DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment Lower Fly Creek

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment Lower Fly Creek Environmental United States Department of Agriculture Assessment Forest Service Lower Fly Creek Project May 2010 Flymon Stewardship Sisters Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest Jefferson County, Oregon T.12S. R.10&11 E.W. M., sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, and 18. Lower Fly Creek Wildlife Primitive Area Contact: Monty Gregg Sisters Ranger District P.O. Box 249 Sisters, OR 97759 (541)549-7724 The 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 of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 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, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795- 3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Environmental Assessment Lower Fly Creek Table of Contents Summary ........................................................................................................................... i Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 Document Structure .....................................................................................................................1 Background ..................................................................................................................................1 Purpose and Need for Action .......................................................................................................2 Desired Future Condition .............................................................................................................2 Proposed Action ...........................................................................................................................3 Decision Framework ....................................................................................................................4 Public Involvement ......................................................................................................................4 Issues ............................................................................................................................................4 Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ............................................ 8 Alternatives Considered but not in Detail ....................................................................................8 Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................8 Alternative 1. No Action ............................................................................................ 8 Alternative 2. Proposed Action ................................................................................ 13 Project Design Features ............................................................................................................. 16 Comparison of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 22 Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 26 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 26 Cumulative Effects of Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions .................... 26 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................. 29 Fisheries ..................................................................................................................................... 40 Botany/Sensitive Plants/Invasive Plants .................................................................................... 50 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants ......................................................... 50 Invasive Plants ........................................................................................................................... 51 Heritage Resources .................................................................................................................... 54 Wildlife ...................................................................................................................................... 56 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................ 58 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species ...................................................................... 59 Management Indicator Species and Other Species of Concern ................................ 69 Soils .......................................................................................................................................... 119 Forested Vegetation ................................................................................................................. 145 Roads ........................................................................................................................................ 166 Fire Hazard ............................................................................................................................... 169 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination ............................................................... 190 Preparers and Contributors ....................................................................................................... 190 Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................ 191 Appendix A – Consistency with Current Laws and Management Direction .......... 208 Current Laws and Management Direction ............................................................................... 208 Applicable Laws and Executive Orders ................................................................................... 211 Environmental Assessment Lower Fly Creek SUMMARY The Deschutes National Forest proposes to restore wildlife habitat within mule deer winter range by conducting restoration work through ecologically driven tree thinning, shrub mowing, and prescribed fire in second growth ponderosa pine forests. In addition, the project proposes to remove encroaching western juniper, close roads that hydrologically affect Lower Fly Creek, and remove invasive plants. Activities will occur over 4,412 acres in the in the Lower Fly Creek Project area In 2006 the National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) approached the Sisters Ranger District with interest in a watershed level wildlife habitat enhancement project for the Fly Creek watershed. Due to the history of wildfire in the area and the recent number of landscape scale stand replacing wildfires across the Ranger District, there was concern with the long term viability of wildlife habitat within the Fly Creek area and specifically the Fly Creek Wildlife Primitive Area. There were also concerns about road densities and invasive plants. In 2007 and 2008 two Decision Memos were approved to implement stewardship restoration activities on about 550 acres. Given that previous analysis efforts involved in the preparation of two categorical exclusions, it was felt that an environmental assessment was necessary to document the cumulative effects of this third phase of the project, the Lower Fly Creek Project. The Forest Service evaluated two alternatives: Alternative 1 - No Action. No change would occur in the management of the area. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action. The action proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need would implement mosaic thinning from below to conifer stands, reintroduce prescribed fire, and remove encroaching Western juniper on approximately 1,883 acres in the Lower Fly Creek watershed. Special care would be taken to thin around existing old growth ponderosa pine trees and to protect them during prescribed fire. Existing large snags would also be protected from prescribed fire and thinning operations. It is estimated that trees up to 21” diameter of which 99% are less than 16” diameter would be removed. Forest Service roads 1100-980, 1129-874, 1129-975, and 1129-876 would be closed due to the poor quality of existing wildlife cover and to limit disturbance to wintering mule deer, as well as restore hydrologic function. Lastly, treatments for invasive plant sites are limited to hand pulling only. Sites have been identified adjacent to vegetation restoration treatment units associated with Forest Road 1170-400, 1170-900, 960 and in the vicinity of the 2055-014/017; these sites will be treated by hand. Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the Responsible Official will decide: i 1. whether the Proposed Action would proceed as described, as modified, or not at all; and 2. what mitigation measures and monitoring requirements would be applied to the project. For this decision, the Sisters District
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2015 Whychus Creek Monitoring Report
    Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Technical Report 2015 Whychus Creek Monitoring Report Mork, L. and Houston, R. Editors Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Bend, OR December 2016 i Suggested Citation Formats Entire report: Mork L, Houston R, Editors. 2016. 2015 Whychus Creek Monitoring Report. Upper Deschutes Watershed Council. Bend, Oregon. 144 p. Chapters: Mork L. 2016. “Restoration effectiveness monitoring in Whychus Creek.” Pages 1-8 in Mork L, Houston R, Editors. 2015 Whychus Creek Monitoring Report. Upper Deschutes Watershed Council. Bend, Oregon. 144 p. ii Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... iii Symbols and Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................... iv Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring in Whychus Creek ............................................................................ 1 Whychus Creek Stream Flow Report ............................................................................................................ 9 Whychus Creek Water Quality Status, Temperature Trends, and Stream Flow Restoration Targets ........ 22 Stream Connectivity in Whychus Creek .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Whychus Creek Students, Streams & Stewardship
    Whychus Creek Students, Streams & Stewardship PRODUCED BY UPPER DESCHUTES WATERSHED COUNCIL WRITTEN AND EDITED BY KOLLEEN MILLER & KELLY BECK DESIGN BY CASEY DAVIS ARTWORK & JOURNAL WRITING BY LOCAL STUDENTS FUNDED BY Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board The Roundhouse Foundation Clabough Foundation The Environmental Protection Agency 2016 www.UpperDeschutesWatershedCouncil.org 2 3 Trees sway in the breeze. Their needles fall like pinecones. They drift slowly down. Chloe FOURTH GRADE STUDENT, CASCADES ACADEMY The Upstream Project Ridgeview High School students helped restore willows to the banks of Whychus Creek. he Upper Deschutes Watershed Council seeks to protect and restore the rivers and streams throughout Central Oregon through collaborative projects in res- toration, monitoring, and education. Our education program, The Upstream Project, works with thousands of students, teachers, and parents every year to guide communi- ty members to develop a long-term sense of watershed stewardship. When integrated effectively, restoration, monitoring, and education create valuable lasting benefits for an entire watershed community. Everyone who inhabits the watershed, including fish, wildlife, private landowners, public land managers, children, parents, teachers, and civic leaders benefits from collaborative watershed outreach and restoration. Our watershed outreach goals are to connect community members to our watershed through hands-on stewardship projects. We have been coordinating on- the-ground restoration and outreach activities in the Whychus watershed since 2006 and, by engaging students, teachers, and community members in these ac- tivities, we have sought to foster a widespread sense of stewardship for Whychus Creek. The reintroduction of salmon and steelhead and renewed streamflows in Whychus are now joined by an invigorated community embrace for a creek that once ran completely dry.
    [Show full text]
  • Whychus Creek
    w h y c h u s c r e e k : progress in restoration Acknowledgements prepared by: The Deschutes Partnership written and edited by: Upper Deschutes Watershed Council funded by: Bonneville Environmental Foundation Laird Norton Family Foundation Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board The information presented in this publication is based on the following technical reports available at www.RestoreTheDeschutes.org: 2012 Whychus Creek Monitoring Report 2011 Whychus Creek Monitoring Report Compiled and edited by the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council and Deschutes River Conservancy. The following entities provided information, data or support used in the development of this publication: Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Department of Water Resources Portland General Electric The Xerces Society U.S. Forest Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The reintroduction of salmon and steelhead in Whychus Creek is led by Portland General Electric, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Please see www.DeschutesPassage.com for information. 2 whychus creek: progress in restoration Introduction I n the spring of 2007, the historic reintroduction of steelhead trout in Whychus Creek began with the release of 250,000 fry into the creek. These small fish, barely two inches in length, were the first steelhead trout to swim in Whychus Creek for more than 50 years since dams on the Deschutes River blocked the historic mi- grations. Two years later, in 2009, annual steelhead releases were complemented by the first reintroduction of chinook salmon fry and smolts. Hundreds of thousands of young fish representing both seagoing species have been released each year since, and will continue to be placed in Whychus Creek for years to come.
    [Show full text]
  • Whychus Creek Restoration Project at Camp Polk Meadow Preserve
    Whychus Creek Restoration Project at Camp Polk Meadow Preserve June 29, 2007 A collaborative project of the: Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Deschutes Basin Land Trust Deschutes National Forest Project design funding provided by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation, Deschutes River Conservancy and The Nature Conservancy. Technical design prepared for the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council by the Deschutes National Forest under Collection Agreement No. 06-CO-11060120-011. Please direct project inquiries to Ryan Houston, Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, www.RestoreTheDeschutes.org TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................2 Background .......................................................................................................2 Development and Planning ...............................................................................4 Project Goal and Objectives..............................................................................6 Alternatives .......................................................................................................7 PROJECT ANALYSIS..........................................................................................9 Previous Assessments ......................................................................................9 Project Team Assessment
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Sisters Country Community Wildfire Protection Plan
    Milli Fire, 2017 Greater Sisters Country Community Wildfire Protection Plan 2019 Prepared by Jodie Barram Project Wildfire [email protected] www.projectwildfire.com (541) 322-7129 Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ ii Declaration of Agreement ............................................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................................... viii Contact information ........................................................................................................................................................ ix Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Planning Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Collaboration ................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Community Profile .........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Whychus Creek Wild and Scenic River Management Plan
    United States Department of Agriculture US Forest Service Deschutes National Forest Sisters Ranger District April 2010 Whychus Creek Wild and Scenic River Management Plan 2 Whychus Creek Wild and Scenic River Management Plan United States Department of Agriculture US Forest Service Deschutes National Forest Sisters Ranger District April 2010 3 Art and Photo Credits Plein Air Art from the “Whychus Paint-Out” - Used by permission of: The National Forest Foundation, The Roundhouse Foundation, and the artists. Cover Artwork- By Donna Simpson, One of Best of Show Phil Bates, One of Best of Show Janet Guiley, Poster Award, Kay Baker, One of Best of Show Jerry Dame, One of Best of Show Paul Alan Bennet, One of Best of Show Photographs by Bill Anthony, Tay Robertson, Maret Pajutee, Cari Press, Larry Chitwood, John Schubert, Georgia Gallagher, and Scott Cotter The 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 of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 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, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).
    [Show full text]
  • Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
    JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Adopted December 27, 2006 By Ordinance O-01-07 and O-03-07 Effective January 1, 2007 Amended March 28, 2007 by O-49-07 Amended June 6, 2007 by O-82-07 Amended December 5, 2007 by 0-200-07 Amended September 24, 2008 by 0-161-08 Amended November 12, 2008 by 0-180-08 Amended October 28, 2009 by O-129-09 Amended January 27, 2010 by O-010-10 Amended April 14, 2010 by O-039-10 Amended May 22, 2013 by O-060-13 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Mike Ahern Wayne Fording John Hatfield PLANNING COMMISSION Dick Dodson, Chair Paulette Nordin, Vice-Chair Evan Thomas Roy Hyder Bob Powers COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Phil Stenbeck, CFM, Planning Director Tanya Cloutier, Senior Planning Technician TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM PAGE Part 1 Background 1 Part 2 Goals and Policies 7 Goal 1 Citizen Involvement 8 Goal 2 Land Use Planning 10 Goal 3 Agricultural Lands 12 Goal 4 Forest Lands 16 Goal 5 Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces 19 Riparian Corridors, Water Areas and Fish Habitat 20 Wetlands 23 Wildlife Habitat 24 Bird Nesting Sites 27 Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers 29 State Scenic Waterways 30 Groundwater Resources 31 Approved Recreation Trails 32 Natural Areas 33 Wilderness Areas 34 Mineral and Aggregate Resources 34 Energy Sources 37 Cultural Areas 38 Historic Resources 39 Open Space 41 Scenic Views and Sites 42 Goal 6 Air, Water and Land Resources Quality 43 Goal 7 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards 45 Goal 8 Recreational Needs 48 Goal 9 Economic Development 56 Goal 10 Housing 60 Goal 11 Public Facilities
    [Show full text]
  • Winter Trail Access and Condition Update April 30Th – May 7Th, 2021
    z Winter Trail Access and Condition Update April 30th – May 7th, 2021 Spring Trail Highlights • Summer trails are slowly becoming accessible. However, most middle and high elevation trails are under at least patchy snow. The Deschutes River Trail, Horse Butte area, the Phil’s system, and low elevation trails around Sisters are all accessible. See inside for more details. • For winter recreation, most SnoParks are out of business for the year. Ray Benson and SnoParks above 5500’ are the only ones with adequate snow coverage. Most trail and boundary snow poles have been removed from the Dutchman-Moon Mountain area. Trail and boundary navigation can be difficult without these poles. It is the responsibility of the user to know where they are. The Three Sisters Wilderness, Bend City Watershed, and “Dutchalo” area are all CLOSED to snowmobiles and other motorized vehicles. • WILDERNESS PERMITS WILL BE REQUIRED from 19 trailheads for day use and all trailheads for overnight use in the Mt Jefferson, Mt Washington and Three Sisters wildernesses from May 28 to September 24, 2021. For more information, see inside on at the top of Page 2, just above “Summer Trail Conditions Report.” • TRAIL CLOSURE in effect for multiple trails between Forest Road 4615 and Skyliner Road, including Lower Whoops, Pine Drops, EXT, and portions of Phil’s and Storm King, due to thinning operations. • Got a trail report to share? Relevant information includes things like snow and access, number of downed trees, and overall condition of trail. Send emails to [email protected] rd Ray Benson SnoPark on April 23 .
    [Show full text]
  • Whychus Canyon Restoration Project
    Whychus Canyon Restoration Project – Phase II State(s): Oregon Managing Agency/Organization: Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Type of Organization: Nonprofit Project Status: Underway Project type: WNTI Project Project action(s): Riparian or Instream Habitat Restoration, Watershed Connectivity, Monitoring, Education/Outreach Trout species benefitted: Bull Trout, Redband Trout Population: Whychus Creek (Tributary to the Deschutes River) Project summary: As part of the effort to restore habitat for Bull Trout and Redband Trout in the Upper Deschutes, the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council (UDWC) and its partners are focusing on restoring reaches of Whychus Creek that historically meandered through low gradient meadows and provided important spawning and rearing habitat. The Whychus Canyon Restoration Project, located nine miles downstream of the City of Sisters in Central Oregon, includes approximately six miles of stream/floodplain restoration that will be completed over the next decade. This proposal seeks funding to support Phase II of project implementation, including one mile of restoration of a naturally meandering channel and floodplain in a reach that was channelized in the 1960’s. The restoration will be implemented per the Whychus Canyon Restoration Plan Design Report (2014). Once all phases are complete, the benefits of the six‐mile restoration project will include more than four miles of increased main stem and side channel length, a 470% increase in pool habitat, a 1,500% increase in large wood, an 85% increase in floodplain connectivity, and more than 30 acres of restored wetlands and riparian areas. Problem the Project Addresses: Although Whychus Creek has provided important habitat for Bull and Redband trout, approximately 18 miles of historic channelization, water diversions and stream‐side development have resulted in the loss of riparian habitat, channel complexity, floodplain connectivity and water quality over the past 100 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Sisters Irrigation District Collaborative Restoration Project
    Three Sisters Irrigation District Collaborative Restoration Project which includes Fish Screen/Passage Channel Restoration Project and the Main Canal Piping/Penstock Project Phase 3 DESCHUTES COUNTY OREGON THREE SISTERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT 68000 HWY 20 W POBox 2230 SISTERS, OR 97759 Office 541-549-8815 Fax 541-549-8070 Project Manager: Marc Thalacker May 4,2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Page 1-4 Assurances Form 5-6 Title Page 7 Table of Contents 8 Technical Proposal 9-36 Description of Performance Measures 36-38 Description of Potential Environmental Impacts 38-41 Required Permits and Approvals 41 Funding Plan and Commitment letters 41-43 Official Resolution 43 Budget Proposal 43-48 Budget Form 424C 49 Appendix A Project Map 50 Appendix B Letters of Support 51-57 Appendix C NRCS Engineering for Main Canal Pipeline Project 58-81 Appendix D Letter & Documents of Commitment 82-84 Appendix E Cultural Resource Report 85-91 Appendix F Official Resolution 92 Appendix H Budget/Equipment Inkind and Hrly/Pipe & Materials Spreadsheets_93-95 Executive Summary April.30th, 2010 Three Sisters Irrigation District Sisters, Deschutes County, Oregon The project includes components that accomplish goals set out in tasks A, B, C, and D. Task A Water Conservation of the project includes the replacement of an existing canal (identified as the Three Sisters Irrigation District Main Canal) with a buried pipeline. It provides irrigation water for 175 rural landowners across approximately 8,000 acres. The project will pipe 5,200 feet ofopen canal with 10,400 ft oftwo 54" high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipes. Phase 3 ofthe Main Canal Pipeline/Penstock project will conserve approximately 1500 acre feet in canal seepage loss.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Whychus Creek Monitoring Report
    Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Technical Report 2013 Whychus Creek Monitoring Report Mork, L. and Houston, R. Editors Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Bend, OR November 2014 i Suggested Citation Formats Entire report: Mork L, Houston R, Editors. 2014. 2013 Whychus Creek Monitoring Report. Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, Bend, Oregon. 121 p. Chapters: Mork L. 2014. “Restoration effectiveness monitoring in Whychus Creek.” Pages 1‐7 in Mork L, Houston R, Editors. 2013 Whychus Creek Monitoring Report. Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, Bend, Oregon. 121 p. ii Table of Contents Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................ii Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... iii Symbols and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ iv Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring in Whychus Creek .............................................................. 1 Whychus Creek Stream Flow .......................................................................................................... 8 Whychus Creek Water Quality Status, Temperature Trends, and Stream Flow Restoration Targets .......................................................................................................................................... 20 Stream Connectivity in Whychus Creek .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Whychus Creek CEP FS 2020
    CONSERVATION EFFECTIVENESS PARTNERSHIP Oregon Department of Agriculture Oregon Department of Environmental Quality USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board WHYCHUS CREEK STREAM RESTORATION Sisters, OR - For more than a century, Whychus Creek has undergone numerous flow diversions as well as channel and floodplain modifications to support agriculture, residential development, and flood control. Over time, these alterations have resulted in extensive degradation of stream habitat for native fish Conservation populations. Collaborative restoration efforts by local non-profits, state, tribal and federal agencies, irrigation districts, and landowners Effectiveness are improving stream habitat for Chinook salmon, steelhead, and redband trout. Partnership COLLABORATION IS KEY The Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, Deschutes River Find Us Online Conservancy, Deschutes Land Trust, and other restoration partners {Right Click, select “Change Pic- have worked together for almost two decades to restore stream and www.oregon.gov/oweb/ floodplain ecosystems. Restoration strategies include land acquisition resources/Pages/ture”} and conservation easements to protect floodplain habitat; stream CEP.aspx channel and floodplain restoration that reconnects floodplains and raises groundwater tables to support riparian habitat; restoring flow; and removing barriers to fish passage. These actions help sensitive and threatened fish in the Upper Deschutes sub-basin. Monitoring data indicate restoration efforts are leading
    [Show full text]