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.
35
Embed
United States Environmental Assessmenta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...Tillamook County, Oregon Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Official: Wayne Patterson,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
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
East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 2
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
East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 5
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
East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 6
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.
East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 7
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?
East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 8
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.
East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 9
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
East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 10
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).
East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 11
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
East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 12
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
East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 13
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.
East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 14
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,
therefore, there are no direct or indirect effects.
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.
East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 15
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 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 - 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.
East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 16
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.
East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 17
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
East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 18
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
East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 19
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-
East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 20
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 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 - 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.
East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 21
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
East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 25
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat in Project Area?
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
East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 26
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat in Project Area?
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
East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 27
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.
East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 28
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