth
to
Union
Dam
Grande
Ronde
River
Wallowa
R
to
Five
Points
Cr
Flow
Modification
Table
8.
Segments
on
the
1998
§
303(
d)
List
for
Flow
Modification
Waterbody
Name
Boundaries
Catherine
Creek
Mouth
to
Union
Dam
Grande
Ronde
River
Wallowa
R
to
Five
Points
Cr
State
Ditch
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Habitat
Modification
Table
9.
Segments
on
the
1998
§
303(
d)
List
for
Habitat
Modification
Waterbody
Name
Boundaries
Catherine
Creek
Mouth
to
Union
Dam
Chicken
Creek
Mouth
to
West
Chicken
Creek
Dark
Canyon
Creek
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Fly
Creek
Mouth
to
Umapine
Creek
Grande
Ronde
River
Wallowa
R
to
Five
Points
Cr
Grande
Ronde
River
Five
Points
Cr
to
Tanner
Gulch
Grande
Ronde
River
Tanner
Gulch
to
Headwaters
Jordan
Creek
Mouth
to
National
Forest
Boundary
Limber
Jim
Creek
Mouth
to
North
Fork
Little
Fly
Creek
Mouth
to
Headwater
Little
Lookingglass
Creek
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Lookingglass
Creek
Mouth
to
Headwaters
McCoy
Creek
Mouth
to
Headwaters
McIntyre
Creek
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Meadow
Creek
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Rock
Creek
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Sheep
Creek
Mouth
to
Warm
Mineral
Springs
Sheep
Creek
Warm
Mineral
Springs
to
Headwaters
State
Ditch
Mouth
to
Headwaters
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
13
APRIL,
2000
Nutrients
Table
10.
Segments
on
the
1998
§
303(
d)
List
for
Nutrients
Waterbody
Name
Boundaries
Catherine
Creek
Mouth
to
Union
Dam
Grande
Ronde
River
Wallowa
R
to
Five
Points
Cr
State
Ditch
Mouth
to
Headwaters
pH
Table
11.
Segments
on
the
1998
§
303(
d)
List
for
pH
Waterbody
Name
Boundaries
Catherine
Creek
Mouth
to
Union
Dam
Grande
Ronde
River
Five
Points
Cr
to
Tanner
Gulch
Grande
Ronde
River
Wallowa
R
to
Five
Points
Cr
Meadow
Creek
Mouth
to
Headwaters
State
Ditch
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Sedimentation
Table
12.
Segments
on
the
1998
§
303(
d)
List
for
Sedimentation
Waterbody
Name
Boundaries
Beaver
Creek
Mouth
to
La
Grande
Reservoir
Catherine
Creek,
North
Fork
Mouth
to
Middle
Fork
Catherine
Creek,
South
Fork
Mouth
to
South
Catherine
Ditch
Diversion
Chicken
Creek
Mouth
to
West
Chicken
Creek
Clear
Creek
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Dark
Canyon
Creek
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Fly
Creek
Mouth
to
Umapine
Creek
Grande
Ronde
River
Wallowa
R
to
Five
Points
Cr
Grande
Ronde
River
Five
Points
Cr
to
Tanner
Gulch
Grande
Ronde
River
Tanner
Gulch
to
Headwaters
Jordan
Creek
Mouth
to
National
Forest
Boundary
Limber
Jim
Creek
Mouth
to
North
Fork
Little
Catherine
Creek
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Little
Fly
Creek
Mouth
to
Headwater
Lookingglass
Creek
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Lookout
Creek
Mouth
to
Forest
Boundary
at
Section
35
McCoy
Creek
Mouth
to
Headwaters
McIntyre
Creek
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Meadow
Creek
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Mottet
Creek
Mouth
to
Headwaters
Sheep
Creek
Mouth
to
Warm
Mineral
Springs
Sheep
Creek
Warm
Mineral
Springs
to
Headwaters
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
14
APRIL,
2000
Image
4.
Segments
on
the
1998
§
303(
d)
List
for
Aquatic
Weeds
or
Algae
Image
5.
Segments
on
the
1998
§
303(
d)
List
for
Bacteria
Image
6.
Segments
on
the
1998
§
303(
d)
List
for
Dissolved
Oxygen
(
DO)
Image
7.
Segments
on
the
1998
§
303(
d)
List
for
Flow
Modification
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
15
APRIL,
2000
Image
8.
Segments
on
the
1998
§
303(
d)
List
for
Habitat
Modification
Image
9.
Segments
on
the
1998
§
303(
d)
List
for
Nutrients
Image
10.
Segments
on
the
1998
§
303(
d)
List
for
pH
Image
11.
Segments
on
the
1998
§
303(
d)
List
for
Sedimentation
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
16
APRIL,
2000
Total
Maximum
Daily
Loads
(
TMDLs)

Temperature
Pollutant
Identification
Human
caused
increases
solar
radiation
loading,
and
warm
water
discharge
to
surface
waters.

With
a
few
exceptions,
such
as
in
cases
where
violations
are
due
to
natural
causes,
the
State
must
establish
a
Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
or
TMDL
for
any
waterbody
designated
on
the
303(
d)
list
as
violating
water
quality
standards.
A
TMDL
is
the
total
amount
of
a
pollutant
(
from
all
sources)
that
can
enter
a
specific
waterbody
without
violating
the
water
quality
standards
Water
temperature
change
is
an
expression
of
heat
energy
exchange
per
unit
volume:

Volume
Energy
Heat
e
Temperatur
 
 
 
.

Anthropogenic
increase
in
heat
energy
is
derived
from
solar
radiation
as
increased
levels
of
sunlight
reach
the
stream
surface
and
raise
water
temperature.
The
pollutants
targeted
in
this
TMDL
are
(
1)
human
caused
increases
in
solar
radiation
loading
to
the
stream
network
and
(
2)
warm
water
point
source
discharges.

Existing
Sources
­
CWA
§
303(
d)(
1)

Non
Point
Sources
Elevated
summertime
stream
temperatures
attributed
to
sources
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
River
sub­
basin
result
primarily
from
riparian
vegetation
disturbance.
Reduction
in
stream
surface
shading
(
via
decreased
riparian
vegetation
height,
width
and/
or
density
and
increased
channel
width)
increases
the
amount
of
solar
radiation
reaching
the
stream
surface.
Non
point
source
contributions
to
pollutant
loading
are
discussed
in
detail
within
Appendix
A.

Riparian
vegetation,
stream
morphology,
hydrology,
climate,
and
geographic
location
influence
stream
temperature.
While
climate
and
geographic
location
are
outside
of
human
control,
riparian
condition,
channel
morphology
and
hydrology
are
affected
by
land
use
activities.
Specifically,
the
elevated
summertime
stream
temperatures
attributed
to
anthropogenic
sources
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
result
from
the
following:

1.
Riparian
vegetation
disturbance
reduces
stream
surface
shading
via
decreased
riparian
vegetation
height,
width
and/
or
density,
thus
increasing
the
amount
of
solar
radiation
reaching
the
stream
surface,

2.
Channel
widening
(
increased
width
to
depth
ratios)
increases
the
stream
surface
area
exposed
to
energy
processes,
namely
solar
radiation,

3.
Reduced
summertime
saturated
riparian
soils
that
reduce
the
overall
watershed
ability
to
capture
and
slowly
release
stored
water,
and
4.
Reduced
summertime
base
flows
may
result
from
instream
withdrawals.

Human
activities
that
contribute
to
the
factors
that
degrade
water
quality
conditions
(
listed
above
#
1
to
#
4)
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
include
timber
harvest,
as
well
as
road,
agriculture
and
rural
and
urban
residential
related
riparian
disturbances.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
17
APRIL,
2000
Point
Sources
Three
NPDES
permitted
facilities
discharge
surface
water
to
the
Grande
Ronde
River
and
tributaries
during
the
critical
summertime
temperature
period.

The
locations
of
the
NPDES
cooling
water
and
general
NPDES
permitted
discharge
points
are
mapped
in
Figure
2.
There
are
five
permitted
facilities
within
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
subbasin
three
of
which
discharge
during
critical
summertime
periods.
Facilities
that
discharge
are
listed
in
Table
13.
Discharge
temperatures
are
as
high
as
73oF.
Discharge
rates
are
generally
very
low.

Figure
2.
NPDES
Permitted
Point
Sources
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
%
U
NPDES
Permit
General
Permit
Table
13.
NPDES
Permitted
Facilities
Facility
Name
City
Receiving
Water
River
Mile
Permit
Type
Ave.
August
Temp.
(
oF)

Elgin
STP
Elgin
Grande
Ronde
R.
198.0
NPDES
*

La
Grande
STP
La
Grande
Grande
Ronde
R.
158.0
NPDES
73.2
Union
STP
Union
Catherine
Cr.
18.0
NPDES
No
Data
Boise
Cascade
­
Elgin
Complex
Elgin
Phillips
Cr.
1.0
NPDES
*

Island
City
Particleboard
Island
City
Grande
Ronde
R.
158.5
GEN01
No
Data
*
Currently
does
not
discharge
during
critical
summertime
period.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
18
APRIL,
2000
Seasonal
Variation
­
CWA
303(
d)(
1)

Critical
temperature
period
spans
June,
July,
August,
September
and
October.

Section
303(
d)(
1)
requires
this
TMDL
to
be
"
established
at
a
level
necessary
to
implement
the
applicable
water
quality
standard
with
seasonal
variations."
Both
stream
temperature
and
flow
vary
seasonally
from
year
to
year.
Water
temperatures
are
coolest
in
winter
and
early
spring
months.
Stream
temperatures
exceed
State
water
quality
standards
in
summer
and
early
fall
months
(
June,
July,
August,
September
and
October)
(
Figure
3).
Warmest
stream
temperatures
correspond
to
prolonged
solar
radiation
exposure,
warm
air
temperature,
low
flow
conditions
and
decreased
groundwater
contribution.
These
conditions
occur
during
summer
and
early
fall.
The
analysis
presented
in
this
TMDL
is
concerned
with
summertime
periods
in
which
stream
temperatures
are
most
critical.

Figure
3.
Critical
Period
Summertime
7­
Day
Temperature
Statistic
(
ODEQ
data,
1999)

45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
21­
Jul­
99
26­
Jul­
99
31­
Jul­
99
05­
Aug­
99
10­
Aug­
99
15­
Aug­
99
20­
Aug­
99
25­
Aug­
99
30­
Aug­
99
04­
Sep­
99
09­
Sep­
99
7­
Day
Temperature
Statistic
(
oF)
Above
Wallow
R
Confluence
At
Pierce
Lane
Upstream
Meadow
Creek
Downstream
Vey
Meadows
Upstream
Clear
Creek
Loading
Capacities
­
40
CFR
130.2(
f)

The
Water
Quality
Standard
mandates
a
Loading
Capacity
based
on
the
condition
that
meets
the
no
measurable
surface
water
temperature
increase
resulting
from
anthropogenic
activities.
This
condition
is
termed
Site
Potential
and
is
achieved
when
(
1)
non­
point
source
solar
radiation
loading
is
representative
of
a
riparian
vegetation
condition
without
human
disturbance
and
(
2)
point
source
discharges
cause
no
measurable
increases
in
surface
waters.

The
loading
capacity
provides
a
reference
for
calculating
the
amount
of
pollutant
reduction
needed
to
bring
water
into
compliance
with
standards.
EPA's
current
regulation
defines
loading
capacity
as
"
the
greatest
amount
of
loading
that
a
water
can
receive
without
violating
water
quality
standards."
(
40
CFR
§
130.2(
f)).
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
19
APRIL,
2000
 
The
water
quality
standard
as
identified
states
that
no
measurable
surface
water
temperature
increase
resulting
from
anthropogenic
activities
is
allowed
in
the
Grande
Ronde
River
and
tributaries
(
OAR
340­
41­
722(
2)(
b)(
A)).

 
The
pollutants
as
identified
are
human
increases
in
solar
radiation
loading
(
non­
point
sources)
and
warm
water
discharge
(
point
sources).

Loading
capacities
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
consist
of
(
1)
solar
radiation
loading
profiles
for
the
mainstem
Grande
Ronde
River
(
expressed
as
Langleys
per
day)
based
on
potential
near
stream
vegetation
characteristics
without
anthropogenic
disturbance
and
(
2)
NPDES
permitted
point
source
effluent
discharge
temperature
limits.
Appendix
A
describes
the
modeling
results
that
lead
to
the
loading
capacities.

Under
the
current
regulatory
framework
for
development
of
TMDLs,
identification
of
the
loading
capacity
is
an
important
first
step.
The
loading
capacity
provides
a
reference
for
calculating
the
amount
of
pollutant
reduction
needed
to
bring
water
into
compliance
with
standards.
Figure
4
contrasts
the
longitudinal
profile
of
the
current
radiant
energy
load
with
the
longitudinal
profile
of
the
site
potential
radiant
energy
load.
The
site
potential
radiant
energy
load
is
the
loading
capacity.

Non
Point
Sources
Analysis/
simulation
of
heat
transfer
processes
indicate
that
water
temperatures
increase
above
natural
daily
fluctuations
when
the
heat
load
from
solar
radiation
is
above
those
allowed
by
site
potential
riparian
vegetation
conditions.
Further,
peer
reviewed
stream
temperature
research
specifically
pertaining
to
Grande
Ronde
River
temperature
has
implicated
solar
radiation
loading
as
the
primary
source
of
pollutant
delivery
(
Bohle,
1994
and
Chen,
1996).

Figure
4.
Loading
Capacity
for
Non
Point
Sources
­
Solar
Radiation
Load2
Forest
Land
Agriculture
Land
Mixed
Land
City
Elgin
Vey
Meadows
La
Grande
WWTP
State
Ditch
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
Longitudinal
Distance
from
Mouth
(
Miles)
Radiant
Energy
Loading
(
ly/
day)
Site
Potential
Current
Condition
3
Mile
Average
3
Mile
Average
2
See
Appendix
A
for
information
regarding
derivation
of
loading
capacities
and
Site
Potential.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
20
APRIL,
2000
Point
Sources
System
potential
temperatures
during
the
critical
condition
in
August
result
when
the
non
point
source
loading
capacity
is
achieved
throughout
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin.
These
system
potential
temperatures
were
developed
using
computer
modeling
(
see
Appendix
A)
and
used
to
assign
the
wasteload
allocations
to
the
point
sources.
System
potential
temperatures
and
waste
load
allocations
were
derived
by
DEQ
for
all
point
sources.

Table
14.
Loading
Capacity
for
Point
Sources
(
NPDES
Permitted
Facilities)

Facility
Name,
City
Receiving
Water
River
Mile
Current
Condition
August
Dishcharge
Temp.
(
oF)
Wasteload
Allocation
Max.
Dishcarge
Temp.
(
oF)
Percent
Reduction
Elgin
STP,
Elgin
Grande
Ronde
R.
198.0
*
65.7
*

La
Grande
STP,
La
Grande
Grande
Ronde
R.
158.0
73.2
68.0
7.6%

Union
STP,
Union
Catherine
Cr.
18.0
No
Data
64.0
Boise
Cascade
­
Elgin
Complex,
Elgin
Phillips
Cr.
1.0
*
64.0
*

Island
City
Particleboard,
Island
City
Grande
Ronde
R.
158.5
No
Data
67.5
*
Currently
does
not
discharge
during
critical
period.

Load
Allocations/
Wasteload
Allocations
 
40
CFR
130.2(
g),
40
CFR
130.2(
h)

Load
Allocations
(
Non­
Point
Sources)
­
Since
the
Loading
Capacity
targets
system
potential
(
i.
e.
no
measurable
temperature
increases
from
anthropogenic
sources),
100%
of
the
Loading
Capacity
is
allocated
to
natural
sources.

Wasteload
Allocations
(
Point
Sources)
­
Surface
water
discharges
into
Grande
Ronde
River
sub­
basin
receiving
waters
must
not
exceed
the
system
potential
temperatures
listed
in
Table
15.

By
definition,
TMDLs
are
the
sum
of
the
allocations
[
40
CFR
130.2(
i)].
Allocations
are
defined
as
the
portion
of
a
receiving
water
loading
capacity
that
is
allocated
to
point
or
non­
point
sources
and
natural
background.
EPA's
current
regulation
defines
loading
capacity
as
"
the
greatest
amount
of
loading
that
a
water
can
receive
without
violating
water
quality
standards."
(
40
CFR
§
130.2(
f))
Please
recall
that
unless
specifically
allowed
under
a
Department­
approved
surface
water
temperature
management
plan
as
required
under
(
OAR
340­
041­
0026(
3)(
a)(
D)),
no
measurable
surface
water
temperature
increase
resulting
from
anthropogenic
activities
is
allowed
in
Oregon
waters
determined
out
of
compliance
with
the
temperature
standard.

A
Load
Allocation
(
LA)
is
the
amount
of
pollutant
that
non­
point
sources
can
contribute
to
the
stream
without
exceeding
state
water
quality
standards.
A
Waste
Load
Allocation
(
WLA)
is
the
amount
of
pollutant
that
a
point
source
can
contribute
to
the
stream
without
violating
water
quality
criteria.
Table
15
lists
load
allocations
and
wasteload
allocations
for
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
according
to
land­
use.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
21
APRIL,
2000
Table
15.
Allocations
Load
Allocations
(
Non­
point
Sources)

Non
Point
Source
Load
Allocation
(
Distributed
Radiant
Energy
Load
Capacity)

Natural
Sources
100%

Agriculture
0%

Forestry
0%

Urban
0%

Future
Sources
0%

Waste
Load
Allocations
(
Non­
point
Sources)

Point
Source
Waste
Load
Allocation
(
Maximum
Discharge
Temperature)

All
Point
Sources
No
measurable
increase
over
site
potential
water
temperatures
during
the
critical
temperature
period
(
June
to
October).
Table
15
lists
specific
waste
load
allocations
for
each
NPDES
permitted
facility
Surrogate
Measures
­
40
CFR
130.2(
i)

The
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
TMDL
incorporates
measures
other
than
"
daily
loads"
to
fulfill
requirements
of
§
303(
d).
Although
a
loading
capacity
for
heat
energy
is
derived
[
e.
g.
Langleys
per
day],
it
is
of
limited
value
in
guiding
management
activities
needed
to
solve
identified
water
quality
problems.
In
addition
to
heat
energy
loads,
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
subbasin
TMDL
allocates
"
other
appropriate
measures"
(
or
surrogates
measures)
as
provided
under
EPA
regulations
[
40
CFR
130.2(
i)].

The
Report
of
Federal
Advisory
Committee
on
the
Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
(
TMDL)
Program"
(
FACA
Report,
July
1998)
offers
a
discussion
on
the
use
of
surrogate
measures
for
TMDL
development.
The
FACA
Report
indicates:

"
When
the
impairment
is
tied
to
a
pollutant
for
which
a
numeric
criterion
is
not
possible,
or
where
the
impairment
is
identified
but
cannot
be
attributed
to
a
single
traditional
"
pollutant,"
the
state
should
try
to
identify
another
(
surrogate)
environmental
indicator
that
can
be
used
to
develop
a
quantified
TMDL,
using
numeric
analytical
techniques
where
they
are
available,
and
best
professional
judgment
(
BPJ)
where
they
are
not.
The
criterion
must
be
designed
to
meet
water
quality
standards,
including
the
waterbody's
designated
uses.
The
use
of
BPJ
does
not
imply
lack
of
rigor;
it
should
make
use
of
the
"
best"
scientific
information
available,
and
should
be
conducted
by
"
professionals."
When
BPJ
is
used,
care
should
be
taken
to
document
all
assumptions,
and
BPJ­
based
decisions
should
be
clearly
explained
to
the
public
at
the
earliest
possible
stage.

If
they
are
used,
surrogate
environmental
indicators
should
be
clearly
related
to
the
water
quality
standard
that
the
TMDL
is
designed
to
achieve.
Use
of
a
surrogate
environmental
parameter
should
require
additional
post­
implementation
verification
that
attainment
of
the
surrogate
parameter
results
in
elimination
of
the
impairment.
If
not,
a
procedure
should
be
in
place
to
modify
the
surrogate
parameter
or
to
select
a
different
or
additional
surrogate
parameter
and
to
impose
additional
remedial
measures
to
eliminate
the
impairment."
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
22
APRIL,
2000
As
mentioned
above,
a
loading
capacity
of
Langleys
per
day
is
not
very
useful
in
guiding
nonpoint
source
management
practices.
Percent
effective
shade
is
a
surrogate
measure
that
can
be
calculated
directly
from
the
loading
capacity.
Additionally,
percent
effective
shade
is
simple
to
quantify
in
the
field
or
through
mathematical
calculations.
Figure
5
displays
the
percent
effective
shade
values
that
correspond
to
the
current
condition
and
the
loading
capacity
(
i.
e.,
site
potential).

Figure
5.
Percent
Effective
Shade
Surrogate
Measures3
Forest
Land
Agriculture
Land
Mixed
Land
City
Elgin
Vey
Meadows
La
Grande
WWTP
State
Ditch
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
Longitudinal
Distance
from
Mouth
(
Miles)
Percent
Effective
Shade
Site
Potential
Current
Condition
3
Mile
Average
3
Mile
Average
As
discussed,
water
temperature
warms
as
a
result
of
increased
solar
radiation
loads.
A
loading
capacity
for
heat
energy
(
i.
e.,
incoming
solar
radiation)
can
be
used
to
define
a
reduction
target
that
forms
the
basis
for
identifying
a
surrogate.
The
specific
surrogate
used
is
percent
effective
shade
(
expressed
as
the
percent
reduction
in
potential
solar
radiation
load
delivered
to
the
water
surface).
The
solar
radiation
loading
capacity
is
translated
directly
(
linearly)
by
effective
solar
loading.
Decreased
effective
shade
levels
result
from
the
lack
of
adequate
riparian
vegetation
available
to
reduce
sunlight
(
i.
e.,
incoming
solar
radiation).
The
definition
of
effective
shade
allows
direct
measurement
of
the
solar
loading
capacity.

Because
factors
that
affect
water
temperature
are
interrelated,
the
surrogate
measure
(
percent
effective
shade)
relies
on
restoring/
protecting
riparian
vegetation
to
increase
stream
surface
shade
levels,
reduce
stream
bank
erosion,
and
stabilize
channels.
Likewise,
narrower
channels
still
require
riparian
vegetation
to
provide
channel
stability
and
shade,
thus
reducing
heat
loads
(
unless
confined
by
canyon
walls
or
shaded
by
3
See
Appendix
A
for
information
regarding
derivation
of
effective
shade
values.
rise
above
natural
conditions
as
a
result
of
increased
1.
WATER

Solar
Radiation

due
to
reduced
Effective
Shade

UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
23
APRIL,
2000
topography).
Effective
shade
screens
the
water's
surface
from
direct
rays
of
the
sun.
Highly
shaded
streams
often
experience
cooler
stream
temperatures
due
to
reduced
input
of
solar
energy
(
Brown
1969,
Beschta
et
al
1987,
Holaday
1992,
Li
et
al
1994).

Over
the
years,
the
term
shade
has
been
used
in
several
contexts,
including
its
components
such
as
shade
angle
or
shade
density.
For
purposes
of
this
TMDL,
shade
is
defined
as
the
percent
reduction
of
potential
solar
radiation
load
delivered
to
the
water
surface.
Thus,
the
role
of
effective
shade
in
this
TMDL
is
to
prevent
or
reduce
heating
by
solar
radiation
and
serve
as
a
linear
translator
to
the
solar
loading
capacities.

Site
potential
effective
shade
and
solar
radiation
loading
were
simulated
for
various
channel
widths
and
channel
aspects
for
different
physiographic
units.
Site
potential
vegetation
is
assumed
to
correlate
to
the
late
seral/
staged
indigenous
riparian
vegetation
communities
detailed
in
Appendix
A.
Potential
effective
shade
and
daily
solar
radiation
loading
for
all
channel
width
and
stream
orientation
combinations
were
calculated
based
on
these
late
seral/
staged
indigenous
riparian
vegetation
communities.
Figures
7,
8,
9,
and
10
illustrate
the
simulated
percent
effective
shade
and
solar
radiation
loading
that
potentially
may
occur
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
subbasin
The
effective
shade
curves
are
useful
for
determining
the
potential
effective
shade
at
a
given
channel
width
and
channel
aspect
for
each
physiographic
unit.

Surrogate
Measure
#
1:
Along
the
Grande
Ronde
mainstem
attain
site
potential
effective
shade
levels
specified
in
Figure
5
between
Tanner
Gulch
(
i.
e.,
Headwaters)
and
the
Wallowa
River
confluence.

Surrogate
Measure
#
2:
Along
tributaries
attain
site
potential
effective
shade
levels
provided
in
Figures
7,
8,
9,
and
10
for
the
appropriate
physiographic
unit
(
listed
in
Figure
6).
Shade
curves
are
provided.

Figure
6.
Physiographic
Units
of
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
Sub­
Basin
Blue
Mountains
Basin
Continental
Zone
Mesic
Forest
Zone
1
Mesic
Forest
Zone
2
Upper
Grande
Ronde
Subbasin
Physiographic
Units:

Grande
Ronde
River
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
24
APRIL,
2000
Figure
7.
Continental
Zone/
Blue
Mountain
Basin
Zone
Effective
Shade
Curves
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
2
8
14
20
26
32
38
44
50
56
62
68
74
80
86
92
98
Channel
Width
(
feet)
Effective
Shade
(%)
0.0
60.6
121.3
181.9
242.5
303.2
363.8
424.4
485.0
545.7
606.3
6.6
26.2
45.9
65.6
85.3
105.0
124.7
144.4
164.0
183.7
203.4
223.1
242.8
262.5
282.2
301.8
321.5
Channel
Width
(
meters)

Solar
Radiation
Load
(
ly
day­
1)
Average
0
or
180
degrees
from
North
45,
135,
225
or
315
degrees
from
North
90
or
270
degrees
from
North
Figure
8.
Mesic
Forest
Zone
1
(
Below
4,800
Feet)
Effective
Shade
Curves
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
2
8
14
20
26
32
38
44
50
56
62
68
74
80
86
92
98
Channel
Width
(
feet)
Effective
Shade
(%)
0.0
60.6
121.3
181.9
242.5
303.2
363.8
424.4
485.0
545.7
606.3
6.6
26.2
45.9
65.6
85.3
105.0
124.7
144.4
164.0
183.7
203.4
223.1
242.8
262.5
282.2
301.8
321.5
Channel
Width
(
meters)

Solar
Radiation
Load
(
ly
day­
1)
Average
0
or
180
degrees
from
North
45,
135,
225
or
315
degrees
from
North
90
or
270
degrees
from
North
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
25
APRIL,
2000
Figure
9.
Mesic
Forest
Zone
1
(
Above
4,800
Feet)
Effective
Shade
Curves
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
2
8
14
20
26
32
38
44
50
56
62
68
74
80
86
92
98
Channel
Width
(
feet)
Effective
Shade
(%)
0.0
60.6
121.3
181.9
242.5
303.2
363.8
424.4
485.0
545.7
606.3
6.6
26.2
45.9
65.6
85.3
105.0
124.7
144.4
164.0
183.7
203.4
223.1
242.8
262.5
282.2
301.8
321.5
Channel
Width
(
meters)

Solar
Radiation
Load
(
ly
day­
1)
Average
0
or
180
degrees
from
North
45,
135,
225
or
315
degrees
from
North
90
or
270
degrees
from
North
Figure
10.
Mesic
Forest
Zone
2
(
Below
4,800
Feet)
Effective
Shade
Curves
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
2
8
14
20
26
32
38
44
50
56
62
68
74
80
86
92
98
Channel
Width
(
feet)
Effective
Shade
(%)
0.0
60.6
121.3
181.9
242.5
303.2
363.8
424.4
485.0
545.7
606.3
6.6
26.2
45.9
65.6
85.3
105.0
124.7
144.4
164.0
183.7
203.4
223.1
242.8
262.5
282.2
301.8
321.5
Channel
Width
(
meters)

Solar
Radiation
Load
(
ly
day­
1)
Average
0
or
180
degrees
from
North
45,
135,
225
or
315
degrees
from
North
90
or
270
degrees
from
North
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
26
APRIL,
2000
Surrogate
Measure
#
3:
Grande
Ronde
mainstem
channel
widths
should
be
reduced
to
values
listed
in
Table
16
when
exceeding
these
values.

Table
16.
Grande
Ronde
River
Channel
Width
Reductions
Grande
Ronde
Mainstem
Reaches
Maximum
Channel
Channel
Width
Tanner
Gulch
to
Sheep
Cr.
Confluence
65
feet
Sheep
Cr.
to
Fly
Cr.
Confluence
82
feet
Fly
Cr.
to
Indian
Cr.
Confluence
98
feet
Indian
Cr.
to
Lookingglass
Cr.
Confluence
115
feet
Lookingglass
Cr.
to
Wallowa
R.
Confluence
131
feet
Surrogate
Measure
#
4:
Increase
sinuosity
in
unconfined
channels
until
either
sinuosity
equals
1.7
(
i.
e.,
stream
length/
valley
length)
or
wetted
width
to
depth
ratio
is
20
or
less.

Table
17.
Grande
Ronde
River
Unconfined
Channels
(
McIntosh
(
1992)
Grande
Ronde
Mainstem
Reaches
Distance
from
Mouth
(
miles)
Vey
Meadow
169.2
to
163.8
Upstream
Meadow
Cr.
154.0
to
150.9
Downstream
Beaver
Cr.
149.3
to
146.7
Upstream
Jordan
Cr.
144.8
to
142.4
Downstream
Jordan
Cr.
140.6
to
140.0
Upstream
Five
Points
Cr.
138.3
to
136.5
Grande
Ronde
Valley
130.8
to
104.4
Lower
Valley
102.6
to
95.1
Surrogate
Measure
#
5:
Where
width
to
depth
ratios
are
greater
than
30,
decrease
wetted
widths
until
width
to
depth
ratios
equal
30
or
less.

Surrogate
Measure
#
6:
Where
feasible,
maintain/
increase
instream
flows
during
the
critical
temperature
periods
(
July
to
September).

Surrogate
Measures
#
1
and
#
2
primary
and
the
main
measure
achieving
the
temperature
standard.
Surrogate
Measures
#
3,
#
4,
and
#
5
are
secondary
and
should
only
be
applied
when
active
channel
restoration
is
occurring.

Margins
of
Safety
­
CWA
§
303(
d)(
1)

The
Clean
Water
Act
requires
that
each
TMDL
be
established
with
a
margin
of
safety
(
MOS).
The
statutory
requirement
that
TMDLs
incorporate
a
margin
of
safety
is
intended
to
account
for
uncertainty
in
available
data
or
in
the
actual
effect
controls
will
have
on
loading
reductions
and
receiving
water
quality.
A
margin
of
safety
is
expressed
as
unallocated
assimilative
capacity
or
conservative
analytical
assumptions
used
in
establishing
the
TMDL
(
e.
g.,
derivation
of
numeric
targets,
modeling
assumptions
or
effectiveness
of
proposed
management
actions).

The
margin
of
safety
may
be
implicit,
as
in
conservative
assumptions
used
in
calculating
the
loading
capacity,
WLAs,
and
LAs.
The
margin
of
safety
may
also
be
explicitly
stated
as
an
added,
separate
quantity
in
the
TMDL
calculation.
In
any
case,
assumptions
should
be
stated
and
the
basis
behind
the
margin
of
safety
documented.
The
margin
of
safety
is
not
meant
to
compensate
for
a
failure
to
consider
known
sources.
Table
18
presents
six
approaches
for
incorporating
a
margin
of
safety
into
TMDLs.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
27
APRIL,
2000
Table
18.
Approaches
for
Incorporating
a
Margin
of
Safety
into
a
TMDL
Type
of
Margin
of
Safety
Available
Approaches
Explicit
1.
Set
numeric
targets
at
more
conservative
levels
than
analytical
results
indicate.
2.
Add
a
safety
factor
to
pollutant
loading
estimates.
3.
Do
not
allocate
a
portion
of
available
loading
capacity;
reserve
for
MOS.

Implicit
4.
Conservative
assumptions
in
derivation
of
numeric
targets.
5.
Conservative
assumptions
when
developing
numeric
model
applications.
6.
Conservative
assumptions
when
analyzing
prospective
feasibility
of
practices
and
restoration
activities.

The
following
factors
may
be
considered
in
evaluating
and
deriving
an
appropriate
margin
of
safety:


The
analysis
and
techniques
used
in
evaluating
the
components
of
the
TMDL
process
and
deriving
an
allocation
scheme.


Characterization
and
estimates
of
source
loading
(
e.
g.,
confidence
regarding
data
limitation,
analysis
limitation
or
assumptions).


Analysis
of
relationships
between
the
source
loading
and
instream
impact.


Prediction
of
response
of
receiving
waters
under
various
allocation
scenarios
(
e.
g.,
the
predictive
capability
of
the
analysis,
simplifications
in
the
selected
techniques).


The
implications
of
the
MOS
on
the
overall
load
reductions
identified
in
terms
of
reduction
feasibility
and
implementation
time
frames.

A
TMDL
and
associated
margin
of
safety
(
MOS),
which
results
in
an
overall
allocation,
represents
the
best
estimate
of
how
standards
can
be
achieved.
The
selection
of
the
MOS
should
clarify
the
implications
for
monitoring
and
implementation
planning
in
refining
the
estimate
if
necessary
(
adaptive
management).
The
TMDL
process
accommodates
the
ability
to
track
and
ultimately
refine
assumptions
within
the
TMDL
implementation­
planning
component.

Implicit
Margins
of
Safety
Description
of
the
margin
of
safety
for
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
Temperature
TMDL
begins
with
a
statement
of
assumptions.
A
margin
of
safety
has
been
incorporated
into
the
temperature
assessment
methodology.
Conservative
estimates
for
groundwater
inflow
and
wind
speed
were
used
in
the
stream
temperature
simulations.
Specifically,
unless
measured,
groundwater
inflow
was
assumed
to
be
zero.
Wind
speed
was
also
assumed
to
be
at
the
lower
end
of
recorded
levels
for
the
day
of
sampling.
Recall
that
groundwater
directly
cools
stream
temperatures
via
mass
transfer/
mixing.
Wind
speed
is
a
controlling
factor
for
evaporation,
a
cooling
heat
energy
process.
Further,
cooler
microclimates
and
channel
morphology
changes
associated
with
late
seral
conifer
riparian
zones
were
not
accounted
for
in
the
simulation
methodology.

Calculating
a
numeric
margin
of
safety
is
not
easily
performed
with
the
methodology
presented
in
this
document.
In
fact,
the
basis
for
the
loading
capacities
and
allocations
is
the
definition
of
site
potential
conditions.
It
is
illogical
to
presume
that
anything
more
than
site
potential
riparian
conditions
are
possible,
feasible
or
reasonable.

Adaptive
Management
The
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
Temperature
TMDL
is
intended
to
be
adaptive
in
management
implementation,
allowing
for
future
changes
in
loading
capacities
and
surrogate
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
28
APRIL,
2000
measures
(
load
allocations)
in
the
event
that
scientifically
valid
reasons
demand
alterations.
It
is
important
to
recognize
the
continual
study
and
progression
of
understanding
of
water
quality
parameter
is
addressed
in
this
TMDL/
WQMP
(
stream
temperature).
In
the
event
that
data
collected
in
the
future
show
that
changes
are
warranted
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
Temperature
TMDL
or
WQMP,
these
changes
will
be
made
by
Oregon
DEQ.

Water
Quality
Standard
Attainment
Analysis
­
CWA
§
303(
d)(
1)

Maximum
daily
temperatures
(
displayed
in
Figure
11)
represent
the
system
potential
when
no
measurable
surface
water
temperature
increase
resulting
from
anthropogenic
activities
is
allowed.

Simulations
were
performed
to
calculate
the
temperatures
that
result
with
the
allocated
measures
that
form
the
basis
for
the
factors
that
represent
the
system
potential
condition
with
no
measurable
surface
water
temperature
increase
resulting
from
anthropogenic
activities.
The
resulting
simulated
temperatures
represent
attainment
of
system
potential,
and
therefore,
attainment
of
the
temperature
standard.

Approximately
95
river
miles
of
the
Grande
Ronde
River
were
analyzed
and
simulated
during
the
critical
period
(
August
20,
1999).
Figure
11
compares
the
current
Grande
Ronde
River
temperatures
with
the
river
temperatures
that
result
at
site
potential
conditions.
The
site
potential
river
temperatures
directly
correlate
to
the
loading
capacity
(
i.
e.,
they
are
the
temperatures
that
result
when
the
loading
capacity
is
met).

Generally
speaking,
the
Grande
Ronde
River
currently
experiences
critical
condition
maximum
daily
temperatures
in
the
mid­
70oF
to
mid­
80oF
range.
Under
the
allocated
system
potential
condition,
maximum
daily
temperatures
shifted
to
the
mid­
50oF
to
upper
60oF
range.
In
1999,
92%
of
the
stream
network
had
critical
condition
maximum
daily
temperatures
greater
than
64oF.
Under
the
system
potential,
48%
of
the
stream
network
experience
maximum
daily
temperatures
greater
than
64oF.
The
most
noticeable
difference
between
the
current
and
allocated
conditions
is
the
complete
removal
of
incipient
lethal
temperatures
(
greater
than
70oF).
Under
the
allocated
condition,
97%
of
the
Grande
Ronde
River
daily
maximum
temperature
are
below
68oF.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
29
APRIL,
2000
Figure
11.
Grande
Ronde
River
Temperatures
at
Current
Conditions
and
Site
Potential
Forest
Land
Agriculture
Land
Mixed
Land
City
Vey
Meadows
La
Grande
WWTP
State
Ditch
Elgin
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
Longitudinal
Distance
from
Mouth
(
Miles)
Water
Temperature
(
oF)
­
8/
20/
99
Site
Potential
+
Maximum
Potential
Flow
Site
Potential
Current
Conditions
Figure
12.
Percent
of
River
Temperatures
Below
Specified
Temperature
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Current
Conditions
Bankfull
Width
Reductions
Sinuosity/
Width
to
Depth
Restoration
Tributaries
64*
F
Maximum
Potential
Vegetation
Potentail
Vegation
and
Tributaries
64*
F
Maximum
Potential
Vegetation,

Tributaries
64*
F
Maximum,
and
Bankfull
Width
Reductions
Site
Potential
Site
Potential
+

Maximum
Potential
Flow
Proportion
under
68*
F
Proportion
under
64*
F
Proportion
under
60*
F
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
30
APRIL,
2000
Dissolved
Oxygen
and
pH
The
Grande
Ronde
River,
Catherine
Creek,
Meadow
Creek,
and
the
State
Ditch
experience
dissolved
oxygen
and
pH
water
quality
standards
violations
related
to
excessive
periphyton
growth.
Excessive
growth
is
due
to
a
number
of
factors
including
elevated
nutrient
concentrations,
high
water
temperatures,
excessive
solar
radiation,
high
width
to
depth
ratios,
and
inadequate
stream
flow
rates.
Excessive
periphyton
activity
causes
large
diel
dissolved
oxygen
and
pH
fluctuations
which
result
in
dissolved
oxygen
standards
violations
at
night
and
pH
standards
violations
during
the
day.

Periphyton
impact
pH
and
dissolved
oxygen
levels
as
they
grow
and
respire
(
see
Appendix
B).
During
the
day,
when
algae
perform
photosynthesis
and
grow,
carbon
dioxide
is
consumed
and
oxygen
produced.
At
night
respiration
dominates
and
carbon
dioxide
is
produced
and
oxygen
consumed.
Carbon
dioxide
affects
pH
because
it
combines
with
water
to
form
carbonic
acid.
Therefore,
during
the
day
as
algae
consume
carbon
dioxide
the
pH
increases,
while
at
night
as
algae
produce
carbon
dioxide
the
pH
declines.
Through
this
process
algae
can
cause
large
diel
fluctuations
in
dissolved
oxygen
and
pH
which
may
result
in
water
quality
standards
violations.
Low
oxygen
levels
can
suffocate
aquatic
organisms,
while
excessively
high
or
low
pH
levels
can
cause
toxic
effects
ranging
from
growth
and
reproduction
limitations
to
death.

In
order
to
address
dissolved
oxygen
and
pH
standards
violations
and
concerns
regarding
excessive
nutrient
concentrations
and
quantities
of
aquatic
weeds
and
algae,
Load
Allocations
are
provided
below
for
both
nitrogen
and
phosphorus.
The
methodology
employed
to
derive
the
allocations
is
described
in
detail
in
Appendix
B.

Since
not
all
nitrogen
and
phosphorus
in
a
stream
is
available
for
algal
growth,
Nutrient
Load
Allocations
are
provided
in
terms
of
the
reactive
inorganic
forms.
For
nitrogen
this
is
the
dissolved
inorganic
nitrogen
(
DIN),
which
includes
ammonia,
nitrite
and
nitrate.
For
phosphorus
it
is
the
dissolved
orthophosphate
(
equivalent
to
soluble
reactive
phosphorus
or
SRP).

Nutrient
Load
Allocations
have
been
provided
for
two
sets
of
conditions:

(
1)
existing
riparian
conditions
with
associated
high
stream
temperatures
and
solar
radiation,
and
(
2)
site
potential
riparian
conditions
of
reduced
stream
temperatures
and
solar
radiation.

Load
allocations
for
both
sets
of
conditions
will
be
adequate
to
meet
all
applicable
pH
and
dissolved
oxygen
standards
and
address
concerns
regarding
excessive
nutrient
concentrations
and
quantities
of
aquatic
weeds
and
algae.
The
first
set
of
load
allocations
would
apply
if
no
efforts
were
made
to
control
sources
of
stream
heating.
As
described
below,
large
nutrient
load
reductions
will
be
needed
if
solar
radiation
loads
and
temperatures
are
not
reduced.
However,
since
the
percent
shade
allocations
proposed
to
meet
the
temperature
standard
will
result
in
significant
solar
radiation
and
temperature
reductions,
the
second
set
of
nutrient
load
allocations
is
the
nutrient
TMDL
for
the
system.
As
described
below,
nutrient
load
reductions
needed
to
meet
pH
and
dissolved
oxygen
standards
for
this
second
set
of
conditions
are
considerably
more
modest
than
for
the
first.
However,
if
sufficient
steps
are
not
taken
to
reduce
temperatures
in
the
system,
then
the
first
set
of
load
reductions
will
be
needed
for
pH
and
dissolved
oxygen
standards
to
be
met.

Sources
of
Nutrients
in
the
Grande
Ronde
Sub­
Basin
Nutrients
enter
the
system
from
both
point
and
non­
point
sources,
with
the
non­
point
nutrient
loads
being
functions
of
land
use.
Above
Grande
Ronde
River
MP
160,
the
basin
is
comprised
mostly
of
forested
public
lands.
In
the
Grande
Ronde
valley
below
MP
160,
the
basin
is
comprised
mostly
of
privately
owned
agricultural
and
urban
lands.
While
the
valley
constitutes
less
than
seven
percent
of
the
land
in
the
basin,
it
contains
most
of
the
human
population
(
more
than
60
percent)
and
the
vast
majority
of
the
crop
agriculture
in
the
basin.
Forestry
and
grazing
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
31
APRIL,
2000
land
uses
predominate
above
the
valley,
while
agriculture,
urban
and
grazing
land
uses
predominate
within
the
valley.
Significant
point
sources
in
the
sub­
basin
include
the
La
Grande
wastewater
treatment
plant,
which
discharges
to
the
Grande
Ronde
River,
and
the
City
of
Union
WWTP,
which
discharges
to
Catherine
Creek.
The
La
Grande
WWTP
serves
a
population
of
approximately
12,900,
including
the
cities
of
La
Grande
and
Island
City.
It
is
the
only
point
source
in
the
sub­
basin
classified
as
a
"
major"
facility.
The
Union
WWTP
serves
a
population
1,915
and
is
classified
as
a
"
minor"
facility.
The
City
of
Elgin
has
a
wastewater
treatment
plant
but
it
does
not
discharge
during
summer
low
flow
months.
There
are
three
additional
incorporated
communities
within
the
valley:
Cove
(
pop.
545),
Imbler
(
pop.
311),
and
Summerville
(
pop.
145).
None
of
these
discharge
wastewater
during
summer
low
flow
months.

Figure
13
overlays
land
use
information
and
modeling
segments.
As
shown,
reaches
4,
5
and
6
(
MP
166.9
and
above)
are
mixed
forest
and
rangeland.
Therefore,
all
load
reductions
for
these
reaches
will
be
allocated
to
these
uses.
Reach
7
(
MP
166.9­
160.1)
receives
nutrient
loads
which
enter
from
upstream
that
are
associated
with
forest
and
range
land
uses
and
loads
which
enter
within
the
reach
that
are
associated
with
urban
and
agricultural
land
uses.
Reach
8
(
160.1­
153.8)
receives
non­
point
source
(
NPS)
loads
which
enter
from
upstream
that
are
associated
with
all
of
the
above
and
loads
which
enter
within
the
reach
that
are
primarily
associated
with
agricultural
land
uses.
Reach
9
(
153.8­
State
Ditch)
receives
non­
point
source
loads
from
all
the
above,
plus
the
point
source
load
from
the
La
Grande
WWTP.

Figure
13.
Land
Use
Relative
to
Modeled
Grande
Ronde
Reaches
Nutrient
Loading
Capacities
and
Load
Allocations
 
Current
Riparian
Conditions
The
Grande
Ronde
River
is
listed
for
pH
and
dissolved
oxygen
(
DO)
due
to
excessive
periphyton
activity.
The
allocations
presented
below
are
designed
to
achieve
pH
levels
within
the
range
6.5
to
8.7
and
dissolved
oxygen
concentrations
greater
than
6.5
mg/
L.
The
pH
target
of
8.7
is
more
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
32
APRIL,
2000
stringent
than
the
maximum
pH
of
9.0
allowed
by
the
standard,
thus
providing
for
a
margin
of
safety.
The
DO
target
of
6.5
mg/
L
is
more
stringent
than
the
minimum
of
6.0
mg/
L
allowed
by
the
standard.
This
also
provides
a
margin
of
safety.
Water
quality
modeling
using
the
periphyton
model
PCM
(
Appendix
B)
indicates
that
the
allocations
are
pH
controlled
(
i.
e.,
the
pH
standard
is
more
difficult
to
achieve
in
the
Grande
Ronde
River
than
the
DO
standard).
Because
of
this,
allocations
which
result
in
the
pH
target
of
8.7
being
met
are
calculated
by
the
model
to
result
in
DO
concentrations
significantly
greater
than
6.5
mg/
L.
Such
allocations
will
result
in
the
30­
day
average
standard
of
8.0
mg/
L
being
met
in
all
reaches.
Nutrient
load
allocations
in
terms
of
percent
reductions
from
current
levels
are
presented
in
Table
19,
along
with
corresponding
loading
capacities.
Nutrient
load
allocations
apply
to
non­
point
source
(
NPS)
pollution
loads.

Table
19.
Nutrient
Allocations
for
Current
Riparian
Conditions
­
Grande
Ronde
River
Loading
Capacities
(
Water
Column
Concentrations
as
Monthly
Medians)
Reaches
Milepoints
Nutrient
Load
Allocations
(%
Reductions)
Dissolved
Inorganic
Nitrogen
µ
g/
L,
as
N
Dissolved
Orthophosphate
µ
g/
L,
as
P
MS4
Headwaters
 
182.0
20%
16
8
MS5
182.0­
173.0
50%
15
5
MS6
173.0­
166.9
35%
23
7
MS7
166.9­
160.1
20%
32
12
MS8
160.1­
153.8
60%
26
6
MS9
153.8­
State
Ditch
60%
(
60%
reduction
in
NPS
loads
plus
summer
point
source
removal)
26
6
State
Ditch
­
Mouth
60%
(
60%
reduction
in
NPS
loads
plus
summer
point
source
removal)
26
6
Table
19
presents
nutrient
load
allocations
and
loading
capacities
for
both
nitrogen
and
phosphorus.
However,
only
nitrogen
concentrations
directly
impact
the
pH
and
dissolved
oxygen
concentrations
calculated
by
the
model.
This
is
because
the
system
is
nitrogen
limited
and
since
the
growth
rate
limitation
due
to
nutrients
in
the
model
is
controlled
only
by
the
nutrient
in
lowest
supply
relative
to
cellular
requirements
(
see
Appendix
B).
However,
to
derive
loading
capacity
concentrations
for
phosphorus,
the
same
percent
reductions
required
for
nitrogen
have
been
applied.
This
is
because
the
same
measures
that
reduce
nitrogen
are
likely
to
provide
similar
reductions
in
phosphorus.
In
addition,
in
low
nitrogen,
high
phosphorus
aquatic
environments
nuisance
bluegreen
algae
(
cyanobacteria)
which
can
fix
nitrogen
may
become
established.
Therefore,
it
is
important
to
reduce
both
nitrogen
and
phosphorus
concentrations.

Note
that
in
some
cases
the
above
dissolved
orthophosphate
loading
capacities
may
be
less
than
natural
background
levels.
However,
it
is
unclear
what
the
natural
background
concentrations
are,
since
all
reaches
in
the
sub­
basin
likely
receive
some
degree
of
anthropogenic
nutrient
loading.
However,
it
appears
that
natural
background
concentrations
for
dissolved
orthophosphate
are
on
the
order
of
about
10
ug/
L
as
P.
Therefore,
dissolved
orthophosphate
concentrations
less
than
10
ug/
L
as
P
may
not
be
achievable.
Due
to
uncertainty
regarding
natural
background
concentrations,
the
above
loading
capacities
should
be
treated
only
as
targets,
not
standards.
Compliance
should
be
based
on
whether
existing
standards
for
dissolved
oxygen
and
pH
are
achieved,
rather
than
on
the
above
targets
for
dissolved
orthophosphate
and
DIN.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
33
APRIL,
2000
Catherine
Creek
is
listed
for
pH
and
DO
due
to
excessive
periphyton
activity.
Explicit
modeling
was
not
performed
for
Catherine
Creek.
However,
the
portion
of
Catherine
Creek
located
within
the
Grande
Ronde
valley
was
determined
to
have
similar
characteristics
as
the
Grande
Ronde
River
within
the
Grande
Ronde
valley.
Therefore,
the
nutrient
load
allocations
developed
for
the
Grande
Ronde
River
within
this
area
have
been
applied
to
Catherine
Creek
within
the
Grande
Ronde
valley.
These
are
presented
in
Table
20.
Meadow
Creek
is
another
stream
listed
for
pH
violations
on
the
1998
§
303(
d)
list.
Meadow
Creek
is
a
tributary
to
the
Grande
Ronde
River,
with
its
confluence
at
Grande
Ronde
River
MP
180.
It
has
similar
characteristics
and
nutrient
loads
as
the
Grande
Ronde
River
in
this
area.
Consequently,
the
nutrient
load
allocations
that
apply
to
Grande
Ronde
River
MP
180
have
been
applied
to
Meadow
Creek
(
also
shown
in
Table
19).

Table
20.
Nutrient
Allocations
for
Current
Riparian
Conditions
­
Catherine
and
Meadow
Creeks
Loading
Capacities
(
Water
Column
Concentrations
as
Monthly
Medians)
Reaches
Milepoints
Nutrient
Load
Allocations
(%
Reductions)
Dissolved
Inorganic
Nitrogen
µ
g/
L
as
N
Dissolved
Orthophosphate
µ
g/
L
as
P
Meadow
Creek
Mouth
to
Headwaters
50%
15
5
Catherine
Creek
Mouth
to
Union
Dam
60%
(
60%
reduction
in
NPS
loads
plus
summer
point
source
removal)
26
6
Nutrient
Load
Allocations
and
Loading
Capacities
 
Site
Potential
Riparian
Conditions
A
scenario
was
modeled
using
the
site
potential
vegetative
community
(
potential
natural
community).
For
this
site
potential
condition,
the
physiographic
vegetative
community
for
the
Grande
Ronde
sub­
Basin
(
from
Crowe
and
Clausnitzer,
1997)
was
used
to
calculate
the
late
sera/
staged
indigenous
riparian
vegetation
communities
(
see
Appendix
A).
Modeling
was
conducted
at
a
climax
riparian
tree
height.
Outside
of
modifying
the
riparian
community
composition,
the
same
model
assumptions
were
used
for
both
current
condition
and
site
potential
modeling
scenarios.

Water
quality
modeling
indicates
that
shade
levels
produced
at
site
potential
conditions
will
result
in
significant
dissolved
oxygen
and
pH
improvements.
The
modeling
indicates
that
the
DO
target
of
6.5
mg/
L
will
be
met
in
all
reaches
without
additional
nutrient
reductions.
The
pH
target
of
8.7
will
be
met
in
most
reaches
above
MP
160,
except
for
Reach
MS5
(
MP
182.0­
173.0).
The
modeling
indicated
that
a
25%
nutrient
load
reduction
from
current
levels
is
needed
in
Reach
MS5
to
meet
the
pH
target.
Below
MP
160,
significant
nutrient
reductions
are
required.
Nutrient
load
allocations
for
the
site
potential
scenario
are
provided
in
Table
21.
Nutrient
load
allocations
and
loading
capacities
for
Meadow
Creek
and
Catherine
Creek
for
site
potential
riparian
vegetation
conditions
are
presented
in
Table
22.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
34
APRIL,
2000
Table
21.
Nutrient
Allocations
for
Site
Potential
Riparian
Conditions
­
Grande
Ronde
River
Loading
Capacities
(
Water
Column
Concentrations
as
Monthly
Medians)
Reaches
Milepoints
Nutrient
Load
Allocations
(%
Reductions)
Dissolved
Inorganic
Nitrogen
µ
g/
L
as
N
Dissolved
Orthophosphate
µ
g/
L
as
P
MS4
Headwaters
 
182.0
0
20
10
MS5
182.0­
173.0
25%
23
7
MS6
173.0­
166.9
0%
35
10
MS7
166.9­
160.1
0%
40
15
MS8
160.1­
153.8
50%
33
7
MS9
153.8­
State
Ditch
50%
(
50%
reduction
in
NPS
loads
plus
summer
point
source
removal)
33
7
State
Ditch
 
Mouth
50%
(
50%
reduction
in
NPS
loads
plus
summer
point
source
removal)
33
7
Table
22.
Nutrient
Allocations
for
Site
Potential
Riparian
Conditions
(
Catherine
Creek
and
Meadow
Creek)

Loading
Capacities
(
Water
Column
Concentrations
as
Monthly
Medians)
Reaches
Milepoints
Nutrient
Load
Allocations
(%
Reductions)
Dissolved
Inorganic
Nitrogen
µ
g/
L
as
N
Dissolved
Orthophosphate
µ
g/
L
as
P
Meadow
Creek
Mouth
to
Headwaters
25%
23
7
Catherine
Creek
Mouth
to
Union
Dam
50%
(
50%
reduction
in
NPS
loads
plus
summer
point
source
removal)
33
7
Wasteload
Allocations
for
Point
Sources
Permitted
point
sources
in
the
Grande
Ronde
River
Basin
are
regulated
by
either
individual
or
general
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permits
or
by
Water
Pollution
Control
Facilities
(
WPCF)
permits.
WPCF
permits
do
not
allow
direct
wastewater
discharge
to
surface
waters.
The
City
of
La
Grande
wastewater
treatment
plant
is
the
only
major
NPDES
permitted
point
source
discharging
to
surface
water
in
the
Grande
Ronde
Valley.
In
addition,
there
are
five
minor
point
source
permits:
the
City
of
Union
wastewater
treatment
plant,
Boise
Cascade
(
2
plants),
Fleetwood
Travel
Trailers,
and
Union
Pacific
Railroad.
There
are
no
permitted
point
sources
discharging
effluent
upstream
of
the
Grande
Ronde
Valley.

The
wastewater
treatment
plants
(
WWTPs)
for
the
cities
of
La
Grande
and
Union
have
been
shown
to
be
major
contributors
to
nutrient
loads
in
the
Grande
Ronde
River
and
Catherine
Creek,
respectively.
In
the
case
of
the
La
Grande
plant,
violations
of
water
quality
standards
occur
upstream
of
the
effluent
discharge,
but
violations
are
much
more
severe
and
frequent
downstream
of
the
outfall
as
a
result
of
the
nutrient
load
contributed
by
the
plant.
In
the
case
of
Union,
violations
of
standards
for
dissolved
oxygen
and
pH
are
generally
not
seen
above
the
treatment
plant
discharge.
Violations
begin
to
occur
immediately
below
the
discharge
and
continue
all
the
way
to
the
confluence
with
the
Grande
Ronde
River.
The
Boise
Cascade
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
35
APRIL,
2000
particleboard
plant
has
been
shown
to
be
a
minor,
but
not
insignificant,
contributor
of
nutrients
to
the
Grande
Ronde
River.

City
of
La
Grande
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
Upstream
of
the
La
Grande
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant,
nutrient
concentrations
in
the
Grande
Ronde
River
exceed
recommended
targets
for
orthophosphate
and
dissolved
inorganic
nitrogen.
These
concentrations
are
significantly
increased
by
the
La
Grande
discharge.
Since
target
concentrations
are
already
exceeded
upstream
of
the
discharge,
the
river
has
no
capacity
to
assimilate
loads
from
La
Grande
and
the
discharge
exacerbates
already
excessive
pH
and
DO
fluctuations
and
standards
violations.

Several
options
exist
for
mitigating
the
impact
of
the
La
Grande
discharge
on
the
Grande
Ronde.
One
option
is
setting
wasteload
allocations
equal
to
the
lowest
levels
achievable
by
available
municipal
wastewater
treatment
technology.
Concentrations
achievable
using
advanced
treatment
are
<
1
mg/
L
(<
1000
µ
g/
L)
for
orthophosphate
and
3­
5
mg/
L
(
3000­
5000
µ
g/
L)
for
dissolved
inorganic
nitrogen
(
Metcalf
&
Eddy,
1991).
Effluent
concentrations
of
1.0
mg/
L
for
orthophosphate
and
5
mg/
L
for
DIN
would
result
in
the
following
in­
stream
concentrations
(
for
the
dry
weather
effluent
flow
of
4.2
cfs,
the
7Q10
river
flow
of
14
cfs,
and
background
river
concentrations
equal
to
15
µ
g/
L
for
orthophosphate
and
33
µ
g/
L
for
DIN):

Orthophosphate:
242
µ
g/
L
Dissolved
Inorganic
Nitrogen:
1,179
µ
g/
L
Clearly,
even
with
advanced
treatment,
nutrient
concentrations
downstream
of
the
discharge
would
far
exceed
target
concentrations.
Even
with
advanced
treatment,
nutrient
loads
due
to
the
La
Grande
discharge
could
be
20­
45
times
greater
than
background
loads.

A
second
option
is
to
impose
limits
adequate
to
insure
that
the
La
Grande
discharge
does
not
increase
nutrient
concentrations
in
the
river
beyond
the
target
concentrations.
Wasteload
allocations
for
this
option
would
be
set
equal
to
river
target
concentrations
of
<
10
µ
g/
L
for
orthophosphate
and
26­
33
µ
g/
L
DIN.
Since
such
stringent
limits
could
not
be
met
using
available
municipal
wastewater
treatment
technology,
this
is
equivalent
to
a
"
no
discharge"
allocation.
This
is
the
most
conservative
option
and
is
the
only
option
that
will
insure
that
nutrient
concentrations
are
not
increased
by
the
La
Grande
discharge
and
will
result
in
an
immediate
improvement
in
downstream
pH
and
dissolved
oxygen
concentrations.

In
the
Grande
Ronde
basin,
viable
options
to
river
discharge
exist
for
effluent
disposal.
Non­
river
effluent
disposal
in
this
region
is
very
cost­
competitive
with
advanced
treatment.
Therefore,
since
the
no
discharge
option
is
cost­
competitive
with
advanced
treatment
and
since
it
will
result
in
the
greatest
improvement
in
water
quality,
no
discharge
during
the
critical
summer
time
period
is
the
recommended
alternative
being
pursued
by
the
city.

This
no
discharge
option
would
remove
the
effluent
during
periods
of
extended
low
flow
when
algae
are
expected
to
significantly
influence
water
quality.
The
removal
of
the
point
source
would
not
influence
the
algae
growth
problems
occurring
upstream
of
the
discharge
nor
would
it
address
nutrients
which
enter
the
river
from
non­
point
source
contributions
either
upstream
or
downstream
of
the
discharge.
The
no
discharge
option
would,
however,
eliminate
any
further
exacerbation
of
algae
growth
problems
resulting
from
nutrient
contributions
of
the
La
Grande
waste
water
treatment
plant.

In
order
to
determine
when
the
critical,
no
discharge
time
period
occurs,
water
quality
data
was
analyzed
(
Schnurbusch
1996b,
see
Appendix).
The
analysis
demonstrates
that
no
discharge
should
be
allowed
during
the
months
of
July,
August,
and
September.
The
months
of
June
and
October
are
transitional
periods.
It
has
been
shown
that
in
June
there
is
a
relationship
between
flow
and
pH.
Standard
violations
begin
to
occur
in
June
when
the
river
flow
falls
below
150
­
200
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
36
APRIL,
2000
CFS.
Therefore,
discharge
would
need
to
be
discontinued
in
June
when
the
average
daily
flow
falls
below
200
CFS.

During
October
there
is
a
strong
relationship
between
temperature
and
pH.
Violations
of
the
water
quality
standard
for
pH
cease
when
maximum
daily
stream
temperature
falls
below
15
C.
Therefore
the
wastewater
treatment
plant
would
be
allowed
to
resume
discharge
to
the
river
in
October
when
the
maximum
daily
stream
temperature
has
dropped
to
the
point
where
it
is
consistently
below
15
C.
Alternatively,
direct
measurement
of
late
afternoon
pH
could
be
used
as
the
criteria
for
resumption
of
discharge.
In
October,
when
the
late
afternoon
pH
downstream
of
the
discharge
point
has
reached
a
level
that
would
provide
confidence
that
no
violations
of
the
pH
standard
would
occur,
discharge
could
be
resumed.
Therefore,
it
is
recommended
that
discharge
not
occur
in
October
unless
the
maximum
daily
stream
temperature
is
less
than
150C
or
the
daily
maximum
pH
is
less
than
8.7.

This
"
no
discharge"
option
makes
the
establishment
and
adoption
of
WLA
for
the
La
Grande
treatment
plant
irrelevant
because
the
plant
will
contribute
no
nutrient
load
to
the
river
during
the
critical
low
flow
period.

Ammonia
toxicity
criteria
are
also
exceeded
in
the
Grande
Ronde
River
during
the
summer
months.
This
is
related
to
the
high
pH
and
high
water
temperature
that
occurs
in
the
river
during
these
months.
Ammonia
toxicity
will
be
eliminated
following
cessation
of
summer
discharge.
However,
there
is
still
potential
for
ammonia
toxicity
during
other
months
of
the
year.
As
a
result,
the
permit
limitations
for
the
La
Grande
wastewater
treatment
plant
must
include
ammonia
limitations
that
will
prevent
ammonia
toxicity
and
meet
DEQ
standards
for
both
chronic
and
acute
toxicity
(
Schnurbusch
1996a,
see
Appendix).

City
of
Union
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
The
City
of
Union
wastewater
treatment
plant
discharges
to
Catherine
Creek
and
significantly
increases
in­
stream
nutrient
concentrations.
The
flow
in
Catherine
Creek
is
greatly
influenced
by
irrigation
withdrawals.
While
minimum
(
7­
day
average)
flows
upstream
of
the
irrigation
withdrawal
have
varied
from
10
­
35
cfs
since
1930,
flows
at
the
Union
discharge
can
be
less
than
1
cfs.
Therefore,
even
though
the
Union
discharge
is
only
0.47
cfs,
which
is
small
relative
to
many
other
treatment
plants,
it
is
the
dominant
source
of
nutrients
to
Catherine
Creek.

In
order
to
evaluate
the
impact
of
the
Union
discharge
on
Catherine
Creek,
a
"
mixing
zone"
analysis
was
performed
(
Baumgartner,
1996).
The
focus
of
the
analysis
was
the
derivation
of
wasteload
allocations
that
would
minimize
the
impact
of
the
Union
discharge
on
the
stream.

Two
principle
options
are
available
for
mitigating
the
impact
of
the
Union
discharge
on
Catherine
Creek.
The
first
option
is
to
allow
continued
discharge
during
the
summer
but
with
stringent
advanced
treatment
wasteload
allocations.
The
second
is
no
discharge.
The
mixing
zone
analysis
indicated
that
the
wasteload
allocations
described
in
the
Table
23
would
confine
excessive
periphyton
impacts
to
a
limited
area
and
be
sufficient
to
prevent
ammonia
toxicity.

Table
23.
City
of
Union
­
Potential
Waste
Load
Allocations
(
WLA)
for
Dissolved
Ortho­
Phosphate
(
d­
ortho­
P)
and
Dissolved
Inorganic
Nitrogen
(
DIN)
Upstream
Flow
d­
Ortho­
P
d­
Ortho­
P
WLA
DIN
DIN
WLA
Cfs
mg/
L
as
P
lbs/
d
as
P
mg/
L
as
N
lbs/
d
as
N
1
0.27
0.68
1.8
4.6
5
0.94
2.4
6.6
16.9
10
1.79
4.6
12.7
32.2
15
2.64
6.7
18.7
47.6
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
37
APRIL,
2000
These
nutrient
limits
were
estimated
using
the
water
quality
model
QUAL2E
(
Baumgartner,
1996).
The
upstream
dissolved
orthophosphate
concentration
was
assumed
to
be
20
µ
g/
L,
and
the
dissolved
inorganic
nitrogen
concentration
was
assumed
to
be
30
µ
g/
L.
The
in­
stream
concentrations
predicted
downstream
of
the
discharge
were
100
µ
g/
L
of
orthophosphate
and
600
µ
g/
L
of
dissolved
inorganic
nitrogen.
Clearly,
these
nutrient
concentrations
are
far
in
excess
of
algae
growth
requirements
and
would
result
in
excessive
periphyton
growth
immediately
below
the
discharge.
However,
these
impacts
would
be
limited
to
a
zone
which
would
no
longer
extend
into
the
area
of
currently
observed
highest
periphyton
growth,
since
the
nutrients
are
expected
to
be
incorporated
into
benthic
algae
prior
to
reaching
this
area.
However,
the
analysis
did
not
assess
the
effects
of
nutrient
recycle.
In
addition,
the
effect
of
changes
in
production
rates
and
stream
flow
on
uptake
rates
was
not
assessed.

These
wasteload
allocations
would
be
very
difficult
to
meet
with
available
municipal
wastewater
technology
when
stream
flows
are
less
than
5
cfs.
Therefore,
for
such
flows,
they
are
essentially
no
discharge
allocations.

As
with
La
Grande,
the
no
discharge
option
is
cost­
competitive
with
the
advanced
treatment
alternative.
Therefore,
since
the
no
discharge
option
is
cost­
competitive
with
advanced
treatment
and
since
it
will
result
in
the
greatest
improvement
in
water
quality,
no
discharge
during
the
critical
summer
time
period
is
the
recommended
alternative
being
pursued
by
the
city.

There
is
little
information
available
to
determine
when
the
summer
low
flow
period
occurs.
It
is
reasonable
to
assume
that
the
change
from
spring
to
summer
conditions
occurs
during
nearly
the
same
June
­
July
period
as
the
Grande
Ronde
River.
This
period
would
be
coincident
with
the
irrigation
season,
and
may
be
related
to
irrigation.
Although
insufficient
data
is
available
to
clearly
define
the
stream
flow
below
which
discharge
should
cease,
it
is
recommended
that
no
discharge
occur
in
June
when
the
flow
is
less
than
15
cfs
and
that
no
discharge
occur
in
July,
August,
or
September.
The
summer
to
fall
transition
is
somewhat
better
defined
by
the
limited
October
monitoring
data.
Assuming
that
available
October
water
quality
data
is
reasonably
representative
of
typical
fall
conditions,
the
Union
WWTP
should
be
able
to
discharge
at
current
mass
loads
in
October
once
stream
flow
exceeds
15
cfs
and
maximum
daily
stream
temperature
does
not
exceed
12
°
C.
Although
little
data
is
available
for
November,
it
is
reasonable
to
assume
that
seasonal
conditions
are
similar
to
the
Grande
Ronde
and
that
discharge
could
occur
at
current
loads
without
standards
violations.
The
likelihood
of
standards
being
met
will
be
improved
by
the
implementation
of
a
summer
no
discharge
period,
since
there
will
be
less
periphyton
biomass
produced
during
the
summer
which
will
reduce
the
likelihood
of
excessive
diurnal
DO
variation
in
the
Fall.

Wasteload
Allocations
for
Minor
Permitted
Industrial
Point
Sources
In
addition
to
the
City
of
Union
wastewater
treatment
plant,
there
are
four
minor
industrial
point
sources
in
the
basin.
The
only
minor
industrial
source
of
potential
concern
is
the
Boise
Cascade
particleboard
plant
in
Island
City,
which
discharges
to
the
Grande
Ronde
River.

Available
data
on
the
Boise
Cascade
Island
City
particleboard
plant's
permitted
discharge
effluent
quality
is
very
limited.
Sampling
performed
during
the
1993
survey
showed
that,
although
the
discharge
flow
rate
was
low,
the
effluent
contained
high
concentrations
of
total
phosphorus
(
2.9
­
5.3
mg/
L)
compared
to
in­
stream
concentrations.
Only
one
sample
of
the
Island
City
effluent
was
analyzed
for
nitrogen.
This
had
an
inorganic
nitrogen
concentration
of
0.21
mg/
L
and
a
Kjeldahl
nitrogen
(
organic
+
ammonia)
concentration
of
2.1
mg/
L.
The
flow
rate
was
estimated
to
be
0.3
cfs.

Observed
nitrogen
concentrations
in
the
Grande
Ronde
River
near
the
outfall
varied
between
60
and
100
µ
g/
L
during
the
summer
low
flow
surveys.
These
exceed
the
target
for
DIN
of
33
µ
g/
L.
If
the
background
DIN
concentration
equaled
33
µ
g/
L,
a
0.3
cfs
discharge
with
0.21
mg/
L
DIN
would
increase
the
in­
stream
concentration
about
3.7
µ
g/
L.
This
is
a
relatively
small
increase.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
38
APRIL,
2000
While
this
increase
in
DIN
would
likely
increase
periphyton
growth,
it
is
unlikely
that
the
increased
periphyton
growth
or
its
impact
on
pH
and
DO
would
be
measurable.

For
phosphorus,
based
on
an
effluent
flow
rate
of
0.3
cfs,
an
effluent
concentration
of
5.3
mg/
L,
and
a
river
flow
rate
of
14
cfs,
the
discharge
would
increase
the
in­
stream
total
phosphorus
concentration
over
100
µ
g/
L.
This
is
a
significant
increase.
Because
phosphorus
concentrations
in
the
vicinity
of
the
Boise
discharge
currently
exceed
the
loading
capacity,
there
currently
is
no
capacity
available
for
assimilating
the
load.
Since
the
system
is
generally
nitrogen
limited
in
the
vicinity
of
the
Boise
discharge,
it
is
possible
that
the
facility
could
discharge
some
phosphorus
without
measurably
increasing
periphyton
activity.
The
in­
stream
dissolved
orthophosphate
(
as
P)
concentrations
that
would
result
from
several
potential
effluent
concentrations
are
as
follows
(
assuming
an
upstream
concentration
of
10
ug/
L):

Effluent
dissolved
orthophosphate
concentration
mg/
L
as
N
Downstream
dissolved
orthophosphate
concentration
µ
g/
L
as
P
1.0
30.8
0.5
20.3
0.1
11.9
It
is
likely
that
only
an
effluent
dissolved
orthophosphate
concentration
significantly
less
than
0.5
mg/
L
as
P
would
produce
no
measurable
increase
in
periphyton
activity.
Such
a
low
effluent
concentration
would
likely
be
difficult
to
achieve
on
a
consistent
basis
using
available
treatment
technology.
Unless
it
were
demonstrated
that
such
a
low
concentration
could
be
consistently
met
and
that
it
would
have
no
measurable
impact
on
periphyton
growth,
it
is
recommended
that
the
facility
cease
discharge
during
the
critical
summer
period.
This
is
the
alternative
being
pursued
by
the
facility.

Spawning
and
Egg
Incubation
Periods
The
above
allocations
were
designed
to
allow
pH
and
DO
standards
to
be
met
during
critical
summertime
conditions.
During
fall,
winter
and
spring
(
October
1
through
June
30),
the
most
stringent
beneficial
use
is
salmonid
spawning
and
egg
incubation,
and
the
applicable
water
column
standard
is
95%
of
saturation.
For
a
3000
ft.
elevation,
which
is
roughly
the
average
elevation
of
the
reaches
modeled,
95%
saturation
at
10
°
C
(
Bull
Trout
temperature
std)
is
9.7
mg/
L,
at
12.8
°
C
(
salmonid
spawning
temperature
std)
is
9.1
mg/
L,
and
at
17.8
°
C
(
salmonid
rearing
std)
is
8.1
mg/
L.

The
non­
point
source
control
measures
needed
to
meet
the
above
allocations
will
apply
year
round
and
should
result
in
the
95%
of
saturation
standard
being
met
during
all
spawning
and
egg
incubation
periods.
This
is
because
the
allocations
were
designed
to
meet
the
stringent
pH
standard
of
8.7.
DO
is
well
above
the
DO
standard
whenever
the
pH
standard
is
met.
Therefore,
the
proposed
allocation
should
result
in
applicable
pH
and
DO
standards
being
met
year­
round.

After
flows
increase
in
October,
the
La
Grande
and
Union
WWTPs
will
be
permitted
to
discharge
at
their
current
secondary
permit
limits
through
May
31.
During
this
period
flow
rates
are
much
higher
than
in
the
summer,
and
solar
radiation
and
temperatures
much
lower.
Therefore,
periphyton
activity
is
minimal
during
this
period.
In
addition,
dilution
is
quite
high,
which
results
in
no
significant
impacts
due
to
effluent
BOD
loads.
Therefore,
standards
for
pH
and
DO
should
be
met
during
this
period,
even
with
the
La
Grande
and
Union
WWTPs
discharging
at
current
permit
limits.

Margin
of
Safety
 
Nutrient
TMDLs
A
margin
of
safety
has
been
provided
for
in
the
load
allocations
by:
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
39
APRIL,
2000
(
1)
Modeling
both
DO
and
pH,
rather
than
taking
the
traditional
approach
of
simply
modeling
DO.
Since
pH
was
found
to
control
the
load
allocations,
this
approach
resulted
in
more
stringent
load
allocations;

(
2)
Applying
8.7
as
the
pH
standard
rather
than
9.0;
and
(
3)
Ignoring
the
benefits
of
width
reductions
in
site
potential
riparian
condition
scenarios.
Restoring
the
river
to
site
potential
conditions
will
likely
result
in
reduced
bank
full
and
wetted
widths,
increased
depths,
increased
shade,
and
reduced
temperatures.
These
improvements
will
reduce
diel
pH
and
DO
fluctuations
beyond
that
predicted
by
modeling
for
the
scenario
and
will
provide
additional
margin
of
safety
that
standards
will
be
met.

The
combined
margin
of
safety
provided
by
the
above
will
ensure
that
the
load
allocations
proposed
will
result
in
the
attainment
of
water
quality
standards
for
both
pH
and
dissolved
oxygen.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
40
APRIL,
2000
Sedimentation
Fine
sediments
can
adversely
affect
fish
and
other
aquatic
organisms
by:
1)
killing
salmonids
or
reducing
growth
or
reducing
disease
resistance;
2)
interfering
with
the
development
of
eggs
and
larvae;
3)
modifying
natural
movements
and
migration
of
salmonids,
and
4)
reducing
the
abundance
of
food
organisms
(
Newcombe
and
McDonald
1991,
see
Appendix
A).
Sedimentation
of
redds
has
been
shown
to
significantly
impair
the
success
of
juvenile
emergence.
Numerous
streams
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
subbasin,
including
all
reaches
of
the
Grande
Ronde
River
within
the
subbasin,
are
included
on
the
§
303(
d)
list
due
to
water
quality
concerns
related
to
excessive
sedimentation.
Listed
streams
are
presented
in
Table
13.

In
the
Grande
Ronde
River
from
the
Wallowa
River
confluence
(
River
Mile
82.2)
to
the
Five
Points
Creek
confluence
(
RM
156.7),
cobble
embeddedness
and
fine
sediment
have
been
identified
in
the
§
303(
d)
list
as
limiting
factors
for
salmonid
rearing.
In
addition,
fine
sediment
in
the
Grande
Ronde
River
mainstem
have
been
identified
as
being
excessive
from
the
Five
Points
Creek
confluence
(
RM
156.7)
to
the
Headwaters.

Water
Quality
Standard
Identification
Oregon
water
quality
standards
related
to
sedimentation
include:

Sedimentation
(
OAR
340­
41­
722(
2)(
j)
­
"
The
formation
of
appreciable
bottom
or
sludge
deposits
or
the
formation
of
any
organic
or
inorganic
deposits
deleterious
to
fish
or
other
aquatic
life
or
injurious
to
public
health,
recreation,
or
industry
shall
not
be
allowed."

Biological
criteria
(
OAR
340­
41­
027)
­
"
Waters
of
the
State
shall
be
of
sufficient
quality
to
support
aquatic
species
without
detrimental
changes
in
the
resident
biological
communities."

Target
Identification/
Loading
Capacity
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
and
the
State
of
Oregon
do
not
have
numeric
water
quality
standards
for
streambed
fines.
However,
excessive
fine
sediment
is
addressed
through
application
of
state
narrative
criteria.
For
listing
purposes,
the
PACFISH
target
of
20%
streambed
fines
was
utilized
as
an
indicator
of
fine
sediment
impairment
to
salmonids
(
the
most
sensitive
"
resident
biological
community").
Therefore,
since
a
numeric
target
is
needed
to
evaluate
sediment
for
purposes
of
this
TMDL,
the
target
will
be
based
on
percent
fine
sediment
which
was
used
for
303(
d)
listing.
Thus,
the
loading
capacity
for
sedimentation
will
be
defined
as
20
percent
streambed
area
fines.
Long­
term
monitoring
and
the
adaptive
management
nature
of
this
TMDL
will
be
used
to
evaluate
this
goal
over
time.

Loading
Capacity
Identification
of
the
instream
sediment
loading
capacity
is
the
first
step
for
the
development
of
TMDLs.
The
loading
capacity
is
defined
as
the
greatest
amount
of
a
pollutant
that
water
can
receive
without
exceeding
water
quality
standards.
As
noted
above,
an
instream
streambed
fines
target
of
less
than
20
percent
streambed
area
fines
has
been
established
as
an
indicator
of
the
amount
of
sediment
loading
which
the
waters
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
can
receive
without
exceeding
the
state's
narrative
sedimentation
criteria.
Thus,
the
sediment
loading
capacity
for
all
streams
listed
for
sedimentation
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
is
20
percent
streambed
area
fines.

Cobble
embeddedness
data
collected
by
ocular
assessment
was
also
used
as
part
of
the
§
303(
d)
listing
criteria.
The
Department
is
not
aware
of
any
other
cobble
embeddedness
data
for
use
in
determining
the
sedimentation
TMDL.
The
focus
of
this
TMDL
will
be
on
meeting
the
percent
fines
criteria.
The
assumption
is
made
that
reducing
fine
sediment
will
result
in
a
corresponding
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
41
APRIL,
2000
reduction
in
cobble
embeddedness.
Future
monitoring
as
part
of
the
adaptive
management
component
of
this
TMDL
will
help
to
determine
the
validity
of
this
assumption.

Load
Allocations/
Surrogate
Measures
A
Load
Allocation
(
LA)
is
the
amount
of
pollutant
that
nonpoint
sources
can
contribute
to
a
stream
without
exceeding
state
water
quality
standards.
While
load
allocations
are
traditionally
expressed
as
"
mass
per
time",
the
TMDL
regulation
also
provides
for
the
expression
of
allocations
in
"
other
appropriate
measures".
It
is
not
appropriate
for
streambed
fines
to
be
expressed
as
a
load.
Thus,
another
appropriate
measure
will
be
utilized
in
this
TMDL.

As
shown
in
Figure
14,
percent
streambed
fines
decreases
with
the
increase
in
woody
riparian
vegetation.
The
observed
data
also
indicate
that
when
an
established
deciduous/
mixed/
conifer
riparian
community
exists,
the
loading
capacity
of
20%
streambed
fines
will
be
attained.
Surrogate
measures
#
1
and
#
2
developed
in
the
temperature
TMDL
provide
for
the
establishment
of
an
established
deciduous/
mixed/
conifer
riparian
community.
Thus,
these
same
surrogate
measures
can
be
utilized
as
load
allocations
for
the
sedimentation
TMDL.

The
load
allocations
for
the
mainstem
Upper
Grand
Ronde
River
and
for
the
tributaries
to
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
River
are
those
found
in
the
temperature
TMDL
on
page
23.
The
relationship
between
sediment
and
temperature
is
as
follows:

Surrogate
Measures
#
1
and
#
2
in
the
Temperature
TMDL
promote
riparian
conditions
that
will
increase
near­
stream
(
stream
bank)
area
resistance
to
erosive
energy
(
shear
stress)
and
may
reduce
local
shear
stress
levels.
Specifically,
the
restoration/
protection
of
riparian
areas
called
for
in
the
temperature
TMDL
will
serve
to
reduce
stream
bank
erosion
by
increasing
stream
bank
stability
via
rooting
strength
and
near­
stream
roughness.

Surrogate
Measure
#
3
in
the
Temperature
TMDL
targets
a
decrease
in
the
near­
stream
disturbance
zone
dimension
that
relies
primarily
on
passive
stream
narrowing
via
decreased
stream
bank
erosion
and
increased
naturally
occurring
stream
bank
building
processes.

Surrogate
Measure
#
4
in
the
Temperature
TMDL
targets
an
increase
sinuosity
in
unconfined
channels
.
Straighter
river
and
creek
channels
(
lower
sinuosity)
have
steeper
gradients
and
hence
higher
flow
velocities.
Increased
flow
velocity
exerts
more
force
on
the
banks,
accelerating
erosion
and
stream
widening.

Surrogate
Measure
#
5
in
the
Temperature
TMDL
targets
decreased
wetted
width
to
depth
ratio.
Specifically,
increased
pool
frequencies
is
an
important
component
of
instream
habitat,
healthy
channel
morphology
and
promotes
reduced
stream
temperatures.
And,
reduced
stream
bank
erosion
and
increased
stream
bank
building
processes
are
necessary
to
promote
this
condition.
Further,
reduced
sedimentation
(
the
accumulation
of
sediments
in
the
stream
channel)
will
assist
pool
development
and
maintenance.

These
allocations
apply
to
all
nonpoint
sources
(
agriculture,
forestry,
urban)
in
the
watershed.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
42
APRIL,
2000
Figure
14.
Stream
Bed
Percent
Fines
Related
to
Various
Riparian
Vegetation
Types
(
ODFW
data,
1996)

Wasteload
Allocations
Wastewater
treatment
plants,
and
thus
point
sources
in
Upper
Grande
Ronde
subbasin,
are
not
considered
a
source
of
fine
sediment
and
thus
no
wasteload
allocations
have
been
developed.

Seasonal
Variation
The
goal
of
this
TMDL
is
for
year­
round
achievement
of
the
loading
capacity.
Due
to
the
nature
of
the
loading
capacity
and
allocations
assigned
in
this
TMDL,
a
discussion
of
seasonal
variations
in
sediment
delivery
and
transport
processes
which
may
exist
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
River
subbasin
was
not
necessary
in
developing
the
TMDL.

Margin
of
Safety
The
Clean
Water
Act
requires
that
each
TMDL
be
established
with
a
margin
of
safety
(
MOS)
to
account
for
uncertainty
in
available
data
or
in
the
actual
effect
controls
will
have
on
loading
reductions
and
receiving
water
quality.
The
TMDL
also
includes
a
long­
term
monitoring
and
adaptive
management
plan
which,
among
other
things,
will
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
this
target
and
provides
a
MOS.

Calculating
a
numeric
margin
of
safety
is
not
easily
performed
with
the
methodology
presented
in
this
document.
The
basis
for
the
load
allocations
(
surrogates)
is
the
definition
of
site
potential
conditions.
Thus,
attainment
of
the
load
allocations
will
lead
to
the
establishment
of
a
mature
riparian
community
and
thus,
sediment
delivery
rates
which
resemble
those
of
the
natural
sources.
It
is
illogical
to
presume
that
anything
more
than
site
potential
riparian
conditions
are
possible,
feasible
or
reasonable.
DEQ
will
utilize
adaptive
management
to
monitor
whether
the
attainment
of
these
surrogate
measures
are
leading
to
the
attainment
of
the
applicable
water
quality
standards.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
43
APRIL,
2000
Bacteria
The
Grande
Ronde
River
from
the
Wallowa
River
to
Five
Points
Creek
(
River
Mile
165.7,
about
7
miles
above
the
City
of
La
Grande)
is
included
in
the
§
303(
d)
list
for
bacteria
standard
violations.
No
other
reaches
in
the
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
are
listed
for
bacteria.
The
Grande
Ronde
River
is
included
in
the
§
303(
d)
list
due
to
observed
violations
of
the
former
bacteria
standard,
which
was
based
on
fecal
coliform.
This
standard
is
as
follows:

"
Organisms
of
the
coliform
group
where
associated
with
fecal
sources
(
MPN
or
equivalent
MF
using
a
representative
number
of
samples.)
A
log
mean
of
200
fecal
coliform
per
100
milliliters
based
on
a
minimum
of
five
samples
in
a
30­
day
period
with
no
more
than
ten
percent
of
the
samples
in
the
30­
day
period
exceeding
400
per
100
ml."

The
Grande
Ronde
River
was
listed
based
on
data
from
two
stations
(
Stations
#
402396
and
#
404200;
River
Mile
99.0
and
151.1,
respectively).
Twelve
percent
of
observed
values
at
River
Mile
99.0
(
3
of
25)
and
11%
at
River
Mile
151.1
(
2
of
19)
exceeded
the
400
per
100
ml
fecal
coliform
standard
with
a
maximum
value
of
1600
between
water
years
1986
and
1995.
These
values
only
slightly
exceeded
the
10%
violation
criteria
associated
with
the
standard.
Observed
E.
coli
concentrations
in
the
Grande
Ronde
River
are
presented
in
Figure
15.

In
accordance
with
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
recommendations,
the
State
of
Oregon
recently
revised
its
bacteria
standards
to
be
based
on
Escherichia
coli
(
E.
coli),
rather
than
on
fecal
coliform.
The
applicable
standard
for
bacteria
(
i.
e.,
E.
coli)
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
subbasin
is
now
as
follows:

"
Numeric
Criteria:
Organisms
of
the
coliform
group
commonly
associated
with
fecal
sources
(
MPN
or
equivalent
membrane
filtration
using
a
representative
number
of
samples)
shall
not
exceed
the
criteria
described
in
subparagraphs
(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
paragraph.
Freshwaters:

(
i)
A
30­
day
log
mean
of
126
E.
coli
organisms
per
100
ml,
based
on
a
minimum
of
five
samples;

(
ii)
No
single
sample
shall
exceed
406
E.
coli
organisms
per
100
ml
(
OAR
340­
41­
725(
2)(
e)(
A)).

Figure
15.
Observed
E.
coli
concentration
in
the
Grande
Ronde
River.

10
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
44
APRIL,
2000
As
shown
in
Figure
15,
only
limited
data
is
available
on
E.
coli,
and
only
from
recent
years.
However,
the
available
data
does
not
show
any
violations
of
water
quality
standards.
Observed
median
concentrations
are
well
below
the
30­
day
log
mean
standard
of
126
E.
coli
organisms
per
100
ml,
and
no
observations
exceeded
the
absolute
maximum
of
406,
although
one
observation
did
come
close.
While
no
standards
violations
were
observed,
the
data
set
is
too
limited
to
conclude
that
standards
are
being
consistently
met.
It
is
possible
that
standards
violations
occur,
particularly
during
rainfall
events
when
accumulated
surface
organic
matter
is
flushed
into
the
streams.

As
with
sediment,
it
is
quite
likely
that
the
load
allocations
provided
to
address
temperature,
pH
and
dissolved
oxygen
violations
will
also
significantly
reduce
bacteria
loads
and
reduce
the
likelihood
of
standard
violations.
Bacteria
loads
will
be
reduced
by
the
filtering
capability
improvements
that
will
result
from
the
riparian
vegetation
improvements
necessary
to
meet
temperature
surrogates.
In
addition,
nutrient
reductions
resulting
from
the
nutrient
load
allocations
will
result
in
bacteria
load
reductions,
since
much
of
the
bacteria
entering
the
streams
is
associated
animal
wastes,
and
animal
wastes
contain
high
levels
of
both
nitrogen
and
phosphorus.

The
OAR
contains
the
following
requirements
intended
to
eliminate
bacteria
standard
violations:

1)
Raw
Sewage
Prohibition:
No
sewage
shall
be
discharged
into
or
in
any
other
manner
be
allowed
to
enter
the
waters
of
the
State
unless
such
sewage
has
been
treated
in
a
manner
approved
by
the
Department
or
otherwise
allowed
by
these
rules.
OAR
340­
41­
725
(
2)(
e)(
B);

2)
Animal
Waste:
Runoff
contaminated
with
domesticated
animal
wastes
shall
be
minimized
and
treated
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable
before
it
is
allowed
to
enter
waters
of
the
State.
OAR
340­
41­
725(
2)(
e)(
C);

3)
Bacterial
pollution
or
other
conditions
deleterious
to
waters
used
for
domestic
purposes,
livestock
watering,
irrigation,
bathing,
or
shellfish
propagation,
or
otherwise
injurious
to
public
health
shall
not
be
allowed.
OAR
340­
41­
725
(
2)(
f);
and
4)
In
waterbodies
designated
by
the
Department
as
water
quality
limited
for
bacteria,
and
in
accordance
with
priorities
established
by
the
Department,
development
and
implementation
of
a
bacteria
management
plan
shall
be
required
of
those
sources
that
the
Department
determines
to
be
contributing
to
the
problem.
The
Department
may
determine
that
a
plan
is
not
necessary
for
a
particular
stream
segment
or
segments
within
a
water­
quality
limited
basin
based
on
the
contribution
of
the
segment(
s)
to
the
problem.
The
bacteria
management
plans
will
identify
the
technologies,
BMPs
and/
or
measures
and
approaches
to
be
implemented
by
point
and
nonpoint
sources
to
limit
bacterial
contamination.
For
point
sources,
their
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
permit
is
their
bacteria
management
plan.
For
nonpoint
sources,
the
bacteria
management
plan
will
be
developed
by
designated
management
agencies
(
DMAs)
which
will
identify
the
appropriate
BMPs
or
measures
and
approaches.
OAR
340­
41­
026
(
3)(
a)(
I):

To
insure
that
bacteria
standards
are
met,
monitoring
for
E.
coli
and
fecal
coliform
will
be
continued
in
the
basin.
The
adaptive
management
nature
of
the
Plan
will
allow
additional
steps
to
be
taken,
as
needed,
to
insure
that
standards
are
met
and
beneficial
uses
are
protected.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
45
APRIL,
2000
Ammonia
Toxicity
Ammonia
toxicity
is
a
potential
concern
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
because
of
elevated
pH
and
temperature
levels.
Ammonia
is
present
in
two
states
in
natural
waters:
ammonium
ion
(
NH4
+
)
and
un­
ionized
ammonia
(
NH3).
Un­
ionized
ammonia
is
much
more
toxic
to
aquatic
life
than
the
ammonia
ion
state.
Since
the
fraction
of
ammonia
that
is
un­
ionized
increases
as
pH
increases,
systems
with
high
pH,
such
as
the
Grande
Ronde
River
and
Catherine
Creek,
are
highly
susceptible
to
ammonia
toxicity.
For
a
pH
of
9.0
and
a
temperature
of
25oC,
the
applicable
total
ammonia
chronic
standard
(
NH4
+
plus
NH3)
is
0.1
mg/
L
(
0.0822
mg/
L
as
nitrogen).
The
4­
day
average
ammonia
concentration
may
not
exceed
this
concentration
more
than
once
every
3
years
on
the
average.
For
the
same
pH
and
temperature
combination,
the
total
ammonia
acute
standard
is
0.72
mg/
L
(
0.59
mg/
L
as
nitrogen).
The
one
hour
average
ammonia
concentration
may
not
exceed
this
concentration
more
than
once
every
3
years
on
the
average.

Figures
16
and
17
present
observed
summer
ammonia
concentrations
for
the
Grande
Ronde
River.
Since
ammonia
toxicity
is
a
function
of
pH
and
temperature,
as
pH
and
temperature
is
improved
with
implementation
of
the
TMDL,
the
fraction
un­
ionized
will
decrease
and
the
loading
capacity
for
total
ammonia
will
increase.
The
lower
dashed
line
on
these
figures
is
a
standard
appropriate
for
current
conditions
(
pH
=
9.0,
temperature=
25oC),
while
the
upper
dashed
line
is
a
standard
appropriate
for
the
site
potential
condition
(
pH=
8.7,
temperature
=
20oC).

As
shown
in
Figures
16
and
17,
for
current
conditions
of
temperature
and
pH
the
ammonia
standard
(
lower
dashed
line)
is
occasionally
exceeded,
particularly
downstream
of
the
La
Grande
WWTP
discharge
which
discharges
at
River
Mile
153.8.
For
anticipated
future
temperature
and
pH
conditions,
the
standard
(
upper
dashed
line)
should
rarely
be
exceeded,
particularly
since
the
La
Grande
WWTP
will
not
be
discharging
during
low
flow
summer
conditions.

Figure
16.
Upper
Grande
Ronde
River
observed
Ammonia
concentrations
during
the
summer.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
46
APRIL,
2000
Figure
17.
Middle
Grande
Ronde
River
observed
Ammonia
concentrations
during
the
summer.

Observed
summer
ammonia
concentrations
for
Catherine
Creek
are
presented
in
Figure
18.
As
shown
in
Figure
18,
significant
ammonia
standard
exceedances
occur
near
the
Union
WWTP
discharge.
However,
away
from
the
discharge
no
violations
are
observed.
The
exceedances
are
caused
by
high
ammonia
concentrations
in
the
Union
effluent
coupled
with
very
poor
dilution
in
the
Creek.
The
poor
dilution
is
due
to
lack
of
flow
because
of
irrigation
diversions.
Not
only
is
the
chronic
criteria
of
0.082
mg/
L
(
as
N)
exceeded
near
the
discharge,
but
the
acute
criteria
of
0.6
mg/
L
(
as
N)
is
also
frequently
exceeded.
The
recommended
"
No
Discharge"
allocation
for
summer
months
will
eliminate
these
violations.

Figure
18.
Catherine
Creek
observed
Ammonia
concentrations
during
the
summer.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
47
APRIL,
2000
Winter
conditions
are
illustrated
by
Figure
19,
which
compares
observed
ammonia
concentrations
in
the
upper
Grande
Ronde
River
to
the
chronic
ammonia
standard
for
a
temperature
of
15oC
and
pH
of
8.7.
As
shown,
the
chronic
criteria
is
potentially
exceeded
at
times
during
the
winter
near
the
La
Grande
WWTP
discharge
(
MP
153.8).
This
is
of
concern
because
the
WWTP
will
be
allowed
to
discharge
during
the
months
of
November
through
May.
The
permit
limits
for
both
the
La
Grande
and
Union
WWTPs
will
be
designed
to
insure
that
ammonia
toxicity
criteria
are
met
at
all
times
of
the
year.

Figure
19.
Grande
Ronde
River
observed
Ammonia
concentrations
during
the
winter.

Habitat
Modification
and
Flow
Modification
Habitat
Modification
and
Flow
Modification
were
identified
on
the
§
303(
d)
list
for
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin.
Habitat
modification
is
not
the
direct
result
of
a
pollutant
although
it
does
affect
beneficial
uses.
Because
a
pollutant
is
not
the
cause,
the
concept
of
establishing
a
loading
capacity
and
allocations
does
not
apply.
There
is
the
expectation,
however,
that
the
improvements
to
riparian
vegetation
that
will
be
necessary
to
meet
temperature
surrogates
will
also
lead
to
improvements
in
habitat.
Flow
modification
also
is
not
the
direct
result
of
a
pollutant
load
although
decreased
flow
does
affect
beneficial
uses.
Although
loading
capacities
and
allocations
are
not
established,
improved
flow
is,
however,
necessary
to
adequately
address
water
quality
standards
and
habitat
below
the
City
of
La
Grande
on
the
Grande
Ronde
River
and
below
the
City
of
Union
on
Catherine
Creek.
Improving
in­
stream
flow
is
an
identified
goal
in
this
TMDL
and
is
identified
as
a
high
priority
in
the
Water
Quality
Management
Plan.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
48
APRIL,
2000
Reasonable
Assurance
of
Implementation
There
are
several
programs
that
are
either
already
in
place
or
will
be
put
in
place
to
help
assure
that
this
water
quality
management
plan
will
be
implemented.
Some
of
these
are
traditional
regulatory
programs
such
as
discharge
permit
programs
for
point
source
discharges.
In
these
cases,
the
pollutants
of
concern
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
sub­
basin
will
be
considered
and
the
regulation
will
be
carried
out
as
required
by
federal,
state,
and
local
law.
The
state
Forest
Practices
Act,
implemented
by
the
Oregon
Department
of
Forestry,
regulates
forest
activities.
The
Agricultural
Water
Quality
Management
Area
Plans,
implemented
by
the
Oregon
Department
of
Agriculture,
provide
the
assurance
that
agricultural
activities
are
addressed.
An
interdepartmental
review
of
these
programs
will
provide
the
assurance
that
standards
will
be
met.
Other
programs,
while
structured,
are
not
strictly
regulatory.
In
these
cases
local
implementing
agencies
agree
to
make
a
good
faith
effort
to
implement
the
program.
Structured
programs
that
provide
reasonable
assurance
of
implementation
include
(
for
more
complete
information
on
these
programs
see
Upper
Grande
Ronde
River
Sub­
basin
Water
Quality
Management
Plan,
Grande
Ronde
Water
Quality
Committee):

1.
NPDES
and
WPCF
Permit
Programs:
DEQ
administers
two
different
types
of
wastewater
permits
in
implementing
Oregon
Revised
Statute
(
ORS)
468B.
050.
The
statute
requires
that
no
person
shall
discharge
waste
into
waters
of
the
state
or
operate
a
waste
disposal
system
without
obtaining
a
permit
from
DEQ.

2.
Transportation:
Management
practices
for
transportation
sources
identified
in
the
WQMP
will
be
voluntarily
implemented
by
the
responsible
agencies.
There
is
incentive
to
voluntarily
implement
the
practices
not
only
to
improve
water
quality
and
protect
threatened
species
but
also
to
avoid
any
additional
regulation.
In
addition
to
voluntary
incentives
there
are
existing
authorities
and
agreements
that
are
adequate
to
assure
implementation.

3.
Municipal
&
Rural
Residential:
Union
County
and
the
City
of
La
Grande
have
ordinances
and
policies
that
are
relevant
to
the
implementation
of
the
management
practices
discussed
under
Municipal
Sources
in
the
Management
Measures
element
of
the
Water
Quality
Management
Plan.
These
Ordinances
and
Policies
will
be
reviewed
and
revised
to
insure
that
they
adequately
address
non­
point
source
pollution
control.

4.
Forestry:
The
Oregon
Department
of
Forestry
(
ODF)
is
the
designated
management
agency
for
regulation
of
water
quality
on
nonfederal
forestlands.
The
Board
of
Forestry
has
adopted
water
protection
rules,
including
but
not
limited
to
OAR
Chapter
629,
Divisions
635­
660,
which
describe
best
management
practices
(
BMPs)
for
forest
operations.
These
rules
are
implemented
and
enforced
by
ODF
and
monitored
to
assure
their
effectiveness.

5.
Agriculture:
The
Oregon
Department
of
Agriculture
(
ODA)
has
primary
responsibility
for
control
of
pollution
from
agricultural
sources.
This
is
done
through
the
Agricultural
Water
Quality
Management
(
AWQM)
program
authorities
granted
ODA
under
Senate
Bill
1010,
adopted
by
the
Oregon
State
Legislature
in
1993.

There
are
also
many
voluntary,
non­
regulatory,
watershed
improvement
programs
(
activities)
that
are
already
in
place
and
are
helping
to
address
the
water
quality
concerns
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
River
sub­
basin.
Both
technical
expertise
and
partial
funding
are
provided
through
these
programs.
Examples
of
activities
promoted
and
accomplished
through
these
programs
include:
planting
of
conifers,
hardwoods,
shrubs,
grasses
and
forbs
along
streams;
relocating
legacy
roads
that
may
be
detrimental
to
water
quality;
replacing
problem
culverts
with
adequately
sized
structures,
and
improvement/
maintenance
of
legacy
roads
known
to
cause
water
quality
problems;
and
active
channel
restoration.
These
activities
have
been
and
are
being
implemented
to
improve
watersheds
and
enhance
water
quality.
Many
of
these
efforts
are
helping
resolve
water
quality
related
legacy
issues.
The
programs
addressing
these
problems
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
the
following
(
for
more
complete
information
on
these
programs
see
Upper
Grande
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
49
APRIL,
2000
Ronde
River
Sub­
basin
Water
Quality
Management
Plan,
Grande
Ronde
Water
Quality
Committee):

 
The
Oregon
Plan
 
Grande
Ronde
Model
Watershed
 
Landowner
Assistance
Programs
Forestry
Incentive
Program
(
FIP)
Stewardship
Incentive
Program
(
SIP)
Environmental
Quality
Incentives
Program
(
EQIP)
Wildlife
Habitat
Incentive
Program
(
WHIP).
Conservation
Reserve
Program
(
CRP)
Conservation
Reserve
Enhanced
Program
(
CREP)
Forest
Resource
Trust
(
FRT)

 
Private
Lands
Forest
Network
(
PLFN).

 
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
Programs
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
51
APRIL,
2000
Glossary
of
Terms
General
Terminology
Active
Bank
Erosion:
Estimates
from
observation
of
the
active
stream
bank
erosion
as
a
percentage
(%)
of
the
total
reach
length.

Adaptive
Management:
An
iterative
process
where
policy
decisions
that
are
implemented
based
on
scientific
experiments
that
tests
the
predictions
and
assumptions
specified
in
a
management
plan.
The
results
of
the
experiment
are
then
used
to
guide
policy
changes
for
future
management
plans.

Anadromous
Fish:
Species
of
fish
that
spawn
in
fresh
water,
migrate
to
the
ocean
as
juveniles,
where
they
live
most
of
their
adult
lives
until
returning
to
spawn
in
fresh
water.

Anthropogenic
Sources
of
Pollution:
Pollutant
deliver
to
a
water
body
that
is
directly
related
to
humans
or
human
activities.

Autotrophs:
Organisms
that
obtain
energy
from
sunlight
and
their
materials
from
non­
living
sources.
In
streams,
autotrophs
include
periphyton,
phytoplankton,
and
macrophytes.

Base
Flow:
Groundwater
fed
summertime
flows
that
occur
in
the
long­
term
absence
of
precipitation.

Bank
Building
Event:
A
hydrologic
event
(
usually
high
flow
condition)
that
deposits
sediments
and
organic
debris
in
the
flood
plain
and
along
stream
banks.

Beneficial
Use:
Legislatively
approved
use
of
water
for
the
best
interest
of
people,
wildlife
and
aquatic
species.

Channel
Complexity:
Implied
high
pool
frequency
of
pools
and
large
woody
debris
(
instream
roughness).

Channel
Simplification:
The
loss
(
absence)
of
pools
and
large
woody
debris
that
is
important
for
creating
and
maintaining
channel
features
such
as:
substrate,
stream
banks
and
pool:
riffle
ratios.

Clean
Water
Act:
Established
in
1977,
is
an
amendment
to
the
1972
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
which
set
the
groundwork
for
regulating
pollutant
discharges
into
U.
S.
waters.
The
Clean
Water
Act
makes
discharging
pollutants
from
a
point
source
to
navigable
waters
illegal
without
a
permit.
The
Clean
Water
Act
amendments
of
1977
were
aimed
at
toxic
pollutants.
In
1987,
the
Clean
Water
Act
was
reauthorized
and
focused
on
sewage
treatment
plants,
toxic
pollutants,
and
authorized
citizen
suit
provisions.
The
Clean
Water
Act
allows
the
EPA
to
delegate
administrative
and
enforcement
aspects
of
the
law
to
the
state
agencies.
In
states
with
this
EPA
given
authority
of
Clean
Water
Act
implementation,
the
EPA
still
plays
the
role
of
supervisor.

Clearcut
Harvest:
Timber
harvests
that
remove
all
trees
are
removed
in
a
single
entry
from
a
designated
area.

Debris
Flow:
A
rapidly
moving
congregate
of
soil,
rock
fragments,
water
and
trees,
where
over
half
of
the
material
in
transport
has
a
particle
size
greater
than
that
of
sand.

Decommission:
The
removal
of
a
road
to
improve
hillslope
drainage
and
stabilize
slope
hazards.

Endangered
Species:
A
species
that
is
declared
by
the
Endangered
Species
Act
(
ESA)
to
be
in
danger
of
extinction
throughout
a
significant
portion
of
its
range.

Fine
Sediment:
Sand,
silt
and
organic
material
that
have
a
grain
size
of
6.4
mm
or
less.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
52
APRIL,
2000
Fire
Regime:
The
frequency,
extent,
intensity
and
severity
of
naturally
occurring
seasonal
fires
in
an
ecosystem.

FLIR
Thermal
Imagery:
Forward
looking
infrared
radiometer
thermal
imagery
is
a
direct
measure
of
the
longer
wavelengths
emitted
by
all
bodies.
The
process
by
which
bodies
emit
longwave
radiation
is
described
by
the
Stefan­
Boltzmann
4th
Order
Radiation
Law.
FLIR
monitoring
produces
spatially
continuous
stream
and
stream
bank
temperature
information.
Accuracy
is
limited
to
0.5oC.
FLIR
thermal
imagery
often
displays
heating
processes
as
they
are
occurring
and
is
particularly
good
at
displaying
the
thermal
impacts
of
shade,
channel
morphology
and
groundwater
mixing.

Flood
Plain:
Strips
of
land
(
of
varying
widths)
bordering
streams
that
become
inundated
with
floodwaters.
Land
outside
of
the
stream
channel
that
is
inside
a
perimeter
of
the
maximum
probable
flood.
A
flood
plain
is
built
of
sediment
carried
by
the
stream
and
deposited
in
the
slower
(
slack
waters)
currents
beyond
the
influence
of
the
swiftest
currents.
Flood
plains
are
termed
"
living"
if
it
experiences
inundation
in
times
of
high
water.
A
"
fossil"
flood
plain
is
one
that
is
beyond
the
reach
of
the
highest
current
floodwaters.

Flood
Plain
Roughness:
Reflects
the
ability
of
the
flood
plain
to
dissipate
erosive
flow
energy
during
high
flow
events
that
over­
top
streams
banks
and
inundate
the
flood
plain.

Fluvial:
Of,
found
in
or
produced
by
a
river.

Gradient:
Reach
gradient
estimated
by
valley
gradient
reported
in
percent
(%)
from
1:
24,000
topography.

Groundwater:
Subsurface
water
that
completely
fills
the
porous
openings
is
soil
and
rocks.

Impaired
waterbody:
Any
waterbody
of
the
United
States
that
does
not
attain
water
quality
standards
(
designated
uses,
numeric
and
narrative
criteria
and
antidegradation
requirements
defined
at
40
CFR
131),
due
to
an
individual
pollutant,
multiple
pollutants,
pollution,
or
an
unknown
cause
of
impairment.

Incipient
Lethal
Limit:
Temperature
levels
that
cause
breakdown
of
physiological
regulation
of
vital
bodily
processes,
namely:
respiration
and
circulation.

Indicator
Species:
Used
for
development
of
Oregon's
water
temperature
standard
as
sensitive
species
that
if
water
temperatures
are
reduced
to
protective
levels
will
protect
all
other
aquatic
species.

Instantaneous
Lethal
Limit:
Temperature
levels
where
denaturing
of
bodily
enzymes
occurs.

Instream
Roughness:
Refers
to
the
substrate
(
both
organic
and
inorganic)
that
is
found
in
the
stream
bank.

Intermittent
Flow:
Stream
flow
that
ceases
seasonally,
at
least
once
a
year.

Langley:
A
unit
of
solar
radiation
equivalent
to
one
gram
calorie
per
square
centimeter
of
irradiated
surface.

Large
Woody
Debris
(
LWD):
Pieces
of
woody
debris
located
in
the
stream
channel
at
least
36
inches
in
diameter
and
50
feet
in
length.

LWD
per
100
m:
A
measure
of
instream
roughness
and
large
woody
debris
frequency.
The
number
of
pieces
of
woody
debris
with
a
minimum
diameter
of
24
inches
and
at
least
50
inches
in
length
divided
by
the
primary
channel
length
and
multiplied
by
100
meters.

Legacy
Condition:
Past
land
management
and
historical
disturbance
affect
the
conditions
that
are
currently
observed
in
a
stream
channel.
Present
conditions
may
reflect
chronic
or
episodic
events
that
no
longer
occur.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
53
APRIL,
2000
Load
Allocation
(
LA):
A
term
referred
to
in
the
Clean
Water
Act
that
refers
to
the
portion
of
the
receiving
waters
loading
capacity
attributed
to
either
to
one
of
its
existing
or
future
nonpoint
sources
of
pollution
or
to
natural
background
sources.

Loading
Capacity:
A
term
referred
to
in
the
Clean
Water
Act
that
establishes
an
accepted
rate
of
pollutant
introduction
to
a
waterbody
that
is
directly
related
to
water
quality
standard
compliance.

Macrophytes:
Large
vascular
plants
and
bryophytes
(
mosses
and
liverworts).
Some
large
members
of
periphyton,
such
as
long
filaments
of
green
alga
Cladophora,
may
also
be
classified
as
Macrophytes.

Mass
Movement:
The
movement
of
soil
due
to
gravity,
such
as:
landslides,
debris
avalanches,
rock
falls
and
creep.

Measured
Daily
Solar
Radiation
Load:
The
rate
of
heat
energy
transfer
originating
from
the
sun
as
determined
by
using
a
Solar
Pathfinder
 
.

Natural
Sources
of
Pollution:
Pollutant
delivered
to
a
water
body
that
is
directly
related
to
processes
that
are
inherent
to
normal
processes
unaffected
by
humans.

Periphyton:
Algae
and
other
small
autotrophs
that
are
attached
to
substrate
(
submerged
rocks,
vegetation,
etc.).
Periphyton
consist
of
complex
assemblages
of
diatoms,
green
algae,
and
cyanobacteria
(
blue­
green
algae)
and,
to
a
lessor
degree,
yellow­
brown
algae,
euglenoids
and
red
algae.

pH:
A
measure
of
the
hydrogen
ion
active
concentration
in
aqueous
solutions
(
pH
=
­
log10{
H+}).
Acidic
solutions
have
a
pH
less
than
7,
neutral
solutions
have
a
pH
of
7,
and
basic
solutions
have
a
pH
that
is
greater
than
7.

Peak
Flow:
The
largest
flow
volume
occurring
during
a
storm
event.

Perennial
Flow:
Stream
flow
that
persists
throughout
all
seasons,
yearlong.

Phytoplankton:
algae
and
other
small
autotrophs
which
are
suspended
in
the
water
column
Pools:
Number
of
pools
reported
in
the
survey
reach
of
a
stream.

Pools
per
100
m:
The
frequency
of
pools
observed
in
the
survey
reach
per
100
meters
of
stream
length.
Calculated
as
the
number
of
observed
pools
in
the
reach
multiplied
by
100
meters
and
divided
by
the
primary
channel
length.

Potential
Daily
Solar
Radiation
Load:
Based
on
the
Julian
calendar,
for
any
particular
location
on
earth,
there
exists
a
potential
rate
of
heat
energy
transfer
originating
from
the
sun.

Primary
Channel
Length:
Length
of
the
primary
channel
located
in
the
survey
reach.
Units
are
meters.

Primary
Channel
Width:
Channel
width
of
a
stream
reported
in
meters.

Rate:
A
measurable
occurrence
over
a
specified
time
interval.

Reach:
Survey
reaches
in
the
same
stream,
numbered
for
organization.

Redd:
An
anadromous
fish
nest
made
in
the
gravel
substrate
of
a
stream
where
a
fish
will
dig
a
depression,
lay
eggs
in
the
depression
and
cover
it
forming
a
mound
of
gravel.

Residual
Pool
Depth:
Average
pool
depth
reported
in
meters.

Riparian
Area:
A
geographic
area
that
contains
the
aquatic
ecosystem
and
the
upland
areas
that
directly
affect
it.
Also
defined
as
360
feet
from
a
fish
bearing
stream
and
180
feet
from
a
non­
fish
bearing
stream.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
54
APRIL,
2000
Sac
Fry:
Larval
salmonid
that
has
hatched,
but
has
not
fully
absorbed
the
yolk
sac
and
has
not
emerged
from
the
redd.

Sediment:
Fragmented
material
that
originates
from
the
weathering
of
rocks
and
is
transported
by,
suspended
in,
or
deposited
by
water
or
air.

Seral
Stage:
Refers
to
the
age
and
type
of
vegetation
that
develops
from
the
stage
of
bare
ground
to
the
climax
stage.

Seral
Stage
­
Early:
The
period
from
bare
ground
to
initial
crown
closure
(
grass,
shrubs,
forbs,
brush).

Seral
Stage
­
Mid:
The
period
of
a
forest
stand
from
crown
closure
to
marketability
(
young
stand
of
trees
from
25
to
100
years
of
age,
includes
hardwood
stands).

Seral
Stage
­
Late:
The
period
of
a
forest
stand
from
marketability
to
the
culmination
of
the
mean
annual
increment
(
mature
stands
of
conifers
and
old­
growth).

Shear
Stress:
The
erosive
energy
associated
with
flowing
water.

Site
Potential:
Physical
and
biological
conditions
that
are
at
maximum
potential,
taking
into
account
local
natural
environmental
constraints
and
conditions.

Smolt:
Juvenile
salmonid
one
or
two
years
old
that
has
undergone
physiological
changes
adapted
for
a
marine
environment.
Generally,
the
seaward
migrant
stage
of
an
anadromous
fish
species.

Soil
Compaction:
Activities/
processes,
vibration,
loading,
pressure,
that
decrease
the
porosity
of
soils
by
increasing
the
soil
bulk
density






UnitVolume
Weight
.

Stream
Bank
Erosion:
Detachment,
entrainment,
and
transport
of
stream
bank
soil
particles
via
fluvial
processes
(
i.
e.
local
water
velocity
and
shear
stress).

Stream
Bank
Failure:
Gravity
related
collapse
of
the
stream
bank
by
mass
movement.

Stream
Bank
Retreat:
The
net
loss
of
stream
bank
material
and
a
corresponding
widening
of
the
stream
channel
that
accompanies
stream
bank
erosion
and/
or
stream
bank
failure.

Stream
Bank
Stability:
Measure
of
detachment,
entrainment,
and
transport
of
stream
bank
soil
particles
by
local
water
velocity
and
shear
stress.

Sub­
Lethal
Limit:
Temperature
levels
that
cause
decreased
or
lack
of
metabolic
energy
for
feeding,
growth
or
reproductive
behavior,
encourage
increased
exposure
to
pathogens,
decreased
food
supplies,
and
increased
competition
from
warm
water
tolerant
species.

Surface
Erosion:
Detachment,
entrainment,
and
transport
of
flood
plain
or
upslope
soil
particles
by
wind
and
water.

Surrogate
Measures
(
Load
Allocation):
A
term
referenced
in
the
Clean
Water
Act
that
refers
to
"
other
appropriate
measures"
that
can
be
allocated
to
meet
an
established
and
accepted
pollutant
loading
capacity.

Temperature
Limited
Waterbody:
Refers
to
a
stream
or
river
that
has
been
placed
on
the
§
303(
d)
list
for
violating
water
quality
numeric
criteria
based
on
measured
data.

Threatened
Species:
Species
that
are
likely
to
become
endangered
through
their
normal
range
within
the
foreseeable
future.

Threatened
waterbody:
Any
waterbody
of
the
United
States
that
currently
attains
water
quality
standards
(
designated
uses,
numeric
and
narrative
criteria
and
antidegradation
requirements
defined
at
40
CFR
131),
but
for
which
existing
and
readily
available
data
and
information
on
adverse
declining
trends
or
anticipated
load
measures
indicate
that
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
55
APRIL,
2000
water
quality
standards
will
likely
be
exceeded
by
the
time
the
next
list
is
required
to
be
submitted
to
EPA.

Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
(
TMDL):
TMDLs
are
written
plans
and
analyses
established
to
ensure
that
the
waterbody
will
attain
and
maintain
water
quality
standards.
The
OAR
definition
is
"
The
sum
of
the
individual
WLAs
for
point
sources
and
LAs
for
nonpoint
sources
and
background.
If
a
receiving
water
has
only
one
point
source
discharger,
the
TMDL
is
the
sum
of
that
point
source
WLA
plus
the
LAs
for
any
nonpoint
sources
of
pollution
and
natural
background
sources,
tributaries,
or
adjacent
segments.
TMDLs
can
be
expressed
in
terms
of
either
mass
per
time,
toxicity,
or
other
appropriate
measure.
If
Best
Management
Practices
(
BMPs)
or
other
nonpoint
source
pollution
controls
make
more
stringent
load
allocations
practicable,
then
wasteload
allocations
can
be
made
less
stringent.
Thus,
the
TMDL
process
provides
for
nonpoint
source
control
tradeoffs"
(
340­
04l­
006(
21))

Wasteload
Allocation
(
WLA):
A
term
referenced
in
the
Clean
Water
Act
that
refers
to
point
source
rates
of
pollutant
delivery
that
can
be
specifically
linked
to
an
established
and
accepted
pollutant
loading
capacity.

Watershed:
A
drainage
basin
that
contributes
water,
organic
material,
dissolved
nutrients,
and
sediment
to
streams,
rivers,
and
lakes.

Water
Quality
Limited:
Can
mean
one
of
the
following
categories:
(
a)
A
receiving
stream
which
does
not
meet
in­
stream
water
quality
standards
during
the
entire
year
or
defined
season
even
after
the
implementation
of
standard
technology;
(
b)
A
receiving
stream
which
achieves
and
is
expected
to
continue
to
achieve
in­
stream
water
quality
standard
but
utilizes
higher
than
standard
technology
to
protect
beneficial
uses;
(
c)
A
receiving
stream
for
which
there
is
insufficient
information
to
determine
if
water
quality
standards
are
being
met
with
higher
than
standard
treatment
technology
or
where
through
professional
judgment
the
receiving
stream
would
not
be
expected
to
meet
water
quality
standards
during
the
entire
year
or
defined
season
without
higher
than
standard
technology.
(
OAR
340­
04l­
006(
30))

Width:
Depth
Ratio:
The
width
of
channel
divided
by
the
average
depth
in
the
survey
reach
of
a
stream.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
56
APRIL,
2000
Statistical
Terminology
Box
and
Whisker
Plots:
Water
quality
parameters
and
instream
physical
parameters
are
reviewed
below
using
box
and
whisker
plots
for
illustration.
Below
is
an
example
of
a
box
and
whisker
plot:

Example
of
box
and
whisker
plot.

The
box
plots
have
river
mile
on
the
X­
axis
with
the
water
quality
parameter
on
the
Yaxis
The
box
represents
the
data
at
the
sampling
sites,
from
upstream
to
downstream.
Each
box
represents
a
summary
of
the
data:

The
upper
corner
of
each
box
is
the
75th
percentile
(
75
percent
of
the
data
are
below
that
concentration),
and
the
lower
corner
is
the
25th
percentile
(
25
percent
of
the
data
are
below
that
concentration).
The
upper
and
lower
tails
are
the
90th
and
10th
percentiles,
respectively.
Points
above
and
below
the
tails
represent
data
higher
and
lower
than
the
90th
and
10th
percentiles.
The
dashed
line
in
the
box
is
the
median
concentration
for
that
site
(
half
of
the
data
fall
above
and
below
that
concentration).

Correlation
Coefficient
(
R):
Used
to
determine
the
relationship
between
two
data
sets.
Rvalues
vary
between
 
1
and
1,
where
"
 
1"
represents
a
perfectly
inverse
correlation
relationship
and
"
1"
represents
a
perfect
correlation
relationship.
A
"
0"
R­
value
indicates
that
no
correlation
exists.

(
)(
)

=
µ
 
 
µ
 
 
=
n
1
i
y
i
x
i
y
x
n
1
R
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
57
APRIL,
2000
Determinate
Coefficient
(
R2):
The
R2
value
represents
"
goodness
of
fit"
for
a
linear
regression.
An
R2
value
of
"
1"
would
indicate
that
all
of
the
data
variability
is
accounted
for
by
the
regression
line.
Natural
systems
exhibit
a
high
degree
of
variability;
R2
values
approaching
"
1"
are
uncommon.
A
value
of
"
0"
would
indicate
that
none
of
the
data
variability
is
explained
by
the
regression.

Mean
(
µ
)
:
Refers
to
the
arithmetic
mean.


 
=
µ
i
x
n
1
Median:
A
value
in
the
data
in
which
half
the
values
are
above
and
half
are
below.

Reach
Averaged:
An
average
that
is
based
on
the
occurrence
of
a
property
weighted
by
the
occurrence
frequency
over
perennial
stream
length.

Standard
Deviation
(

)
:
The
measure
of
how
widely
values
are
dispersed
from
the
mean
(
µ
)
.

(
)
(
)
1
n
n
x
x
n
2
2
 
 
 
 
=
 


Tempertaure
Statistic:
The
maximum
seasonal
seven
(
7)
day
moving
average
of
the
daily
maximum
stream
tempertaures.
Page
Left
Blank
Intentionally
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
59
APRIL,
2000
References
Ambrose,
R.
B.,
T.
A.
Wool,
J.
P.
Connolly,
and
R.
W.
Schanz,
1988.
WASP4,
A
hydrodynamic
and
water
quality
model
 
model
theory,
user's
manual,
and
programmer's
guide
(
model
developed
by
D.
M.
DiToro,
J.
J.
Fitzpatrick,
and
R.
V.
Thomann
of
HydroQual,
Inc.).
Environmental
Research
Laboratory,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Athens,
Georgia
Allan,
J.
D.
1995.
Stream
ecology,
structure
and
function
of
running
waters.
Chapman
&
Hall,
London.

Baumgartner,
B.
1996.
Analysis
of
MZ
data
using
QUAL2EU.
ODEQ
Memo
to
File.

Bell,
M.
C.
1986.
Fisheries
handbook
of
engineering
requirements
and
biological
criteria.
Fish
Passage
Development
and
Evaluation
Program,
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
North
Pacific
Division.
Portland,
Oregon,
290
pp.

Beschta,
R.
L,
R.
E.
Bilby,
G.
W.
Brown,
L.
B.
Holtby,
and
T.
D.
Hofstra.
1987.
Stream
temperature
and
aquatic
habitat:
Fisheries
and
forestry
interactions.
Pp.
191­
232.
In:
E.
O.
Salo
and
T.
W.
Cundy
(
eds),
Streamside
Management:
Forestry
and
Fishery
Interactions.
University
of
Washington,
Institute
of
Forest
Resources,
Contribution
No.
57.
471
pp.

Beschta,
R.
L.
and
J.
Weatherred.
1984.
A
computer
model
for
predicting
stream
temperatures
resulting
from
the
management
of
streamside
vegetation.
USDA
Forest
Service.
WSDG­
AD­
00009.

Beschta,
R.
L.,
S.
J.
O'Leary,
R.
E.
Edwards,
and
K.
D.
Knoop.
1981.
Sediment
and
Organic
Matter
Transport
in
Oregon
Coast
Range
Streams.
Water
Resources
Research
Institute.
OSU.
WRRI­
70.

Bjornn,
T.
C.
1974.
Sediment
in
streams
and
its
effects
on
aquatic
life.
Moscow,
Idaho:
Water
Resources
Research
Institute,
Research
Technical
Completion
Report,
Project
No.
B­
025­
IDA.

Bohle,
T.
S.
1994.
Stream
temperatures,
riparian
vegetation,
and
channel
morphology
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
River
Watershed,
Oregon.
Department
of
Forest
Engineering,
Oregon
State
University,
Corvallis,
Oregon.

Bowen,
I.
S.
1926.
The
ration
of
heat
loss
by
convection
and
evaporation
from
any
water
surface.
Physical
Review.
Series
2,
Vol.
27:
779­
787.

Boyd,
M.
S.
1996.
Heat
Source:
stream
temperature
prediction.
Master's
Thesis.
Departments
of
Civil
and
Bioresource
Engineering,
Oregon
State
University,
Corvallis,
Oregon.

Brett,
J.
R.
1952.
Temperature
Tolerance
in
Young
Pacific
Salmon,
Genus
Oncorhynchus.
J.
Fish.
Res.
Bd.
Can.,
9(
6):
265­
323.

Brown,
G.
W.
1983.
Chapter
III,
Water
Temperature.
Forestry
and
Water
Quality.
Oregon
State
University
Bookstore.
Pp.
47­
57.

Brown,
G.
W.
1970.
Predicting
the
effects
of
clearcutting
on
stream
temperature.
Journal
of
Soil
and
Water
Conservation.
25:
11­
13.

Brown,
G.
W.
1969.
Predicting
temperatures
of
small
streams.
Water
Resour.
Res.
5(
1):
68­
75.

Brown,
L.
C.
and
T.
O.
Barnwell.
1987.
The
enhanced
stream
water
quality
models
qual2e
and
qual2e­
uncas:
documentation
and
user
manual.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Athens,
Georgia.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
60
APRIL,
2000
Bureau
of
Land
Management
(
BLM),
1998.
WODIP
Guidebook:
Western
Oregon
Digital
Image
Project.
Oregon.

Chapra,
S.
C.
1997.
Surface
water­
quality
modeling.
McGraw­
Hill.

Chen,
D.
Y.
1996.
Hydrologic
and
water
quality
modeling
for
aquatic
ecosystem
protection
and
restoration
in
forest
watersheds:
a
case
study
of
stream
temperature
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
River,
Oregon.
Ph.
D.
Dissertation.
University,
of
Georgia.
Athens,
Georgia.

Chow,
V.
T.
1959.
Open
Channel
Hydraulics.
New
York:
McGraw­
Hill
Co.

Clarke,
S.
E.
and
S.
A.
Bryce.
1997.
Hierarchical
subdivisions
of
the
Columbia
Plateau
and
Blue
Mountains
Ecoregions,
Oregon
and
Washington.
Gen.
Tech.
Rep.
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Forest
Service,
Portland,
OR.

Clasunitzer,
R.
R.
and
E.
A.
Crowe.
1997.
Mid­
Montane
Wetland
Plant
Associations
of
the
Malheur,
Umatilla
and
Wallowa­
Whitman
National
Forests.
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
Forest
Service,
Pacific
Northwest
Region.
Technical
Paper
R6­
NR­
ECOLTP
22­
97.

Cole,
T.
M.
and
E.
M.
Buchak,
1994.
CE­
QUAL­
W2:
A
two­
dimensional
lateraly
averaged,
hydrodynamic
and
water
quality
model,
version
2.0
 
User
manual.
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
Waterways
Experiment
Station,
Vicksburg,
MS.

Cowardin,
L.
M.,
V.
Carter,
F.
C.
Golet,
and
E.
T.
LaRoe.
1979.
Classification
of
wetlands
and
deepwater
habitats
of
the
United
States.
FWS/
OBS­
79­
31.
USDI
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
Washington,
DC.
131
pp.

Evans,
J.
W.
1990.
Powerful
Rocky:
The
Blue
Mountains
and
the
Oregon
Trail,
1811­
1883.
Eastern
Oregon
State
College,
La
Grande,
OR.

Everest
F.
H.,
R.
L.
Beschta,
J.
C.
Scrivener,
K.
V.
Koski,
J.
R.
Sedell,
and
D.
J.
Cederholm.
1987.
Fine
Sediment
and
salmonid
production
a
paradox.
in
Streamside
Management
Forestry
and
Fishery
Interactions.
Salo
and
Cundy
Eds.
College
of
Forest
Resources.
University
of
Washington,
Seattle
WA.

Geiger,
R.
1965.
The
Climate
Near
the
Ground.
Harvard
University
Press.
Cambridge,
Massachusetts.

Gildemeister,
J.,
1999.
The
Grande
Ronde
Watershed
History
Report.
Completed
for
the
Dept.
of
Natural
Resources,
CTUIR,
Mission,
OR.

Halliday
D.
and
R.
Resnick.
1988.
Fundamentals
of
Physics.
3rd
Edition.
John
Wiley
and
Sons,
New
York.
pp.
472­
473.

Harbeck,
G.
E.
and
J.
S.
Meyers.
1970.
Present
day
evaporation
measurement
techniques.
J.
Hydraulic
Division.
A.
S.
C.
E.,
Prceed.
Paper
7388.

Heath
A.
G.
and
G.
M.
Hughes,
.
1973.
Cardiovascular
and
respitory
changes
during
heat
stress
in
rainbow
trout
(
Salmo
gairneri).
J.
Exp.
Biol.,
59:
323­
338.

Hines,
C.
A.
1999.
Evaluating
the
Restoration
Potential
of
Black
Cottonwood
(
Populus
trichocarpa)
from
multiple
scales
of
observation,
Grande
Ronde
River
Basin,
Oregon,
USA.
Master's
Thesis.
Department
of
Forest
Science,
Oregon
State
University.
Corvallis
Oregon.

Hogan,
J.
W.
1970.
Water
temperature
as
a
source
of
variation
in
specific
activity
of
brain
acetylcholinesterase
of
bluegills.
Bull.
Environment.
Contam.
Toxicol.,
5:
347­
353.

Hokanson,
K.
E.
F.,
C.
F.
Kleiner
and
T.
W.
Thorslund.
1977.
Effects
of
Constant
Temperatures
and
Diel
Temperature
Fluctuations
on
Specific
Growth
and
Mortality
Rates
and
Yield
of
Juvenile
Rainbow
Trout,
Salmo
gairdneri.
J.
Fish.
Res.
Bd.
Can.,
34:
639­
648.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
61
APRIL,
2000
Holaday,
S.
A.
1992.
Summertime
water
temperature
trends
in
Steamboat
Cr.
basin,
Umpqua
National
Forest.
Master's
Thesis.
Department
of
Forest
Engineering,
Oregon
State
University,
Corvallis,
Oregon.

HydroQual,
1995.
South
Florida
Water
Management
District
Wetlands
Model:
Model
Design.
HydroQual,
Inc.,
1
Lethbridge
Plaza,
Mahwah,
New
Jersey
Ibqal,
M.
1983.
An
Introduction
to
Solar
Radiation.
Academic
Press.
New
York.
213
pp.

Iwamoto
R.
N.,
E.
O.
Salo,
M.
A.
Madej,
R.
L.
McComas.
1978.
Sediment
and
water
quality:
A
review
of
the
literature
including
a
suggested
approach
for
water
quality
criteria.
EPA
910/
9­
78­
048.

Jobson,
H.
E.
and
T.
N.
Keefer.
1979.
Modeling
highly
transient
flow,
mass
and
heat
transfer
in
the
Chattahoochee
River
near
Atlanta,
Georgia.
Geological
Survey
Professional
Paper
1136.
U.
S.
Gov.
Printing
Office,
Washington
D.
C.

Khan,
H.
R.,
1971.
Laboratory
Studies
of
Alluvial
river
Channel
Patterns.
Ph.
D.
Dissertation,
Dept.
of
Civil
Engineering,
Colorado
State
University,
Fort
Collins,
CO.

Kovalchik,
B.
L.
1987.
Riparian
zone
associations
of
the
Deschutes,
Ochoco,
Fremont
and
Winema
National
Forests.
R6ECOLTP279/
87.
Portland,
OR:
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Forest
Service,
Pacific
Northwest
Region.
171
pp.

Li,
H.
W.,
G.
L.
Lamberti,
T.
N.
Pearsons,
C.
K.
Tait,
J.
L.
Li
and
J.
C.
Buckhouse.
1994.
Cumulative
effects
of
riparian
disturbance
along
high
desert
trout
streams
of
the
John
Day
Basin,
Oregon.
Am.
Fish
Soc.
123:
627­
640.

Martin,
J.
L.
and
S.
C.
McCutcheon.
1999.
Hydrodynamics
and
Transport
for
Water
Quality
Modeling.
Lewis
Publishers.
Washington,
D.
C.

McIntosh,
B.
A.
1992.
Historical
changes
in
anadromous
fish
habitat
in
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde
River,
Oregon,
1941­
1990.
Master's
Thesis.
Oregon
State
University.
Oregon.
87
pp.

McIntosh,
B.
A.
1995.
Historical
changes
in
stream
habitats
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin.
PhD.
Dissertation.
Oregon
State
University.
Oregon.

McIntosh,
B.
1999.
Grande
Ronde
River
FLIR
data
acquisition.
Personal
Communication.

Metcalf
and
Eddy.
1991.
Wastewater
Engineering
 
Treatment
Disposal
Reuse.
3rd
edition.
McGraw­
Hill,
Inc.
San
Francisco.

Newcombe
C.
P.
and
D.
D.
MacDonold.
1991.
Effects
of
suspended
sediment
on
aquatic
ecosystems.
North
American
Journal
of
Fishery
Management.
11:
72­
82
Oregon
Department
of
Environmental
Quality.
1999.
Draft
Upper
Grande
Ronde
River
Subbasin
temperature
total
maximum
daily
load
(
TMDL).
January,
1999.
State
of
Oregon
Department
of
Environmental
Quality,
Portland,
Oregon.

Oregon
Department
of
Environmental
Quality.
1997.
Water
Quality
Management
Plan
Guidance.

Oregon
Department
of
Environmental
Quality.
1995.
1992­
1994
Water
Quality
Standards
Review.
DO
issue
paper.

Oregon
Department
of
Environmental
Quality.
1995a.
River
Basin
Assessment
­
Upper/
Middle
Grande
Ronde
River
and
Catherine
Creek.
June,
1995
Oregon
Department
of
Environmental
Quality.
1994.
Grande
Ronde
River,
Results
of
Temperature
Monitoring,
1992
and
1993
Field
Seasons
(
undated,
1994
date
assumed).

Oregon
Coastal
Salmon
Restoration
Initiative
(
CSRI).
1997.
State
Agency
Measures.
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
62
APRIL,
2000
Owens,
M.,
R.
W.
Edwards
and
J.
W.
Gibbs.
1964.
Some
reaeration
studies
in
streams.
International
J.
of
Air
and
Water
Pollution,
vol.
8,
no.
8/
9,
pp.
469­
486,
September,
1964.

Park,
C.
1993.
SHADOW:
stream
temperature
management
program.
User's
Manual
v.
2.3.
USDA
Forest
Service.
Pacific
Northwest
Region.

Parker,
F.
L.
and
P.
A.
Krenkel.
1969.
Thermal
pollution:
status
of
the
art.
Rep.
3.
Department
of
Environmental
and
Resource
Engineering,
Vanderbilt
University,
Nashville,
TN.

Rishel,
G.
B.,
Lynch,
J.
A.
and
E.
S.
Corbett..
1982.
Seasonal
stream
temperature
changes
following
forest
harvesting.
J.
Environ.
Qual.
11:
112­
116.

Rosgen,
D.
1996.
Applied
River
Morphology.
Wildland
Hydrology.
Pagosa
Springs,
CO.

Satterland,
D.
R.
and
P.
W.
Adams.
1992.
Wildland
Watershed
Management.
2nd
edition.
John
Wiley
and
Sons,
Inc.,
New
York.

Schnurbusch,
S.
1996a.
Ammonia
Toxicity
­
Grande
Ronde
River.
Memorandum
to
File,
Oregon
Department
of
Environmental
Quality,
January
24,
1996.

Schnurbusch,
S.
1996b.
Grande
Ronde
River
TMDL
Analysis
for
the
La
Grande
WWTP.
Memorandum
to
File,
Oregon
Department
of
Environmental
Quality,
April
18,
1996.

Sellers,
W.
D.
1965.
Physical
Climatology.
University
of
Chicago
Press.
Chicago,
IL.
272
pp.

Sinokrot,
B.
A.
and
H.
G.
Stefan.
1993.
Stream
temperature
dynamics:
measurement
and
modeling.
Water
Resour.
Res.
29(
7):
2299­
2312.

Snoeyink,
V.
L.
and
D.
Jenkins.
1980.
Water
Chemistry.
John
Wiley
&
Sons,
New
York.

Stedinger,
J.
R.,
R.
M.
Vogel,
and
E.
Foufoula­
Georgiou.
Frequency
Analysis
of
Extreme
Events.
Handbook
of
Hydrology,
1993,
D.
R.
Maidment,
editor
in
chief.
McGraw­
Hill,
Inc.,
New
York
Stumm,
W.
and
J.
J.
Morgan.
1981.
Aquatic
chemistry,
an
introduction
emphasizing
chemical
equilibria
in
natural
waters,
2nd.
Edition.
John
Wiley
&
Sons,
New
York.

Tappel,
P.
D.
and
T.
C.
Bjornn.
1993.
A
new
method
of
relating
size
of
spawning
gravel
to
salmonid
embryo
survival.
N.
Am.
Journal
Fish
Mgmt.
3:
123­
135.

Thomann,
R.
V.
and
J.
A.
Mueller.
1987.
Principles
of
surface
water
quality
modeling
and
control.
Harpor
&
Row,
New
York.

Torgersen,
C.
E.,
D.
M.
Price,
H.
W.
Li,
and
B.
A.
McIntosh.
1995.
Thermal
refugia
and
chinook
salmon
habitat
in
Oregon:
Applications
of
airborne
thermal
videography.
Proceedings
of
the
15th
Biennial
Workshop
on
Color
Photography
and
Videography
in
Resource
Assessment,
Terre
Haute,
Indiana.
May,
1995.
American
Society
for
Photogrammetry
and
Remote
Sensing.

U.
S.
Fish
Commission.
1894.
Bulletin
of
the
United
States
Fish
Commission,
Volume
XIV.
Government
Printing
Office,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
Forest
Service
(
USFS)
and
Bureau
of
Land
Management
(
BLM).
1995.
"
Interim
Strategies
for
Managing
Anadromous
Fish­
Producing
Watersheds
in
Eastern
Oregon
and
Washington,
Idaho,
and
portions
of
California
[
PACFISH]".
U.
S.
Forest
Service.
1994.
Upper
Grande
Ronde
Watershed
Analysis.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
1985.
Rates,
constants,
and
kinetics
formulations
in
surface
water
quality
modeling
(
2nd
ed.).
(
G.
L.
Bowie,
W.
B.
Mills,
D.
B.
Porcella,
C.
L.
Campbell,
J.
R.
Pagenkopf,
G.
L.
Rupp,
K.
M.
Johnson,
P.
W.
H.
Chan,
S.
A.
Gherini,
C.
E.
Chamberlin,
and
T.
O.
Barnwell).
EPA/
600/
3­
85/
040
UPPER
GRANDE
RONDE
SUB­
BASIN
TMDL
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PAGE
63
APRIL,
2000
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
1998.
Report
of
the
Federal
Advisory
Committee
on
theTotal
Maximum
Daily
Load
Program.
EPA
100­
R­
98­
006.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
1993.
Land
Cover
Classification
for
the
Upper
Grande
Ronde.
Unpublished.

Webster,
James,
Personal
Communications,
1999.
Upper
Grande
Ronde
Sub­
basin
WQMP
edits
and
additions,
Watershed
Hydrologist,
CTUIR.

Wunderlich,
T.
E.
1972.
Heat
and
mass
transfer
between
a
water
surface
and
the
atmosphere.
Water
Resources
Research
Laboratory,
Tennessee
Valley
Authority.
Report
No.
14,
Norris
Tennessee.
Pp.
4.20.
Page
Left
Blank
Intentionally
Page
Left
Blank
Intentionally
Oregon
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
Water
Quality
Division
811
Southwest
6th
Avenue
Portland,
Oregon
97204
This
document
can
be
accessed
on
the
Internet
http://
waterquality.
deq.
state.
or.
us/
wq/
