DOCSLIB.ORG

Preliminary Assessment Slinky

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Preliminary Assessment Slinky United States Preliminary Department of Agriculture Forest Assessment Service 2003 Slinky (2003) Clackamas River Ranger District, Mt. Hood National Forest Clackamas County, Oregon The project is located in T.6 S., R.7 E.; Willamette Meridian. For Information Contact: James Rice 595 NW Industrial Way, Estacada, OR 97023 503.630.8710 http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mthood 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. Table of Contents Summary .........................................................................................................................1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1 Document Structure................................................................................................................. 1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 2 Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................................. 2 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................... 5 Public Involvement ................................................................................................................. 5 Issues ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 6 Alternative A - No Action........................................................................................... 6 Alternative B - The Proposed Action.......................................................................... 7 Alternative C............................................................................................................... 7 Alternative D............................................................................................................... 7 Alternatives Considered But Not Fully Developed .................................................... 9 Best Management Practices and Design Criteria Common to All Alternatives.................... 10 Comparison of Alternatives................................................................................................... 12 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................... 12 WATER QUALITY AND FISHERIES (Issue #1) .................................................. 12 HARVEST OF OLDER FOREST (Issue #2)........................................................... 22 WILDLIFE................................................................................................................ 31 SOILS ....................................................................................................................... 40 SCENERY ................................................................................................................ 44 BOTANY.................................................................................................................. 48 MANAGEMENT OF COMPETING AND UNWANTED VEGETATION........... 49 AIR QUALITY......................................................................................................... 54 ECONOMICS........................................................................................................... 56 TRANSPORTATON ................................................................................................ 57 HERITAGE RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 59 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE – CIVIL RIGHTS ................................................. 59 OTHER ..................................................................................................................... 62 Preliminary Assessment Slinky SUMMARY The Mt. Hood National Forest proposes a timber management project. The project area is located in the Oak Grove Fork watershed and the Upper Clackamas watershed and is within the Clackamas River Ranger District, Mt. Hood National Forest, Oregon. The purpose of this initiative is to regenerate older forest stands that are fragmented and growing slowly, to create young productive forest stands, and to provide forest products that meet the social needs of local and regional economies now and in the future. This action is needed, because the project area contains fragmented stands of older forest that are growing slowly due to the effects of diseases, insects and mortality. If no action were taken these stands would continue to grow slowly and would not contribute to a sustainable supply of forest products. The proposed action (Alternative B) is to harvest trees from approximately 184 acres using the reserve shelterwood regeneration method and to construct approximately 0.4 mile of temporary roads. In addition to the proposed action, the Forest Service also evaluated the following alternatives: • Alternative A (No Action) • Alternative C is similar to Alternative B except it would not construct any new temporary roads. • Alternative D is similar to Alternative C but would leave more trees. INTRODUCTION Document Structure ______________________________ The document is organized into four parts: • Introduction: This section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. • Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. • Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource. Within each section, the existing situation is described first, followed by the effects of the alternatives. The No-action Alternative provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives. 1 Preliminary Assessment Slinky Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Estacada Ranger Station in Estacada, Oregon. Background _____________________________________ The proposed action involves the harvest of timber from mature forest stands. An earlier analysis was delayed by court cases that have since been resolved. Summary of Changes • To gain greater focus to the analysis, the proposed action will include only the regeneration harvest units. Units 36 and 38 have been deleted. • Alternatives have been adjusted and new ones added. • The associated projects that had been part of the proposed action have been separated from this document and are not considered connected actions. Public comments suggested that timber projects not be mixed with restoration projects. • Design criteria and effects discussion related to the eliminated projects have been adjusted accordingly. • The effects section has been updated to reflect the current situation and to add clarification in response to comments. Purpose and Need for Action ______________________ The purpose of this initiative is to regenerate older forest stands that are fragmented and growing slowly, to create young productive forest stands, and to provide forest products that meet the social needs of local and regional economies now and in the future. This action is needed, because the project area contains fragmented stands of older forest that are growing slowly due to the effects of diseases, insects and mortality. If no action were taken these stands would continue to grow slowly and would not contribute to a sustainable supply of forest products. This assessment is tiered to the Mt. Hood National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA 1990a). The Mt. Hood National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended (referred to as the Forest Plan) is incorporated by reference (USDA 1990b). This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Forest Plan, and helps move the project area towards desired conditions described in that plan. The Forest Plan was amended by the1994 Record of Decision
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evaluation and Findings Report on the Application for Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act
    Evaluation and Findings Report on the Application for Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act Submitted by Portland General Electric Company for the Clackamas Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2195) Pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340, Division 48 Prepared by: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division 2020 SW 4th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97201 May 2009 This page intentionally left blank Findings and Evaluation Report 2 FERC Project 2195 June 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 6 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION ............................................................................................... 6 2.1 Applicable Federal and State Law ...................................................................................................... 6 2.2 General Application of State Water Quality Standards ...................................................................... 7 2.2.1 Beneficial Uses ............................................................................................................................ 7 2.2.2 Narrative and Numeric Criteria .................................................................................................... 8 2.2.3 Antidegradation Policy ................................................................................................................. 8 2.2.4 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Aquatic Weed Surveys in Timothy Lake, Lake Harriet and North Fork Reservoir : Final Eporr T
    Portland State University PDXScholar Center for Lakes and Reservoirs Publications and Presentations Center for Lakes and Reservoirs 11-2011 2011 Aquatic Weed Surveys in Timothy Lake, Lake Harriet and North Fork Reservoir : final eporr t 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 Fresh Water Studies Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Sytsma, Mark D. and Morgan, Vanessa Howard, "2011 Aquatic Weed Surveys in Timothy Lake, Lake Harriet and North Fork Reservoir : final eporr t" (2011). Center for Lakes and Reservoirs Publications and Presentations. 8. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/centerforlakes_pub/8 This 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]. 2011 AQUATIC WEED SURVEYS IN TIMOTHY LAKE, LAKE HARRIET & NORTH FORK RESERVOIR - FINAL REPORT Prepared for: Portland General Electric, Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project By: Vanessa Morgan and Mark Sytsma Center for Lakes and Reservoirs Portland State University November 2011 Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ i List of Tables
    [Show full text]
  • 20140320-3029 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 03/20/2014
    20140320-3029 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 03/20/2014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Portland General Electric Company Project No. 2195-088 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (March 20, 2014) In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 F.R. 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed an application submitted by Portland General Electric Company (licensee) to construct, operate and maintain minimum flow turbines at its 136.6-MW Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project. The new minimum flow turbines would increase the capacity of the project by 3.89 MW. The project is located on the Oak Grove Fork of the Clackamas River and the mainstem of the Clackamas River in Clackamas County, Oregon. The project occupies federal lands within the Mt. Hood National Forest, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service, and a reservation of the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management. An environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared as part of staff’s review of the proposal. In the application the licensee proposes to construct, operate and maintain: 1) a powerhouse at the base of Timothy Lake Dam housing two 0.95-MW turbines, 2) a powerhouse at Crack-in-the-Ground located downstream of Lake Harriet housing a 1 MW turbine, 3) a powerhouse housing a 135-kW turbine utilizing return flows from the juvenile downstream migrant collection systems and the North Fork fishway adult fish trap, and 4) a turbine and an 850-kW turbine and induction generator utilizing North Fork fishway attraction flows.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydropower Project Summary CLACKAMAS RIVER, OREGON This Summary Was Produced by the Hydropower Reform Coalition and River Manag
    Hydropower Project Summary CLACKAMAS RIVER, OREGON CLACKAMAS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2195) Photo: Water Watch of Oregon, courtesy of Hydropower Reform Coalition This summary was produced by the Hydropower Reform Coalition and River Management Society Clackamas River, Oregon CLACKAMAS RIVER, OREGON CLACKAMAS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2195) Description: The Clackamas River Project is located within the Clackamas River Basin which drains more than 940 square miles. It flows west from the Cascade Mountain Range for 83 miles to its confluence with the Willamette River at Oregon City, Oregon. Most of the headwaters are located within the Mt. Hood National Forest, and approximately 47 miles of the Clackamas River are designated as a federal Wild and Scenic River. The Clackamas River provides significant recreational opportunities for fishing, whitewater boating, and camping in relatively close proximity to the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area. The river supports regionally important fish populations, including Endangered Species fall- and spring-run Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, and steelhead trout. The project is situated on the lower 16 miles of the Oak Grove Fork and on the mainstem of the Clackamas River between river miles 46.8 and 22.3. The Clackamas River Project consists of four developments in the following sequence, from upstream to downstream: • Oak Grove: facilities are located on the Clackamas River and its tributary, Oak Grove Fork • North Fork, Faraday, and River Mill: three developments and their facilities are located on the Clackamas River, and were constructed between 1902 and 1958 with prior licenses. The new Clackamas River Project combines the four developments under a single license, which authorizes 173 MW of renewable energy, and requires a number of measures to protect and enhance fish, wildlife, recreation, cultural, and aesthetic resources at the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project Whitewater Kayaking on the Oak Grove Fork
    Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project Whitewater Kayaking on the Oak Grove Fork DRAFT Prepared for Portland General Electric 121 SW Salmon Street • Portland, Oregon 97204 Prepared by Doug Whittaker and Bo Shelby Confluence Research and Consulting 3600 NW Thrush • Corvallis, Oregon 97331 6324 Red Tree Circle • Anchorage, Alaska 99516 May 2004 Executive Summary The Oak Grove Fork is a creek-like segment about 16 miles long. Hydroelectric development associated with the Clackamas Project (PGE) and the Stone Creek Project (EWEB) make the Oak Grove Fork a “bypass segment,” with most flow diverted into hydroelectric facilities. Only the five mile reach below Harriet Dam may offer interesting whitewater kayaking opportunities; the upper part of this reach drops about 185 feet per mile (with most of that gradient occurring in two falls), while the lower part of the reach drops between 50 and 120 feet per mile. Information about boating was developed from two primary sources: 1) hydrology information from PGE, and 2) interviews with boaters who ran the river during an October 2001 flow release of 300 cfs. Eight boaters in two groups ran segments below Harriet Dam during the study release. Findings The reach below Harriet Dam is boatable in kayaks and inflatable kayaks at appropriate flows. The upper part of the run has several Class IV/V rapids and two falls, only one of which was boated during the study. The lower part of the run is less challenging, with continuous gradient Class II/III whitewater. The optimal flows for running both sections are probably between 300 and 600 cfs, although the lower section could probably be run at higher flows.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Aquatic Weed Surveys in Timothy Lake, Lake Harriet, North Fork Reservoir, Faraday Lake, and Estacada Lake
    Portland State University PDXScholar Center for Lakes and Reservoirs Publications and Presentations Center for Lakes and Reservoirs 12-2014 2014 Aquatic Weed Surveys in Timothy Lake, Lake Harriet, North Fork Reservoir, Faraday Lake, and Estacada Lake Rich Miller Portland State University, [email protected] Mark D. Sytsma Portland State University, [email protected] Jeffrey Thomas Brittain Portland State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/centerforlakes_pub Part of the Environmental Monitoring Commons, Fresh Water Studies Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Miller, Rich; Sytsma, Mark D.; and Brittain, Jeffrey Thomas, "2014 Aquatic Weed Surveys in Timothy Lake, Lake Harriet, North Fork Reservoir, Faraday Lake, and Estacada Lake" (2014). Center for Lakes and Reservoirs Publications and Presentations. 48. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/centerforlakes_pub/48 This 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]. 2014 Aquatic Weed Surveys in Timothy Lake, Lake Harriet, North Fork Reservoir, Faraday Lake, and Estacada Lake FINAL REPORT Prepared for: Portland General Electric, Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project By: Rich Miller, Mark Sytsma, and Jeff Brittain Center
    [Show full text]
  • Clackamas River Project Water Quality Management and Monitoring Plan
    Attachment A CLACKAMAS RIVER PROJECT WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN PREPARED BY: Portland General Electric Company March 15 May 7, 2011 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Adaptive Management Considerations ........................................................................... 1 1.3 Project Setting and Water Quality Information .............................................................. 2 1.4 Proposed Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement Measures ....................................... 3 2.0 Water Temperature Management Plan ............................................................................... 4 2.1 ODEQ Temperature Standard ......................................................................................... 4 2.2 Application to the Clackamas Project ............................................................................. 5 2.3 Facilities Modifications for Compliance ........................................................................ 6 2.4 Temperature Management .............................................................................................. 6 2.4.1 Evaluation of Temperature Management Measures ............................................... 6 2.4.2 Temperature Management Operations .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Clackamas Basin Summary Watershed Overview
    Clackamas Basin Summary Watershed Overview Prepared For Clackamas River Basin Council Clackamas, Oregon May 2005 Boise, Idaho www.watershednet.com Ed Salminen (Hood River, Or.) Clackamas Basin Summary Watershed Overview Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL SETTING ................................................................ 1 2.1 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................................... 1 2.2 ECOREGIONS .................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS....................................................................................................... 9 2.4 CLIMATE........................................................................................................................ 11 2.5 LAND USE/ LAND COVER................................................................................................ 17 2.5.1 POTENTIAL NATURAL VEGETATION........................................................................... 18 2.5.2 CURRENT LAND USE AND LAND COVER.................................................................... 18 2.6 CURRENT ZONING.......................................................................................................... 22 2.7 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, TRENDS, AND PROJECTED GROWTH ................................... 24 3.0
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Observations, Considerations, and Recommendations for Mt
    Transportation Observations, Considerations, and Recommendations for Mt. Hood National Forest Provided by the Interagency Transportation Assistance Group (TAG) Sandy, Oregon June 24–26, 2009 A field investigation of the current transportation infrastructure and operations at Mt. Hood National Forest (MHNF) by the interagency Transportation Assistance Group (TAG) was conducted June 24-26, 2009, on behalf of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). This TAG report was prepared subsequent to the site visit and documents the conditions observed, transportation issues and considerations, and recommendations arising from the TAG team’s analysis. The site visit and the preparation of this report were facilitated and funded by USFS. The TAG focused on a study area within MHNF: the US 26 and OR 35 highway corridors, and access to adjacent destinations, such as Timberline Lodge and the Mt. Hood Meadows ski area. This study area was selected because it is the area of highest concentrated recreational use by visitors from the Portland metropolitan area, because US 26 experiences safety and capacity issues, and because it is the primary study area of the proposed Mt. Hood Multimodal Transportation Plan. The TAG team concluded that MHNF is experiencing transportation impacts stemming from peak visitation and existing vehicle flow on a key freight and mobility route for Oregon. The last section of this report lists recommendations to improve the visitor experience; prevent resource degradation; improve vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian safety; and partner with surrounding businesses and communities to mitigate these impacts and improve the quality of life for all those who visit. I. BACKGROUND Overview The Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Source Water Assessment Report
    Source Water Assessment Report U.S. Forest Service Timberlake JCC Estacada, Oregon PWS #4101093 December 10, 2002 Prepared for U.S. Forest Service Timberlake JCC Prepared by ~ ~ i •l :(•1 State of Oregon Department of Environmental Qualily Water Quality Division Drinking Water Protection Program )to HS · ()nio11 Dr~f)rlrtmr'nt of Hum~1n S('rvicci;. Drinbng Water Program j- Department of Environmental Quality Dregon 811 SW Sixth Avenue John A. Kitzhaber, M.D., Goven1or Portland, OR 97204-1390 (503) 229-5696 December 10, 2002 TTY (503) 229-6993 Mr. David Owens US Forest Service Timberlake ICC 59868 East Highway 224 Estacada, Oregon 97023 RE: Source Water Assessment Report USPS Timberlake ICC PWS # 4101093 Dear Mr. Owens: Enclosed is the Source Water Assessment Report for the surface water portion of USPS Timberlake ICC's drinking water protection area. A source water assessment report for the groundwater supply will be addressed in a separate report. The assessment was prepared under the requirements and guidance of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and the US Environmental Protection Agency, as well as a detailed Source Water Assessment Plan developed by a statewide citizen's advisory committee here in Oregon over the past two years. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) are conducting the assessments for all public water systems in Oregon. The purpose is to provide information so that the public water system staf£'operator, consumers, and community citizens can begin developing strategies to protect your source of drinking water. There are five drinking water intakes on the Clackamas River downstream of Timberlake ICC's intake including the intakes for the City of Estacada, Clackamas River Water, North Clackamas County Water Commission, South Fork Water Board, and Lake Oswego Municipal Water.
    [Show full text]