Final Report South Fork Road Corridor Plan January 2021 OR Benton 482(1) Prepared for: Prepared by:
IDIQ Contract No. DTFH7015D00002L Western Federal Lands Task Order No. 690565720F000007 Highway Division
South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.1 Study Area ...... 1 1.2 Historical Construction and Improvement Projects ...... 3 1.2.1 Current and Planned Projects ...... 3 1.2.2 Existing Plans and Regulations ...... 3 2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ...... 5 2.1 Physical Features and Characteristics ...... 5 2.1.1 Hydraulics ...... 5 2.1.2 Bridges ...... 7 2.1.3 Culverts ...... 10 2.1.4 Maintenance and Operations ...... 12 2.1.5 Roadway Surfacing ...... 12 2.1.6 Access Points ...... 12 2.1.7 Right of Way ...... 12 2.1.8 Utilities ...... 14 2.1.9 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ...... 14 2.1.10 Recreational Opportunities ...... 15 2.2 Geometric Road Conditions ...... 15 2.2.1 Design Criteria ...... 16 2.2.2 Horizontal Alignment ...... 16 2.2.3 Vertical Alignment ...... 17 2.2.4 Sight Distance ...... 17 2.2.5 Clear Zone ...... 19 2.3 Traffic Control ...... 19 2.4 Traffic Conditions ...... 19
i South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
2.5 Safety ...... 20 2.5.1 Safety Trends, Contributing Factors, and Crash Clusters ...... 23 2.6 Other Vulnerabilities ...... 25 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 29 3.1 Physical Environment and Resources ...... 29 3.1.1 Land Ownership and Land Use...... 29 3.1.2 Soil Resources and Prime Farmland ...... 29 3.1.3 Geologic Hazards ...... 30 3.1.4 Surface Waters ...... 30 3.1.5 Groundwater ...... 33 3.1.6 Floodplains and Floodways ...... 33 3.1.7 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S...... 34 3.1.8 Hazardous Substances ...... 34 3.1.9 Air Quality ...... 34 3.1.10 Noise ...... 34 3.2 Biological Resources ...... 36 3.2.1 Vegetation ...... 36 3.2.2 Fish and Wildlife ...... 37 3.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species ...... 37 3.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Terrestrial Species ...... 40 3.2.5 Other Species of Concern...... 40 3.3 Social and Cultural Resources ...... 41 3.3.1 Demographic and Economic Conditions ...... 41 3.3.2 Recreational Resources ...... 42 3.3.3 Cultural and Historic Resources ...... 42 3.3.4 Visual Resources ...... 43
ii South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
4 Economic Drivers and Future Economic Activity and Effects Considered ...... 45 4.1 Summary of Economic Drivers ...... 45 4.2 Future Economic Impacts to Local Economy ...... 45 5 Corridor Improvement Options Considered ...... 47 5.1 Goals and Objectives ...... 47 5.2 Defining the Corridor Improvement Options ...... 48 5.3 Planning-Level Cost Estimates ...... 67 6 Public Involvement ...... 69 6.1 Purpose and Goals of the Public Involvement Program ...... 69 6.2 Project Communications ...... 69 6.2.1 Stakeholder Database ...... 69 6.2.2 Direct US Post Mailings ...... 69 6.2.3 Project Website ...... 69 6.2.4 Local Newspaper Meeting Notices ...... 69 6.3 March 2020 Open House Meeting-Alsea, Oregon ...... 70 6.4 August 2020 Online Open House Meeting ...... 70 7 Evaluating the Options ...... 73 8 Project Development and Implementation ...... 77 8.1 Project Ranking ...... 77 8.1.1 High Rating Project Candidates...... 77 8.1.2 Medium Rating Project Candidates ...... 78 8.1.3 Low Rating Project Candidates ...... 79 8.2 Traffic Safety and High Hazard Locations ...... 80 8.2.1 Potential Safety Countermeasures ...... 80 8.3 Ancillary Sites ...... 80
iii South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
8.4 Construction Logistics and Phasing ...... 80 8.5 Drainage/Culvert Repair and Replacement Plan ...... 81 8.6 ROW and Utility Recommendations ...... 81 8.7 Purpose and Need For Future Projects ...... 81 9 Potential Funding Sources ...... 83 9.1 Federal Funding Sources ...... 83 9.1.1 Federal; Land Access Program ...... 83 9.1.2 Federal Lands Transportation Program ...... 83 9.1.3 Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act ...... 83 9.1.4 Land and Water Conservation Fund ...... 84 9.1.5 Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects ...... 84 9.1.6 Emergency Relief and Federally Owned Roads ...... 84 9.1.7 Better Utilization of Investments to Leverage Development ...... 84 9.1.8 Surface Transportation Program ...... 85 9.2 State Funding Sources ...... 85 9.2.1 State Highway Fund ...... 85 9.2.2 Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) ...... 85 9.3 Local Funding Sources ...... 85 9.3.1 Watershed Councils ...... 85 9.4 Private Funding Sources and Alternatives ...... 86 9.4.1 Cost Sharing ...... 86 9.4.2 Transportation Corporations ...... 86 9.4.3 Road Districts ...... 86 9.4.4 Private Donations ...... 86 10 Next Steps ...... 87 10.1 Geotechnical Investigations ...... 87 iv South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
10.1.1 Recommendations for Future Geotechnical Assessment ...... 87 10.1.2 Geologic Setting and Landslides ...... 88 10.2 Environmental Study ...... 89 10.2.1 Federal Environmental Compliance, Permitting, and Consultation Requirements ...... 89 10.2.2 Other Federal, State and Local Environmental Permitting Considerations ...... 97
v South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Study Area ...... 2 Figure 2-1: Streams ...... 6 Figure 2-2: Bridges ...... 8 Figure 2-3 South Fork Road Culverts...... 11 Figure 2-4: South Fork Road Jurisdiction, Right of Way and Pavement Width ...... 13 Figure 2-5: Alsea Falls Recreation Area ...... 14 Figure 2-6: Fall Creek Bike Trail System ...... 15 Figure 2-7: Speed Limits and Advisory Speeds ...... 18 Figure 2-8: Average Daily Traffic, Oregon Highway 34, 2017 ...... 20 Figure 2-9 Existing Traffic Volume and Travel Speeds – February 2020 ...... 21 Figure 2-10: Vehicle Crash History, 2011–2017 ...... 22 Figure 2-11: Vehicle Crashes by Month (2011–2017) ...... 23 Figure 2-12: Vehicle Crashes by Season and Severity (2011–2017) ...... 23 Figure 2-13: Vehicle Crashes by Roadway Characteristics ...... 24 Figure 2-14: Vehicle Crash Causality, by Corridor Segment ...... 25 Figure 2-15: Historic Landslides and Slide Susceptibility ...... 26 Figure 2-16: Recent Culvert Replacements along South Fork Road ...... 27 Figure 3-1: Prime Farmland Soils ...... 31 Figure 3-2: Watersheds and Streams ...... 32 Figure 3-3: 100-Year Flood Plain ...... 34 Figure 3-4: Wetlands ...... 35 Figure 3-5: Anadromous Fish ...... 39 Figure 3-6: Fall Creek Bike Trail Network Users ...... 42 Figure 4-1 Alsea Falls Recreation Site-Estimated Annual Visitors ...... 45 Figure 4-2 Alsea Falls Recreation Site-Estimated Annual Spending ...... 45 Figure 5-1 LED Speed Warning ...... 50 Figure 5-2 Cyclists Ahead Warning ...... 51 vi South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 5-3 Cyclists on Roadway ...... 52 Figure 5-4 Radar Speed ...... 53 Figure 5-5 Headlights on for Safety ...... 54 Figure 5-6 Wayfinding ...... 55 Figure 5-7 Fog Line and Centerline Striping ...... 56 Figure 5-8 Centerline Rumble Strips ...... 57 Figure 5-9 Roadway Widening Difficult Curves ...... 58 Figure 5-10 Dubuque Creek Re-alignment ...... 59 Figure 5-11 Roadway Widening Near Alsea Falls Campground ...... 60 Figure 5-12 Full Corridor Roadway Widening ...... 61 Figure 5-13 Motorists & Cyclists Turnouts ...... 62 Figure 5-14 Construct Wayside/Gateway Treatments ...... 63 Figure 5-15 Fall Creek Trailhead & Alsea Falls Campground Trail Connector...... 64 Figure 5-16 New Picnic Facility/Expand Parking Lot at Fall Creek Trailhead ...... 65 Figure 5-17 New Access & Internal Circulation Roads at Alsea Falls Campground ...... 66 Figure 6-1 Online Open House Survey Question Sample ...... 71 Figure 6-2 Public Open House #2 (Online) Survey Responses ...... 72 Figure 10-1 Phased Approach to Geotechnical Assessments ...... 87
LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Major Stream and River Crossings ...... 7 Table 2-2: South Fork Road Bridge Inspection (2018) Summary ...... 9 Table 2-3: South Fork Road/Alpine Road Access by Mile Post ...... 12 Table 2-4: Roadway Design Standards ...... 16 Table 2-5: Non-standard Horizontal Curve Speeds ...... 17 Table 5-1 Chapter 5 Figure Reference ...... 49 Table 6-1: Public Open House #2 (Online) Survey Responses ...... 72 Table 7-1: Project Rating Score - Evaluation of Sign Improvement ...... 73
vii South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Table 7-2: Project Rating Score - Evaluation of Sign Improvement Options ...... 74 Table 7-3: Project Rating Score - Evaluation of Roadway Improvement Options ...... 75 Table 7-4: Project Rating Scores - Evaluation of Tourism Improvement Options ...... 76 Table 10-1 Environmental Compliance Requirements Study ...... 90
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Slide Risk Susceptibility Appendix B: Noxious and Invasive Weeds Appendix C: Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Appendix D: Economic Assessment Appendix E: Public Open House Meeting Summaries Appendix F: Planning-Level Cost Estimates
viii South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS
AASHTO American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
ADT Average Daily Traffic
ATV All-Terrain Vehicle
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CIP Capital Improvements Plan
ESA Endangered Species Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FLAP Federal Lands Access Program
FPPA Farmland Policy Protection Act
GCR General Condition Rating
HDM Highway Design Manual iPAC Information, Planning, and Consultation System (USFWS)
MP Mile Post mph Miles Per Hour
MUTCD Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices
ix South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
NBI National Bridge Inventory
NRCS National Resource Conservation Service
ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation
SSD Stopping Sight Distance
TSP Transportation System Plan
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service vpd Vehicles Per Day
x South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND range of improvement options for the study corridor. The transportation conditions analysis includes a planning-level South Fork Road provides access to several camping, hiking, and examination of the corridor based on a variety of information biking destinations; timber resources; and sightseeing sources and field reviews. The three key objectives of the study destinations for tourists throughout the central Oregon Coast include: Range. For much of its western alignment, South Fork Road • Improve safety and operation of the South Fork Road parallels the South Fork Alsea River. The Alsea Falls Recreation corridor Site and Fall Creek Bike Trail Network offer visitors a wide range • Improve access for all roadway users, accounting for the of recreational activities. Timber harvest in both public and increasing volume of recreational visitors as well as private forest lands provide a continued economic resource within existing private and commercial land users the study area.Recognizing the potential growth in tourism and • Minimize adverse impacts to environmental resources use of South Fork Road as a major access to federal lands, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in partnership with Chapter 5 includes a more detailed listing of the study’s goals and Benton County, Oregon Cascades West Council of Governments objectives. and the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), developed this corridor planning study to identify potential 1.1 STUDY AREA improvements to the South Fork Road corridor. This study is The corridor study area includes both South Fork Road and funded throughthe Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP). portions of Alpine Road. South Fork Road begins at its intersection A key outcome of the study is the development of improvement with Alsea-Deadwood Highway 200 (mile post [MP] 0.0), located options intended to address the transportation and access needs approximately 1 mile due south of Alsea, Oregon. From MP 0.0, of roadway users in the South Fork Road corridor and study area. South Fork Road extends eastward and south-eastward in rural The recommendations define the most critical needs of the farmland for approximately 3 miles. This section of South Fork corridor, and will help the study partners prioritize and allocate Road is owned and maintanied by Benton County. South Fork resources to address those needs. This planning study reviews Road continues south-eastward generally along the South Fork and considers environmental and social issues, and aims to reduce Alsea River for approximately 9 miles, a section under BLM’s planning time and minimize construction costs by demonstrating ownership and maintenance. At MP 12 South Fork Road becomes feasible improvement opportunities.The study does not address Alpine Road and continues eastward and north-eastward for the long-range, corridor maintenance programming needs for another 3.6 miles, through the small community of Glenbrook, either BLM or Benton County. and ends in Alpine, Oregon, at about MP 18.5. This section of Alpine Road is also owned and maintained by Benton County. The intent of this South Fork Road Corridor Plan is to analyze Figure 1-1 maps the extents of the study area. roadway conditions, identify areas of concern, and develop a
1 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 1-1: Study Area
2 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
South Fork Road provides access to the Alsea Falls Recreation Site identify any roadway, bridge, bicycle, or pedestrian system and offers access to private homes, trailheads, designated improvement projects on South Fork Road. campgrounds, and many creeks and drainages popular for fishing It is anticipated that the recommendations resulting from this and hunting activities. Within the study area, South Fork Road is South Fork Road Corridor Plan will be used to update the Benton functionally classified by the Oregon Department of County TSP and CIP, and in future applications for federal funding Transportation (ODOT) as a rural minor collector. The roadway through the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant program. offers recreational access to hiking, biking, fishing, camping, hunting, and wildlife viewing opportunities in the central Coast Range. The use of lands accessed by South Fork Road historically 1.2.2 Existing Plans and Regulations provides some tourism traffic and economic subsistence for the Land use policies and development regluations in the study area rural communities of Alsea, Glenbrook, Alpine, and Monroe. are governed by Benton County and the DOI BLM. It is anticipated that projects brought forward in this corridor planning study 1.2 HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTION AND would be subject to Benton County regulations where occuring on IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Benton County administered segments. The BLM administered lands (as well as the S. Fork Road segments administered by BLM 1.2.1 Current and Planned Projects on Private lands) are governed by BLM Land Use Plans and Development Policies with input from Benton County and other Benton County establishes and implements priorities, agencies. Coordination among federal, state, and local agency programming, scheduling, and funding for infrastructure needs staff would be an essential component of any projects that may through its Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). The 2019– 2021 CIP1 arise. outlines budget resources and project expenses for roads and bridges, in addition to other administrative and infrastructure programs. The CIP does not include near-term plans for roadway, bridge, or culvert improvements along South Fork Road.
The Benton County Transportation System Plan (TSP)2 identifies policy and strategies, and long-range (2040) multimodal transportation improvement projects. The TSP is udpated every five years (roughly) and is used to prioritize future projects for eventual input to the County’s CIP. The current TSP does not
1 Benton County, Oregon. Capital Improvement Program, 2019– 2 Benton County, Oregon. Transportation System Plan, 2019. 2021 Biennia Budget.
3 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
This page is intentionally left blank.
4 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM byways. The program was initiated in 1989, and since then, BLM has designated 54 byways in the western United States. Each The following analysis of transportation conditions includes byway is classified into one of four types, based on the vehicles planning-level examination of the corridor based on existing and that can traverse it. historical traffic data, vehicle crash history, field measurements Type I Roads are paved or have an all-weather surface and have and observations, roadway as-built plans, aerial imagery, grades that are negotiable by a normal touring car. These roads geographic information system data, and input from local are usually narrow, slow speed, secondary roads. stakeholders. Type II Roads require high-clearance vehicles such as trucks or 4- 2.1 PHYSICAL FEATURES AND wheel drive vehicles. These roads are usually not paved, but they CHARACTERISTICS may have some type of surfacing. Grades, curves, and road surface are such that they can be negotiated with a 2-wheel drive The South Fork Road/Alpine Road corridor connects the towns of high-clearance vehicle without undue difficulty. Alsea on the west end, and Alpine on the east end of the study area, and connecting with Highway 99W north of Monroe. South Type III Roads require 4-wheel drive vehicles or other specialized Fork Road is paved from its beginning at the Alsea-Deadwood vehicles such as dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), etc. These Highway, which connects to Oregon State Highway 34, to its end roads are usually not surfaced, but they are managed to provide at about MP 12.0. At MP 12.0 the corridor continues along Alpine for safety considerations and resource protection needs. They Road. Alpine Road is paved for its entire distance to the town of have grades, tread surfaces, and other characteristics that will Alpine at MP 18.5. South Fork Road is owned and maintained by require specialized vehicles in order to negotiate. Benton County from MP 0.0 to about MP 3.96. South Fork Road is Type IV Trails are trails that are managed specifically to owned and maintained by BLM from MP 3.96 to about MP 12.0. accommodate dirt bike, mountain bike, snowmobile, or ATV use. Benton County owns and maintains Alpine Road from MP 12.0 to These are usually single-track trails. MP 18.5. Throughout the corridor, South Fork Road and Alpine Road include two travel lanes (sometimes not striped) and very 2.1.1 Hydraulics narrow shoulders on both sides of the roadway, for a total paved width ranging from 22 to 28 feet. Figure 1-1 shows a map of the South Fork Road generally parallels the South Fork Alsea River study area including the project extents, connecting highways, within the western and central portions of the study area. In these county roads, BLM roads, biking and hiking trails, and public lands. portions of the study area, South Fork Road crosses the South Fork Alsea River and other designated fish-bearing streams. Table South Fork Road is a designated Type I Back Country Byway. The 2-1 presents the major streams crossed by South Fork Road and portion of South Fork Road from Highway 201 to Alsea Falls is also their approximate locations. The locations of the streams are also a spur of the Marys Peak to Pacific Scenic Byway. The BLM Back mapped in Figure 2-1. Country Byways are roads that are designated by BLM as scenic
5 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 2-1: Streams
6 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Table 2-1: Major Stream and River Crossings ranging from 0 (failing condition) to 9 (excellent condition), as 3 Approximate described in the FHWA Coding Guide. Location Crossing Name (Sta. Number) (MP) Structure The bridge condition is classified based on 23 Code of Federal Regulations 490.409 9.4 When the minimum GCR of the deck, Headrick Creek 0.6 Culvert superstructure, and substructure is 9, 8, or 7, the bridge is Dubuque Creek 4.2 Culvert classified as “good” or better. When the minimum GCR is either 6 or 5, the bridge is classified as “satisfactory” or “fair.” If the South Fork Alsea River 5.6 Bridge minimum GCR is 4 or below, the bridge is classified as “poor.” Bridge, 162 Figure 2-2 shows the locations of the four bridges along South South Fork Alsea River 6.4 Bridge Fork Road in the study area: three South Fork Alsea River bridges Bridge, 122 and the Coleman Creek Bridge.
South Fork Alsea River 7.6 Bridge Table 2-2 shows the bridge span type, year of construction and Bridge, 60 latest inspection, span dimensions, load inventory rating, and Coleman Creek 9.4 Culvert bridge condition rating. FHWA Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) recently inspected these bridges in March 2018. Note: Above Alsea Falls there are additional fish-bearing stream crossings of South Fork Road, including Fall Creek Detailed bridge inspection reports are available on file with (open arch), Coleman Creek (bridge), Williams Creek (open WFLHD. arch) and Upper South Fork Alsea (open arch). The Coleman Creek Bridge was constructed in 2012 and is rated “very good” for all bridge condition elements, and has an 2.1.2 Bridges estimated lifespan of 70 years. Bridge conditions along South Fork Road are determined using the The three South Fork Alsea River bridges were constructed in National Bridge Inventory (NBI) general condition rating (GCR). 1966. All three bridges are rated “good” for all condition The GCRs are used to describe the existing bridge in comparison elements. These older bridges have an estimated remaining to its as-built condition. The rating addresses the physical lifespan of 30 years, and are subject to continued preservation condition of the deck, superstructure, substructure, channel, and and cyclical maintenance. bridge approaches. GCRs are expressed as a numerical rating
3 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 4 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Administration. Computation Procedure for the Bridge Condition Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges. 1995. Measures, 2018.
7 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 2-2: Bridges
8 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Table 2-2: South Fork Road Bridge Inspection (2018) Summary
Structure Load - Condition Rating Bridge Span Dimensions (ft) Year Inventory Rating (tons) (see Key) Design Legal Load Load (36 (36 tons) tons) Estimated Two Axle Axle Unit Remaining Structure # Stream Unit Truck Truck Life Structure Length Structure Max Span Length Deck Width Width Curb-2-Curb ? Restriction Deck Superstructure Substructure Channel Approaches WallRetaining (8000-x) Crossing Material Type Constructe Inspected HS20 3S2 (years)
Stringer/ S Fork Alsea Concrete Multi- 029 River Sta. 105 65 29 26 1966 2018 36 43 No 7 7 7 7 7 N 30 Continuous Beam or 162 Girder
Stringer/ S Fork Alsea Concrete Multi- 030 River Sta. 90 56 29 26 1966 2018 36 40 No 7 7 7 7 7 N 30 Continuous Beam or 122 Girder
Stringer/ S Fork Alsea Concrete Multi- 031 River Sta. 105 65 29 26 1966 2018 36 43 No 7 7 7 7 7 N 30 Continuous Beam or 60 Girder
Box Coleman Prestressed 138 Beams - 63 60 30 28 2012 2018 40 78 No 8 8 8 8 8 N 70 Creek Concrete Multiple
BRIDGE CONDITION RATING KEY 9 Excellent 8 Very Good No problems noted. 7 Good Some minor problems. 6 Satisfactory Structural elements show some minor deterioration. 5 Fair All primary structural elements are sound but may have minor section loss, cracking, spalling or scour. 4 Poor Advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling and scour. 3 Serious Loss of section, deterioration; spalling, or scour have seriously affected primary structural components. Advanced deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structural stability. Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close 2 Critical the structure until corrective action can be taken. Imminent Major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Structure is closed to traffic but corrective action may return 1 Failure structure to light service. 0 Failed Out of service; beyond corrective action.
9 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
2.1.3 Culverts ODOT bridge design standards5 defer bridge travel lane width Figure 2-3 shows the locations of the culverts as inventoried by requirements to the ODOT Highway Design Manual (HDM).6 The both Benton County and BLM along South Fork Road and Alpine ODOT HDM requires 20 feet of traveled way and 2-foot shoulders Road within the study area. BLM has completed the inventory and (a total width of 24 feet) for rural collector roadways with less rating of many of the culverts within its jurisdiction, and has than 400 Average Daily Traffic (ADT). established a priority system of replacing aging and degrading culverts.
The BLM coordinates with Benton County, as well as otherROW All four bridges within the study area have acceptable holders, when culvert replacements are occuring to minimize widths based on ODOT standards. imapcts. As shown in , there are nearly 40 high priority culverts awaiting funding and replacement within the BLM’s jurisdiciton of South Fork Road. A number of culverts have been replaced since The American Association of State Highway Transportation 2010. See Section 2.6 (Vulnerabilities) for further discussion. Officials (AASHTO) Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges7 identifies design vehicle loads. Most bridges in the United States Benton County also maintans a culvert inventory database for are designed to accommodate an HS20 loading, which represents those segments of South Fork Road and Alpine Road under a two-axle single unit truck weighing 36 tons. Benton County jurisdiction that includes 18 culverts. The South Fork Road Corridor Plan does not include a capacity assessment of the culverts nor does it examine whether aquatic All the bridges in the study area have adequate organisms pass through the culverts. design loading capacities based on AASHTO standards and accommodate typical truck types operating in the South Fork Road corridor.
5 Oregon Department of Transportation, Bridge Design Manual, 7 American Association of State Highway and Transportation 2019. Officials, Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges – 17th 6 Oregon Department of Transportation, Highway Design Manual, Edition, 2002. 2012.
10 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 2-3 South Fork Road Culverts
11 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
2.1.4 Maintenance and Operations Table 2-3: South Fork Road/Alpine Road Access by Mile Post Within the study area, Benton County is responsible for MP Access MP Access maintenance of parts of South Fork Road (MP 0.0 – 3.0) and 0.7 S. Mountain Rd 15.0 Nichols Rd Alpine Road. The roadway is maintained by BLM from MP 3.0 to MP 12.0, where South Fork Road becomes Alpine Road. See 1.8 Tobe Creek Rd 15.7 Glenbrook Rd Figure 1-1. 6.9 Trout Creek Rd 15.8 Williams Rd
2.1.5 Roadway Surfacing 7.1 S Fork Rd 16.1 Rainbow Creek Ln South Fork Road and Alpine Road are paved with asphalt from MP 8.9 Fall Creek 16.9 Green Peak Rd Access Rd 0.0 to the corridor end at MP 18.5, near the intersection of Alpine Road and Bellfountain Road. Existing roadway widths were 9.3 Miller Rd 18 Foster Rd documented during field review and were measured from edge of pavement to edge of pavement. Measurements were taken at every mile post, where notable changes in roadway width were 2.1.7 Right of Way observed, and at recreational access points. Roadway widths Figure 2-4 summarizes the general rights of way and typical cross- ranged from approximately 22 feet to 26 feet, with a typical width section of South Fork Road and Alpine Road in the study area. of 22 feet throughout the county-owned segment and a typical width of 24 feet throughout the BLM-owned segment. From MP 0.0 to about MP 3.96, South Fork Road is owned and maintained by Benton County. It is generally a 60-foot-wide right The Benton County Pavement Index rates Alpine Road in Good of way zoned for Mult-Purpose Agriculture and Exclusive Farm condition and South Fork Road in Fair condition (Benton County, Use, with agriculture as the main land use. Property ownership 2020). A windshield reconnaisance f existing pavement surfaces along this section is mainly family/individual ownership and indicated several recent culvert replacements where re-pavement commercial timber companies. and patching had occurred, but otherwise found no major pavement deterioration elsewhere along South Fork Road. Based From MP 3.96 to MP 15.0, South Fork Road is owned by BLM. The on this assessment, the entire corridor appeared to have a good right of way width for the majority of the section is 60-feet wide, pavement condition. narrowing to a 40-foot-wide right of way at approximately MP 10. The zoning is Forest Conservation, and property ownership is primarily BLM, along with some commercial timber companies. 2.1.6 Access Points The main land use is forest management, including timber Table 2-3 summarizes the location of key intersecting access harvesting. routes within the South Fork Road/Alpine Road corridor.
12 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 2-4: South Fork Road Jurisdiction, Right of Way and Pavement Width
13 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Alpine Road is owned and maintained by Benton County from MP Figure 2-5: Alsea Falls Recreation Area 15.0 (at Nichols Road) through the end of the study area at Alpine (MP 18.5). The right of way width in this section is primarily 40 feet, but it transitions back to 60 feet near MP 17. The majority of the section is zoned Forest Conservation, although the zoning changes heading east to Exclusive Farm Use and Rural Residential, closer to Alpine. Again, the main land use is forest management, including timber harvesting, and transitions to agriculture, along with the change in zoning.
2.1.8 Utilities There are existing utilities in the western and eastern sections of the South Fork Road corridor, primarily telephone and power distribution lines. There are no major power, water or gas transmission lines along South Fork Road in the corrdior.
2.1.9 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Though there are currently no designated bicycle or pedestrian facilities along South Fork Road, there is modest use of the corridor by longer-distance cyclists within the south Benton County area. Biking, walking, and running activities will likely increase with additional use in the future; however, the current recreation purpose of the roadway is primarily for recreationalists to reach their destinations and providing access to the Alsea Falls Recreation Area off-roadway trail system. Alsea residentws also use South Fork Road to access Willamette Valley cities and destinations.
14 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
2.1.10 Recreational Opportunities Figure 2-6: Fall Creek Bike Trail System The Alsea Falls Recreation Area includes the Alsea Falls Campground (Figure 2-5) and the Fall Creek Biking and Hiking Trail System (Figure 2-6), as well as a day use and picnic area. Alsea Falls Campground includes 21 overnight campsites for tents and recreational vehicles, and 17 day-use picinic sites. There are fees associated with daily and overnight use ($3 per vehicle per day and $12 to $20 per campsite per night). Within the recreation area, a network of hiking trails that meander through the Coast Range forest and along the South Fork Alsea River and other intersecting streams within the Alsea Falls Recreation Area provide access to multiple viewpoints, waterfalls, and fishing areas.
Fall Creek Hiking and Biking Trail incorporates approximately 12.5 miles of trails for off-road bikers and hikers, and offers diverse terrain and tree canopy. There currently are no user fees at the Fall Creek Hiking and Biking Trail. The trailhead holds approximately 25 spaces for vehicle parking. Fall Creek Trail usage statistics are summarized in Section 3.3. Restroom facilities are provided at both the Alsea Falls Campground and the Fall Creek Hiking and Biking Trail sites.
2.2 GEOMETRIC ROAD CONDITIONS Existing roadway geometrics were evaluated and compared to county, state, and federal guidelines for rural roadways. As-built drawings were not available for the corridor, but a majority of the existing geometric conditions and preliminary evaluations were determined based on field reviews, a video log, and aerial photography.
15 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
2.2.1 Design Criteria Rule (55 mph). A final determination of design speed will ultimately be made during project development. The AASHTO Green Book provides design guidance that helps in determining the typical design speed based on a roadway’s Table 2-4: Roadway Design Standards operating characterisitcs and geometry, although some Travel engineering judgement is necessary. The design speed is a Way/ Min. Roadway Design Shoulder Curve selected speed used to determine the various geometric design Type Speed Width Radius features and safety treatments of the roadway. The typical design speed is appropriate for the type of facility and is a main factor Benton Minor 45 mph 20’ / 4’ 500’ County collector when setting the regulatory speed limit. The operating speed is the highest overall speed at which a driver may travel on a given AASHTO Rural 40 mph-50 22’ / 4’ 485’ collector, mph section of roadway under favorable weather conditions and Green Book level to prevailing traffic conditions without, at any time, exceeding the rolling safe speed as determined by the design speed. Because this ODOT Rural All speeds 20’ / 2’ 546’ corridor has varying widths, and varying horizontal and vertical collector geometries, the operating speed varies.
Table 2-4 lists current design standards for this type of roadway 2.2.2 Horizontal Alignment according to Benton County, ODOT, and AASHTO design criteria. The AASHTO design criteria depends on terrain, area context (i.e., Elements comprising the horizontal alignment include curvature, urban or rural), and daily traffic volumes. County and state criteria superelevation (i.e., the bank on the road), and sight distance. are largely a function of the roadway classification. The projected These horizontal alignment elements influence traffic operation traffic volumes for the corridor are between 300 and 400 vehicles and safety, and relate directly to the design speed of the corridor. per day (vpd). Based on these factors, the study corridor appears AASHTO’s design guidlines for horizontal curves are defined in to be of rural context with primarily level terrain and some areas terms of curve radius and stopping sight distance (SSD), and they of rolling terrain, indicating a design speed ranging from 30 miles vary based on design speed and type of terrain. SSD for a per hour (mph) to 50 mph. A design speed of 40 mph, along with horizontal curve is evaluated based on the ability to see through the associated design standards, was assumed for the purposes of the inside of the corner. Minimum sight obstruction distances are this planning study. The speed limit on South Fork Road is posted calculated from criteria contained in the AASHTO Green Book. The at 35 mph, which follows ODOT and AASHTO guidelines that minimum sight obstruction distance is measured from the center suggest posting regulatory speed at 5 mph below design speed. of the inside travel lane and defines the area that should be clear There is no posted speed limit on the Benton County portions of of visual obstructions to allow for the recommended SSD. South Fork and Alpine Roads, which by default defers to Basic The South Fork Road corridor varies between level and rolling terrain, and based on the state and federal guidelines and the
16 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1) number of vehicles per day for the roadway, as stated above, has two categories: crest and sag. A crest curve is created at the top an assumed design speed of 40 mph. of a hill or when the grade decreases. Conversely, a sag curve occurs at the bottom of a hill or when the grade increases. The posted speed on South Fork Road is mapped in Figure 2-7, which illustrates the varied horizontal curvature of the corridor Benton County standards state that the maximum allowable and identifies curves where an advisory speed sign exists. Though grade of minor collectors is 12 percent. AASHTO guidelines state the entire corridor has varying horizontal and vertical curvature, that the maximum allowable grade is 8 percent for rolling terrain. only nine curves have advisory warning signs. It is assumed that No vertical profile data was available for the study corridor, but these curves, shown in Table 2-5, do not meet standards for a during the field review, several vertical curves were visually roadway with a design speed of 40 mph. observed to have sight distance concerns based on the speed of Table 2-5: Non-standard Horizontal Curve Speeds the observers. As-built data or a more rigorous field calculations would be required to determine whether these vertical curvatures Location (MP) Advisory Speed Sign meet SSD standards. Horizontal Curve 0.1 20 mph
Horizontal Curve 0.8 20 mph 2.2.4 Sight Distance
Horizontal Curve 1.9 20 mph Sight distance is the length of roadway visible to a driver, and is influenced by the curvature and visual obstructions alongside the Horizontal Curve 4.0 25 mph road. These can include vertical curves, fixed objects such as walls Horizontal Curve 4.6 20 mph or trees, and even roadside shrubs and weeds. Sight distance is commonly defined in three ways: passing sight distance, stopping Horizontal Curve 5.9 20 mph sight distance (or SSD), and intersection sight distance. In general, Horizontal Curve 11.5 20 mph the driver of a vehicle should have an unobstructed view and enough distance to perceive, react, and safely stop for or avoid Horizontal Curve 13.3 20 mph approaching vehicles and other hazards. Horizontal Curve 14.2 25 mph Although roadway geometrics for the study area corridor using as- built data are not available, it was observed during the field 2.2.3 Vertical Alignment review that there are many locations along South Fork Road where both the roadway geometrics and the roadside Vertical alignment is a measure of the elevation change of a obstructions, such as trees, bushes, and sideslopes, limited the roadway. The length and steepness of grades directly affect the sight distance of the observers. operational characteristics of the roadway. The controlling design limits for vertical curves are SSD, vertical curvature (known as K-value), and maximum grade. Vertical curves can be placed into
17 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 2-7: Speed Limits and Advisory Speeds
18 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
2.2.5 Clear Zone conditions that might call for a reduction of speed or an action in the interest of safety and efficient traffic operations. FHWA defines a clear zone as the unobstructed, traversable roadside area that allows a driver to stop safely or regain control Figure 2-7 maps the posted speed limit for the South Fork Road of a vehicle that has left the roadway. The width of the clear zone corridor, and warning sign locations with advisory lowered speed is based on traffic volumes, speeds, and slopes. Clear roadsides (primarily in sharp curve sections). consider both fixed objects and terrain that may cause vehicles to roll over. Because of the low ADT and rural context of South Fork 2.4 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Road, a clear zone of 7 to 10 feet with recoverable slopes is There is limited traffic count data available for the South Fork recommended, although some engineering judgement is needed Road corridor. ADT for the corridor is reported at about 325. to determine the clear zone, on a case-by-case basis. Although no Summer peak traffic reaches about 400 vpd. FHWA estimates cross-sectional data was available to evaluate clear zone that, in 20 years, the peak summer traffic may reach 500 vpd. distances, it can be safely assumed that, given the frequency of trees and steep side slopes along South Fork Road, there is a high It is likely that traffic is higher at both the western and eastern probability that a large portion of the corridor does not have ends of the study corridor than in between. Traffic varies adeqate clear zone. significantly along South Fork Road by month. As shown in Figure 2-8, the nearest permanant traffic recording station to the South 2.3 TRAFFIC CONTROL Fork Road corridor on Oregon’s highway system is located on Highway 34 near Alsea. August is typically the peak traffic month. At MP 0.0, westbound South Fork Road stops for two-way traffic Traffic in the spring and fall is more typical, and during the winter, on Alsea-Deadwood Highway, which runs north-south and is not traffic volume drops to levels about 25 percent lower than stop-controlled. At MP 18.5, the intersection of Alpine Road and average. Bellfountain Road is stop-controlled, and a flashing yellow signal provides advanced warning of the stop. Regulatory, guide, and warning signs exist throughout the corridor. The Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2019 defines regulatory signs and, for those which inform road users of selected traffic laws or regulations, indicate the applicability of the legal requirements. MUTCD defines guide signs as those which direct road users along streets and highways to inform them of intersecting routes, direct them to destinations, and direct them to nearby areas of interest. Finally, MUTCD defines warning signs as those which call attention to unexpected conditions on or adjacent to a roadway and alert road users to
19 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 2-8: Average Daily Traffic, Oregon Highway 34, 2017 Existing daily traffic volume and average travel speed counts were taken over a seven-day period in February 2020 at four points within the South Fork Road Corridor. Figure 2-9 summarizes the volume and speed counts. The traffic data reveal these key points:
January February March April May June July August September October November December • Traffic volumes are highest in the west and east ends of 3,500 the corridor
3,000 • Traffic accessing the Alsea Falls Recreation sites peak on 2,454 Saturday, and a greater number arrive from the east 2,500 2,214 • The average vehicle speed west of the Alsea Falls Campground is just slightly higher than 35 mph (posted 2,000 1,969 speed limited) for much of the week
1,500 • Vehicle speeds along the Backcountry Scenic Byway portion of the corridor nearest Alsea Falls Campground 1,000 are lowest on Thursdays and Saturdays (42-44 mph), an indicator that visitors travel at lower speed than the 500 average weekday motorist • 0 Bicycle counts in the corridor are low in February, peaking on Friday and Saturday, and local destination 2017 travel rather than continuous travel through the entire corridor Source: ODOT Permanent Traffic Recorder, 2019 This Study intended to collect comparable volume and travel speed data during June or July in order to indicate peak seasonal travel patterns. These counts were cancelled due to the impact of COVID-19 and the closure of public land access during that time period.
2.5 SAFETY ODOT provides crash data for South Fork Road and Alpine Road from January 11, 2011, through December 31, 2017. Records show 23 crashes within the study area during this crash analysis period (see Figure 2-10).
20 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 2-9 Existing Traffic Volume and Travel Speeds – February 2020
21 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 2-10: Vehicle Crash History, 2011–2017
22 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 2-11 charts the number of crashes per month during the Figure 2-12: Vehicle Crashes by Season and Severity time frame of 2011 to 2017. (2011–2017) As shown, May, June, and September have the highest number of crashes—roughly proportionate to the 2017 seasonal variation of 8 daily traffic on nearby Alsea Highway (OR 34) (see Figure 2-12). 7 Injury, Non- 6 5 Fatal Figure 2-11: Vehicle Crashes by Month (2011–2017) 4 3 4 Crashes # 2 Property 1 Damage Only 3 0 Winter Spring Summer Fall 2
# Crashes 1 Source: Oregon Department of Transportation 0 2.5.1 Safety Trends, Contributing Factors, and Crash Clusters Source: Oregon Department of Transportation On average, 3.3 crashes occurred each year throughout the Figure 2-12 further illustrates the seasonal variation of the corridor from 2011 to 2017. Assuming a constant vehicle volume reported crashes, including severity of each crash. The majority of of approximately 130,000 vehicles per year gives an average crash crashes occurred in summer and fall, the two seasons with peak rate of 1.55 during the period from 2013 to 2017. This average traffic volumes. crash rate is slightly higher than the statewide average crash rate of similarly classified, rural major collectors, which is 1.46 8 During the winter season, all reported crashes (3) were property damage only. During spring, summer, and fall, the crash severity As shown in Figure 2-10, the study area is divided into three was evenly split between property damage (10) and injury, non- logical segments based on the concentrated crash grouping: west, fatal (10) crashes. curves, and east. The “west” segment runs from MP 0.0 to MP 1.46, and includes a sharp, 90 degree turn at about MP 0.7. Of the total corridor crashes, 17 percent (4) occurred in this segment.
8 ODOT, State Highway Crash Rate Table II Five-Year Comparison of State Highway Crash Rates.
23 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
The “curves” segement, roughly from MP 5.0 to MP 7.0, includes Figure 2-13: Vehicle Crashes by Roadway Characteristics a number of horizontal and vertical curv 7 es with limited sight distance along South Fork Road; 30 percent 6 Curve (7) of the crashes occurred in the curves segment. The third 5 (horizontal segment, “east,” is from MP 15.0 to MP 18.0, which is the 4 curve) segment connecting Alpine and Glenbrook, where 52 percent (12) 3
# Crashes 2 Straight of the corridor crashes occurred. Roadway* 1 Figure 2-13 shows where the crashes occurred according to the 0 West Curves East three crash grouping segments—west, curves, and east—and thus Intersection indicates the roadway characteristics of each crash location. As *Straight Roadway crash within Curve crash area involved a driver hitting a deer shown, most crashes occurred wihtin roadway curves. Narrow Source: Oregon Department of Transportation travel lanes, limited sight lines, and limited or no shoulders are likely contributing factors to the crash hsitory. Figure 2-14 charts crash casualty within the South Fork Road corridor by corridor segment. The most common crash Two crashes occurred at or near the intersection of Alpine Road contributing factor was drivers driving too fast for roadway and Bellfountain Road; in both instances, one of the drivers failed conditions (total of 9). This factor occurred mainly in the west and to yield the right of way. curve segments of the corridor.
Few crashes (6) occurred within straight parts of the corridor, and The main crash type in the South Fork Road corridor was motorist those that did mostly involved faulty driver behavior striking a fixed object or other object collisions (16). The other (fatigued/drowsy driver, improper driving, inattention) rather crash types include sideswipe (3), non-collision (2), turning than issues related to roadway design. movement (1), and angle (1). The sideswipes, turning movement, and angle crashes all involved two vehicles; all other crashes involved only one vehicle. All three sideswipes were a result of a driver driving left of the center lane around a curve with wet roadway surface conditions. The majority of corridor crashes (18) occurred during daylight hours, 15 of which were in clear and dry conditions. Five occurred in rainy and wet conditions, and one crash involved icy conditions.
24 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 2-14: Vehicle Crash Causality, by Corridor Segment 2.6 OTHER VULNERABILITIES There are locations along the corridor where natural land events, including landslides and erosion, have occurred. The following sections discuss these areas and how they may impact future road design, maintenance, and repair work on South Fork Road and Alpine Road. Figure 2-15 presents these additional vulnerabilities along the study corridor as identified during the field review.
Steep Slopes There are many locations along the corridor that have steep side slopes on one or both sides of South Fork Road and parts of Alpine Road, mainly from MP 1.4 to MP 14.2. Areas with steep slopes may have an elevated risk of erosion. Slope failures, or landslides, typically occur where a slope is overly steep, where material is not compacted, or where cuts in natural soils encounter groundwater or zones of weak material. These areas of steep slopes are especially important to consider in order to help minimize the risk of slope failure and avoid the potential for expensive road repairs or road closures. Steep slopes can be stabilized by flattening the slope, adding drainage, or using retaining structures to help prevent erosion. There were 12 locations in the South Fork Road corridor identified as having steep side slopes. Source: Oregon Department of Transportation Appendix A includes mapped summaries of study corridor segments that are susceptible to slide risk based on steep terrain (immediately adjacent to South Fork Road and Alpine Road), prevailing base geology, and surface soil typology.
25 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 2-15: Historic Landslides and Slide Susceptibility
26 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Landslides Figure 2-16: Recent Culvert Replacements along South Fork Road One landslide (1996–1997) was documented immediately adjacent to South Fork Road9, roughly between MP 3.8 and MP 4.0. Another slide blocked South Fork Road for severla m,onths during the winter of 2007 at milepost 3.2.
Drainage/Erosion Improper drainage on a roadway can lead to serious erosion issues. When water falls on roads and is not removed promptly, the water seeps into lower layers of the pavement and weakens the soil, which can compromise the soil stability and undermine the capacity of the pavement to carry traffic. Multiple culverts transport streams or drainage underneath South Fork Road and Alpine Road. Subgrade The BLM is actively replacing undersized culverts or culverts that Weak or deteriorated subgrade is typically characterized by are in poor condition along South Fork Road, often contracting rutting, depressions, or upheaval in the roadway pavement, the repair services with Benton County. As shown in Figure 2-16, sometime related to poor pavement construction methods the BLM replaced 8 culverts in 2010 and 21 culverts in 2014. (poorly compacted subgrade). Pavement distress can be caused by a variety of factors including frost heave, lack of compaction, or weak base material. During field review in 2019, there were no major sections of South Fork Road and Alpine Road that indicated significant subgrade deficiency.
9 DOGAMI. Historic Landslide Points, SLIDO Report, 2020.
27 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
This page is intentionally left blank.
28 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES The following subsections present an overview of items related to Current and potential environmental conditions should be the physical environment of the study area. considered for any transportation improvement projects along South Fork Road and Alpine Road. Most environmental concerns within the study area that may impact project development relate 3.1.1 Land Ownership and Land Use to the South Fork Alsea River and the habitat it provides. South As noted in Section 2.1.7 above, the corridor lies within a mix of Fork Road crosses the South Fork Alsea River and several other publicly- and privately-held lands of varied use. streams. Culverts and bridges have been placed to control these crossings. The river and surrounding wetlands provide a In the west segment of the study area (MP 0.0 to MP 3.96), lands substantial habitat that supports diverse populations of fish and are zoned for Multi-Purpose Agriculture and Exclusive Farm Use, wildlife. Some of the species present in the study area are listed, where agriculture is the primary land use. Property ownership or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). along this section is mainly privately held by family or individual holdings, and by commercial timber companies. This planning study includes an environmental scan that documents the current environmental conditions. This section From MP 3.96 to MP 12.0, South Fork Road is owned by the BLM. summarizes the environmental scan, which provides a planning‐ The zoning is Forest Conservation, and property ownership is level overview of resources and identifies potential constraints primarily the BLM, along with some commercial timber and opportunities based on readily-available environmental companies. The main land uses are forest management (including information. Limited environmental studies have been conducted timber harvesting) and recreation. in the study area over recent years. Information from these past From MP 12.0 to the end of the study area to Alpine, lands are studies was reviewed and supplemented with publicly available zoned Forest Conservation, Exclusive Farm Use, and Rural data from federal, state, and local agencies. Residential (especially near Alpine). The primary land use in this In the future, any improvement projects forwarded from this section is forest management including timber harvesting, and planning study that may impact the South Fork Alsea River will land use transitions to agriculture and rural resiential in the need to consider the species supported by the watershed, the eastern end of the corridor. land surrounding the roadway, and the nearby populations as part of a project‐level environmental analysis. Information contained 3.1.2 Soil Resources and Prime Farmland in the planning-level environmental scan presented in this The Farmland Policy Protection Act (FPPA) (7 United States Code planning study may be used to support future environmental 4201 et seq.) requires special consideration be given to soils studies. considered as prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide or local importance by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The
29 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
FPPA is intended to minimize the impact federal programs have 3.1.4 Surface Waters on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to The study area crosses three watersheds, beginning near the nonagricultural uses. Based on the NRCS classifications, there are northwestern boundary of the Lower South Fork Alsea River, prime farmland soil types on both the east and west ends of the crossing the Upper South Fork Alsea Watershed, and ending in the study area, as shown in Figure 3-1. Upper Muddy Creek Watershed (see Figure 3-2). Projects are subject to requirements in the FPPA if they could The road generally parallels the South Fork Alsea River across the irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to northern portion of the study area. After crossing into the Upper nonagricultural use. If any improvement options are forwarded Muddy Creek Watershed, the road follows ridgelines between from the planning study, coordination with the NRCS will be Nye and Weaver Creeks before dropping to Hammer Creek and required to determine whether the FPPA applies and what the thereby to Hawley Creek, crossing its tributaries west of Alpine. necessary NRCS processing requirements are. Projects planned The corridor crosses several streams and other named perennial, and completed without the assistance of a federal agency are not fish-bearing streams within the study area. Additional unnamed subject to the FPPA. streams, wetlands, ditches, and other waterbodies are also present. 3.1.3 Geologic Hazards
The study area falls largely within the South Fork Alsea River drainage basin within the central Oregon Coast Range geologic structural basin. The Oregon Coast Range (Tyee formation) was formed by marine deposits thrusted up onto the North American Plate. The Cascadia Subduction Zone is offshore from Washington, Oregon, and Northern California. This zone is where the Juan de Fuca plate is subducting under the North American Plate, causing a high seismic risk to this coastal area. Earthquakes ranging from magnitude 1.5 up to 4.0 are not uncommon. Geotechnical investigations would likely be required for reconstruction or significant improvements to South Fork Road to determine geologic stability including planes of weakness, erosion, and settlement concerns posed by surficial geology and soil conditions.
30 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 3-1: Prime Farmland Soils
31 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 3-2: Watersheds and Streams
32 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Road construction and reconstruction activities such as culvert dependent on individual household and/or farm wells for potable installation or replacement, placement of fill, or bank stabilization water, and on septic systems for wastewater disposal. With have the potential for impacts to surface waters. Coordination increased use, there is a potential for groundwater resources to with federal, state, and local agencies will be necessary to become overutilized in some locations. Based on available data, determine the appropriate permits, based on the improvement there are no known groundwater contaminant sites in the options forwarded from this study. Impacts should be avoided corridor west of Alpine. The Oregon Water Resources Department and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to has been working with Alpine area landowners on a monitoring streams and wetlands may trigger compensatory mitigation program to help resolve groundwater issues. requirements. Water Quality 3.1.6 Floodplains and Floodways There are no known water quality plans regulating the South Fork Minor segments of South Fork Road cross or lie within the 100- Alsea River and its tributaries within the study area. year floodplain of the South Fork Alsea River, as shown in Figure 3-3. Much of South Fork Road lies outside the floodplain In Oregon, stormwater management is regulated by the Oregon boundary. Major flood events have occurred within the South Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). ODEQ requires Fork Alsea River Watershed in the past. High precipitation events local, state, and federal agencies to complete a land use in the Oregon Coast Range are primary causes of flooding of the compatability statement to determine whether an ODEQ permit South Fork Alsea River; however, the most significant flood events or approval of a roadway improvement project will be consistent have occurred downstream (northwest) of the study area. Benton with Benton County’s comprehensive plans and land use County regulates development activities in flood hazard areas. If regulations. any improvement options advanced from this study cross or ODEQ also requires a construction stormwater permit for encroach on a regulated flood hazard area, it will be necessary to stormwater discharges from construction activities that result in coordinate with and obtain a Floodplain Development Permit the disturbance of equal to or greater than 1 acre of total land from Benton County. area. Any in-stream project work or construction within wetlands will require a 404 Permit jointly issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Oregon Department of State Lands. ODEQ also requries and issues a 401 Water Qulaity Certificate.
3.1.5 Groundwater Groundwater resources within the South Fork Road corridor are under small but modestly increasing pressure from area rural residential and irrigated cropland uses. Much of existing uses are
33 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 3-3: 100-Year Flood Plain 3.1.8 Hazardous Substances A search of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s environmental cleanup site indicates there are no contaminated sites or leaking underground storage tanks within the general study area.
3.1.9 Air Quality Benton County is considered an attainment area for all pollutants and there are no nearby non-attainment areas. Since Benton County is considered an attainment for all pollutants, federally- funded transportation projects in the South Fork Road corridor by the FHWA or BLM would not be subject to conformity requirements. 3.1.7 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Available data show primarily freshwater emergent wetlands and 3.1.10 Noise freshwater forested/shrub wetlands along the South Fork Alsea Residencies in the study area comprise of the only sensitive noise River and other intermittent rivers, streams, and drainages, receptors that could be affected by roadway improvements in the especially Hammer Creek and Hawley Creek in the study area (see South Fork Road corridor. Detailed noise analyses are often Figure 3-4). A large pond is present south of Glenbrook, and conducted when the potential for noise impacts exist due to extensive freshwater emergent wetlands occur in the relatively substantial changes in roadway design or configuration. However, level areas between Hammer and Hawley creeks. given the rural environment, low volumes of traffic, and dispersed Wetland delineations would be required if improvement options nature of residencies in the study area, noise impacts resulting are forwarded from the planning study that could potentially from potential roadway improvements are unlikely. Construction affect wetlands. Future projects in the study area would need to activities associated with improvements to either South Fork Road incorporate project design features to avoid and minimize adverse or Alpine Road may result in localized and tmeporary noise impacts on wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Various impacts in the vicinity of residencies. These impacts can be state and federal water quality permits may be required to minimized by incorporating measures to control noise sources implement construction projects within much of the corridor. during construction.
34 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 3-4: Wetlands
35 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Plant Management for the Northwest Oregon District Environmental Assessment, Appendix B11: “In general, the The following information applies to the biological environment District’s strategy is to manage invasive plants while minimizing within the study area and reflects a baseline natural resources adverse effects to ecological function and economic values. This condition. Depending on the level of detail available through the strategy requires District staff to set action thresholds and to high-level baseline scan, some of the information is presented at evaluate sites to determine when the BLM has reached or the county level, some at the study area level, and some at the exceeded those thresholds. Action thresholds are the levels of corridor level. ecological or economic damage that invasive plant infestations cause before needing treatments, and these thresholds differ 3.2.1 Vegetation across sites, projects, and species. For example, for most invasive Native vegetation in the corridor is consistent with similar plant species, the action threshold would be different along a elevation-based gradients in the Coast Range of Oregon. Much of disturbed roadside than it would be next to a population of a rare the older forest has been removed by timber harvest, resulting in plant species known to be intolerant of competition. For some a patchwork of forested seral stages. As the BLM describes in its invasive plant species (e.g., giant hogweed) the threshold may be South Fork Alsea River Watershed Analysis10, “As a result of a single plant, regardless of the site, while for other species (e.g., natural and man-caused disturbances in this watershed, the later St. Johnswort) the threshold would rarely be reached except at successional habitat is now greatly reduced and fragmented, and extremely sensitive sites. lies almost entirely on BLM lands. Where it has not been removed The District recommends management action for invasive plant by logging, mature forest consists of Douglas-fir and western infestations that exceed action thresholds. The District prioritizes hemlock, with salal, sword fern, vine maple, Oregon grape, and treatment sites because the number of invasive plant infestations rhododendron. Wetter slopes and riparian areas support bigleaf requiring management action exceeds the District’s annual maple, western redcedar, grand fir, red alder, salmonberry, and treatment capacity. Priorities are determined based on oxalis. Much of the riparian vegetation at lower elevations in the abundance of the target species (e.g., is it previously unknown on corridor consists of woody species such as willow and alder, with the District, or is it widespread?), location where the infestation is a mix of herbaceous vegetation and shrubs in more recently found, type and value of resources near the infestation, potential disturbed areas.” rate and severity of spread, and whether the treatment would be As in much of the Coast Range, invasive weeds are a growing effective.” concern in the corridor. As outlined in the Integrated Invasive
10 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. South Fork Alsea River Watershed Analysis, 1995.
36 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
BLM surveys, maps, and controls invasive weeds on its lands, and generally less coordinated. Any improvement projects advancing prioritizing species that are highly invasive and have a negative from this planning study may be required to develop a weed impacts on other resources, or are generally uncommon within management plan, including surveys and control of noxious the Field Office.11 Wide spread species may or may not be weeds, before any ground disturbance occurs. At a minimum, the mapped or controlled, because they are eubiquidous within the projects should incorporate applicable practices outlined in the landscape, and control is not feasible. Appendix B of this BLM management policies. document provides a list of species that are currently targeted by Marys Peak Field Office for mapping and treatment, because 3.2.2 Fish and Wildlife control may be feasible or strategic. The first part of the table includes species that are most likely to be encountered and The study area corridor provides breeding, resting, foraging, and mapped by contractors. The second part includes species that are migratory habitat for many species of fish and wildlife. The focus uncommon but have been found in the past. For these species or of this document is on federally listed species and on sensitive any other uncommon non-native species, Marys Peak Field Office species known to occur in or near the study area. requests that contractors notify BLM if these are found in addition During the early planning stages, coordination should occur with to mapping their location. fish and wildlife biologists from Oregon Department of Fish and Invasive weeds are a growing concern in the South Fork Alsea Wildlife, BLM, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to River Watershed. Any improvement projects advancing from this gain further insight into issues related to the management of planning study may be required to develop a weed management these species, as well as measures for avoiding, minimizing, or plan, including surveys and control of noxious weeds, before any mitigating adverse effects on species and habitat. ground disturbance occurs. At a minimum, the projects should incorporate applicable practices and management policies 3.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species outlined in the Integrated Invasive Plant Management for the According to BLM12 and data provided by BLM, the following Northwest Oregon District Environmental Assessment11. federally listed aquatic species occur in or near the study area Invasive weeds are a growing concern in the South Fork Alsea corridor. River Watershed. Priority species include Russian and spotted Figure 3-5 displays the current distribution of salmon (Coho and knapweed, leafy spurge, Dalmation toadflax, and whitetop. Chinook) and steelhead/cutthroat trout in the South Fork Alsea Russian and spotted knapweeds, Dalmatian toadflax, and leafy River watershed. The 1995 South Fork Alsea River Watershed weeds are likely more widespread on non-BLM lands to the east, Analysis was updated with information from the Western Oregon where disturbance is greater and survey and control efforts are adult winter steelhead and lamprey, 2018 redd survey data
11 (BLM 2018) 12 (BLM 1995)
37 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1) report,13 and the ODPW Coastal Multi-Species Conservation and are found mostly in the mainstem of the South Fork Management Plan (ODFW 2014) to provide the following Alsea River and its major tributaries. summary of existing conditions within the South Fork Alsea River • All major streams have some available habitat for Coho system: salmon. The distribution of Coho salmon is limited by falls in three subwatersheds; Tobe Creek, Peak Creek, • Anadromous fish species present in the South Fork Alsea and upper South Fork Alsea River. Habitat requirements River system includes: fall Chinook salmon of this species are clean spawning gravels in low to (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Coho salmon (O. kisutch), medium gradient mainstems and tributaries; rearing winter steelhead (O. mykiss), and coastal cutthroat trout habitat is primarily in dammed pools and backwaters; (O. clarki). Seasonal migrations result in year-round and Coho depend on good instream structure and cover. usage of the watershed by adult anadromous salmonids. Oregon Coast coho salmon are federally lsited as There are three known natural barriers which have Threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). affected anadromous fish distribution within the • Spawning for Winter steelhead is Dec-May; therefore the watershed. These include: South Fork Alsea Falls, Green fish can be present in the project are during this time Peak Falls, and Tobe Creek Falls. Anadromous fish are period. Winter steelhead inhabit approximately 31.5 found in approximately 100 miles of stream within the miles of stream within the drainage. Winter steelhead watershed. have a varied spawning distribution, from mainstem to • Resident cutthroat trout populations are found the smallest accessible tributaries including high gradient throughout the watershed, including above barriers to streams. The distribution of winter steelhead trout is anadromous fish and second order streams. They are similar to Coho salmon. Coastal winter steelhead are not found in approximately 170 miles of streams within the proposed for federal listing under the ESA, but are a watershed. Other freshwater species occurring the South Bureau Sensitive Species. Fork Alsea River watershed include lamprey, dace, and • Sea-run cutthroat trout appear in the river possibly as sculpins. early as late August and run to late April (depending on • Fall Chinook salmon (adult) generally appear in the South river conditions). Resident cutthroat trout are the only Fork Alsea River around the first part of October indigenous salmonid above the falls and are assumed to (depending on river conditions) and run through be present in nearly all perennial and some intermittent November. Fall Chinook salmon inhabit approximately streams. 13.2 miles of stream within the watershed. Fall Chinook
13 (Jacobsen, et. al. (2019)
38 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 3-5: Anadromous Fish
39 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
lack of suitable habitat outside BLM land. Two of the four 3.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Terrestrial occurrences shown in the BLM occurrence data (2019) appear to Species lie a short distance from the study area corridor, and would likely The USFWS Information, Planning, and Consultation System (IPAC) trigger formal consultation with USFWS. If these nests are provides an initial list of federal species that may be affected by occupied, seasonal restrictions would likely apply. any project that may be recommended in the Plan. According to Marbled Murrelet: According to BLM (1995): “This species, which iPAC,14 the species listed in Appendix C may be affected by flies inland from the coast to nest in late seral and old-growth activities within the study area corridor. forests, has been detected at only four locations within this Of the species in Appendix C, only two (northern spotted owl watershed. Very few surveys have been conducted for murrelets [Strix occidentalis caurina] and marbled murrelet [Brachyramphus in this watershed, and a thorough inventory of the best available marmoratus]) are known to occur in the study area, based on habitat (remnant old-growth patches) has not been attempted. iPAC and database information provided by BLM. The other Future management activities on federal lands are not likely to species are considered somewhat unlikely to occur due to their result in the destruction of murrelet habitat or proposed critical rarity (fisher) or specific habitat needs that potentially occur only habitat, yet the incidental take of murrelets may still occur from at the eastern end of the study area, if at all (streaked horned actions that pose disturbance risks to murrelet habitat.” lark, plants, and insects). Two of the four listed species occurrences shown in the BLM Northern Spotted Owl: According to BLM 1995 South Fork Alsea occurrence data (2019) appear to lie a very short distance from River Watershed Analysis: “The BLM first began surveys for the study area corridor, and would likely trigger formal spotted owls in this and adjoining watersheds in 1975. Since 1986 consultation with USFWS. If these nests are occupied, seasonal the yearly surveys efforts have been fairly consistent, and a restrictions would likely apply. banding program was implemented to allow for identifying individual owls and tracking their yearly survival and 3.2.5 Other Species of Concern reproduction. The spotted owl’s preferred habitat for nesting, roosting, and foraging is late seral and old-growth forests. In some Species of Concern are native animals or plants that are at risk cases federal management actions might involve projects that due to declining population trends, threats to their habitats, and pose a risk of disturbance to owls, if such projects are situated restricted distribution, among other factors. According to BLM within a ½ mile of active sites.” (2019) the following sensitive species are known to occur near the corridor: Known occurrences of northern spotted owl lie within the BLM portions of the corridor, which is not surprising given the relative
14 (iPAC 2020)
40 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus): Peregrine falcons inhabit identifying populations that might be affected by improvements cliffs, and it appears as if the single known occurrence near the in the study area. study area lies on cliffs immediately adjacent to South Fork Road According to the American Community Survey, the percentage of near the northern edge of the study area. Although the species minority residents in Benton County (18 percent) is greater than was removed from the endangered species list in 1998 due to its the statewide average (13 percent), owing to a large and diverse successful recovery, seasonal restrictions may be needed if the population associated with Oregon State University and the species is indeed nesting in the area. county’s agricultural workforce. The percentage of Benton County Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): Bald eagles typically nest in households at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty rate is large trees and forage in and near water. It appears that the almost 16 percent, which is somewhat higher than the Oregon single-known occurrence near the study area lies a short distance statewide average (13 percent). south of South Fork Road near the northern edge of the study Within the South Fork Road study area (southern Benton County), area. Although the species was removed from the endangered the percentage of minority residents range from almost 10 species list in 2007 due to its successful recovery, seasonal percent in the west (near Alsea) to only 2 percent in the east restrictions may be needed if bald eagles are indeed nesting in the (near Alpine). The percentage of study residents at or below the area. 200 percent federal poverty level significantly exceeds both the Benton County and Oregon statewide averages: it is almost 39 3.3 SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES percent in the west end of the corridor near Alsea, and 19 percent The following subsections present an overview of the social and in the east end near Alpine. cultural environment within the South Fork Road study area. Title VI of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 12898 require that projects receiving federal funds must 3.3.1 Demographic and Economic Conditions not result in disproportionately high and adverse effects on Implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy minority or low-income populations. For transportation projects, Act require federal agencies to assess potential social and this means that minority or low‐income populations (known as economic impacts resulting from proposed actions. FHWA environmental justice populations in this context) must not be guidelines recommend consideration of impacts to disproportionately isolated, displaced, or otherwise subjected to neighborhoods and community cohesion, social groups including adverse effects. If improvement options are forwarded from the minority populations, and local and/or regional economies, as planning study into project development, environmental justice well as growth and development that may be induced by would need to be further evaluated during the project transportation improvements. Demographic and economic development process. Demographic data obtained for this study information presented in this section is intended to assist in indicates that low-income populations are present in the study area, and they will likely benefit from corridor investments that trigger increased tourism revenue in the area.
41 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Direct economic activity in the South Fork Road corridor occurs Camground, Alsea Falls Hiking Trail and the Fall Creek Bike Trail due to (1) visitor spending and related business revenue, Network. employment, income, and tax revenue, and (2) revenue, income, Figure 3-6 summarizes the most recent (June through December and jobs related to timber harvesting on private land and on 2019) user data for the Fall Creek Bike Trail Network. As shown, certain public (BLM) lands. Visitors to the area camp, hike, fish, use of the Fall Creek Bike Trail Network peaks on weekends, with picnic, bike, and sightsee at Alsea Falls Recreation Site and along counts of users ranging from 100 to 150 users on Saturdays and Fall Creek Bike Trail Network, and as part of this recreational Sundays. There are large events scheduled on select early summer experience, spend money locally on user fees, gasoline, food, and and fall Saturdays that have counts ranging from 325 to 375. User lodging. Local spending, income, and jobs result in indirect and counts for the Alsea Falls Campground and Hiking Trail are induced economic activity in the form of employees’ spending unavailable for this study. their earnings and businesses purchasing supplies and raw materials. Economic activity will likely increase with future Figure 3-6: Fall Creek Bike Trail Network Users projected increases in nearby population Fall Creek Bike Trail Users - 2019 centers, such as Eugene 450 Special Saturday Events and Corvallis, and the 400 growing popularity of 350 recreation activities 300 along South Fork Road, Typical Weekend Peaks 250 as well as the BLM’s continued management 200 of timber harvests on 150 public lands consistent 100 with federal forest 50 sustainability practices 0 Jul
and policy. Jun Oct Sep Dec Aug Nov
3.3.2 Recreational Resources 3.3.3 Cultural and Historic Resources In addition to providing access for residences in the corridor, Federal agencies are required to consider the effects of their especially the more populated west and east ends, South Fork undertakings (including funding, licensing, or permitting the Road provides access to several developed recreation undertakings of other entities) on historic properties and must opportunities in the central Coast Range, including the Alsea Falls consult affected American Indian tribes. Available data identified
42 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1) the following tribes with potential interests in the South Fork Road corridor area:
• Confederate Tribes of Grande Ronde • Confederate Tribes of Siletz Indians
Implementing regulations also require agencies to seek ways of avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating any adverse effects on historic properties. There are no historic properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places within the study area. If any projects are brought forward from the planning study, a cultural resource survey for unrecorded historic and archaeological properties would need to be completed within the area of potential effect defined for each project. Direct and indirect impacts (such as visual, noise, and access impacts) to eligible or listed properties would need to be considered if improvement options are carried forward.
3.3.4 Visual Resources The study area encompasses a wide variety of settings, including the South Fork Road corridor and county roads, rural development, state forest land, other public lands, and wetlands. Actions that may have visual impacts include projects on locations where no projects exist or that involve expansion, realignment, or other changes that could alter the character of an existing landscape or move the roadway closer to residential areas, and parks and recreation areas.
43 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
This page is intentionally left blank.
44 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
4 ECONOMIC DRIVERS AND FUTURE region, including Benton County and the Eugene UGB. Timber harvesting along South Fork Road and local rural community ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND EFFECTS planning for economic development would continue to contribute CONSIDERED to economic activity in the area.
4.1 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC DRIVERS 4.2 FUTURE ECONOMIC IMPACTS TO LOCAL The local and regional economy surrounding Alsea Falls will ECONOMY continue to benefit from both overnight and day use visitors to Figure 4-2 charts the estimated annual spending by Alsea Falls Alsea Falls. As shown in Figure 4-1, total annual visitor counts are recreation site visitors. By 2040, Fall Creek Trail visitors are expected to increase in year 2040 by almost twenty percent estimated to spend a little more than $1.1 million (2019 dollars) (estimates provided by BLM, future business plan for Alsea annually in the local economy, and campground visitors are Falls/Fall Creek – 2017). estimated to spend over $1.5 million.
Figure 4-1 Alsea Falls Recreation Site-Estimated Figure 4-2 Alsea Falls Recreation Site-Estimated Annual Annual Visitors Spending
Together with expected low but stable regional population and economic growth, improvements to South Fork Road and the
Alsea Falls trails and trail connections associated with the Corridor Plan could result in increased visits at Alsea Falls and associated economic impacts in the local area (Alsea and Alpine) and the
45 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Future economic impacts due to Alsea Falls Recreational Site are estimated to include the following:[1]
• $68,000-80,000 in annual recreation fees; • $2.5 to $3.0 million in visitor spending; • 44 full-time equivalent jobs resulting from visitor spending; • $964,000 in earnings resulting from visitor spending; and • $165,000 in tax revenue resulting from visitor spending, $66,000 of which would be local.
Appendix D contains the full summary assessment of economic drivers and future economic activity in the South Fork Road corridor.
[1] Dollar estimates are 2019 dollars.
46 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
5 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Objectives: CONSIDERED • Improve roadway elements to address identified vehicular safety concerns. • Manage travel speeds to improve operations and safety. 5.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES • Improve safety for all users. Goals and objectives were identified based on a comprehensive review of existing information and input from the project team Goal 2: Provide a roadway facility that accommodates future and the public. Goals and objectives are important in explaining traffic growth, recreational activity, existing private and why a potential improvement option is needed. The following commercial land users, and minimizes maintenance goals and objectives reflect the existing social, environmental, and costs. engineering conditions and recognize the local and regional use of South Fork Road provides access to multiple residences, South Fork Road and the adjoining transportation system. In agricultural lands, and several recreation areas. The corridor is addition to identified goals and objectives, all improvement used by local and regional traffic including passenger vehicles, options should be sensitive to the availability of funding for commercial vehicles, agricultural equipment, pedestrians, recurring maintenance obligations and for the construction of bicyclists, ATVs, and others. The number of visitors to Alsea Falls new improvements. Campground and area hiking trails and the Fall Creek bike trail Goal 1: Improve the safety and operation of the South Fork system is expected to continue to grow over time due to Road corridor. increased recreational interest and opportunities in the area. As a result, South Fork Road is expected to realize an increase in Available crash data and anecdotal information from residents traffic, by both motorized and non-motorized transportation and corridor users indicate a need to improve the safety of South modes. As activity on the roadway increases, maintenance needs Fork Road. During field review, several locations along the will also continue to increase. Proper and regular maintenance of corridor with limited sight distance and substandard geometry South Fork Road will help ensure the corridor continues to were noted. There are also locations where fatal or serious injury adequately serve residents and visitors in the future. crashes have been reported. This goal is intended to improve the safety of the roadway in order to meet the traveling needs of the Objectives: public, including visitors to public lands and recreation sites. • Accommodate existing and future travel demands. Roadway management strategies and improvements are • Address non-motorized facilities consistent with local necessary to achieve a higher level of safety and improved planning efforts. operations for South Fork Road. This can be achieved by • Provide connectivity for all users of corridor lands. improving roadway signing, improving the roadway width and • Preserve backcountry scenic byway character of the alignment (if even in short segments), improving drainage corridor. conditions, and properly maintaining the roadway. • Improve and/or upgrade roadway drainage.
47 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
• Improve corridor accommodations for seasonal satisfy corridor goals and objectives outlined above. The recreational events (mountain biking, camping, etc.). improvement options reflect input from stakeholders and the • Minimize maintenance costs. public and the Project Management Team, as well as information • Provide reasonable access to corridor destinations gathered from a thorough evaluation of the existing and projected conditions of the South Fork Road corridor. The following steps Goal 3: Minimize adverse impacts to the environmental, were applied to develop improvement options: cultural, scenic, and recreational characteristics of the study area. 1) Identify roadway issues and areas of concern based on field review, engineering analysis of as- built drawings, crash data The South Fork Road serves residential, agricultural, commercial analysis, and consultation with stakeholders. and recreational lands. Over the past several years, the Alsea Falls 2) Identify overall corridor goals and objectives. recreation site has become one of the more popular recreational 3) Analyze the information gathered to develop improvement destinations in south Benton County. Because of its location along options to address the roadway issues and areas of concern the South Fork of the Alsea River, and the unique scenic and while ensuring consistency with the goals and objectives. recreational characteristics of the area, preservation of wildlife and aquatic connectivity and habitat are issues of high Table 5-1 provides a reference to the 17 signing, roadway and importance. All improvements should be reviewed for their tourism options identified in the study. potential impact to the environmental, scenic, cultural, and recreational aspects of the corridor. Figure 5-1 through Figure 5-17each contain detail items that help describe each improvement options, including: Objectives: • A visual example and written description of the • Minimize adverse impacts to riparian environments. improvement option • Minimize adverse impacts to the wildlife and aquatic • A map illustrating recommended location of organisms. improvement implementation • Avoid or otherwise minimize adverse impacts to historic, • A summary of potential benefits, and cultural, and archaeological resources. • A summary of the planning-level cost estimates associated with the improvement 5.2 DEFINING THE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS This section contains a list of potential improvements intended to address previously identified issues and areas of concern and
48 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Table 5-1 Chapter 5 Figure Reference Figure Option Reference
1 LED Speed Warning 5-1 2 Cyclists Ahead Warning 5-2 3 Cyclists on Roadway 5-3 Signing Improvements 4 Radar Speed 5-4
5 Headlights on for Safety 5-5
6 Wayfinding 5-6
7 Fog Line and Centerline Striping 5-7 8 Centerline Rumble Strips 5-8 9-1 Roadway Widening Difficult Curves 5-9 Roadway Improvements 9-2 Dubuque Creek Re-alignment 5-10 10 Roadway Widening Near Alsea Falls Campground 5-11 11-1 Full Corridor Roadway Widening 5-12 11-2 Motorists & Cyclists Turnouts 5-13
12 Construct Wayside/Gateway Treatments 5-14
13 Fall Creek Trailhead & Alsea Falls Campground Trail Connector 5-15 Tourism Improvements 14 New Picnic Facility/Expand Parking Lot at Fall Creek Trailhead 5-16
15 New Access & Internal Circulation Roads at Alsea Falls Campground 5-17
49 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 5-1 LED Speed Warning
50 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 5-2 Cyclists Ahead Warning
51 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 5-3 Cyclists on Roadway
52 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 5-4 Radar Speed
53 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 5-5 Headlights on for Safety
54 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 5-6 Wayfinding
55 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 5-7 Fog Line and Centerline Striping
56 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 5-8 Centerline Rumble Strips
57 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 5-9 Roadway Widening Difficult Curves
58 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 5-10 Dubuque Creek Re-alignment
59 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 5-11 Roadway Widening Near Alsea Falls Campground
60 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 5-12 Full Corridor Roadway Widening
61 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 5-13 Motorists & Cyclists Turnouts
62 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 5-14 Construct Wayside/Gateway Treatments
63 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 5-15 Fall Creek Trailhead & Alsea Falls Campground Trail Connector
64 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 5-16 New Picnic Facility/Expand Parking Lot at Fall Creek Trailhead
65 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Figure 5-17 New Access & Internal Circulation Roads at Alsea Falls Campground
66 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
5.3 PLANNING-LEVEL COST ESTIMATES Planning level cost estimates are developed to help quantify the general costs associated with each of the improvement options. Cost estimates for sign improvements are generally based on recent and similar sign installations. Roadway, trails and recreation facility cost estimates are also based on relevant and recent construction projects. The resulting cost estimates are incorporated within the project descriptions in section 5.2 above. Appendix F summarizes the units and planning-level cost estimates developed for the study.
67 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
This page is intentionally left blank.
68 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT notification of public events, project news and outreach materials. Meeting notification cards were e-mailed to each stakeholder a week in advance of the public open house meetings. 6.1 PURPOSE AND GOALS OF THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM 6.2.2 Direct US Post Mailings The purpose of the public involvement program is to share The US Postal Service “Every Door Direct Mail” service was used information and gather input on the needs and issues of the to direct mail meeting notification cards a week in advance of stakeholders in South Fork Road and Alpine Road study area. each public open house meeting. Cards were mailed to 1,427 The project’s public involvement and communication goals are to: residents/postal addresses in broader South Fork Road corridor • Communicate complete, accurate, understandable and area. timely information to the public. • Actively seek public input throughout the project, 6.2.3 Project Website engaging a broad, diverse audience. The Oregon Cascades West Council of Governments developed • Seek participation of potentially affected and/or and hosted the project website interested individuals, landowners, visitors, businesses (http://www.ocwcog.org/transportation/south-fork-road/) and it and organizations. served as a primary source for public information. The site • Comply with Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VI included the study description and contact information for project requirements. staff. The two public open house meetings were announced on • Ensure that the public involvement process is consistent the site and materials were posted here in advance of each with applicable state and federal laws and requirements, meeting. and is sensitive to local policies, goals and objectives.
6.2 PROJECT COMMUNICATIONS 6.2.4 Local Newspaper Meeting Notices In advance of each open house meeting, a short notice was 6.2.1 Stakeholder Database provided to the following area newspapers: A stakeholder e-mail database was developed and updated • Corvallis Gazette-Times/Albany Democrat-Herald throughout the study that includes potentially impacted parties in • Valley Voice the South Fork Road corridor area, interested parties, and • Eugene Register Guard meeting attendees. The database was updated after the public open house meetings to track those individuals and groups who express interest in the project. The database was used for
69 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
6.3 MARCH 2020 OPEN HOUSE MEETING- • Need for shoulder lanes around some hilly curves so cars ALSEA, OREGON and trucks can safely pass cyclists or oncoming log trucks • Some residents advocate minimal disturbance to the The first of two public open house meetings was held on March 3, corridor, seek to maintain the corridor’s natural and 2020 at the High School gymnasium in Alsea, Oregon. Over 30 scenic setting as a backcountry byway, and oppose major area residents attended and participated in the meeting discuss. widening that might attract more traffic Display boards were positioned in the gymnasium, including: • Some users support keeping the Alsea Falls campgrounds • Study Area • Study Purpose and rustic, while some seek additional camping sites Definition/Agencies Objectives • Some users seek expanded parking, drinking water and Involved picnic facilities at the Fall Creek trailhead, and some • Study Schedule • Roadway Conditions and users seek additional bike trails Rights of Way Appendix E provides a full summary of the March Open House • Vehicle Crash History • Existing Traffic Volumes meeting notification, presentation materials and participant outcomes. • Area Recreation Sites • Natural Environment Outcomes of the first open house meeting were used by the study Features team to draft a wide range of transportation improvement options to consider. Participants were invited to review the study board material and discuss issues and concerns with agency and consultant 6.4 AUGUST 2020 ONLINE OPEN HOUSE representatives. Meeting participants shared important ideas MEETING about transportation issues and suggested improvements in the corridor. Feedback included, but was not limited to, the following: Due to public policy implications for public meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic, the second public open house was held • Lack of posted speed limit signs exclusively on-line, August 7-20, 2020. The on-line open house • Drivers travel too fast for corridor conditions was formatted in such a way to gain quantifiable feedback on • Numerous and dangerous curves with limited sight public support for each the study improvement options. distance Improvement options were individually defined, and participants • Need for new advanced warning signs of oncoming were asked whether they generally supported them. Respondents vehicles and cyclists • Some corridor users seek minimal improvement in the corridor, and some want to see more consistent width of the roadway, especially to help cyclists
70 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1) were also given the opportunity to provide direct feedback and Figure 6-1 Online Open House Survey Question Sample register their ideas, issues or concerns relating to each of the improvement options. An open-ended question was provided to register their thoughts and ideas on the study in general. Figure 6-1 illustrates a sampling of the on-line open house survey.
Options were provided for people to be mailed printed materials and provide their feedback to the study team by phone.
A total of 47 residents or stakeholders participated in the August On-Line Open House. Figure 6-2 charts the survey respondent’s relative support (yes or no) to each of the study options. Participants indicated clear support for a number of improvements in the corridor, including improved signing, roadway widening around difficult curves and vehicle turnouts in the corridor. Respondents did not favor the full widening of the entire South Fork Road Corridor.
Feedback received from the on-line open-house meeting on study area improvement options helped the study team refine and evaluate the study options, as summarized in Chapter 7. Appendix E provides a full summary of the August On-Line Open House meeting introduction materials, participant survey and their responses.
71 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Table 6-1: Public Open House #2 (Online) Survey Responses Figure 6-2 Public Open House #2 (Online) Survey Responses
72 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
7 EVALUATING THE OPTIONS The Project Rating Score is summarized for each improvement option tabluated under the three corridor improvement The 17 corridor improvmenet options identified in Chapter 5 are categories: evalauted in this chapter. A project rating scheme is defined in 1. Installion of Signs this section in order to aid in this process. 2. Roadway Improvements
3. Tourism Improvements
The Project Rating Score is calcauted for each option as a sum of three separately-applied ratings, as summaried in Table 7-1.
The Project Rating Scores are summarized in Table 7-1 through Table 7-3. Table 7-1: Project Rating Score - Evaluation of Sign Improvement
Rating Point Value System
Goals/Objectives How well does the option meet the Point value system (2 points – meets objective; 1 point study objectives? partially meets objective), total score scaled to 0-100
Do South Fork Road corridor Open House Survey response- percentage (respondents Public Response residents and stakeholders support favoring improvement options), scaled to 0-100 implementing the improvement option?
Cost Relative range of improvement Inverse relative score (Low=20 points, Medium=10 points option cost. and Low=0 points)
73 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Table 7-2: Project Rating Score - Evaluation of Sign Improvement Options
74 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Table 7-3: Project Rating Score - Evaluation of Roadway Improvement Options
75 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Table 7-4: Project Rating Scores - Evaluation of Tourism Improvement Options
76 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
8.1.1 High Rating Project Candidates 8 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND Potential improvement projects ranked high are those that best IMPLEMENTATION meet the study objectives, relatively simple to implement, Benton County and the BLM can utilize these study findings to typically have lower costs, likely to have significant safety pursue additional federal and state funding support of priority benefits, and are well-supported by residents and stakeholders. projects (see Chapter 9). High rated projects are those with a combined Rating Score in excess of 146. 8.1 PROJECT RANKING
This section summarizes the relative rating of the improvement options evaluated in Chapter 7. The PMT helped refine and apply the evaluation objectives and scoring the improvement options.
High Rating Improvement No. Rating & Rationale Cost Option
1 LED Speed Warning $22,000 Each sign improvement is likely to help better inform travelers, reduce traffic conflicts and improve corridor 2 Cyclist Ahead Warning safety. Improvements are low cost, have minimal environmental impact, are generally well-supported by $5,200 residents and stakeholders, and can likely be incorporated and prioritized in Benton County’s regular Signs 3 Cyclist on Roadway maintenance program. $3,200 6 Wayfinding $30,000
7 Fog Line and Centerline Residents and stakeholders highly approve of these measures, they are relatively low cost and can likely be $2,000 Striping incorporated and prioritized in Benton County’s regular maintenance program.
The location of motorist and cyclist turnouts are well-supported by residents and stakeholders. Turnouts can
Roads Motorists and Cyclist 11-2 help moderate traffic conflicts, particularly in the intended curve and hill sections of the corridor. Turnouts $150,000 Turnouts will likely have localized environmental impact to the immediate shoulder areas and will require more detailed assessment and design.
An added trail connection between the Alsea Falls Campground and Fall Creek Trailhead is well-supported by Fall Creek Trailhead / Alsea stakeholders and residents, and likely provide significant relief to area congestion during peak seasonal 13 Falls Campground recreational activity. The trail connector ranks highest of all options against the study objectives. The $732,000 Connector Tourism connector will likely have localized environmental impact and will require more detailed assessment and design.
77 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
associated with these projects, as further study is needed to 8.1.2 Medium Rating Project Candidates determine their feasibility and benefits. Medium rating projects Potential improvement projects rated at Medium are those are those roadway signs with a Rating Score ranging from 140- ranking moderate to high when rated by the study objectives, 146, and roadway and tourism improvements with a Rating Score with costs ranging from low to high, likely to have modest to ranging from 120-145. significant safety benefits, and have significant support from residents and stakeholders. There are also logistical challenges
Medium Rating No. Improvement Option Rating & Rationale Cost
Will help better inform travelers and improve corridor safety. Somewhat inconsistent
with the characteristics of the Backcountry Scenic Byway. Has significant support from 4 Radar Speed residents and stakeholders. Should be considered following efficacy of High Rating $21,000 Signs projects. Installation of signs on Alpine Road can likely be incorporated in Benton County’s regular maintenance program.
Will likely improve traveler safety and has significant support from stakeholders and South Fork Road Widening at 9-1 residents. Significant costs. Should be considered following implementation and $124,000 Difficult Curves efficacy of High Rating sign improvements. Will require additional environmental study, geotechnical analysis and engineering.
Roads Will help abate long-term culvert maintenance and improve fish habitat. Significant 9-2 Dubuque Creek Realignment costs. Will require additional environmental study, geotechnical exploration and $5,200,000 analysis and engineering.
Fall Creek Trailhead Picnic Well-supported by stakeholders. Significant costs. Will require additional environmental 14 TBD Facilities/Expanded Parking Lot study, geotechnical exploration and analysis and engineering. Tourism
78 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
typically have high costs and lower benefits, and have moderate 8.1.3 Low Rating Project Candidates to public support. Low Rating projects are those roadway sign Potential improvement projects rated at Low Rating are those projects with a Rating Score below 140, and roadway and tourism ranking moderate to low when rated against the study objectives, improvements with a Rating Score below 120.
Low Rating
No. Improvement Option Rating & Rationale Cost
Signs 5 Headlights on for Safety Defer consideration as benefit is likely negligible given newer vehicle drive light standards. $1,300
8 Centerline Rumble Strips Consider when all other options explored; viewed as inconsistent with the character of backcountry $15,400 byway, and residents are concerned about noise
10 South Fork Road Widening Likely not necessary with construction of Fall Creek Trailhead/Alsea Falls Campground Connector (#13) $234,000 near Alsea Falls Campground
Roads Public response was not in support of the full corridor widening concept. The option would require Full Corridor Roadway 11-1 significant investment in engineering and design to determine its incremental benefit over turnouts and $17,300,000 Widening limited curve widening options which were viewed more favorably. Inconsistent with the character of the Backcountry Scenic Byway.
12 Wayside/Gateway Treatments Viewed as inconsistent with the character of backcountry byway, extremely expensive, consider only $144,000 when all other options implemented.
New Access and Internal Lacks significant support from residents and stakeholders. Consider further community outreach before 13 Circulation Roads at Alsea Falls TBD Tourism undertaking concept project development. Campground
79 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
8.2 TRAFFIC SAFETY AND HIGH HAZARD • Wayside/Gateway Improvements (#12) LOCATIONS • Fall Creek Trailhead Picnic Facilities/Expanded Parking Lot (#13) Chapter 2 summarizes the traffic crash history in the South Fork • Fall Creek Campground Access and Internal Circulation Road corridor (2011-2017). Public open house particpants helped (#15) affirm more historic and recent crash incidents in the corridor. The project team incorporated these findings in the study and See Chapter 5 for mapping reference and specific descriptions of identifed a number of potential safety enhancements as potential ancilliary project site improvement options. countermeasures to high hazard locations. 8.4 CONSTRUCTION LOGISTICS AND PHASING 8.2.1 Potential Safety Countermeasures Development and implementation of construction work zone, Those South Fork Road Corridor improvement options that serve temporary traffic control and water (run-off) treatment plans will as safety countermeasures within high hazard areas include: be required for improvement options in ROW construction, including: • LED Speed Warning Signs (#1) • Dynamic Cyclist Ahead Warning Sign (#2) • Minor Widening/Difficult Curves (#9-1) • Radar Speed Sign (#4) • Roadway Widening Near Alsea Falls Campground (#10) • Centerline/Fog Line Striping (#7) • Fall Creek Trailhead / Alsea Falls Campground Trail • Center Rumble Strip (#8) Connector (#13) • Minor Widening/Difficult Curves (#9-1) • Full Corridor Roadway Widening (#11-1) • Roadway Widening Near Alsea Falls Campground (#10) • Motorists and Cyclists Turnouts (#11-2) • Fall Creek Trailhead / Alsea Falls Campground Trail • Fall Creek Trailhead Picnic Facilities/Expanded Parking Connector (#13) Lot (#13) • Motorists and Cyclists Turnouts (#11-2) • Fall Creek Campground Access and Internal Circulation • Full Corridor Widening (#11-1) (#15)
See Chapter 5 for mapping reference to specific safety Construction phasing plans are likely to be developed for a select countermeasure improvement options. few improvement options that involve major consruction, including:
8.3 ANCILLARY SITES • Dubuque Creek Realignment (#9-2) The South Fork Road Corridor study identifies several ancillary site • Full Corridor Roadway Widening (#11-1) improvement options, including: In general, construction phasing plans help implement projects • Motorists and Cyclists Turnouts (#11-2) through logical phasing steps that consider both funding
80 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1) availability and priority safety and capacity improvements and BLM administers all lands in proximity to the Fall Creek Trailhead needed measures to mitigate environmental impacts. and its access road. Construction phasing plans are typically developed following In general, the study inventory did not identify the presence of planning and NEPA compliance (see Chapter 10). public or private utilities along these project segments, except for the Full Corridor widening option. There are underground water 8.5 DRAINAGE/CULVERT REPAIR AND lines in the Fall Creek Trailhead and Alsea Falls Campground areas REPLACEMENT PLAN that would need to be considered in project development. There are 126 culverts in the study area that have been Widening of the Benton County portions of South Fork and Alpine inventoried by BLM and Benton County. Within federal Roads will require design measures that consider utility jurisdiction BLM has rated each culvert for priority replacement, relocation. as mapped in Figure 2-3. BLM can re-priortize its culvert replacement planning to 8.7 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR FUTURE incorporate findings of this study and advancement of projects PROJECTS that include roadway re-construction. Specifically, the South Fork A purpose and need statement is likely required for each Road Widening at Difficult Curves improvement option (#9-1) and improvement option that involves more extensive environmental Dubuque Creek Realignment (#9-1) encompass a number of assessment (see Chapter 10) and application for special state and culverts rated high priority that could be replaced in tandem with federal funding support. A general purpose and need statement a large construction projects or designed/replaced with intent to covering the range of potential projects should incorporate, at a harmonize with potential construction projects. minimum, the study’s key objectives:
8.6 ROW AND UTILITY RECOMMENDATIONS • Improve safety and operation of the South Fork Road corridor Six of the roadway or tourism improvement options will likely • Improve access for all roadway users, accounting for the require consideration of additional rights-of-way for acquisition or increasing volume of recreational visitors as well as utility placement: existing private and commercial land users • Minor Widening/Difficult Curves (#9-1) • Minimize adverse impacts to environmental resources • Dubuque Creek Re-alignment (#9-2) • Roadway Widening Near Alsea Falls Campground (#10) • Full Corridor Widening (#11-1) • Motorists and Cyclists Turnouts (#11-2) • Fall Creek Trailhead / Alsea Falls Campground Trail Connector (#13)
81 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
This page is intentionally left blank.
82 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
9 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES 9.1.2 Federal Lands Transportation Program The Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) was established The following is a summary of the major federal, state and local in 23 USC 203 to improve the transportation infrastructure owned sources that may be of resource to fund the engineering and and maintained by the following FLMAs: National Park Service construction of South Fork Road corridor improvement options (NPS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (see Chapters 7 and 8). (BOR), USFWS, USFS, Corps, and independent Federal agencies with land and natural resource management responsibilities. 9.1 FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES The FLMAs have considerable responsibility and latitude for managing their program within the FLTP. The FHWA, however, is 9.1.1 Federal; Land Access Program ultimately responsible for ensuring the program is administered FLAP was established in 23 U.S.C. 204 to improve transportation according to the statutory and implementing regulations for title facilities that provide access to, are adjacent to, or are located 23 USC. This includes conformity to highway planning, design, within Federal lands. The program supplements State and local construction, maintenance, and safety standards. The use of FLTP resources for public roads, transit systems, and other funds does not affect the overall responsibility for construction, transportation facilities, with an emphasis on high-use recreation maintenance, and operations of the facilities. That responsibility sites and economic generators. The program is designed to continues to lie with the owner of the facility. provide flexibility for a wide range of transportation projects. The program is funded by contract authority from the Highway 9.1.3 Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act Trust Fund and subject to obligation limitation. Funds will be The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act15 authorizes five allocated among the States using a statutory formula based on agencies to charge and collect recreation fees on federal road mileage, number of bridges, land area, and visitation. recreational lands and waters. The five agencies are the BOR, Western Federal Lands issues a Request for Proposals every two BLM, USFWS, NPS, and the USFS. The agencies retain the years and agencies may request $100,000 or more in funding. A collected fees primarily for on-site improvements. minimum local match of 13.5 percent is required, although a The FLREA authorizes agencies to charge different kinds of fees at higher local match amount typically results in a higher-ranked recreation sites, outlines criteria for establishing fees, and application. The Federal Land Management Agency (FLMA) must prohibits fees for certain activities or services. The USFS can support and sign the application.
15 (FLREA; 16 USC §§6801-6814)
83 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1) charge “standard amenity fees” in areas or circumstances where a the NSFLTP, the Federal share of a project can be up to 90 percent certain level of services or facilities are available. and can be used to improve the condition of a critical transportation facility. Large-scale projects with estimated FLREA also authorizes all five agencies to charge an “expanded construction costs of $50 million or more are given priority amenity fee” for specialized facilities and services, and special consideration for selection, but the program accepts projects with recreation permit fees for specialized uses, such as group estimated construction costs of at least $25 million. activities.
9.1.6 Emergency Relief and Federally Owned 9.1.4 Land and Water Conservation Fund Roads The Great American Outdoors Act was signed into law in 2020, The ERFO Program was established to assist federal agencies with and is intended to fund up to $1.9 billion annually (for five years the repair or reconstruction of tribal transportation facilities, from energy development) the National Parks and Public Land federal lands transportation facilities, and other federally owned Legacy Restoration Fund to provide needed maintenance for roads that are open to public travel, which are found to have critical facilities and infrastructure in our national parks, forests, suffered serious damage by a natural disaster over a wide area or wildlife refuges, recreation areas and American Indian schools. by a catastrophic failure. The intent of the ERFO program is to pay The Great American Outdoors Act will also use royalties from the unusually heavy expenses for the repair and reconstruction of offshore oil and natural gas to permanently fund the Land and eligible facilities. The ERFO program is not intended to cover all Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to a level of $900 million a year repair costs but rather supplement FLMA repair programs. to invest in conservation and recreation opportunities throughout the country. The LWCF program is divided into the "State Side" which provides grants to State and local governments, and the 9.1.7 Better Utilization of Investments to Leverage "Federal Side" which is used to acquire lands, waters, and Development interests therein necessary to achieve the natural, cultural, The BUILD Transportation Discretionary Grant program provides a wildlife, and recreation management objectives of federal land unique opportunity for the US Department of Transportation management agencies. (USDOT) to invest in road, rail, transit and port projects that promise to achieve national objectives. The BUILD program 9.1.5 Nationally Significant Federal Lands and enables USDOT to examine projects on their merits to help ensure Tribal Projects that taxpayers are getting the highest value for every dollar invested. The eligibility requirements of BUILD allow project The Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects sponsors at the State and local levels to obtain funding for multi- (NSFLTP) program provides federal funding for the construction, modal, multi-jurisdictional projects that are more difficult to reconstruction or rehabilitation of transportation projects support through traditional USDOT programs. providing access to or located on Federal or Tribal lands. Under
84 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
9.1.8 Surface Transportation Program state funding through the Oregon Lottery proceeds, and federal funding from the Pacific Coastal Salman Recovery Fund, National The Surface Transportation Program (STP) continues to be the Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program and the USDA most flexible of all the highway programs and provides the most Natural Resources Conservation service. financial support to local agencies. Projects eligible for STP funding include highway and bridge construction and repair; The OWEB administers the Watershed Restoration program. This transit capital projects; bicycle, and pedestrian and recreational program prioritizes funding of projects that alter watershed trails. ODOT allocates STP funds to Metropolitan Planning function affecting water quality, water flow, and the production Organizations and County Lead Agencies for prioritizing and capacity for fish. Applications are taken in the spring or fall. selecting projects that align with their regional priorities involving all entities eligible to participate in a public process. 9.3 LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES In addition to the state revenues, local entities receive 9.2 STATE FUNDING SOURCES transportation funding. Typically, several local programs related State revenue comes from numerous taxes, fees, permits and to transportation exist for budgeting purposes and to disperse other revenues. Oregon’s fuel taxes (gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, revenues. These programs are tailored to fulfill specific etc.) comprise the largest share of all transportation revenue. transportation functions or provide particular services.
9.2.1 State Highway Fund 9.3.1 Watershed Councils The State Highway Fund is comprised of statewide (1) motor The Alsea Basin-MidCoast Watershed Council is one of 59 Oregon vehicle fuel taxes, (2) motor vehicle registration fees, and (3) councils that work with local, state, and federal partners and weight-mile tax. Benton County’s share of these revenues is used private landowners. Watershed councils sponsor projects like to operate and maintain the County’s roadway network and replacing culverts to allow for better fish passage or planting construct capital improvements (as funds are available). These shady plants along a creek to keep the water cool enough for fish. funds are also used to provide transportation engineering and Councils are designated by county governments and are expected planning support. The state of Oregon allocates the State to have broad and balanced representation and viewpoints. Highway Fund to cities based on population and counties based Watershed councils receive capacity funding support through the on number of registered motor vehicles. state Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). OWEB provides grants for operating funds, restoration projects, and 9.2.2 Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board other programs to enable councils to carry out restoration, (OWEB) monitor the status of the watershed, and reach out to landowners and other community members. The OWEB is a state agency that provides grants to take care of local streams, rivers, wetlands, and natural areas. OWEB receives
85 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
9.4 PRIVATE FUNDING SOURCES AND ALTERNATIVES
Private financing of highway improvements, in the form of right- of-way donations and cash contributions, has been successful for many years. Several forms of private financing for transportation improvements exist, have been used in other parts of the United States, and could be successful in funding improvements in the South Fork Road corridor.
9.4.1 Cost Sharing The private sector pays some of the operating and capital costs for constructing transportation facilities required by development actions.
9.4.2 Transportation Corporations These private entities are non-profit, tax exempt organizations under the control of state or local government. They are created to stimulate private financing of highway improvements.
9.4.3 Road Districts These are areas created by a petition of affected landowners, which allow for the issuance of bonds for financing local transportation projects.
9.4.4 Private Donations The private donation of money, property, or services to mitigate identified development impacts is the most common type of private transportation funding. Private donations are very effective in areas where financial conditions do not permit a local government to implement a transportation improvement itself.
86 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
10 NEXT STEPS summarized. The potential need for non- conventional excavation methods (i.e. blasting) should be reviewed at this This section discusses next steps and consideration of further stage. The outcome of Phase 1 should be a written deliverable geotechnical investigation and envornmental study of roadway or that would allow for development of a detailed scope of work tourism capital improvement options summarized in Chapter 8. for Phase 2 investigations.
10.1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS Figure 10-1 Phased Approach to Geotechnical Assessments Several types of improvements are being considered for the South Fork Road corridor, including roadway widening, roadway realignment, replacement of existing culverts, new roadway pullouts with interpretive kiosks, and one area with a new bike access path. There are existing bridges on the corridor across the South Fork Alsea River; however, no widening or improvement of the bridges is planned. As noted in Chapter 4, all three bridges are rated in good condition and likely needing only regualr maintenance over the next 30 years.
10.1.1 Recommendations for Future Geotechnical Assessment As shown in Figure 10-1, a phased program of assessment and investigation of geotechnical and geologic conditions should be completed as potential corridor roadway or shoulder Phase 2 Investigation. Phase 2 should include detailed construction project designs are undertaken. geotechnical and engineering geologic investigation for planned improvements. Areas for roadway widening, roadway Phase 1 Assessment. Phase 1 should include detailed desktop realignment, replacement of existing culverts, new roadway review and interpretation of geologic and LiDAR data, and a pullouts, and new bike access path options should be evaluated preliminary field assessment of existing soil and rock conditions with subsurface explorations. Areas of potential slope along the corridor by an experienced geotechnical engineer instability identified during Phase 1 should be evaluated with and/or engineering geologist. The areas of planned respect to planned improvements. Areas of proposed improvements should be noted and surficial conditions at those information kiosks or roadway widenings and pullouts that are areas documented. The need for exploration permits to allow near the foot or base of rock slopes should be evaluated for for subsurface investigations should be reviewed and rockfall hazard. Explorations would likely require truck-
87 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1) mounted drilled borings, which would require lane closures. 3.6 miles. This section is mostly underlain by Tyee Formation. No Some areas may be evaluated with geophysical methods. landslides are mapped in SLIDO along this section of road. Geotechnical design, laboratory testing, and data analysis See Appendix A for more detailed mapping of slide risk should be completed to support the improvement concepts. susceptibility in the study corridor. Depending on the complexity of the improvement, supplement geotechnical investigation may be appropriate as project design 10.1.2.1 LIMITATIONS evolves. These recommendations are prepared to aid in the evaluation and conceptual planning of improvements along South Fork 10.1.2 Geologic Setting and Landslides Road. These findings are preliminary and intended for project For the purpose of describing the geologic setting, the South Fork planning and scoping purposes, and area based on limited Road corridor can be divided into three sections; west, middle, desktop review of available information. A detailed and east. From MP 0.0, South Fork Road extends eastward and geotechnical and engineering geologic investigation including south-eastward in rural farmland for approximately 3 miles. This subsurface explorations at planned improvement locations, west section is underlain by Quaternary alluvial deposits, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses will be required as consisting of silt, sand, and gravel.16 No landslides are mapped part of the continued design of corridor improvement options along South Fork Road on the Oregon Department of Geology that are selected for further development. and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) Statewide Landslide Information
Layer for Oregon (SLIDO) online database of mapped landslides.17
South Fork Road continues south-eastward generally along the South Fork Alsea River for approximately 9 miles. The western 6 miles of the section is mostly underlain by relatively hard, competent, Paleogene volcanic rocks mapped as Siletz River Volcanics. The eastern 3 miles of the section is mostly underlain by relatively soft, less competent Paleogene sedimentary rocks mapped as Tyee Formation. No landslides are mapped in SLIDO along this section of road. At MP 12, South Fork Road becomes Alpine Road and continues eastward and northeastward for another
16 (Baldwin, 1955) 17 (SLIDO, 2019)
88 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
10.2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY Necessary field surveys and agency and/or stakeholder consultation requirements are discussed as they apply to each Any improvement projects forwarded from this planning study required compliance document or permit. will need to demonstrate compliance with a number of federal regulatory compliance and permitting requirements. Information 10.2.1.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 contained in the planning-level environmental scan presented in (NEPA) this study can be used as a starting point to support future environmental studies. The Environmental Setting discussion in Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Section 3 of this study briefly identifies some of the potential laws (NEPA) to establish a national policy for the environment, provide and compliance considerations associated with the resources in for the establishment of the Council on Environmental Quality the planning study area. The following discussion and the (CEQ), and other purposes. NEPA is intended to help public summary in Table 10-1 provide additional detail on the major officials make decisions based on understanding of environmental permitting and compliance requirements that most projects consequences and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance forwarded from this planning study would likely need to address, the environment. It ensures that federal agencies consider the as well as some of the consultation and field surveys needed to significant environmental consequences of their proposed actions support compliance efforts. As noted in Section 2.1.7 above, the and inform the public about their decision making. corridor lies within a mix of public and privately held lands of Compliance Process varied use. This section focuses on the major federal compliance, The range of actions covered by NEPA is broad. The BLM’s NEPA consultation and permitting requirements that would apply to all Handbook (BLM 2008)18 provides detailed guidance on NEPA projects forwarded from this planning study. Other federal, state, compliance, including when different NEPA compliance processes and local permitting consideration are briefly reviewed as they are required. NEPA compliance for any of the projects forwarded may apply to certain projects on a case by case basis.
10.2.1 Federal Environmental Compliance, Permitting, and Consultation Requirements The following subsections present an overview of the major federal environmental regulatory requirements that are likely to apply to most projects forwarded from this planning study.
18 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 2008. National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1. January 2008
89 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Table 10-1 Environmental Compliance Requirements Study
90 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1) as a result of this corridor study would be achieved through one preparation of an EA, it is determined that the effects of the of the following processes: proposed action would be significant and cannot be mitigated to a level of nonsignificance. The EIS process is far more rigorous, A Categorical Exclusion (CX) addresses categories of actions that requiring a range of reasonable alternatives, including the federal agencies have determined do not individually or Proposed Action and No Action alternative, and provide a cumulatively have significant effect on the quality of the human description of alternatives eliminated from further analysis (if any environment and therefore do not require an EA or EIS. Both the exist). The EIS pocess has statutory requirements for a Notice of DOI and BLM lists of CXs must be reviewed to determine if a Intent, public scoping period, public review of a draft EIS, and a proposed action falls into a listed CX category.18 Projects 30-day waiting period before publication of a Record of Decision forwarded from this planning study that could be covered under a (ROD). Detailed requirements for information to be included in an CX include regulatory/warning signs (Option 1-5) centerline/fog EIS are included in the BLM NEPA Handbook.18 Projects forwarded line striping (Option 6), center rumble strip (option 7), and from this planning study that could require an EIS, pending further wayfinding signs (option 12). identification of potential signifcant impacts, include full corridor An Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses actions that do not major widening (Option 9-1) and curve realignment (Option 10). specifically qualify for a CX under the DOI or BLM list, are not Consultation, Field Surveys, and Other Information Needs covered in an existing environmental document, and are not normally subject to an EIS. An EA analyzes a range of alternatives There are no specific survey requirements for NEPA compliance; to demonstrate that a proposed action would have no significant however, field surveys performed in support of other permitting impacts.. Final documentation is provided in a Finding of No processes (i.e., wetland surveys, endangered species surveys, Significant Impact (FONSI). An EA may also demonstrate that a cultural resources surveys) can be instrumental in performing a proposed action would have significant effects, but these could be robust NEPA analysis. In addition, because ESA and Section 106 reduced to non-significance through mitigation. Projects NHPA compliance are required for completion of the NEPA forwarded from this planning study that would likely be covered process, any surveys and/or consultation associated with these under an EA include minor widening (Option 8), partial major compliance requirements would effectively be needed for NEPA. widening (Option 9-1), waysides (Option 11-1), turnouts (Option The major consultation requirement under NEPA is the 11-2), trail connectors (Option 13), and trailhead improvements requirement for public and stakeholder involvement. Typically, (Option 14). Many of these projects rise to the level of EA analysis this is not required for a CX but is required for an EA or EIS. simply because they are not explicitly listed as a CX. They should be addressable in a relatively brief EA, and efficiency gains may be The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations governing available from combining several similar projects in a single EA. NEPA do not require agencies to make EAs available for public comment and review during preparation, but agencies must An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addresses actions encourage and facilitate public involvement in the NEPA process whose effects are expected to be significant and are not fully to the fullest extent possible. An EA must list tribes, individuals, covered in an existing EIS. An EIS is also required if, during or after
91 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1) organizations, and agencies consulted during EA preparation. In water quality certification in Oregon, and makes its certification Agencies must also notify the public of the availability of a determination based on review of the information in the Section completed EA and FONSI. 404 application separate from USACE. Public involvement and interagency or intergovernmental Permitting Process coordination and consultation are an integral part of the EIS Compliance with Section 404 is accomplished via the approval of process. An EIS requires public involvement as part of the scoping either a nationwide permit or an individual permit by USACE. process and draft EIS review, and the final EIS must be distributed to the public. All consultation and coordination with federal and Nationwide Permits are issued by USACE on a national basis and state agencies, the public, Tribes, and other relevant stakeholders designed to streamline authorization of projects, including road must be documented in the final EIS. improvements, that produce minimal impact on the aquatic environment. For linear transportation projects in non-tidal 10.2.1.2 FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) SECTION 404 waters, discharge cannot cause the loss of more than ½ acre of AND 401; SECTION 10 OF THE RIVERS AND waters of the United States. Projects forwarded from this HARBORS ACT planning study that would likely be covered under a nationwide permit would include minor widening (Option 8). Projects that Any project forwarded as part of this planning study that would could require a nationwide permit based on potential impacts result in discharge of fill to wetlands or other waters of the United information gathered through site-specific wetland surveys may States would require a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit include waysides (Option 11-1), turnouts (Option 11-2), trail from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The Section 404 connectors (Option 13), and trailhead improvements (Option 14). permitting process concurrently addresses compliance with three key federal laws as follows: Section 404 Individual Permits are issued when fill impacts to wetlands and waters exceed the threshold for a nationwide Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires project permit. In order to comply with the requirements for an individual proponents who plan to fill wetlands and waters determined to permit, proposed projects must first analyze alternatives and be Waters of the United States to obtain a permit from the U.S. demonstrate that they have selected the alternative that avoids Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) impacts to wetlands and waters to the greatest extent Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 403) practicable. prohibits the obstruction or alteration of navigable waters of the Potential wetland impacts could be avoided or minimized by use United States without a permit from USACE. of appropriate best management practices during project design Section 401 of the CWA, Water Quality Certification, specifies that and construction phases. Examples of potential best management projects with in‐water work or discharge into waters of the United practices could include locating new facilities outside of a States may need a water quality certification permit. The Oregon wetland, elevating new structures to avoid wetlands, and Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has authority over
92 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1) identifying engineering solutions that minimize the physical reconnaissance could be helpful to identify the location (or footprint of fill within a wetland. absence) of possible wetlands. This information can be used during later project planning, design, and permitting to identify Where impacts are unavoidable, compensatory mitigation would areas where delineations may be needed and where projects can be required. Mitigation for direct wetland impacts could be avoid wetland impacts. conducted based on the following strategies:
• Use of wetland mitigation banks 10.2.1.3 FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA) • Project-specific wetland mitigation sites The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 7 provides • Purchase of in-lieu fee credits. protection for federally listed fish, wildlife and plant species, and • Combination of 1, 2, and 3. their designated critical habitat(s). The ESA outlines procedures As detailed in Table 10-1, several of the projects forwarded under for federal agencies to follow when taking actions that may this planning study (i.e., Options 1 – 7 and 13) would likely not jeopardize listed species and their designated critical habitat and trigger compliance requirements under Section 404. Minor contains exceptions and exemptions. widening (Option 8) could likely be permitted under a nationwide In general, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has permit, as would Options 11-1, 11-2, 13, and 14; however, oversight for listed land and freshwater species and NOAA additional survey work would be needed to determine whether Fisheries (NMFS) has oversight for listed marine and anadromous there is a Section 404 trigger for the latter 4 options. Partial major species. widening, full corridor major widening, and curve realignment The Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Management Act is would all likely require an individual permit. also typically addressed by the NMFS ESA Section 7 consultation Consultation, Field Surveys, and Other Information Needs process. This law governs the conservation and management of Projects that would potentially impact waters of the United States ocean fishing and protects anadromous fish habitat. would require a wetland field survey and delineation performed Compliance Requirements by a professional wetland scientist to determine the presence of Projects forwarded as part of this planning study would be potential jurisdictional wetlands on a project site. In Oregon, expected to address ESA compliance via one of the following wetland delineations should be performed during the wetter processes. Because threatened and endangered species and seasons of the year to ensure the presence of wetland hydrology. critical habitats listed by both USFWS and NMFS exist within the A wetland delineation is subsequently reviewed by USACE, which planning study corridor, consultation with both agencies would be uses this information to issue a jurisdictional determination that required and separate compliance documentation would be in turn supports the impacts analysis. required for each. The information in a delineation and jurisdictional determination A No Effect Determination applies when the lead federal agency is valid for 5 years. Therefore, an initial corridor-level wetland determines that a proposed project would result in no
93 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1) foreseeable impacts to federally listed species or critical habitat. Consultation Requirements Both USFWS and NMFS (the Services) provide guidance for Agencies can initiate informal consultation with the Services prior preparing no effect determinations; however, preparation of a to initiating formal consultation. Informal consultation helps to memo documenting a determination of no effect fulfills the determine what effect an action may have on species or critical requirement for Section 7 compliance. No further consultation is habitats, explores ways to modify an action to reduce or remove required. Projects identified in this planning study that could be adverse effects, and determines the need to enter into formal likely be addressed with a no effect determination memo include consultation (USFWS and NFS 1998). any of the signage or roadway marking projects described in Options 1-7 and Option 14. Several other projects listed in Table Formal consultation begins with a Federal agency's written 10-1 could potentially address Section 7 compliance for one or request and submittal of a package of information, including a BA. both of the Services with a no effect determination. However, For projects forwarded under this planning study that could these would require further evaluation on a case-by-case basis require formal consultation, depending on a project’s anticipated depending on potential impacts to Oregon coast Coho and critical impacts, consultation would likely conclude with the issuance of a habitat in the South Fork Alsea River or construction noise biological opinion (BO) determining “may affect, not likely to impacts to marbled murrelets and spotted owls. adversely affect,” or “may affect, likely to adversely affect.” A BO could also include an incidental take statement, where the A Biological Assessment (BA) applies when a project’s potential Services determine the amount or extent of incidental take impacts to federally listed species or critical habitat may exceed anticipated from a proposed action (USFWS and NMFS 1998)19. the threshold for a no effect determination. The BA contains a more in-depth analysis intended to determine whether a Field Surveys and Other Information Needs proposed action is likely to: (1) adversely affect listed species or Field surveys conducted for ESA compliance under any of the designated critical habitat; (2) jeopardize the continued existence projects identified in this planning study would likely be limited to of a species; or (3) adversely modify proposed critical habitat. The northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet surveys, to determine Services require biological assessments for major construction the potential presence of these species in a project area during activities. An agency submits a BA, along with other relevant project planning and prior to construction. Nesting bird surveys information, to initiate consultation with USFWS and/or NMFS. immediately prior to construction are highly recommended. Surveys for Oregon Coast Coho would not be necessary, distribution of the species is generally known within the potential
19 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Fisheries Service (NMFS) 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Act. March 1998 Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and
94 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1) project areas, and because direct impacts could be minimized by • Historic properties (prehistoric or historic districts, sites, adhering to the ODFW guidelines for timing of in-water work for buildings, structures, or objects) that are eligible for or the Alsea River (July 1 – August 31). There are no federally listed listed in the National Register of Historic Places. plant species within the study area corridor; therefore, • Any artifacts, records, and remains (surface or endangered plant surveys would not be necessary. subsurface) that are related to and located within historic properties and 10.2.1.4 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT, • Any properties of traditional religious and cultural SECTION 106 importance to Tribes. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is Consultation Requirements concerned with projects that are funded, permitted, licensed, or approved by federal agencies. Section 106 requires federal BLM cultural resources staff and/or their consultants would be agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on required to consult on the Section 106 process with the SHPO, historic properties and to provide the Advisory Council on Historic potentially affected Tribes, and THPOs. Potentially affected Tribes Preservation (ACHP) with a reasonable opportunity to comment. in the project study area include the Confederated Tribes of In addition, for projects in Oregon Federal agencies are required Grande Ronde and the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians. to consult on the Section 106 process with State Historic The first step in the process is to identify potential historic or Preservation Offices (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Offices cultural resources within a project’s area of potential effect (APE) (THPO), and Native American Tribes. and their potential significance, and initiate consultation with Compliance Requirements SHPO, THPO, and Tribes. If no historic properties are identified or affected within the APE, or if historic properties are identified in If a project qualifies as a type of activity that does not affect the APE but not adversely affected, BLM would provide this historic properties, the supporting federal agency (eg BLM) would documentation to SHPO, THPOs, Tribes and ACHP. Lack of have no further obligations under Section 106. The only projects objection within 30 days signifies that BLM has completed its identified in this planning study that may fit this category would section 106 responsibilities. If a historic property may be be non-ground-disturbing projects within the roadway pavement adversely affected, consultation among BLM, SHPO, THPOs, and (i.e. centerline/fog line striping and center rumble strip), and possibly minimally ground-disturbing projects within the right-of- way such as regulatory/warning signs or wayfinding signs. For projects forwarded from this planning study that would require Section 106 compliance, BLM would need to inventory and assess potential impacts on the following resources, in addition to consulting with the appropriate entities described in the next section.
95 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
Tribes would be required to continue until adverse effects have The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) prohibits the been resolved or mitigated (NPS 2012)20. taking or possession of, or commerce in, bald and golden eagles, Field Surveys and Other Information Needs with very limited exceptions. Compliance Process Generally, any ground disturbing activity should be evaluated for its potential to affect historic or cultural resources. If available With the exception of centerline/fog line striping (Option 6) a information indicates that construction activity could affect center rumble strip (Option 7), and wayfinding signs (Option 12), historic or cultural resources, archaeological field surveys would all projects identified in this study could potentially involve tree be needed to further evaluate the potential presence of removal. All 14 of the Options could create short-term significant resources. Information from archaeological field construction noise. The simplest strategy for compliance with surveys is reviewed by SHPO, THPOs, and Tribes and used to both MBTA and BGEPA involves avoiding construction during support the Section 106 consultation process. This information is nesting season. Bald eagles are particularly sensitive during the also used to support avoidance and mitigation of potential nest building, egg laying, and incubating periods (roughly January cultural and historical resources impacts during project through June). They will abandon a nesting attempt if there is construction. Unlike wetland delineations and nesting bird excessive disturbance in the area. However, activities with surveys, archaeological field surveys are not seasonally temporary impacts such as use of loud machinery can generally dependent. be conducted outside of the breeding season without causing disturbance (USFWS 2007)21. 10.2.1.5 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT (MBTA) AND BALD If construction for any of the projects identified in this corridor AND GOLDEN EAGLE PROTECTION ACT (BGEPA) study may disturb migratory bird nests (e.g., via tree removal) and Section 703 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) declares the cannot occur outside the nesting season, MBTA allows removal of destruction, or take, of migratory birds or their active nests as migratory bird nests as long as eggs or young are not yet present. unlawful throughout the U.S. USFWS can issue a take permit, but Vegetation removal should take place as soon as possible early coordination with USFWS is recommended to avoid take. following identification and removal of a nest. If active nests are located during construction and cannot be avoided, construction activities in the area must stop until young have fledged from the nest.
Preservation Act, Section 106: a Quick Guide for Preserving Native 20 U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service (NPS) American Cultural Resources American Indian Liaison Office. 2012. National Historic
96 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
BGEPA does not allow for take of bald eagles or their nests. 10.2.2 Other Federal, State and Local USFWS provides bald eagle management guidelines to avoid Environmental Permitting Considerations disturbing nesting bald eagles. These include: (1) maintaining The following provides a brief overview of other federal, state and distance buffers between an activity and the nest, (2) maintaining local environmental permitting considerations that could affect forested or natural buffer areas between an activity and around some projects forwarded under this study. These would be nest trees, and (3) avoiding certain activities during the breeding applicable on a case-by-case basis, and would not represent major season. The buffer areas serve to minimize visual and auditory permit compliance considerations for projects identified in this impacts associated with human activities near nest sites. Ideally, planning study as a whole. buffers should be large enough to protect existing nest trees and 21 provide for alternative or replacement nest sites (USFWS 2007) . 10.2.2.1 OREGON STATE REMOVAL-FILL LAW Consultation Requirements Oregon’s State Removal-Fill Law (ORS 196.795-990) requires There are no formal consultation requirements associated with applicants who plan to remove or place 50 or more cubic yards of MBTA or BGEPA compliance. If project activities result in fill material within waters of the state to obtain a Removal-Fill unavoidable or inadvertent take, advisable next steps may include permit from the Department of State Lands (DSL). DSL review of a contacting the USFWS Migratory Bird Permit Office or the USDA Removal-Fill permit review happens concurrently with USACE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). review of a Section 404 permit, and the two applications are submitted using a Joint Permit Application form (JPA). Federal Field Survey Requirements projects can be subject to state fill removal permit requirements Pre-construction surveys should be conducted prior to initiation depending on the whether the project impacts waters of the of construction activities to determine potential presence of state, and whether the projects are exempt from the permitting nesting bald eagles or migratory birds and plan construction process. activities accordingly. Weekly or twice-weekly visits to project sites may be advisable during nesting season in order to make it The Removal-Fill permitting process would only apply to projects possible to locate and remove migratory bird nests that may be that impact wetlands and waters within Benton County-owned built within the project area (prior to egg-laying). right-of-way and/or right-of-way acquired by Benton County on adjacent private lands. Examples of such projects include major widening of the full corridor.
21 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. May 2007
97 South Fork Road Corridor Plan, OR Benton 482(1)
10.2.2.2 OREGON ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT the study area to non-agricultural use, they would be subject to FPPA requirements. This would require completion of a Farmland The Oregon Endangered Species Act (ORS 496.171-496.192) Conversion Impact Rating Form (NRCS Form AD-1006). Based on directs the Fish and Wildlife Commission, through ODFW, to review of this form, NRCS assigns a farmland conversion impact maintain the list of native wildlife species in Oregon that have rating score. The score would serve as an indicator for BLM or been determined to be either “threatened” or “endangered” Benton County to consider alternative sites if potential adverse according to criteria set forth by rule (OAR 635-100-0105). The impacts on the farmland exceed the recommended allowable Oregon Department of Agriculture handles plant listings. level. Invertebrates are not protected under Oregon state law. The most direct effect of listing a species as threatened or endangered under the Oregon ESA is on state-owned or leased lands. Private lands are not directly affected by the Oregon ESA. The law is advisory-only for federal land managers.
10.2.2.3 BENTON COUNTY FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Activities within the floodplain that cannot avoid impacts and are unable to demonstrate a “no net rise” to flood conditions must be authorized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA floodplain regulations are enforced at the local level through Benton County. Therefore, advance coordination with the Benton County floodplain administrator is critical in the event that any projects identified in this study would potentially place fill below the 100-year floodplain level.
10.2.2.4 FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY ACT The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) requires special consideration to be given to soils considered as prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide or local importance by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). If projects identified in this study, such as a full corridor major widening, irreversibly convert existing farmland in the eastern or western portions of
98
APPENDIX A: SLIDE RISK SUSCEPTIBILITY
99
100
APPENDIX B: NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE WEEDS
101
102
Mary’s Peak Field Office Target Noxious and Invasive Weed List Common Name Scientific Name PLANTS Database Code Common Species (to be mapped by contractors) False brome Brachypodium sylvaticum BRSY Old man’s beard Clematis vitalba CLVI6 Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius CYSC4 Geranium species (non-native) Geranium lucidum, G. robertianum GELU, GERO English ivy Hedera helix (H. hibernica) HEHE Perennial pea vine Lathyrus latifolius LALA4 Blackberry species (non-native) Rubus armeniacus (R. procerus, R. discolor), R. lacinatus, R. RUAR9, RULA, RUVE vestitus Periwinkle species Vinca major, Vinca minor VIMA, VIMI2 Uncommon Species (to be mapped by contractors, and BLM to be notified) Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata ALPE4 Butterfly bush Buddleja davidii (B. variabilis) BUDA2 Knapweed species Centauria. stoebe L. ssp micranthos, C. x moncktonii, C. CEST8, CEMO6, CEDI3 diffusa Spurge laurel Daphne laureola DALA11 Knotweed species Fallopia japonica (Polygonum cuspidatum), Polygonum FAJA2 (POCU6), sachanlinense, Polygonum x bohemicum POSA4, POBO10 Orange hawkweed Hieracium aurantiacum HIAU Policeman’s helmet Impatiens glandulifera IMGL
Yellow archangel Lamiastrum galeobdolon LAGA2
Milk thistle Silybum marianum SIMA
103
104
APPENDIX C: FEDERALLY LISTED THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES
105
106
Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species, South Fork Corridor Scientific Federal Common Name Name Status1 Known Occurrence/ Habitat MAMMALS Occurrence unknown but unlikely due to rarity and lack of optimum habitat. Old growth Fisher Pekania pennanti C coniferous forests provide optimum habitat, but they can be found in younger conifer stands BIRDS Eremophila alpestris Occurrence unknown but unlikely due to rarity and lack of optimum habitat. Open, thinly Streaked horned lark LT strigata vegetated land such as fields, prairies, dunes, upper beaches, and airports Brachyramphus Documented within ¼ mile of the corridor. Require late-successional forests with specific nest Marbled Murrelet LT marmoratus tree characteristics Strix occidentalis Northern spotted owl LT Documented within ¼ mile of the corridor. Mature or old growth forests preferred for nesting caurina PLANTS Occurrence unknown but unlikely due to rarity and lack of optimum habitat. Native upland Kincaid's lupine Lupinus oreganus LT prairie or remnant Occurrence unknown but could occur since it is more adaptable than other plant species in this Nelson's checker-mallow Sidalcea nelsoniana LT table. Meadow swales, field and stream edges, roadside ditches Occurrence unknown but unlikely due to rarity and lack of optimum habitat. Wet prairie Bradshaw's Desert-parsley Lomatium bradshawii LE habitats in clay soils or substrates having a dense clay layer below the surface Occurrence unknown but unlikely due to rarity and lack of optimum habitat. Native wetland Willamette daisy Erigeron decumbens LE and upland prairie or remnant Occurrence unknown but unlikely due to rarity and lack of optimum habitat. Areas that were Water howellia Howellia aquatilis LT once associated with glacial potholes and former river oxbows that flood in the spring, but usually dry at least partially by late summer INSECTS Plebejus icarioides Occurrence unknown but unlikely due to rarity and lack of optimum habitat. Associated with Fender's blue butterfly LE fenderi Kincaid’s lupine on Native upland prairie or remnant Source: iPAC 2020 1. Federal Status - Fish and Wildlife Service Classifications: Fish and Wildlife Service Classifications: LE = Listed Endangered, LT = Listed Threatened, C = Candidate for listing, SoC = Species of Concern.
107
108
APPENDIX D: ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
109
110
APPENDIX D from 2018, 0.2 percentage points slower than the state as a whole (PSU 2019). Population growth is expected to continue to be ECONOMIC DRIVERS AND FUTURE slower compared to the state. Net migration during this period is expected to be less than Oregon as whole, and stable, at ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND EFFECTS approximately 5 to 6 persons per 1,000 population.22 The Oregon CONDITIONS Secretary of State lists primary economic activities in Benton County as agriculture, forest products, research and development, This description of economic conditions begins with Benton electronics, and wineries. Oregon State University in Corvallis County and then describes the rural communities in the study conducts much of the state’s research in forestry, agriculture, area and the Alsea Falls Recreational Site. Economic activity in the engineering, education and the sciences.22 Hewlett-Packard, in study area occurs due to (1) timber lands and farmland the electronics industry, operates in Corvallis, and employs production, (2) commercial activity in Alsea and Alpine, and (3) approximately 1,500 people. In October 2019, the Corvallis user fees at Alsea Falls Recreational Area. These activities general Gazette-Times reported that Hewlett-Packard may cut up to 9,000 direct and secondary jobs, income, spending, and tax revenues, U.S. jobs overall by fiscal year 2022.23 throughout the region. Secondary impacts include workers spending their incomes and companies purchasing supplies or raw The Benton County Comprehensive Plan Economic Development materials from other firms. chapter states that the County’s economy is expected to remain stable for the decade following when the Comprehensive Plan D.1 BENTON COUNTY was prepared. The County’s economic development goal is “(t)o support a stable and sustainable local economy, vital to the D.1.1 Socioeconomics health, welfare, and prosperity of County residents.”24 Benton County is a rural county in the Willamette Valley, west of Interstate 5 and home to 2.2 percent of Oregon’s population (PSU The Benton County economy focuses on a few industries. Growing 2019). Small in terms of population and size, Benton County opportunities in recreation and tourism support retail and lodging contains the cities of Corvallis (county seat), Adair Village, Albany businesses in cities and unincorporated communities in the (a portion), Monroe, and Philomath. The Corvallis population county. Portland State University’s Population Research Center represents 67 percent of the Benton County population. expects Benton County population to grow by 0 percent to 2 percent per year (except for the high growth in Adair between Benton County’s July 2019 population of 94,360 is slow growing in 2020 and 2030), on average and depending on the area of the relation to other areas in Oregon, having increased 0.8 percent county. As shown in Table 1, the area outside of Benton County’s
22 (OEA 2020). 24 (BC 2007). 23 (GT 2019).
111
urban growth boundary (UGB) is expected to grow less than 1 percent annually over the next 20 years. The only large city outside Benton County and within 60 minutes of driving time of Table 1 Population Projection for Areas in Benton County and Alsea Falls is the City of Eugene. Similar to Benton County, the Eugene Area 2020 2030 2040 AARG, AARG, Eugene UGB is expected to grow less than one percent per year in 2020-2030 2030- population, on average, between 2020 and 2040. Eugene is the 2040 largest city in the area, with approximately three times the Benton 95,818 106,498 113,169 1.1 0.6 County percent percen population of Corvallis and twice the Benton County population t (PSU 2017). Adair 1,127 1,934 2,075 5.5 0.7 Village percent percen UGB t Albany 8,088 9,615 10,850 1.7 1.2 UGB percent percen (Benton) t Corvallis 63,857 70,572 75,227 1.0 0.6 UGB percent percen t Monroe 643 660 675 0.3 0.2 UGB percent percen t 5,388 6,848 7,493 2.4 0.9 Philomath percent percen UGB t Benton 16,715 16,868 16,849 0.1 0.0 County percent percen Outside t UGB Area Eugene 194,721 210,474 226,078 0.8 0.7 UGB percent percen t Source: Portland State University (PSU). 2017. Population Research Center, Current Documents and Presentations, Current Forecast Summaries for All Areas, 2017 forecasts for Benton County. Retrieved at: https://www.pdx.edu/prc/current-documents-and-presentations. Accessed May 13, 2010.
D.1.2 Tourism and Travel Dean Runyan Associates, Inc. (Oregon Travel Impacts: 1991-2018. 2018.) found that direct spending on travel by visitors in Benton County in 2019 was $127 million, up 7 percent since 2018 and 5
112
percent on average since 2010. Visitor travel spending in 2019 • Camping $3.1 million was associated with 1,910 jobs, $41 million in earnings, and $7 • Day Travel $33.0 million (DRA 2018) million in tax revenue (34 percent local, versus state or federal) (DRA 2018).25 This economic activity includes the following D.1.3 Oregon Park and Recreation Department categories: Data
• Accommodations ($27 million) The Oregon Park and Recreation Department (OPRD) Plan 2016- • Food services ($40 million) 2025 identified expenditure and economic contributions • Retail ($18 million) associated with non-motorized trail use in Oregon. Statewide, • Food stores ($12 million) non-motorized trail use by Oregon residents supports 21,730 jobs, $672 million in labor income, and $1.0 billion in value added. • Arts, entertainment, and recreation ($16 million) When out-of-state visitors are included, the estimated amounts • Local transportation and gasoline ($14 million) (DRA increased to 24,340 jobs, $1.2 billion in 2016. OPRD 2016 reports 2018) that Benton County non-motorized trail activity days account for 7 Dean Runyan reports that each overnight visitor staying at percent of the state and 16 percent of the Region 2. In terms of campgrounds or vacation homes in Benton County spent $42/day types of use, Benton County represents one-fifth of non-local and $128/trip on average in 2019. The average trip size was 3.4 walking activity days in the region, 19 percent of running activity people, and the average length of stay was 3.0 nights (DRA 2018). days in the region, and 28 percent of paved biking activity days in the region. Benton County represented 11 percent each of paved Corvallis collects a transient occupancy (lodging) tax that amounts run and bike activity days in the State (OPRD 2016). OPRD 2016 to $2.1 million in 2019. Dean Runyan Associates, Inc., found that notes that day-use vs. multi-day use in Region 2, in which Benton in Benton County in 2019, $68,546 in visitor spending supports County is located, is particularly dominated by day-use (86 one job. Travel spending in Benton County in 2019 generated jobs percent day use vs. 14 percent multi-day). In addition, 60 percent in accommodation and foodservices (1,058, 55 percent of total); of non-motorized trail day trips are within 30 miles of home. For arts, entertainment, and recreation (593, 31 percent of total); non-motorized multi-day trips, about 2/3 of trips were more than other travel (58, 3 percent of total); and ground transportation 60 miles from home (OPRD 2016). (19, 1 percent of total). Visitor spending in 2019 in Benton County by type of accommodation was the following: OPRD 2016 reported on expenditures and economic contributions for non-motorized trail users, including categories of lodging,
25 Earnings include wages and salaries, earned benefits and revenue includes lodging taxes, auto rental taxes and airport proprietor income. Employment includes all full- and part-time passenger facility charges paid by visitors (DRA 2018). employment of payroll employees and proprietors. Local tax
113
camping, eating out, groceries, gas and oil, and other these communities as part of their trip. Alpine and Alsea are transportation. Statewide, non-motorized trail use by Oregon classified by Benton County as rural unincorporated communities. residents supports 21,730 jobs, $672 million in labor income, and Section 14.1.9 Urbanization of Benton County’s Comprehensive $1.0 billion in value added. Non-motorized trail use by Oregon Plan states that “Benton County shall designate unincorporated residents was found to support 9,590 jobs, $342 million in labor communities outside urban growth boundaries and shall develop income, $513 million in value added, and $830 million in output and maintain up to date plans for the housing, facilities, and (OPRD 2016). (This does not include non-residential trail use, economic viability of these areas in order to preserve and which statewide is estimated at an additional 12 percent over the enhance their rural “small town” character.” (Alpine 2013). resident estimates. By type of activity, statewide impacts are as Beginning at the west end of the study area in Alsea, economic follows: activity includes rural farmland and agricultural production. Land - Walking/ hiking was estimated to generate $1.1 billion in is owned by private individuals, families, or entities, and by expenditure, which led to 13,280 jobs, $574 million in commercial timber companies. Private residences are also located value added, and $365 million in labor income. with the study area. Heading eastward, the next 9-mile segment is - Mountain biking was estimated to generate $83 million primarily under BLM’s ownership and maintenance, with some in expenditure, which led to 1,090 jobs, $48 million in commercial timber company ownership. Economic activities value added, and $31 million in labor income (OPRD include forest management (including timber harvesting) and 2016). recreation. When South Fork Road becomes Alpine Road, land use transitions to rural residential in Alpine. Across all national forest units in Oregon, there are an estimated Alpine is located approximately 23 miles south of Corvallis and 2.62 million non-motorized trail visits annually. Of these, 76 approximately 10 miles east of the Alsea Falls Recreational Area percent are visits by Oregon residents and 24 percent by non- (approximately 20 minutes by car). Alpine contains primarily residents. However, the majority of the user occasions in this trail residential uses, with some commercial and public uses. In 2013 analysis likely occur on trails in or near communities rather than in and according to the Alpine Rural Unincorporated Community more distant national forests. Plan (Alpine 2013), the community boundary contained Recreation in Oregon and Benton County, especially in areas commercial uses including a vacant store, tavern, apiary, and easily accessible from more populated areas, contribute well/pump company. Many Alsea Falls visitors pass through substantially to the economy. Alpine, a quiet community with limited services and economic activity. In 2013, recent growth in residential development was D.2 ALSEA AND ALPINE minimal, and more than half of Alpine residents reported working from home or not working, while others commute to Eugene or Alsea and Alpine are considered in this section because the Corvallis. Alpine has an active community planning and majority of Alsea Falls visitors will pass thorugh one or both of involvement component and lists as a goal in the Alpine Rural
114
Unincorporated Community Plan “to provide small-scale business • Policy 1.b: Benton County shall refine the commercial providing limited goods and services to locals and tourists.” The and residential zoning designations for Alsea to enhance following policy pertains to this economic goal: opportunities for existing and new businesses to locate there. • Policy 2.a: Benton County shall work with local business • Policy 1.c: Benton County shall work with property owners, community organizations, and agencies to owners, community organizations, and agencies to create a supportive atmosphere for existing and improve the attractiveness of downtown Alsea (Alsea potential businesses in Alpine. 2008).
Policy 2.b: Benton County shall refine the commercial and Alsea contained 16.3 acres of rural residential zoned land and 3.6 residential zoning designations for Alpine to enhance acres of commercially zoned land in 2008. Additional strategies opportunities for existing businesses to thrive there, and for were set forth in the plan, for downtown revitalization and small-scale businesses to locate there (Alpine 2013). Proposed economic development (Alsea 2008). Glenbrook is a small zoning in the 2013 Alpine Rural Unincorporated Community Plan community west of Alpine, and appears to have very limited included fewer than 10 parcels designated for commercial uses. commercial services, based on desktop research. Alpine and Alsea offer retail services to pass-through travelers appropriate for their Alsea is located approximately 24 miles southwest of Corvallis and rural, small-town nature and community goals. approximately 10 miles west of the Alsea Falls Recreational Area (approximately 22 minutes by car). Timber harvesting was a prominent economic activity generator in Alsea and surrounding D.3 ALSEA FALLS RECREATIONAL SITE areas, until the 1980s and 1990s. Within the community AND FALL CREEK TRAIL boundaries and in 2008, when the Alsea Rural Unincorporated Community Plan was prepared, ten commercially zoned parcels South Fork Road within the study area provides access to Alsea existed in the core commercial area, six of which were not in Falls/Fall Creek. Visitors to the area camp, hike, fish, picnic, bike, operation. Most parcels in Alsea were residential. One of the and sightsee at Alsea Falls/Fall Creek, and as part of the goals stated in Alsea Rural Unincorporated Community Plan is that recreational experience, spend money locally on campsite and “Alsea will have a thriving business community, providing goods day use fees, gasoline, food, and lodging. South Fork Road also and services to locals and travelers” (Alsea 2008). The following provides access to several other developed recreation policies were put in place to support this goal: opportunities in the central Coast Range and is a designated Backcountry Byway. Many vehicles on South Fork Road may be • Policy 1.a: Benton County shall work with local business traveling through the area as opposed to be destined for it. owners, community organizations, and agencies to Visitors originate from both local and regional destinations. They create a supportive atmosphere for existing businesses in may spend the day or more than one day along the corridor. Alsea Alsea. Falls/Fall Creek recreational activities are discussed below.
115
D.3.1 Recreation Types Fall Creek Biking and Hiking Alsea Falls/Fall Creek and South Fork Road near Alsea Falls/Fall Surrounding the Alsea Falls Recreational Site is an extensive non- Creek offer day use (picnic area), camping, hiking, cycling (trail motorized trail system. The Fall Creek Day-Use Trailhead includes and road), and other passive recreation, such as backcountry a gravel parking area for 18 vehicles, one picnic table, an viewing opportunities. information kiosk, garbage cans, and vault toilet facilities. Primary activities are mountain biking, picnicking and hiking. The Fall Day Use and Picnic Area Creek Day-Use Trailhead is generally open year round, with The day-use area is open year-round, and includes 15 picnic units, temporary closures for public safety or resource damage with barbecue grills, fire pits, potable water, interpretive kiosks, concerns. No user fees are currently assessed at the Fall Creek paved access and parking, garbage cans, and vault toilets. BLM Day-Use Trailhead. Figure 3-6 in the Existing Conditions report plans to convert five picnic units to tent campsites to meet indicates that peak use (100-150 users) occurs on weekends and demand (BLM 2017). Primary activities include picnicking, large summer events attract 325-375 visitors per event day. waterfall viewing, hiking, and mountain biking. The Mary’s Peak Mary’s Peak RMA data shows that for October 2018 thorugh Resource Management Area (RMA) (RMIS 2019) reports that for September 2019, Fall Creek Day-Use Trailhead had 5,655 visitor the period October 1, 2018 thorugh September 30, 2019, Alsea days and 19,389 visits (BLM 2019a). Falls day use had 5,171 visitor days and 10,964 visits (BLM 2019a). For comparison, Trafx counts have been completed for two trails Alsea Falls Campground beginning at the Fall Creek Day-Use Trailhead: Fall Creek and Chutes & Boulders. At Fall Creek trailhead, between June 2019 The Alsea Falls campground includes 14 basic campsites and 2 and November 2020, daily counts ranged from 0 visits to 384 double campsites with picnic tables, barbecue grills, fire pits visits, with a median count of 30 visits and an average count of 51 (double campsites include two of each), potable water, visits (Trafx 2020). Based on the median 30 visits per day, Trafx interpretive kiosks, paved access and parking spurs, garbage cans, data suggests 10,950 visits occur annually at Fall Creek trail. At and vault toilet facilities. Primary activities are tent/recreational Chutes & Boulders, between October 2019 and December 2019, vehicle (RV)/trailer camping, waterfall viewing, hiking, and daily visit counts ranged from 0 visits to 15 visits, with a median mountain bike use. The campground is open to vehicles from May count of one visit, and an average count of two visits. Using the through October. Campground reservation data for 2018 indicates median count, extrapolating to one year, and adding to the Fall that between July and September, 2018, 53 reservations were Creek trail visits results in an estimated 11,315 daily visits for made, representing 212 people (average 4 persons per these two trails (Trafx 2019). reservation), with 20 of the reservations (99 visitors) origniating locally (within 60 miles) (BLM 2018). Data collected for the Mary’s Bicycling and Backcountry Byway Viewing Peak RMA indicates that for the period October 2018 through Though no designated bicycle facilities exist along South Fork September 2019, Alsea Falls campground had 7,903 visitor days Road in the study area and the primary purpose of South Fork and 10,364 visits (BLM 2019a).
116
Road for recreationists is to reach their destinations, modest use of the corridor by longer-distance cyclists occurs. Visitors to Alsea Table 2 Existing Alsea Falls Recreational Site Fees Falls/Fall Creek also bicycle on gravel roads and dirt trails Amenity Fee accessible from South Fork Road. Mountain bikers may also use Day-use (standard amenity) $3 the nearby BLM roads, which are prevalent due to timber Annual Day-use Pass (standard amenity) $15 Extra vehicle fee (expanded amenity) $5 harvesting. Tent campsite (expanded amenity) $0 Basic campsite $12 Sight-seeing from vehicles also occurs on South Fork Road due to Double campsite $20 its scenic backcountry byway status. Average daily traffic (ADT) for Source: BLM 2017. Alsea Falls Business Plan August 2017. the corridor is reported at approximately 325 vehicles, as Note: The Annual Day-use Pass covers other recreation sites in addition to Alsea Falls. dicsussed in the Existign Conditions Report. Summer peak traffic BLM records the number of annual Alsea Falls visits. “Visits” is reaches about 400 vehicles per day (vpd). The Federal Highway defined as one person entering onto lands or waters, Administration (FHWA) estimates that in 20 years, the peak administered by the BLM for pursuit of recreational experiences summer traffic may reach 500 vpd along this route. Traffic (one entrance per individual per day to public lands is reportable volumes are likely higher at the western and eastern ends of the as a visit). BLM visit data follows the federal fiscal year (FY) cycle study area and vary significantly by month, with August typically that begins on October 1, and runs through September 30 of the the peak month. During winter, traffic volume drops 25 percent following year. Estimating visitor use is derived through a from average volume. Acciddent records show that May, June, combination of several methods: tallying recreation use permit and September have the highest number of crashes – most information (fee envelopes and passes), traffic counters, trail recreational visits also occur these months. counters, and observation. D.3.2 Visits and User Fees Table 3 shows that Alsea Falls visits are generally increasing. Most Alsea Falls is located on BLM-administered Oregon and California visits occur in July and August, and the number of visits varies Grant Lands (O&C Lands) and was developed, maintained, and from year to year. Many visitors are repeat users from nearby operated over the past 40 years using O&C-appropriated funding communities. Average annual occupancy rate is approximately 40 and recreation use fees. Fee revenue for Alsea Falls has percent. The relatively new Falls Creek Trail System has increased historically been generated from day-use fees, camping fees, usage at the day use and camping sites. extra vehicle parking in the campground, and annual day-use passes. Table 2 shows existing per-visit fees at Alsea Falls.
117
Table 3 Alsea Falls Recreational Site Annual Visitors D.4 TIMBER HARVESTING Site FY FY FY FY FY 2016 FY 20121 20131 20141, 2015 2019 2 Timber harvesting on private land and on certain public (BLM) Campground 0 0 0 2,570 2,854 7903 lands creates spending, income, jobs, and tax revenue. Economic Day-use area 0 0 0 5,549 7,175 5,171 activity related to timber harvesting may persist due to BLM’s Fall Creek 0 0 0 15,000 14,203 19,389 Day-use continued management of timber harvests on public lands trailhead consistent with federal forest sustainability practices and policy. 3 Total 14,437 18,051 1,003 23,119 24,052 32,463 Near Alsea Falls, large landowners include BLM, Weyerhaeuser, Source: BLM 2017. Alsea Falls Business Plan August 2017; 2019 data is from Mary’s Peak data. Hull Oakes Lumber Company, Tall Corn Forestry LLC, Starker Notes: Forests Inc., Nystrom Land & Timber LLC. “O&C” signifies the O&C 1. Visits were not broken down by site for FY 2012, FY 2013, or FY 2014, but instead were expressed as a total. Lands Act of 1937. These are lands taken back from the Oregon 2. Day use and trailhead visits were not reported in FY 2014. and California Railroad after it broke the terms of a land grant. 3. Total is as reporting for FY 2016 in the Business Plan. BLM lands under the O&C Lands Act of 1937 are mandated to be The average fee per visit ranges from $1.80 to $2.40 per visit. managed as a permanent source of timber supply, “protecting Campground fee compliance exceeds 90 percent, and Day-use watersheds, regulating stream flow, and contributing to the area fee compliance was approximately 55 percent in FY 2016. If economic stability of local communities and industries…” Alsea Falls is expanded in the future, current BLM annual operations and maintenance costs of approximately $110,350 will BLM continues to sell timber from its 3.76 million acres of likely increase (BLM 2017). Table 4 shows Alsea Falls fee revenue. forestland in Oregon under provisions of the O&C Act (OFRI 2010). It is important to note that not all BLM forest lands are managed Table 4 Total Fees Collected at Alsea Falls Rec Site under the O&C Act and not all forest lands of the O&C are under Year/Average Fee Amount FY 2014 $21,122 the same Resource Management Plan. The Northwest Forest Plan FY 2015 $19,687 framework that the BLM had been operating under for the FY 2016 $18,082 3-year average $19,9141 administration of forest land management on the west side of Source: BLM 2017. Alsea Falls Business Plan August 2017. Oregon was updated/replaced with two new RMPs in 2016. Notes: 1. The 3-year average is reported according to the the Business Plan Since the 1970s, the number of timber works and amount of (BLM 2017). timber harvested has decreased. The largest decline in logging has come from federal lands, where logging is down almost 90 percent since the 1970s (KDRV 2019). Continuation of this trend due to government regulations, market forces, or other factors would limit economic benefits related to timber harvesting. In 2014, BLM forest lands contributed $18 million in revenue to state and local governments, and in 2018, BLM harvested $1.665
118
million board feet of timber BLM-owned forests within Benton specific to Benton County on multiplier effects of travel spending County (OFR 2020). was used to estimate secondary economic effects of the visitor spending (DRA 2018).
This method was determined based on communication with BLM D.5 FUTURE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND as well as review of methods used for similar projects, including the Shotcash Timber Sales Project and the Wildwood Economic PROJECT EFFECTS Development Feasibility Study (BLM 2019b; BLM 2019c). Economic activity in and near the study area will likely continue to Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the BLM Shotcash Timber Sales Project increase slowly and steadily with future projected increases in National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Assessment nearby population centers, such as Eugene and Corvallis, and the (Shotcash EA) (BLM 2019b) evaluated impacts of timber harvests growing popularity of recreation activities along South Fork Road and related trail closures planned to occur periodically over 5 and throughout the Willamette Valley and in the central Coast years on half of the Shotgun off-highway vehicle (OHV) Trail range. The Corridor Plan would result in an indirect increase in System Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA). Direct economic activity to the extent more people travel through or to adverse impacts were found to occur on the trails that would be the area, spending money on goods and services and on closed, while indirect impacts were found to include (1) increased recreational use fees. The Corridor Plan will not directly increase visits on trails that remain open when others are closed, (2) recreational capacity at Alsea Falls, nor will it increase traffic decreased overall use, (3) increased use of nearby similar capacity on South Fork Road. To the extend South Fork Road facilities. The Shotcash EA addressed the question of whether safety improvements and Alsea Falls trail connections and potential project-induced changes in recreational use of the amenity improvements result in increased use of Alsea Falls/Fall Shotgun OHV Trail System ERMA and the Cascade View Special Creek, direct and secondary economic activity in Alpine, Alsea, Recreation Management Area would affect recreation-derived and Benton County related to recreation may increase. revenue for the local economy. D.5.1 Methodology BLM used data from the U.S. Forest Service’s National Visitor Use This analysis uses existing data to evaluate the expected economic Monitoring (NVUM) system for the Willamette National Forest impact of the Corridor Plan at an approximate, order-of- from the year 2017 (USFS 2017) to represent a metric for the magnitude level. Existing population forecasts (PSU 2017) were average amount a person recreating would spend. The Shotcash used to approximate visit increases, using Alsea Falls 2019 EA assumed 83 percent of day-use visits originated locally and 17 campground visitor day estimates (BLM 2019a) as a basis. Then, percent originated non-locally. The average party size was 2.5 using Alsea Falls local versus non-local percentages and spending- visitors per group, and $44 was assumed spent per visit (BLM per-visit rates (DRA 2018; BLM 2019b; BLM 2019c), this analysis 2019b). estimates spending related to recreational visits. Existing data
119
The BLM Wildwood Economic Development Feasibility Study assumed to be 1.1 percent for the period 2020-2030 and 0.6 (Wildwood Study) (BLM 2019c) reported that the Wildwood percent for the period 2030-2040, rates which correspond to Recreation Site, east of Portland at the base on Mt. Hood, has average forecasted rates of growth in population of cities and 49,295 visitors per year on average and collects $49,470 annually towns where most visitors would originate.26 Visitor estimates in fees. The Sandy Ridge Trail System is a mountain biking are broken down into estimated local and non-local visitor using destination, a 15-minute bike ride from Wildwood, brings 90,000- local/non-local percentages from other BLM studies (Shotcash 120,000 visitors per year. To estimate economic impacts, BLM [BLM 2019b] and Wildwood [BLM 2019c]). used ECONorthwest’s report on “Quiet Recreation on BLM- Managed Lands” published April 2016 (Lee, et al., 2014). The Table 5 Alsea Falls Recreational Site Estimated Future Annual Wildwood Study assumed a 3.2-night average non-local visit, 2.4- Visitors Site FY 2019 Projected Projected Projected night average local visit, average spent of $568/day on non-local 2020 2030 2040 overnight trip ($234 for local), average spending of $78/day for Campground 7,903 day-use non-local ($44 for local). In this study, 95 percent of 7,970 8,852 9,422 Local 3,691 4,134 4,400 overnight visits were found to be non-local. For Wildwood, per- 3,722 visitor spending rates used were the following: Non-local 4,212 4,248 4,718 5,022 Day-use area 5,171 5,215 5,792 6,165 • Overnight trips: Local 4,292 4,328 4,808 5,117 o $227 per non-local visitor day Non-local 879 887 985 1,048 $94 per local visitor day Fall Creek 19,389 o Day-use 19,554 21,718 23,116 • Day trips: trailhead $78 per non-local visitor day Local 16,093 16,230 18,026 19,186 o Non-local 3,296 3,324 3,692 3,930 o $44 per local visitor day Total 32,463 33,581 37,298 39,699 Local 24,075 24,280 26,967 28,703 Non-local 8,388 8,459 9,395 10,000 D.5.2 Alsea Falls Recreation Site Future Visits and Source: BLM 2017. Alsea Falls Business Plan August 2017; BLM 2019a; additional Related Spending calculations by David Evans and Associates, Inc. Table 6 shows estimated visitor spending at Alsea Falls by Table 5 shows expected visitation at Alsea Falls for different category and by future year. recreation types. The rate of growth in number of visits is
26 The Adair Village UGB 2020-2030 forecast for annual population from the average rate calculation. Similarly, the substantially growth was 5.5 percent, substantially higher than other similar lower -6.4 percent growth rate for Albany UGB (Benton) areas; therefore this rate was considered an outlier and removed population for the period 2010-2020 was excluded as an outlier.
120
Table 6 Alsea Falls Recreational Site Estimated Visitor Spending number of visits. For example, if the proposed project results in (in 2019 dollars) an increase in visitation of 5 percent, a proportional economic FY 2016 Projected Projected Projected impact would occur. Est. $ 2020 $ 2030 2040 Campground 1,302,504 1,313,575 1,458,972 1,552,886 The nearest communities of Alsea and Alpine currently have few Local 345,436 348,372 386,932 411,839 Non-local 957,068 965,203 1,072,040 1,141,047 commercial and retail services available for visitors. Alsea appears Day-use area 253,120 255,272 283,528 301,778 to have a slightly more open plan for expanding commercial Local 184,553 186,122 206,723 220,030 Non-local 68,567 69,150 76,804 81,748 services in their community; therefore, although both small Fall Creek Day- 949,092 957,159 1,063,105 1,131,537 communities may experience some commercial growth due to the use trailhead future increase in visitation to Alsea Falls, Alsea may absorb more Local 691,993 697,875 775,122 825,016 Non-local 257,098 259,283 287,983 306,521 of this growth. Types of businesses that may expand in nearby Total 2,504,716 2,526,006 2,805,604 2,986,202 communities could include gasoline, grocery stores, drug/supply Local 1,221,982 1,232,369 1,368,777 1,456,886 stores, restaurants, and lodging. Non-local 1,282,734 1,293,637 1,436,827 1,529,316 Source: BLM 2017. Alsea Falls Business Plan August 2017; BLM 2019a; BLM 2019b; BLM 2019c; additional calculations by David Evans and Associates, Inc. D.5.3 Alsea Falls Recreational Site Fee Increases Using Dean Runyan estimated multipliers for Benton County BLM Alsea Falls operations and maintenance costs are projected secondary economic effects (DRA 2018), the approximately $3 to increase from $110,350/year to $149,100 in 2021 (BLM 2017). million per year in visitor spending at Alsea Falls would be Alternative program funds, including recreation pipeline funding, associated with the following regional economic impacts in 2019 which is O&C railroad investment funds derived from timber sales dollars, which would occur throughout Benton County in various receipts, have been invested in improving and maintaining Alsea industries: Falls' facilities and infrastructure over the last 17 years. With recent and continuing stagnation or decreases in annual 44 full-time equivalent jobs o recreation budgets, BLM states that fee increases are necessary to $964,000 in earnings o continue maintenance, improvements and development of new $165,00 in tax revenue ($56,000 of which would be local) o facilities as demand warrants, such as the Fall Creek trail system These estimates are based on existing and projected rates of and day-use trailhead (BLM 2017). BLM plans to increases fees at population growth, existing visitation levels, visitor spending rates Alsea Falls (BLM 2017). Table 7 shows the future fee adjustments. used by DRA 2019 and for similar BLM projects, and local/non- local visitor percentages from similar BLM projects – they do not include expected changes in number of visits associated with the Corridor Plan. Alsea Falls site improvements may result in increased visits, to the extent improved safety and recreational amenities increase the popularity of the area and therefore the
121
Table 7 Proposed Alsea Falls Recreational Site Fees Table 8 Alsea Falls Recreational Site Estimated Future Annual Amenity Fee Fee Revenue Day-use (standard amenity) $5 Site Projected 2020 Projected 2030 Projected 2040 Annual Day-use Pass (standard $30 Campground $ 23,618 $ 26,232 $ 27,921 amenity) Day-use area $ 14,844 $ 16,487 $ 17,549 Extra vehicle fee (expanded amenity) $5 Falls Creek Trail $ 29,384 $ 32,637 $ 34,737 Tent campsite (expanded amenity) $15 Day-use Basic campsite $20 Total $ 67,847 $ 75,356 $ 80,207 Double campsite $40 Source: BLM 2017. Alsea Falls Business Plan August 2017. Note: These estimates assume $5 day use and $20 basic campsite fee, per party, Note: The Annual Day-use Pass covers other recreation sites in addition to and a 2.5-person party size (from Wildwood). Alsea Falls. The proposed revision of the annual day-use pass is covered in a separate business plan for the Northwest Oregon BLM Pass which is designed to cover multiple recreation sites. D.6 CONCLUSION BLM projected in 2017 that based on the 3-year average for fees The local and regional economy surrounding Alsea Falls will collected at Alsea Falls since 2014 ($19,914 per year, with the continue to benefit from both overnight and day use visitors to largest portion of fees collected comes from camping) and on the Alsea Falls. Together with expected low but stable regional proposed fee increases, the projected annual fee revenue for population and economic growth, improvements to South Fork Alsea Falls is approximately $57,505. Road and the Alsea Falls trails and trail connections associated with the Corridor Plan could result in increased visits at Alsea Falls Although Alsea Falls fees have not been changed since 2009, costs and associated economic impacts in the local area (Alsea and of goods, labor, and services have steadily increased, resulting in a Alpine) and the region, including Benton County and the Eugene maintenance backlog, some of which would be reduced by the UGB. Timber harvesting along South Fork Road and local rural future additional revenue from higher user fees. Additional fee community planning for economic development would continue revenue would also be used for maintenance backlog and to contribute to economic activity in the area. Future economic additional law enforcement and employee oversight to combat impacts due to Alsea Falls Recreational Site are estimated to vandalism and negative behavior and to increase visitor safety. include the following (Dollar estimates are 2019 dollars): Site infrastructure, cleanliness, and visitor service and information availability would increase. These effects would improve the o $68,000-80,000 in annual recreation fees; visitor experience and could result in indirect increases in visits, o $2.5 to $3.0 million in visitor spending; which could in turn result in increased visitor-related local and o 44 full-time equivalent jobs resulting from visitor regional economic activity. spending; Using the estimated future number of visits (see Table 5), Table 8 o $964,000 in earnings resulting from visitor spending; and shows estimated BLM annual fee revenue. o $165,000 in tax revenue resulting from visitor spending, $66,000 of which would be local.
122
SOURCES
Alpine. 2013. Alpine Rural Unincorporated Community Plan. Adopted 2013. Retrieved at: https://www.co.benton.or.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community_development/page/1920/alpine_plan_adopted.pdf. Accessed on May 11, 2020.
Alsea. 2008. Alsea Rural Unincorporated Community Plan. Adopted 2008. Retrieved at: https://www.co.benton.or.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning/page/1920/alsea_final_plan.pdf . Accessed on May 11, 2020.
Benton County (BC). 2007. Benton County Comprehensive Plan. Adopted 2007. Retrieved at: https://www.co.benton.or.us/planning/page/comprehensive-plan. Accessed May 11, 2020.
Bergerson, Terry, et al. 2016. Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision for the Future. Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, Salem, Oregon
BLM 2017. Alsea Falls Business Plan. August 2017.
BLM. 2018. Alsea Falls campground reservation data for 2018.
BLM. 2019a. Mary’s Peak RMA data. BLM Records Mangaement Informaiton Systems (RMIS), Sep 13, 2019, Visits and Visitor Days by RMA Fiscal Year Range Oct 1, 2018 – Sep 30, 2019 Report No. 23C.
BLM 2019b. Shotcash Timber Sales Project EA. BLM. 2019c. Wildwood Economic Development Feasibility Study, March 2019. Corvallis Gazette-Times (GT). 2019. “HP Inc.’s new CEO unveils plan to cut up to 9,000 jobs.” October 4, 2019. Retrieved at https://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/hp-inc-s-new-ceo-unveils-plan-to-cut-up-to-9-000-jobs/article_cd9e8782-d6ae-507a- 8cef-eda11df89806.html. Accessed May 11, 2020.
Dean Runyan Associates (DRA). 2018. Oregon Travel Impacts: 1991 – 2018. May 1, 2018. https://industry.traveloregon.com/resources/research/oregon-travel-impacts-1991-2011-dean-runyan-associates/
Lee, Rempel, and Ainsworth. 2014. ECONorthwest, Quiet Recreation on BLM-Managed Lands, April 2016. (used this????) U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management. 2018b. Recreation Management Information System (RMIS). Retrieved from https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/viewresource.php?courseID=313
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2017. U.S. Forest Service, Natural Resource Manager, USDA Forest Services National Visitor Use Monitoring Data. Retrieved from: https://apps.fs.usda.gov/nvum/results/A06018.aspx/. Accessed May 1, 2020.
KDRV. 2019. KDRV.com article 12/17/2019. “Oregon Local Governments Made ‘Record Revenues’ From 2019 Timber Sales, State Says.” Retrieved at: https://www.kdrv.com/content/news/Oregon-local-governments-made-record-revenues-from-2019-timber-sales-state-says- 566290811.html. Accessed May 11, 2020.
Oregon Department of Economic Analysis (OEA). 2020. Oregon’s long term county population forecast, 2010-2050. Retrieved from: https://www.oregon.gov/das/OEA/Pages/forecastdemographic.aspx. Accessed May 11, 2020.
Oregon Forest Revenues (OFR). 2020. Oregon Forest Revenues to State and Local Governments. Retrieved at: https://data.oregon.gov/Revenue- Expense/Oregon-Forest-Revenues-to-State-and-Local-Governme/nide-v8vg/data). Accessed on May 1, 2020.
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD). 2016. Oregon Trails 2016: A Vision for the Future, 2016-2025 Oregon Statewide Recreation Trails Plan. Retrieved at: https://www.oregon.gov/oprd/PRP/Documents/PLA-STP-Statewide-Trails-Plan.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2020.
Oregon Forest Resources Institute (OFRI). 2010. Oregon federal forests management report. Retrieved at: https://oregonforests.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Federal_Forestlands.pdf. Accessed on May 1, 2020.
Oregon Secretary of State (OSS). 2020. Benton County Information. Retrieved at: https://sos.oregon.gov/blue- book/Pages/local/counties/benton.aspx. Accessed May 11, 2020.
Portland State University (PSU). 2017. Population Research Center, Current Documents and Presentations, Current Forecast Summaries for All Areas, 2017 forecasts for Benton County. Retrieved at: https://www.pdx.edu/prc/current-documents-and-presentations. Accessed May 13, 2010. Portland State University (PSU). 2019. Portland State University Population Research Center, Annual Population Estimates and Reports, 2019. Retrieved at: https://www.pdx.edu/prc/population-reports-estimates. Accessed May 11, 2020.
Trafx. 2020. Falls Creek biking/hiking trailhead count data. Trafx. 2019. Chutes and Boulders biking/hiking trailhead count data.
APPENDIX E: PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEETING SUMMARIES
APPENDIX F: PLANNING-LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
OPTION 1 - LED WARNING SIGN (SOLAR- can be programmed remotely, and owner may download speed data and counts. Steel posts. POWERED) Design: evaluate location along corridor, location from edge of pavement, Assumptions: locations to be determined. (assume 4) and size options. $500
Design: evaluate location along corridor, location from edge of pavement, Construction and Materials: $10,000 ea. and size options. $500
Construction and Materials: $5,000 ea. OPTION 5 – HEADLIGHTS ON FOR SAFETY (OR SIMILAR) SIGN OPTION 2 – DYNAMIC/PASSIVE BICYCLE Assumptions: locations to be determined. Likely one in each direction WARNING SIGN (SOLAR-POWERED) (assume 2). May use wood posts
Assumptions: locations to be determined. (assume 2) Design: evaluate location along corridor, location from edge of pavement, and size options. $150 Design: evaluate location along corridor, location from edge of pavement, and size options. $1000 Construction and Materials: $500 ea. Construction and Materials: $25,000 ea. OPTION 6 - WAYFINDING OPTION 3 – CYCLISTS ON ROADWAY W11-1 Assumptions: locations to be determined. Likely at key tourism WARNING SIGN destinations (assume 2). May use wood posts. Design: evaluate location along corridor, location from edge of pavement, Assumptions: locations to be determined. Likely two in each direction and size options. $1,000 (assume 4 total). May use wood posts. Construction and Materials: $14,00 ea. Design: evaluate location along corridor, location from edge of pavement, and size options. $150
Construction and Materials: $500 ea. OPTION 4 – RADAR SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN
Assumptions: locations to be determined. Likely prior to sharp corner and/or along straightaways prone to high speed driving. (assume 2). Signs
OPTION 7 – FOG LINE AND CENTERLINE OPTIONS 9-1 AND 10– MINOR WIDENING
STRIPING Assumptions: Construct 4-foot-wide paving in spot locations (at inside of Assumptions: Install for length of corridor. Locations for solid/dashed to be corners). determined. Cost below assumes double yellow 4-inch paint line. Design: Topo survey, 3d model, construction plans, construction survey. Design: Determine exact locations and produce signing plan or table $25,000 per mile (milepost-based). $5,000 Construction and Materials: $181,000 per mile Construction and Materials: $0.40 per foot ($2,125 per mile) MINOR WIDENING Assume 100 ft long, 4 ft wide shoulder paving on one side (4 in acp on 6 in agg base) OPTION 8 – RUMBLE STRIPS (CENTER) Sawcut 1 ft from pavement edge
Assumptions: Install in spot locations (at corners). Assume 10% of entire Roadway corridor (1.6 miles) Sawcut 100 LF $1/foot$ 100.00 Excavation 20 CY $30/CY$ 750.00 subgrade geotextile 56 SY $1.50/SY$ 84.00 Design: Determine exact locations and produce plan or table for base rock 14 CY $50/CY$ 700.00 construction. paving 12.5 TN $125/TN$ 1,562.50 asphalt tack coat .01 TN $500/tn $ 5.00 Construction and Materials: $1.85 per foot ($9,800 per mile). Total = 4 Iin. stripe 100 ft $0.20/ft$ 20.00 $15,650 Drainage Ditch excavation 5 CY $40/CY$ 200.00
TOTAL $ 3,421.50 per 100 ft $ 180,928.92 per mile $ 181,000.00 per mile, rounded $ 25,000.00 DESIGN
OPTION 9-2 – DUBUQUE CREEK OPTION 10 – MAJOR WIDENING (BI- REALIGNMENT DIRECTIONAL SIDEPATH)
Assumptions: Construct 27-foot wide roadway. Assumptions: Construct 10-foot-wide bi-directional path on one side
DUBUQUE CR. RECONSTRUCTION Design: Topo survey, 3d model, construction plans, construction survey. $125,000 per mile Assume 1000 ft long, 27 ft wide roadway with open bottom creek culvert Construction and Materials: $810,000 per mile Roadway Mobilization (10%) 1 ea 10%$ 190,600.00 MAJOR WIDENING - BIDIRECTIONAL SIDEPATH Staging and traffic control (10%) 1 ea 10%$ 190,600.00 Assume 100 ft long, 10 ft wide shared use path (4 in acp on 6 in agg base) Clearing and grubbing (2%) 1 ea 2%$ 38,120.00 Sawcut 1 ft from pavement edge Excavation 2400 CY $50/CY$ 120,000.00 Structure 4800 SF $250/SF$ 1,200,000.00 Roadway Subgrade geotextile 3500 SY $1.50/SY$ 5,250.00 Sawcut 100 LF $1/foot$ 100.00 Base rock 960 CY $50/CY$ 48,000.00 Excavation 60 CY $30/CY$ 1,800.00 Paving 1000 TN $175/TN$ 113,750.00 subgrade geotextile 156 SY $1.50/SY$ 234.00 base rock 42 CY $50/CY$ 2,100.00 Guardrail 900 LF $75/SF$ 67,500.00 paving 36 TN $125/TN$ 4,500.00 Asphalt tack coat 2 TN $500/tn$ 500.00 asphalt tack coat .02 TN $500/tn $ 10.00 Signs and striping 1 ea lump $ 1,000.00 concrete traffic separator 100 LF $25/foot$ 2,500.00 reflectors 35 ea $6$ 210.00 Drainage 4 in. stripe 100 ft $0.20/ft$ 20.00 Perm. & temp. erosion ctrl (4%) 1 ea 4%$ 76,240.00 signs 0.25 ea $500/ea$ 125.00 Stormwater treatment (5%) 1 ea 5%$ 95,300.00 contingency 1 ea lump $ 3,000.00 Creek restoration 1 ea lump $ 350,000.00 Drainage Subtotal, Construction items $ 2,500,000.00 Ditch excavation 10 CY $40/CY$ 200.00 Construction Contingency (50%) 1 ea 50%$ 1,250,000.00 8in Culvert installation 5 ft $100/FT$ 500.00 Total Construction Cost $ 3,750,000.00 TOTAL $ 15,299.00 per 100 ft Design (15%) 15%$ 562,500.00 $ 809,011.12 per mile Project Mgmt (5%) 5%$ 187,500.00 $ 810,000.00 per mile, rounded Construction Engineering (15%) 15%$ 562,500.00 $ 125,000.00 DESIGN Subtotal $ 1,310,000.00
TOTAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COST $ 5,060,000.00
OPTION 11-1 – MAJOR WIDENING OPTION 11-2 – SLOW MOVING VEHICLE Assumptions: Construct 6-foot-wide paving on both sides for improved AND CYCLIST TURNOUT sight distance and safer cyclist passing. Assumptions: Construct 125-foot-long paved slow-moving vehicle turnout. Design: Topo survey, 3d model, construction plans, construction survey. Design: Topo survey, 3d model, construction plans, construction survey. $120,000 per mile $5,000 Construction and Materials: $748,000 per mile Construction and Materials: $25,000 each MAJOR WIDENING Assume 100 ft long, 6 ft wide shoulder paving both sides (4 in acp on 6 in agg base) SLOW MOVING VEHICLE TURNOUT Sawcut 1 ft from pavement edge Assume 125 ft long + tapers, 12 ft wide shoulder paving on one side (4 in acp on 6 in agg base) includes signage Roadway unique placement to avoid major slope/drainage improvements Sawcut 200 LF $1/foot$ 200.00 Sawcut 1 ft from pavement edge Excavation 54 CY $30/CY$ 1,620.00 subgrade geotextile 155 SY $1.50/SY$ 232.50 base rock 37 CY $50/CY$ 1,850.00 Roadway paving 35 TN $125/TN$ 4,375.00 Sawcut 375 LF $1/foot$ 375.00 asphalt tack coat .02 TN $500/tn $ 10.00 Excavation 250 cy $30/CY$ 7,500.00 8 in. stripe 200 ft $0.40/ft$ 40.00 subgrade geotextile 180 SY $1.50/SY$ 270.00 Slope Stabilization 5 SY $400/SY$ 2,000.00 assume 10% of L, 5 ft up base rock 90 CY $50/CY$ 4,500.00 Subgrade stabilization (12 in) 7.8 SY $15/SY$ 117.00 assume 10% of area paving 80 TN $125/TN$ 5,125.00 contingency 1 ea lump $ 3,000.00 asphalt tack coat .03 TN $500/tn $ 15.00 Drainage 4 Iin. stripe 375 LF $0.20/ft$ 75.00 Ditch excavation 5 CY $40/CY$ 200.00 signs 2 each $500/ea$ 1,000.00 8in Culvert installation 5 ft $100/FT$ 500.00 Contingency 1 ea $2,500$ 2,000.00
Drainage TOTAL $ 14,144.50 per 100 ft Ditch excavation 30 CY $40/CY$ 1,200.00 $ 747,961.16 per mile 8in Culvert installation 25 ft $100/FT$ 2,500.00 $ 748,000.00 per mile, rounded $ 120,000.00 DESIGN TOTAL $ 24,560.00 each $ 5,000.00 DESIGN
OPTION 12 – INTERPRETIVE WAYSIDE OPTION 13 – TRAIL CONNECTION
Assumptions: Construct 60-foot-long paved wayside. Includes signage, Assumptions: Construct 10-foot-wide bi-directional shared use path across pavement marking and parking for three (one ADA). Does not include south fork road and up to mountain bike trail head interpretive kiosk. Design: Topo survey, 3d model, construction plans, construction survey. Design: Topo survey, 3d model, construction plans, construction survey. $150,000 $10,000 Construction and Materials: $582,000 Construction and Materials: $62,000 each TRAIL CONNECTION WAYSIDE (PAVED) Note: costs for a gravel wayside are on hidden rows up above Assume 2500 ft long, 10 ft wide shared use path (4 in acp on 6 in agg base) Assume ~60 ft long + tapers for entrance/exit, 18 ft wide paving drive aisle includes south fork road crossing Includes three parking spaces with ACP access path behind it. (4in acp over 6 in agg base) does not include interpretive signage unique placement to avoid major slope/drainage improvements Roadway Excavation 4000 CY $50/CY$ 200,000.00 Roadway subgrade geotextile 4000 SY $1.50/SY$ 234.00 Excavation 200 cy $30/CY$ 6,000.00 base rock 750 CY $50/CY$ 37,500.00 subgrade geotextile 450 SY $1.50/SY$ 675.00 base rock 100 CY $50/CY$ 5,000.00 paving 650 TN $175/TN$ 113,750.00 paving 105 TN $175/TN$ 18,375.00 asphalt tack coat 1 TN $500/tn$ 500.00 signs (on south fork + ADA signs) 2 each $500/ea$ 1,000.00 intersection striping 1 ea lump $ 1,000.00 curb stops 3 each $300/ea$ 900.00 signs 8 ea $500/ea$ 4,000.00 pavement marking 1 each lump $ 500.00 contingency 1 ea lump $ 100,000.00 detectable warning surface 1 each $750/ea$ 750.00 Contingency 1 ea $12,500$ 12,500.00 Drainage Drainage stormwater & perm. EC (incl. ditch Ditch excavation 40 CY $40/CY$ 1,600.00 ex,treatment, rock, drain pipe) 2500 ft $50/ft$ 125,000.00 8in Culvert installation 150 ft $100/FT$ 15,000.00
TOTAL $ 62,300.00 each TOTAL $ 581,984.00 $ 63,000.00 rounded $ 582,000.00 rounded $ 10,000.00 DESIGN $ 150,000.00 DESIGN
Final Report South Fork Road Corridor Plan January 2021