Willapa National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Natural Resource Center
Prepared by:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Complex
3888 SR 101
Ilwaco, Washington 98624
September 2017
Acronyms/Abbreviations
Acronym Full Phrase
ADA Americans With Disabilities Act
BMP Best Management Practice
BTU British Thermal Unit
CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO2 Carbon dioxide dBA Decibels
DM Departmental Manual
EA Environmental Assessment
EDNA Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EO Executive Order
ESA Endangered Species Act
EUI Energy Use Intensity
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FLAP Federal Lands Access Program
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
FR Federal Register ft2 Square foot, square feet
GHG Greenhouse gas
1 kBTU/ft2/yr Thousands of British Thermal Units per square foot per year
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NOx Nitrogen oxides
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
NWR National Wildlife Refuge
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
O3 Ozone
PCEMA Pacific County Emergency Management Agency
PEM Palustrine emergent
PFO Palustrine forested
PM2.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers
PM10 Particulate matter less than 10 micrometers
PSS Palustrine scrub-shrub
PUBH Palustrine unconsolidated bottom permanently flooded
PUD Public Utility District
Refuge Willapa National Wildlife Refuge
ROD Record of Decision
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
U.S.C. United States Code
USFWS/Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WAC Washington Administrative Code
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
2 WRP Wetlands Reserve Program
3 Table of Contents
1 Purpose of and Need for Action 7 1.1 Introduction 7 1.2 Amending the 2011 CCP/EIS 7 1.3 Proposed Action 8 1.4 Purpose of and Need for Action 8 1.5 Decision to be Made 9 2 Alternatives 10 2.1 Introduction 10 2.2 No Action (2011 CCP/EIS Alternative 1) 10 2.3 Construct Natural Resource Center on the Tarlatt Unit (2011 CCP/EIS Alternatives 2 and 3) 12 2.4 Construct Natural Resource Center on the Riekkola Unit (Preferred New Alternative) 13 2.5 Design Elements Common to Both the Tarlatt and Riekkola Units 14 2.5.1 New Trails & Roads 16 2.5.2 Federal Lands Access Projects 18 2.6 Design Elements Only at Tarlatt 18 2.7 Design Elements Only at Riekkola 18 2.8 Design Elements Summary 19 2.9 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 20 2.9.1 Constructing the Natural Resource Center off Refuge Land 20 2.9.2 Constructing the Natural Resource Center on Tarlatt Hill 20 3 Affected Environment 22 3.1 Introduction 22 3.2 Tarlatt Site 22 3.3 Riekkola Site 26 3.3.1 Riekkola Site Natural Environment 26 3.3.1.1 Topography and Soils 26 3.3.1.2 Water Features, Floodplains, Wetlands 27 3.3.1.3 Air Quality 27 3.3.1.4 Wildlife Habitat and Use 27 3.3.1.5 Special Status Plant and Animal Species 29 3.3.1.5.1 Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 29 3.3.1.5.2 Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) 29
4 3.3.1.5.3 Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 30 3.3.1.5.4 Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) 31 3.3.1.5.5 Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) 31 3.3.1.5.6 Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) 32 3.3.1.5.7 Oregon Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) 32 3.3.1.6 Noise 32 3.3.1.7 Visual and Aesthetic Resources 33 3.3.2 Riekkola Site Built Environment 34 3.3.2.1 Socioeconomic Environment and Public Uses 34 3.3.2.2 Environmental Justice 35 3.3.2.3 Cultural Resources 35 4 Environmental Consequences 37 4.1 Introduction 37 4.2 Alternative 1: No Action 38 4.3 Alternatives 2 and 3: Construct Natural Resource Center on the Tarlatt Unit 38 4.4 Construct Natural Resource Center on the Riekkola Unit (Preferred New Alternative) 38 4.4.1 Natural Environment 38 4.4.1.1 Topography and Soils 38 4.4.1.2 Water Features, Floodplains, Wetlands 39 4.4.1.3 Air Quality 39 4.4.1.4 Wildlife Habitat and Use 39 4.4.1.5 Special Status Plant and Animal Species 40 4.4.1.5.1 Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 40 4.4.1.5.2 Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) 40 4.4.1.5.3 Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 41 4.4.1.5.4 Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) 41 4.4.1.5.5 Yellow-billed Cuckoo 41 4.4.1.5.6 Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) 41 4.4.1.5.7 Oregon Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) 42 4.4.1.6 Noise 42 4.4.1.7 Visual and Aesthetic Resources 42 4.4.2 Built Environment 43 4.4.2.1 Socioeconomic Environment and Public Uses 43 4.4.2.2 Environmental Justice 44
5 4.4.2.3 Cultural Resources 44 4.5 Cumulative Effects 46 4.6 Summary 46 5 Coordination, Consultation, and Compliance 50 5.1 Public Involvement 50 5.2 Environmental Review and Compliance 52 5.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.) 52 5.2.2 Executive Order 11593: Protection of Historical, Archaeological, and Scientific Properties and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended )(16 U.S.C. 470- 470x) 53 5.2.3 Executive Order 12996. Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd- 668ee) 53 5.2.4 Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management 53 5.2.5 Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands 54 5.2.6 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Secretarial Order 3127 54 5.2.7 Executive Order 12372. Intergovernmental Review 54 5.2.8 Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations 54 5.2.9 The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.) 55 5.2.10 Executive Order 13186. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds 55 5.2.11 Executive Order 13112. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies Pertaining to Invasive Species 55 6 Literature Cited 56 APPENDIX A ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SECTION 7 CONSULTATION 59
6 1 Purpose of and Need for Action 1.1 Introduction
In 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS or Service) completed a Comprehensive Conservation Plan /Environmental Impact Statement (2011 CCP/EIS) for the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). The EIS presented three alternative management strategies for the Refuge. A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on September 29, 2011 selecting Alternative 2 as the management direction for the Refuge over the next 15 years (USFWS 2011a). Alternative 2 focuses management on healthy wildlife habitats, endangered species and biodiversity gains, refuge expansion, and expanded public use. As described in the 2011 CCP/EIS, expanded public use included constructing a new Natural Resource Center. As described in the ROD, the Service would develop a new Natural Resource Center on the Tarlatt Unit to serve as a new administrative/maintenance and visitor facility. The Natural Resource Center would improve visitor services, help conserve crucial wildlife habitat, improve staff productivity, consolidate maintenance facilities, serve as an interpretive area, and eliminate increasing operations and maintenance costs of the old facilities. With construction of the Natural Resource Center (and the addition of an education specialist), the Service would greatly enhance the quality of the environmental education and interpretation programs and would increase the number of students and visitors currently served by the program. The site for the new facility, conceptual design and operations, and anticipated impacts were analyzed in the 2011 CCP/EIS (USFWS 2011a) which is incorporated herein by reference. The ROD which selected the location and the facility design elements for the new Natural Resource Center was included with the 2011 CCP/EIS and is also incorporated herein by reference. These documents are available for review and downloading on the Refuge’s website (https://www.fws.gov/refuge/willapa/conservation/comprehensive_conservation_plan.html). The 2011 CCP/EIS was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR §§ 1500 -1508). Based on comments received during local agency and public coordination meetings for the new Natural Resource Center subsequent to issuing the ROD, the Service is examining a different site for the Natural Resource Center facility. The site under consideration is on the Riekkola Unit where an equipment maintenance and storage yard currently is located. The site would be out of the Tsunami Zone and a new Natural Resource Center could potentially serve as an assembly area in the event of a tsunami striking the area. This Environmental Assessment (EA) describes this new alternative and examines the reasonably foreseeable effects to the natural and built environments related to constructing the Natural Resource Center on the Riekkola Unit. An EA is prepared for proposals that modify an earlier EIS when the changed effects are not significant and still within the scope of the earlier EIS (516 DM 1.14) as is the case here.
1.2 Amending the 2011 CCP/EIS This EA amends the 2011 CCP/EIS by describing a new alternative location for the proposed
7 Natural Resource Center that was not under consideration at the time the 2011 CCP/EIS was prepared. We are amending the 2011 CCP/EIS to: ● describe a new, alternative location for the proposed Natural Resource Center; ● describe design changes to the proposed Natural Resource Center from those described in the 2011 CCP/EIS; ● describe the natural and built environments of the new location; ● evaluate the reasonably foreseeable effects to the natural and built environments related to developing the Natural Resource Center at the new location; and ● evaluate compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations related to developing the Natural Resource Center at the new location.
1.3 Proposed Action The Service proposes to implement the Proposed Action described in this EA. The Proposed Action would construct a new Natural Resource Center on the Refuge’s Riekkola Unit instead of the Tarlatt Unit which was selected as the site by the ROD for the 2011 CCP/EIS. The Proposed Action is described in Section 2.2 of this EA.
1.4 Purpose of and Need for Action As described in the 2011 CCP/EIS, the purpose of the CCP was to provide the Service, the National Wildlife Refuge System, our partners, and the public with a long-term (15-year) management plan for the Refuge. The CCP was needed because such a plan did not exist which identified and set the long-term management priorities for the Refuge. As described in the 2011 CCP/EIS, long-term management priorities for the Refuge include: ● improving Refuge habitat conditions; ● analyzing the Refuge’s wildlife-dependent priority public uses; ● constructing a visitor/administrative and maintenance replacement facility (the Natural Resource Center) for the public, Refuge staff, and volunteers; and ● acquiring land from willing sellers inside the Refuge’s approved acquisition boundary.
The purpose for a new Natural Resource Center as described in the 2011 CCP/EIS would be to: ● improve visitor access to facilities and staff; ● expand environmental education and interpretation programs and opportunities; ● improve access to view wildlife of the bay; ● consolidate Refuge maintenance facilities; and ● improve staff and volunteer office facilities, creating a healthy work environment.
As described in the 2011 CCP/EIS, a new Natural Resource Center is needed because ● the current headquarters office is in a home constructed in 1941 with many of the building systems deteriorated, inefficient, and extremely difficult to upgrade;
8 ● the office has severe structural deficiencies, no potable water, and an out of compliance septic system; ● the overcrowded and inadequate office space and deteriorated facilities create an inefficient work environment; and ● maintenance and storage facilities are located in three different sites on the Refuge which is inefficient and challenging for staff and for security.
The purpose of and the need for a new visitor/administrative and maintenance replacement facility as described in the 2011 CCP/EIS remains unchanged.
1.5 Decision to be Made Based on the analysis documented in this EA, the Service will decide whether or not to implement the Proposed Action and build the new Natural Resource Center on the Riekkola Unit. If that decision is reached, this EA will inform the decision whether a Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) can be reached. If a FONSI cannot be reached, an EIS would be prepared. If a FONSI can be reached, the FONSI would describe the alternative selected for implementation and the rationale behind the decision.
9 2 Alternatives 2.1 Introduction
The 2011 CCP/EIS evaluated three alternatives for the long-term management of the Refuge; a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and two Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3). A new Natural Resource Center would not be built under Alternative 1 and the current headquarters facility would be upgraded and remain in operation. Under both Action Alternatives (2 and 3) a new Natural Resource Center was proposed for the Tarlatt Unit. Detailed descriptions of the No Action and the two Action Alternatives are provided in the 2011 CCP/EIS and are summarized here. The reader is encouraged to review that document for greater details. A new alternative, to construct the Natural Resource Center on the Refuge’s Riekkola Unit is described below (Figure 1). While this introduces a new location for the facility, most design elements are not dependent on the site and remain unchanged from that described in the 2011 CCP/EIS. This section begins with a brief discussion of the alternatives described in the 2011 CCP/EIS and then describes the new alternative. Sections that follow discuss design elements that are common to both the Tarlatt Unit and the Riekkola Unit; design elements that would only be constructed at the Tarlatt Unit; and design elements incorporated only into to the Riekkola Unit alternative. This section concludes with a discussion of two alternatives that were considered, but eliminated from detailed study.
2.2 No Action (2011 CCP/EIS Alternative 1) Under the No Action Alternative, a new Natural Resource Center facility would not be constructed, and the Refuge would continue to operate with deficient and inadequate facilities at its current location (Figure 1). Local water supplies would continue to be undrinkable and purchased drinking water would be provided for staff use. Visitor restrooms would continue to be located in the parking area with a vault system that requires daily maintenance and routine pumping. Since the current office facility is a home constructed in 1941, many of the building systems are deteriorated, inefficient, and extremely difficult to upgrade. Funds would be expended to make the office minimally acceptable; however, the current site does not justify a large investment of funds because of potential impacts to marbled murrelet habitat and the adjacent stream. The existing headquarters facility would continue to deteriorate over time and be prone to violating health and other state environmental regulations.
10
Figure 1. Vicinity map
11 2.3 Construct Natural Resource Center on the Tarlatt Unit (2011 CCP/EIS Alternatives 2 and 3)
In the 2011 CCP/EIS, Alternatives 2 and 3 proposed construction of a new Natural Resource Center on the Tarlatt Unit (Figure 2). The reader is referred to the 2011 CCP/EIS for a detailed description of this alternative which is summarized here. The new Natural Resource Center would have administrative offices and a Visitor Center. The administrative offices would serve as the permanent headquarters for the Refuge. The Visitor Center would house a gift shop, a substantial lobby area, and an orientation multi-purpose room for interpretive exhibits or events. New maintenance facilities would be constructed in the future as funding becomes available. These would include a shop building, equipment storage buildings, a carport, and two small buildings to store hazardous materials. Other site improvements would include the enhancement of wetland buffer zones by installing native plant materials, the relocation and mitigation of an on-site drainage feature, and the restoration of local woodland, shrub, and wetland plant communities. As part of providing trails at the Tarlatt Unit, a pedestrian bridge would be constructed over Tarlatt Slough. Improvements would be made to Sandridge Road and 95th Street to provide safe access to the new facility.
Figure 2. Site Plan for Tarlatt Unit.
12 2.4 Construct Natural Resource Center on the Riekkola Unit (Preferred New Alternative)
The Riekkola Unit is one of the Refuge’s South Bay Units. Low-lying areas are mainly tidal salt or brackish marsh wetlands. Historically, low-lying areas of this unit were tidally influenced. In the 1940s (prior to Refuge establishment), a dike was built to protect lowland areas from tidal influence and subsequently to create freshwater wetlands for waterfowl. The west-facing hillsides of the Riekkola Unit are mainly second-growth, temperate, coniferous rainforests. As discussed in the Cultural Resources section of this EA (Section 3.3.2.2), Riekkola Farm was established on this site in the 1930s. The Service acquired the site in 1961 and it currently serves as one of the Refuge’s maintenance and equipment storage facilities. As part of the Bear River Estuary Restoration project, approximately three acres of forest was cleared around the maintenance yard in order to provide fill material for new dike construction. This cleared area along with the existing maintenance yard provides sufficient area for construction of the Natural Resource Center. This area is referred to as the Riekkola Site in this EA (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Site Plan for the Riekkola Site.
13 2.5 Design Elements Common to Both the Tarlatt and Riekkola Units
As described in the 2011 CCP/EIS, the proposed Natural Resource Center would serve as the new headquarters for the Willapa Refuge Complex and would provide increased accessibility for the visiting public. The new facility would be designed and constructed to meet or exceed energy efficiency standards for the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. Site design would strive to incorporate sustainable design concepts such as integrating aboveground stormwater management facilities with site grading, minimizing overall site grading, and incorporating native or climate-adaptive (low water consumptive) plant materials into facility landscaping. The buildings and landscape would be designed to reflect the rural, coastal vernacular. Based upon the Standard Suite of Facilities (USFWS 2007a) prototypes for a Small Visitor Facility and a Medium Two-story Administration Building, the new building size would be approximately 10,350 square feet. The facility would have offices for up to 21 Service staff, not including interns. In addition, volunteers who are involved in day-to-day activities would be provided space in the building. The Visitor Center would house a gift shop, a substantial lobby area, and an orientation multi-purpose room for interpretive exhibits or events. The new facility would also be available to host community and environmental education events. Both the fleet and staff parking areas could be used for visitor parking during public events. At either site, development for the Natural Resource Center and Maintenance Area would require approximately up to 12 acres and would include the following supporting elements with only minor differences between the two sites due to space considerations: ● Entrance/welcome plaza space ● Outdoor space for staff (near employee entrance) ● Outdoor group gathering space with overhead shelter for up to 60 people ● Outdoor nature play area ● Five or six smaller breakout outdoor gathering spaces for smaller groups ● Outdoor area to set up event tents ● Outdoor interpretive display areas integrated with natural environment ● Wildlife and South Bay observation platforms ● Entrance driveway and site circulation pavement ● Vehicular circulation to accommodate trucks that have a large turning radius. ● Visitor parking area for approximately 56 cars ● Staff parking area for approximately 30 cars ● Fleet parking for approximately 32 cars ● Three bus/RV parking spaces ● Delivery/service/garbage area ● Water reservoir and pump (for fire sprinkler system) ● Septic system with mounded drain field ● Stormwater management system of bioswales and retention ponds
At either site, construction of a new and consolidated Maintenance Area would include an approximately 5,800 square-foot (ft2) bone yard area and six new buildings. Building 1 would be a new 4,800 ft2 shop building. This building would be for general Refuge maintenance functions
14 and would provide space for vehicle maintenance, a wood shop, two pull-through bays, and one single access bay. Buildings 2 and 3 would each be 4,900 ft2 equipment storage buildings. Building 4 would be a 5,670 ft2 boat storage facility. Building 5 would provide an additional 1,260 ft2 of small equipment storage. Building 6 would be a carport utilized for fleet vehicles (2,600 ft2). Two buildings, one for fuel and flammable liquid storage and the other for herbicide storage would be moved from the headquarters site to either Tarlatt or Riekkola depending on which site is ultimately selected.
Associated site development for the Maintenance Area would include the following supporting elements: ● Vehicular circulation to accommodate up to a conventional semi-trailer ● Site circulation pavement ● Separate driveway entrance ● Equipment washing area (associated with Shop Building) ● 550-gallon fuel tank/pump for diesel gasoline
As described in the 2011 CCP/EIS, a new trail, known as the South Bay Trail was proposed for construction. That trail would be constructed regardless of the site selected for the new Natural Resource Center. The trail would be approximately 1 mile to a new South Bay overlook, offering enhanced opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, and interpretive/hiking trails in the South Bay. A new parking lot was constructed in 2016 and a new boat launch (cartop boats only), located on 67th Place at Doman Creek for South Bay access, is under construction.
There is no public water distribution system serving either site. Extensions of existing water mains along Sandridge Road and 95th Street or 67th Place could provide potable water to the Tarlatt Site and Riekkola Site, respectively. At either site, the extensions would follow the roads. As an alternative either site may incorporate a well onto the property in order to serve the site and building improvements. Neighboring and surrounding properties throughout the region use wells to meet domestic water demands. At this time the well depth is undetermined as additional exploration would be required for locating the well and determining the depth to water at either site. Potential water sources would be fully evaluated for the project in subsequent phases of design, as the program needs for water and the anticipated flow rates and volumes will be clearly defined. Since this region gets 120 inches of rain per year, regardless of the site selected, a portion of the water demands, such as for bathroom toilets, would be met by installing a rainwater harvesting system (KPFF Consulting Engineers 2009). Fire protection is currently provided by Pacific County Fire District 1. Without a public water distribution system at either site, fire suppression would be accomplished by transporting water to the site with tender trucks and pressurizing the hoses with pumper trucks. According to conversations with the District 1 fire chief, the tender trucks would be filled with water at the closest hydrant, which in this case is supplied by the City of Long Beach Water District. As a sprinkler system would be installed in the Natural Resource Center, an appropriately sized water reservoir and fire pump would be required as part of the project improvements (KPFF Consulting Engineers 2009). There are no public sewer mains servicing either site. Neighboring and surrounding properties use on-site septic systems to dispose of sanitary waste. Both sites would require a new septic system be constructed. Infiltration reports indicate that a mounded septic drain field would be
15 required at either site. A mounded drain field system is a system that is built up with approximately 3-5 feet of sand above the existing grade. At either site, stormwater runoff from the proposed development would be separated from sanitary flows. Stormwater management facilities for detention and water quality would be designed to meet the requirements of the 2016 Surface Water Design Manual (King County 2016). The site design would treat and infiltrate stormwater through a series of bioswales and retention ponds. Regardless of the site selected, upon construction of the new Natural Resource Center, the existing headquarters complex would be decommissioned and deconstructed. The site would be restored to the surrounding natural habitat. The Willapa Art Trail, kiosk, boat launch, and parking area at the existing headquarters site would remain open to the public. 2.5.1 New Trails & Roads
Regardless of the site selected new roads and trails would be constructed. An approximately 0.6- mile path (Figure 4) would be cleared of vegetation and regraded to become a pedestrian trail connecting the Tarlatt and Riekkola Units. This trail would connect the South Bay Trail and the proposed Beach to Bay Trail to the Riekkola Unit’s Parker Slough Trail and Porter Point Trail. The majority of this trail will utilize old logging roads that were created by previous landowners when the area was clear cut prior to the parcel becoming part of the Refuge. The soils on these old roads are still compacted and therefore have limited vegetation growth. We anticipate approximately 2.5 acres of understory and second growth forest would be impacted. This trail will also increase management capability on the Refuge allowing the efficient movement of heavy equipment between the shop facilities at Riekkola and Tarlatt for habitat management and restoration activities. As funding permits, the trail may be improved with gravel to provide universal access for all ages and abilities. A Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) easement encumbers portions of the Tarlatt Site. This permanent easement was established with the parcel’s previous landowner to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property. A portion of this trail (approximately 100 feet) would cross WRP easement to the existing trail (South Bay Trail). Approximately 0.06 acres of conifer forest and understory that would be impacted are within the easement. Routing the trail across this small section of the easement would ensure the trail would not impact a grove of large diameter Sitka spruce trees, would allow management of the refuge and easement to be conducted more efficiently by significantly reducing the amount of time it would take to get equipment between the units, and would improve visitor access to the site. Regardless of the site selected, a road would be created in the Riekkola Unit to provide safe public vehicle access to drop boats off at the new car-top boat access area on Parker Slough Dike (Figure 4). This new 800-foot long road would allow year-round access for visitors to drop off canoes/kayaks/small boats, turn around and park in the new parking area at the end of 67th Place. As funding permits, the road and boat access would be improved with gravel to provide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access. Approximately 0.55 acres of shortgrass field would be impacted.
16
Figure 4. Proposed Roads and Trails
17 2.5.2 Federal Lands Access Projects
The Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) provides funding for projects to improve access to federal lands via the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP). In 2017-2018 and 2019-2020, Pacific County and the Refuge have two FLAP approved projects to improve access on 67th Place to the Riekkola Unit. 67th Place is a designated tsunami evacuation route for Pacific County. The project will replace a failing culvert and repair the deteriorating county road providing improved access to the Refuge. In 2019-2020, Pacific County, City of Ilwaco, Port of Peninsula, Port of Ilwaco, and the Refuge have another FHWA FLAP project to plan (survey, design, and cost estimates) a bicycle/pedestrian path (“Beach to the Bay Trail”) to connect two federally managed areas: the Refuge and Lewis and Clark National Historic Park by connecting the Discovery Trail near 26th Street across the Long Beach Peninsula near Pioneer Road to the Tarlatt Unit on 95th Street. The Discovery Trail and the new two mile trail connection would also connect the Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center to the Natural Resource Center. Vehicle turn lane(s) from Sandridge Road to 95th Street or 67th Place would also be planned to provide safe vehicle access to the Natural Resource Center. These projects would improve access to the Refuge but would not occur on the Refuge. These projects would be covered under separate NEPA processes lead by the FHWA at a later date.
2.6 Design Elements Only at Tarlatt The site layout for Tarlatt was described in the 2011 CCP/EIS (Figure 2). To improve safety accessing the Tarlatt site, the intersection of Sandridge Road and 95th Street would be improved to provide sufficient turning radii for large trucks. Other potential off-site improvements would include a southbound left-turn lane and a northbound right-turn lane at required driveway access points onto Sandridge Road. A northbound right-turn taper on Sandridge Road at 95th Street may also be required. A fuel tank for 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel would only be needed at Tarlatt, as one currently exists at Riekkola. As described above, a NRCS WRP easement encumbers portions of the Tarlatt Site. Should construction proceed at this site and in cooperation with the NRCS, the easement would need to be transferred to other wetlands on private land that is not already protected by some method. One potential site occurs immediately north of 95th Street. Site design at Tarlatt would include the enhancement of wetland buffer zones by installing native plant materials, the relocation and mitigation of one site drainage feature, and the restoration of local woodland, shrub, and wetland plant communities. As part of providing trails at the Tarlatt Site, a pedestrian bridge would be constructed over Tarlatt Slough.
2.7 Design Elements Only at Riekkola
Constructing the Natural Resource Center on the Riekkola Site would require relocating the existing equipment storage building and may also require moving the maintenance shop (Figure 3). The existing equipment storage building would be relocated to the lower end of the site to make room for the new Natural Resource Center.
18 The intersection of Sandridge Road and 67th Place would be evaluated and improved to provide sufficient turning radii for large vehicles if needed. A new entrance road would be created in the Riekkola Unit to provide safe public vehicle access to the Natural Resource Center (see FIGURE X). The additional 600-foot long road would create a one way traffic loop into and out of the Natural Resource Center connecting to 67th Place. Approximately 0.4 acres of second-growth conifer forest and understory would be impacted. Approximately 1 acre of forest and understory may be impacted to create viewing areas of Willapa Bay and a trail connection from the office to the existing trail system. Connection from the Natural Resource Center to the two pedestrian trails in the Riekkola Unit: Porter Point and Parker Slough would be maintained. These trails are open from dawn to dusk, except during waterfowl hunting season, typically from September through January. The new trail from Parker Slough to Tarlatt would connect these trails to the South Bay Trail and the proposed Beach to Bay Trail. South Bay viewing platforms would provide a view of South Bay and its surrounding environment not available at the Tarlatt Unit.
2.8 Design Elements Summary Table 1 provides a summary design elements and considerations related to constructing the new Natural Resource Center at Tarlatt (Alternatives 2 and 3) and at Riekkola (Alternative 4). Table 1. Design Elements Summary
Element Tarlatt Site Riekkola Site (Alternatives 2 and 3) (Alternative 4)
Administrative Office, Visitor Center, and Shop X X Buildings
Entrance road and parking areas X X
Utilities (water, electricity, phone/internet, and septic) X X
Connection to Refuge Trails X X
Nature Play Area X X
Trail connecting Tarlatt and Riekkola X X
Water reservoir and pump (for fighting fires) X X
Stormwater management system of bioswales and X X retention ponds
Additional shop buildings (as funding becomes X X available)
Within the floodplain X
19 NRCS WRP easement restrictions X
Above the tsunami zone, potential public assembly area X
Scenic overlook of Willapa Bay X
Scenic view of Tarlatt Slough X
2.9 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study
Two potential alternatives were considered but not carried forward for additional analysis because they failed to meet several key purposes of the project. Alternatives that do not meet a project’s purpose and need are not carried forward for detailed analysis. 2.9.1 Constructing the Natural Resource Center off Refuge Land
The Service considered building the new Natural Resource Center on lands outside of the Refuge boundary but rejected the idea because it would not meet multiple purposes for the Natural Resource Center as described in the 2010 CCP/EIS. These include: improving visitor access to Refuge facilities and staff; improving access to view wildlife of the bay; and consolidating Refuge maintenance facilities. Another key purpose for building the Natural Resource Center is to expand environmental education and interpretation programs and opportunities. Environmental education and interpretation programs often incorporate the environmental features of the surrounding landscape. Building the Natural Resource Center in a nearby city would detract from the visitor experience because programs would be separated from the environmental features of the Refuge. Additionally, constructing the Natural Resource Center off refuge land would require the Service to engage in a protracted planning and feasibility study to identify appropriate sites, conduct additional environmental, socioeconomic, geotechnical, and engineering analysis; appraise the property(ies); negotiate purchase agreements; and purchase the property - all of which are unfunded. 2.9.2 Constructing the Natural Resource Center on Tarlatt Hill
Due to comments received about constructing the Natural Resource Center at the Tarlatt site as described in the 2011 CCP/EIS, the Service considered moving the location of the new Natural Resource Center to Tarlatt Hill. While this alternative has merit, this alternative was not carried forward because the developable area on Tarlatt Hill is simply too small to accommodate the Natural Resource Center as proposed. The construction footprint is approximately 12 acres and there is only about 5 acres at Tarlatt Hill. The hill is forested which would have to be cleared including the larger diameter Sitka spruce trees. The county road (95th Street) leading to this hill is narrow. This road would need to be improved for public access. Improving this road would be very difficult due the location of a county-owned dike, two tide gates to Tarlatt Slough, a 90 degree bend in the road, and the NRCS WRP easement. Due to the small developable area, reductions would be required in the space proposed for environmental education and
20 interpretation programs, and/or Refuge administration. Maintenance facilities could not be consolidated on the site, which is one of the key purposes for the project. For these reasons, this alternative was not forwarded for detailed study.
21 3 Affected Environment 3.1 Introduction
In passing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Congress mandated federal agencies to evaluate and disclose the effects of federal actions significantly affecting the human environment. The human environment is comprised of both the natural and built environments. The natural environment includes air, water, floodplains, wetlands, vegetation types and patterns, and wildlife use including threatened and endangered species. The built environment includes such things as socioeconomics, public uses, environmental justice, and cultural resources. This chapter describes the natural and built environments that could potentially be affected by constructing a new Natural Resource Center at the Riekkola Site. Descriptions of the natural and built environments of the entire Refuge including the Tarlatt Unit were provided in the 2011 CCP/EIS (USFWS 2011a) which is summarized below. The reader is encouraged to review that document for additional information.
3.2 Tarlatt Site The Tarlatt Site for the proposed Natural Resource Center is located north and east of Long Beach, Washington, in unincorporated Pacific County, and is outside of Long Beach’s mapped urban growth area. Approaching the site from the south along Sandridge Road, the project vicinity has a rural-residential quality. A Pacific County Public Utility District (PUD) substation abuts the property to the north. The site consists of grassland, emergent wetlands, estuarine wetlands associated with Tarlatt Slough, and patches of native remnant woodland vegetation. Tarlatt Slough winds through the property, generally flowing in a northerly direction, but makes a bend to the east within the property. It is a major stormwater drainage channel for Pacific County, draining the southeastern portions of the Long Beach Peninsula into Willapa Bay. Canada geese (i.e., dusky [Branta canadensis occidentalis] and western [B. c. moffitti]) forage in short-grass fields at Tarlatt. Mammals (elk, deer, bear, coyote, etc.) use these short-grass fields as foraging areas and/or travel routes to adjacent lands. Smaller mammals (voles, mice, etc.) also thrive in short-grass fields. These smaller mammals serve as prey for raptors such as red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), northern harriers (Circus cyaneus), American kestrels (Falco sparverius), and various species of owls, all of which use the short-grass fields as foraging grounds. Tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) and violet green swallows (T. thalassina) commonly nest in the nest boxes installed at Tarlatt. Other songbird and shorebird species also use short-grass fields. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the Tarlatt Unit maps flood zone AE across much of the site (Figure 5). Only high areas north and south of Tarlatt Slough and the area immediately east of Sandridge Road are outside of this flood zone. Areas mapped in flood zone AE are subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual- chance flood event, which is also known as the base flood or the 100-year flood.
22 The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps almost the entire area north of Tarlatt Slough as either a palustrine emergent (PEM), scrub-shrub (PSS), or forested (PFO) wetland (Figure 6). As described in the 2011 CCP/EIS (USFWS 2011a), a site-specific wetland delineation of the site determined that while wetlands occur there, they are much less extensive north of Tarlatt Slough than as depicted on the NWI map. Two types of wetlands were delineated on the property: one large estuarine wetland along Tarlatt Slough, and several emergent wetlands are found in a central narrow strip generally running north and south through the western portion of the site near Sandridge Road. The wetlands appear to coincide with the Yaquina loamy fine sand soil mapping unit, which is somewhat poorly drained and appears to have a water table close to the surface. Vegetation characteristic of wetlands and evidence of wet soils can be readily observed on the site in the delineated wetland areas. An upland band extends eastward from Sandridge Road along the western periphery of the site. Two main soil types are mapped in the area potentially affected by construction activities. Netarts fine sand, 3 to 12 percent slopes (mapping unit 92) is mapped on the east half of the site. A narrow band of this soil type is mapped along Sandridge Road. Netarts fine sand is a well- drained soil not subject to flooding or ponding. It is a farmland soil of statewide importance. It is not classified as a hydric (wetland) soil. The west half of the site is mapped as Yaquina loamy fine sand (mapping unit 162). It is a somewhat poorly drained soil found in depressions. It is frequently ponded and is classified as a hydric soil. It can be a prime farmland soil if irrigated and drained (Pringle 1986). The land surrounding the site is predominantly zoned agricultural. The Tarlatt Site is zoned Conservation District. All U.S. government facilities are permitted outright within the Conservation District. Pacific County code also allows nature parks and interpretive centers including buildings, trails, parking areas, interpretive areas, and signs describing natural history, cultural history, and/or natural habitat.
23
Figure 5. Tarlatt and Riekkola flood map
24
Figure 6. Riekkola NWI map
25
Figure 7. Aerial photo of Riekkola site. Source: USFWS
3.3 Riekkola Site
The area of the Riekkola Unit on which the new Natural Resource Center would be located is at the east end of 67th Place. Similar to the Tarlatt Site, it too is north and east of Long Beach in unincorporated Pacific County, and is outside of Long Beach’s mapped urban growth area. It too is zoned Conservation District. It is bounded by 67th Place to the south and surrounded by thick forested areas. The site currently includes an equipment storage building, shop office, maintenance shop, shop yard, and a gravel pad. 3.3.1 Riekkola Site Natural Environment
3.3.1.1 Topography and Soils
The site for the proposed Natural Resource Center generally slopes upward to the east with elevations ranging from 35 to 70 feet above mean sea level. The Soil Survey for Grays Harbor County Area, Pacific and Wahkiakum Counties, Washington (Pringle 1986) maps Ilwaco silt loam, cool (mapping unit 53) at the Riekkola Site. Ilwaco soils are on uplands at elevations from sea level to 1,200 feet. These soils occupy broad ridgetops, small plateaus, and back and shoulder slopes. The soils formed in material from deeply weathered siltstone, sandstone, and conglomerate. Ilwaco soils are well drained, have slow to medium runoff, and have moderate permeability. Ilwaco silt loam is not subject to flooding or ponding and the depth to the water table is greater than 80 inches. It is not classified as a hydric (wetland) soil type. Timber production, wildlife habitat, and recreation are the principal uses for this soil (Pringle 1986). Ocosta silty clay loam is found in the lower diked pastures and marsh areas. The Ocasta series consists of very deep, poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium deposited in coastal bays.
26 Ocosta soils are on flat or depressed areas and are subject to total overflow unless protected. They are saturated most of the year unless artificially drained. Undeveloped areas have sedge (Carex sp.), reed (Phragmites sp.), saltgrass (Distichlis sp.), cattail (Typha sp.) cover with occasional spruce trees. Considerable areas have been diked and drained and used for native pasture (Pringle 1986). Ocosta is classified as a hydric soil. Published geologic maps of the area show the Riekkola Site to be mantled with Quaternary semi- consolidated fine to coarse sand known as the Sand of Mountain Springs Formation. This formation may represent remains of an older barrier beach and dune field. Observed subsurface conditions were consistent with the geologic maps for the site (PBS 2017). 3.3.1.2 Water Features, Floodplains, Wetlands
The Riekkola Site contains no natural surface water bodies, streams, floodplains, or wetlands. The FIRM maps the Riekkola Site in Zone X (Figure 5). These are areas determined to be out of the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain (i.e., a 500-year flood event). The nearest floodplain is at the base of Riekkola Hill and the surrounding lowlands, including the Tarlatt site, which are mapped as a Zone AE floodplain. Zone AE floodplains are subject to inundation by the 1- percent-annual-chance flood event or 100-year flood. No wetlands are mapped on the site by the NWI map (Figure 6). A site reconnaissance found no evidence of wetland hydrology or the presence of hydrophytic (wetland) vegetation. A drainage to the south of the site is mapped on the NWI as a PSS wetland. A small pond inside this drainage is mapped as a palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded (PUBH) wetland. These features are outside of the Refuge’s boundary. PFO and PEM wetlands are mapped in the low floodplain at the base of Riekkola Hill. Groundwater was not encountered during subsurface geotechnical drilling to depths up to 41.5 feet. Given the boring locations were at approximately elevation 70, groundwater is likely present at depth greater than 50 feet below the ground surface (PBS 2017). 3.3.1.3 Air Quality
The Washington Department of Ecology reports that the state does not have any designated nonattainment areas for a federal health-based air quality standard (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/sips/designations/nonattainment_areas.htm assessed 3/6/17). The population of Pacific County is below the threshold at which air quality data reporting is federally required so there are no data on pollutants such as particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). However, due to the lack of significant sources of pollution and prevailing winds from the ocean, air quality in Pacific County is expected to be good. Grays Harbor County, the county immediately to the north reports “good” air quality index days over 96 percent of the time (http://environmental- health.healthgrove.com/l/3034/Pacific-County-WA assessed 3/6/17).
3.3.1.4 Wildlife Habitat and Use
Beyond the area cleared for fill material for the Bear River Estuary Restoration project is a coastal temperate rain forest. Coastal forests of the Willapa Hills have been extensively managed for timber production and today, less than 1 percent of the original old-growth forests remain as
27 scattered remnant patches across the landscape (Davis et al. 2009). This site was likely last harvested when it was cleared for farm use. It has since recovered to a native-dominated coastal temperate rain forest. As described in the 2011 CCP/EIS, Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) is the major dominant climax tree species of this forest zone and is most commonly associated with dominant and codominant western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). Understory trees include a diverse mix of common overstory conifer species and hardwoods, primarily composed of red alder (Alnus rubra). Important components of the understory include salal (Gaultheria shallon), western swordfern (Polystichum munitum), red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), vine maple (Acer circinatum), and oxalis (Oxalis oregana). Mammals that may inhabit or pass through the forest near the Riekkola Site would be edge habitat species that are accustomed to the occasional noises and disturbances emanating from the maintenance yard. These may include the Columbian black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), American black bear (Ursus americanus), coyote (Canis latrans), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Townsend’s chipmunk (Eutamias townsendi), and various species of shrews, moles, mice, and voles. Forest interior species that are more sensitive to human disturbances such as bobcat (Lynx rufus), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), mink (Mustela vison), northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus), and long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata) have never been observed in the forest immediately surrounding the existing maintenance yard and are not anticipated to occur there. Refuge coniferous forests provide food, shelter, and nesting structure for the marbled murrelet, neotropical migrant and resident songbirds, woodpeckers, owls, and raptors. The structural complexity of these forests is a key to its importance as wildlife habitat. Sitka spruce provides good nesting and roosting habitat for avifauna (Smith 1980; Wiens 1975). Snags and live trees with broken tops provide nesting habitat for primary and secondary cavity nesters such as Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi), pileated woodpecker (Hylatomus pileatus), and bats (Hemstrom and Logan 1986). Eight bat species are known roost and forage in forested areas of the Refuge and frequently use snags, stumps, and downed logs as day roosts or maternity roosts. These include the little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), Yuma myotis (M. yumanensis), long-eared myotis (M. evotis), long-legged myotis (M. volans), California myotis (M. californicus), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), and the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus). The Yuma myotis, long-eared myotis, and long-legged myotis are federal species of concern. While none of these are documented to occur in the forest immediately surrounding the Riekkola site, they may occur there. Similar to the Tarlatt Unit, Canada geese (i.e., dusky and western ) and a variety of waterfowl forage in short-grass fields and wetlands in the low-lying areas of the Riekkola Unit. Elk, deer, bear, coyote, and other mammals use these short-grass fields as foraging areas and/or travel routes. Smaller mammals (voles, mice, etc.) thrive in short-grass fields and serve as prey for a variety of raptors and owls. Tree and violet green swallows commonly nest in the nest boxes installed at the Riekkola Unit.
28 3.3.1.5 Special Status Plant and Animal Species
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) directs all federal agencies to work to conserve endangered and threatened species and to use their authorities to further the purposes of the ESA. Species with special status under the federal ESA that have a potential to occur on the refuge are provided in Table 2. No special status plants are known to occur on the Refuge. Table 2. Special Status Animal Species
Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus Threatened Pacific Coast Population Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Threatened Streaked horned lark Eremophila alpestris strigata Threatened Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina Threatened (extirpated) Oregon silverspot butterfly Speyeria zerene hippolyta Threatened (extirpated)
3.3.1.5.1 Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
Bull trout were listed as a threatened species throughout their range in 1998 (USFWS 1998b; 63 FR 31647). The final decision for critical habitat designation for bull trout was completed in 2010 (USFWS 2010; 75 FR 63898) which does not include Willapa Bay or associated rivers and streams. Bull trout are members of the family Salmonidae and are a char native to Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, and western Canada. Compared to other salmonids, bull trout have more specific habitat requirements that restricts their distribution and abundance. Bull trout need cold water to survive, so they are seldom found in waters where temperatures exceed 59 to 64 degrees Fahrenheit. They also require stable stream channels, clean spawning and rearing gravel, complex and diverse cover, and unblocked migratory corridors. Bull trout have not been found in the southern portions of Willapa Bay. The nearest confirmed bull trout was caught in the Willapa River, the mouth of which is approximately 25 miles to the north of the project area. A single fish was caught by a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) technician near river mile 29, approximately one mile downstream of the Willapa – Forks Creek State Salmon Hatchery. There is not believed to be a breeding population in the Willapa River, or in any tributaries of Willapa Bay. Bull trout are thought to forage only occasionally in the Willapa River. 3.3.1.5.2 Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus)
In 1993, the Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover was listed as threatened under the ESA (USFWS 1993; 58 FR 12864). The Pacific coast population is defined as those individuals that nest within 50 miles of the Pacific Ocean on the mainland coast, peninsulas,
29 offshore islands, bays, estuaries, or rivers of the United States and Baja California, Mexico (USFWS 2007b). In 1981, prior to federal listing, WDFW designated the snowy plover as endangered under the State of Washington Endangered Species Act (WAC 220-610-110). The western snowy plover population has shown an overall declining trend during the last century. Reasons for this decline, and the severity of threats, vary by region and location, but are primarily due to habitat loss and degradation. Western snowy plover are year-round residents on the Refuge, however most birds migrate south subsequent to the breeding season. Of the six Washington locations identified in the recovery plan as breeding areas, only three are currently occupied, the largest is located at the Leadbetter Point Unit of the Refuge. Plovers are not known to have ever inhabited the Riekkola Site and the area does not contain any suitable habitat. In 2012, the Service revised the designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast western snowy plover to include Leadbetter Point USFWS 2012b; 77 FR 36727). There is no suitable or critical habitat within or adjacent to the Riekkola or Tarlatt sites and no western snowy plover have been documented there. The closest critical habitats designated areas to the project site occur at Leadbetter Point 19 miles to the northwest. 3.3.1.5.3 Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)
The marbled murrelet was federally listed in 1992 as a threatened species in California, Oregon, and Washington (USFWS 1992; 57 FR 45382). Critical habitat was designated for the marbled murrelet in 2008 and revised in 2016 (USFWS 2016; 81 FR 51348). Neither the Riekkola nor the Tarlatt sites were designated as critical habitat in either the original or revised designations. WDFW has designated the marbled murrelet as a threatened species under the Washington Administrative Code (WAC 232-12-011). The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Lance and Pearson 2016) reports the population estimate for the Washington outer coast (birds). Conservation Zone 2) in 2015 was 3,204 birds (95% confidence interval = 1,883 – 5,609 No trend was detected for Conservation Zone 2; while the trend was below zero (-2.8%), the evidence was not conclusive because the estimate’s 95% confidence interval overlapped zero (-7.6% to 2.3%). The marbled murrelet is a year-round resident on Washington marine coastal waters within several miles of the shoreline. The majority of nesting stands in Washington have been discovered within 39 miles of marine waters. Marbled murrelets require suitable canopy structures such as the large diameter, often moss-covered limbs of mature conifer trees for nesting. These are primarily found in mature and old-growth coniferous and mixed forest stands. Removal of these forests, primarily for timber production and urbanization, is the principal factor contributing to the decline of the marbled murrelet and is the most significant impediment to their recovery (USFWS 1997a). While there is no documented use or sightings of marbled murrelet in the forests surrounding the Riekkola Site, the Refuge has several coniferous forests known to be used for nesting. As described in the 2011 CCP/EIS, suitable nesting habitat occurs on the Long Island, Headquarters, and Teal Slough Units. These low elevation coastal forests consist of old-growth and mature western red cedar, Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and Douglas fir trees with large-diameter
30 limbs, abundant canopy epiphytes, and open crowns. These structurally complex stands have a diversity of tree sizes creating multilayered canopies with small naturally occurring gaps and stand-level crown defects (e.g., wind breakage and dwarf mistletoe deformation) that develop preferred nesting conditions for the marbled murrelet. Forests with suitable marbled murrelet habitat are very limited in southwestern Washington and northwestern Oregon. The Refuge represents the most significant habitat on federal land within the Western Washington Lowland Province. The forest surrounding the Riekkola site is young relative to the old growth forests that create the structural conditions suitable for nesting marbled murrelets and does not contain trees with the required nesting structure. The closest forest stands that are part of the designated critical habitat are approximately four miles to the northeast on Long Island. 3.3.1.5.4 Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata)
The streaked horned lark was listed as a threatened species under the ESA in 2013 (USFWS 2013; 78 FR 61451). Critical habitat was designated at the same time the lark was listed. Approximately 4,629 acres in Grays Harbor, Pacific, and Wahkiakum Counties in Washington, and in Clatsop, Columbia, Marion, Polk, and Benton Counties in Oregon, fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation (USFWS 2013). Streaked horned lark is an endemic subspecies of the Pacific coastal form of horned lark that is found only in western Oregon and Washington. Horned larks are small ground-dwelling passerines with black occipital feather tuffs, or horns (Beason 1995). They inhabit native prairies but have also adapted to nesting in low-growing and sparsely vegetated grasslands at airports, coastal sand dunes, and dredge spoil islands. The streaked horned lark was once abundant on Puget Sound prairies. Its population and distribution decreased significantly with the decline in habitat and it is now restricted to a few large open grassland sites and islands in Washington (Stinson 2005) and several sites in Oregon. There is no suitable or critical habitat within or adjacent to the Riekkola or Tarlatt sites and no streaked horned lark have been documented. The closest designated critical habitat to either of the proposed Natural Resource Center sites occurs at Leadbetter Point, 19 miles to the northwest. 3.3.1.5.5 Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)
The western distinct population segment of the yellow-billed cuckoo was listed as threatened under the ESA in 2014 (USFWS 2014; 79 FR 59991). Critical habitat has not been designated for this species. The yellow-billed cuckoo is a neotropical migrant bird that winters in South America and breeds in North America. The yellow-billed cuckoo is insectivorous and lives in riparian woodlands. While the yellow-billed cuckoo is common east of the Continental Divide, biologists estimate that more than 90 percent of the bird’s riparian habitat in the west has been lost or degraded. There is no suitable habitat for yellow-billed cuckoo within or adjacent to the Riekkola or Tarlatt sites and no yellow-billed cuckoos have been documented to occur there.
31 3.3.1.5.6 Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)
The northern spotted owl was listed under the ESA as threatened in 1990 (USFWS 1990; 55 FR 26114) because of widespread loss of suitable habitat across the spotted owl’s range and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to conserve them. The final northern spotted owl recovery plan was published in May 2008 (USFWS 2008b; 73 FR 47326). Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl was originally designated in 1992 and revised in 2011 (USFWS 2011b; 77 FR 71875). The Riekkola and Tarlatt sites were not designated critical habitat in either the original or revised designations. The spotted owl recovery plan excludes the Western Washington Lowland Province (which includes the Refuge) from the managed owl conservation area because it was assumed that the low population numbers in the Province were not essential to species recovery. Spotted owls historically inhabited forests of the Refuge. A spotted owl pair that nested in the Cedar Grove Resource Natural Area was last observed in 1985. The following year barred owls (Strix varia) were observed occupying the nest. An established spotted owl management circle encompasses the Teal Slough Unit and most of the Headquarters Unit of the Refuge. This territory was most recently known to be occupied in 1998 when a survey documented a pair of adults and one juvenile, the last documented use of the Refuge by the northern spotted owl. There have not been surveys conducted since then on refuge lands or on surrounding forestlands. 3.3.1.5.7 Oregon Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta)
The Oregon silverspot butterfly occurred historically from Grays Harbor County in Washington to northern California. In 1980, the Oregon silverspot butterfly was listed as threatened under the ESA (USFWS 1980; 45 FR 44935). Washington State listed the Oregon silverspot butterfly as endangered under the WAC in 1993 when it was presumed to be extirpated. It is not known whether they historically occurred on the Refuge, but they were native to the local area until at least 1990. No Oregon silverspot butterflies have been documented on the Long Beach Peninsula since 1990 (USFWS 2001a). They are not known to have ever inhabited the Riekkola Site and the area does not contain any suitable habitat. It is not known whether they formerly inhabited the Tarlatt Site, but the site does not currently comprise suitable habitat. Critical habitat for the Oregon silverspot butterfly has not been designated on the Refuge. The Oregon silverspot butterfly occupies three types of grasslands along the Pacific Coast: coastal salt spray meadows, stabilized dunes, and montane meadows. Central to the life cycle of the Oregon silverspot butterfly is the abundance of the butterfly’s primary larval host plant, the early blue violet (Viola adunca). Female butterflies select areas with high violet densities for egg-laying (USFWS 2001, Damiani 2011). Loss and modification of Oregon silverspot butterfly habitat, altered disturbance regimes, and invasion by exotic species have resulted in the decline of this species. 3.3.1.6 Noise
Noise or sound is measured in decibels (dBA). In Washington State, Chapter 173-60 WAC establishes maximum noise levels permissible in identified environments. The Refuge would be considered a Class A Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement (EDNA). Class A
32 EDNAs include residential areas and recreational areas such as camps and parks. Established noise limitations are provided in Table 3. Table 3. Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement EDNA of Noise EDNA of Receiving Property Source Class A Class B Class C Class A 55 dBA 57 dBA 60 dBA Class B 57 60 65 Class C 60 65 70 Nighttime noise limitations are reduced by 10 dBA for Class A EDNAs. At any hour of the day or night the applicable noise limitations may be exceeded but only for short durations. Quiet urban and suburban areas or light traffic produce sound levels of around 55 dBA. Very few Receiving Properties occur near the Riekkola site. The nearest Receiving Property is a single-family residence a little more than one-half mile distant from the Riekkola Site down 67th Place. A second residence is another one-quarter mile away along the same road and a third is another one-half mile away. Each of these would be Class A EDNA properties. These residences are screened from noises emanating from the Riekkola Site by a dense stand of second-growth coniferous forest which surrounds the site. No other Receiving Properties are within one-mile of the Riekkola Site. 3.3.1.7 Visual and Aesthetic Resources The Riekkola Site offers outstanding panoramic views of Willapa Bay and the 550 acres of newly restored intertidal flats and salt marsh estuary. Unparalleled views of migratory birds especially waterfowl and shorebirds can be seen. Willapa Bay plays a critical role as a stopover point for an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 shorebirds each spring and was recently designated as a site of International Importance within the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network.
33
Figure 8 View of Willapa Bay from the Riekkola Unit. Source: USFWS 3.3.2 Riekkola Site Built Environment
The 2011 CCP/EIS described the built (socioeconomic and cultural) environment of the Refuge and surrounding area. That discussion is summarized here with an emphasis placed on the Riekkola Site. The reader is encouraged to review the 2011 CCP/EIS for additional details.
3.3.2.1 Socioeconomic Environment and Public Uses
The Refuge is situated entirely within Pacific County, Washington. The nearest towns are located on the Long Beach Peninsula (Oysterville, Nahcotta, Ocean Park, Oceanside, Long Beach, Seaview, Ilwaco, and Chinook). Inland towns include South Bend, Raymond, Nemah, and Naselle. As described in the 2011 CCP/EIS, Pacific County continues to see growth in new housing developments in the northern and southern parts of the county, and a slight population growth in the future is anticipated. However, because of the proximity of the Refuge to population centers in the Portland/Vancouver area of northwest Oregon and southwest Washington, the Refuge is expecting much greater pressure for recreational and tourism use in the future. Visitation to Pacific County is over 1 million visitor-days per year. Tourism delivers over $90 million annually to local businesses, which by any measure is a large contribution to the county’s total output of goods and services. There are over 2,000 jobs related to or dependent on this industry. It is likely that an increase in parks and conserved areas for recreation would increase visitations, prolong the duration visits, and proportionately increase local spending by visitors (Pacific County Economic Development Council 2009 cited in USFWS 2011a). The 2011 CCP/EIS (Table 5-1) estimated annual public use of the Refuge at 127,980 visitor use days annually (based on 2010 data). Of that total, 124,900 visitor use days (97.5 percent) were visitors engaged in non-consumptive activities (wildlife observation and photography,
34 environmental education, or visiting the visitor center and picnicking). These non-consumptive use visitors add approximately $2.18 million annually to the local economy (USFWS 2011a Appendix R, Table 25). Public use of the Riekkola Unit includes waterfowl, elk, and deer hunting as well as wildlife observation, photography, and hiking on two trails (Porter Point and Parker Slough). The Unit has hunting blinds that were constructed for the goose hunting season, including one which is reserved for hunters with a State disabled permit and their partners. These are all located outside of the proposed site for the Natural Resource Center. There are no current socioeconomic uses on the Riekkola Site as it is currently a maintenance facility and storage yard for the Refuge and is closed to the public. 3.3.2.2 Environmental Justice
Federal agencies must consider the environmental justice effects of their actions. Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Fair treatment means no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or policies. The Riekkola Site is unoccupied and closed to the public. There are no permanent or temporary residences at the site.
3.3.2.3 Cultural Resources
A complete discussion of the cultural history of the refuge is provided in the 2011 CCP/EIS which is only briefly summarized here. The reader is referred to that document for greater details. The Refuge is within the traditional territory of the Chinook Indians, who lived along the Pacific Coast from Willapa Bay to Tillamook, Oregon and up the Columbia River to The Dalles, Oregon. The Refuge was established in 1937 when President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 7541, establishing the Willapa Harbor Migratory Bird Refuge “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” The Riekkola Site has been the subject of two cultural resource records searches and on-site surveys. The first was conducted in 1994 as part of a project to remove two dilapidated farm buildings associated with Riekkola Farm. Riekkola Farm was established in the 1930s and was included in land purchased by the Service in 1961. By that time, four farm buildings had already been removed and the Service concluded that the two existing structures, a machine shop and garage constructed of fir and cedar on pier foundations, were unsafe and in poor condition and were thus not eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Furthermore, the buildings were the only two remaining of the six building homestead. Old corrals and chutes had previously been removed. Thus, the site lacked integrity and failed to provide a complete picture of the 1930-1960 agricultural occupation of the area. The buildings were in poor condition and were considered not particularly good examples of a type, era, or craftsmanship. A second survey was conducted in 2012 as part of the Bear River Estuary Restoration project. The Riekkola Site was proposed as a source of fill material for dike construction. A pedestrian survey for cultural resources was conducted with transects spaced at 6-20 feet apart. No evidence of cultural resources were found (USFWS 2012). As a result of these surveys there appears to be
35 no cultural resources that could be eligible for listing on the NRHP within the area of potential impact at the Riekkola Site.
36 4 Environmental Consequences 4.1 Introduction
The reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences of implementing the Preferred Alternative are discussed below. Reasonably foreseeable effects are those that are likely to occur or probable, rather than those that are merely possible. Although the analysis shows that the revised Preferred Alternative would not result in significant (major) effects, some positive (beneficial) or negative effects are expected. CEQ regulations (40 CFR §§ 1500 -1508) define the impacts and effects that must be addressed and considered by federal agencies in satisfying the requirements of the NEPA process. This includes direct, indirect and cumulative impacts. Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. (40 CFR § 1508.8). These would be construction-related impacts. Indirect effects are the reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the action but are later in time or farther removed in distance (40 CFR § 1508.8). Indirect effects may include changing public use patterns and pressures at the Refuge. The terms below were used to describe the scope, scale, and intensity of effects on natural (physical and biological) and built (socioeconomic and cultural) environments. ● Neutral or Negligible. Resources would not be affected (neutral effect), or the effects would be at or near the lowest level of detection (negligible effect). Resource conditions would not change or would be so slight there would not be any measurable or perceptible consequence to wildlife or plant communities or other aspects of the natural or built environments. If a resource is not discussed, impacts to that resource are assumed to be neutral. ● Minor. Effects would be detectable, but localized, small, and of little consequence to wildlife or plant communities or other aspects of the natural or built environments. Mitigation, if needed to offset adverse effects, would be easily implemented and successful based on knowledge and experience. ● Intermediate or Moderate. Effects would be readily detectable and localized with measurable consequences to wildlife or plant communities or other aspects of the natural or built environments but not readily detectable or measurable beyond the immediate area of impact. Mitigation measures would likely be needed to offset adverse effects, and could be extensive, moderately complicated to implement, and probably successful based on knowledge and experience. ● Significant or Major. Region-wide effects would be obvious and would result in substantial consequences to wildlife or plant communities or other aspects of the natural or built environments. Extensive mitigating measures may be needed to offset adverse effects and would be large-scale in nature, possibly complicated to implement, and may not have a high probability for success. In some instances, major effects would include the irretrievable loss of the resource. Effects related to implementing the No Action Alternative and the two Action Alternatives that would place the new Natural Resource Center at the Tarlatt Unit are described in the CCP and are only briefly summarized here. The reader is referred to the 2011 CCP/EIS (USFWS 2011a) for greater details.
37 4.2 Alternative 1: No Action Refuge staff would continue to experience space limitations, and the inefficiencies associated with working in a crowded, inadequate office environment. Funds would be expended to make the office minimally acceptable; however, the existing headquarters facility would continue to deteriorate over time and be prone to violating health and other state environmental regulations. Vehicular traffic safety issues associated with the headquarters location on U.S. Highway 101 across from a public boat launch would continue to be of concern. Maintenance facilities and storage would continue to be located in three different sites on the Refuge: at the site of the existing headquarters on the East Hills Unit; the Riekkola Unit, and Wheaton Unit, resulting in inefficiencies in Refuge management.
4.3 Alternatives 2 and 3: Construct Natural Resource Center on the Tarlatt Unit
On the Tarlatt Unit, construction of the Natural Resource Center and associated maintenance buildings would utilize approximately up to 12 acres of short-grass fields dominated by non- native grasses and forbs, and wetlands. All wetland impacts would be mitigated. The NRCS WRP easement would need to be transferred to other wetlands on private land that is not already protected by some method. During construction of the proposed Natural Resource Center, soils would be disturbed to form graded surfaces and adequate foundations for the proposed buildings and paved areas. Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction would be implemented to reduce erosion and soil compaction to areas outside the facilities construction zone, trail, and boat launch. Improvements to Sandridge Road and 95th Street may be required. Priority wildlife-dependent public use opportunities would increase with the establishment of new public facilities (e.g., trails and interpretive exhibits) improving access to view the South Bay and its wildlife resources. By maintaining one location for the Refuge facilities and restoring the site of the existing headquarters facility, there would be long-term positive benefits to the natural environment in these areas. Protection measures would be incorporated into all site plans to reduce or eliminate loss of site soils and or impacts to wetland habitats.
4.4 Construct Natural Resource Center on the Riekkola Unit (Preferred New Alternative)
4.4.1 Natural Environment
4.4.1.1 Topography and Soils
Direct Effects: The area that contains the Refuge’s shop, equipment storage building, fuel tank, storage container, and large maintenance yard is approximately 11 acres. It was recently expanded when three additional acres of forest were cleared to obtain fill material for the Bear River Estuary Restoration project. Construction of the Natural Resource Center would not require additional clearing, but approximately 4.45 acres would be cleared to construct the new
38 entrance road (0.4 acres), new road to the car-top boat access on Parker Slough dike/trail (0.55 acres), new road/trail to connect Parker Slough and South Bay Trail in the Tarlatt Unit (2.5 acres), and minor tree clearing to create views of Willapa Bay from the Natural Resource Center (1.0 acre) and a connection to the existing trail system resulting in a negligible to minor effect to topography and soils as impacts would be detectable, but localized and of little consequence. To prevent fugitive dust and erosion, typical erosion control BMPs would be employed, including the use of silt fences, mulching, and covering stockpiled soils. Indirect Effects: Beyond construction-related impacts, only negligible long-term, post construction effects to soils and topography are anticipated. Soils would be protected from erosive forces (wind and rain) as landscaping plants and groundcovers take hold and mature. Ilwaco soils are well drained with slow to medium runoff and moderate permeability. The erosion potential for vegetated soils is slight (Pringle 1978). 4.4.1.2 Water Features, Floodplains, Wetlands
Direct Effects: There would be no direct impact to water features, floodplains, or wetlands as none occur on the Riekkola Site or where the new trails and roads would be located. Cleared land would be exposed to wind and rain. Stormwater may erode exposed soils and sediment could potentially be transported off site by stormwater runoff. To prevent this from happening the project would employ generally accepted BMPs such as the use of silt curtains and silt fences; covering stockpiles of soil; mulching exposed soils; construction of dikes or diversions to avoid runoff across erodible soils; and revegetating the site as soon as possible. Indirect Effects: No long-term indirect effects to water features, floodplains, or wetlands are anticipated as none occur on the Riekkola Site or where the new trails and roads will be located.
4.4.1.3 Air Quality
Direct Effects: Fugitive dust would be generated by construction vehicles operating at the site. These impacts would be mitigated by watering the site during dry conditions. Construction vehicles would emit exhaust containing pollutants such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). This would be a negligible effect due to the limited time these vehicles would be engaged in construction activities. Air quality conditions of the Long Beach Peninsula would not change or it would be so slight that there would not be any measurable or perceptible consequences. Indirect Effects: Negligible to minor air quality effects may be expected over the long-term. The new Natural Resource Center is expected to increase public visitation of the Refuge, but it is unlikely that these visitors would be drawn to the region just to experience the new Natural Resource Center. More likely, visitors would already be in the area or passing through as they enjoy the many public use facilities the Long Beach Peninsula has to offer. Driving to the new Natural Resource Center would result in additional automobile exhaust but this is anticipated to be a negligible to minor effect as it would be detectable, but localized, small, and of little consequence to the air quality of the Long Beach Peninsula. 4.4.1.4 Wildlife Habitat and Use
Direct Effects: Construction of the proposed Natural Resource Center would be on land already
39 cleared. A small amount (approximately 3.2 acres) of young red alder (Alnus rubra) and native second-growth temperate rain forest would be cleared for trail construction and the new access road. This would be a minor impact to the forest as the impact would be detectable, but localized and of little consequence to wildlife populations given the context of the entire Refuge. These forests provide food, shelter, and nesting structure for neotropical songbirds, woodpeckers, owls, and raptors. Surveys of the area to be cleared did not locate any snags. To protect nesting migratory birds, clearing and grubbing would only take place outside of the sensitive nesting season from April 1 through July 15. Wildlife inhabiting the forest immediately surrounding the Riekkola Site may be disturbed by construction noise and move further into the forest or other nearby edge habitat. Given the context of similar habitat types occurring over much of the Refuge uplands and the surrounding Willapa Hills, this would represent a minor effect as it would be detectable, but localized, and of little consequence to wildlife. Approximately 0.55 acres of shortgrass field would be impacted for a new road to access the cartop boat launch on Parker Slough Dike. Canada geese (i.e., dusky and western ) and a variety waterfowl forage in short-grass fields. Elk, deer, bear, coyote, and other mammals use these short-grass fields as foraging areas and/or travel routes. Smaller mammals (voles, mice, etc.) thrive in short-grass fields and serve as prey for a variety of raptors and owls. Given that the Refuge manages hundreds of acres of shortgrass fields, the loss of 0.55 acres represents a minor adverse effect as it would be detectable, but localized and of little consequence to wildlife populations or plant communities. Indirect Effects: Once construction activities are complete, no long-term indirect effects to wildlife are anticipated. As construction activities cease, installed trees, shrubs, and groundcovers would grow and mature, wildlife use of the surrounding area would resume, resulting in a negligible effect to wildlife.
4.4.1.5 Special Status Plant and Animal Species
4.4.1.5.1 Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
Direct Effects: There would be no direct, construction-related effects to bull trout as there are no suitable streams on the Riekkola Site or areas to be cleared for roads and trails. The nearest confirmed bull trout was caught in the Willapa River, the mouth of which is approximately 25 miles to the north of the project area. Indirect Effects: There would be no long term, indirect effects to bull trout as they do not occur on or near the Riekkola Site and the site has no streams. ESA section 7 consultation resulted in a determination that the proposed project would have no effect on bull trout (Appendix A).
4.4.1.5.2 Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus)
Direct Effects: There would be no direct, construction-related effects to western snowy plover as there is no suitable habitat within or adjacent to the Riekkola Site and areas to be cleared for roads and trails and they have never been documented to occur there. Indirect Effects: There would be no long term, indirect effects to western snowy plover as they do not occur on or near the Riekkola Site nor would they colonize the site once the Natural
40 Resource Center is built. Since this species is not expected to be attracted to the area, nor will habitats be altered as a result of the action, the ESA section 7 consultation concluded that this project would have no effect on western snowy plover (Appendix A).
4.4.1.5.3 Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)
Direct Effects: There would be no direct, construction-related effects to marbled murrelets. The forest surrounding the Riekkola Site does not contain the suitable canopy structure preferred by marbled murrelet that is primarily found in mature and old-growth forests. No snags, or trees that provide a suitable nesting platform for would be removed. The forest surrounding the Riekkola Site is not known to support marbled murrelet and none have ever been documented there. Indirect Effects: While the surrounding forest currently does not support marbled murrelet, in the future, the forest may contain the habitat elements (snags or trees with suitable nesting platforms) suitable for marbled murrelet nesting. Should that happen, ongoing noises and activities from the Natural Resource Center and maintenance yard may keep murrelets away, resulting in a negligible to minor negative effect since over this same timeframe hundreds of acres of similar habitat on the Refuge would mature and create new nesting habitat. As a result, the ESA section 7 consultation concluded that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect marbled murrelet and would have no effect on critical habitat (Appendix A).
4.4.1.5.4 Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata)
Direct Effects: There would be no direct, construction-related effects to the streaked horned lark as they do not occur on or near the Riekkola Site or areas to be cleared for roads and trails. Indirect Effects: There would be no long term, indirect effects to the streaked horned lark as they do not occur on or near the Riekkola Site and it is very unlikely that they would ever colonize the site once the Natural Resource Center is constructed. ESA section 7 consultation concluded that since this species is not expected to be attracted to the area, nor would habitats be altered as a result of the action, this project would have no effect on the streaked horned lark (Appendix A).
4.4.1.5.5 Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Direct Effects: There would be no direct, construction-related effects to the yellow-billed cuckoo as they do not occur on or near the Riekkola Site or areas to be cleared for roads and trails. Indirect Effects: There would be no long term, indirect effects to the yellow-billed cuckoo as they do not occur on or near the Riekkola Site and it is very unlikely that they would ever colonize the site once the Natural Resource Center is constructed. Because this species is not expected to be attracted to the area, nor would their habitats be altered as a result of the action, the ESA section 7 consultation concluded that this project would have no effect on yellow-billed cuckoos (Appendix A).
4.4.1.5.6 Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)
Direct Effects: There would be no direct effects to the northern spotted owl as they no longer occur on the Refuge. The last documented sighting on the Refuge was in 1998. Northern spotted owls have not been documented in the forests surrounding the Riekkola Site.
41 Indirect Effects: There would be no long-term, indirect effects to the northern spotted owl as they no longer occur on the Refuge. The ESA section 7 consultation concluded that because northern spotted owls are believed to be extirpated from the area and is not expected to be attracted to the area once the Natural Resource Center is built, the project would have no effect on the northern spotted owl (Appendix A).
4.4.1.5.7 Oregon Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta)
Direct Effects: There would be no direct, construction-related effects to the Oregon silverspot butterfly as the Riekkola Site and areas to be cleared for roads and trails contain no suitable habitat and they have never been observed there. No Oregon silverspot butterflies have been documented on the Long Beach Peninsula since 1990 (USFWS 2001a). Indirect Effects: There would be no long term indirect effects to the Oregon silverspot butterfly as they do not occur on or near the Riekkola Site and it is very unlikely that they would ever colonize the site once the Natural Resource Center is constructed as the project would create no suitable habitat. Because of these determinations, the ESA section 7 consultation concluded that the proposed action would have no effect on Oregon silverspot butterfly (Appendix A).
4.4.1.6 Noise
Direct Effects: Construction of the proposed Natural Resource Center and associated trails and roads would involve heavy machinery that have the potential to cause temporary noise impacts. Construction activities would occur during weekday hours when occasional loud noises are more tolerable. Extended noise disruptions are not anticipated. A number of factors are expected to reduce potential noise impacts. A dense coniferous forest surrounds the Riekkola Site that breaks the line-of-sight path to the nearest Receiving Properties allowing it to act as a barrier to the outward migration of sound. The nearest Receiving Properties are all more than 0.5 miles away and downslope along 67th Place. As distance from the source of sound increases, the decibel level (intensity of the sound) decreases. Prevailing ocean winds blow across the receiving properties toward the Riekkola site. Winds that blow across a receiving property toward the source will decrease the decibel level at the receiving property. These factors would reduce potential noise impacts resulting in minor noise effects. They would be detectable but localized to the construction site and would be of little consequence outside of the Refuge. Indirect Effects: Upon construction of the new facilities, routine equipment maintenance noises would again be heard at the site. The additional visitors would add low levels of sounds through their vehicles and through conversations, but these would be minor.
4.4.1.7 Visual and Aesthetic Resources
Direct Effects: There would be no direct, construction-related effects to the visual characteristics of the South Bay. The Riekkola Site is surrounded by a dense forest. The site was previously cleared for the Riekkola Farm in the 1930s. After the land was acquired by the Service in 1961, it became the site of the Refuge’s shop buildings and equipment storage. Most recently the site was expanded to utilize material for the Bear River Estuary Restoration project. Landscaping and retention of the surrounding forest will screen the Natural Resource Center from lower-lying
42 areas, however, the new South Bay viewing platforms would be visible. Indirect Effects: The proposed Natural Resource Center would not alter or affect any of the visual characteristics of the South Bay area, such as the bay itself, intertidal flats, and surrounding salt marshes. Viewing platforms would provide the public with new panoramic views of the South Bay and surrounding area, a minor beneficial effect. 4.4.2 Built Environment
4.4.2.1 Socioeconomic Environment and Public Uses
Direct Effects: There would be no direct effect to socioeconomic activities or public uses at the Riekkola Site as none occur there now. The site would remain closed to the public during construction. During construction, equipment maintenance and storage would continue at other facilities located on the Refuge. Constructing the proposed Natural Resource Center, new trails, overlook, and demolition and restoration of the current headquarters site is estimated to add approximately $6.99 million (Appendix R Table 28) to the local economy (USFWS 2011a). These dollars would be multiplied across Pacific County’s economy as materials are purchased, a construction company is hired, and contractors are employed. This represents a minor socioeconomic effect as effects would be detectable, but small relative to the total economic output of the Long Beach Peninsula and Pacific County. As a comparison, tourism alone in Pacific County delivers over $90 million annually to local businesses (Pacific County Economic Development Council 2009 cited in USFWS 2011a). Indirect Effects: The addition of an Environmental Education Specialist, which is not dependent on the site selected, would increase the scope and quantity of outreach and interpretation activities. The creation of additional trails, observation platforms, outdoor classroom, and indoor visitor space would provide enhanced opportunities for wildlife viewing, photography, and education. The location of these new facilities at the Riekkola Site would likely draw a higher concentration of use due to its proximity to Long Beach Peninsula area attractions compared to the existing headquarters and Visitor Center off U.S. Highway 101 east of Long Island. Upon construction of the new Natural Resource Center, new roads and connection to South Bay Trail, the site would be open to public use. The Service forecasts an additional 73,650 visitor use days for non-consumptive activities (wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, visitor center visitations, and picnicking) once construction of the new Natural Resource Center is complete and an Environmental Education Specialist is hired (USFWS 2011a, Table 5-1). This would be a minor to moderate effect to public use as the effects would be readily detectable at the Refuge, but not readily detectable or measurable beyond the Refuge. Compared to the No Action Alternative, these additional visitors are expected to add $757,000 to the local economy, an increase of about 53 percent over the No Action Alternative (USFWS 2011a, Appendix R Tables 14 and 25). This represents a minor socioeconomic effect when compared to the total economic output of the Long Beach peninsula and Pacific County. These effects are independent of the site selected for the Natural Resource Center.
43 Tsunami Assembly Area The Long Beach Peninsula and Pacific County coastal communities are subject to tsunamis. The Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup (2013) predicts a Cascadia event could produce a tsunami as high as 30 to 40 feet, while a study conducted at the University of Washington predicts the first wave will have a height of 22 feet (PCEMA undated). According to Pacific County’s Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan, the State of Washington’s Department of Natural Resources has modelled two likely tsunami scenarios. These models estimate the peak crest height of each tsunami at certain points along the coast. For Long Beach and Willapa Bay the predicted crest ranges between 31-43 feet high. 67th Place is designated as a Pacific County tsunami evacuation route (Figure 9). The Riekkola Site ranges from 60-70 feet above sea level creating a safe location for employees and the public. The new Natural Resource Center could potentially be used as an assembly area for people evacuating the peninsula. Should the Riekkola Site be selected, Refuge staff would work with Pacific County Emergency Management to determine what must be done for the site to serve as a designated assembly area. 4.4.2.2 Environmental Justice
Direct Effects: Constructing the proposed Natural Resource Center would not result in displacements and would not result in human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations, or anyone else. Minority and low income peoples were provided Figure 9. Tsunami Evacuation meaningful opportunities to participate in the three Map for Long Beach and preliminary design workshops that help develop the project Ilwaco to the 30 percent design stage. Outreach activities are described in Section 5.1 Public Involvement. Indirect Effects: The Natural Resource Center would be open to the public free of charge. No minority or low-income populations would experience disproportionately high or adverse effects. There would be no indirect, long-term environmental justice effects.
4.4.2.3 Cultural Resources
Direct Effects: In the area that has been cleared as part of the Bear River Estuary Restoration project, there would be no direct, construction-related effects to cultural resources as none are known to occur there. Record searches and on site cultural resource surveys conducted in 1994 and again in 2012 found no evidence of cultural resources at the Riekkola Site. The Washington State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with this finding of no effect. Additional cultural resource surveys in the areas of the new access roads and trails would be conducted prior to any ground-breaking activities. The Service would coordinate with the SHPO to ensure
44 compliance with Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Should any potential cultural resource be discovered during construction, activities in the area of the resource would be stopped and the SHPO would be contacted to determine how to proceed. Indirect Effects: There would be no long-term, indirect effects to cultural resources as none are known to occur on the site or immediate vicinity.
4.4 Climate Change
Recent guidance from the CEQ directs federal agencies to consider greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to proposed actions. CEQ considers GHG emissions to be a proxy for climate change impacts of proposed federal actions. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires the Department of Energy to establish performance standards for fossil fuel use reduction for the construction of new federal buildings. Those guidelines were published in the Federal Register (79 FR 61693) and establish a target of a 65 percent reduction in fossil fuel consumption as compared to national averages. The energy use intensity (EUI) required to achieve fossil fuel reduction targets was also outlined. EUI is a building’s annual energy use per unit area, typically measured in thousands of British Thermal Units (BTUs) per square foot per year (kBTU/ft2/yr). EUI can measure “site” energy use (what the building consumes) or “source” energy use (the amount of fuel the power plant burns to produce that much energy). For a “Government Office” in climate zone 4C (which includes western Washington and Oregon), the EUI is 43 kBTU/ft2/yr. Table 4 compares energy use and emissions for the Design Project (the minimum level of performance for the Natural Resource Center) against what would be expected from the national median (or mid-point) similar type of facility (Median Property). Table 4. Design Energy and Emissions Results
Metric Design Median Estimated Project Property Savings
Energy Star Score (1-100) 66 50 N/A
Energy Reduction (from -17.1 0 N/A Median)(%)
Source Energy Use Intensity 135.0 162.9 27.0 (kBtu/ft²/yr)
Site Energy Use Intensity 43.0 51.9 8.9 (kBtu/ft²/yr)
Source Energy Use (kBtu/yr) 1,812,643 2,186,686 374,043
Site Energy Use (kBtu/yr) 577,275 696,396 119,121
Energy Costs ($) 14,027 16,922 2,895
45 Total GHG Emissions (Metric Tons 51.4 62.0 10.6 CO2e)
By incorporating design elements to meet or exceed LEED design standards, the Natural Resource Center is expected to use about 17 percent less energy than other similar type facilities (Median Property). As the Design Project is the minimum performance for this type of building, Table 4 provides a conservative estimate of the GHG emissions and energy use expected at the new Natural Resource Center. Based on the final design elements to be selected, the Natural Resource Center GHG emissions and energy use are expected to be less than shown in Table 4.
4.5 Cumulative Effects
The 2011 CCP/EIS included an extensive analysis of the cumulative effects of Refuge management actions, which included constructing a new Natural Resource Center on the Tarlatt Unit. The reader is referred to that document for the detailed analysis. The analysis is independent of the location of the Natural Resource Center and remains valid should the Riekkola Site be selected. Increased visibility of the new refuge headquarters, enhanced interpretation and educational materials, and the associated new trail expansion would potentially increase visitation/tourism to the community and enhance economic benefits as well. Upon construction of the Natural Resource Center the Refuge is expected to attract about 200,000 visitors per year. Locally the economic benefit to the overall health of Willapa Bay would be enhanced by the habitat enhancement/protection efforts and potential growth of the Refuge. The mariculture industry has been an economic mainstay of the area for over 100 years; the south Willapa Bay economy would potentially benefit from Refuge and partner agency and non-governmental organizations act to protect and enhance estuaries and forests. In addition to the Service, other conservation agencies and groups that manage and protect habitat in the area include The Nature Conservancy, The Friends of Willapa NWR, Washington State Parks, Washington Department of Natural Resources, and WDFW. Restoration and enhancement of rivers, streams, wetlands, forests, and managed upland/grassland habitats would result in a long-term cumulative benefit to a wide variety of native birds and animals. There would be a cumulative, long-term positive improvement in the amount of on-site environmental education and wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities available to the public in south Willapa Bay. Priority public use opportunities could increase and would improve with the establishment of new public information facilities and access. These improvements would also help address the adverse effects that may result as the human population continues to increase in the region and visitation grows over time. We are not aware of any additional county or local expanded public use initiatives in the area.
4.6 Summary
Table 5 provides a brief summary of the reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect effects to the built and natural environment related to the No Action alternative and constructing the Natural
46 Resource Center at Tarlatt Site and at the Riekkola Site. Table 5. Summary of Reasonably Foreseeable Direct and Indirect Effects
Element No Action Tarlatt Site Riekkola Site (Alternative 1) (Alternative 2 and 3) (Alternative 4)
Topography and Soils No direct, or long-term Minor effects related to Negligible to minor (indirect) effects. clearing and grading up effects since most of the to 10 acres of grassland, area needed for short-grass fields, and construction is already wetlands. cleared and graded. New roads/trails would affect 4.45 acres.
Water Features, No direct, or long-term Minor to moderate No direct, or long-term Floodplains, and (indirect) effects. impacts to Zone AE (indirect) effects as Wetlands floodplain and none occur of the palustrine emergent Riekkola Site or where wetlands. new roads and trails would be located.
Air Quality No direct, or long-term Negligible direct Negligible to minor (indirect) effects. (construction direct (construction equipment exhaust, equipment exhaust, fugitive dust) and long- fugitive dust) and long- term effects. term effects.
Wildlife Habitat and No direct, or long-term Minor, negative effect Negligible direct effects Use (indirect) effects. related to clearing up to for the Natural 10 acres of grassland, Resource Center as the short-grass fields, and site is already cleared. wetlands. Minor, negative effect related to clearing 4.45 acres of young alder, second-growth conifer forest, and short-grass fields for new roads and trails. Negligible long- term disturbance to wildlife use of the surrounding forest.
Bull Trout No direct, or long-term No direct, or long-term No direct, or long-term (indirect) effects. (indirect) effects. (indirect) effects.
Western Snowy Plover No direct, or long-term No direct, or long-term No direct, or long-term (indirect) effects. (indirect) effects. (indirect) effects.
Marbled Murrelet No direct, and minor No direct, or long-term No direct effects. long-term (indirect) (indirect) effects. Potential negligible to
47 effects. minor long-term (indirect) effects as future use of the site and trail may deter marbled murrelet nesting once old growth forest characteristics develop in surrounding forests. ESA section 7 consultation concluded the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect marbled murrelet
Streaked Horned Lark No direct, or long-term No direct, or long-term No direct, or long-term (indirect) effects. (indirect) effects. (indirect) effects.
Yellow-billed Cuckoo No direct, or long-term No direct, or long-term No direct, or long-term (indirect) effects. (indirect) effects. (indirect) effects.
Northern Spotted Owl No direct, or long-term No direct, or long-term No direct, or long-term (indirect) effects. (indirect) effects. (indirect) effects.
Oregon Silverspot No direct, or long-term No direct, or long-term No direct, or long-term Butterfly (indirect) effects. (indirect) effects. (indirect) effects.
Noise No direct, or long-term Minor direct effects Minor direct effects (indirect) effects. related to construction related to construction equipment noise. equipment noise. Negligible long-term Negligible long-term effects. effects.
Visual and Aesthetic No direct, or long-term Minor direct Negligible direct Resources (indirect) effects. (construction-related) (construction-related) effects as the Tarlatt effects as the Riekkola site is visible to the Site is surrounded by a surrounding public. dense forest shielding it Minor long-term from view and the land beneficial effects as the was previously cleared. project would provide Minor long-term new views of the South beneficial effects as the Bay and surrounding project would provide environment. new views of South Bay and the surrounding environment.
Socioeconomic No effect, public uses Minor, beneficial Minor, beneficial Environment and Public remain as they are socioeconomic effects socioeconomic effects Uses today. related to construction related to construction
48 activities adding $6.99 activities adding $6.99 million to the local million to local economy. Increased economy. Positive visitation would social effects if site provide minor long- used as tsunami term beneficial effects evacuation assembly related to increased area. Increased visitor use programs. visitation would provide minor long- term beneficial effects related to increased visitor use programs.
Environmental Justice No direct, or long-term No direct, or long-term No direct, or long-term (indirect) effects. (indirect) effects. (indirect) effects.
Cultural Resources No direct, or long-term No direct, or long-term No direct, or long-term (indirect) effects. (indirect) effects. (indirect) effects.
49 5 Coordination, Consultation, and Compliance 5.1 Public Involvement
To inform the public of this proposed action, the Service engaged in a multi-faceted public involvement program. The Service briefed local and federal elected officials with particular interest in the Refuge including City of Ilwaco, City of Long Beach, City of Long Beach Tourism & Events, Ocean Beach School District, Pacific County Commissioners, Pacific County Conservation District, Pacific County Economic Development Council, Pacific County Emergency Management Agency, Pacific County Marine Resources Committee, Pacific County PUD #2, Pacific County Vegetation Management, Washington Department of Natural Resources Washington State Parks, Washington State University Long Beach Research and Extension Unit, Lewis and Clark National Historical Park, Port of Ilwaco, Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe, and staff from Congresswoman Herrera Beutler’s office, Senator Maria Cantwell’s office and Senator Patty Murray’s office. A summary of public involvement during development of the the CCP is also include Appendix E of the 2011 CCP/EIS. Three community meetings were held during 2017 (March 16, May 17, and September 13). Public notices were placed in local papers (Chinook Observer and Daily Astorian) and invitations were emailed to interested parties. Posts were made to the Refuge’s website (www.fws.gov/refuge/willapa), the project website (www.willapanaturalresourcecenter.com) and Refuge facebook page. Flyers were distributed and emails were sent to interested parties and meeting participants. The Refuge’s website was updated with timely and pertinent information on the proposed Natural Resource Center and the Draft EA. Links to the Draft EA were posted so the public could view and download them in Portable Document Format (PDF). A link to the free Adobe Acrobat Reader is maintained, for viewing the PDF. As part of the public review process, this Draft EA is available for a 25-day review from September 13 to October 7, 2017. Comments or requests for additional information may be submitted through any of the following methods. Email: [email protected]. Include “Natural Resource Center” in the subject line of the message. Fax: Attn: Natural Resource Center, (360) 484-3109. U.S. Mail: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Attn: Jackie Ferrier, Project Leader, 3888 State Route 101, Ilwaco, WA 98624. All comments received from individuals become part of the official public Record. We will handle all requests for such comments in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and the CEQ’s NEPA regulations in 40 CFR 1506.6(f). Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. In 2017, the Friends of Willapa National Wildlife Refuge also received letters of support for the Natural Resource Center from the following:
50 Businesses: 1. Adrift Hotel 2. Beachdog.com 3. Columbia Pacific Heritage Museum 4. Cottage Bakery 5. Key Environmental Solutions 6. North Jetty Brewery 7. Salt Hotel & Pub 8. Shoalwater Botanical 9. Skookum Surf Co. 10. Spence Photo & Design 11. State Farm Insurance 12. The Shelburne Inn 13. Tsunami Hill Farm Organizations: 14. Audubon Washington 15. Boys and Girls Club 16. Columbia Land Trust 17. Columbia River Crab Fisherman’s Association 18. Friends of Willapa NWR 19. GrassRoots Garbage Gang 20. Long Beach Merchants Association 21. Long Beach Visitors Bureau 22. Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 23. Ocean Park Area Chamber of Commerce 24. Rotary 25. Shoalwater Birders 26. South Pacific County Community Foundation 27. The Nature Conservancy 28. Willapa Hills Audubon Local Agencies: 29. City of Ilwaco 30. City of Long Beach 31. City of Long Beach Tourism & Events, Long Beach Package Travel 32. Ocean Beach School District 33. Pacific County Commissioners 34. Pacific County Conservation District 35. Pacific County Economic Development Council 36. Pacific County Emergency Management Agency 37. Pacific County Marine Resources Committee 38. Pacific County PUD #2 39. Pacific County Vegetation Management State: 40. Washington Department of Natural Resources 41. Washington State Parks, Long Beach Area 42. Washington State University, Long Beach Research and Extension Unit
51 Federal /Tribal Agencies: 43. Don Bonker, former U.S. Congressman 44. Lewis and Clark National Historical Park 45. Port of Ilwaco 46. Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe Individuals: 47. Nancy Beliveau 48. Linda Bierma 49. Gayle Borchard 50. Todd & Karen Brownlee 51. Susan L. Clark 52. Kathleen Davies 53. Bob Duke 54. Sondra Eaton 55. Kitt Fleming 56. Joe & Kathy Freitas 57. Dianne Fuller 58. Carolyn Glenn 59. Nickolas, Danielle & Rowan Haldeman 60. Dave Hoch 61. Karen Hoch 62. Dr. Madeline Kalbach 63. Rita Nicely 64. Clayton Nichols 65. Barbara and Eugene Norcross-Renner 66. Gerrie Penny 67. Ann & Larry Reeves 68. Michael Robinson 69. Jim Sayce 70. Susan Stauffer 71. Sydney Stevens 72. David and Sandra Tellvik 73. Paul Waterstrat 74. Miranda Wecker 75. Todd Wiegardt 76. Robert Zimmerman
5.2 Environmental Review and Compliance The following executive orders and legislative acts have been reviewed as they apply to the proposed action. 5.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.)
As a federal agency, the Service must comply with provisions of NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C.
52 4321-4347). An analysis is required to evaluate reasonable alternatives that would meet stated objectives and to assess the possible physical, biological, social, and cultural impacts to the human environment. The NEPA process facilitates the involvement of government agencies and the public in the decision-making process. The 2011 CCP/EIS provided the information for the Service to select Alternative 2 as the management direction for the Refuge and to construct a new Natural Resource Center at the Tarlatt Unit. This EA meets NEPA requirements by examining and disclosing the reasonably foreseeable effects to the human environment resulting from a new alternative location for the proposed Natural Resource Center. An EA is prepared for proposals that modify an earlier EIS when the changed effects are not significant and still within the scope of the earlier EIS (516 DM 1.14) as is the case here. 5.2.2 Executive Order 11593: Protection of Historical, Archaeological, and Scientific Properties and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended )(16 U.S.C. 470-470x)
Executive Order (EO) 11593 established the policy that the federal government provide leadership in preserving, restoring, and maintaining the historic and cultural environment of the United States. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. This includes complying with the NHPA and other cultural resource preservation laws, and consulting with the SHPO over any future management actions which may have the potential to affect historic properties. Pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA and promulgated regulations, the Service has determined the proposed action constitutes an undertaking under the NHPA (36 CFR 800.3(a)), but would not affect cultural resources/historic properties in the areas previously graded. No such resources or properties are known to occur in that area. Additional cultural resource surveys in the areas of the new access road and trails would be conducted prior to any ground breaking activities. Should any resources be found, the Service would coordinate with the SHPO to ensure compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. 5.2.3 Executive Order 12996. Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee)
A guiding principle of EO 12996 and the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act is that the National Wildlife Refuge System provide opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The Proposed Action is consistent with EO 12996 because the new Natural Resource Center would be dedicated to providing opportunities for environmental education and interpretation. New trails to Willapa Bay viewing platforms would provide additional opportunities for wildlife observation and photography. 5.2.4 Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management
Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and
53 short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. The FIRM identifies the Riekkola Site to be in Zone X. These are areas determined to be out of the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain (i.e., a 500-year flood event). The nearest floodplain is at the base of the hill extending into South Bay. The proposed action is consistent with EO 11988 because floodplains would be unaffected. 5.2.5 Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands
Executive Order 11990 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. The National Wetlands Inventory does not map any wetlands on the Riekkola Site which has been confirmed by a site reconnaissance. The Proposed Action is consistent with EO 11990 because wetlands would be unaffected by constructing a new Natural Resource Center at the Riekkola Site. 5.2.6 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Secretarial Order 3127
Secretarial Order 3127 and CERCLA requires federal agencies to evaluate the environmental condition of property and to take remedial actions as necessary to protect human health and the environment before acquiring property. The proposed action is consistent with SO 3127 and CERCLA as the site is not contaminated with hazardous materials and contains no underground storage tanks. Hazardous materials would not be encountered during construction activities. A hazardous materials storage building, separate from any other building, would be moved from its current location at the existing headquarters site to the Riekkola Site for the safe storage of hazardous materials. 5.2.7 Executive Order 12372. Intergovernmental Review
Coordination and consultation with affected Tribal, local and State governments, and other federal agencies has been completed by the Project Leader for the Willapa NWR. The proposed action is not controversial. 5.2.8 Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations
All federal actions must address and identify, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes in the United States. The proposed action would comply with EO 12898 because the Natural Resource Center would be constructed on Refuge land and would be open to the public free of charge. Developing the proposed Natural Resource Center would not result in displacements and would not have adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations, or anyone else. Minority and low income peoples were provided meaningful opportunities to participate in the three preliminary design workshops that help develop the project to the 30 percent design stage.
54 5.2.9 The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.)
The ESA directs all federal agencies to work to conserve endangered and threatened species and to use their authorities to further the purposes of the ESA. The project would have no direct (construction-related) effect to bull trout, western snowy plover, marbled murrelet, streaked horned lark, yellow billed cuckoo, northern spotted owl, or Oregon silverspot butterfly. The only potential long-term (indirect effect) would be to marbled murrelet which may avoid the forest surrounding the Natural Resource Center once the forest develops old-growth characteristics many decades from now. Section 7 of the ESA is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure their actions do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species. Under Section 7, federal agencies consult with USFWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) when any action they carry out, fund, or authorize may affect a listed species. Section 7 consultation resulted in a determination that the project may affect, but is unlikely to adversely affect marbled murrelet and would have no effect to bull trout, western snowy plover, streaked horned lark, yellow-billed cuckoo, northern spotted owl, and Oregon silverspot butterfly (Appendix A). 5.2.10 Executive Order 13186. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds
Migratory bird conventions impose substantive obligations on the United States for the conservation of migratory birds and their habitats, and through the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Act). Executive Order 13186 directs executive branch departments and agencies to take certain actions to further implement the Act including supporting the conservation intent of the migratory bird conventions; restoring and enhancing the habitat of migratory birds, as practicable; preventing or abating detrimental alteration of the environment for the benefit of migratory birds, as practicable. The Proposed Action complies with EO 13186 because site design has minimized the need to clear forested areas and important migratory bird habitat would be protected. All required clearing and grubbing activities would take place outside of critical nesting period from April 1 to July 15. 5.2.11 Executive Order 13112. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies Pertaining to Invasive Species
Executive Order 13112 requires federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. The proposed action would comply with EO 13112 because the proposed construction site is primarily a non-vegetated gravel pad and would not involve clearing and disposing of invasive species. In order to prevent the invasion of noxious weeds, the construction contractor would be required to use certified weed-free topsoil and mulches.
55 6 Literature Cited Beason, R.C. 1995. Horned lark (Eremophila alpestris). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. Birds of North America, No. 195. The Academy of Natural Sciences and American Ornithologists Union. Philadelphia, PA, and Washington, D.C. Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup. 2013. Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquakes: A Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake Scenario, Update, 2013. 30 pp. Damiani, C. 2011. Analysis of oviposition site selection for the Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta). Final report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Field Office. Institute for Wildlife Studies, Arcata, California. 18 pp. Davis, L., Y. Bar-Ness, T. Woolley, D. Shaw, and D. Rolph. 2009. Characterization of biological diversity, structure, and composition within old-growth forest refugia and young-managed forests in the Willapa Hills, Washington. Final Report. The Nature Conservancy. Hamer, T.E. and S.K. Nelson. 1995. Characteristics of marbled murrelet nest trees and nesting stands. Pages 69-82 in: C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt, M. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt, eds. Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152. USDA Forest Service. 420 pp. Hemstrom, M.A. and S.E. Logan. 1986. Plant association and management guide: Siuslaw National Forest. R6-Ecol 220-1986a. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. 121 pp. King County. 2016. King County, Washington: Surface Water Design Manual. King County Department of Natural Resources. April 2016 1115 pp. KPFF Consulting Engineers. 2009. Memorandum: Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters, civil concept narrative. December 2009. Lance, M. M., and S. F. Pearson. 2016. Washington 2015 at-sea marbled murrelet population monitoring: Research Progress Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division, Olympia, Washington. 17 pp. Pacific County Emergency Management Agency (PCEMA). Undated. Pacific County Hazard Mitigation Plan (draft). 260pp. PBS. 2017. Geotechnical Report, Willapa Wildlife Refuge, Long Beach, Washington. 35pp. Pringle R.F. 1986. Soil survey of Grays Harbor County area, Pacific County, and Wahkiakum County, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington State University, and Agricultural Research Center. Smith, K.G. 1980. Nongame birds of the Rocky Mountain spruce-fir forests and their management. Pages 258-279 in: R.M. DeGraaf (Tech. coordinator). Management of western forests and grasslands for nongame birds: Workshop proceedings; 1980 February 11-14; Salt Lake City, Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-86. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ogden, UT. Stinson, D.W. 2005. Washington State status report for the Mazama pocket gopher, streaked horned lark, and Taylor’s checkerspot. Olympia, WA. xii + 129 pp.
56 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1980. Listing the Oregon Silverspot Butterfly as a Threatened Species with Critical Habitat. 45 FR 44935 USFWS. 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl. Federal Register 55:26114–26194. USFWS. 1992. Determination of Threatened Status for the Washington, Oregon and California Population of the Marbled Murrelet; Final Rule. 57 FR 45328 4533 USFWS. 1993. Determination of Threatened Status for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover; Final Rule. 58 FR 12864 USFWS. 1997. Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. USFWS. Portland, OR. 203 pp. USFWS 1998. Determination of Threatened Status for the Klamath River and Columbia River Distinct Population Segments of Bull Trout; Final Rule. 63 FR 31647. USFWS. 2001. Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) revised recovery plan. USFWS. Portland, OR. 113 pp. USFWS. 2007a. US Department of the Interior/US Fish and Wildlife Service Suite of Facilities. Prepared by Oak Point Associates. 10pp. USFWS. 2007b. Recovery plan for the Pacific Coast population of the western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). 2 vol. Sacramento, CA. 751 pp. USFWS. 2008a. Final recovery plan for the northern spotted owl, Strix occidentalis caurina. Portland, OR. 142 pp. USFWS. 2008b. Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule. 73 FR 47326 USFWS. 2010. Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States; Final Rule. 75 FR 63898. USFWS. 2011a. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan/ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. 960 pp. USFWS 2011b. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) 76 FR 38575 USFWS. 2012a. Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover; Final Rule. 77 FR 36727 USFWS. 2012b. Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule. 77 FR 71875 USFWS. 2013. Determination of Endangered Status for the Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly and Threatened Status for the Streaked Horned Lark; Final Rule. 78 FR 61451. USFWS. 2014. Determination of Threatened Status for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus); Final Rule. 79 FR 59991 USFWS. 2016. Determination of Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet; Final determination. 81 FR 51348 Wiens, J.A. 1975. Avian communities, energetics, and functions in coniferous forest habitats. Pages 226-265 in: D.R. Smith (tech. coordinator). Proceedings of the Symposium on
57 Management of Forest and Range Habitats for Nongame Birds; 1975 May 6-9; Tucson, Arizona. General Technical Report WO-1. USDA Forest Service. Washington, D.C.
58 APPENDIX A
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SECTION 7 CONSULTATION
59 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Form for Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Natural Resource Center
File #: R1-13552-2017-NS-001
Refuge Name: Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Address: 3888 State Route 101 Ilwaco, Washington 98624 Phone: 360.484.3482
Proposed Action:
Part 1 I. Project Overview
1. Project Location: This project will take place at Riekkola and Tarlatt on the South Bay Unit of the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) located in southern Willapa Bay, east of the city of Long Beach Washington, as shown in Figure 1.
2. Description of the Proposed Action:
3. Project Timeline: This project is scheduled to occur in phases for the next several years.
4. Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitat:
A. Listed species and/or their critical habitat:
Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and Bull Trout Critical Habitat Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) and Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) and Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Western Snowy Plover Pacific Coastal pop. (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) and Western Snowy Plover Critical Habitat Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) and Streaked Horned Lark Critical Habitat Yellowed-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Oregon Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta)
B. Proposed species and/or proposed critical habitat:
None
C. Candidate species:
None
1. Status of species in the action area and within the refuge. Include population and/or distribution trends and season(s) of use.
Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
Bull trout were listed as a threatened species throughout their range in 1999. The final decision for critical habitat designation for bull trout, completed on October 18, 2010 (USFWS 2010), does not include Willapa Bay or associated rivers and streams.
Bull trout are members of the family Salmonidae and are char native in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, and western Canada. Compared to other salmonids, bull trout have more specific habitat requirements that appear to influence their distribution and abundance. The bull trout needs cold water to survive, so they are seldom found in waters where temperatures exceed 59 to 64 degrees (F). They also require stable stream channels, clean spawning and rearing gravel, complex and diverse cover, and unblocked migratory corridors.
Bull trout have not been found in the southern portions of Willapa Bay. The nearest confirmed bull trout was caught in the Willapa River, the mouth of which is approximately 25 miles to the north of the project area. A single fish was caught by a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) technician near river mile 29, approximately one mile downstream of the Willapa – Forks Creek State Salmon Hatchery. There is not believed to be a breeding population in the Willapa River, or in any tributaries of Willapa Bay. Bull trout are thought to forage only occasionally in the Willapa River.
Due to the distance from the sighting, the rarity of the sighting, and because project activities are not expected to have an impact on environments used by fish, we expect that this proposal would have NO EFFECT on bull trout.
Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)
The marbled murrelet (MAMU) is federally listed as a threatened species in California, Oregon, and Washington. Critical habitat was designated for the marbled murrelet in 2008 and revised in 2016 (81 FR 51348). Portions of the East Hills Unit and all of the Long Island Unit was designated critical habitat, however, the South Bay Unit was not designated as critical habitat in either the original or revised designations. The State of Washington has also classified the marbled murrelet as a threatened species. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Lance and Pearson 2016) reports the population estimate for the Washington outer coast (Conservation Zone 2) in 2015 was 3,204 birds (95% confidence interval = 1,883 – 5,609 birds). No trend was detected for Conservation Zone 2; while the trend was below zero (-2.8%), the evidence was not conclusive because the estimate’s 95% confidence interval overlapped zero (- 7.6% to 2.3%).
The marbled murrelet is a year-round resident on Washington marine coastal waters within several miles of the shoreline. The majority of nesting stands in Washington have been discovered within 39 miles of marine waters. Marbled murrelets require canopy structures such as the large diameter, often moss-covered limbs of mature conifer trees to create suitable platforms for nesting. These are primarily found in the mature and old-growth coniferous and mixed forest stands. Removal of these forests, primarily for timber production and urbanization, is the principal factor contributing to the decline of the marbled murrelet and is the most significant impediment to their recovery (USFWS 1997).
Willapa NWR has several coniferous forests known to be used for nesting by murrelets. As described in the Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (CCP/EIS) (USFWS 20111), suitable nesting habitat occurs on the Long Island Unit and the Headquarters and Teal Slough areas of the East Hills Unit. The nearest documented occupied site is on state-owned timberlands about 1.4 miles south of the project area. These low elevation coastal forests consist of old-growth and mature western red cedar, Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and Douglas fir trees with large-diameter limbs, abundant canopy epiphytes, and open crowns.
These structurally complex forest stands have a diversity of tree sizes creating multilayered canopies with small naturally occurring gaps and stand-level crown defects (e.g., wind breakage and dwarf mistletoe deformation) that develop preferred nesting conditions for the marbled murrelet. Forests with suitable marbled murrelet habitat are very limited in southwestern Washington and northwestern Oregon. The Refuge represents the most significant habitat on Federal land within the Western Washington Lowland Province.
The forest surrounding Riekkola and Tarlatt is young relative to the old growth forests that create the structural conditions suitable for nesting marbled murrelets. A few scattered younger mature- aged trees occur in the adjacent forests but they do not contain the required nesting structure or the stand composition to allow access for nesting. The closest forest stands that are part of the designated critical habitat are approximately three miles to the northeast on Long Island.
Any negative disturbance effects from this action are anticipated to be negligible, of short duration, and incidental to the project actions. This species may be attracted in the long-term to the adjacent restored forests on the Refuge as they mature and gain structural complexity, tree species diversity, and develop larger stature trees suitable of providing nesting structures. We conclude that the proposed action MAY AFFECT, BUT NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT this species and will have no effect on critical habitat.
Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)
The northern spotted owl (NSO) was listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as threatened on June 26, 1990 because of widespread loss of suitable habitat across the spotted owl’s range and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to conserve them (USFWS 2008). The final northern spotted owl recovery plan was published in May 2008. Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl was originally designated in 1992 and revised in 2012 (77 FR 50526). The Riekkola site was not designated critical habitat in either the original or revised designations. The spotted owl recovery plan excludes the Western Washington Lowland Province (which includes the Refuge) from the managed owl conservation area because it was assumed that the low population numbers in the Province were not essential to species recovery.
Spotted owls historically inhabited forests of the Refuge. A spotted owl pair that nested in the Cedar Grove Resource Natural Area was last observed in 1985. The following year barred owls (Strix varia) were observed occupying their nest. An established spotted owl management circle encompasses the Teal Slough area and most of the Headquarters area of the Refuge. This territory was most recently known to be occupied in 1998 when a survey documented a pair of adults and one juvenile, the last documented use of the Refuge by the northern spotted owl. There have been no surveys conducted since then on refuge lands or on surrounding forestlands.
Since this species is believed to be extirpated from the area and is not expected to be attracted to the action area, this project will have NO EFFECT on the northern spotted owl.
Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus)
On March 5, 1993, the Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover (WSPL) was listed as threatened under provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The Pacific coast population is defined as those individuals that nest within 50 miles (80.5 kilometers) of the Pacific Ocean on the mainland coast, peninsulas, offshore islands, bays, estuaries, or rivers of the United States and Baja California, Mexico (USFWS 20071). Prior to federal listing, WDFW designated the snowy plover as endangered in 1981. The WSPL population has shown an overall declining trend during the last century. Reasons for this decline, and the severity of threats, vary by region and location, but are primarily due to habitat loss and degradation. Western snowy plover are year-round residents on the Refuge, however most birds migrate south subsequent the breeding season. Of the six Washington locations identified in the recovery plan as breeding areas, only three are currently occupied, the largest is located at the Leadbetter Point Unit of Willapa NWR. Plovers are not known to currently inhabit the action area and the area does not contain any suitable habitat. In 2012 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service revised the designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast WSPL to include Leadbetter Point.
There is no suitable or critical habitat within or adjacent to the action area and no western snowy plover have been documented there. The closest designated critical habitat to the project site occurs at Leadbetter Point, 19 miles to the northwest. Since this species is not expected to be attracted to the action area, nor will habitats be altered as a result of the action, this project will have NO EFFECT on western snowy plover.
Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata)
The streaked horned lark (SHLA) was listed as a threatened species under the ESA on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61451; USFWS 20131). It is an endemic subspecies of the Pacific coastal form of horned lark that is found only in western Oregon and Washington. Horned larks are small ground-dwelling passerines with black occipital feather tuffs, or horns (Beason 1995).
Larks inhabit native prairies but have also adapted to nesting in low-growing and sparsely vegetated grasslands at airports, coastal sand dunes, and dredge spoil islands. The streaked horned lark was once abundant on Puget Sound prairies. Its population and distribution decreased significantly with the decline in habitat and it is now restricted to a few large open grassland sites and islands in Washington (Stinson 2005) and several sites in Oregon. The SHLA is federally listed as a threatened species with designated critical habitat. Approximately 4,629 acres in Grays Harbor, Pacific, and Wahkiakum Counties in Washington, and in Clatsop, Columbia, Marion, Polk, and Benton Counties in Oregon, fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation for the SHLA (USFWS 20131).
There is no suitable or critical habitat within or adjacent to the action area and no streaked horned lark have been documented. The closest designated critical habitat to the project site occurs at Leadbetter Point, 19 miles to the northwest. Since this species is not expected to be attracted to the action area, nor will habitats be altered as a result of the action, this project will have NO EFFECT on the streaked horned lark.
Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)
The yellow-billed cuckoo status is threatened in the western portion of the United States, Canada, and Mexico under the ESA of 1973, as amended (USFWS 20132). Critical habitat has not been designated for this species. The western yellow-billed cuckoo is a neotropical migrant bird that winters in South America and breeds in western North America. The yellow-billed cuckoo is insectivorous and lives in riparian woodlands. While the yellow-billed cuckoo is common east of the Continental Divide, biologists estimate that more than 90 percent of the bird's riparian habitat in the West has been lost or degraded.
There is no suitable habitat within or adjacent to the action area and no yellow-billed cuckoos have been documented. This species is not expected to be attracted to the action area, nor will habitats be altered as a result of the action, this project will have NO EFFECT on yellow-billed cuckoos.
Oregon Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta)
The Oregon silverspot butterfly (OSB) occurred historically from Grays Harbor County in Washington through central coastal Oregon and into northern California. In 1980 OSB was federally listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Washington State listed the OSB as endangered in 1993 when it was presumed to be extirpated. It is not known whether they historically occurred on the refuge, but they were native to the local area until at least 1990. No Oregon silverspot butterflies have been documented on the Long Beach Peninsula since 1990 (USFWS 2001). They are not known to currently inhabit the action area and the area does not contain any suitable habitat, nor does the refuge contain critical habitat for OSB.
The OSB occupies three types of grasslands along the Pacific Coast: coastal salt spray meadows, stabilized dunes, and montane meadows. Central to the life cycle of the OSB is the abundance of the caterpillar host plant, the early blue violet (Viola adunca). Female butterflies select areas with high violet densities for egg-laying (USFWS 2001, Damiani 2011). Loss and modification of Oregon silverspot butterfly habitat, altered disturbance regimes, and invasion by exotic species have resulted in the decline of this species.
Since this species is not expected to be attracted to the action area, nor will habitats be altered as a result of the action, this project will have NO EFFECT on Oregon silverspot butterfly.
2. Species habitat in the action area and within the refuge and its significance to critical life stages of the species and seasons of occupancy (e.g., breeding, foraging, migration, resident, etc.).
Marbled Murrelet: Historically much of the lowland coastal forests and mid-elevation forests of the Cascade and coastal mountain ranges provided MAMU nesting habitat. Much of that forestland was harvested for lumber and paper production including the forested uplands adjacent to the project area. Many of the remaining forest patches in southwestern and coastal Washington are too small and fragmented to provide functional MAMU nesting habitat. Critical habitat for this species is spread out throughout the coastal forests from the Washington/Canada border south to near Santa Cruz, California.
Mature forested timber stands located northeast and south of the proposed project site provide nesting habitat for the federally listed marbled murrelet. The nearest known MAMU occupied habitat lies 1.4 miles to the south of the project area on state-managed forest. The project area is located approximately 3 miles to the southwest of any designated critical habitat. The closest forest stands that are part of federally designated critical habitat are approximately three miles to the northeast in the Ellsworth Creek watershed, on Long Island, and on refuge lands in the Headquarters area.
3. Direct, indirect and cumulative beneficial and adverse effects of the action on the listed species and critical habitat within the action area. This should include temporary and permanent alterations to habitat, daily and seasonal exclusions or disturbances.
Marbled Murrelets are not known to nest in or adjacent to the project area, thus no disruption of nesting would be expected. There should be a very low likelihood of direct or indirect adverse effects from disturbance to marbled murrelets flying over the project area during times when project activities are scheduled. The action area is not located near or enroute to any known suitable nesting habitat, nor is it proximal to any frequented foraging areas. Any nominal adverse indirect effects during infrequent fly-overs during the construction phases of the project would be very short-term. New construction would permanently remove 3.15 acres of forest at the Natural Resource Center (NRC) site and surrounding trails. These forests are not considered suitable nesting habitat for marbled murrelets and do not currently support nesting murrelets.
As the forests mature in the future they could potentially develop suitable characteristics and habitat elements (snags or trees with suitable nesting platforms) suitable for marbled murrelet nesting. Should that happen, ongoing noises and activities from the Natural Resource Center and maintenance yard may keep murrelets away from the forest surrounding the NRC site. However, since over the same timeframe hundreds of acres of similar habitat on the Refuge would mature and create new nesting habitat, the resulting local impacts would likely be negligible or have minor negative effects.
4. Quantification of effects (e.g., acres or miles of habitat, number of individuals, etc.) caused by the action. In 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS or Service) completed a Final (USFWS 20111) Comprehensive Conservation Plan /Environmental Impact Statement (2011 CCP/EIS) for the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on September 29, 2011 selecting Alternative 2 as the management direction for the Refuge over the next 15 years (USFWS 20112). Alternative 2 focused management on healthy wildlife habitats, endangered species and biodiversity gains, refuge expansion, and expanded public use. As described in the 2011 CCP/EIS, expanded public use included constructing a new Natural Resource Center.
As described in the ROD, under Alternative 2, the Service would develop a new NRC at the Tarlatt site to serve as a new administrative/maintenance and visitor facility. The NRC would improve visitor services, help conserve crucial wildlife habitat, improve staff productivity, consolidate maintenance facilities, serve as an interpretive area, and eliminate increasing operations and maintenance costs of the old facilities. With construction of the NRC (and the addition of an education specialist), the Service would greatly enhance the quality of the environmental education and interpretation programs and would increase the number of students and visitors currently served by the program.
The site for the new facility, conceptual design and operations, and anticipated impacts were analyzed CCP/EIS (USFWS 20111) which are incorporated herein by reference. The ROD which selected the location and the facility design elements for the new NRC is also incorporated herein by reference (USFWS 20112). The CCP/EIS was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, 40 CFR 1500, et seq.
Based on comments received during local agency and public coordination meetings for the new NRC subsequent to issuing the ROD, the Service is examining a different site for the NRC facility. The site under consideration is in the Riekkola area where an existing equipment maintenance and storage yard is located. The site would be out of the Tsunami Zone and a new NRC facility could potentially serve as an assembly area in the event of a tsunami striking the area. A subsequent Environmental Assessment (EA; USFWS 2017) describes this new alternative and examines the effects to the natural and built environments related to constructing the Natural Resource Center on the Riekkola site.
As described in the 2011 CCP/EIS the proposed Natural Resource Center would serve as the new headquarters for the Willapa Refuge Complex and would provide increased accessibility for the visiting public. The new facility would be designed and constructed to meet or exceed energy efficiency standards for the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. Site design would strive to incorporate sustainable design concepts such as integrating aboveground stormwater management facilities with site grading, minimizing overall site grading, and incorporating native or climate-adaptive (low water consumptive) plant materials into facility landscaping. Buildings and landscape would be designed to reflect the rural, coastal vernacular.
Based upon the Standard Suite of Facilities (USFWS 20072) prototypes for a small visitor facility and a medium two-story administration building, the new building size would be approximately 10,350 square feet. The facility would have offices for up to 21 Service staff, not including interns. In addition, volunteers who are involved in day-to-day activities would be provided space in the building. The Visitor Center would house a gift shop, a substantial lobby area, and an orientation multi-purpose room for interpretive exhibits or events. The new facility would also be available to host community and environmental education events.
New roads and trails would also be constructed. An approximately 0.6-mile path (Figure 1) would be cleared of vegetation and regraded to become a pedestrian trail connecting the Tarlatt and Riekkola portions of the Refuge. This trail would connect the South Bay Trail and the proposed Beach to Bay Trail with Riekkola’s Parker Slough Trail and Porter Point Trail. The majority of this trail will utilize old logging roads that were created by previous landowners when the area was clear cut prior to the parcel becoming part of the Refuge. The soils on these old roads are still compacted and therefore have limited vegetation growth. We anticipate approximately 2.5 acres of understory and second growth forest would be impacted.
This trail will also increase management capability on the Refuge and efficiently move heavy equipment between the shop facilities at Riekkola and Tarlatt for habitat management and restoration activities. As funding permits, the trail may be improved with gravel to provide universal access for all ages and abilities.
A Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) easement encumbers portions of the Tarlatt Site. A portion of this trail (approximately 100 feet) will cross WRP easement to the existing trail (South Bay Trail). Approximately 0.06 acres of conifer forest and understory would be within the easement. Routing the trail across this small section of the easement would ensure the trail would not impact a grove of large diameter Sitka spruce trees, would allow management of the easement to be conducted more efficiently, and would improve visitor access to the site.
A road would be created at Riekkola to provide safe public vehicle access to drop boats off at the new car-top boat access area on Parker Slough Dike (Figure 1). This new 800-foot long road would allow year-round access for visitors to drop off canoes/kayaks/small boats, turn around and park in the new parking area at the end of 67th Place. As funding permits, the road would be improved with gravel to provide ADA access and the boat access improved to provide ADA access. Approximately 0.55 acres of short-grass field would be impacted.
The proposed NRC site would encompass approximately 11 acres (Figure 2). It already contains the Refuge shop, equipment storage building, fuel tank, storage container, and large heavy equipment maintenance yard. The site was recently expanded in 2015 when three additional acres of forest were cleared to obtain material for the Bear River Estuary Restoration project. For this project, the equipment storage building will be moved, the NRC will be constructed, and approximately 3.7 acres would be cleared to construct the new entrance road (0.4 acres), new road to the car-top boat access on Parker Slough dike/trail (0.55 acres), new road/trail to connect Parker Slough and the South Bay Trail (2.5 acres), and small-scale tree clearing to enhance views of Willapa Bay from the NRC (1.0 acre).
Figure 1. Location of the proposed Natural Resource Center and adjacent trails at Willapa National Wildlife Refuge.
Figure 2. Preliminary site plan for the Natural Resource Center at Willapa National Wildlife Refuge.
5. Summary of effects and the basis for conclusion (e.g., best judgment, literature, citations, studies, etc.).
Bull Trout: Willapa Bay and its tributaries are not designated as critical habitat for bull trout. The only known bull trout occurrence within Willapa Bay and/or its tributaries is not believed to be part of a breeding population. The location was in the Willapa River at the north end of the bay, more than 20 miles north of the project site. No observations of bull trout occur within the project area. Furthermore the small footprint of the project, project timing during lowest stream flows and lowest tides and the use of best management practices will minimize and reduce the duration of the effects of the project. Therefore, it is determined that this proposed action will have no effect on bull trout.
Marbled Murrelet: No marbled murrelet nesting occurs within the project location and there would be no adverse modification to suitable nesting habitats or designated critical habitats. Designated critical habitat is three miles to the northeast of the project area. The nearest known MAMU occupied habitat lies 1.4 miles to the south of the project area. There should be a very low likelihood of direct or indirect adverse effects from disturbance to marbled murrelets flying over the project area during times when project activities are scheduled. The action area is not located near or enroute to any known suitable nesting habitat, nor is it proximal to any frequented foraging areas. Any nominal indirect effects of infrequent fly-overs would be very short-term.
Disturbance to adult and hatchling marbled murrelets during the breeding season have not been well documented and very few studies have investigated disturbance of these birds at their nests. Less is known about disturbance to these birds while away from their nests. Sound levels of lesser amplitude or human presence at farther distances from active nests may have the potential to disturb these species, but have not been clearly shown to cause behaviors that meet the definition of harassment. At this time, only those behaviors associated with active nest sites during the nesting season are considered as potentially indicating harassment (USFWS 2006).
Any negative disturbance effects from this action are anticipated to be negligible, of short duration, and incidental to the project actions. This species may be attracted in the long-term to the adjacent restored forests on the Refuge as they mature and gain structural complexity, tree species diversity, and develop larger stature trees suitable of providing nesting structures. We conclude that the proposed action may affect, but not likely to adversely affect this species and will have no effect on critical habitat.
Northern Spotted Owls are not known to nest in or adjacent to the project area, and it is unknown if NSOs currently utilize this landscape or whether they have been displaced by barred owls (Strix varia). Thus the frequency, intensity, and duration of any possible disturbances to these species would expectedly be negligible. This project will have no effect on NSOs or designated critical habitat.
Western Snowy Plover: There is no suitable or critical habitat within or adjacent to the action area and no western snowy plover have been documented. Therefore, this project will have no effect on western snowy plover or designated critical habitat.
Streak Horned Lark are not known to nest in or adjacent to the project area. No suitable habitat or critical habitat occurs in the project areas. Therefore, this project will have no effect on streaked horned lark or designated critical habitat.
Yellowed-Billed Cuckoo are not known to nest in or adjacent to the project area. No suitable habitat occurs within the project area. Therefore, this project will have no effect on yellow billed cuckoo.
Oregon Silverspot Butterfly: There is no suitable habitat within or adjacent to the action area and no Oregon silverspot butterfly have been documented. Therefore, this project will have no effect on Oregon silverspot butterfly.
6. Project modifications to be implemented that would reduce or eliminate negative effects (take) to the listed species and critical habitat.
All restoration activities in this project will follow best management practices, in-stream construction activities will be conducted within the fish avoidance window and incorporate recommendations identified in the hydrological and geotechnical assessments and use various techniques to minimize amount and duration of siltation within the channel. These practices combined with the small footprint of the project will minimize and reduce the duration of the effects of the project.
Since changes to the native forests predate the proposed development of the Natural Resource Center there are limited options for project modifications that would affect forest-dwelling listed species. However, there are several design aspects that may reduce future secondary or indirect effects from the project as the surrounding forests mature and become more suitable for marbled murrelets and spotted owls. Exterior lighting from buildings and on-site utilities will be designed to improve nighttime visibility through reducing sky-glow, enhancing glare reduction, and reducing the consequences of development for wildlife and people. Exterior lighting at the NRC site would be used only as required for safety and comfort as specified under the LEED design classification LZ1 (IESNA RP-33). The NRC site design elements will also incorporate wildlife resistant garbage cans and large capacity dumpsters around buildings and at trailheads to minimize attracting nuisance and potentially dangerous wildlife. Well managed on-site sanitation and the use of wildlife resistant trash receptacles can also avoid attracting known marbled murrelet nest predators such as corvids.
Part 4 – Literature Cited
Damiani, C. 2011. Analysis of oviposition site selection of the Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta). Final report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Field Office. Institute for Wildlife Studies, Arcata, California.
Lance, M. M., and S. F. Pearson. 2016. Washington 2015 at-sea marbled murrelet population monitoring: Research Progress Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division, Olympia, Washington. 17 pp.
Stinson, D.W. 2005. Washington State status report for the Mazama pocket gopher, streaked horned lark, and Taylor’s checkerspot. Olympia, Washington. Xii + 129 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. Portland, Oregon. 203 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) revised recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 113 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Estimating the effects of auditory and visual disturbance to northern spotted owls and marbled murrelets in northwestern California. Memorandum 8-14-2006-2887. Arcata, California. 17 pp. plus appendices.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 20071. Recovery plan for the Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrines nivosus), In 2 volumes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. 751 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 20072. Department of the Interior/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Standard Suite of Facilities. Prepared by Oak Point Associates. 10 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Final Recovery plan for the northern spotted owl, Strix occidentalis caurina. Portland, Oregon. xii +142 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revising Critical Habitat for Bull Trout. 75 FR 63898 – 2010, October 18.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 20111. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge final comprehensive conservation plan and environmental impact statement, In 2 Volumes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ilwaco, Washington. 499 pp. plus appendices.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 20112. Record of Decision for the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation plan and Environmental Impact Statement.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 20113. Threatened and endangered species short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 20131. Species fact sheet streaked horned lark Eremophila alpestris strigata.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 20132. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened Status for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow- Billed Cuckoo. 78 FR 78321 – 2013, December 26.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment.