DOCSLIB.ORG

Skillem Integrated Resource Restoration Project EA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Skillem Integrated Resource Restoration Project EA United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Skillem Integrated Resource Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Tiller Ranger District, Umpqua National Forest, Douglas County, Oregon December 2019 Responsible Official: Kathleen Minor Tiller Ranger District, Umpqua National Forest 27812 Tiller Trail Highway Tiller, OR 97484 Phone: (541) 825-3100 For More Information Contact: Elsa Gustavson Umpqua National Forest 18782 North Umpqua Hwy Glide, OR 97443 Phone: (541) 496-4169 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.), should contact the Agency (State or local) where they applied for benefits. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities may contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, (AD-3027) found online at: How to File a Complaint, and at any USDA office, or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider. i Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................1 Proposed Project Location .....................................................................................................................................1 Need for the Proposal .................................................................................................................................................3 Improve Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat .........................................................................................................3 Improve Forest Health............................................................................................................................................4 Reduce Susceptibility to Catastrophic Wildfire .....................................................................................................4 Other Goals ............................................................................................................................................................5 Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation ..............................................................................................................5 Agencies and Persons Consulted ...........................................................................................................................5 Issues and Concerns Raised During Scoping .........................................................................................................6 Issues that Drove Alternative Development .......................................................................................................6 Other Issues ........................................................................................................................................................6 Results of the Comment Period ..........................................................................................................................8 Proposed Action and Alternatives ..............................................................................................................................8 Alternative 1 – No Action ......................................................................................................................................8 Alternative 2 – Scoping Proposal ...........................................................................................................................9 Transportation System Changes .........................................................................................................................9 Thinning and Fuels Treatments ........................................................................................................................14 Wildlife Habitat Improvement..........................................................................................................................23 Other Project Actions .......................................................................................................................................24 Alternative 3 – Proposed Action ..........................................................................................................................24 Connected Actions ...............................................................................................................................................28 Noxious Weed Treatments ...............................................................................................................................28 Quarry Development ........................................................................................................................................28 Project Design Features........................................................................................................................................28 Monitoring ...........................................................................................................................................................36 Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................................................................38 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ........................................................................39 Alternative A ....................................................................................................................................................39 Alternative B ....................................................................................................................................................39 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ............................................................................40 Activities that May Contribute to Cumulative Effects .........................................................................................40 Ongoing Activities, Umpqua National Forest ..................................................................................................40 Private Land Activities .....................................................................................................................................42 Future Foreseeable Activities, Umpqua National Forest ..................................................................................42 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................................43 Summary of Effects to Resource ......................................................................................................................43 Methodology.....................................................................................................................................................43 Affected Environment ......................................................................................................................................44 Direct and Indirect Effects ................................................................................................................................49 Cumulative Effects ...........................................................................................................................................57 Fire and Fuels .......................................................................................................................................................58 Methodology.....................................................................................................................................................58 Affected Environment ......................................................................................................................................61 Direct and Indirect Effects ................................................................................................................................64 Cumulative Effects ...........................................................................................................................................69
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road
    Item 3a - Sensitive Species National Master List By Region and Species Group Not likely to have habitat within IRAs Not likely to have Federal Likely to have habitat that DO NOT ALLOW habitat within IRAs Candidate within IRAs that DO Likely to have habitat road (re)construction that ALLOW road Forest Service Species Under NOT ALLOW road within IRAs that ALLOW but could be (re)construction but Species Scientific Name Common Name Species Group Region ESA (re)construction? road (re)construction? affected? could be affected? Bufo boreas boreas Boreal Western Toad Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Plethodon vandykei idahoensis Coeur D'Alene Salamander Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow Bird 1 No No Yes No No Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit Bird 1 No No Yes No No Centrocercus urophasianus Sage Grouse Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Gavia immer Common Loon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides albolarvatus White-Headed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides arcticus Black-Backed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing
    [Show full text]
  • Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources
    OREGON GUIDELINES FOR TIMING OF IN-WATER WORK TO PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES June, 2008 Purpose of Guidelines - The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, (ODFW), “The guidelines are to assist under its authority to manage Oregon’s fish and wildlife resources has updated the following guidelines for timing of in-water work. The guidelines are to assist the the public in minimizing public in minimizing potential impacts to important fish, wildlife and habitat potential impacts...”. resources. Developing the Guidelines - The guidelines are based on ODFW district fish “The guidelines are based biologists’ recommendations. Primary considerations were given to important fish species including anadromous and other game fish and threatened, endangered, or on ODFW district fish sensitive species (coded list of species included in the guidelines). Time periods were biologists’ established to avoid the vulnerable life stages of these fish including migration, recommendations”. spawning and rearing. The preferred work period applies to the listed streams, unlisted upstream tributaries, and associated reservoirs and lakes. Using the Guidelines - These guidelines provide the public a way of planning in-water “These guidelines provide work during periods of time that would have the least impact on important fish, wildlife, and habitat resources. ODFW will use the guidelines as a basis for the public a way of planning commenting on planning and regulatory processes. There are some circumstances where in-water work during it may be appropriate to perform in-water work outside of the preferred work period periods of time that would indicated in the guidelines. ODFW, on a project by project basis, may consider variations in climate, location, and category of work that would allow more specific have the least impact on in-water work timing recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre and Post-Fire Monitoring of Kalmiopsis Fragrans on the Umpqua National Forest 2012 Progress Report
    Pre and post-fire monitoring of Kalmiopsis fragrans on the Umpqua National Forest 2012 progress report Prepared by Kelly Amsberry, Amy Golub-Tse, and Robert Meinke for U.S. Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest (No. 04-CS-11061500-027) March 18, 2013 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Species description ............................................................................................................................. 2 Habitat ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Threats ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Project 1: Wildfire study ......................................................................................................................... 4 Project 2: Prescribed fire study ............................................................................................................. 5 2014 Tasks .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin of the Native Plant Society of Oregon Dedicated to the Enjoyment, Conservation and Study of Oregon’S Native Plants and Habitats
    Bulletin of the Native Plant Society of Oregon Dedicated to the enjoyment, conservation and study of Oregon’s native plants and habitats VOLUME 50, NO. 7 AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2017 2017 Annual Meeting Recap: Land of Umpqua For an in-depth recap and photos of one Roseburg locales, and Wolf Creek. On Susan Carter (botanist with the Rose- of this year’s annual meeting field trips, Saturday, nine trips included hikes to burg BLM office), Marty Stein (USFS visit Tanya Harvey’s “Plants and Places” Beatty Creek, Bilger Ridge, Fall Creek botanist), and Rod Trotter. blog, westerncascades.com/2017/06/21/ Falls, Hemlock Lake, King Mountain, Field trip participants were treated weather-woes-at-hemlock-lake Limpy Rock, Lookout Mountain, Tah- to views of the regionally unique en- NPSO members traveled to the kenitch Dunes, and Twin Lakes. Partici- demic species, including Calochortus Land of Umpqua June 9–11 for the pants at higher locations were treated coxii (crinite mariposa lily, named for 2017 Annual Meeting, jointly hosted by to a little snow (just enough to enhance Marvin Cox), Calochortus umpquaensis the Umpqua Valley and Corvallis Chap- the fun) but those at lower sites found (Umpqua mariposa lily), and Kalmiopsis ters. This location, situated at a “botani- primarily pleasant (if a bit drizzly) fragrans (fragrant kalmiopsis) along with cal crossroads” between the California weather. Sunday’s adventures trekked the threatened Lupinus oreganus (Kin- Floristic Province and the Vancouverian to the North Bank Preserve, Roseburg caid’s lupine). Noting some highlights Floristic Province, combined with par- locales, Wolf Creek, Beatty Creek, and from one trip, Gail Baker reports from ticular geological formations, allowed Bilger Ridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Arthropod Diversity and Conservation in Old-Growth Northwest Forests'
    AMER. ZOOL., 33:578-587 (1993) Arthropod Diversity and Conservation in Old-Growth mon et al., 1990; Hz Northwest Forests complex litter layer 1973; Lattin, 1990; JOHN D. LATTIN and other features Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Department of Entomology, Oregon State University, tural diversity of th Corvallis, Oregon 97331-2907 is reflected by the 14 found there (Lawtt SYNOPSIS. Old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest extend along the 1990; Parsons et a. e coastal region from southern Alaska to northern California and are com- While these old posed largely of conifer rather than hardwood tree species. Many of these ity over time and trees achieve great age (500-1,000 yr). Natural succession that follows product of sever: forest stand destruction normally takes over 100 years to reach the young through successioi mature forest stage. This succession may continue on into old-growth for (Lattin, 1990). Fire centuries. The changing structural complexity of the forest over time, and diseases, are combined with the many different plant species that characterize succes- bances. The prolot sion, results in an array of arthropod habitats. It is estimated that 6,000 a continually char arthropod species may be found in such forests—over 3,400 different ments and habitat species are known from a single 6,400 ha site in Oregon. Our knowledge (Southwood, 1977 of these species is still rudimentary and much additional work is needed Lawton, 1983). throughout this vast region. Many of these species play critical roles in arthropods have lx the dynamics of forest ecosystems. They are important in nutrient cycling, old-growth site, tt as herbivores, as natural predators and parasites of other arthropod spe- mental Forest (HJ cies.
    [Show full text]
  • A Bill to Designate Certain National Forest System Lands in the State of Oregon for Inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and for Other Purposes
    97 H.R.7340 Title: A bill to designate certain National Forest System lands in the State of Oregon for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Weaver, James H. [OR-4] (introduced 12/1/1982) Cosponsors (2) Latest Major Action: 12/15/1982 Failed of passage/not agreed to in House. Status: Failed to Receive 2/3's Vote to Suspend and Pass by Yea-Nay Vote: 247 - 141 (Record Vote No: 454). SUMMARY AS OF: 12/9/1982--Reported to House amended, Part I. (There is 1 other summary) (Reported to House from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs with amendment, H.Rept. 97-951 (Part I)) Oregon Wilderness Act of 1982 - Designates as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System the following lands in the State of Oregon: (1) the Columbia Gorge Wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest; (2) the Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest; (3) the Badger Creek Wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest; (4) the Hidden Wilderness in the Mount Hood and Willamette National Forests; (5) the Middle Santiam Wilderness in the Willamette National Forest; (6) the Rock Creek Wilderness in the Siuslaw National Forest; (7) the Cummins Creek Wilderness in the Siuslaw National Forest; (8) the Boulder Creek Wilderness in the Umpqua National Forest; (9) the Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness in the Umpqua and Rogue River National Forests; (10) the Grassy Knob Wilderness in and adjacent to the Siskiyou National Forest; (11) the Red Buttes Wilderness in and adjacent to the Siskiyou
    [Show full text]
  • List of Insect Species Which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists
    Conservation Biology Research Grants Program Division of Ecological Services © Minnesota Department of Natural Resources List of Insect Species which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists Final Report to the USFWS Cooperating Agencies July 1, 1996 Catherine Reed Entomology Department 219 Hodson Hall University of Minnesota St. Paul MN 55108 phone 612-624-3423 e-mail [email protected] This study was funded in part by a grant from the USFWS and Cooperating Agencies. Table of Contents Summary.................................................................................................. 2 Introduction...............................................................................................2 Methods.....................................................................................................3 Results.....................................................................................................4 Discussion and Evaluation................................................................................................26 Recommendations....................................................................................29 References..............................................................................................33 Summary Approximately 728 insect and allied species and subspecies were considered to be possible prairie specialists based on any of the following criteria: defined as prairie specialists by authorities; required prairie plant species or genera as their adult or larval food; were obligate predators, parasites
    [Show full text]
  • OR Wild -Backmatter V2
    208 OREGON WILD Afterword JIM CALLAHAN One final paragraph of advice: do not burn yourselves out. Be as I am — a reluctant enthusiast.... a part-time crusader, a half-hearted fanatic. Save the other half of your- selves and your lives for pleasure and adventure. It is not enough to fight for the land; it is even more important to enjoy it. While you can. While it is still here. So get out there and hunt and fish and mess around with your friends, ramble out yonder and explore the forests, climb the mountains, bag the peaks, run the rivers, breathe deep of that yet sweet and lucid air, sit quietly for awhile and contemplate the precious still- ness, the lovely mysterious and awesome space. Enjoy yourselves, keep your brain in your head and your head firmly attached to the body, the body active and alive and I promise you this much: I promise you this one sweet victory over our enemies, over those desk-bound men with their hearts in a safe-deposit box and their eyes hypnotized by desk calculators. I promise you this: you will outlive the bastards. —Edward Abbey1 Edward Abbey. Ed, take it from another Ed, not only can wilderness lovers outlive wilderness opponents, we can also defeat them. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (sic) UNIVERSITY, SHREVEPORT UNIVERSITY, to do nothing. MES SMITH NOEL COLLECTION, NOEL SMITH MES NOEL COLLECTION, MEMORIAL LIBRARY, LOUISIANA STATE LOUISIANA LIBRARY, MEMORIAL —Edmund Burke2 JA Edmund Burke. 1 Van matre, Steve and Bill Weiler.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law 98-328-June 26, 1984
    98 STAT. 272 PUBLIC LAW 98-328-JUNE 26, 1984 Public Law 98-328 98th Congress An Act June 26, 1984 To designate certain national forest system and other lands in the State of Oregon for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, and for other purposes. [H.R. 1149] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Oregon United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled, That this Act may Wilderness Act be referred to as the "Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984". of 1984. National SEc. 2. (a) The Congress finds that- Wilderness (1) many areas of undeveloped National Forest System land in Preservation the State of Oregon possess outstanding natural characteristics System. which give them high value as wilderness and will, if properly National Forest preserved, contribute as an enduring resource of wilderness for System. the ben~fit of the American people; (2) the Department of Agriculture's second roadless area review and evaluation (RARE II) of National Forest System lands in the State of Oregon and the related congressional review of such lands have identified areas which, on the basis of their landform, ecosystem, associated wildlife, and location, will help to fulfill the National Forest System's share of a quality National Wilderness Preservation System; and (3) the Department of Agriculture's second roadless area review and evaluation of National Forest System lands in the State of Oregon and the related congressional review of such lands have also identified areas which do not possess outstand­ ing wilderness attributes or which possess outstanding energy, mineral, timber, grazing, dispersed recreation and other values and which should not now be designated as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System but should be avail­ able for nonwilderness multiple uses under the land manage­ ment planning process and other applicable laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Mineral Resources of Douglas County
    STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL INDUSTRIES 1069 State Office Building Portland, Oregon 97201 BU LLE TIN 75 GEOLOGY & MINERAL RESOURCES of DOUGLAS COUNTY, OREGON Le n Ra mp Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries The preparation of this report was financially aided by a grant from Doug I as County GOVERNING BOARD R. W. deWeese, Portland, Chairman William E. Miller, Bend Donald G. McGregor, Grants Pass STATE GEOLOGIST R. E. Corcoran FOREWORD Douglas County has a history of mining operations extending back for more than 100 years. During this long time interval there is recorded produc­ tion of gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, mercury, and nickel, plus lesser amounts of other metalliferous ores. The only nickel mine in the United States, owned by The Hanna Mining Co., is located on Nickel Mountain, approxi­ mately 20 miles south of Roseburg. The mine and smelter have operated con­ tinuously since 1954 and provide year-round employment for more than 500 people. Sand and gravel production keeps pace with the local construction needs. It is estimated that the total value of all raw minerals produced in Douglas County during 1972 will exceed $10, 000, 000 . This bulletin is the first in a series of reports to be published by the Department that will describe the general geology of each county in the State and provide basic information on mineral resources. It is particularly fitting that the first of the series should be Douglas County since it is one of the min­ eral leaders in the state and appears to have considerable potential for new discoveries during the coming years.
    [Show full text]
  • Umpqua National Forest
    Travel Management Plan ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Umpqua National Forest Pacific March 2010 Northwest Region The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LEAD AGENCY USDA Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest COOPERATING AGENCY Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL Clifford J. Dils, Forest Supervisor Umpqua National Forest 2900 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, OR 97471 Phone: 541-957-3200 FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT Scott Elefritz, Natural Resource Specialist Umpqua National Forest 2900 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, OR 97471 Phone: 541-957-3437 email: [email protected] Electronic comments can be mailed to: comments-pacificnorthwest- [email protected] i ABSTRACT On November 9, 2005, the Forest Service published final travel management regulations in the Federal Register (FR Vol. 70, No. 216-Nov. 9, 2005, pp 68264- 68291) (Final Rule). The final rule revised regulations 36 CFR 212, 251, 261 and 295 to require national forests and grasslands to designate a system of roads, trails and areas open to motor vehicle use by class of vehicle and, if appropriate, time of year.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix F.7
    APPENDIX F.7 Biological Evaluation Appendix F.7 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project Biological Evaluation March 2019 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. Reviewed and Approved by: USDA Forest Service BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION This page intentionally left blank BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES .................................................... 1 PRE-FIELD REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 4 RESULTS OF FIELD SURVEYS ...................................................................................... 4 SPECIES IMPACT DETERMINATION SUMMARY .......................................................... 5 DETAILED EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ON SPECIES CONSIDERED ............ 25 6.1 Global Discussion ........................................................................................................ 25 6.1.1 Analysis Areas and Current Environment ............................................................. 25 6.1.2 Impacts .................................................................................................................. 33 6.1.3 Conservation Measures and Mitigation ................................................................. 62 6.2 Species Accounts and Analysis of Impacts ................................................................. 63 6.2.1 Mammals ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]