DOCSLIB.ORG

Elk Creek Watershed Restoration Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Elk Creek Watershed Restoration Project Biological Evaluation Including Survey and Manage, Migratory Bird / Landbirds report, Management Indicator Species, and Coarse Woody Debris United States Elk Creek Watershed Department of Agriculture Forest Restoration Project Service Pacific Northwest Umpqua National Forest Region Douglas County, Oregon January 2017 For more information, contact: Andre M. Silva- 541-825-3100 Tiller District Wildlife Biologist Tiller Ranger District 27812 Tiller Trail Hwy Tiller Oregon, 97484 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 2 Printed on recycled paper in January, 2017. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................ 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................. 8 LOCATION.................................................................................................................................................. 8 PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................................................... 9 Alternative 1 -- No Action ......................................................................................................................... 9 Alternative 2 -- Proposed Action ......................................................................................................... 9 Connected and Similar Actions .......................................................................................................... 12 GRAY WOLF – Canis lupus ........................................................................................................................... 13 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ................................................................................................. 13 FISHER – Pekania pennanti ......................................................................................................................... 18 NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL – Strix occidentalis caurina .............................................................................. 18 Stouts Creek Fire and Impacts to Spotted Owl Habitat .......................................................................... 20 REVISED RECOVERY PLAN CONSISTENCY .................................................................................................... 24 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE-...................................................................................................................... 25 ACTION ALTERNATIVE - PROPOSED ACTION- ......................................................................................... 25 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS TO NORTHERN SPOTTED OWLS AND THEIR HABITAT ......................... 25 IMPACTS TO NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL PREY SPECIES AND THEIR HABITAT ........................................ 29 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS- NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL AND THEIR HABITAT ............................................. 31 EFFECT DETERMINATION –NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL AND THEIR HABITAT ........................................ 32 2012 CRITICAL HABITAT – NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL ............................................................................... 32 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS – 2012 CRITICAL HABITAT, NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL ....................... 33 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS – 2012 CRITICAL HABITAT, NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL ..................................... 36 EFFECT DETERMINATION – 2012 CRITICAL HABITAT, NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL ................................. 36 SPECIES ACCOUNTS AND DETERMINATIONS .............................................................................................. 37 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS – ALL EVALUATED SENSITIVE SPECIES .............................................................. 54 SURVEY AND MANAGE ................................................................................................................................ 55 MIGRATORY BIRD/ LANDBIRD ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 60 MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES ........................................................................................................... 64 COARSE WOODY DEBRIS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 73 SIGNATURES ................................................................................................................................................ 80 LITERATURE CITED: ................................................................................................................................. 81 3 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Federally listed and Forest Sensitive Species Considered in this Biological Evaluation and Effect Determination ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2 Regional Forester (R6) Sensitive Species as of July 21, 2015 for the Umpqua National Forest..... 14 Table 3 Threatened and Sensitive species evaluated and those which are omitted from further analysis. .................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Table 4 Impacts to Spotted Owl Habitat from the Stouts Creek Fire within the Action Area. ................... 20 Table 5 Northern Spotted Owl existing condition of owl sites (.2 mile nest patch, .5 mile core use area, 1.2 mile home range) by habitat acres within the action area. Include acres recently modified due to Stouts Creek Fire. ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Table 6 Critical Habitat Unit KLE-1, acres within District, Action Area, and analysis Area ......................... 33 Table 7 Critical Habitat Unit KLE-2, acres within District, Action Area, and analysis Area ......................... 33 Table 8 Critical Habitat Unit KLE-4, acres within District, Action Area, and analysis Area ......................... 33 Table 9 Commercial Units, available 2011 Settlement Agreement Exemptions, Pre-Disturbance Survey Disclosure for Protocol Surveys for Terrestrial Mollusks and The Red Tree Vole. ..................................... 56 Table 10 Forest conditions and associated habitat attributes and focal species for landbird conservation in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington ......................................................................... 62 Table 11 List of the Umpqua National Forests Management Indicator Species (MIS). .............................. 64 Table 12 Primary cavity nester trends as determined from monitoring data from local BBS routes. (Data available through 2013) .............................................................................................................................. 67 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Action Area, Elk Creek 5th Field Watershed, Owl Sites with Spatial Scales, Proposed Actions, Distribution of Critical Habitat, and Stouts Creek Fire perimeter. ............................................................. 21 Figure 2 Elk Creek 5th Field Watershed, habitat altering components of the proposed action, Critical Habitat Distribution, and LUAs of the Northwest Forest Plan. NOTICE: north east portion of the analysis area is where the majority of NRF downgrading would occur. .................................................................. 28 Figure 3 North American breeding bird survey routes on or near the Umpqua NF. The analysis are is located at the northern edge of the Sams Valley route. ............................................................................ 66 Figure 4 Total number of elk observed during annual monitoring (1984-2013) on the Evans Creek Wildlife Management Unit. ........................................................................................................................ 70 Figure 5 Total number of elk observed during annual monitoring (1992-2013) on the Evans Creek WMU on the Umpqua National
Load more

Recommended publications
  • East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project Wildlife BE and Specialist Report Wild Rivers Ranger District, Rogue River – Siskiyou National Forest, Josephine County, OR Prepared By: /s/ Bonnie Allison February 27, 2015 Bonnie Allison, Zone Wildlife Biologist Wild Rivers and Siskiyou Mountains Ranger Districts Contents Contents ............................................................................................................................................ i Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Proposed Project Location .......................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................ 2 Action Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................... 4 Forest Plan Management Direction ............................................................................................. 4 ESA Consultation to Date ........................................................................................................... 5 Other Relevant Laws, Policies and Regulations
    [Show full text]
  • Eugene District Aquatic and Riparian Restoration Activities
    Environmental Assessment for Eugene District Aquatic and Riparian Restoration Activities Environmental Assessment # DOI-BLM-OR-090-2009-0009-EA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT EUGENE DISTRICT 2010 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Eugene District Office 3106 Pierce Parkway, Suite E Eugene, Oregon 97477 Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment –including your personal identifying information –may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. In keeping with Bureau of Land Management policy, the Eugene District posts Environmental Assessments, Findings of No Significant Impact, and Decision Records on the district web page under Plans & Projects at www.blm.gov/or/districts/eugene. Individuals desiring a paper copy of such documents will be provided one upon request. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION I. Introduction .......................................................................................................4 II. Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................4 III. Conformance .....................................................................................................5 IV. Issues for Analysis ............................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon
    Portland State University PDXScholar Institute for Natural Resources Publications Institute for Natural Resources - Portland 8-2016 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon James S. Kagan Portland State University Sue Vrilakas Portland State University, [email protected] John A. Christy Portland State University Eleanor P. Gaines Portland State University Lindsey Wise Portland State University See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/naturalresources_pub Part of the Biodiversity Commons, Biology Commons, and the Zoology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. 2016. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon. Institute for Natural Resources, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. 130 pp. This Book is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Institute for Natural Resources Publications by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Authors James S. Kagan, Sue Vrilakas, John A. Christy, Eleanor P. Gaines, Lindsey Wise, Cameron Pahl, and Kathy Howell This book is available at PDXScholar: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/naturalresources_pub/25 RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES OF OREGON OREGON BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION CENTER August 2016 Oregon Biodiversity Information Center Institute for Natural Resources Portland State University P.O. Box 751,
    [Show full text]
  • Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest Johnnie Forest Management Project Environmental Assessment
    Johnnie Forest United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Management Project Pacific Northwest Region Umpqua National Forest Tiller Ranger District March 2013 2 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest Johnnie Forest Management Project Environmental Assessment Douglas County, Oregon March 2013 Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest Responsible Official: Donna L. Owens, District Ranger Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest 27812 Tiller Trail Highway Tiller, Oregon 97484 Phone: (541)-825-3100 For More Information Contact: David Baker, ID Team Leader Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest 27812 Tiller-Trail Highway Tiller, OR 97484 Phone: (541) 825-3149 Email: [email protected] Electronic comments can be mailed to: [email protected] Abstract: This Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes a no-action alternative, and one action alternative that includes fuels treatment, pre-commercial thinning and commercially harvesting timber on approximately 3,305 acres, treating activity-generated fuels, conducting road work, and other connected actions. The proposed thinning units are located within Management Areas 10 and 11 of the Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), as well as the Matrix, Late Seral Reserve (LSR) and Riparian Reserve land-use allocations defined by the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). The project area is located within the Middle South Umpqua watershed on the Tiller Ranger District. 3 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Entomological Society
    Volume 201 9 Number 3 Bulletin of the Fall 201 9 Oregon Entomological Society Steiroxys strepens (Noisy Shieldback) at Woodruff Meadows text and photos by Ron Lyons Steiroxys is a genus of shield-backed katydids (Orthoptera: having collected any females from Woodruff Meadows. All of his Tettigoniidae: Tettigoniinae) restricted to western North America specimens were green, except for one male collected from and the southern portion of western Canada. Only 4 species have Woodruff Meadows which appeared to have been light brown. been described so far: Although Fulton worked at the Oregon Agricultural College (now Steiroxys borealis Scudder, 1894, Oregon State University) at the time, none of his Steiroxys Steiroxys pallidipalpus (Thomas, 1872), specimens are present in the Oregon State Arthropod Collection Steiroxys strepens Fulton 1930, and (the paper was published after Fulton took up a position at North Steiroxys trilineata (Thomas, 1870). Carolina State College). Photographs of the male type and female allotype can be found on the Orthoptera Species File website, In their revision of the shield-backed katydids, Rentz and Birchim <http://orthoptera.speciesfile.org/Common/ (1968: 144) write, “Members of this diurnal genus have always basic/Taxa.aspx?TaxonNameID=1142430>. been baffling to systematists at the specific level. Only study of large series will show the true relationships. .” There is evidence that all 4 species, at least as currently defined, can be found in Oregon. The genus is in serious need of revision and additional species are being processed. Steiroxys strepens (Figure 1–6) was described by Fulton (1930: 627–630) using specimens collected from two locations in Oregon: Jackson’s Hill (6 miles north of Corvallis) in Benton County and Woodruff Meadows in Jackson County.
    [Show full text]
  • Forestry in a Changing World: New Challenges and Opportunities
    The Longleaf Alliance th Regional Conference and Forest Guild Annual Meeting Forestry in a Changing World: New Challenges and Opportunities Longleaf Alliance Est. 1995 Report No. 14 July 2009 The Longleaf Alliance The Longleaf Alliance 7th Regional Conference and Forest Guild Annual Meeting Forestry in a Changing World: New Challenges and Opportunities We would like to thank the following for providing financial support: Auburn University School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences Berger Peat Moss Beth Maynor Young Photography Discovering Alabama DuPont Forestland Group Grasslander International Forest Company Joint Fire Sciences Program Meeks Tree Farm Mississippi State University Forestry Extension National Wildlife Federation Stuewe & Sons, Inc The Lyndhurst Foundation University of Alabama Press Citation: Bowersock, Elizabeth P., Hermann, Sharon M. and Kush, John S., comps. 2009. Forestry in a Changing World: New Challenges and Opportunities. Proceedings of The Longleaf Alliance Seventh Regional Conference and Forest Guild Annual Meeting. October 28-November2, 2008. Sandestin, FL. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 14. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 14 July 2009 Forward: 7th Regional Conference a Great Success by Rhett Johnson The 7th regional conference, like its predecessors, was Longleaf, was included and an entire breakout session was a huge success. The conference was sited in Sandestin, dedicated to discussion of that plan. Florida at the Baytown Resort and Conference Center in conjunction with the annual meeting of the Forest Guild Other topics included the projected impact of climate and attracted about 50 attendees from around the region change on longleaf and other southeastern ecosystems and and nation. As in the past, attendees were from a vast array communities, and longleaf conservation and restoration of backgrounds, with “‘ologists” of all types, foresters, efforts in the Florida Panhandle.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Report Prepared for the Little Applegate Pilot Watershed Analysis
    WILDLIFE REPORT PREPARED FOR THE LITTLE APPLEGATE PILOT WATERSHED ANALYSIS May 1995 prepared by Matt Broyles INTRODUCTION This report was prepared as part of the pilot watershed analysis effort on the Little Applegate Watershed, The first iteration of which was completed in May of 1995. The intents of this report are fourfold. 1) Address the issues, concerns, and key questions that the team developed regarding biological diversity. 2) Catalog and summarize what is and is not known about the biological diversity and associated ecological processes in the Little Applegate watershed. 3) identify "hotspots", either geographical areas or ecological processes in need of attention or management. 4) Make some general recommendations as to how to proceed with projects and what additional data and further analysis should be done. The intended users of this report are professional wildlife biologist, ecologists and members of the public with fairly extensive knowledge of biological and ecological processes and concepts. Questions regarding the preparation and content of this report should be directed to Matt Broyles,-wildlife biologist, Ashland Resource Area, Medford BLM, Medford Oregon (503)- 770-2320. ( (, TABLE OF CONTENTS QUICK REFERENCE This report is divided into 5 sections as follows: PAGE 1.0 CURRENT AND-HISTORIC SPECIES RICHNESS 1 2.*0 CURRENT STATUS AND PREDICTED TRENDS FOR VERTEBRATES 2 3.0 MULTI SPECIES HABITAT SUITABILITY ANALYSIS 29 4.0 SPECIAL HABITATS 41.50TEPEIETSNRHETFRSPLNNDTEBDVRIT OF THE LITTLE'APPLEGATE WATERSHED DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 CURRENT AND HISTORIC SPECIES RICHNESS1 1..1. CUTRREN~T SPECIES RICHNESS ........ #..... ....... 1 1...2 HISTORIC SPECIES RICHNESS . .. .. .. .... ** ......... 1 2.0 CURRENT STATUS AND PREDICTED TRENDS FOR YERTEBRATES 2 2 .1 GAME SPECIES ............
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX C Terrestrial Wildlife Species Accounts
    APPENDIX C Terrestrial Wildlife Species Accounts APPENDIX C Terrestrial Wildlife Species Accounts A Biological Evaluation and biological examination process was conducted for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) terrestrial animal species, Management Indicator Species, and other special or rare and uncommon terrestrial wildlife species, and neotropical birds for this designation process. The purpose of this evaluation was to determine and document the possible effects that the proposed activity and alternatives would have on these species. Background and effects mechanisms are included in the body of the EIS, as documented by issue in Chapter III. In order to minimize the length and detail within the body of the EIS, terrestrial wildlife species accounts are included in this Appendix to the EIS. Species accounts provide biological background (food, shelter, reproduction), habitat requirements, listing status, presence on the Rogue River Siskiyou National Forest, known threats to persistence and other information associated with these species. This Appendix includes four categories of species as follows: Threatened species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Sensitive species listed by Forest Service Region 6 Management Indicator Species (for Rogue River and Siskiyou NFs) Neo-tropical migratory landbirds ESA THREATENED SPECIES NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL - (Strix occidentalis caurina) Status: Federal – Threatened; State of Oregon - Threatened The northern spotted owl was listed as a Threatened species by FWS on 26 June 1990
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Iv - References
    CHAPTER IV - REFERENCES A Cohesive Strategy for Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems (October 2000) A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment (August 2001) Abbas, G. 1997. East Fork Ashland Creek level II stream survey report. Available from Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District, Ashland, OR. Abbas, J.G. 1999. Personal communications concerning anecdotal sightings of tailed frog larvae in the East Fork of Ashland Creek. Agee and Huff. 2000. The Role of Prescribed Fire in Restoring Ecosystem Health and Diversity in Southwest Oregon: Part 1. Ecological Conditions” a report to the Pacific Northwest Research Station Director’s Office, September 2000. Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Washington, DC. Agee, J.K. 1994. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosystems of the eastern Cascades. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-320. 52pp. Agee, J.K. 1996. The influence of forest structure on fire behavior. In: Proceedings of the 17th Annual Forest Vegetation Management Conference, January 16–18, 1996. Redding, CA. Agee, J.K. 1997. The severe weather wildfire: too hot to handle. Northw. Sci. 71, 153–156. Agee, James K., B. Bahro, M.A. Finney, P.N. Omi, D.B. Sapsis, C. Skinner, J. W. van Wagtendonk, and C.P. Weatherspoon. 1999. The Use of Fuelbreaks in Landscape Fire Management, unpublished. Agee, J.K., Bahro, B., Finney, M.A., Omi, P.N., Sapsis, D.B., Skinner, C.N., van Wagtendonk, J.W., and Weatherspoon, C.P. 2000. The use of shaded fuelbreaks in landscape fire management.
    [Show full text]
  • TRACS Document
    USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region Terrestrial Restoration and Conservation Strategy Table of Contents Chapter 1: Prioritization Process ................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1 TRACS: What It Is Not .............................................................................................................................. 2 Ecoregions ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Overview of the TRACS Prioritization Process .......................................................................................... 4 Species Prioritization ................................................................................................................................ 4 Priority Vertebrates .............................................................................................................................. 4 Priority Rating....................................................................................................................................... 9 Socially and Economically Important Vertebrates ............................................................................... 9 Priority Plants ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • VI.6 Relative Importance of Rangeland Grasshoppers in Western North America: a Numerical Ranking from the Literature
    VI.6 Relative Importance of Rangeland Grasshoppers in Western North America: A Numerical Ranking From the Literature Richard J. Dysart Introduction is important to point out that these estimates represent merely the opinions of those involved, not conclusive There are about 400 species of grasshoppers found in the proof. By including a large number of articles and au- 17 Western States (Pfadt 1988). However, only a small thors that cover most of the literature on the subject, I percentage of these species ever become abundant hope that the resulting compilation will be a consensus enough to cause economic concern. The problem for any from the literature, without introduction of bias on my rangeland entomologist is how to arrange these species part. into meaningful groups for purposes of making manage- ment decisions. The assessment of the economic status This review is restricted to grasshoppers found in 17 of a particular grasshopper species is difficult because of Western United States (Arizona, California, Colorado, variations in food availability and host selectivity. Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mulkern et al. (1964) reported that the degree of selectiv- Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South ity is inherent in the grasshopper species but the expres- Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming) plus sion of selectivity is determined by the habitat. To add to the 4 western provinces of Canada (Alberta, British the complexity, grasshopper preferences may change Columbia, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan). Furthermore, with plant maturity during the growing season (Fielding only grasshoppers belonging to the family Acrididae are and Brusven 1992). Because of their known food habits included here, even though many research papers and capacity for survival, about two dozen grasshopper reviewed mentioned species from other families of species generally are considered as pests, and a few other Orthoptera.
    [Show full text]
  • View / Open Emile Timber Sale Project EA.Pdf
    United States Forest Umpqua Umpqua National Forest Department of Service National 2900 NW Stewart Parkway Agriculture Forest Roseburg, Oregon 97470 (541) 672-6601 FAX 957-3495 File Code: 1950 Date: June 19, 2008 Dear Interested Citizen: Enclosed is a copy of the Emile Project Environmental Assessment (EA). The North Umpqua Ranger District is giving notice of the opportunity to comment on Alternative 4 of the EA. Alternative 4 proposes to commercially thin about 1,835 acres of second growth forests generating about 26 million board feet of timber. Associated fuels treatments, new temporary road construction (1.0 miles), road reconstruction, road maintenance, and other connected actions would also occur. The proposal includes a project-level Forest Plan amendment. The planning area includes all or portions of T26S, R1E, R1W and R2W; T27S, R1E, R1W and R2W; and T28S R2W, Willamette Meridian, Douglas County, Oregon. Additional copies of the Environmental Assessment are available by calling the North Umpqua Ranger District at the number listed below. Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the 30-day comment period. Comments must be submitted to Forest Supervisor Clifford J. Dils, Umpqua National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 2900 NW Stewart Parkway, Roseburg, OR 97470, (541)-672-6601, fax (541)-957-3495. The Supervisor’s Office is open from 8:00 am until 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Electronic comments must be submitted to: [email protected]. As the Responsible Official, I will accept oral, electronic, and written comments during the comment period, which ends 30 days from the date this notice is published in the Roseburg News Review, the official newspaper of record.
    [Show full text]