Oregon Explorer CrossSearch Search Results

Search

You searched for: Start Over Oak woodlands Remove constraint Oak woodlands Material Types Image Remove constraint Material Types: Image

« Previous | 11 - 12 of 12 | Next »

Search Results

11. [Image] Programmatic environmental assessment for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office Projects, 2000-2010


	Programmatic Environmental Assessment Summary This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for restoration actions undertaken by the US Fish ...
	Citation Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Programmatic environmental assessment for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office Projects, 2000-2010 Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office. Year: 2000, 2005, 2004 Programmatic Environmental Assessment Summary This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for restoration actions undertaken by the US Fish & Wildlife Service's Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office (ERO) in Klamath Falls, Oregon. These restoration activities are needed due to the large-scale loss of wetland and riparian habitat and degraded water quality. The purpose of these restoration efforts is the improvement of conditions of the watershed with specific regard to habitat and water quality, resulting in, among other benefits, improved conditions for the endangered fish species (bull trout and Lost River and shortnose sucker) populations of the basin. The geographic scope of this EA is defined as the upper Klamath River basin, including the entire watershed from Irongate Dam upstream to the headwaters. This EA is intended to provide NEPA compliance for restoration projects conducted between the years 2000 and 2010. The ERO was established in 1993 to sponsor and assist with a variety of restoration activities in the Klamath Basin. The ERO funds and provides technical assistance to restoration projects involving private landholders, concerned groups, and other state, federal, and tribal agencies. Four alternatives are presented in this EA. The proposed alternative (Alternative 1) consists of a comprehensive program of ecosystem restoration, promoting projects in both riparian areas and in upland habitats. This would continue the current program in effect since 1994. NEPA compliance would primarily be carried out via a single, programmatic document saving time and funds. The Fish & Wildlife Service proposes to fund and administer the following projects types: Riparian Projects: (fencing for livestock management; native plant establishment & diversification; non-native plant removal/control; erosion control; contour re-establishment; impoundment removal; wildlife habitat improvements) Wetland Projects: (fencing; wetland restoration and enhancement; wildlife habitat improvements) Upland or Road Projects: (road abandonment, decommissioning, & obliteration; road drainage improvements and storm proofing, re-establishment of historic contours; silvicultural treatments; native plant establishment/diversification; non-native plant removal/control; fencing; landslide treatments; culvert/stream crossing upgrades; erosion control; wildlife habitat improvements). In-stream Projects: (habitat complexity and diversity improvements; hydrologic regime improvements; coarse woody debris supplementation; natural or artificial barrier removal, modification &/or creation; fish screens installation). Alternative 2 would concentrate restoration efforts only on riparian, instream, and wetland areas. Road projects would be conducted only within the riparian corridor, as defined. NEPA compliance would also be conducted programmatically. Alternative 3 would cease all restoration activities conducted and funded by the ERO in the Klamath Basin. This alternative would serve as a benchmark against which the effects of the restoration alternatives discussed above can be compared. Alternative 4, the "No Action" alternative, would continue current management policies with regard to NEPA compliance, providing compliance on a project by project basis requiring independent analysis for each project. The affected environment of the region is described in detail. The environment has been changed significantly since the 1890's due to logging, agriculture and urban development. An extensive system of dams, canals, and drainage structures has resulted in the conversion of approximately 80% of pre-settlement wetlands to agricultural uses. Riparian corridors have been similarly impacted, and upland forests regions have been affected by logging, road construction and other factors. These changes have contributed to problems with the water quality in the region, contributing to the listing of several fish species as threatened or endangered; loss of habitat has affected a large number of other species as well. The environmental effects of each alternative is analyzed. Some short term negative impacts could occur as a result of the projects authorized by both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, but these would be strongly offset by the expected beneficial results to water quality and habitat conditions. Alternative 1 would be expected to have a greater overall effect on the environment than Alternative 2, since many of the underlying factors with which restoration efforts are concerned originate in upland conditions (i.e. sedimentation and hydrologic functionality). Alternative 3 would result in conditions remaining much as they are currently, although other programs and organizations are making efforts at restoration activities. The environmental impacts of individual projects anticipated under Alternative 4 would be generally the same as for similar projects under Alternative 1. The primary difference between the two alternatives would be the higher efficiency and improved cumulative analysis resulting from a programmatic approach as proposed in Alternative 1. Public participation in the NEPA process has been, and will continue to be, solicited and welcomed. Compliance with state and federal laws and regulations such as the Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the Endangered Species Act, as well as guidelines for contaminant surveys, will be carried out as detailed. While these projects are expected to play an important role in the restoration of the region, none of these alternatives are expected to have a significant impact when compared with the loss of wetland, riparian and upland habitats over the past century, impacts which do occur would be of a cumulatively beneficial nature. Other restoration efforts are being carried out in the area by other governmental and private groups, and it is expected that these combined efforts will achieve important beneficial results for the ecosystem. Title: Programmatic environmental assessment for Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office Projects, 2000-2010 Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office. Year: 2000, 2005, 2004 Programmatic Environmental Assessment Summary This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for restoration actions undertaken by the US Fish & Wildlife Service's Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office (ERO) in Klamath Falls, Oregon. These restoration activities are needed due to the large-scale loss of wetland and riparian habitat and degraded water quality. The purpose of these restoration efforts is the improvement of conditions of the watershed with specific regard to habitat and water quality, resulting in, among other benefits, improved conditions for the endangered fish species (bull trout and Lost River and shortnose sucker) populations of the basin. The geographic scope of this EA is defined as the upper Klamath River basin, including the entire watershed from Irongate Dam upstream to the headwaters. This EA is intended to provide NEPA compliance for restoration projects conducted between the years 2000 and 2010. The ERO was established in 1993 to sponsor and assist with a variety of restoration activities in the Klamath Basin. The ERO funds and provides technical assistance to restoration projects involving private landholders, concerned groups, and other state, federal, and tribal agencies. Four alternatives are presented in this EA. The proposed alternative (Alternative 1) consists of a comprehensive program of ecosystem restoration, promoting projects in both riparian areas and in upland habitats. This would continue the current program in effect since 1994. NEPA compliance would primarily be carried out via a single, programmatic document saving time and funds. The Fish & Wildlife Service proposes to fund and administer the following projects types: Riparian Projects: (fencing for livestock management; native plant establishment & diversification; non-native plant removal/control; erosion control; contour re-establishment; impoundment removal; wildlife habitat improvements) Wetland Projects: (fencing; wetland restoration and enhancement; wildlife habitat improvements) Upland or Road Projects: (road abandonment, decommissioning, & obliteration; road drainage improvements and storm proofing, re-establishment of historic contours; silvicultural treatments; native plant establishment/diversification; non-native plant removal/control; fencing; landslide treatments; culvert/stream crossing upgrades; erosion control; wildlife habitat improvements). In-stream Projects: (habitat complexity and diversity improvements; hydrologic regime improvements; coarse woody debris supplementation; natural or artificial barrier removal, modification &/or creation; fish screens installation). Alternative 2 would concentrate restoration efforts only on riparian, instream, and wetland areas. Road projects would be conducted only within the riparian corridor, as defined. NEPA compliance would also be conducted programmatically. Alternative 3 would cease all restoration activities conducted and funded by the ERO in the Klamath Basin. This alternative would serve as a benchmark against which the effects of the restoration alternatives discussed above can be compared. Alternative 4, the "No Action" alternative, would continue current management policies with regard to NEPA compliance, providing compliance on a project by project basis requiring independent analysis for each project. The affected environment of the region is described in detail. The environment has been changed significantly since the 1890's due to logging, agriculture and urban development. An extensive system of dams, canals, and drainage structures has resulted in the conversion of approximately 80% of pre-settlement wetlands to agricultural uses. Riparian corridors have been similarly impacted, and upland forests regions have been affected by logging, road construction and other factors. These changes have contributed to problems with the water quality in the region, contributing to the listing of several fish species as threatened or endangered; loss of habitat has affected a large number of other species as well. The environmental effects of each alternative is analyzed. Some short term negative impacts could occur as a result of the projects authorized by both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, but these would be strongly offset by the expected beneficial results to water quality and habitat conditions. Alternative 1 would be expected to have a greater overall effect on the environment than Alternative 2, since many of the underlying factors with which restoration efforts are concerned originate in upland conditions (i.e. sedimentation and hydrologic functionality). Alternative 3 would result in conditions remaining much as they are currently, although other programs and organizations are making efforts at restoration activities. The environmental impacts of individual projects anticipated under Alternative 4 would be generally the same as for similar projects under Alternative 1. The primary difference between the two alternatives would be the higher efficiency and improved cumulative analysis resulting from a programmatic approach as proposed in Alternative 1. Public participation in the NEPA process has been, and will continue to be, solicited and welcomed. Compliance with state and federal laws and regulations such as the Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the Endangered Species Act, as well as guidelines for contaminant surveys, will be carried out as detailed. While these projects are expected to play an important role in the restoration of the region, none of these alternatives are expected to have a significant impact when compared with the loss of wetland, riparian and upland habitats over the past century, impacts which do occur would be of a cumulatively beneficial nature. Other restoration efforts are being carried out in the area by other governmental and private groups, and it is expected that these combined efforts will achieve important beneficial results for the ecosystem.

12. [Image] Narrative history report of the Klamath Project land opening under Public Notice No. 47, 1948


	Public Notice No. 47 of August 27, 1948, was prepared in conformity with recommendations for a standardized procedure made at the Salt Lake conference in March 1948; it opened to public entry 86 farm units ...
	Citation Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Narrative history report of the Klamath Project land opening under Public Notice No. 47, 1948 Author: United State. Bureau of Reclamation Year: 1948, 2004 Public Notice No. 47 of August 27, 1948, was prepared in conformity with recommendations for a standardized procedure made at the Salt Lake conference in March 1948; it opened to public entry 86 farm units embracing 8,283 acres of irrigable land. Of nearly 24,000 application blanks sent out, 5,072 were returned during the simultaneous filing period. A five-man examining board placed 4,911 in the first priority group, 69 in the second priority group and rejected 91. The Regional Director reversed the action of the examining board in two instances making a total of 4,913 participating in the drawing. Applications were received from 39 states, the District of Columbia and the Territory of Alaska. California supplied 50% of all applications considered in the first priority group; Oregon supplied 27%; Utah supplied 6%; and the rest of the states supplied the remaining 17% The examining board interviewed 94 persons of 104 who were notified to appear for personal interviews after the drawing. Of those appearing for interviews, five refused to accept units in area "A" and three were rejectees whose appeals were later denied by the Regional Director. Of the ten who failed to appear for interview, five relinquished their award in writing; four were relegated to the end of their priority list, and one was the victim of an airplane accident. As the result of the drawing and subsequent interviews, 1.4% of the applicants from California 2.5% of the applicants from Oregon and 1.3% of the remaining applicants from other states were awarded farm units. Ten of the 39 states, from which applications were received, were represented in the settlement of the 86 farm units. Of the 23 who selected units in area "A", only two availed themselves of options to lease additional land in the Tulelake sump area* Apparently, because of high rental fees, the majority of the area "A" settlers could not afford to lease lands supplemental to their homestead. Therefore, since the development of area "A" lands will be a costly procedure, it is possible that in the future there may be cases of relin-quishment of units due to the homesteaders' inability to meet expenses. First unit was awarded on March 9, 1949; the last unit was awarded on June 20, 1949. Title: Narrative history report of the Klamath Project land opening under Public Notice No. 47, 1948 Author: United State. Bureau of Reclamation Year: 1948, 2004 Public Notice No. 47 of August 27, 1948, was prepared in conformity with recommendations for a standardized procedure made at the Salt Lake conference in March 1948; it opened to public entry 86 farm units embracing 8,283 acres of irrigable land. Of nearly 24,000 application blanks sent out, 5,072 were returned during the simultaneous filing period. A five-man examining board placed 4,911 in the first priority group, 69 in the second priority group and rejected 91. The Regional Director reversed the action of the examining board in two instances making a total of 4,913 participating in the drawing. Applications were received from 39 states, the District of Columbia and the Territory of Alaska. California supplied 50% of all applications considered in the first priority group; Oregon supplied 27%; Utah supplied 6%; and the rest of the states supplied the remaining 17% The examining board interviewed 94 persons of 104 who were notified to appear for personal interviews after the drawing. Of those appearing for interviews, five refused to accept units in area "A" and three were rejectees whose appeals were later denied by the Regional Director. Of the ten who failed to appear for interview, five relinquished their award in writing; four were relegated to the end of their priority list, and one was the victim of an airplane accident. As the result of the drawing and subsequent interviews, 1.4% of the applicants from California 2.5% of the applicants from Oregon and 1.3% of the remaining applicants from other states were awarded farm units. Ten of the 39 states, from which applications were received, were represented in the settlement of the 86 farm units. Of the 23 who selected units in area "A", only two availed themselves of options to lease additional land in the Tulelake sump area* Apparently, because of high rental fees, the majority of the area "A" settlers could not afford to lease lands supplemental to their homestead. Therefore, since the development of area "A" lands will be a costly procedure, it is possible that in the future there may be cases of relin-quishment of units due to the homesteaders' inability to meet expenses. First unit was awarded on March 9, 1949; the last unit was awarded on June 20, 1949.