umpqua basin tree revetment project 2006 environmental assessment

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

EA Number: OR-104-06-04

BLM Office: Swiftwater RA, Roseburg District

Proposed Action Title: Umpqua Basin Tree Revetment Project 2006

Location of Proposed Action

Table 1: Location of Stream Segments Proposed for Restoration

Stream Name Township Range Section(s)

Deer Creek (Both Forks)

27 South 5 West 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 35 & 36

4 West 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34 & 35

28 South 5 West 1, 2, 11, 12, 13 & 24

4 West 4, 5, 8 & 9

Dixon Creek 26 South 5 West 22, 23, 27, 28, 29 & 33

Huntley Creek 26 South 4 West 10 &15

North Myrtle Creek

27 South 4 West 31

28 South 3 West 6

4 West 12, 13, 23, 24, 26, 27, 33 & 34

29 South 4 West 4, 5, 7, 8, 17 & 18

5 West 13, 14, 22, 23, 24, 27 & 28

South Myrtle Creek 29 South

2 West 6

3 West 2, 10, 15, 16, 19, 20 & 21

4 West 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29 & 30

5 West 25, 26 & 27

Pass Creek

22 South 5 West 4, 8, 9 & 17

21 South 5 West 25, 33, 34, 35 & 36

4 West 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20 & 30

Tenmile Creek 28 South 7 West 27, 28, 29, 31, 32 & 33

8 West 4, 15, 16, 23, 24 & 25

Shoestring Creek 30 South 5 West 30

6 West 25 & 36

Quines Creek 32 South 5 West 22, 23, 26 & 35

Environmental Assessment OR-1-4-06-04 6/12/2007 Umpqua Basin Tree Revetment Project 2006

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Roseburg District Office 777 NW Garden Valley Blvd. Roseburg, Oregon 97470

Comments on this environmental assessment, including the names and street addresses of respondents, will be made available for public review at the above address during regular business hours, 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M., Monday through Friday, except holidays.

Individual respondents may request confidentiality. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by the law. If you wish to withhold your name or street address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comment. Submissions from organizations, businesses, and individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.

In keeping with Bureau of Land Management policy, the Roseburg District posts Environmental Assessments, Environmental Impact Statements, Findings of No Significant Impact, and Decision Records/Documentations on the district web page under Planning & Environmental Analysis, at www.or.blm.gov/roseburg, on the same day in which legal notices of availability for public review and notices of decision are published in The News-Review, Roseburg, Oregon. Individuals desiring a paper copy of such documents will be provided one upon request. Individuals with the ability to access these documents on-line are encouraged to do so as this reduces paper consumption and administrative costs associated with copying and mailing.

2


Table of Contents

Location of Proposed Action........................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 3 Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action ............................................................................................ 4

A. Background .......................................................................................................................... 4 B. Proposed Action.................................................................................................................... 4 C. Relevant Policies, Assessments, and Plans........................................................................... 5 D. Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 6 E. Decision Factors.................................................................................................................... 6

Chapter 2 Discussion of Alternatives.............................................................................................. 7 A. The No Action Alternative ................................................................................................... 7 B. The Proposed Action Alternative ......................................................................................... 7 C. Project Design Features as part of the Action Alternative .................................................. 8 D. Monitoring........................................................................................................................... 8 E. Issues and Resources Considered but Eliminated............................................................... 8

Chapter 3 Affected Environment & Consequences by Resource.................................................... 9 A. Affected Environment .......................................................................................................... 9

1. Botany ............................................................................................................................. 9 2. Hydrology........................................................................................................................ 9 3. Soils ............................................................................................................................... 10 4. Fisheries......................................................................................................................... 10 5. Wildlife.......................................................................................................................... 12

B. Environmental Impacts of the No Action........................................................................... 12 C. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action................................................................. 13

1. Description of Potential Impacts ................................................................................... 13 a. Botany...................................................................................................................... 13 b. Hydrology................................................................................................................ 13 c. Soils ......................................................................................................................... 14 d. Fisheries................................................................................................................... 14 e. Wildlife.................................................................................................................... 14

2. Cumulative Impacts Analysis........................................................................................ 14 a. Botany...................................................................................................................... 14 b. Hydrology................................................................................................................ 14 c. Soils ......................................................................................................................... 15 d. Fisheries................................................................................................................... 15 e. Wildlife.................................................................................................................... 15

Chapter 2 Contacts, Consultations, and Preparers ........................................................................ 18 Agencies, Persons, and Permittees Contacted........................................................................... 18 Public Notification .................................................................................................................... 18 List of Preparers ........................................................................................................................ 18 References Cited........................................................................................................................ 19

3


Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for Action

A. Background

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) responded to Section 205 of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. No. 106-393) (the Act) by forming the Roseburg District BLM Resource Advisory Committee (RAC). It is an organization of local community members that collaborates in federal land management activities in the selection of projects to be conducted on federal lands or that will benefit resources on federal lands using O&C/County funds under Title II of the Act. The RAC’s designated federal officer (DFO) shall submit federal projects to be considered for funding under Title II of the Act to the Resource Advisory Committee. The Committee members shall review the federal projects and transmit their recommendations on those projects to the DFO on or before September 1. No later than September 30, the DFO will submit to the Secretary of the Interior, or his designee, a description of projects that the Resource Advisory Committee recommends undertaking using funds reserved by eligible counties for expenditure pursuant to Title II of the Act and within the Committee's geographic jurisdiction.

The Act states that “[p]roject funds shall be expended solely on projects that meet the requirements outlined in the Act including a description of the project,” duration, cost, source(s) of funding, and expected outcomes that meet or exceed desired ecological conditions. The project must also detail a monitoring plan that tracks and identifies the impacts, implementation, and assesses the projects results whether or not the project exceeded desired ecological conditions, etc.

Douglas Soil and Water Conservation District (DSWCD) proposed the Umpqua Basin Tree Revetment Project for funding, because many streams in Douglas County have streambank erosion. This erosion has resulted in increased levels of sediment delivered and suspended or stirred up in the stream-flow. Existing riparian vegetation is sparse and does not provide enough root mass to support bank stability or stream canopy to provide shade. The Roseburg BLM District RAC recommended and Jay Carlson, Roseburg District Manager (DFO) approved the project in September 2005. The Bureau of Land Management is developing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation because the project is federally funded.

This federally funded project would benefit the Bureau of Land Management by improving watershed health; by improving stream stability with willows and other native plant species, reducing sedimentation in project streams which would improve pool, spawning and rearing habitat for resident and anadromous fish. Overall, this would improve habitat for coho salmon and other native fish populations. It would also enhance relationships between the BLM, local communities, and private landowners through collaboration with DSWCS and the RAC.

B. Proposed Action

The DSWCD proposes to improve stream channel conditions (selected from approximately 130 stream miles) entirely on privately owned and managed lands by placing and securing tree revetments along streambanks, removing invasive brush, and planting native vegetation along

4


streambanks and riparian areas. Revetments are structures, such as clumps of Christmas trees, secured to streambanks, positioned to catch sediment, and slow stream velocities. This would improve overall stream conditions and water quality by adding structure to riparian systems. Tree revetments are an effective method for landowners to prevent or control streambank erosion as part of an overall riparian zone restoration process. The identified project areas are well suited for tree revetments because of poorly developed and unstable riparian corridors and eroding streambanks. The revetments collect sediment and provide a foundation for riparian vegetation reestablishment. The sediment trapped by the revetments improve downstream water quality, reduce stream current near eroding banks, and develop areas to serve as a planting sites for riparian zone vegetation. This vegetation helps to trap more sediment, binds the soil to the streambank, and provides future streamside shade.

Project sites were selected from private lands that are easily accessible with fair habitat conditions, but actively eroding streambanks. Operations would occur during the dry season when soil strengths are at their greatest. Poorly drained areas would be avoided when water tables are high. The project would be completed within the ODFW instream - work period of July 1 through September 16.

The proposed project would be conducted by hand, without the use of mechanized equipment, minimizing ground disturbance. Seven to ten tree revetments would have “t” posts installed in the streambank to secure clumps of trees, by cable in selected streams throughout the County (potential location maps attached). Invasive brush would be manually removed and native riparian vegetation would be hand planted along the banks for long-term bank stability and riparian habitat improvement.

C. Relevant Policies, Assessments, and Plans

This project would occur entirely on privately owned and managed lands. Although the Roseburg District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (RMP) does not apply, CEQ regulations state that since the project would be “entirely or partly financed” by federal agencies this would be considered a federal action (1508.18 (a) and (b) (4)). For this reason, the National Environmental Policy Act does apply and the project impacts must be analyzed.

1. The project would follow the “Umpqua Basin Watershed Assessment and Action Plan” developed by the Umpqua Basin Watershed Council. The plan recommends placement of instream structures similar to tree revetments to “improve pools, collect gravel and improve overall fish habitat.” It also recommends riparian area protection that includes “planting native riparian trees and shrubs and understory vegetation (Title II, 2005).

2. The project would also take direction from “The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds” that encourages “restoration and healthy function of Oregon’s natural aquatic systems” (Title II, 2005).

D. Objectives

The overall objectives of the proposed action are to directly improve streambank and indirectly

5


improve stream/fish habitat conditions in selected areas for species that use them sometime during their lifecycle.

Specific objectives of the proposed action are to:

• Place revetments in such a manner as to trap silt and sediment and reduce the stream’s current near eroding streambanks.

• Remove invasive brush to make room for native riparian vegetation.

• Plant native riparian vegetation along streambanks to stabilize banks and provide shade and riparian habitat for terrestrial and aquatic species.

• Place revetments and plants in such a manner to improve stream conditions (i.e., temperature, turbidity, etc.)

E. Decision Factors

Factors to be considered when selecting among alternatives will include:

• The degree to which the objectives previously described would be achieved including: the manner that placement of revetments would be conducted, the time period of the proposed treatment, cost and funding sources;

• The expected result from tree revetments installation, invasive brush removal, and native riparian vegetation planting;

• The indirect benefit to federal lands and resources through stabilizing streambanks and reducing erosion and downstream sedimentation on privately owned and managed lands;

• Willingness of private landowners to participate in the proposed project.

6


Chapter 2 Discussion of Alternatives

A. The No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for the comparison of the alternatives. This alternative describes the existing condition and continuing trends anticipated in the absence of the proposal but with the implementation of other reasonably foreseeable federal and private projects.

Federal funding would not be extended to assist in streambank stabilization or improvement of stream comditions on private lands from this project. Although funding could be sought from alternate sources, both lateral (along the streambed) and vertical (down-cutting) erosion would likely continue until funding was obtained to accomplish the work.

Lateral erosion creates the majority of sedimentation. The rate of stream bank erosion is not constant, but is episodic, occurring during large storm events. However, one to two feet of bank erosion is common annually and in some locations, as much as 10 feet can erode in a single flood event. Sediment levels and amounts of suspended particles in the stream-flow would likely continue unchecked. Invasive plants would likely continue to occupy growing space, inhibiting growth of native plants. Sediment would not be trapped adequately and stream current would continue to erode banks. Poorly developed and unstable riparian corridors would continue.

B. The Proposed Action Alternative

This alternative proposes funding of the Douglas Soil and Water Conservation District project to improve stream channel conditions (selected from approximately 130 stream miles) on private lands by placing and securing tree revetments along streambanks, removing invasive brush, and planting native vegetation along streambanks and riparian areas. Landowners, students and community volunteers would contribute labor. DSWCD would be responsible for youth or volunteer programs.

1. Invasive Brush Removal Hand cutting and pulling invasive, noxious, and non-native brush would be performed to prepare potential treatment locations.

2. Installing Revetments Seven to ten tree revetments (structures, such as clumps of Christmas trees, secured to streambanks, positioned to catch sediment, and slow stream velocities) would have series of “t” posts installed in streambanks. Clumps of trees would be attached to the “t” posts by a cable to hold the trees in place during high water events. The posts and tree clumps would be arranged along the streambank to catch and hold sediment in place, then divert stream current away from the streambank.

3. Native Vegetation Planting DSWCD obtained permission to harvest trees from six sites, which would be donated to the project. No trees would be removed from federal lands directly related to this project. Native trees and shrubs would be planted in or along streambanks. Landowners, students and

7


community volunteers would contribute labor for native riparian tree and shrub species planting. DSWCD would be responsible for youth or volunteer programs.

This project would follow the “Umpqua Basin Watershed Assessment and Action Plan” developed by the Umpqua Basin Watershed Council. The plan’s key findings and recommendations include “the placement of large root wads, logs and/or boulders in streams or creeks to improve pools, collect gravel and improve overall fish habitat.” Additionally, the plan encourages land use practices that enhance or protect the riparian areas by: “Protecting riparian areas from livestock-caused browsing and bank erosion through riparian fencing and providing off-channel water systems and by planting native riparian trees and shrubs and understory vegetation in areas with poor or fair riparian areas.”

C. Project Design Features as part of the Action Alternative

1. To protect riparian habitat: All operations in the riparian area would be done by hand. No mechanized equipment would be used in the riparian area. The project would be completed within the ODFW instream work period of July 1 through September 16.

2. To minimize soil erosion as a source of sedimentation to streams: Materials used in the project would be manually transported to the project. No roads would be constructed to access project locations and easily accessible sites would be selected to facilitate access.

3. To prevent the spread of noxious weeds: Equipment would be would be clean and free of weed seed prior to operations in the riparian area.

D. Monitoring

Douglas Soil and Water Conservation District would establish photo points to visit for photo documentation at year 1, 2, 5, and 10 after operations are completed. Landowners, at their discretion, may assist in monitoring by providing photos from the established photo points.

E. Issues and Resources Considered but Eliminated

Although this proposed action is a federal action, Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) consistency was not evaluate in this analysis, because the proposed action is not a on federally administered lands. The ACS applies to federally administered lands within the Northwest Forest Planning Area.

8


Chapter 3 Affected Environment & Consequences by Resource

A. Affected Environment

The affected area was analyzed for the resources listed below.

1. The proposed projects would be located on private lands, therefore surveys for Special Status or Survey and Manage plants are not applicable (Bureau Manual 6840).

2. The proposed projects would be located on private lands, therefore surveys for Special Status or Survey and Manage wildlife species are not applicable (Bureau Manual 6840).

3. A records review for cultural resources indicated the presence of two previously recorded archaeological sites within the project area. The areas near the two sites have been excluded from the project.

1. Botany – Review of data, records, and maps have indicated that Special Status Plants are not likely to exist in the project areas. Specifically, habitat is not present for Plagiobothrys hirtus (Recovery Plan for the Rough Popcorn Flower, USFWS, Portland OR, 2003). Additionally, there is no habitat present for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii. (Recovery Outline for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, USFWS, Portland OR, 2006).

There are infestations of noxious, invasive, and non-native plants throughout the project area, including Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), Gorse (Ulex europaeus), Yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitalis), and Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) among others. These species would be cut or pulled within the revetment sites.

2. Hydrology - The proposed project is located within the following fifth-field watersheds and sixth-field subwatersheds:

Table 2. Watersheds and Subwatersheds. Tree Revetment Project Watershed Subwatershed

Deer Creek North Fork Deer Creek South Fork Deer Creek

Lower South Umpqua Upper Deer Creek Lower Deer Creek

Dixon Creek Lower North Umpqua Cooper Creek Huntley Creek Lower North Umpqua Cooper Creek

Myrtle Creek North Myrtle Creek South Myrtle Creek

Myrtle Creek

Upper North Myrtle Lower North Myrtle Upper South Myrtle Lower South Myrtle

Pass Creek Elk Creek/Umpqua River Upper Pass Creek Lower Pass Creek

Shoestring Creek Lower Cow Creek Lower Cow Creek Tenmile Creek Olalla Creek-Lookingglass Creek Tenmile Creek

Quines Creek Middle Cow Creek Cow Creek-Quines Creek

9


Beneficial Uses of Water downstream of the project areas consist primarily of domestic water supply, irrigation and livestock watering, resident fish and aquatic life, and salmonid spawning and rearing. Deer Creek, North Myrtle Creek, South Myrtle Creek, and Quines Creek were identified by the ODEQ as water quality limited for summer temperature. In addition, Deer Creek is listed for exceeding the dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform standards. The North Fork of Deer Creek is also listed for fecal coliforms (Oregon DEQ, 2003).

3. Soils – The proposed tree revetments would affect soils formed on floodplains, terraces, alluvial fans and footslopes bordering and in close proximity to treatment streams. The soil properties are highly variable. They typically have soil textures that are moderately erodible and sensitive to compaction. Some textures are highly erodible. Both moderately erodible and highly erodible soil textures are very sensitive to stream bank erosion under bare soil conditions. Some affected soils might have a seasonably high water table (poorly drained soils) (Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey of Douglas County).

4. Fisheries – The proposed action would occur on fish-bearing streams or their tributaries. The affected fifth-field watersheds are:

1. Lower South Umpqua, 2. Lower North Umpqua, 3. Myrtle Creek 4. Elk Creek/Umpqua River 5. Middle Cow Creek 6. Lower Cow Creek 7. Olalla Creek-Lookingglass Creek

Oregon Coast Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Coastal Cutthroat trout (O. clarki clarki), Oregon Coast Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), Oregon Coast coho salmon (O. kitsutch) and Pacific Lamprey (Lampetra tridentate) are present in each watershed. The Umpqua Chub (Oregonichthys kalawatseti) has been documented in the Lower South Umpqua, and Lower and Middle Cow Creek. There are no Threatened or Endangered species within the proposed project area. Oregon Coast Steelhead trout (O. mykiss) are a Federal Species of Concern. The proposed project is located within Essential Fish Habitat for coho and Chinook salmon.

Current Fish Distributions and Habitat Conditions (Compiled from BLM Watershed Analysis, ODFW Habitat Inventory/StreamNet GIS and ODEQ 303d List of Water Quality Limited Streams) –

Lower South Umpqua: Project Areas: Deer Creek, North Fork of Deer Creek, South Fork of Deer Creek

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) documented winter steelhead and coho salmon presence throughout much of the Deer Creek watershed. Poor habitat conditions consisting of high stream temperatures and lack of stream habitat complexity (large woody structure,

10


backwater pools, side channels, and flood plain connectivity) prevent sea-run cutthroat trout from using stream reach in the lower part of the South Umpqua River Basin.

ODFW Aquatic Habitat Inventories rated eleven of the twelve Deer Creek stream reach surveyed as being in “Fair” condition. One stream range was rated as being in “Poor” condition. Limiting factors cited include; reduced instream habitat structure, increased sedimentation, and absence of functional riparian areas. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) lists Deer Creek as water quality limited for: habitat modification, temperature (salmonid spawning 12.8 degrees Celsius, rearing 17.8 degrees Celsius), and dissolved oxygen (spawning).

Lower North Umpqua Project Areas: Dixon Creek, Huntley Creek.

ODFW has documented winter steelhead, coho salmon and cutthroat trout presence throughout much of Dixon Creek and Huntley Creek. Cutthroat is found primarily in headwater streams with gradients greater than 4 percent. ODFW reports that juvenile Pacific lamprey is found throughout the Lower North Umpqua watershed.

Within the Lower North Umpqua Watershed, ODFW surveyed 24 stream reach. Of these reach, none rated as fair or good. Twenty-three stream reach were rated as poor. More than 80% of reach have poor riparian areas, and 60% of reach have poor pool habitat. In the Lower North Umpqua Watershed, the North Umpqua River is 303(d) listed for summer and fall temperatures (Salmonid spawning 12.8 degrees Celsius, rearing 17.8 degrees Celsius).

Myrtle Creek Project Areas: Myrtle Creek, North Myrtle Creek, South Myrtle Creek.

Fall Chinook, coho salmon, and winter Steelhead trout are present in the watershed. Chinook and coho are found in lower portions of the watershed. Coho and Steelhead use the upper portions of both creeks.

ODFW Aquatic Habitat Inventories rated 74 out of approximately 875 miles in the Myrtle Creek basin. Upper South Myrtle Creek and North Myrtle Creek were rated as “Fair”. Lower South Myrtle Creek was rated as “Poor”. Relatively high width to depth ratios, lack of deep pools, sedimentation and lack of large woody debris contributed to less than optimal habitat. North Myrtle Creek is listed as water quality limited by the ODEQ for; habitat modification, temperature (salmonid year round non-spawning 18 degrees C), and dissolved oxygen (non-spawning). South Myrtle Creek is listed for temperature (salmonid year round non-spawning).

Elk Creek/Umpqua River Project Areas: Pass Creek

Elk Creek and its tributaries contain spawning and rearing habitat for low-to-mid water velocity dependant fish species. These include coho and Chinook salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout, and pacific lamprey.

11


ODFW Aquatic Habitat Inventories indicate that Pass Creek has a high percentage of instream fine sediment (35 percent - >50 percent). Harvey (2001) reported macroinvertebrate densities in several South Umpqua tributaries decreased by 75 percent when larger stream substrates became 40 percent embedded by fines. Diversity was also reduced, in particular, larger macroinvertebrates of high food value to juvenile salmonids. The ODEQ lists Pass Creek as water quality limited for dissolved oxygen and temperature (salmonids, year round, non-spawning 18 degrees Celsius).

Olalla Creek-Lookingglass Creek Project Areas: Tenmile Creek

Specific fish distribution and habitat information for Tenmile Creek was not available. However, ODFW has documented winter steelhead and resident rainbow trout, fall and spring Chinook salmon, coho salmon and sea-run and resident cutthroat trout as present in the Olalla/ Lookingglass watershed. Umpqua chub and Pacific lamprey are also present. ODEQ does not list Tenmile Creek as water quality limited.

Middle and Lower Cow Creek Project Areas: Lower Cow Creek- Quines Creek, Middle Cow Creek-Shoestring Creek.

ODFW has documented Lower and Middle Cow Creek use by winter steelhead and resident rainbow trout, fall and spring Chinook salmon, coho salmon and sea-run and resident cutthroat trout. Coho distribution in the watershed includes Quines Creek. BLM Bureau Sensitive Pacific lamprey and Umpqua chub are also present in Cow Creek.

Specific habitat information for Shoestring and Quines Creek is limited. However, ODFW Aquatic Habitat Inventories rated 52 of 67 streams in the Lower Cow Creek WAU as “Fair”. Two streams were rated as poor. Lack of large woody debris, excessive sediment, lack of shade and high stream temperatures were cited as limiting factors. The ODEQ lists Quines Creek as limited for salmonids due to habitat modification and elevated temperature (rearing 17.8 degrees Celsius).

5. Wildlife – Of the federally threatened wildlife species, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), and northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) are known to occur within the proposed action area. However, none of the stream segments proposed for restoration occurs within one mile of a known bald eagle nest territory or marbled murrelet nest sites. No known spotted owl activity center occurs within 65 yards of proposed stream segments.

Within the proposed action area can be found designated habitats for the marbled Murrelet or the spotted owl. However, the stream segments proposed for restoration are not located within these critical habitat designations.

12


B. Environmental Impacts of the No Action

The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for the comparison of the alternatives. This alternative represents the existing condition. If this alternative were selected there would be no improvement to the existing degrading conditions. Soil erosion would continue to degrade the streambanks and add fine and course sediment into the stream channels. Water quality would continue to decline and fisheries habitat conditions would continue to be impacted by chronic sedimentation. The impacts to fisheries from the discharge of sediment would be a result of two distinct mechanisms - increased turbidity and increased deposition of sediment. Increases in turbidity can cause respiratory distress (gill irritation). Respiratory distress would cause salmonids to avoid turbidity, thereby delaying adult salmonid spawning migrations, and by forcing juvenile fish to avoid rearing habitats (Meehan 1991). Delays in spawning migration and habitat avoidance both result in use of a fish’s energy reserves, and can lead to increased fish mortality. Increases in fine sediment (silt and clay) deposits on the streambed can result in embedded spawning gravels, thereby reducing the flow of oxygenated water to incubating eggs and reducing the number of eggs that successfully hatch. If large amounts of sediments enter the stream channel, pools may also start to fill in, further reducing the amount and quality of the habitat, and reducing the number of fish that could potentially rear there. Noxious, invasive and non-native plant species would continue to inhabit growing spaces along the streambanks and native riparian plant species would likely be crowded out. Structure from noxious, invasive, and non-native plants would create habitat unsuitable for wildlife species within riparian areas.

C. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

1. Description of Potential Impacts

Analysis considers the direct impacts (effects caused by the action and occurring at the same place and time), indirect impacts (effects caused by the action but occurring later in time and farther removed in distance) and cumulative impacts (effects of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions) on the resource values.

a. Botany – Based on a determination that there would be minimal ground disturbance associated with the project, the Proposed Action is expected to have no effect on Special Status Plants (SSP). No adverse impacts to SSP are anticipated under this alternative because manual labor is used for placement of cables and tree clumps in the riparian areas. Project design features (e.g. equipment cleaning, and manual weed removal) would likely reduce the abundance and distribution of noxious, invasive, and non-native plant species within the Proposed Action project sites.

b. Hydrology – Tree revetments would have a direct effect on channel morphology by preventing or controlling streambank erosion. Streambank erosion tends to increase stream width to depth ratios which results in wider and shallower streams. Streambank erosion can also lead to a loss in streamside vegetation which provides shade to the stream. Wide, shallow streams tend to absorb more solar radiation, which along with reductions in stream shade can result in increased stream temperatures. The revetments collect sediment and provide a substrate for riparian

13


vegetation reestablishment. The sediment trapped by the revetments would improve downstream water quality, reduce stream current near eroding banks, and serve as a planting site for riparian zone vegetation. This vegetation helps to trap more sediment, binds the soil to the streambank, and eventually provides streamside shade. Stabilized streambanks would allow for deposits of sediment to build up within the stream channel, which tends to result in a decrease in stream width to depth ratios, which results in a narrower and deeper stream. A deep, narrow stream would absorb less solar radiation and along with improved stream shade over time would be expected to decreased stream temperatures. This would improve water quality conditions for the streams listed as water quality limited for stream temperature. Decreased stream temperatures would also help improve dissolved oxygen levels in Deer Creek, but this project would have no effect on fecal coliform levels in the listed streams (Deer Creek and North Fork Deer Creek).

c. Soils – Manually moving trees and equipment from roads to streambanks and securing them by hand would reduce impacts to soil displacement and compaction. Dry season operations would reduce soil compaction because soil strengths are at their greatest during this period and poorly drained areas would be avoided when water tables are high. The revetments are expected to stabilize streambanks and generate a foundation for riparian vegetation.

d. Fisheries – No adverse impacts to fisheries are anticipated under this alternative.

Successful stabilization of eroding stream banks, and development of properly functioning riparian areas, are expected to provide several direct benefits to aquatic life. Physical habitat can be expected to improve through development of undercut banks, which provide vital cover and holding areas for fish. Increased riparian vegetation is expected to enhance overhead cover from predators and reduce thermal inputs. Reducing stream width to depth ratios is expected to increase water velocities, locally, flushing fines and improving spawning substrate. Fish holding areas in pools are expected to improve with increasing channel depth. Energy inputs to the stream, in the form of riparian leaf fall, increase macroinvertebrate productivity and is expected to enhance fish carrying capacity. Dill, et al., found that the sizes of coho territories are inversely related to the density of aquatic bottom food in the area (Grooot and Margolis, 1991).

e. Wildlife – There would be no direct or indirect impacts to federally-listed threatened or endangered wildlife species or critical habitat, because no federally-listed terrestrial wildlife species or their respective habitats are present within the proposed project area.

Once the revetments collect sediment and provide a foundation for riparian vegetation reestablishment, streamside shade would develop in time, which would improve habitat conditions for wildlife species that use the riparian corridors. In addition, planting of native species would improve the quality and structure of native vegetative habitat for wildlife species within the riparian habitats.

2. Cumulative Impacts Analysis

a. Botany – Noxious, invasive and non-native plant species populations at the site level would be reduced by manual removal. No cumulative effects are anticipated for federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant species.

14


b. Hydrology – At the fifth-field watershed scale, the scope of this project is too small for substantively altering current watershed functions. It can be reasonably expected that under the “Umpqua Basin Watershed Assessment and Action Plan” that landowners would protect . . . riparian areas from livestock-caused browsing and bank erosion through riparian fencing and providing off-channel water systems. . . .” In five to ten years, this would lower the fecal coliform levels in the water and establishment of native riparian plants would improve bank stability. Fine sediment would be removed from the streambed while allowing it to be deposited onto vegetated streambanks. As other restoration projects are implemented, streambank stability and water quality would continue to improve.

c. Soils - At the fifth-field watershed scale, the scope of this project is too small to affect soil quality and productivity. It can be reasonably expected that under the “Umpqua Basin Watershed Assessment and Action Plan” that landowners would “protect . . . riparian areas from livestock-caused browsing and bank erosion through riparian fencing and providing off-channel water systems. . . .”

d. Fisheries – As indicated in the Hydrology and Soils assessments above, the proposed streambank treatments would be limited to the site scale and not extended to the fifth- Field. However, the proposed project would have a long-term (five to ten year) benefit through the reduction of sedimentation and improved water quality. A long-term reduction of chronic sedimentation would increase the fisheries potential though an increase in fish migration, as well as improved spawning and rearing habitats.

e. Wildlife – As indicated in the Hydrology and Soils assessments above, the proposed streambank treatments would be limited to the site scale and not extended to the fifth- Field. However, the proposed project, in conjunction with the “Umpqua Basin Watershed Assessment and Action Plan” would have a long-term (five to ten year) benefit through the reduction of sedimentation and improved water quality. A long-term reduction of chronic sedimentation would increase the fisheries potential through an increase in fish migration, as well as improved spawning and rearing habitats.

Critical Elements of the Human Environment

“Critical Elements of the Human Environment" is a list of elements specified in BLM Handbook H-1790-1 that must be considered in all EA's. These are elements of the human environment subject to requirements specified in statute, regulation, or executive order. These elements have been analyzed for potential effects and are as follows:

Critical Elements Potentially AffectedNo Yes

Air Quality X ACEC X Cultural Resources X Environmental Justice X Farmlands, Prime/Unique X Floodplains X Invasive and Nonnative Species X Nat. Amer. Religious Concerns X

15


Threatened & Endangered Species X Waste, Hazardous/Solid X Water Quality, Drinking / Ground X Wetlands/Riparian Zones X Wild and Scenic Rivers X Wilderness X

The following elements of the human environment are subject to requirements specified in statute, regulation, or executive order (BLM NEPA Handbook, Appendix 5). These resources or values are either not present or would not be affected by the proposed actions or alternatives, unless otherwise described in this EA. This negative declaration is documented below by individuals who assisted in the preparation of this analysis.

Table 3. Critical Elements of Human Environment for Umpqua Basin Tree Revetment Project

Element Responsible Position Remarks

Air Quality Fuels Management Possible minimal localized dust within project area Specialist

Areas of Critical Environmental Project is not within or near an ACEC. Environmental Concern Specialist

Cultural Resources Archeologist Project boundary adjusted to avoid site impacts.

Environmental Justice Environmental No disproportionate use by Native Americans, minorities Specialist or low-income populations.

Farm Lands (prime or Soil Scientist "No discernable effects are anticipated" (PRMP pg. 1-7) unique)

Flood Plains Hydrologist Floodplain function would not be affected.

Invasive Nonnative Species Treatment of invasive species and non-native species is not Botanist a component of this EA.

Native American Religious Environmental No concerns were noted from public contact Concerns Specialist

T&E Terrestrial Species Wildlife Biologist Proposed project would have no effect on T&E species.

T&E Plant Species Botanist Surveys for SSP are not required for this project.

T&E Aquatic Species Fisheries Biologist There are no listed fish species within the project area.

Hazardous/Solid Area Hazardous Applicable Haz. Mat. Policies would be in effect. Wastes Materials Coordinator

Water Quality No adverse affect to Water Quality or Drinking/Ground Hydrologist Drinking/Ground Water Water.

Wetlands/Riparian Zones Hydrologist No adverse affect to Riparian Zones or Wetlands.

16


Element Responsible Position Remarks

Wild and Scenic Rivers Recreation Planner Project is not within scenic river corridor

Wilderness Recreation Planner Project is not within a wilderness study area.

The following items are not considered a Critical Element, but have been cited by regulation or Executive Order as an item warranting consideration in NEPA documents:

Healthy Lands Initiative – This project would not violate the Healthy Lands Initiative.

Adverse Energy – Executive Order 13212 provides that all decisions made by the Bureau of Land Management will take into consideration adverse impacts on the President’s National Energy Policy. This project would not have a direct or indirect adverse impact on energy development, production, supply, and/or distribution and therefore would not adversely affect the President’s National Energy Policy.

Indian Trust Resources – Secretarial Order No. 3175 (November 8, 1993) requires that any significant impact to Indian Trust resources be identified and addressed in NEPA documents. There are no known Indian Trust resources; therefore, this project is expected to have no impacts to these resources.

17


Chapter 4 Contacts, Consultations, and Preparers

Agencies, Persons, and Permittees Contacted

US Fish and Wildlife Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA - fisheries) State Historic Preservation Office Douglas County Commissioners Seneca Jones Timber Co. Lone Rock Timber Co. Giustina Resources Ltd. PartnershipWeyerhaeuser Company Woolley Enterprises Inc.Roseburg Resources Co.

Preparers

A.C. Clough Team Lead Jeffrey Wall NEPA Writer/Editor Isaac Barner Cultural Resources James Harvey Fish BiologyDaniel Cressy Soil Daniel Dammann HydrologyElizabeth Gayner Wildlife Biology Evan Olson BotanyGary Basham Botany

Public Notification

1. Notification was provided (June 29, 2006) to affected Tribal Governments (Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, Confederated Tribes of Siletz, and the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians). No comments were received.

2. The general public was notified via the Roseburg District Planning Update (Winter 2006) which was sent to approximately 150 addressees. These addressees consist of members of the public that have expressed interest in Roseburg District BLM projects. No comments were received.

3. This EA, and its associated documents, will be provided to certain State, County and local government offices including USFWS, NMFS, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. If the decision is made to implement this project, it will be sent to the aforementioned State, County, and local government offices.

4. A 15-day public comment period will be established for review of this EA. A Notice of Availability would be published in The News-Review. The public comment period will begin with publication of the notice published in The News-Review on June 19, 2007 and

18


end close of business July 5, 2007. Comments must be received during this period to be considered for the subsequent decision. This EA and its associated documents will be sent to all parties who request them. If the decision is made to implement this project, a notice will be published in The News-Review and notification sent to all parties who request them.

References

Geyer, Nancy A. 2000. Lower South Umpqua Watershed Analysis. Umpqua Basin Watershed Council and Bureau of Land Management – Roseburg District. Roseburg, Oregon, USA.

Grooot, C. and L.Margolis editors.1991. Pacific Salmon Life Histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Harvey, J.H. 2001. Results of Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Conducted in Support of the South Umpqua River Water Quality Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management – Roseburg District, Roseburg, Oregon, USA.

Meehan, William R. editor.1991. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and their Habitats. American Fisheries Society. Evans City, Pennsylvania, USA.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2003. Oregon’s final 2002 303(d) list, Portland Oregon [http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/303dlist/303dpage.htm].

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2006. Oregon DEQ Water Quality Division: Oregon’s 2004/2006 Integrated Report [http:/www.deq.state.or.us/wq/wqldata/wqlsdata2004/view303dlist04.asp].

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Umpqua Basin Aquatic Habitat Surveys.

Soil Survey of Douglas County Area, Oregon. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service in Coorporation with USDA Forest Service, DOT, BLM, Oregon Agricultural Experiment Stations and Douglas County. 1994.

Title II Project Application for 2005 Funds (Round #5) Roseburg District Resource Advisory Committee. p. 6.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Programmatic Conservation Agreement for Kincaid’s Lupine in Douglas County. April 2006. p. 2.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1992a. Draft Roseburg District Resource Management Plan and EIS. Roseburg, Oregon, USA. 2 vols.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Roseburg District Proposed Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Roseburg, Oregon, USA.

19


USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan. Roseburg District. Roseburg, Oregon, USA. 216 pp.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Ollalla-Lookingglass Watershed Analysis. April 1998.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Lower South Umpqua Watershed Analysis. May 2000. Roseburg District. Roseburg, Oregon, USA.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2002. Myrtle Creek Watershed Analysis and Water Quality Restoration Plan. October 2002.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2002. Lower Cow Creek Watershed Analysis and Water Quality Restoration Plan. November 2002. BLM District Office, Roseburg, Oregon.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Elk Creek/Umpqua River Watershed Analysis. March 2004. BLM District Office, Roseburg, Oregon. 120 pp.

USDI Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. OR/WA Field Book for ESA, Streamlined Consultation and Special Status Species: Section A—Bureau of Land Management Policies; 6840 Special Status Species Management. Last Updated: March 27, 2003.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery Plan for the Rough Popcorn Flower (Plagiobothrys hirtus).

20

§̈¦5

£¤99

£¤138

£¤99

£¤42

£¤99

£¤99

£¤138

£¤42

£¤138

£¤99

£¤38

£¤42

£¤138

£¤99

£¤99

£¤99£¤200

£¤42

£¤99

£¤42

£¤99

Roseburg

Sutherlin

Oakland

Yoncalla

Drain

Cottage Grove

DC38 3332DC37 363531 34333233 34 35 36 29 28 2730 302526 29 26 29 30 29 28 273025 28 252527 2728 2627 2928 302526 2926 2627282725 30282927 2628 3025293025 30252926 28 262727282930 252627282930

2828 27 26 2527

20 2119 22 23 2419 20 22212023 24 1923 23 24 19 20 22212224 212019 2421 22 22 2221 2323 2019212024 23 24 192423222119 2020 192422 232221201914DC4021 MS979 242322212019

MS987DC4121 22RIVER

22 23 24 17 1418 15 1316 1514 161718131314 1518 17 18 1716 1614 1513 141516 18 1315 1416171617 15 1314

171814 1813 1815 131417 17 151618131615

14161718 13141516171816 15 14 13 12118 117 121099 1110 109810 798 98711 10 11712712 88 109 1211910 10 11 812 71211 77 8 9 12712 1110 8

1110998

MS10087 121110987

MS10089 10 11 12 6 5 34 121 6 5 4 324 3 656 3512 4123456 5 14 52 13 66 MS10081342 2 166 5 34 23 556 4 34 412 3 512 64 3 2 1 3534 363635 33 31 32 3334 3231

3433

3531

3532

3231 343333 36353432313635343334 35 3633 3231 3132 35343332 35 31363436 36 3335 35

3635 323134 31 3433 333234 323136 31 3332

35 36 26 252729 282526 302728 29 2930 283029

27 3026 25 2530 262928 272825293030 26272526272829 2530 2829 26272728 2926 302528 262725 26 27 26 25 27 29302526302829 282927 302530 282922 2423212221 24232019 2019 2019 2021 22 19242321 2419 2320 222120 2221 23 201924 22 23 242421 22222019 2123 20 2324 1923 21 242322201924

232222 24232120 2019 2221192419 212016 15 14 131718 1718 17 16 1815 1318131416 1417 15161617 15 1314 17 151816 1413 18131415 171518 161314 161717 131815 14 141516 1317 141581315 141516 1314 16171813 18161718

1110 12987 87 8 79 10 1211 127 118 1091211 7 912 108 87 11 12129 111110 8710 99879 12111087 101110 12109 10127 12111211 117 7 9898

123456DC38 6 5 4 3 12 6 5 564 3 123 2 1 23 1 64 5 456 31

DC3723456 261 165 4 23 3122 5 456 5 34 64 13 23 1612 45

DC49 DC48DC4834 35TR38 36 343332 363531DC47 33 36 31353432 32 33 34 3131 323635363534

343534 36 31 333233323136353433323136 3631 31 35343435 3635 33333231 32 323334 3132 3633 34 35 353433323136DC47 DC45 DC49 2526 29 2530 2627 2728 25262728 30 2728292930 2526 30 292526 252627 30 28292728292627 30252825 2930253026 3030 2627282529 2926 2829272728 27 30252829 26 2629 27283025 DC43

HES229HES17821TR37B 22 2321 22201923 24 192322212019 2423 21 222019 20241924232224232222 2321 2424 1923 21202020 1924

1919 23

2422DC4621 19 212020 242322 2423222120 2322 1924212221 20 TR37A19

HES182RIVER

HES93HES227HES142

17

DC44 20 24

1717 1415151618 1813 1617 16 1415 18131415 171813 DC38DC40DC37 17 1316 1415161415 1718

7 8117 108 129 91110 877 1210 1211912

8111011 10 119 98 1212 117 712 871098 8987 11 119 10 7128109 12 87 109710 1211 12DC39 1110987111098

DC4212

122

1 34456 5623126 31 452DC43

3456

24 35 6161 5 43 32 2 12561 34 4564 35 1246DC393

2DC413

DC40455 2 66 1 6 5 4 3 2 1

181314 1718 17 16 151615 1314 1718131814 131515 13141614 15 1416 DC4113 13DC38 17181318 17 1814151616

1 36353433 333231363534 3534 35 3631 3332 3635 363131 32 343433 33 36323332 31343332 3635 353432313635343431 3533 3136 3332 3231 31 32 3433 35 3532 3231 343331 33 36353436

363635 2526 2729 2830 26 2527 2627 282926 272828 252930 25 293030 26 2529 27282927 302829 2526 253027 25262830 28292627 26273025 30MS501

2829 30 2625

29 28 27 2728293026 2526 2525

2930 28 27 25262423 242019 2323 222221 192219 20 202120 2423 24 2221 212420192322212019 222120

19242322212119

2420 2423192322 2423 19DC39 22 23 2319 2221 2424232221 20192019242120232220 2124 DC50

19131415 18 15 1516 14 1418 1617 1313 141516171817 13171816 141513

18 17DC49121110 DC3798 12DC51 1287 87

798 9 1110810 DC47

7109111011 9 9

8710 8 1112 11109 71211 12109 12812 127

RIVER7 1211 10 1011 127 1198 12 11987 109878DC46 1279 111012117 8 9DC486 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 63

53 445 5

261 2323456 1 51 2 12 46 45 23615 614 3 3 612 4

TR373 2 1 65 346 5 4 3 21 12345

2 123456TR39

1TR40 46 5

34 34 3233 35333231 35 3136 32 33 313635 313634 323334 35 3233 343136353431 3533323136 32 363433

333635323433 31

313635 3231DC45 353433

RIVER

35 3231363431 3332 33 343332 353534

36 DC44 3636 363534333231 333231293025282930 2627 2630 DC43 272829 28 27 26 3027 252628 29 28 DC4227

3025 29 302527 302526 29252630 282929 252626 27282825 29302728 29 28 27 2621

30 2927 302526282928 3029 2827 2526 27 26 25 2930 26 25272822DC41 30 292121212019 242322 20212319 2420 222221 2319 20242322 2019DC3923 21

2120 2219 2220 24231923 24 2424 19 212023 1924 22

22212221 19 202013

21 22 23DC47 20DC38DC46192419 232220 21 2122 242321 2322 2424

20 DC40 192019 23 242221 201415 1216 131718 13141415 18 1417 17181516 16 1515 13 181415 1716 1616 151717 141318 1415 14 13181318 1313 1617 18141516 171718 16 15 14 1714 13 181713 151618 1615 14 13 1316 141517

DC371718 1516 1314

181110128 97 1110 87 1211109711 1110 12 8 9910 1089 128 7107 12119871211

1110 8 9987 1012112

11 1095 4 3 12 21 36 45 126 3453 3 124561233 42 11 514 26 654 3 26 6 35 5 4 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 45 3 2 1 6. 5 4 35

4 3 2 16 233 1

3312 6456DC383433 3135 363231 32 36353433 32 36353433 32 33313635 34 3635

27343333 35 36 28DC3934 3533 363231 3635

34333231293030 272829

3231333235 3636 31 3434 36 353533

343331 363136 32353435 3134333231 3332 31 3228

34332526 2528 2627 25262730DC46 282926 2625 27 28 26272928 3030 29 2526 2527 26

2827

2826 25 292527 30

DC40302829 DC41 30

DC4230 29DC47 27 262828 2527 2526 293020 DC4519242319 20 2221 24232221 242322 2221232124 20192019 2120 2419 23222424 2322

2221 23 212020 1923222119 1924 2019

20 MS45521 23222115

DC4622 2423 201924

MS62422 2423 2221 2320 2419 20192322

2021MS90718131416 151718 17 141516 131414 1813 151618

MS90817

MS62916 15 14 1313 171815 14 1316 18 18 1717 15

1613 181518141516

17 171617 16 MS58415

914316 131415DC4510

14DC4410

137

1414151617 13 1718DC47 915 14 13 MS37115 1431617 131812 1811

15161711 11

9DC38

1210 81298 11107 MS948117111211 109 12DC53 8 91212 8 117 710 12DC48

9109 1211 11108712

8711 87 DC40 98 9

7 9 1010 11

DC39DC37611DC41 9DC43

21012 8712 98 MS589A 127

MS896 117 10984 MS949

RIVER

DC52 DC51 DC40 DC422 34 125645 MS8923 16 21 1 645DC49

22DC48

36 5 4125

361 634 452

DC3723 14565 46 3 2 1 1 66 523 445 31 623

12 5 234 MS891DC37 1 6 5 4 23323534 313631 3332 3133 343332343635 3635343332

31 DC373635 343431 3332 333231 35 36 3534333231 36DC54 DC41 31 32 33 3534

PB56 MS967 MS50934 31 3332DC38 34DC55 363535 3336 3231 353434 363632

323331 3135343336 36353531

29DC3829 30DC40 252829 26272526 2526DC41

DC402728293027282529 293030 28 2627253029 27 2628 26 253025 2728 292627

232825 26 3025

2627282930 DC45 302526 29 282728 27 302630 25 26 252728292922 24 30 29 28 2627DC39DC44

DC39

19 RIVER2019 23 2019 24 19DC45 2423DC51 22212213

20 21DC4115

19 20 21 2215 151415DC40

1614 DC431513DC43 DC46DC38 18DC45 17 16 15 14 131314151415 1613 1316171817 1314 1415

16DC37 17181818 1516DC44 DC41141618 17 1317

18181315 1516 14

18 15 14DC411718

131314 16

DC53 1314 16171818DC43 14 1315151617DC58 DC47 189

17 16 15DC44

RIVER17DC39DC38

DC40 7DC38 9 1087 12111211RIVER

8 91112 107 811 12 91010 9128 9 1110798 8711 910 107 8

1211712 127 11107 9 12 98 11108

71211DC50 98DC39 12111010987RIVER

7 8 9 10DC49 DC44 56 4 3 2 DC381 52 61 DC37 343DC405 4 256 412 3 62 11

156 DC433 124 3 456 566 125 34

4 63 52 4 23 11 162

DC591 5 24 3DC57 345635DLC37DC37 DC5833 34323136 35 323136 34

35363136 3433 33 3532313235343231 32313335 34 3636 3236

35 31363433353433 3231 33DC38 34 31DC53 3235 3336 34 3531 363632 33 3534DC37 34333236 31DC54DC55262829 2627 2527 2825 282825

3026

29 2930

30 29 2627 2525 27 2628302930 2926272830 28 25 3027 25 2930 2926 30DC37232221 24 1920 2120

23 2224 2423 19 20 2119 2019 2321 2224 1924 232223 2120 2422 2224 21 19201923 20 21 22 1923 20 2124DC50 2219 24 23 2420 21 2322 2019DC511614 1813 171516 16 151713141314 1818 17 16 16 1415 1718 17 18 131314 1314 1415 151615 1816171813 17 16 15 1814 17 1613 158 1418 13131617 1415DC49DC39 18 17

8 97 10 DC48DC42

129 1110 128 11711 12 7 8 9 10 11912 7128711 1110 109 1210 79811 8712 9 10 8711 12 109DC45 117 121298 1110DC61

DC41 7DC44123456 DC436 65 5 2 1DC621 14 3

DC4756DC602 12 23 36 434 DC39 64 5 552 51 6 45 3 443 63 32 261 12 1

323 362 1 DC75 DC43DC62 DC653532 363531 3433 DC4431

32DC7631 32 313132 35 3634 33 34 363334 3635

3533 31 343333 3232 3235 3134 333136 DC74

34 3435 333236 33 35343231363531 DC7225

RIVER

34 35 36 DC70DC57 DC71

2930DC43DC7330 29 28 27 2526 DC6430 29 DC592530 262728 282926272627 26

2730

2528 29 2930293025 2826 25 27

29 28 2727282930 2526DC5825 DC74

DC5927 26 25 24 DC42DC49 DC55DC61 DC54

24DC69

19 2420 232221 DC492019 21 2019 212423 232219 2120 1922 24DC4822 202123 24 212023 1924

20192222212019 23 24DC47 14DC531422 2423 13 DC67DC48 15 DC5118 14 DC4617 1516 DC491718 DC441316 1718 1613

141515 18 1314 15 1814 1617 171516 16 1517181316 1415

1814 1317 DC5218131314 DC46

DC50DC45DC41DC43

DC42DC40

71211108 97 117 8 DC419 9810 7 10

1111 12 121110 711 98 8 9 10109871211 111098 DC40DC46712 DC39

12 DC451 DC37DC3923456 DC43

4 2DC40 5 3456 6112 234562DC373456123456125 4 36

16 13141817 1718 151618

18 1717 1615 1416 15141514 1613 17 1716 15 18 1317 1516 181314 13 1313141516171818 9

14 13 DC38 DC41

25

977 8 9 12

1187 1211109 MS909510 11 12 DC50LAKE 1011

28 27 30 2926 28 2725 26 2530 2529 28 2627DC52 2829

8712 8 11 712 912111081110 12DC37 8 97 10 11 12 7

2627 2528 23DC44 28 27 2629 2530DC43

2522 2627282930

19DC39DC41 21 20 2221 23 2423 23 2423DC37 222122 241924 2423 2020 2120 1922211919 24DC42 20 2322212221

201921 DC422023 24232221242224

21

LegendStream Revetment ProjectStream - 3rd order and higherStream - 2nd orderInterstateState HighwayOtherNational Forest BoundaryResource Area BoundaryRoseburg District BoundaryCity LimitTownship RangeSection

©0 5 10 15 20Miles

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate usewith other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. Thisinformation may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This productwas developed through digital means and may be updated without notification.

T 20 S

T 21 S

T 22 S

T 23 S

T 24 S

T 25 S

T 26 S

T 27 S

T 28 S

R 7 WR 6 W

R 5 W R 4 W

R 3 W R 2 W R 1 W

United States Department of the InteriorBureau of Land ManagementRoseburg District777 NW Garden Valley BlvdRoseburg, Oregon 97470

SwiftwaterStream

Revetment Project

Pass Creek

Deer Creek

Dixon Creek

Huntley Creek

R 7 W R 6 W

R 5 W R 4 W R 3W

R 2 W

T 27 S

T 28 S

T 29 S

T 30 S

T 31 S

T 32 SGlendale

CanyonvilleRiddle

MyrtleCreek

Winston

Roseburg

£¤42

£¤99

£¤138

£¤42

£¤99

£¤99

£¤42

£¤99£¤42

£¤99

£¤99

£¤42

£¤227

£¤42£¤42

2526272829

30

DC39 DC38242322

212019 DC37

131415

161718

36353431 3332

7 89

10 11 12

12346 5

141318 1111

10 712

12

36 5 4

613 2 531

3534

33 36 31 32 3533 34 363132

33 363534 3534

333236 31

23222119

22 2324

2420 21

19 2120 22 23 212024 24

19 2322 192120 22 2423 212019 22

2324

17 1616 1515

13 14 1314 141315 17

161715

18 181617 181314

18 161715 13

14 18 1716 15

14 13

78 9 12

1112

10 111110 109

9128

877 77 1211

128

9 9810 1110

78 9

10 1211

91234 6 5

4 12

3 MS7212 632 4 3541 56 5 3

2614

3

466 5 4 3 2 1 6

52

4 3 13436

3534 31 3233 MS805

353436 36

34 35333231

343332

3135

36353433

36 3231 3132

343335 36

33 34 3332 35

32

31 313625

2627 30 29 28

17 1316 1415

15

13

18 1617

14

14151613

1718

1318 17 1415161716 13

1814

1518

17 13141516 15

1617

1814

13

71211

10 8 129 11

121110 109

8109 7811 712 787 12 811109 987

10 12113

4

12 6 5

252627

25 272627

282930

2826

293025

2526

272830 29302629 2527

28 2530 2929

2728302826

2726

2423 1922 20

2123 242224

1922 2323 2221

2019 2120

24 242319

222021

20

2 4561

192421 2322 19 202423

21222122

2423

2019

13

141518

4 3 2 1 6 23 1455

61234 12345

64

5161

223

36

5 4

41

56 23

34 3536

31 32 33 34 3635 35 363433

3231 36

3534 353136 3332

3534333234

235 32

36 31 31 34333433

32 36

31

343431 3332 3534

DC44MS883

HES141

DC3725

2627

3029 28 27 2526 2728

2629 25302530

29 28 26252627262

26 30282925 2930

272827

25282930 2627282930

DC39

262728

2730 2829

25 262530 2529 28

2627 26

28 272529

3030 29

2829 27 26 25

129 1110 98710 11 12

19 2219 212016 15

131415 17 16 15 14 131317

181314 1415

1617

181315

1614

17181314 15

161718

151617 13

1418 18 18 16

17 1512111010 12

11 78 9

10 1211 1210 1211

10911 987 7 988

111211 10910987 8

77 98 10

1

23 6

65 4

432 56

16 5 4

12

13

256 31 42

34

55 4 32 6

1123456

3331

323134 3231

3331 36

35 323536 35343336

34333235

34 31363332313636 32

3335 3435

DC38

34333231DC372930

28 2527 25

3026

2630 262725 27282928

2927 2628302529

3030

252928 26

27272829

3024

2322212023 1924

22212019 22 23 212024 23

2419242322

211920

20 19242322

2120

19MS987DC41 1314

131516

171815

2 1665 3

4 25 34 41

2 3 512 6

3332313635

34333235 31363436

36 3335

3535 323134 31 3433 33

3234

32313332

2528

29 27 26 25 2725

26302829 28293025

232224

232120 2019 222119

1315141516 1314

161718 18

109 1012

1112117 7 98

65 4 1

323

61

2 45

1618 171617 1513

14 14 18131815

13

1417 17 1516181316

14161718

121110 129 1098788 9 10 10 11 1212

11 77 8 9127

1110 8 109987

56 11234

55

613

424 23

232219 20 2221 22 2423 212019 24242423

192320 2221 23222120DC38

19 1920

24232221

242221

20

14DC40 MS979

LegendStream Revetment ProjectStream - 3rd order and higherStream - 2nd orderInterstateState HighwayOther RoadNational Forest BoundaryResource Area BoundaryRoseburg District BoundaryCity LimitTownship RangeSection

©0 5 10 15 20

Miles

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate usewith other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. Thisinformation may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This productwas developed through digital means and may be updated without notification.

United States Department of the InteriorBureau of Land ManagementRoseburg District777 NW Garden Valley BlvdRoseburg, Oregon 97470

South RiverStream

Revetment Project

Ten Mile Creek

Deer Creek

Shoestring Creek

South Myrtle Creek

Quines Creek

umpqua basin tree revetment project 2006 environmental assessment

Documents