Actions Covered by the Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

May 2011 

Decision Notice 

East Alsea Landscape Management Project 

Actions Covered by the Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion 

Central Coast Ranger District-ODNRA 

Siuslaw National Forest 

Lincoln County, Oregon 

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Responsible Official: Viva Worthington, Deputy District Ranger 

Central Coast Ranger District 

Siuslaw National Forest 

1130 Forestry Lane 

Waldport, OR 97394 

For Information Contact: Jack Sleeper, Project Lead 

Central Coast Ranger District 



(541) 563-8424 

jsleeper@fs.fed.us 

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 compliant 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.

1 



Riparian Actions 

Project Background, Area, and Needs 

This decision addresses a small group of wildlife and fisheries habitat improvement actions in riparian 

areas encompassed by the East Alsea Landscape Management Project Environmental Assessment (the 

Project EA). 

The Project EA includes a broad suite of restoration actions within the lower Alsea watershed. Most of 

the actions in the Project EA are covered by a decision made on May 17, 2011. This decision covers a 

subset of actions related specifically to riparian areas. While these riparian actions are addressed in the 

Project EA, they (portion of Alternative 2) have independent utility and can proceed independently from 

the actions covered by the May 17, 2011 decision. These riparian treatments are being addressed in a 

separate decision in order to facilitate consultation under the Endangered Species Act, specifically the 

Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion. 

The Project EA includes actions designed to restore aquatic habitat and enhance water quality and stream 

function on National Forest System (NFS) lands. 

The Project area—about 35 air miles southwest of Corvallis, Oregon (map 1)—includes 11 6 th -field 

watersheds in the eastern portion of the lower Alsea River watershed and covers about 46,800 acres. 

About 43 percent (20,100 acres) of the area is on National Forest System (NFS) land, of which 38 percent 

(7,700 acres) is comprised of stands less than 80 years old. About 42 percent of the area is privately 

owned, 15 percent is managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and less than 1 percent is managed by 

the Oregon Department of Forestry. The Alsea River makes up the additional acres in the planning area. 

The planning area is located in Township 12 South, Range 9 West; Township 13 South, Ranges 9 and 10 

West; and Township14 South, Ranges 9 and 10 West; Willamette Meridian; Lincoln and Benton Counties, 

Oregon. 

The need for the Project is identified in chapter 1 of the Project EA: 

Enhance the health of aquatic ecosystems. 

The decision to be made is whether to implement actions designed to meet the Project needs by selecting 

the specific actions designed to improve watershed conditions and the health of the aquatic systems 

(portion of Alternative 2) or to postpone these actions by selecting the no-action alternative (Alternative 

1). 

My Decision 

I have decided to proceed with the following specific actions, as described in the East Alsea Landscape 

Management Project Environmental Assessment for actions covered by the Aquatic Restoration 

Biological Opinion that may affect coho habitat and designated critical habitat, such as replacement of 

culverts in coho habitat.

2 




Actions to restore watershed conditions and the health of the aquatic systems (portion of 

Alternative 2) 

These actions are needed to restore aquatic conditions and will be implemented whether or not the actions 

connected with accelerating the development of old-growth forest habitat; improving the quality and 

diversity of forest habitat; maintaining key forest roads; and providing economic and recreation 

opportunities for people are implemented. Funding would not be reliant upon that decision. 

The following actions will be done to improve watershed function and will include mitigation and 

monitoring requirements (EA, appendices A and H) to ensure protection of natural resources. 

Young-stand (< 80 years old) treatments and associated actions: 

To speed the development of late-successional and old-growth forest habitat and to increase grass, forb, 

and shrub habitats in riparian areas, the following actions will be implemented (estimated key quantitative 

values are shown in Table 1): 

Provide habitat for over 100 wildlife species, such as the brush rabbit and western pond turtle, by 

creating some meadows (predominately transitory) in young stands; expanding Paradise meadow; 

and maintaining existing meadows; 

Maintain stand health and growth of stands generally less than 25 years old by non-commercially 

thinning some of these stands, using service contracts; and 

Control the spread of invasive plants by treating sites occupied by these species. 

Actions that restore aquatic conditions: 

To restore the health of watersheds and the aquatic ecosystems they contain, the following actions will be 

implemented (estimated key quantitative values are shown in Table 1): 

Replacing deteriorated culverts in non-coho streams; 

Reduce the potential for mass-soil movement and chronic sedimentation, and remove fish passage 

barriers by decommissioning some mid-slope and valley-bottom roads; 

Restore the historical distribution of fish by replacing some culverts that currently are barriers to 

fish passage with culverts designed to provide fish passage; and 

Improve the long-term stability of stream shade and speed the development of large wood that 

could fall into streams by releasing some small riparian conifer from competition, and by planting 

some riparian areas with conifer and hardwoods. This work would be in addition to the 

commercial and non-commercial thinning in nearby young stands, which is expected to accelerate 

the development of large trees adjacent to streams. 

Other proposed associated actions: 

• Re-issue a special-use road permit to a private landowner. Under this permit, the landowner will 

use and maintain a non-key road (3430-111) to access the landowner’s isolated property, located 

in Township 14 South, Range 10 West, section 3.

3 




• Issue a special-use permit to the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians to manage (for cultural 

use) a population of hazel—about ¼-acre in size—near Paradise Meadow in the Bull Run 

subwatershed. 

• Implement riparian planting (conifer and hardwoods) in areas along the Alsea River and adjacent 

to the Blackberry Campground, River Edge Group Site, and Mike Bauer fishing site, depending 

upon availability of trees after other riparian planting is completed. 

Table 1. Key quantitative values of the project. 

Issue, objective, and outcome 

Quantitative 

Value 

Speed the development of old-growth forest habitat, and increase 

forest biological complexity in young stands 

Maintain existing meadows (acres) 74 

Expand Paradise meadow (acres) 19 

Non-commercial thinning (acres) 1,113 

Control the spread of invasive plants (acres) 

Restore aquatic conditions 

600 

Replace/remove stream culverts in system roads 

(number) 

36 

Decommission roads (miles) 6.1 

Remove culverts from roads proposed for 

decommissioning (number)/(cubic yards) 

25/6,000 

Replace/Remove culverts that are barriers to fish passage 

in system roads (number) 

12 

Release riparian conifer from competition in riparian 

areas (acres) 

30 

Plant riparian areas with conifer and hardwoods (acres) 

Other associated actions 

10 

Re-issue a special-use road permit to a landowner for the 

use and maintenance of road 3430-111 (miles) 

Issue a special-use permit to the Confederated Tribes of 

1.6 

Siletz Indians to manage an existing hazel population 

near Paradise Meadow (acres) 

Plant conifer and hardwoods along the Alsea River and 

0.25 

adjacent to the Blackberry Campground, River Edge 

Group Site, and Mike Bauer fishing site (acres) 

3 

Actions associated with adding large wood to portions of East Fork Scott Creek and Bull Run Creek were 

covered by a previous decision. Actions with no effect on coho and critical habitat associated with 

accelerating the development of old-growth forest habitat; improving the quality and diversity of forest

4 




habitat; maintaining key forest roads; and providing economic and recreation opportunities for people 

were covered under another decision. 

In making this decision, I have reviewed the Project EA and its appendices, terrestrial Biological 

Evaluation and corresponding Letters of Concurrence from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the aquatic 

Biological Evaluation and other project-file documents, and the comments received during the 30-day 

public comment period. 

Reasons for the Decision 

My decision to improve watershed conditions and the health of the aquatic ecosystems was based on the 

needs identified in chapter 1 of the Project EA. The Project is designed to protect affected natural 

resources in the short term and maintain or enhance the quality and productivity of these resources in the 

long term (EA, chapter 3 and appendix A). The Project will also improve aquatic conditions such as 

repairing roads (EA, chapter 3). 

The Project best meets my expectations for holistic and integrated restoration. No unacceptable 

cumulative effects to any resource are expected. Many beneficial effects will accrue from implementing 

the Project, and the risk associated with any potential negative effects, discussed in chapter 3 of the 

Project EA, is low. 

In my review of the Project EA, its appendices, and other project-file documents, I believe the 

information provided to me is adequate for a reasoned choice of action. I am fully aware that the selected 

alternative will have some unavoidable adverse environmental effects such as disturbance to wildlife (EA, 

page 83), irreversible resource commitments such as continued use of existing roads (EA, page 83), and 

irretrievable commitment of resources such as loss of vehicular access through the forest as roads are 

closed or decommissioned (EA, page 83). I have determined, however, that these effects and risks are 

outweighed by the likely benefits. 

In making this selection, I have also reviewed information in the administrative record, including but not 

limited to the Siuslaw Forest Plan (1990), as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (1994); the Lower 

Alsea River Watershed Analysis (1999); the Late-Successional Reserve Assessment, Oregon Coast 

Province Southern Portion (1997); consultation files and records involving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service; public and other agency comments; and applicable 

laws and regulations. 

The Siuslaw Land and Resource Management Plan (Siuslaw Forest Plan) was developed and approved 

March 7, 1990. I have found that this project is consistent with the Siuslaw Forest Plan (EA, chapters 1 

and 2). 

All practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted in the design of the 

Selected Alternative. I have included all of the project design criteria and mitigation measures that I




believe are necessary to avoid, minimize, or rectify impacts on resources affected by implementation of 

the Selected Alternative. My conclusion is based on a review of the record that shows a thorough review 

using the best available science. The resource analyses disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EA identify the 

effects analysis methodologies, reference scientific sources which informed the analysis, and disclose 

limitations of the analysis. 

Alternatives Considered 

Before selecting these actions that improve watershed conditions and the health of the aquatic ecosystems 

(portion of Alternative 2), I considered Alternative 1 (no action). 

Alternative 1, no action—Alternative 1 is fully described in chapter 2 of the Project EA, and the analysis 

of its effects is disclosed in chapter 3. The no-action alternative forms the basis for a comparison between 

meeting the project needs and not meeting the project needs. This alternative provides baseline 

information for understanding changes associated with Alternative 2 and expected environmental 

responses as a result of past management actions. The no-action alternative does not create obvious 

negative effects, but it also does not meet any of the Project needs. Without some restorative actions, 

some watershed conditions, such as water quality and fish habitat, would continue to degrade (EA, 

chapter 1). Therefore, I could find no reason to select this alternative. 

Help from the Public and Other Agencies 

After considering the identified problems to be addressed with this project and developing a proposal to 

correct the problems, letters describing the actions considered in the proposed East Alsea Landscape 

Management Project were mailed on July 15, 2008, to individuals, agencies, and organizations identified 

as potentially interested in the proposed project and analysis. Public comment was also solicited through 

news releases in the Newport News-Times in Newport, Oregon; the Corvallis Gazette-Times in Corvallis, 

Oregon; and the Siuslaw News in Florence, Oregon. The Siuslaw National Forest’s quarterly “Project 

Update” publications were also used for public outreach. Comments on the proposed project were 

requested by August 15, 2008. Through these scoping efforts, three parties responded; their comments and 

Forest Service responses are summarized in the EA, appendix E. 

Public comments contained a variety of suggestions. Comments not outside the scope of the project and 

not covered by previous environmental review or existing regulations were reviewed for substantive 

content related to the project. Based largely on public comment, some alternatives were considered, but 

eliminated from detailed study, while another alternative was considered in detail. The alternatives are 

discussed in chapter 2. Comments relevant to clarifying how the project will be implemented or 

disclosing the effects of implementing the project are addressed in the Project EA, chapters 2, 3, or 4; the 

project design criteria (EA, appendix A); contributions from others (EA, appendix E); or the project file. 

The notice for the 30-day review and comment period for East Alsea Landscape Management Project 

Preliminary Analysis was published in the Eugene Register-Guard on June 12, 2009, informing the public 

that the preliminary analysis is available for a 30-day review and comment period. Copies of the 

5

6 




preliminary analysis, along with cover letters announcing that the preliminary analysis is available for a 

30-day public comment period, were mailed to those who commented on the proposed project during 

scoping, who expressed interest in the Project, or who owned property near sites where activities will be 

implemented by the Project. The legal notice and letters indicated the beginning and end of the comment 

period, described the comment process, and identified a Forest Service contact person. Copies of the 

preliminary analysis were also made available at the Siuslaw National Forest Headquarters in Corvallis, 

and the District office in Waldport. The comment period ended at the close-of-business on July 13, 2009. 

Supportive comments from two parties were received prior to the end of the comment period, although a 

few concerns were expressed. These concerns and the Forest Service responses to them are summarized 

in Appendix E, section 2, Table E-1 of the Project EA. 

The Project is consistent with Forest Service goals for wildlife because no animal population will be 

adversely effected. Additionally, the Project is consistent with the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) 

Letter of Concurrence (FWS Reference Number 13420-2008-I-0125) because no suitable habitat for 

northern spotted owl or marbled murrelet will be removed, and potential adverse effects to these species 

from project-related disturbance will be within the limits consulted on for this type of project in the 

Central Coast Ranger District of the Siuslaw National Forest. The FWS terms and conditions are included 

in the project design criteria. 

Project actions will not jeopardize the continued existence of these species or result in adverse 

modification to their designated critical habitat. 

The Oregon Coast coho salmon is listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The 

restoration actions affected by this decision fit into the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) 

Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion (ARBO). 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 

Based on the site-specific environmental analysis documented in the East Alsea Landscape Management 

Project Environmental Assessment, I have determined that the activities described do not constitute a 

major Federal action and would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment; therefore, 

an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed. This determination was made in light of the following 

factors (40 CFR 1508.27): 

Context 

Project activities have been viewed and approved in a Regional context through the Siuslaw National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1990), as amended by the Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth 

Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA, USDI 1994). This action 

only affects a small portion of the Forest, which in turn, is a very small portion of the Region.

7 




The site-specific activities that are authorized and guided by this decision are limited in scope and 

duration. Some minor adverse effects are expected. However, given the short duration of these projects, 

these effects are expected to be short-term. No long-term adverse effects are expected. 

Intensity 

1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal 

agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. 

Project actions will have both beneficial and adverse effects. Sediment from replacing culverts may be 

considered adverse effects. However, I have considered the benefits that the aquatic system will 

receive from implementing the Project actions and find that the overall beneficial effects to the 

ecosystem outweigh any short-term adverse effects. Further, I find that when considered alone, the 

adverse effects of this project are not significant (EA, chapter 3). 

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. 

No significant adverse effects to public health or safety have been identified (EA, page 84). 

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park 

lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. 

The characteristics of the geographic area do not make it uniquely sensitive to the effects of project 

actions. Past actions of similar intensity in similar areas have not indicated any significant adverse 

effects (EA, chapter 3). 

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly 

controversial. 

The effects from the Project on the quality of the human environment are not found to be highly 

controversial (EA, chapters 1 and 3). 

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve 

unique or unknown risks. 

The Project’s environmental effects are not uncertain or unknown. Planned actions are similar to those 

already accomplished on similar lands on the Forest and several scientific studies have been conducted 

that support the Project’s treatment strategies for plantations (EA, chapters 1 and 3). 

6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or 

represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

8 




Actions that will be implemented by the Project do not set a precedent for future actions because 

similar actions have been implemented in the past (EA, chapter 3, including page 85). 

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively 

significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact 

on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it 

down into small component parts. 

The East Alsea Landscape Management Project Environmental Assessment has disclosed direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects to soil, water, aquatic and terrestrial species, and other components of 

the human environment. There are no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects anticipated 

from implementing project actions. Project actions will speed the development of late-successional 

habitat in late-successional and riparian reserves and improve watershed function. The analysis of 

cumulative effects considered past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on National 

Forest lands as well as for other ownerships in the affected watershed (EA, chapter 3). 

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects 

listed in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant, scientific, 

cultural, or historic resources. 

The pre-project survey and record search of the Project area indicates that actions associated with the 

Project will have “no effect” (as defined in 36 CFR 800.5 [b]) on any listed or eligible heritage 

(cultural) resources. If a heritage site is discovered during project implementation, work will be 

stopped until the site is evaluated or the project has been altered to avoid the site (EA, pages 73 and 

84; EA, appendix A, page 5). 

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat 

that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

The wildlife biological evaluation and fisheries biological evaluation prepared for the Project indicates 

that the effects on Federally listed terrestrial and aquatic species are not found to be significant 

(Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation, East Alsea Landscape Management Project (EA, 

Appendix F; 2009); Fisheries Biological Evaluation, East Alsea Landscape Management Project (EA, 

Appendix H; 2011); Biological Evaluation of Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive 

Vascular Plant, Bryophyte, Lichen, and Fungi Species, and Other Rare and Uncommon Species for 

East Alsea Landscape Management Project (2009); EA, chapter 3; and EA, appendix A, pages 3 and 

4). 

10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for 

the protection of the environment.

9 




The Project is in compliance with relevant Federal, State and local laws, regulations and requirements 

designed for the protection of the environment. The Project will meet or exceed State water and air 

quality standards and is consistent with the Oregon Coastal Management Program as required by the 

Coastal Zone Management Act (EA, page 84). 

Other Disclosures 

All measures contained in the Project EA and appendix A will be incorporated to comply with the Record 

of Decision (October 2005) for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program, Preventing and 

Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement. Actions will be designed to prevent the 

spread of invasive plants, including noxious and undesirable weeds (EA, page 47). Cleaning of off-road 

equipment pursuant to Executive Order 13112, dated February 3, 1999, will be required. (EA, appendix 

A, page 4). 

The Project will have no significant adverse effects on wetlands, floodplains, farm land, range land, park 

land, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, or inventoried roadless areas; minority groups, civil rights, 

women, or consumers; Indian social, economic, subsistence rights, and sacred sites; and heritage 

resources (EA, pages 73 and 84). Actions will be consistent with the scenic quality objectives for the 

planning area (EA, page 74). 

Findings Required By Other Laws 

Based on the analysis in the East Alsea Landscape Management Project Environmental Assessment, I find 

the selected alternative to be consistent with the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan (USDA 1990), as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA, USDI 1994) and is designed to 

meet or exceed the objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy as set forth in the Northwest Forest 

Plan (EA, page 82). 

The selected alternative is consistent with the National Forest Management Act implementing regulations, 

including the seven management requirements listed in 36 CFR 219.27, a through g: 

a. Resource protection—The Project EA includes criteria designed to protect resources and will apply 

practices as described in General Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs), Pacific Northwest 

Region, November 1988 (EA, appendix A); 

b. Vegetation manipulation of tree cover—Some vegetation will be removed to replace culverts. (EA, 

chapter 1; EA, chapter 3, Aquatic Habitat and Species); 

c. Silvicultural practices that apply to timber harvest and cultural treatments—Timber harvest and 

cultural treatments are not considered in this decision; 

d. Even-aged management in the forest—No even-aged management is proposed in this decision;

10 




e. Riparian area protection—Special attention has been given to riparian areas by maintaining existing 

shade, decommissioning roads, and planting trees in riparian areas. These actions are expected to enhance 

water quality and improve fish habitat in the long term. (EA, chapter 1; EA, chapter 3, water quality- 

temperature; EA, appendix A); 

f. Conservation of soil and water resources—The Project is consistent with the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy objectives and includes best management practices (BMPs) and other measures designed to 

protect, enhance, or minimize effects to soil and water resources. Actions are expected to enhance water 

quality in the long term. (EA, chapter 3, sediment production and water-quality-temperature; EA, 

appendix A; EA, appendix D); and 

g. Preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal communities—The project is expected to 

improve habitat conditions for several plant and animal species. Culverts designed to allow passage for 

aquatic organisms will improve habitat. (EA, chapter 1; EA, chapter 2, alternative 2; EA, chapter 3, 

aquatic habitat and species; EA, appendices A and H). 

Implementation Date 

Implementation of this project may not proceed until five working days after the close of the 45-day 

appeal filing period. Activities, including service contract preparation and solicitation of bids, may 

proceed immediately. 

Administrative Review and Appeal 

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 215.7. Written notice 

of appeal must be postmarked or received by the Regional Forester, Appeal Deciding Officer, USDA 

Forest Service, 333 SW First Avenue Portland, OR 97204 within 45 days of the date of publication of the 

notice for this decision in the Eugene Register-Guard (Eugene, Oregon). Individuals or organizations who 

have expressed interest in the East Alsea Landscape Management Project may file an appeal. The appeal 

must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14 "Appeal Content”: 

• The appeal must state that the document is an appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215; 

• The name, address, and telephone number (if applicable) of the appellant must be included, and 

must identify the decision by title, subject, date of decision, and name and title of the Responsible 

Official; 

• The appeal narrative must be sufficient to identify the specific change(s) to the decision sought by 

the appellant or portions of the decision to which the appellant objects, and must state how the 

Responsible Official’s decision fails to consider comments previously provided; and 

• If applicable, the appeal should state how the appellant believes this decision violates law, 

regulation, or policy. 

Appeals (including attachments) may be filed by regular mail, fax, e-mail, hand delivery, express 

delivery, or messenger service. The publication date of the notice for this decision in the newspaper of

11 




record is the sole means of calculating the appeal-filing deadline, and those wishing to appeal should not 

rely on dates or timelines from any other source. 

E-mail appeals must be submitted to: appeals-pacificnorthwest-regional-office@fs.fed.us, and must be in 

one of the following three formats: Microsoft Word, rich text format (rtf) or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (pdf). Electronic appeals must be submitted only to the e-mail address shown above as part of the 

actual email message, or as an attachment in Microsoft Word, rich text format or Adobe portable 

document format only. E-mails in other formats or containing viruses will be rejected. Note in the subject 

line the name of the project and that it is an appeal. 

FAX appeals must be submitted to: 503-808- 2339. Appeals may be hand-delivered to the Resource 

Planning and Monitoring Office, 333 SW First Ave., Portland, Oregon 97204 between 8:00 AM and 4:30 

PM Monday-Friday. 

It is the responsibility of all individuals and organizations to ensure their appeals are received in a timely 

manner. For electronically mailed appeals, the sender should normally receive an automated electronic 

acknowledgement from the agency as confirmation of receipt. If the sender does not receive an automated 

acknowledgement of the receipt of the appeal, it is the sender’s responsibility to ensure timely receipt by 

other means. 

Contact Person 

For further information regarding this project, contact Jack Sleeper, Fisheries Biologist, at (541) 563- 

8424, Central Coast Ranger District-ODNRA, Waldport Office, 1130 Forestry Lane, Waldport, OR 

97394. 

Responsible Official: 

Viva Worthington 

Viva Worthington Date 

Acting District Ranger 

Central Coast Ranger District-ODNRA 



May 23, 2011

Actions Covered by the Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?