DOCSLIB.ORG

North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River Environmental Assessment NORW UMPQUA WII), AND SCENIC RIVER Environmental Assessment AWildUtJdMenicrivaenvirrmrnentcrlarceJstnantdevebpedjoinCIyby:. U. S. DEPT OF AGRlCUIXURE U.S. DEPT. ;Eu Ib$‘EIXIO; FOREST SERVICE Pa&k Northwest Region gg @ TqjT Umpqua National Forest OREGON STATE PARKS Q RECREATION DEPARTMENT JULY 1992 Environmental Assessment North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River Table ofContents CHAPTER I Purpoee and Need for Action.. ............................................................................... 1 Purpcee and Need/Proposed Action .............................................................................................I Background...................................................................................................................................... .1 Management Goal ...........................................................................................................................2 Scoping ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Outstandingly Remarkable Values ................................................................................................5 l.ssues................................................................................................................................................ 5 CHAPTER II Affected Envlronment .............................................................................................7 Setting............................................................................................................................................... .7 Climate/Geology ..............................................................................................................................7 Hydrology.. ........................................................................................................................................a Fish ................................................................................................................................................16 Wildlife.............................................................................................................................................26 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................29 Timber............................................................................................................................................. 30 Guttural ..........................................................................................................................................32 Recreation ....................................................................................................................................34 Scenery ..........................................................................................................................................45 Land Ownership and Uses ......................................................................................................... 46 Access Within the Corridor ......................................................................................................... 49 Minerals ..........................................................................................................................................50 Energy and Utilization ..................................................................................................................50 Fire ................................................................................................................................................ 51 Congressional Designations......................................................................................................... 51 Tribal Considerations .................................................................................................................. 51 CHAPTER Ill Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 53 Overview of the Alternatives......................................................................................................... 53 Elements Common to All Aiternatives ....................................................................................... 53 Description ot the Alternatives .................................................................................. ................. 56 Boundary Process ........................................................................................................................66 Project Proposals...........................................................................................................................70 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Conslderation .................................... 74 CHAPTER Iv Environmental Conaaquenoas ........................................................................... 75 water ............................................................................................................................................. 75 Fish ................................................................................................................................................ 77 Cultural .......................................................................................................................................... 64 Recreation ....................................................................................................................................85 Scenery ..........................................................................................................................................86 Vegetation .................................................................................................................................... 67 Wildlife/Plants ................................................................................................................................. 67 6ocbEconomic ........................................................................................................................... 67 Boundary ....................................................................................................................................... 69 Prhrate Landowners ..................................................................................................................... 69 APPENDIX A Dbxaalon of Oubtendlngly Remarkable Reeouroe Valuw ........................ 91 .~_ APPENDIX B Site Speclflc ProJecl Propoeab ........................................................................1Oi _ APPENDIX C Glaeealy.. ...............................................................................................................113. APPENDIX D Llel of Preparen ..................................................................................................127. APPENDIX E Referencea ...........................................................................................................129. APPENDIX F Comutetlon end Aeeletanw from Others ......................................................133 -, .- - CHAPTER I Purpose and Need for Action _-:, Purpose and The proposed action ls the development ofa comprehensive rivermanagement NeedlProposed plan for the North Umpqua River as the result of Congressional designation Action via the Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic RhrersAct of 1955. The decisions _. to be made include: � Methods to protect and enhance outstandingly remarkable dyer-related values. ,- � Determination of the boundary. Planning for National Forests and SLM lands has two levels. The first level of planning, the programmaticlevel, is ths Forest Plan and Resource Management Plan. This level provides area-wide analysis and management standards and guidelines. This rker management piannlng process fails within this catagory. r. The second level of planning is s5e-specifk project planning. Projectsidentified in this river planning process must go through this level of NEPA analysis before implementation. *. The results of this process will require an amendment to the Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Background Recognizing the need to protect outstanding free4kwing rivers, Congress passed the Wild and Scenic RhrersAct in I93B. To complement the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers AU, the State of Oregon passed the Oregon Scenic - Waterways AU in 19B9 to preserve free4iowfng rkers and their associated sign5icant resource vafues and to prctect the property rights of adjacent landowners. in 1978, the US Forest Service adopted their decadal Land Use Plan (LMP) which spec5ied that the North Umpqua Rhrerwould be managed as a Wild and Scenic River even though it had not yet been designated. In 1993, the __ BLM adopted their Resource Management Plan (RMP) and took the same actkn. In 19513,the State of Oregon conducted an evaiuatkn of the scenic waterway potentiai of the North Umpqua River from slackwater at Wkchester Dam to Soda Spdngs Dam. The evaiuatkn process sewed to eliminate river segments that did not fulfill, in an outstanding manner, the scenk waterway criteria as depicted by the Oregon Scenk Waterways Act. The study concluded that a 33.5-rniie segment of the North Umpqua Rfver, from Rock Creek to Soda Springs Powerhouse, met the qua5fkatkns for State scenic waterway designation as outlined by ORS 399.855. The segment was recommended - for inclusion in the Oregon Scenic Waterway system because it possessed 1 r - Chapter I _~ outstanding
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • ON TAP “Drinking Water You Can Trust”
    ON TAP “Drinking Water You Can Trust” Vol. 24 Issue 1 March 1, 2010 2009 YEAR IN REVIEW 2009 was a year of slow growth for Umpqua Basin Water Association, Inc. Our membership grew with the addition of 4 new members. We had 19 new members join the Association but, we lost 15 members. Your Association grew to a total of 3,240 members. CURRENT AND PLANNED SYSTEM UPGRADES In 2009 your Association completed one of its largest projects to date. We replaced the water mainline that was hanging on Browns Bridge with a 950’, 22” HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) line, under the North Umpqua River. This new mainline has a life expectancy that will probably outlast the next two new bridges. ODOT and Douglas County are in the development stages of a new overpass that will be replacing the current Del Rio Rd over pass (exit 129). At this time UBWA is considering where our current line, which is attached to the current over pass, will be located. We are currently working with all the landowners, Douglas County, ODOT and others in this process. THE NORTH UMPQUA RIVER The North Umpqua River is a tributary of the Umpqua River, approximately 100 miles long, in southwestern Oregon in the United States. It drains a scenic and rugged area of the Cascade Range southwest of Eugene, flowing through steep canyons and surrounded by large Douglas fir forests. The North Umpqua River rises in the high Cascades, issuing from Maidu Lake at an elevation of 5,980 feet in the Mount Thielsen Wilderness.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Oregon Plan Assessment- Hydropower Program
    Part 4(C) ODFW (8) Hydro Final Report May 6, 2005 OREGON PLAN ASSESSMENT- HYDROPOWER PROGRAM OREGON COAST COHO SALMON ESU Perspective The impacts to coho salmon populations from hydroelectric projects are variable among stream basins or within evolutionarily significant units (ESU). Hydropower development within the Oregon Coastal Coho ESU has not been as extensive as within other ESU’s, and impacts are not a significant issue within this ESU, except in the Umpqua River Basin where two major hydroelectric projects have been constructed. These are PacifiCorp’s North Umpqua project (FERC 1927) and Douglas County’s Galesville project (FERC 7161). Both projects were constructed without fish passage facilities and prevent anadromous fish, including coho salmon, from accessing approximately 8 miles of historical habitat in the upper North Umpqua River (North Umpqua project) and 28 miles in Cow Creek (Galesville project), a tributary to the South Umpqua. There are five other small non-FERC licensed hydroelectric projects within this ESU which have hydroelectric licenses authorized by the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). All are outside of coho spawning, rearing and migration corridors. ESU Perspective Conclusion Generally, within the majority of the ESU, impacts from hydroelectric projects are insignificant or non-existent. Specifically, within the Umpqua basin, Oregon Coastal coho have been prevented from reaching 36 miles of spawning and rearing habitat by hydroelectric projects. Impacts to downstream reaches include; alteration of flows and interruption of natural sediment and large woody debris regimes. Mitigation measures have already been implemented and additional measures will be implemented as part of hydroelectric project relicensing and reauthorization.
    [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]
  • The Distribution and Relative Abundance of Spawning and Larval Pacific Lamprey in the Willamette River Basin
    The distribution and relative abundance of spawning and larval Pacific lamprey in the Willamette River Basin Final Report to the Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish Commission for project years 2011-2014 May 2014 Prepared by Luke Schultz1* Mariah P. Mayfield1, 2 Gabriel T. Sheoships1 Lance A. Wyss3 Benjamin J. Clemens4 Brandon Chasco5 and Carl B. Schreck6 (P.I.) CRITFC Contract number C13-11 Fiscal Year 2013 (May 1, 2013-April 30, 2014) BPA Contract number 60877 BPA Project number 2008-524-00 1Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, U. S. Geological Survey, 104 Nash Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331 *E-mail: [email protected]; phone: 541-737-1964 2current address: Rural Aquaculture Promotion, Peace Corps, Lusaka, Zambia 3current address: Calapooia, North Santiam, and South Santiam Watershed Councils Brownsville, OR 4current address: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR Corvallis, OR 97331 5Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 104 Nash Hall, Oregon State University 6USGS, Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 104 Nash Hall Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331. [email protected] Acknowledgements Funding for this study was provided by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission through the Columbia Basin Fish Accords partnership with the Bonneville Power Administration under project 2008-524-00, Brian McIlraith, project manager. Fieldwork assistance was generously provided by J. Doyle, B. Gregorie, B. McIlraith, K. Kuhn, V. Mayfield, R. McCoun, J. Sáenz, L. Schwabe, K. McDonnell and C. Christianson. B. Heinith, J. Peterson, B. Gerth, G. Giannico, J. Jolley, G.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality and Algal Conditions in the North Umpqua River Basin, Oregon, 1992–95, and Implications for Resource Management
    Cover photograph: North Umpqua River above Copeland Creek and Old Man Rock, summer 1994. (Photograph by Chauncey W. Anderson, U.S. Geological Survey.) Water-Quality and Algal Conditions in the North Umpqua River Basin, Oregon, 1992–95, and Implications for Resource Management By CHAUNCEY W. ANDERSON and KURT D. CARPENTER U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 98–4125 Prepared in cooperation with Douglas County Portland, Oregon 1998 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas J. Casadevall, Acting Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For addtional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey, WRD Branch of Information Services 10615 S. E. Cherry Blossom Drive Box 25286 Portland, Oregon 97216-3159 Federal Center E-mail: [email protected] Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Abstract........................................................................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................2 Background ...................................................................................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River Environmental Assessment
    NORW UMPQUA WII), AND SCENIC RIVER Environmental Assessment AWildUtJdMenicrivaenvirrmrnentcrlarceJstnantdevebpedjoinCIyby:. U. S. DEPT OF AGRlCUIXURE U.S. DEPT. ;Eu Ib$‘EIXIO; FOREST SERVICE Pa&k Northwest Region gg @ TqjT Umpqua National Forest OREGON STATE PARKS Q RECREATION DEPARTMENT JULY 1992 Environmental Assessment North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River Table ofContents CHAPTER I Purpoee and Need for Action.. ............................................................................... 1 Purpcee and Need/Proposed Action .............................................................................................I Background...................................................................................................................................... .1 Management Goal ...........................................................................................................................2 Scoping ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Outstandingly Remarkable Values ................................................................................................5 l.ssues................................................................................................................................................ 5 CHAPTER II Affected Envlronment .............................................................................................7 Setting..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Thundering Waters
    CoolCool ClearClear WaterWater ThunderingThundering WWatersaters Umpqua National Forest Roseburg District Bureau of Land Management Welcome! Ron Murphy Lemolo Falls (low flow) TThishis bbrochurerochure iiss a ccooperativeooperative pprojectroject ddevelopedeveloped bbyy tthehe RRoseburgoseburg DDistrictistrict BBureauureau ooff LLandand MManagementanagement aandnd tthehe UUmpquampqua NNationalational FForest,orest, wwithith aassistancessistance ffromrom tthehe RRoseburgoseburg VVisitorsisitors aandnd CConventiononvention BBureau.ureau. Roseburg District, (541) 440-4930 Bureau of Land Management 777 NW Garden Valley Blvd. Roseburg, OR 97470 www.or.blm.gov/roseburg (brochure downloadable here) Umpqua National Forest (541) 672-6601 2900 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, OR 97470 North Umpqua Ranger District (541) 496-3532 Diamond Lake Ranger District (541) 498-2531 Cottage Grove Ranger District (541) 767-5000 Tiller Ranger District (541) 825-3100 www.fs.fed.us/r6/umpqua Roseburg Visitors (541) 672-9731 ToketeeToketee FallsFalls and Convention Bureau 410 SE Spruce Street U.S.U.S. DEPARTMENTDEPARTMENT OFOF TTHEHE INTERIORINTERIOR Roseburg, OR 97470 BBUREAUUREAU OFOF LANDLAND MANAGEMENTMANAGEMENT www.visitroseburg.com BLM/OR/WA/G1-99/027+4800 UMP-05-01 2/05 Cover Photo: Dave Lines North Umpqua River Waterfalls Umpqua National Forest 23 Roseburg BLM 26-3-1 Picnic/Day-use Area r Campground C 38 78 nt n Cr Rock Creek Ca o Lone Pine Cr Scaredman 11 Steamboat Falls Rock Creek Millpond 10 at 17 2610 Fish Hatchery Rock Canton Cr. Sambote Swiftwater R Island
    [Show full text]
  • History, Ecology and Restoration Potential of Salmonid Fishes in the Umpqua River, Oregon
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2012 History, Ecology and Restoration Potential of Salmonid Fishes in the Umpqua River, Oregon Kelly Crispen Coates The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Coates, Kelly Crispen, "History, Ecology and Restoration Potential of Salmonid Fishes in the Umpqua River, Oregon" (2012). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 519. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/519 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. History, Ecology and Restoration Potential of Salmonid Fishes in the Umpqua River, Oregon by: Kelly Crispen Coates B.S. The University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, 2005 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Science in Organismal Biology and Ecology University of Montana Missoula, MT August, 2012 Approved by: J.B. Alexander Ross, PhD, Associate Dean of the Graduate School Jack A. Stanford Chair Division of Biological Sciences Winsor H. Lowe Division of Biological Sciences Lisa A. Eby Wildlife Biology Bonnie K. Ellis Flathead Lake Biological Station Abstract Coates, Kelly M.S. August, 2012 Organismal Biology and Ecology History, Ecology and Restoration Potential of Salmonid Fishes in the Umpqua River, Oregon Chair: Jack A.
    [Show full text]
  • Klamath Mountains Ecoregion
    Ecoregions: Klamath Mountains Ecoregion Photo © Bruce Newhouse Klamath Mountains Ecoregion Getting to Know the Klamath Mountains Ecoregion example, there are more kinds of cone-bearing trees found in the Klam- ath Mountains ecoregion than anywhere else in North America. In all, The Oregon portion of the Klamath Mountains ecoregion covers much there are about 4000 native plants in Oregon, and about half of these of southwestern Oregon, including the Umpqua Mountains, Siskiyou are found in the Klamath Mountains ecoregion. The ecoregion is noted Mountains and interior valleys and foothills between these and the as an Area of Global Botanical Significance (one of only seven in North Cascade Range. Several popular and scenic rivers run through the America) and world “Centre of Plant Diversity” by the World Conserva- ecoregion, including: the Umpqua, Rogue, Illinois, and Applegate. tion Union. The ecoregion boasts many unique invertebrates, although Within the ecoregion, there are wide ranges in elevation, topography, many of these are not as well studied as their plant counterparts. geology, and climate. The elevation ranges from about 600 to more than 7400 feet, from steep mountains and canyons to gentle foothills and flat valley bottoms. This variation along with the varied marine influence support a climate that ranges from the lush, rainy western portion of the ecoregion to the dry, warmer interior valleys and cold snowy mountains. Unlike other parts of Oregon, the landscape of the Klamath Mountains ecoregion has not been significantly shaped by volcanism. The geology of the Klamath Mountains can better be described as a mosaic rather than the layer-cake geology of most of the rest of the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Invasive Species Surveys of Pacificorp's North Umpqua River
    Portland State University PDXScholar Center for Lakes and Reservoirs Publications and Presentations Center for Lakes and Reservoirs 2-2013 Aquatic Invasive Species Surveys of Pacificorp’s North Umpqua River Impoundments Rich Miller Portland State University, [email protected] Mark D. Sytsma Portland State University, [email protected] Vanessa Howard Morgan Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/centerforlakes_pub Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons, and the Fresh Water Studies Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Miller, Rich; Sytsma, Mark D.; and Morgan, Vanessa Howard, "Aquatic Invasive Species Surveys of Pacificorp’s North Umpqua River Impoundments" (2013). Center for Lakes and Reservoirs Publications and Presentations. 27. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/centerforlakes_pub/27 This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Center for Lakes and Reservoirs Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY Aquatic Invasive Species Surveys of Pacificorp’s North Umpqua River Impoundments 2012 Report R. Miller, M. Sytsma and V. Morgan. Portland State University Center for Lakes and Reservoirs February, 2013 Aquatic Invasive Species Surveys of Pacificorp’s North Umpqua River Impoundments, 2012 Report. Table of Contents 1. Abstract .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • North Umpqua Hydroelectric Project
    NORTH UMPQUA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC No. P-1927 Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures 2017 Annual Report June 2018 North Umpqua Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-1927) 2017 Annual Report _____________________________________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Resource Coordination Committee ....................................................................................... 4 1.3 Report Organization and Review .......................................................................................... 4 2.0 RESOURCE COORDINATION COMMITTEE ................................................................ 5 2.1 RCC Roles and Responsibilities ........................................................................................... 5 2.2 RCC Members ...................................................................................................................... 7 2.3 RCC Meetings ....................................................................................................................... 7 3.0 PROTECTION, MITIGATION, AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES ....................... 10 3.1 Implementation of PM&E Measures .................................................................................. 10 3.1.1 Noteworthy
    [Show full text]