DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft South Nestucca Restoration Project Environmental Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft South Nestucca Restoration Project Environmental Analysis United States Department of Agriculture South Nestucca Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Consider using a photo of the project area or proposed activities. Remove box and insert graphic. 508 Compliance: Right-click Photo > Format Picture > Alt Text > Type Title and description of photo Photo goes here Siuslaw Hebo Forest Service National Forest Ranger District January 2015 Responsible Official: Jeremiah C. Ingersoll, Forest Supervisor Siuslaw National Forest 3200 SW Jefferson Way Corvallis, OR 97331 541-750-7000 For More Information Contact: Lorena Wisehart, NEPA Planner Hebo Ranger District P.O. Box 235 31525 Hwy 22 503-392-5119 [email protected] U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication for program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. The document is organized into the following parts: Introduction: This section includes a summary of the proposed project, the management framework, the need for the project, and potential issues. Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the proposed action as well as any alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, effects of the No Action Alternative provide a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow. Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and identifies the agencies and governments consulted during preparation of the EA. This EA is the product of an interdisciplinary analysis. Forest Service employees that assisted with preparation of the EA are identified along with their area of expertise. Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the EA. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Hebo Ranger District Office in Hebo, Oregon. i South Nestucca Restoration Project EA Contents Chapter 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Summary of Proposed Project ......................................................................................... 1 1.2. Project Area ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.3. Management Framework ................................................................................................. 2 1.3.1. Siuslaw Forest Plan ............................................................................................... 3 1.3.2. Forest Plan Amendments....................................................................................... 3 1.3.3. Additional Guidance.............................................................................................. 3 1.3.4. Land Allocations in the Project Area .................................................................... 6 1.4. Need for the Proposal .................................................................................................... 10 1.4.1. Evidence Used by the District Ranger in Deciding to Address These Needs ..... 11 1.5. Issues ............................................................................................................................. 15 1.6. Additional Considerations ............................................................................................. 16 1.7. Decision Framework ..................................................................................................... 16 Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives ....................................................................... 17 2.1. Alternatives Considered in Detail ................................................................................. 17 2.1.1. Alternative 1: No Action ..................................................................................... 17 2.1.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action ........................................................................... 17 2.1.3. Comparison of Alternatives 1 and 2. ................................................................... 23 2.2. Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Analysis ................................ 23 2.2.1. Treat all of the managed stands within the project area ...................................... 23 2.2.2. Maximize carbon sequestration ........................................................................... 23 2.2.3. No new temporary roads ..................................................................................... 23 2.2.4. Treat alder dominated stands ............................................................................... 24 Chapter 3. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ...................... 24 3.1. Forest Stands ................................................................................................................. 25 3.1.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 25 3.1.2. Direct and Indirect Effects .................................................................................. 29 3.2. Wildlife .......................................................................................................................... 34 3.2.1. Threatened, endangered or proposed ESA listed species .................................... 35 3.2.2. Regional Forester’s Sensitive and Survey and Manage Species ......................... 48 3.2.3. Wildlife Management Indicator Species (MIS) .................................................. 54 3.2.4. Landbird Assessment .......................................................................................... 58 3.2.5. Deadwood Assessment ........................................................................................ 66 3.3. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources ................................................................................... 84 3.3.1. Direct and Indirect Effects .................................................................................. 85 3.3.2. ESA Effect Determination and Critical Habitat .................................................. 99 3.3.3. Aggregated Federal Effects ............................................................................... 100 3.3.4. Endangered Species Act Cumulative Effects .................................................... 100 3.3.5. EFH and Special Status Species Assessment .................................................... 100 3.3.6. Management Indicator Species and Other Fish Species .................................... 101 3.3.7. Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................ 101 3.4. Botanical Resources .................................................................................................... 101 3.4.1. Botanical Species .............................................................................................. 101 3.4.2. Invasive Plants ................................................................................................... 110 3.5. Hydrology .................................................................................................................... 112 3.5.1. Introduction and Description of Existing Condition ......................................... 112 3.5.2. Desired Future Condition .................................................................................. 115 3.5.3. Direct and Indirect Effects ................................................................................ 116 ii Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest 3.5.4. Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................ 118 3.6. Soils & Geology .......................................................................................................... 118 3.6.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 119 3.6.2. Direct and Indirect Effects ................................................................................ 119 3.6.3. Cumulative Effects ...........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Protecting O&C Lands: Mount Hebo
    A fact sheet from Sept 2013 Bob Van Dyk Bob Van Dyk Bob Van Dyk Protecting O&C Lands Mount Hebo Location: Northern Oregon Coast Range Rising 3,175 feet from its densely forested surroundings, Mount Hebo is one of the highest peaks 11,310 Acres: in the northern Oregon Coast Range. The prominent Ecological value: Historical significance, lookout is a popular day hike for those willing to breathtaking vistas, hemlock and Douglas fir climb far above the massive hemlock and Douglas fir forests, and abundant wildflowers forest to fully experience the breathtaking scope of the Northwest’s landscape. Along the path, a traveler Economic value: Hiking and biking will find an abundance of towering trees and rare wildflowers. North of the mountain’s summit lies the last remaining roadless area in northwest Oregon, What are the O&C lands? providing a unique wild land experience in this part In 1866, Congress established a land-grant program for the Oregon of the state. This area should be forever protected & California (O&C) Railroad Co. to spur the completion of the as wilderness. rail line between Portland and San Francisco that required the company to sell the deeded land to settlers. Forty years later, when Pioneers dubbed the peak “Heave Ho” because of the the company failed to meet the terms of the agreement fully, the way it seemed to erupt from the surrounding forest. federal government reclaimed more than 2 million acres of mostly Over the years, the name “Heave Ho” morphed into forested land. Today, those O&C lands remain undeveloped and “Hebo.” These explorers discovered what Native are administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Cascade Head Area, Northwestern Oregon Coast Range (Neskowin, Nestucca Bay, Hebo, and Dolph 7.5 Minute Quadrangles)
    (a-0g) R ago (na. 96-53 14. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR , U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Alatzi2/6 (Of (c,c) - R qo rite 6/6-53y Geologic Map of the Cascade Head Area, Northwestern Oregon Coast Range (Neskowin, Nestucca Bay, Hebo, and Dolph 7.5 minute Quadrangles) by Parke D. Snavely, Jr.', Alan Niem 2 , Florence L. Wong', Norman S. MacLeod 3, and Tracy K. Calhoun 4 with major contributions by Diane L. Minasian' and Wendy Niem2 Open File Report 96-0534 1996 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American stratigraphic code. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 1/ U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA 94025 2/ Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97403 3/ Consultant, Vancouver, WA 98664 4/ U.S. Forest Service, Corvallis, OR 97339 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 GEOLOGIC SKETCH 2 DESCRIPTION OF MAP UNITS SURFICIAL DEPOSITS 7 BEDROCK UNITS Sedimentary and Volcanic Rocks 8 Intrusive Rocks 14 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 15 REFERENCES CITED 15 MAP SHEETS Geologic Map of the Cascade Head Area, Northwestern Oregon Coast Range, scale 1:24,000, 2 sheets. Geologic Map of the Cascade Head Area, Northwest Oregon Coast Range (Neskowin, Nestucca Bay, Hebo, and Dolph 7.5 minute Quadrangles) by Parke D. Snavely, Jr., Alan Niem, Florence L. Wong, Norman S. MacLeod, and Tracy K. Calhoun with major contributions by Diane L. Minasian and Wendy Niem INTRODUCTION The geology of the Cascade Head (W.W.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Silverspot Recovery Plan
    PART I INTRODUCTION Overview The Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) is a small, darkly marked coastal subspecies of the Zerene fritillary, a widespread butterfly species in montane western North America. The historical range of the subspecies extends from Westport, Grays Harbor County, Washington, south to Del Norte County, California. Within its range, the butterfly is known to have been extirpated from at least 11 colonies (2 in Washington, 8 in Oregon, and 1 in California). We, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, listed the Oregon silverspot butterfly was listed as a threatened species with critical habitat in 1980 (USDI 1980; 45 FR 44935). We completed a recovery plan for this species in 1982 (USDI 1982). The species recovery priority number is 3, indicating a high degree of threat and high recovery potential (USDI 1983; 48 FR 43098). At the time of listing, the only viable population known was at Rock Creek-Big Creek in Lane County, Oregon, and was managed by the U.S. Forest Service (Siuslaw National Forest). The Siuslaw National Forest developed an implementation plan (Clady and Parsons 1984) to guide management of the species at Rock Creek-Big Creek and Mount Hebo (Mt. Hebo) in Tillamook County, Oregon. Additional Oregon silverspot butterfly populations were discovered at Cascade Head, Bray Point, and Clatsop Plains in Oregon, on the Long Beach Peninsula in Washington, and in Del Norte County in California. The probability of survival of four populations has been increased by management efforts of the Siuslaw National Forest and The Nature Conservancy, however, some threats to the species remain at all of the sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix F.3 Scenic Features in Study Area
    Population data for Study Area and individual counties (1980, 1990, 1993) Sources: 1) Center for Population Research and Census, Portland State University, 1994. 2) Oregon Census Abstract, Oregon Housing and Community Services Department, 1993. 1990: Oregon contained 1.1% of U.S. population 1990: 9-county area contained 36% of Oregon population ~ 'd (1) ::s 0...... (10 years) (3 years) >: Apr-80 Apr-90 Jul-93 80-90 90-93 t'%j County Census Census Est. Pop % Increase % Increase ...... Tillamook 21,164 21,670 22,900 1.9% 6.2% Inc. 7,892 7,969 8,505 1.0% 6.7% Uninc. 13,272 13,601 14,395 2.6% 6.8% Washington 245,860 311,654 351,000 26.7% 12.7% Inc. 105,162 162,544 180,344 64.6% 11.0% Uninc. 140,698 149,010 170,656 5.9% 14.5% Yamhill 55,332 65,551 70,900 18.5% 8.2% Inc. 34,840 43,965 48,161 26.2% 9.5% Uninc. 20,492 21,586 22,739 5.3% 5.3% Polk 45,203 49,541 53,600 9.6% 8.2% Inc. 30,054 34,310 36,554 14.2% 6.5% Uninc. 15,149 15,231 17,046 0.5% 11.9% lincoln 35,264 38,889 40,000 10.3% 2.9% Inc. 19,619 21,493 22,690 9.6% 5.6% Uninc. 15,645 17,396 17,310 11.2% -0.5% Benton 68,211 70,811 73,300 3.8% 3.5% Inc. 44,640 48,757 54,220 9.2% 11.2% Uninc.
    [Show full text]
  • WOPR Salem District Resource Management Plan
    Resource Management Plan 25 Salem District ROD and RMP 26 Resource Management Plan Resource Management Plan Planning Area The entire planning area analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management (October 2008) includes all lands (private, local, state, and federal) in western Oregon. See Figure 1 (Entire planning area of the Western Oregon BLM resource management plan revisions). The Salem District Resource Management Plan and the coordinated resource management plans for the other districts affect BLM-administered lands in the BLM districts and counties of western Oregon that are listed in Table 1 (BLM districts and Oregon counties included in the planning area of the Western Oregon BLM resource management plan revisions). Table 1. BLM Districts And Oregon Counties Included In The Planning Area Of The Resource Management Plan Revisions BLM Districts Oregon Counties Coos Bay Benton Jackson Marion Eugene Clackamas Josephine Multnomah Lakeview (Klamath Falls Resource Area only) Clatsop Klamath Polk Medford Columbia Lane Tillamook Roseburg Coos Lincoln Washington Salem Curry Linn Yamhill Douglas Figure 1. Entire Planning Area Of The Western Oregon BLM Resource Management Plan Revisions 27 Salem District ROD and RMP The six coordinated resource management plans provide requirements for management of approximately 2,557,800 acres of federal land within the planning area. These BLM-administered lands are widely scattered and represent only about 11% of the planning area. Of the approximately 2,557,800 acres administered by the BLM, approximately 2,151,200 acres are managed primarily under the O&C Act and are commonly referred to as the O&C lands.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Coast Range Adaptive Management Area Guide
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Salem District Office Tillamook Resource Area 4610 Third Street Tillamook, Oregon 97141 U.S. Department of Agriculture Sluslaw National Forest Hebe Ranger District 0 31525 Highway 22 Hebe, Oregon 97122 January 1997 0 0 Northern Coast Range 0 Adaptive Management Area Guide J 0 0 0 0 0 0 ) :.J f1 l l 0 [) 0 [ ] f1 d q~ d 0 a 0 [j a a q 9 0 0 BLMIORIWAIPL·97/008+179a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northern Coast Range Adaptive Management Area February I 0, 1997 Dear AMA Partner, The Northern Coast Range Adaptive Management Area (AMA) came into being in the summer of 1994 with the signing of the President's Northwest Forest Plan. This document, the AMA Guide, was prepared to help citizens, scientists, and BLM and Forest Service 0 managers to work together in planning and implementation of AMA activities. 0 To provide more detailed infonnation about the AMA, we are in the process of preparing several documents: A bio-physical assessment, a social-economic assessment, a cultural­ historical assessment, and a research and learning assessment Copies will be available on request. 0 We hope the AMA Guide will encourage all those interested in forest land management to look for new ways of doing business. We also hope the Guide will encourage us to continue to learn from one another and to take full advantage of the opportunities inherent in an adaptive management area. We welcome your participation. 0 For further infonnation, or to fmd out how you can participate in AMA activities, please 0 contact Warren Tausch, Northern Coast Range AMA Coordinator, at 503-815-1124, or any 0 any of the AMA staff listed in Appendix H at the back of the Guide.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Oligocene Intrusions in the Central Coast Range of Oregon
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Jeremiah Oxford for the degree of Master of Science in Geology presented on October 13, 2006. Title: Early Oligocene Intrusions in the Central Coast Range of Oregon: Petrography, Geochemistry, Geochronology, and Implications for the Tertiary Magmatic Evolution of the Cascadia Forearc Abstract approved: Adam Kent The Early Oligocene Oregon Coast Range Intrusions (OCRI) consist of gabbroic rocks and lesser alkalic intrusive bodies that were emplaced in marine sedimentary units and volcanic sequences within a Tertiary Cascadia forearc basin. The alkalic intrusions include nepheline syenite, camptonite, and alkaline basalt. The gabbros occur as dikes and differentiated sills. Presently, erosional remnants of the intrusions underlie much of the high topography along the axis of the central Oregon Coast Range. The intrusive suite is most likely associated with Tertiary oblique rifting of the North America continental margin. Dextral shear and extension along the continental margin may have been a consequence of northeast-directed oblique Farallon plate convergence. However, while both the gabbroic and alkaline OCRI appear to be related to tectonic extension, major and trace element geochemistry reveal separate parental magma sources between the two suites. The OCRI are part of a long-lived (42-30 Ma) magmatic forearc province that includes the Yachats Basalt and Cascade Head Basalt. The timing of Cascadia forearc magmatism correlates with a significant decrease in convergence rates between the Farallon and North American plates from 42 to 28 Ma. The OCRI are also contemporaneous with magmatism that occurred over a broad area of the Pacific Northwest (e.g. Western Cascades, John Day Formation).
    [Show full text]
  • Map Extent 13 17 16 Grandrond E Tribal Eland S 8 9 10 11 Eola Village
    D R L D A N O Travel Management D C 2 29 28 27 30 29 1 6 M Braun 28 1 31 32 33 31 32 6 5 4 3 34 35 36 31 32 33 33 33 34 35 Long Mountain Area 2 36 Tater Hill 12 1 SADDLE MTN MANAGEMENT 31 32 ClatsopCounty 36 SADDLE MTN 34 35 36 31 32 33 D 35 ColumCounty bia 34 7 11 6 11 6 5 4 4 N T. 12 R 3 2 5 4 Wildlife Management 7 8 1 TillamookCounty UNIT MANAGEMENT 6 5 4 3 2 1 3 2 1 6 5 4 K 3 2 12 1 6 5 Wash ing tonCounty R Sunset Highway Forest Wayside 4 3 2 1 6 5 9 10 4 3 18 O 10 Unit UNIT 10 7 11 7 8 8 17 15 14 F 11 12 9 18 God's Valley Salmonberry 7 8 9 12 17 10 Hoffman Hill H 13 16 14 13 11 12 Coyote Corner 7 8 26 Sunset Camp Neahkahnie 15 9 ¤£ 7 8 PrivateCooperators 19 T FOSS RD 10 11 12 9 10 11 12 7 !!!!!!!!! Mountain R 8 9 10 17 16 20 Wildlife Area 18 17 !!!!!!!!! 21 O 18 18 17 22 23 15 14 13 16 15 Tophill 24 14 !!!!!!!!! N 19 Wakefield 16 13 18 Giustina Land & Timber 20 Belfort 15 14 13 17 21 Green Mountain !!!!!!!!! 22 16 23 24 15 14 13 18 17 16 Neahkahnie 15 14 13 !!!!!!!!! Beach Manzanita 18 17 16 15 29 28 27 !Nehalem 19 20 19 20 Company P! P 21 22 23 24 21 22 !!!!!!!!! 19 Enright 23 26 25 20 22 24 19 27 30 29 21 23 24 20 L.L "Stub" !!!!!!!!! 28 27 21 26 25 22 23 19 24 20 21 22 23 20 !!!!!!!!! Mohler Stewart State 24 19 21 22 T.
    [Show full text]
  • Outreach Notice
    USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region Siuslaw National Forest __________________________________________________________________________________ The Siuslaw National Forest is outreaching, with plans to fill the following seasonal positions for the 2015 summer season. These positions will be advertised through the demo at www.usajobs.gov beginning January 6, 2015 Location Openings Position Contact Siuslaw Fire Zone Up to 6 GS-0462-3/4/5 Forestry Aid (Fire), David Andersen, Engine Captian Hebo, OR Forestry Technician (Fire) (503) 392-5111, 15-TEMP-R60462-4-HSHC-DT-PG [email protected] 15-TEMP-R60462-5-HSHC-DT-PG 15-TEMP-R60462-3-HSHC-DT-PG 15-TEMP-R60462-5-FEO-DT-PG 15-TEMP-R60462-4-ENG-DT-PG 15-TEMP-R60462-3-ENG-DT-PG Siuslaw Fire Zone Up to 8 GS-0462-3/4/5 Forestry Aid (Fire), Aaron Schneider, Crew Captain Waldport, OR Forestry Technician (Fire) (541) 563-8455, 15-TEMP-R60462-4-HSHC-DT-PG [email protected] 15-TEMP-R60462-5-HSHC-DT-PG 15-TEMP-R60462-3-HSHC-DT-PG Siuslaw Fire Zone Up to 6 GS-0462-3/4/5 Forestry Aid (Fire), Jason Monroe, Engine Captain Reedsport, OR Forestry Technician (Fire) (541) 271-6018, 15-TEMP-R60462-4-HSHC-DT-PG [email protected] 15-TEMP-R60462-5-HSHC-DT-PG 15-TEMP-R60462-3-HSHC-DT-PG 15-TEMP-R60462-5-FEO-DT-PG 15-TEMP-R60462-4-ENG-DT-PG 15-TEMP-R60462-3-ENG-DT-PG USDA-Forest Service is an equal opportunity employer and provider. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region Siuslaw National Forest __________________________________________________________________________________ Location Openings Position Contact Coastal Valley Up to 2 GS-0462-4/5 Forestry Aid (Fire), Roberta Runge, Center Manager, Interagency Comm.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregions of Oregon's Coast Range
    84 OREGON WILD SUMNER ROBINSON Home to Oregon’s Rainforests Coast Range Ecoregion xtending from the Lower Columbia River south to the California border, Douglas-fir/Western Hemlock forests — the most common forest type in and east from the northeastern Pacific Ocean to the interior valleys of the western Oregon — dominate the interior of the ecoregion. After a disturbance (such as Willamette, Umpqua and Rogue Rivers and to the Klamath Mountains, fire or a blowdown), Douglas-fir will dominate a site for centuries. If no additional Ethe 5.8 million acres in Oregon’s portion of the Coast Range Ecoregion major disturbance occurs, the shade-tolerant western hemlock will eventually overtake rarely exceed 2,500 feet in elevation. Yet these mountain slopes are steep the Douglas-fir and achieve stand dominance on the wettest sites. Grand fir and and interlaced and incised with countless trickles and streams. The highest point, western redcedar are occasionally found in these forests. Red alder and bigleaf maple Marys Peak (4,097 feet), is visible from much of the mid-Willamette Valley. Beyond are common along watercourses, and noble fir can be found at the highest snowy Oregon, the Coast Range Ecoregion extends north into far western Washington (and points in the Coast Range. Toward the southern end of the Oregon Coast Range, includes Vancouver Island in British Columbia) and south to northwestern California. coastal Redwood trees range into Oregon up to twelve miles north of the California In Oregon, only two rivers cross through the Coast Range: the Umpqua and the Rogue. border and are usually found on slopes rather than in river bottoms.
    [Show full text]
  • Boyer-Tillamook Access Road Improvement Project
    BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION Boyer-Tillamook Access Road Improvement Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment September 2013 DOE/EA-1941 This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action 1-1 1.1 Background 1-1 1.2 Need for Action 1-3 1.3 Purposes 1-3 1.4 Public Involvement 1-3 1.4.1 Scoping Comment Period 1-3 1.4.2 Preliminary EA Comment Period 1-4 CHAPTER 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2-1 2.1 Proposed Action 2-1 2.1.1 Roads 2-2 2.1.2 Retaining Wall Construction 2-10 2.1.3 Bridge and Arch Pipe Construction 2-11 2.1.4 Staging Areas 2-13 2.1.5 Anticipated Construction Schedule 2-13 2.1.6 Operation and Maintenance 2-13 2.2 No Action Alternative 2-14 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives 2-14 CHAPTER 3 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Measures 3-1 3.1 Introduction 3-1 3.2 Land Use, Recreation, and Transportation 3-2 3.2.1 Affected Environment 3-2 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 3-7 3.2.3 Mitigation – Proposed Action 3-10 3.2.4 Unavoidable Impacts Remaining After Mitigation 3-10 Boyer-Tillamook Access Road Improvement Project i September 2013 Table of Contents 3.2.5 Cumulative Impacts – Proposed Action 3-10 3.2.6 Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative 3-11 3.3 Geology and Soils 3-12 3.3.1 Affected Environment 3-12 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 3-13 3.3.3 Mitigation – Proposed Action 3-16 3.3.4 Unavoidable Impacts Remaining After Mitigation 3-16 3.3.5 Cumulative Impacts – Proposed Action 3-16 3.3.6 Environmental
    [Show full text]
  • Dreissenid Mussel Rapid Response in the Columbia River Basin: Recommended Practices to Facilitate Endangered Species Act Section 7 Compliance
    A native mussel with a cluster of attached zebra mussels found on Beconia Beach on the south basin of Lake Winnipeg. Photo credit: C. Parks, Province of Manitoba. Dreissenid Mussel Rapid Response in the Columbia River Basin: Recommended Practices to Facilitate Endangered Species Act Section 7 Compliance Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission by: Lisa DeBruyckere of Creative Resource Strategies, LLC October 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................. 5 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 7 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................. 7 PURPOSE OF THIS MANUAL .......................................................................................................................... 9 SCOPE AND INTENT OF THIS MANUAL .......................................................................................................... 10 QUAGGA AND ZEBRA MUSSELS .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]