United States Environmental Assessmenta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...Tillamook...

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

February/2013

Environmental Assessment

East Dunes Campground

Project

Hebo Ranger District Siuslaw National Forest Tillamook County, Oregon

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Wayne Patterson, Acting District Ranger Hebo Ranger District Siuslaw National Forest P.O. Box 235 31525 Hwy 22 Hebo, OR 97122-0235

For Information Contact: Contact

Hebo Ranger District 31525 Highway 22 Hebo, Oregon 97122 503-392-3161

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status,

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part

of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and

TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 14t00 Independence

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is

an equal opportunity provider and employer.

East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 1

Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................................... 2

Document Structure .................................................................................................................................. 2 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Proposed Action ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................................................... 5 Management Direction ............................................................................................................................. 5

Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 7 Historic Condition ................................................................................................................................. 7 Desired Future Condition ...................................................................................................................... 7

Public Involvement ................................................................................................................................... 8 Issues ..................................................................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ................................................................................ 8 Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................... 9

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Analysis........................................................ 9 Alternatives Considered in Detail ......................................................................................................... 9 Alternative 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................................................ 10

Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................................................... 10 Land Allocation Summary ...................................................................................................................... 10

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...................................................... 11 Forest Stands .......................................................................................................................................... 11 Fire and Fuels ......................................................................................................................................... 11 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................... 11 Soils Hydrology ...................................................................................................................................... 21 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................................ 22 Botanical Resources ............................................................................................................................... 24 Public and Management Access ............................................................................................................. 26 Heritage Resources ................................................................................................................................. 28 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................... 29 Scenery ................................................................................................................................................... 30

Chapter 4—List of Preparers and Others Consulted About This Project ................................................... 33 Figure 1 Map of Project Location ................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2 Aerial photo of project area. ........................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3 Close up aerial photo showing project area .................................................................................... 4 Table 1 Comparing the estimated key quantitative differences of Alternatives 1 and 2............................. 10 Table 2 Comparing potential effects of Alternatives 1 and 2 based on the issues, objectives, and

outcomes. ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Table 3 Siuslaw National Forest Threatened (T), Endangered (E) and USFS Region 6 Sensitive (S)

Wildlife Species List ........................................................................................................................... 12 Table 4. Biological Evaluation Process Summary by Species .................................................................... 13 Table 5 Siuslaw Management Indicator Species (MIS) .............................................................................. 17 Table 6 Fish and Wildlife Service and Partners in Flight bird species of concern or conservation focal

species associated with forest habitats on the Siuslaw National Forest .............................................. 19


Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Document Structure _____________________________________

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This

Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that

would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into five parts:

Chapter 1-Purpose and Need: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal,

the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need.

This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public

responded.

Chapter 2- Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more

detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the

stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and

other agencies. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences

associated with each alternative.

Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of

implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area.

Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action

Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow.

Chapter 4 - Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies

consulted during the development of the environmental assessment.

Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the

environmental assessment.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in

the project planning record located at the Hebo Ranger District Office in Hebo, Oregon.


Background ____________________________________________

Sand Lake Recreation Area is located along Oregon’s north coast about 50 miles NW of Corvallis. It

covers 1,076 acres of open sand dunes, surrounded by forest and adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. The Sand

Lake Recreation Area provides a variety of recreation opportunities and is most popular with off-highway

vehicle enthusiasts. It has three developed campgrounds: Sandbeach, East Dunes, and West Winds, along

with West Winds Day Use Area and Derrick Road Dispersed Area. Sand Lake Recreation Area is open

year-round and is a popular recreation destination.

During the winter of 2011 storms and high tides washed away the road servicing the 70’s loop at

Sandbeach Campground. The loop was closed due to public health and safety which resulted in the loss of

20 campsites. All infrastructure and sites amenities have been removed from the 70’s campground loop to

restore the area to its natural state.


Proposed Action ________________________________________

The action proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need includes the planning, design,

and construction of 20 new sites at the north end of the East Dunes Campground.

Figure 1 Map of Project Location

Figure 2 Aerial photo of project area.

East Dunes Camping

Area Expansion

Proposed Expansion

North Winds

Day Use Area

West Winds

Camping Area

East Dunes Camping Area

Figure 3 Close up aerial photo showing project area

East Dunes

Campground

West Winds

Campground


The project is located within Sand Lake Recreation Area: Township 3S, Range 10W, Section 30. East

Dunes Campground is a developed recreation area with 38 paved campsites and restrooms. The project

area is approximately five acres. New sites at East Dunes will replace sites lost at Sandbeach

Campground. East Dunes offers a different recreation experience than Sandbeach. East Dunes is popular

with users who enjoy the social qualities of camping near others while Sandbeach campsites are spread

out and provide more privacy. Providing more sites at Sandbeach was explored, but not pursued because

of continued erosion concerns and the high cost of constructing a campground loop. Both campgrounds

are popular with users.

Individual camping spaces at East Dunes vary by size, but are typically 20 feet wide by 60 feet long, new

sites will be of similar size. Providing quality access for users is another priority. Paved corridors will

connect the parking areas to restrooms and other site amenities.

Purpose and Need for Action ______________________________

Recent encroachment by the Sand Lake Estuary and severe winter storms, have washed out a service road

for the 70’s loop at Sandbeach Campground. This loop has been closed due to public safety concerns and

all infrastructures, such as electrical lines, pavement, and restrooms have been removed. Closing this loop

resulted in the loss of 20 campsites. The loss of these campsites has led to the campgrounds filling up

more often. When all campsites are occupied, the only alternative is to camp in the dispersed areas on the

sand which is not an option for users who don’t have a vehicle suitable for sand travel.

Because demand for camping at Sand Lake is very high, maintaining the number of campsites to the

public is a priority. The proposed sites at East Dunes Campground will restore camping capacity at Sand

Lake Recreation Area by replacing all twenty sites lost in the70’s loop. East Dunes currently has 38

campsites and is located away from the estuary where high tides and winter storms are not a concern.

Management Direction ___________________________________

The East Dunes Campground Expansion project is proposed at this time to respond to goals and

objectives of the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (USDA

Forest Service, 1990a). This Environmental Assessment (EA) process has been completed in accordance

with direction contained in the National Forest Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act,

the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and

other applicable laws, policies and direction.

The long-term commitment to manage the SLRA began with the 1980 Sand Lake Management Plan and

then the 1990 Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Plan (the Forest Plan). The recreation goal as

described in the Forest Plan is to offer a variety of recreational opportunities, both developed and

dispersed, by providing access, facilities and visitor services that fit the recreational setting. Providing a


quality motorized recreational experience in a coastal environment continues to be one of our primary

recreation objectives, driving our past and current management practices.

This EA is amended to the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final

Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service, 1990) and Record of Decision (USDA Forest

Service, 1990), and incorporates by reference the accompanying Forest Plan. The Forest Plan guides all

natural resource management activities and establishes management standards and guidelines for the

Forest. It describes resource management practices, levels of resource production and management, and

the availability and suitability of lands for resource management. Goals, objectives and desired future

conditions of the management areas within the project area are discussed below in the description of

Northwest Forest Plan land allocations. In addition, management direction for the area is provided in

Forest Plan amendments.

The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) - Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau

of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl and Standards

and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species

Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (1994), establishes the management direction, desired

conditions, and standards and guidelines under which late-successional reserves, adaptive management

areas and riparian reserves are managed;.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant

Program: Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (USDA 2005), provides direction including invasive

plant prevention and treatment/restoration standards intended to help achieve stated desired future

conditions, goals and objectives.

The amended Siuslaw Forest Land and Resource Management Plan will be referred to as the Plan in the

remainder of this document. The intent of the Plan is to provide healthy ecosystems that protect riparian

areas, water quality, and adequate habitat to maintain viable populations of terrestrial and aquatic species.

All relevant aspects of the Plan, such as management area standards and guidelines, apply to this project.

Additional guidance for the project area is provided by the Assessment Report for Federal Lands in and

Adjacent to Oregon Coast Province (USDA, USDI 1995), the Late-Successional Reserve Assessment for

Oregon’s Northern Coast Range Adaptive Management Area (USDA, USDI 1998), the Salmon-Neskowin

Watershed Analysis (USDA, USDI 1999), and the Oregon Northern Coast Range Adaptive Management

Area (AMA) Guide (USDA, USDI 1997). The documents provide guidance and recommendations for

determining more specific desired conditions for attaining agency goals (NWFP, p. C-11, D-15 and E-20).

This document was guided by the above plans and analyses. Scientific literature was also reviewed to

assist in further developing desired conditions.


Existing Conditions

Sand Lake Recreation Area is located along Oregon’s north coast 50 miles northwest of Corvallis. It

covers 1,076 acres of open sand dunes, surrounded by forest and is adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. The

Sand Lake Recreation Area provides a variety of recreation opportunities and is most popular with off-

highway vehicle enthusiasts. It has three developed campgrounds, Sandbeach, East Dunes, and West

Winds, along with West Winds Day Use Area and Derrick Road Dispersed Area. Sand Lake Recreation

Area is a popular year-round recreation destination.

Recent encroachment of the Sand Lake Estuary and severe winter storms have washed out the service

road for the 70’s loop at Sandbeach Campground. This loop has been closed due to public health and

safety and all infrastructures, such as electrical lines, pavement, and restrooms have been removed.

Closing this loop resulted in the loss of 20 campsites.

Historic Condition

The Sand Lake Recreation Area has recorded OHV use since the early 1940’s. Local residents report

modified farm tractors used to transport supplies across the dunes to men stationed at Cape Lookout for

beach patrol prior to World War II. After the war surplus army jeeps became available and that began the

recreational OHV use at Sand Lake. The level of recreational use increased slowly with most people

coming from the local area. In 1957 a small picnic site with a well was developed at the current location

of Fisherman’s Day Use Area. Still the level of use remained low with reports of as few as twelve families

on a July 4th weekend in 1967. The early 1970’s saw the beginning of a rapid increase in the number of

people visiting Sand Lake.

To accommodate expanding use, the Forest Service, through BLM Job Corps, built a 25 unit campground

in Sandbeach Campground in 1973. The level of use continued to escalate and an additional 76 units, a

large overflow parking area and a day use area complete with a well and water system was opened to the

public in July 1975. West Winds and East Dunes parking areas were constructed in the 1980’s and were

officially designated as campgrounds in 1992. A new wastewater plant was completed in 2012.

Desired Future Condition

To provide safe accessible recreation opportunities that allows the public to more fully utilize Sand Lake

Recreation Area.

Decision Framework

The Responsible Official for this project is the Hebo District Ranger. The environmental assessment (EA)

for the project discloses the potential environmental effects of implementing the alternatives. Based on

this EA, a Decision Notice that addresses the following questions will be issued by the District Ranger:

To what extent, if any, will actions called for in the proposed project or management alternatives

be implemented?


What management requirements and mitigation measures (project design criteria) will be applied to

these actions?

Will the project require a Forest Plan amendment?

Is there is a significant effect on the human environment that will require preparation of an

Environmental Impact Statement?

The Decision Notice will document the District Ranger’s decision and describe what actions will be

implemented to address the issues. The decision will be consistent with the Plan, as amended by the

Northwest Forest Plan, and will incorporate the associated project design criteria, including the

management requirements and mitigation measures.

Public Involvement ______________________________________

A scoping notice for the project was published in the Tillamook Headlight Herald on 7/25/2012,

no comments were received. The project was entered into the SOPA in July 2012.

Issues

Issues were separated into two groups: significant and non-significant. Significant issues were defined as

those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non-significant issues were

identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation,

Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and

not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA

regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, ―…identify and eliminate from detailed study the

issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec.

1506.3)…‖

After reviewing the list of proposed issues with the interdisciplinary team, the District Ranger identified

Loss of campsites resulting in less opportunity for the public to recreate at Sand Lake Recreation

Area.

Water drainage concerns at an expanded East Dunes Campground lot.

Chapter 2 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the East Dunes Campground project.

It includes a description and maps of each alternative considered. This section also presents the

alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between the alternatives and providing

a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information

used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and some of the information is

based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative.


Alternatives

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Analysis

Expand Sandbeach Campground

Constructing a new campground loop in Sandbeach Campground was evaluated, but rejected because of

concerns about continued erosion from winter storms and the high cost of constructing a campground

loop.

Install additional sites within Sandbeach Campground

Installing additional sites was evaluated but rejected because of concerns about additional traffic,

overcrowding, and taking away from the setting and overall camping experience that Sandbeach

Campground currently provides.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Alternatives 1and 2

Two alternatives, Alternative 1 (No Action), Alternative 2 (Proposed Project) were fully developed and

are described in this section. The analyses of their effects are disclosed in chapter 3. Actions included for

Alternatives 2 and 3 are designed to address the issue identified by the District Ranger and incorporate the

standards and guidelines established by the Siuslaw Forest Plan, as amended by the Northwest Forest

Plan (USDA, USDI 1994; ROD, page B-11). All quantities illustrated for the alternatives in the Project

EA and appendices are estimates.

Management requirements, mitigation measures, and monitoring

Project Design Criteria (Appendix A) outline the practices to be used and the timing and duration of those

practices with implementation of Alternative 2. Mitigation measures, designed to avoid or minimize

impacts associated with implementing the alternatives, are also included in the design criteria. Appendix

A identifies implementation monitoring (determines if actions are implemented as designed) requirements

and effectiveness monitoring (determines if the project activities are leading to the desired conditions

being met) requirements associated with the action alternatives.

Alternative 1

No Action

The no action alternative provides information required for a comparison of the alternatives. Under this

alternative camping would remain as it currently exists. Sandbeach Campsites 61 through 81 will remain

closed and the area returned to its natural state. No new campsites would be constructed. Sand Lake

Recreation Area would contain 20 fewer camping sites than before the 70’s loop closure. Demand for


more camping would remain, compelling campers to disperse camp out in the open sand, or to utilize day

use facilities.

Alternative 2

The Proposed Action

The action proposed by the Forest Service is to expand the East Dunes Campground by adding 20 sites,

replacing those sites lost at Sandbeach Campground. Under this alternative the Forest Service would plan,

design, and construct 20 sites on the north end of the East Dunes Campground. These sites would match

the current design of the East Dunes Campground providing paved corridors to the restroom and other

facilities provided by the Forest Service. Once complete, re-striping of the entire lot both new and

existing would be completed along with new site numbers in order to provide smooth traffic flow.

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 1 Comparing the estimated key quantitative differences of Alternatives 1 and 2

Issue, objective, and outcome

A l t e r n a t i v e 1 A l t e r n a t i v e 2

Loss of recreation

opportunities because of

loss of campsites at

Sandbeach Campground

Loss of 20 campsites at

Sandbeach

Replace lost sites in

Sandbeach with 20 sites at

East Dunes Campground

Table 2 Comparing potential effects of Alternatives 1 and 2 based on the issues, objectives, and outcomes.

Issue, objective, and outcome

Alternative 1 (no action)

Alternative 2

Loss of recreation

opportunities because of

loss of campsites at

Sandbeach Campground

Failure to meet

customer needs and

expectations

Provide same number of

campsites at Sand Lake

Recreation Area as prior to

closing the 70’s loop

Land Allocation Summary

The project area is currently defined as Roaded Natural in the Siuslaw Land and Resource Management

Plan (1990).


Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This chapter discloses the affected environment (current and existing conditions) and potential

environmental consequences ( direct, indirect, and cumulative effects) of the proposed action and

alternatives to the proposed action on forest stands, fire and fuels, wildlife, soils/hydrology, fisheries and

aquatic resources, botanical resources, road management and access, heritage resources and recreation

uses. Also included in this chapter are disclosures required by federal statutes and executive orders.

Information supporting the analysis may be found in the analysis file. Many components of the ecosystem

that cannot be precisely quantified are described in relative terms or estimated values.

Forest Stands

This project will not cut or remove any trees, or impact existing forest habitat, and thus will have no

effects on Forest stands.

Fire and Fuels

This project will not create or remove any fuels and thus will have no effect on fire & fuels.

Wildlife

Potential Effects Proposed Actions

Management Direction

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that proposed projects be analyzed for effects to

the human environment, including effects to aquatic species and their habitats, and that these effects be

disclosed to the public. Species and habitats for which an analysis is required include management

indicator species (MIS) designated in the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

(LRMP 1990), threatened or endangered species listed (and those proposed for listing) under the

endangered species act (ESA), species listed as sensitive by the Regional Forester, and any essential fish

habitat (EFH) designated under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

(MSA).

Biological Evaluation for Federally Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species, and Regional Forester Sensitive Species (PETS)

Introduction

Forest Service Policy requires that all actions be taken to ―assure that management activities do not

jeopardize the continued existence of sensitive species or result in an adverse modification of their

essential habitat‖ (FSM 2670.3). Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended in 1978,

1979, and 1982) directs Federal departments/agencies to assure that actions authorized, funded, and/or

conducted by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered


species or result in destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. The Act also directs each

Federal agency to confer or consult with the appropriate Secretary on any action that is likely to

jeopardize or affect the continued existence of any species or its habitat. All Forest Service projects,

programs and activities require review and documentation of possible effects on Proposed, Endangered,

Threatened or Sensitive (PETS) species (FSM 2672.4). In compliance with these directions and policies a

biological evaluation must be performed for all federalized ground disturbing activities.

Table 3 lists the PETS species occurring on the Siuslaw National Forest. They are based on the Region 6

Regional Forester’s Special Status Species list dated December 9, 2011 and the current U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service Federal Species List.

Table 3 Siuslaw National Forest Threatened (T), Endangered (E) and USFS Region 6 Sensitive (S) Wildlife Species

List

Scientific Name Common Name Classification

Brachyramphus mamoratus Marbled murrelet T Strix occidentalis caurina Northern spotted owl T Pelecanus occidentalis

californicus California brown pelican

S

Charadrius nivosus nivosus Western snowy plover T Speyeria zerene hippolyta Oregon silverspot butterfly T

Aleutian Canada Goose S

Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon S Haliaeetus leucocephalus Northern bald eagle S Progne subis Purple Martin S Rana boylii Foothill Yellow-legged frog S Actinemys marmorata Pacific pond turtle S Arborimus longicaudus Oregon red tree vole S Gulo gulo luscuss North American wolverine S Martes pennanti (west coast) Pacific Fisher S Myotis thysanoides Fringed myotis S Gonidea angulata Western ridged mussel S Cryptomastix devia Puget Oregonian S Deroceras hesperium Evening field slug S Littorina subrotundata Newcomb’s Littorine Snail S Cicindela hirticollis siuslawensis Siuslaw Sand Tiger Beetle S Bombus occidentalis Western bumble bee S Plebejus saepiolus littoralis Insular Blue butterfly S Pomatiopsis californica Pacific walker S Pterostichus rothi Roths’s blind ground beetle S Lygus oregonae Oregon plant bug S Callophrys johnsoni Johnson’s hairstreak S Callophrys polios maritima Hoary elfin S Rhyacophila haddocki Haddock’s rhyacophilan caddisflys S Namamyia plutonis caddisfly S


Table 4. Biological Evaluation Process Summary by Species

SPECIES Step #1 Step #2 Step #3 Step #4

(TES) Prefield

Review Conflict

Determination Analysis of

Significance USFWS

Review

Habitat,

Species

present? Conflict? Important?

Consultation

Completed?

BIRDS

Marbled murrelet NO NO NO N/A Northern spotted owl NO NO NO N/A California brown pelican NO NO NO N/A Western snowy plover NO NO NO N/A Aleutian Canada goose NO NO NO N/A American peregrine falcon NO NO NO N/A Northern bald eagle NO NO NO N/A Purple Martin NO NO NO N/A

MAMMALS

Oregon Red tree vole NO NO NO N/A North American wolverine NO NO NO N/A Pacific fisher NO NO NO N/A Fringed myotis NO NO NO N/A

HERPTILES

Foothill yellow-legged frog NO NO NO N/A Pacific pond turtle NO NO NO N/A INVERTEBRATES

Oregon silverspot butterfly NO NO NO N/A Newcomb’s Littorine Snail NO NO NO N/A Puget Oregonian NO NO NO N/A Evening fieldslug NO NO NO N/A Western ridged mussel NO NO NO N/A Pacific walker NO NO NO N/A Roths’s blind ground beetle NO NO NO N/A Siuslaw sand tiger beetle NO NO NO N/A Oregon plant bug NO NO NO N/A Western bumble bee NO NO NO N/A Johnson’s hairstreak NO NO NO N/A Hoary elfin NO NO NO N/A Insular blue butterfly NO NO NO N/A Haddocks’ rhyacophilan caddisfly NO NO NO N/A Caddisfly - Namamyia plutonis NO NO NO N/A

Effects Analysis

The following were used to determine PETS (proposed, endangered, threatened, or sensitive) species

occurrences and suitable habitat within the project area: Forest GIS layers, discussions with the Forest

Biologist, existing species accounts and distribution maps, survey records and field review.


Federally-listed Species

No known nest sites, suitable habitat, or proposed or designated critical habitat exist in the project area for

marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl or Oregon silverspot butterfly. The project area is currently

unoccupied by the western snowy plover, and is outside of designated critical habitat. Additionally, the

area of proposed expansion is further from the water than plovers are known to nest, and is characterized

by a high amount of OHV and human disturbance. For these reasons, these species will not be further

analyzed.

Sensitive Species

No suitable habitat exists in the project area for any of the wildlife species on the Regional Forester's

Sensitive Species List. Thus, none of the proposed alternatives would have any effect on these species or

their habitats.

California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus)

Alternative 1 Direct/Indirect Effects - No modification of habitat would occur under Alternative 1,

therefore, there are no direct or indirect effects.

Alternative 2 - Direct/Indirect Effects - This species commonly rests on open sand beaches and in

estuaries. Although it may fly over beach foredunes habitat is generally not present within the project

area. Effects if any to this species due to implementation of this alternative are not measurable and are

note expected to cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)

Although once rare on the Oregon Coast, the peregrine falcon inhabits coastal areas year round. Decades

of widespread use of DDT lead to reproductive failure and subsequent Federal listing of this species. Due

to a ban on the use of DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons in 1972, as well as an intensive captive

breeding and rearing program, populations rebounded enough to allow delisting of the species in 1999.

In Oregon, peregrines occur as resident and migratory populations. Adults remain in the vicinity of nest

sites throughout the year at Pacific Northwest locales below approximately 4,000 ft. elevation. Peregrine

falcons typically nest on cliffs greater than 75 ft. in height or structural features of bridges, and within 1

mi. of some form of water. Their primary prey item is birds (Henny and Pagel, 2003).

Alternative 1 - Direct/Indirect Effects - No modification of habitat would occur under Alternative 1,


Alternative 2 - Direct/Indirect Effects - The project area does not contain any nesting habitat for this

species. Peregrine falcons potentially utilize open habitats within the project area for opportunistic

hunting, but due to the high level of human use in the project area, this is unlikely. Effects if any to this

species due to implementation of this alternative are not measurable and are not expected to cause a loss

of viability to the population or species.


Northern Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Bald eagles are usually found near coastlines, rivers, large lakes or streams that support an adequate food

supply. Their primary prey item is fish. They exhibit strong mate fidelity and return to the same nest to

rear young year after year (Oregon Wildlife Explorer 2010). Nests are built in large trees with an open

structure and large limbs. Although the widespread use of DDT led to reproductive failure and subsequent

Federal listing of this species, the bald eagle was de-listed throughout most of its range in 2007. Current

threats to the bald eagle include disruption, destruction, or obstruction of roosting and forage areas (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 2010).



Alternative 2 - Direct/Indirect Effects - There are no known bald eagle nests within the project area, and

no suitable habitat exists within the Project Area. The closest known bald eagle nest site to the project

area is approximately 1.3 miles southeast of the Project Area. Most eagle foraging is expected to occur in

estuaries, along rivers and in the ocean surf, outside of the proposed project boundary. Effects, if any, to

this species due to implementation of this alternative are not measurable and are not expected to cause a

loss of viability to the population or species.

Survey and Manage Species The Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), referred to as the Agencies, are

implementing the January 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the

Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (2001

ROD S&Gs) as modified by the 2011 Settlement Agreement in Conservation Northwest v. Sherman et al.,

No-08-1067-JCC (W.D. Wash).

Statement of Compliance. The Siuslaw National Forest applied the 2011 Settlement Agreement Species

List to the East Dunes Campground Expansion Project. There are no species on the list for which suitable

habitat exists within the project area, and therefore no pre-disturbance surveys are required

Wildlife Management Indicator Species The Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact

Statement (FEIS) (USDA 1990) identified 11 terrestrial and 1 aquatic management indicator species. The

EIS stated the following: ―Management indicator species were selected because a change in their

population, in response to management activities, is believed to represent changes in a larger group of

species. Selection of management indicator species was based on the following categories as specified in

36 CFR 219.19:‖

Endangered and threatened plant and animal species identified on state and federal lists for the

planning area.


Species with special habitat requirements that may be influenced significantly by planned

management programs.

Species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped.

Non-game species of special interest.

Additional species selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of

management activities on other species of selected major biological communities or on water

quality.

Table 5 summarizes the information on the 11 terrestrial management indicator species identified in the

FEIS. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management

Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement did not change the management indicator species list and

there have been no subsequent forest plan amendments that changed the list. On the date the Record of

Decision was signed (March 7, 1990), there were five species listed on the Endangered Species Act of

1973 as amended (ESA) including four species that were previously identified as endangered under the

Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. Since 1990, four of the listed species are considered fully

recovered and have been removed from the endangered species list. Two management indicator species

were added to the endangered species list after the ROD was signed. Thus the table reflects both the basis

for why the species was included as a management indicator species at the time of the final EIS as well as

its current legal status under the Endangered Species Act.

Four of the management indicator species on the Siuslaw are primarily associated with coastal habitats

(deflation plain wetlands, beach/estuary environments, costal bluffs/cliffs). Three of the four (Aleutian

Canada goose, brown pelican and peregrine falcon) are considered fully recovered and have been

removed from the endangered species list. Their primary habitats, and thus the basis for their decline,

recovery objectives and ultimate recovery were associated with habitats and populations not associated

with lands administered by the Siuslaw National Forest. Management for the Aleutian Goose (nests in the

Aleutian’s) and brown pelican (nests in southern California-northern Mexico) was primarily to insure

protection of potential habitat that may be used in the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area during the

non-breeding season for these two species. Seasonal closures are used at the Cascade Head Scenic

Research Area to protect the known nesting activities of one peregrine pair using the site.

Discussion of effects will be limited to those species with habitat in the project analysis area. The

potential effects from the proposed project to the brown pelican and western snowy plover were disclosed

in earlier sections. There will be no direct or indirect impact to species which do not have habitat in the

analysis area.


Table 5 Siuslaw Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Species

Forest Plan EIS (Table III-15, pg III-68) Habitat Feature

Specific Habitat on Siuslaw Nature Serve State Status*

Federal Status Habitat Present in Analysis Area

Species Present in Analysis Area

Aleutian

Canada

goose

T&E habitat

Inland lakes and large expanses

of flooded deflation plain on the

Oregon Dunes NRA for

potential migratory/transitory

habitat-little if any suitable

feeding habitat.

G5T4S2N

Listed Endangered

3/11/1967

Reclassified Threatened

1/11/1991 Delisted

3/20/2001

No No

Bald eagle T&E habitat

Multi-storied stands with old-

growth components near water

bodies which support an

adequate food supply. Includes

large conifer trees or snags(50-

90 inches in diameter)

G5S4BS4N T

Listed Endangered

3/11/1967 Reclassified

Threatened 8/11/1995

Delisted 8/8/2007

No No

Brown

pelican T&E habitat

Resting/roosting in estuaries and

along beaches on the Oregon

Dunes NRA.

G4T3S2N E

Listed Endangered

6/2/1970

Delisted 12/17/2009

Yes Yes

Marten

Mature

conifer

(down logs)

Mature and older age stands of

timber G5S3S4 S/V No No

Northern

spotted owl

Old growth

& mature

conifer

Old growth and mature conifer

habitat(large trees, multi-storied,

large snags, down logs)

G3T3S3 T Listed Threatened

6/26/1990 No No

Silverspot

Butterfly T&E habitat

Open coastal grasslands,

including ocean spray meadows G5T1S1

Listed Threatened

7/2/1980 No No

Peregrine

falcon T&E habitat

Rocky cliffs with ledges for

nesting near foraging areas G4T4S2B S/V

Listed Endangered

6/2/1970

Delisted 2/25/1999

No No


Species

Forest Plan EIS (Table III-15, pg III-68) Habitat Feature

Specific Habitat on Siuslaw Nature Serve State Status*

Federal Status Habitat Present in Analysis Area

Species Present in Analysis Area

Pileated

woodpecker

Mature

conifer

(large snags,

down logs)

Large snags, defective trees,

down material. G5S4 S/V No No

Primary

cavity

excavators

Snags

(≥20‖ dbh)

Dead and defective trees

throughout the forest types. No No

Roosevelt

Elk

Mix of

forage and

cover areas

Mosaic of foraging areas close to

thermal and hiding cover. G5 No No

Western

Snowy

Plover

Open sand

near

estuaries

Sandy areas virtually devoid of

vegetation, driftwood,. G4T3S3B S/C Listed Threatened 3/5/1993 Yes No

*T=Threatened, E=Endangered, S=Sensitive, V=Vulnerable, C=Critical


Landbird Assessment Landbirds include resident, short-distance and neotropical migrant species, that generally use terrestrial

and wetland habitats. Since 1999 a number of conservation and management guides have been prepared

addressing landbird conservation at the national, regional and local scales (Altman 1999, Rich et.al. 2004,

Nott et.al. 2005, Altman and Hager 2007, US Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). In conjunction with the

Institute for Bird Populations (the Institute), the Siuslaw NF has participated in the Monitoring Avian

Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) program since 1992. The Institute developed websites and

publications disclosing the species found and the productivity on the forest (Michel et. al. 2006). Table 4

represents the species of concern identified in the conservation plans documented at the monitoring

stations operated by the Institute.

Table 6 Fish and Wildlife Service and Partners in Flight bird species of concern or conservation focal

species associated with forest habitats on the Siuslaw National Forest

Species Fish and Wildlife Species of Concern in BCR 5

1

Partners In Flight High Priority Focal Species in Oregon

2

Partners in Flight Focal Species in Oregon

3

MAPS Site Breeding Status

4

Band-tailed Pigeon X X 5-U, 1-O

Black-throated Gray

Warbler X X 1-B, 3-U, 1-O, 1-T

Brown Creeper X 3-B, 3-O

Hammonds

Flycatcher X 3-U, 2-O, 1-T

Hermit Warbler X X 3-B, 2-U, 1-O

Hutton Vireo X 2-U, 3-O, 1-NL

Olive-sided

Flycatcher X X X 1-B, 1-O, 1-T, 3-NL

Pacific-slope

Flycatcher X X 6-B

Pileated

Woodpecker X 5-U, 1-O

Rufus Hummingbird X X X 1-B, 3-U, 2-O

Varied Thrush X X 4-B, 2-U

Willow Flycatcher X 1-U, 4-T, 1-NL

Wilson’s Warbler X 6-B

Winter Wren X 6-B 1Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2008)

2Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forest in the Pacific Northwest (Altman and

Hagar 2007) 3Conservation strategy for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington (Altman 1999)

4Cumulative breeding status at six sampling stations on the Siuslaw National Forest from 1992-2003

B- Regular breeder. Summer resident or suspected summer resident during all years the station was operated. U- Usual breeder. Summer resident or suspected summer resident for more than ½ of the years stations were operated. O- Occasional breeder. Summer resident or suspected summer resident for ½ or fewer of the years stations were operated. T- Transient. The station lies in the species breeding range, but no individual of the species was a summer resident during any year. NL- Not listed. The station did not have a record of the species for any year the station was operated.

Based on the MAPS data for the Siuslaw National Forest, Nott et. al. (2005) evaluated adult population

trends for 12 species. They concluded that six species were showing measurable changes in the adult

population, one neotropical migrant (western flycatcher), and two short-distance migrants (chestnut-


backed chickadee and winter wren) were declining. Two neotropical migrants (swainson thrush and

Wilson’s warbler) and one short-distance migrant (song sparrow) were increasing in populations.

Considering the stability of habitat conditions on the forest, Nott (personal communication) has indicated

that weather conditions along migration routes and winter grounds in Mexico and Central America

currently has a greater influence on population trends for neotropical migrants as the condition on the

breeding grounds.



Alternative 2 - Direct/Indirect Effects - Habitat in the project area is limited to open sand directly

adjacent to an existing parking area for RV’s and is exposed to a high level of human disturbance

primarily in the form of OHV riding. None of the species of concern or conservation focal species (Table

5) utilize this type of habitat for nesting or feeding, and so it is anticipated that the expansion of the

existing parking area in this location to landbirds are not measurable, and while the project may impact

individuals, the effects will not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to

the population or species.

Wildlife cumulative effects:

There are no measureable direct or indirect effects to PETS, MIS, Survey and Manage species and

landbirds. Therefore, there are no cumulative effects.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives-Wildlife

Objective 2--Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds.

Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas,

headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide chemically and

physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life- history requirements of aquatic and

riparian-dependent species.

The project area is outside of Riparian Reserves, and would not sever existing connections between

essential habitats and among watersheds. The physical nature of existing movement corridors will

remain unchanged.

Objective 9--Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant,

invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

The project area is outside of Riparian Reserves, and would not affect aquatic resources. The

proposed activities include converting the existing OHV riding area to a paved area for additional

campsites. This is not anticipated to have an impact on aquatic resources.


Soils Hydrology _________________________________________

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Physical Setting

The project site is located in the Siuslaw National Forest’s Sand Lake Recreation Area, which is about 50

miles NW of Corvallis. The setting is a costal dune field. The southern end of the dunes is bounded by the

Pacific Ocean and the Sand Lake Estuary. The northern end of the dunes extents eastward from the

Pacific Ocean to the foothills of the Coast Range. Altogether, there are over 1,000 acres of open sand

surrounded by coastal shrubs and conifers. The Sand Lake Estuary has an area of about 17 square miles,

and is contained within the Sand Lake subwatershed (hydrologic unit code 171002030902). The State of

Oregon has classified the estuary as ―natural" in its statewide land management plans due to its

predominantly unaltered condition (Oregon Administrative Record 660-017).

The climate is strongly influenced by its marine setting with cool relatively dry summers and mild wet

winters. The average high air temperature is 73°F and the average low is 36°F. Annual Precipitation is

typically between 80 and 100 inches, with most precipitation occurring from October through June.

The proposed East Dunes Campground expansion is located on a flat geomorphic feature called a

deflation plain surround by vegetated dune crests. The topography resembles an open sided bowl sloping

to the south towards the existing campground. The deflation plain was formed as the wind removed the

sand between vegetation. Formation of deflation plains are limited by the water table, which moistens the

surface, encourages vegetation, and inhibits wind erosion. The water table at the project site is very

shallow, and may reach the ground surface during the periods of higher precipitation.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative1: No Acton

Under the No Action alternative, none of the proposed campsites would be constructed. Given this, there

will be no change from current conditions for soils and water resources.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Given that the East Dunes Campground expansion is located in bowl-shaped topography, it is a natural

catchment for precipitation. Aerial photographs and field observations confirm that the catchment does

have surface runoff that flows down the deflation plain and into the existing camp sites during periods of

high precipitation. Paving the natural sand surface will make it impermeable, and increase surface runoff

by collecting precipitation that would normally infiltrate into the sand. The increased runoff will likely

not have a noticeable effect on soils and water quality, but could be an inconvenience to campers.


Cumulative Effects:

The overall slope of the deflation plain underlying the planned expansion area is towards the existing

camping area. Unless drainage control features are included in the expansion design, the precipitation

runoff from the expanded area will be added to the runoff from the existing area. This cumulative effect

will likely cause a noticeable increase in total runoff flowing through the existing campsites and increased

ponding in some campsites and adjacent areas.

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources __________________________

Introduction This Biological Evaluation evaluates the effects of the East Dunes Campground Project on the Regional

Forester’s Special Status Fish Species, including Oregon coast steelhead and chum salmon. The BE also

evaluates the effects of the project on Threatened species including Oregon Coast coho salmon, southern

Distinct Population Segment of green sturgeon, and Pacific eulachon and their designated critical habitat,

and essential fish habitat. Coho salmon are also a Management Indicator Species for the Siuslaw National

Forest and the effects to it will also be evaluated.

The proposed campground is approximately 1000 feet from the Sand Lake Estuary, which is designated

critical habitat for coho salmon. Runoff from the parking area would enter into vegetated or sandy areas.

Project Effects Temperature- The East Dunes Campground Project would have no effect on stream temperature.

Fine Sediment- The East Dunes Campground Project would have no effect on fine sediment into aquatic

habitat.

Large Woody Debris- The East Dunes Campground Project would have no effect on input of large wood

into aquatic habitat.

Determination- Based on information provided from the Hydrologist’s review, a site visit, and other

information available, I conclude that the East Dunes Campground Project would have no effect on ESA

Threatened Oregon Coast coho salmon, Pacific Eulachon, southern Distinct Population of green sturgeon,

and their critical habitat. It would also have no effect on the Regional Forester’s sensitive Oregon coast

steelhead and chum salmon, and essential fish habitat for chinook and coho salmon. The East Dunes

Campground Project would also have no effect on forest wide viability of coho salmon as a Management

Indicator Species for the Siuslaw National Forest.

Aquatic Conservation Strategies Objective 1—Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and

landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations, and

communities are uniquely adapted.


There will be no effects on aquatic habitat due to the location of the project area.

Objective 2—Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds.

Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas,

headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide chemically and

physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life- history requirements of aquatic and

riparian-dependent species.

There will be no effect on the spatial and temporal connectivity of watersheds due to the project location.

Objective 3—Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines,

banks, and bottom configurations.

There will be no effect to the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and

bottom configurations due to the location of the project.

Objective 4—Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and

wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, physical,

and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of

individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.

There will be no effect to riparian, aquatic, wetland ecosystems due to the location of the project.

Objective 5—Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved.

Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input,

storage, and transport.

There will be no effect to restore the sediment regime due to the location of the project.

Objective 6—Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and

wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, magnitude,

duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be protected.

There will be no effect to stream flows due to the location of the project.

Objective 7—Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and

water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.

Objective 8—Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities

in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient

filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts

and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability.

There will be no effect to aquatic plants since none are present in the project area.


Objective 9—Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant,

invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

There will be no effect to populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent

species due to lack of habitat in the project rea..

Botanical Resources_____________________________________

Introduction Botanical resources considered in the Environmental Analysis include federally proposed, endangered,

threatened, and Forest Service sensitive vascular plants, bryophytes (moss and liverworts), lichens, and

fungi.

Biological Evaluation for Federally Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species, and Regional Forester Sensitive Species (PETS) An introduction of the biological evaluation process is included in the Wildlife section. A search of the

Natural Resources Information System Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants (NRIS-TESP 2012)

database to determine if any know occurrence of PETS species are documented from the vicinity of the

project area found no such occurrence. Due to frequent disturbance by off-highway vehicles, the project

area is largely non-vegetated and does not contain any suitable habitat for PETS species. Table 7 includes

a list of all PETS botanical species known or suspected to occur on the Siuslaw National Forest.

Table 7 Siuslaw National Forest Threatened (T), Endangered (E) and USFS Region 6 Sensitive (S) Botanical

Species List

Scientific Name Common Name Habitat in Project Area?

Vascular Plants Abronia umbellata pink sandverbena No Anemone oregana var. felix Oregon bog anemone No Artemesia pycnocephala coastal sagewort No Brodiaea terrestris dwarf brodiaea No Cardamine pattersonii Saddle Mountain bittercress No Carex brevicaulis short-stemmed sedge No Carex diandra lesser panicled sedge No Carex livida pale sedge No Carex macrocephala big-headed sedge No Carex macrochaeta large-awn sedge No Cicendia quadrangularis timwort No Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris salt-marsh bird’s beak No Dodecantheon austrofrigidum frigid shooting star No Elatine brachysperma short-seeded waterwort No Eriophorum chamissonis Chamisso’s cotton grass No Erythronium elegans elegant fawn lily No Filipendula occidentalis queen-of-the-forest No Fritillaria camschatcensis black lily No



Gilia millefoliata seaside gilia No Hydrocotyle verticillata water pennywort No Lilium occidentalis western lily No Limonium californicum marsh rosemary No Lycopodiella inundata northern bog club moss No Microseris bigelovii coast microseris No Ophioglossum pusillum adder’s tongue No Phacelia argentea silvery phacelia No Rotala romosior lowland toothcup No Schoenplectus subterminalis Water clubrush No Sidalcea hendersonii Henderson’s checker mallow No Sidalcea nelsoniana Nelson’s checker mallow No Sidalcea hirtipes hairy-stemmed checker mallow No Utricularia gibba humped bladderwort No Utricularia minor lesser bladderwort No Utricularia ochroleuca northern bladderwort No Wolffia columbiana Columbia watermeal No Wolffia punctata dotted watermeal No Bryophytes Andreaea schofieldiana moss No Blepharostoma arachnoideum liverwort No Bryum calobryoides moss No Calypogeia sphagnicola liverwort No Campylopus schmidii moss No Cephaloziella spinigera liverwort No Encalypta brevicollis moss No Encalypta brevipes moss No Entosthodon fascicularis moss No Gymnomitrion concinnatum liverwort No Haplomitrium hookerii liverwort No Herbertus aduncus liverwort No Limbella fryei moss No Lophozia laxa moss No Metzgeria violacea liverwort No Schistostega pennata moss No Tetraphis geniculata moss No Lichens Bryoria spiralifera No

Bryoria subcana No

Cladidium bolanderi No

Erioderma sorediatum No

Heterodermia leucomelos No

Hypogymnia pulvervata No

Hypotrachyna revoluta No

Leiodermia sorediatum No



Leptogium cyanescens No

Lobaria linita No

Niebla cephalota No

Pannaria rubiginosa No

Pseudocyphellaria mallota No

Ramalina pollinaria No

Teloschistes flavicans No

Tholurna dissimilis No

Usnea nidulans No

Fungi Albatrellus avellaneus No

Arcangeliella camphorata No

Bridgeoporus nobilissimus No

Chamonixia caespitosa No

Cortinarius barlowensis No

Cystangium idahoensis No

Phaeocollybia californica No

Phaeocollybia gregaria No

Phaeocollybia oregonensis No

Pseudorhizina californica No

Ramaria rubella var. blanda No

Rhizopogon exiguous No

Thaxterogaster pavelekii No

Alternative1: No Acton

No modification of habitat would occur under Alternative 1. Because of the frequency of off-highway

vehicle use in the area, no suitable habitat for PETS species exists. Selection of the Alternative would not

result in a habitat change from the current condition, therefore Alternative 1 would have no direct or

indirect effect on PETS botanical species

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Under Alternative 2 no potential habitat for PETS species would be modified. Because no habitat

currently exists, selection of the Alternative would have no direct or indirect effects on these species.

Public and Management Access ___________________________

Introduction During the winter of 2011 storms and high tides washed away a portion of the road servicing the 70’s

loop at Sandbeach Campground. The loop was closed due to public health and safety which resulted in

the loss of 20 campsites. All infrastructure and sites amenities have been removed from the 70’s

campground loop to restore the area to its natural state. Continued natural erosion of the service road to


the 70’s loop is expected to continue and would cause considerable maintenance and repair costs. Shifting

the infrastructure to a location not affected by tides would contribute to reducing maintenance cost.

Desired Condition The desired condition is to provide the same number of campsites within East Dunes as was provided

prior to storm damage. The sites would be located away from storm events. These additional campsites

would accommodate RVs and trailers. The sites would be paved to minimize erosion and provide for easy

maintenance. The activities proposed by the Project would create about 1.75 acres of paved camping and

parking area for use by OHV, on-road vehicle traffic, and by other authorized sand-capable vehicles.

There would be no changes in public access affecting Galloway road for highway-legal vehicles.

Existing Condition Currently, the East Dunes Campground is approximately 2.5 acres and is paved. The area accommodates

38 campsites with 24 foot wide travel lanes between rows of sites to drive through and park longer

combination vehicles in the stalls. Galloway road is the primary access for the area and is under the

jurisdiction of Tillamook County. Traffic levels on the road are not expected to increase above the levels

experienced before the storm related closure of the 70’s loop. (No traffic count data is available)

Alternative 1

Direct/Indirect Effects –

The direct effect under the no action alternative is that the campsites and access lost in the storm event

would not be replaced. An indirect effect may be that the traffic levels would be reduced due to the fewer

campsites available. Fewer users would reduce available maintenance funds.

Cumulative Effects:

There are no past, present, or foreseeable future project effects related to access within the project area

that overlap in time or space and therefore there are no cumulative effects.

Alternative 2

Direct/Indirect Effects –

This project has the direct effect of restoring campsites and access to them within the East Dunes

campground by creating about 1.75 acres of paved camping and parking area for use by OHV, on-road

vehicle traffic, and by other authorized sand-capable vehicles. There are no direct or indirect effects to

traffic levels or utility use, as they are not expected to increase since the project proposes to replace the

same number of sites as those that were lost in the storm damage. Effects to traffic levels due to

implementation of this alternative are not expected to cause an increased risk to the public. The East

Dunes Parking entrance may be affected by some congestion. Effects of continued maintenance of the

parking area may include but is not limited to sand removal, restriping and pavement repairs. There would

be no effect in public access on the Galloway road for highway-legal vehicles.


Cumulative Effects:

There are no past, present, or foreseeable future project effects related to access within the project area

that overlap in time or space and therefore there are no cumulative effects.

Other Transportation Considerations The existing road to the 70’s loop would be decommissioned and the area returned to a more natural state.

This action will remove 1200 feet of Maintenance Level 3 road from the National Forest System, this

amounts to about 0.5 acres of pavement..

Heritage Resources _____________________________________

Forest: SIUSLAW

Rr District: Hebo

County: Tillamook

Undertaking/Project

Name

East Dunes Campground Project

USGS Quads/ TRS: Sand Lake (7.5’)

T3S R10W, Sec 18, 19, & 30

By signing this document, the Forest Specialist certifies that for this project the Forest complies with Sec

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, under the terms of the 2004 Programmatic Agreement (PA)

for the State of Oregon. This form shall be kept on file as supporting documentation

X Stipulation III (A) 1 Undertaking meets the criteria listed in Appendix A (13) of the PA

Date: Inspection, monitoring, or other identification will be submitted to

the Forest Specialist.

Stipulation III (A) 2 Undertaking meets the criteria listed in Appendix B of the PA.

Date: Inspection, monitoring, or other identification will be submitted to

the Forest Specialist.

Stipulation III (A) 3 Undertaking meets the criteria listed in Appendix C (Exempt/Non-

undertaking).

Stipulation III (B) 1 Undertaking meets the criteria in the PA for a No Historic Properties

Affected determination.

Stipulation III (B) 2 Undertaking meets the criteria in the PA for a Historic Properties

Avoided determination.

Stipulation III (B) 3 The Forest has notified interested Tribes and persons, as appropriate,

of the findings and made the findings available to the public.

Stipulation III (B) 4

Date:

Historic Properties may be Adversely Affected. SHPO review

period (30-day) required.

Stipulation III (B) 5

Date:

No Historic Properties Affected: The Forest Service provided

documentation to the SHPO and notified all interested parties, and

made the information available to the public. SHPO review period

(30-days) required.

s//Kevin Bruce 8/21/2012

Archaeologist Date


I have determined that the project can proceed without a case-by-case review for cultural resources, per

2004 Programmatic Agreement, Appendix A:13:―Campground, recreation residence, organizational camp,

and resort operation and maintenance when no new ground disturbance occurs (i.e., repair of existing

buried utilities, tables, and fire rings) and no alterations to historic properties are involved.‖

The proposed project is located in an area that has been heavily impacted by OHV use or the development

of the current parking area. Inspection of the project area revealed no artifacts. Any work associated with

the project would occur in areas that have been heavily disturbed, so the activities are not considered

―new ground disturbances‖.

If cultural resources are encountered during the course of this project, earth-disturbing activities in the

vicinity of the find will be suspended, in accordance with federal regulations, and the forest archaeologist

notified to evaluate the discovery and recommend subsequent courses of action.

Recreation _____________________________________________

Existing Condition and Trends Recent encroachment of the Sand Lake Estuary and severe winter storms washed out the service road for

the 70’s loop at Sandbeach Campground. This loop has been closed due to public health and safety and all

infrastructures, such as electrical lines, pavement, and restrooms have been removed. Closing this loop

resulted in the loss of 20 campsites. The loss of these campsites has led to the campgrounds filling up

more often and less opportunity for the public to recreate at Sand Lake Recreation Area. When all

campsites are occupied, the only alternative is to camp in the dispersed areas on the sand which is not an

option for users who don’t have a vehicle suitable for accessing this area. Camping on the sand also

requires users to bring a portable toilet.

Because demand for camping at Sand Lake is very high, maintaining the number of campsites to the

public is a priority. Replacing the lost sites with sites at East Dunes Campground will provide Sand Lake

Recreation Area with the same capacity as prior to closing the 70’s loop. East Dunes currently has 38 sites

and is located away from the estuary where high tides and winter storms are not a concern.

Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) If no action is taken then there will be a loss of recreational opportunity for users at Sand Lake, and we

will not meet customer needs and expectations. The public has brought to our attention that we are not

currently providing adequate campsites for users and have asked us about our plans to add sites. When all

campgrounds are full, which occurs on most weekends during the spring and summer, users must either

camp on the sand or go home without riding.

The loss of campsites also means less fee money that is used to manage Sand Lake. Fee money is invested

back into Sand Lake in the form of projects such as replacing fire-rings and picnic tables, repaving


parking lots and trash collection. It is also used to cover seasonal and permanent employee salaries and

vehicle costs. Employees maintain the grounds, manage the sewer plant and water system, perform work

as Forest Protection Officers and help educate the public on ATV safety.

Alternative 2 (Action Alternative) Constructing 20 campsites at East Dunes would result in Sand Lake Recreation Area maintaining the

same number of campsites as prior to closing part of Sandbeach Campground. Replacing lost sites would

decrease the frequency that users have to go home without having the opportunity to recreate. It would

also demonstrate our commitment to meeting customer needs and would result in more fee revenue used

to help manage Sand Lake Recreation Area. Fee money is invested back into Sand Lake in the form of

projects such as replacing fire-rings and picnic tables, repaving parking lots, and used to pay for trash

collection and salaries for full-time and seasonal help. Employees maintain the grounds, manage the

sewer plant and water system, perform work as Forest Protection Officers and help educate the public on

ATV safety.

East Dunes offers a different recreation experience than Sandbeach. East Dunes is popular with users who

enjoy the social qualities of camping near others while Sandbeach campsites are spread out and provide

more privacy. Providing more sites at Sandbeach was explored but not pursued because of continued

erosion concerns and the high cost of constructing a campground loop. Both campgrounds are popular

with users.

Cumulative Effects

There are no past, present or foreseeable future projects that overlap in time or apace within the analysis

area. Therefore, there are no cumulative effects

Scenery _______________________________________________

Existing Site Character The Sand Lake Recreation Area has a recreation opportunity setting of roaded natural. To the west and

north, adjacent to the area of developed recreation facilities, the experience for recreationists and

undeveloped appearance of the land is closer to semi-primitive motorized. To the south, bordering the

estuary, the experience is also more of natural, undeveloped landscape. The intensity of use, to the north

and west within the site, can be at times towards urban.

Recreation Amenity The recreation amenity offered by Sand Lake has different characters. Sandbeach Campground has the

somewhat rustic appearance and integration of setting and facilities that is appropriate and recognizable as

roaded natural. It offers an experience of the natural site within the campground, and has individual camp

units set within the setting, and use of rustic elements such as rough wooden posts that are appropriate to

the setting and use. The campground road layout while following a pattern that is not responsive to the

site, is curving and small scale and broken up in view. The built facilities are sited within a sheltered area


created by a low dune to the west, so that a place is created for the campground and the campgrounds

impacts on the surrounding natural area are contained and largely out of view.

Fisherman’s Day Use site has the open, quiet setting predominance that is characteristic of roaded natural,

and the estuary edge land with estuary view to the east and south is close to a semi-primitive recreation

experience. There are seldom other people in view, or at the site; the view is wide and natural. The

facilities at this day use site, particularly the parking lot, are not sited to allow estuary edge and site

natural features to dominate, and the parking area dominates – occupies - the estuary edge land.

West Dunes site parking and facility is towards urban, yet the large landscape in view, the use of rustic

wooden barriers, and of undeveloped area to break up the paved area, helps to allow the natural setting

presence to be strongly felt by site users, and so to be a more roaded natural experience.

East Dunes campground is predominately a rectilinear parking area with the form not responsive to the

setting or broken by undeveloped land or by use of rustic wood as is typical of roaded natural, so the

facilities are urban. The siting takes advantage of low dunes to the west and east creating a sheltered area

which is protected and creates a place, though facilities are not constructed in a manner that is responsive

to the space.

Effects of Proposed Action The proposed action as shown does not meet roaded natural recreation standards, does not replace the

roaded natural sites lost, and is not responsive to the setting. The extended site would be affected by

winds and shifting sands that the existing parking area is sheltered from by its more protected location.

The capacity of the East Dunes site, and the number of additional sites possible there, is a function of the

natural site characteristics, recreation opportunity setting to be met, and design parameters. A range of

possible additional sites would allow for a site sensitive design process in relation to site conditions and

amenities, and the above design criteria would help address recreation setting impacts and values.

Irreversible Resource Commitments Irreversible commitments of resources are actions that disturb either a non-renewable resource (for

example, heritage resources) or other resources to the point that they can only be renewed over 100 years

or not at all. The design criteria—along with Forest standards and guides—are intended to reduce these

commitments, but adverse effects cannot be completely eliminated. For example, the continued use of the

existing roads that access the campground is an irreversible commitment of the soil resource because of

the long term commitment to the campground.

Irretrievable Commitment of Resources An irretrievable commitment is the loss of opportunities for producing or using a renewable resource for a

period of time. Almost all activities produce varying degrees of irretrievable resource commitments. They

parallel the effects for each resource discussed earlier in this chapter. They are not irreversible because


they could be reversed by changing management direction. The following irretrievable commitments of

resources are expected. Loss of soil productivity as a result of constructing the campground.

Environmental Justice Effects of alternatives on the human environment (including minority and low-income populations) are

expected to be similar for all human populations regardless of nationality, gender, race, or income. No

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and

low-income populations are expected as a result of implementing any alternative.

Other Disclosures Based on the evaluation of the effects:

This environmental assessment is tiered to the Siuslaw Forest Plan FEIS, as amended by the

Northwest Forest Plan, and is consistent with those plans and their requirements.

None of the alternatives would affect minority groups, women, and consumers differently than

other groups. These groups may benefit from employment opportunities and by-products that

proposed actions would provide; the no-action alternative would have neither adverse nor

beneficial effects. None of the alternatives adversely affects civil rights. All contracts that may be

awarded as a result of implementation would meet equal employment opportunity requirements.

None of the proposed actions would affect known prehistoric or historic sites because no new

disturbance on previously undisturbed ground is expected. As outlined in the American Indian

Religious Freedom Act, no effects are anticipated on American Indian social, economic,

subsistence rights, or sacred sites.

No adverse effects on wetlands and flood plains are anticipated; and no farm land, park land, range

land, wilderness, or wild and scenic rivers would be affected.

The proposed project is not in or adjacent to an inventoried roadless area.

The proposed project is consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act.

None of the proposed actions are expected to substantially affect human health and safety.

Proposed activities are consistent with the Clean Air Act because effects from activities, such as

log hauling (dust) and prescribed burning, are localized and short-term.

Because of the design criteria to be applied (Appendix A), this project is expected to be consistent

with the Clean Water Act.

The proposed project is not expected to measurably affect global warming. The US Forest Service

will continue an active leadership role in agriculture and forestry regarding the reduction of

greenhouse gas emissions (Joyce and Birdsey 2000).

These actions do not set a precedent for future actions because they are similar to actions

implemented in the past.


Chapter 4—List of Preparers and Others Consulted About This Project

Introduction As described in chapter 1, comment on the proposed action was solicited through letters, local

newspapers, and the Siuslaw National Forest’s quarterly ―Project Update‖ publications. The results of

specific government and agency consultations are summarized below.

Interdisciplinary team members

Team Members Specialty

JW Cleveland Team Leader

John Casteel NEPA

Michelle Dragoo Wildlife Biologist

Ron Hudson Hydrologist / Soils

Justin Gerding Fisheries

Mike Brouwer Transportation Systems

Jacob Rhyne Recreation

Jessica Dole Landscape Architect

Kevin Bruce Heritage

Local Confederated Tribes The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians and the Confederated Tribes of Grande Ronde Indians were

informed of the Project’s proposed actions during the initial public-notification process.

Federal Agencies

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

Consultation was not required due to no effect on listed species or their Critical Habitat.

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Consultation was not required due to no effect on listed species or their Critical Habitat.

Bureau of Land Management

No lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are in the project-planning area. The BLM

was notified of this action.


US Congressional Representatives

Senator Jeff Merkley and Senator Ron Wyden, and Representative Kurt Schrader were notified about the

proposed project. No comments were received from them.

State of Oregon

All proposed actions were evaluated under the 2004 programmatic agreement with the State Historic

Preservation Office (SHPO; USFS 2005a). No further consultation with SHPO was needed.

Oregon Department of Forestry, Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program, Oregon Department of Fish

and Wildlife, and State Senators Joanne Verger and Joanne Farmer were notified about the proposed

project by a scoping notice for the project in the Tillamook Headlight Herald on 7/25/2012, no comments

were received.

Local Governments

County commissioners of Tillamook, and Lincoln Counties; county soil and water districts; the mayor of

Lincoln City was notified by a scoping notice for the project in the Tillamook Headlight Herald on

7/25/2012, no comments were received.

Watershed Councils

The Salmon/Drift and the Nestucca/Neskowin Watershed Councils were notified by a scoping notice for

the project in the Tillamook Headlight Herald on 7/25/2012, no comments were received.

United States Environmental Assessmenta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...Tillamook...

Documents

Transcript of United States Environmental Assessmenta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...Tillamook...