**Fort Clatsop National Memorial**

**Fire Management Plan**

**Environmental Assessment**

![](media/image1.png){width="2.973611111111111in" height="3.75in"}

Proposed by

The National Park Service

August 2004

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR-NATIONAL PARK SERVICE -PACIFIC WEST
REGION

Table of Contents

[1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 3](#purpose-and-need-for-action)

[A. Need for Federal Action 3](#a.-need-for-federal-action)

[B. Background and Purpose for Fort Clatsop National Memorial
4](#b.-background-and-purpose-for-fort-clatsop-national-memorial)

[C. Objectives in Taking Action 6](#__RefHeading___Toc79385153)

[D. Issues and Impact Topics 9](#d.-issues-and-impact-topics)

[2.0 ALTERNATIVES 10](#alternatives)

[A. Elements Common to All Alternatives
10](#a.-elements-common-to-all-alternatives)

[B. Description of Alternatives: 11](#b.-description-of-alternatives)

[C. Mitigation 12](#c.-mitigation)

[D. Alternatives Considered But Rejected.
15](#d.-alternatives-considered-but-rejected.)

[E. Environmentally Preferred Alternative
16](#e.-environmentally-preferred-alternative)

[3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 16](#affected-environment)

[A. General Description 16](#a.-general-description)

[B. Air Quality 17](#b.-air-quality)

[C. Water Resources 18](#__RefHeading___Toc79385164)

[D. Soils/Geology 19](#d.-soilsgeology)

[E. Vegetation 19](#__RefHeading___Toc79385166)

[G. Sensitive Species 22](#g.-sensitive-species)

[H. Cultural/Historic Resources 26](#h.-culturalhistoric-resources)

[I. Visitor Use 27](#i.-visitor-use)

[J. Safety 28](#j.-safety)

[4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 28](#environmental-consequences)

[A. Methodology: 28](#a.-methodology)

[B. Air Quality: 29](#b.-air-quality-1)

[C. Water Resources 31](#c.-water-resources-1)

[D. Soil 33](#__RefHeading___Toc79385175)

[G. Sensitive Species 43](#g.-sensitive-species-1)

[H. Cultural Resources 45](#h.-cultural-resources)

[I. Visitor Use: 46](#i.-visitor-use-1)

[K. Cumulative Effects: 49](#k.-cumulative-effects)

[L. General Impairment Statement 51](#l.-general-impairment-statement)

[5.0 Consultation and Coordination 51](#consultation-and-coordination)

[Appendix 54](#appendix)

[A. List of Preparers 54](#a.-list-of-preparers)

[B. Glossary: 55](#b.-glossary)

[C. References: 61](#c.-references)

# 

#  

# 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

#### 

## A. Need for Federal Action

The National Park Service (NPS) proposes development of a Wildland Fire
Management Plan for the Fort Clatsop National Memorial. This document
was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and National Park Service (NPS) management policies to analyze
Fire Management Plan options for the Memorial. The Plan will meet the
Federal Wildland and Prescribed Fire Management Policy Guidelines with
associated changes of terminology and implementation procedures.

A Wildland Fire Management Plan is required by the NPS Wildland Fire
Management Guidelines (DO-18), which states: "All parks with vegetation
that can sustain fire must have a Fire Management Plan." A Fire
Management Plan is a detailed description of strategies and actions
intended to provide direction for the effective management of wildland
and prescribed fire on a particular area of land. It is developed in
accordance with the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program
Review (USDI/USDA 1995).

National Park Service policy recognizes that fire is an important
ecological and evolutionary force in many terrestrial ecosystems. The
policy further states that fire will be managed to fulfill the need of
protecting, perpetuating, or recreating natural environments or historic
scenes. Fire management strategies for individual parks must be designed
based on park management objectives. The resource management objectives
of the park may determine whether a prescribed fire component is needed.

The NPS at Fort Clatsop National Memorial will utilize this plan to
guide management decisions in response to wildland fire incidents
occurring within the Memorial. Presently, and in the future, all
wildland fires will be suppressed. The size and configuration of the
Memorial land base eliminates the option of using wildland fire to
obtain other resource objectives that may be possible in a park with a
large aggregate acreage. The preferred alternative does propose to add a
prescribed fire component that would enhance the NPS's ability to manage
and improve the park's ecosystem while providing for firefighter and
public safety. A prescribed fire component is needed at the Memorial for
the following purposes:

> **Restoration of the natural landscape**. Prescribed fire is needed to
> enhance wildlife habitat, notably elk habitat that was an important
> part of the landscape experienced by the Lewis and Clark party.
>
> **Treatment of forest fuels.** Prescribed fire is needed to treat
> piles of woody debris resulting from forest restoration projects.
>
> **Vegetation control.** Prescribed fire is needed to help control
> noxious weeds and exotic plants
>
> **Forest fuel reduction.** Prescribed fire is needed to dispose of
> forest fuels resulting from hazard fuel reduction projects.

The Fire Management Plan will also address the Wildland Urban Interface
issue. Some private lands border the Memorial and could be affected by
NPS policy regarding the management of its forest fuels. The use of
prescribed fire, along with mechanical means to reduce forest fuel
loads, will reduce the risk for wildland fires moving onto adjacent
private property. Also, fires that burn onto the Memorial from adjacent
property will be easier to control.

## B. Background and Purpose for Fort Clatsop National Memorial

[Enabling Legislation]{.underline}

Fort Clatsop National Memorial was created on May 29, 1958 when
President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the Act 72 Stat.153. The
Memorial was established \"For the purpose of commemorating the
culmination, and the winter encampment, of the Lewis and Clark
Expedition following its successful crossing of the North American
Continent\".

The Act further stated that development was to include "\... land and
improvements thereon located in Clatsop County, Oregon, which are
associated with the winter encampment of the Lewis and Clark Expedition,
known as Fort Clatsop."

The Salt Works (Salt Cairn) addition was authorized for establishment by
Act of Congress (92 Stat. 3467) and signed into law October 10, 1978, by
President Jimmy Carter. This Act also amended the Act of May 29, 1958 to
increase the acreage limitation from 125 acres to no more than 130
acres.

Currently, the National Park Service administers the Memorial under the
2002 Fort Clatsop Expansion Act. This law established the Memorial's
size at 1,500 acres but the Memorial will actually be approximately 300
acres at the time the Fire Management Plan is adopted. This area
includes the original 125 acres, the 35 acre north parcel purchased in
the first part of 2004, and the 115 acre Netul Landing unit currently
managed under an easement and which the NPS hopes to acquire in fee by
the end of 2004.

[National Park Service Legislation]{.underline}

The Organic Act of 1916 states that the fundamental purpose of the
National Park System "is to conserve the scenery and the natural and
historic objects and the wildlife therein." The 1978 Amendments to the
Organic Act known as the \"Redwoods Act\" states \"\... the protection,
management and administration of these areas shall be conducted in light
of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and
shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for
which these various areas have been established\...\". The statements in
these two Acts provide a clear direction for park management to allow
only those activities, or level of use, that leaves park resources
unimpaired.

[Other Legislation]{.underline}

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires the consideration
of the environmental effects of proposed Federal actions.

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended in 1980,
requires the consideration and review of any federal action that has the
potential to affect cultural resources, and establishes a partnership
between federal and state governments to administer a national
preservation program that also recognizes and supports state and local
cultural resources and preservation efforts. The National Park Service
is charged with administering this partnership.

Executive Orders 11990 and 11988, both dated May 24, 1977 control
impacts on wetlands and floodplains.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires the formal consultation with
the Fish and Wildlife Service when a proposed project or action has the
potential to impact a known endangered plant or animal species.

Other relevant Acts and legislation include the 1972 Clean Water Act,
particularly Section 404, and the 1977 Clean Air Act (Fort Clatsop
National Memorial lies within a Class II area).

[Historical Setting]{.underline}

Fort Clatsop National Memorial is located near the extreme northwest
corner of Oregon. Historically, the area was dominated by the Sitka
spruce and western hemlock forests of the Oregon Coast Range. The
Memorial is located at the convergence of the Coast Range habitat and
the wetlands of the Columbia River Estuary System.

In the early 1800s the U. S. Government knew little about the North
American continent between the present day Dakotas and the mouth of the
Columbia River. President Jefferson dispatched the Lewis and Clark
Expedition to this area to produce a map and locate a suitable water
route to the Northwest, document and record Native American cultures and
scientifically describe and inventory the plants and animals, especially
those of economic and cultural importance. The primary purpose was to
establish a claim to this region for the United States and to discover
economic opportunities and transportation routes.

The Expedition reached the mouth of the Columbia River and the Pacific
Ocean in early winter 1805. Because of fresh water supplies, sheltered
terrain and an abundance of elk, they built their winter encampment
adjacent to Clatsop Ridge along what is now referred to as the Lewis and
Clark River. They constructed a temporary structure and named it Fort
Clatsop after the Clatsop Tribe, the local Native Americans who assisted
the Expedition throughout the wet winter. In the spring of 1806 the
Expedition began their return trip to St. Louis, abandoning the fort
after giving it to the Clatsop Tribe.

Fur trappers, fishermen, farmers and loggers used the Fort Clatsop area
after the Lewis and Clark Expedition left. Forest and farm lands were
quickly claimed and transferred to private ownership. Changes were made
to the landscape as the region was developed. In the early 1850s, the
deteriorated remains of Fort Clatsop were burned and the land partially
cleared for farming. In 1852, a sawmill was constructed at the Canoe
Landing site and for two to three years employed 35 to 40 people. Lumber
from this sawmill was loaded on ships bound for San Francisco. In 1872,
a house was constructed near the site of the fort.

In the 1870s, steam-powered passenger ships traveled from Astoria up the
Lewis and Clark River and deposited visitors at the Canoe Landing. From
there, stagecoaches took them over Clatsop Ridge to the ocean beaches on
a road which mostly followed the route of the present Fort
Clatsop/Perkin\'s Road. Rail lines built near the turn-of-the-century
made the Canoe Landing obsolete. Wetlands were drained and extensive
dikes placed along the Lewis and Clark River to facilitate farming,
dairies and house construction.

In preparation for the Centennial celebration of the Lewis and Clark
Expedition, the Oregon Historical Society acquired three acres along the
Lewis and Clark River they believed contained the Expedition's site.
Local civic groups constructed a replica of Fort Clatsop in 1955 using
Clark\'s floor plan sketch and the descriptions from the Lewis and Clark
Journals. The site was permanently protected in 1958 with the
establishment of Fort Clatsop National Memorial. The park was created to
\"\... commemorating the culmination, and winter encampment, of the
Lewis and Clark Expedition \...\" and further added that development was
to include \"\... adjacent portions of the old trail which led overland
from the fort to the coast\...\". The Salt Works site was added in 1978
and the Fort Clatsop Boundary Expansion Act of 2002 authorized the
addition of a trail linking the fort site to the ocean.
[]{#__RefHeading___Toc79385153 .anchor}

## C. Objectives in Taking Action

[Management Goals and Objectives]{.underline}

The procedures contained in Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations
for the protection of historic and cultural properties guide the
planning and management of the Memorial's cultural resources. The area
surrounding the fort replica (120 acres) is zoned "historical" which
defines the area as a cultural landscape within the Park Service's
management policies. The purpose of the historic zone is to preserve,
protect, and interpret cultural resources and their settings. Resources
in the historic zone are managed to provide a reestablished historical
setting focused on the Fort. The historic zone contains both
interpretive exhibit areas and facilities including trails, signs,
canoes and site furniture designed and located as reconstructions of the
encampment and salt works. The Resource Management Plan for the Memorial
states the primary natural resources management objective is the
restoration and maintenance of the historic native plant communities of
the Lewis and Clark period where ecologically feasible. The remaining
park acreage consists predominately of natural areas with some
development facilities that will be managed for the benefit of natural
resources.

The Resource Management Plan lists the following goals and objectives
for the Memorial:

GOALS

-   Perpetuate the park\'s cultural resources.

-   Allow natural processes to prevail.

-   Reduce evidence of non-historic, human-related intrusions and
    impacts upon the park\'s cultural and natural environment or visitor
    experience.

-   Reclaim impacted areas.

-   Promote visitor understanding of park resources.

OBJECTIVES

-   Proactively monitor the park\'s cultural and natural resources in
    order to mitigate potential impacts.

-   Conduct continuing research to gather and analyze information
    necessary for managing the park\'s resources.

-   Restore terrestrial, wetland and aquatic resource ecosystems and
    processes so they may operate essentially unimpaired.

-   Restore altered natural resources and processes and cultural
    landscapes to a condition as close as possible to what they would be
    today had the resources or processes continued un-impaired.

-   Protect threatened and endangered plant and animal species and
    reintroduce, where practical, those species eliminated or seriously
    reduced from the natural ecosystem.

-   Obtain at least the Phase I inventory and monitoring standard as
    identified in NPS-75, the Inventory and Monitoring Guideline.

-   Identify and evaluate all cultural resources within park boundaries
    for their significance and if determined eligible, nominate the
    properties to the National Register of Historic Places.

-   Permit only those types and levels of use or development that do not
    significantly impair park resources or values and provide only those
    types and levels of programs and activities that enhance visitor
    understanding and enjoyment of park resources.

-   Work closely with various local and regional managers, other
    agencies and departments, tribal representatives, scientists,
    educators, land owners, organizations, businesses, interest groups
    and individuals in order to provide a more integrated approach to
    park management.

-   Foster an awareness and appreciation among park visitors and
    neighbors of the significance of the park, its resources and
    processes, and the role the park plays within the region.

[Related Plans]{.underline}

The Resource Management Plan (1995) is the principal document for
resource related activities. There are several more detailed plans that
are considered to be addendums to the Resource Management Plan. A
specific action plan would be one example of such a document. The
following plans have been, or are currently being, prepared that pertain
directly to resource management at Fort Clatsop National Memorial:

-   [General Management
    Plan](../../../../../../../../%5C%5Cinpfoclapp01%5Cshdata%5CVISITOR%20SERVICES%5CJANICE%5Carchive%20site%5Cgmp1.htm),
    6-1995; outlines the 10 to 15 year strategy and direction for the
    entire park.

-   [Vegetation Management Plan]{.underline}; covers the natural and
    cultural aspects of vegetation management and visual compatibility,
    forest restoration action and implementation plan, hazard tree and
    exotic vegetation management. It also combines all the natural
    resource related vegetation management plans and recommendations
    with the vegetation management components of the Cultural Landscape
    Report and creates a more holistic natural and cultural plan and
    guideline for vegetation management.

-   [Integrated Pest Management Plan]{.underline}; covers the management
    of agents that do damage to museum collections, damage structures,
    injure vegetation or are exotic species.

-   [Fire Management Plan]{.underline}; to be developed.

-   [Cultural Landscape
    Report](../../../../../../../../%5C%5Cinpfoclapp01%5Cshdata%5CVISITOR%20SERVICES%5CJANICE%5Carchive%20site%5Ctolon.htm),
    Spring - 1993; consolidates the park\'s various cultural landscape
    plans and recommendations into one cohesive document.

-   [Water Resources Scoping Report, 8-1994]{.underline}; describes the
    park\'s primary water-related issues and recommends management
    actions to mitigate problems.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Geographic Information System (GIS) Plan]{.underline}; outlines the
    strategy for management to incorporate resource management,
    interpretation and maintenance data in an easily retrievable format
    that enables complex analysis to be performed.

-   [Museum Management Plan]{.underline}; addresses collections issues
    and recommends actions to deal with them.

Other plans such as maintenance work plans, interpretive plans, law
enforcement needs assessments, and solid waste reduction measures relate
and affect park resources. The components of these plans are not
addressed in the Resource Management Plan.

[Fire Management Plan Objectives]{.underline}

The wildland fire management program must be guided by resource
management objectives for the Memorial. It must protect cultural
resources and help perpetuate and assist in the restoration of the
natural resources and their associated processes and systems. The
preservation of natural and cultural resources within Fort Clatsop
National Memorial is the fundamental requirement for its continued use
and enjoyment by park visitors as a unit of the National Park System.

The proposed Wildland Fire Management Plan for the Memorial includes the
following objectives:

-   Provide for firefighter and public safety. This is the first
    consideration and highest priority when implementing elements of the
    Fire Management Plan.

-   Develop a systematic approach to dealing with wildland fires as well
    as the planning and implementation of prescribed fire projects.

-   Promote interagency planning wherever possible.

-   Include rehabilitation techniques and standards that comply with
    resource management plan objectives and mitigate safety threats.

-   Develop a wildland fire prevention plan appropriate for the park.

-   Develop a fuels analysis plan.

-   Develop a risk analysis for projected wildland fires in the park.

-   Prevent, where possible, all wildland fires from burning onto
    adjacent lands.

-   To the extent possible considering the small size of the unit,
    provide for a natural role of fire in the ecosystem through the use
    of prescribed fires consistent with the protection of life,
    cultural/natural resources, air quality, property, and adjacent land
    values.

-   Mechanically treat fuels, including thinning of trees, in
    preparation for the use of management-ignited fires or treatment of
    areas where management ignited fires are not deemed appropriate.

-   Manage vegetation, through mechanical manipulation, to replicate a
    natural ecosystem.

-   Develop a prescribed fire-monitoring plan.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Respond appropriately to the needs of adjacent landowners regarding
    wildland urban interface needs.

## 

## D. Issues and Impact Topics

The above objectives will be accomplished in part to address issues and
concerns brought up in the pre-scoping done for the Fort Clatsop
National Memorial Fire Management Plan. These issues include:

-   The restoration of the natural landscape including vegetation and
    wildlife habitat.

-   Treatment of fuels generated as part of forest restoration efforts.

-   Hazardous fuel situations.

-   Protection of natural resources including air, water, soil, plants
    and animals.

-   Response of unwanted vegetation to prescribed burning.

-   Prescribed fire effects on federal and state listed species.

-   Escape of fires, including prescribed fires, onto adjacent private
    land.

-   Protection of cultural resources.

-   Safety of visitors, firefighters, and adjacent property owners.

-   Effects on visitor use.

These issues led to the following Impact Topics, which are analyzed in
the Environmental Consequences section, Chapter 4.

-   Air Quality

-   Water Resources

-   Soil

-   Plants

-   Wildlife -- elk habitat

-   Listed Species

-   Cultural Resources

-   Visitor Use

-   Safety

# 2.0 ALTERNATIVES

This section describes the alternatives considered - the proposed action
and no action. It summarizes some of the environmental consequences and
defines the differences between the alternatives.

## A. Elements Common to All Alternatives

-   Under all alternatives, full suppression actions will be taken on
    all human and natural caused wildland fires. Full suppression
    actions would provide for public and firefighter safety, protect
    public and private resources, and utilize techniques that are least
    damaging to the Memorial's natural and cultural resources.

-   The safety of firefighters and the public is the number one priority
    in the fire management program.

-   Wildland fire use, the use of natural wildland fires to benefit
    resources, would not be allowed under any of the alternatives.

-   The National Park Service will continue the current MOU with the
    Lewis and Clark Fire District for wildland and structural fire
    protection.

#### 

## B. Description of Alternatives:

**Alternative A -- No Action**

**Continue full suppression of all wildland fires. No use of mechanical
treatment or prescribed fires.**

This alternative would continue the current policy of aggressive full
suppression of all wildland fire. Full suppression would seek to limit
fire spread as quickly as possible, while ensuring public and
firefighter safety, protecting natural/cultural/historic resources, and
minimizing costs. In most cases an appropriate management response would
entail rapid assignment of firefighters with hand tools and/or engines
to contain and control the fire as quickly as possible.

Prescribed fire use or mechanical treatment to benefit natural resources
is not a part of this alternative. The continued absence of fire from
the Memorial will have some undesirable effects. Prescribed fire use is
desirable to help restore the natural landscape by treating hazardous
fuels, disposing of material removed to restore natural conditions, and
to control unwanted vegetation. Mechanical treatment of vegetation could
accomplish some vegetative management objectives but the park does not
currently have this option.

This alternative does not fully meet the purpose, need, and objectives
as expressed in Chapter 1. It does not result in a Fire management Plan
that meets the guidelines of the Federal Wildland and Prescribed Fire
Management Policy. Further, it does not provide a role for prescribed
fire or mechanical treatment for the restoration and maintenance of
vegetative conditions existing when the Lewis and Clark Expedition
wintered at Fort Clatsop. Instead, it continues the present policy that
has lead to a non-fire influenced mix of vegetation and increased fuel
loads in the Memorial.

**Alternative B -- Preferred Alternative**

**Suppression of all wildland fire and the use of mechanical treatment
and prescribed fire to help achieve resource objectives.**

Under this alternative full suppression actions would be taken on all
human/natural-caused wildland fires, mechanical treatment of vegetation
would be performed and prescribed fire could be used for resource
management purposes. All wildland fires would be suppressed as quickly
as possible, while ensuring public and firefighter safety and protection
of natural/cultural/historic resources and developments.

Prescribed fire would be used to:

> **Restore the natural landscape**. Prescribed fire would be used to
> help enhance wildlife habitat, notably elk habitat, which was an
> important part of the landscape experienced by the Lewis and Clark
> party.
>
> **Treat forest fuels.** Prescribed fire use would treat piles of woody
> debris resulting from forest restoration and hazardous fuel reduction
> projects.
>
> **Control unwanted vegetation.** Prescribed fire could be applied to
> help control noxious weeds and exotic plants including reed canary
> grass, if determined to be effective.

Prescribed fire is defined by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group
as: A management ignited wildland fire that burns under specified
conditions where the fire is confined to a predetermined area and
produces fire behavior and fire characteristics required to attain
planned fire treatment and resource management objectives.

Prescribed fire would only be applied to achieve identified management
objectives in the Fire Management Plan and only when prescribed
conditions were met. A prescribed fire prescription includes measurable
criteria that define conditions under which a prescribed fire may be
ignited. Prescription criteria may include weather, specific control and
holding forces, firing techniques, and timing. Measures will be taken in
project implementation to protect cultural resources, sensitive plants
and animals, and wildlife habitat.

Mechanical fuel treatment and vegetative management projects may be
conducted to accomplish some objectives in the Memorial, including
hazard fuel reduction and stand thinning. Mechanical methods include the
use of chainsaws to fall, limb and buck trees. Handsaws and, or, power
saws would be used prune tree branches to reduce ladder fuels. Small
size tractors or rubber tire skidders could be used to remove woody
materials, or it may be chipped with a mechanical chipper and left
on-site. Mechanical hazard fuel reduction would also be utilized around
structures (including historic buildings) to provide defensible space
should a wildland fire occur. Debris associated with these projects
could be lopped and scattered, chipped and scattered, piled and left to
deteriorate, or hauled off-site. This treatment may also be used around
sensitive natural resources such as rare plant populations or cultural
resources. Any mechanical equipment used would meet established
requirements for protecting natural and cultural resources in the
Memorial. There would be no new roads constructed for these purposes.
This treatment may also be used to protect natural resources such as
rare plant populations and cultural resources.

Some forest stands will require mechanical thinning to reduce the risk
of catastrophic wildland fire. Such treatment would be designed to
reduce fuel loading and ladder fuel continuity in project areas
containing dense, small and suppressed trees. After treatment, wildland
fires that do occur would be easier to suppress. Individual large snags
will be retained where they don't pose a significant safety hazard and
occasional untreated patches within the project areas will be left for
wildlife habitat purposes.

## C. Mitigation

The NPS will implement the following mitigation measures as part of the
preferred alternative. These measures are designed to minimize impacts
to natural and cultural resources.

Table 1. Mitigation Measures

+---------+---------------------------------------------+--------------+
| **Mitig | **Critical Milestones**                     | *            |
| ation** |                                             | *Responsible |
|         |                                             | Party**      |
+=========+=============================================+==============+
| M       | Measures will be incorporated to prevent    | Planning &   |
| inimize | adverse effects to cultural resources       | Resources    |
| impacts | through avoidance. Conducting a cultural    | Management;  |
| to      | resource survey for each project and        | Maintenance; |
| c       | developing avoidance stipulations for       | Resource &   |
| ultural | cultural sites during the Section 106       | Visitor      |
| re      | process will accomplish this. These         | Protection   |
| sources | stipulations may include, but not be        |              |
|         | limited to, any of the following:           |              |
|         |                                             |              |
|         | -   Foaming of wooden structures and        |              |
|         |     artifacts;                              |              |
|         |                                             |              |
|         | -   Clearing of brush around structures;    |              |
|         |                                             |              |
|         | -   Restrictions on the use of heavy        |              |
|         |     equipment on cultural sites;            |              |
|         |                                             |              |
|         | -   Restrictions on the use of hand lines   |              |
|         |     or other ground disturbing activities   |              |
|         |     on cultural sites;                      |              |
|         |                                             |              |
|         | -   Preservation of brush and trees that    |              |
|         |     cover features on cultural sites.       |              |
|         |                                             |              |
|         | -   Monitoring by a cultural resource       |              |
|         |     specialist who will be on-site during   |              |
|         |     any ground disturbing activity.         |              |
|         |                                             |              |
|         | If it were determined after further         |              |
|         | analysis and consultation that the cultural |              |
|         | resources of a particular unit could not be |              |
|         | adequately protected through implementation |              |
|         | of the above or similar measures, then      |              |
|         | proposed activities would be substantially  |              |
|         | modified or cancelled. In the event that    |              |
|         | archeological or historic materials are     |              |
|         | discovered during project activities, work  |              |
|         | in the immediate vicinity will be           |              |
|         | discontinued, the area secured, and the     |              |
|         | State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)   |              |
|         | the Historic Preservation Officer (THPO)    |              |
|         | notified as appropriate.                    |              |
+---------+---------------------------------------------+--------------+
| M       | Adverse impacts will be mitigated through   | Planning &   |
| inimize | identification and, if necessary, avoidance | Resources    |
| impacts | of sensitive plant species in project       | Management   |
| to      | planning and implementation.                |              |
| se      |                                             |              |
| nsitive | -   Areas scheduled for prescribed burns    |              |
| species |     and mechanical thinning will be         |              |
|         |     surveyed for the presence of sensitive  |              |
|         |     species. If found within the project    |              |
|         |     area, the NPS will consider boundary    |              |
|         |     adjustments or additional fire line     |              |
|         |     construction within the project         |              |
|         |     boundary to avoid areas of plant        |              |
|         |     concentrations. Plots will be           |              |
|         |     established to monitor effects on       |              |
|         |     existing plants and the NPS will        |              |
|         |     re-evaluate its implementation plans    |              |
|         |     based on results of these efforts.      |              |
|         |                                             |              |
|         | -   To mitigate for potential impacts to    |              |
|         |     winter roosting bald eagles, surveys of |              |
|         |     winter communal roosts will be          |              |
|         |     conducted. Identified communal roosts   |              |
|         |     will be avoided by establishing a       |              |
|         |     buffer as recommended by the Pacific    |              |
|         |     Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. If thinning   |              |
|         |     activities occur within the buffer,     |              |
|         |     they will be conducted outside of the   |              |
|         |     winter roosting period. Prescriptions   |              |
|         |     will include measures to reduce ladder  |              |
|         |     fuels around the communal roost areas   |              |
|         |     and remove small trees thereby freeing  |              |
|         |     up resources for the remaining older    |              |
|         |     growth roost trees and reducing         |              |
|         |     potential wildland effects. Aircraft    |              |
|         |     should use flight paths that avoid      |              |
|         |     raptor nests, ie one-half mile from     |              |
|         |     active nests and 1,300 feet above the   |              |
|         |     canopy.                                 |              |
|         |                                             |              |
|         | -   Information on threatened, endangered,  |              |
|         |     or species of concern and their habitat |              |
|         |     should be available to fire staff       |              |
|         |     through pre-suppression briefings, maps |              |
|         |     with areas of concern shown, and        |              |
|         |     species management plans.               |              |
+---------+---------------------------------------------+--------------+
| M       | Prescribed fires will only be conducted     | Resource &   |
| inimize | when optimal smoke dispersion periods are   | Visitor      |
| impacts | present. Fuels will be adequately dried     | Protection   |
| to air  | before burning to facilitate cleaner burns. |              |
| quality |                                             |              |
+---------+---------------------------------------------+--------------+
| M       | If necessary, install water bars to prevent | Resource &   |
| inimize | soil erosion on areas of soil disturbance.  | Visitor      |
| impacts | Avoid treatment near existing springs.      | Protection   |
| to      |                                             |              |
| water   | Avoid using retardant with YPS (sodium      |              |
| quality | ferrocyanide), and use the least toxic fire |              |
|         | foams available.                            |              |
|         |                                             |              |
|         | Avoid using chemicals when there is         |              |
|         | potential for water contamination.          |              |
|         |                                             |              |
|         | Keep retardant at least 300 feet from all   |              |
|         | water bodies.                               |              |
|         |                                             |              |
|         | Drop retardant at least 200 feet above      |              |
|         | ground level to avoid damage to             |              |
|         | late-successional stages.                   |              |
+---------+---------------------------------------------+--------------+
| M       | Mechanical equipment such as tractors will  | Resource &   |
| inimize | not be used during wet periods when         | Visitor      |
| impacts | significant soil compaction cannot be       | Protection;  |
| to      | avoided.                                    | Maintenance  |
| soils   |                                             |              |
|         | Low ground pressure machines will be used   |              |
|         | in any skidding operations. Skid trails     |              |
|         | will be designated before cutting           |              |
|         | operations begin. An integrated arch to     |              |
|         | lift one end of logs will be required. Skid |              |
|         | trails will be mitigated after skidding     |              |
|         | operations                                  |              |
|         |                                             |              |
|         | Piles will be burned during the winter      |              |
|         | season to minimize soil temperatures.       |              |
|         |                                             |              |
|         | For Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation    |              |
|         | (BAER) efforts, roads, trails, fire-line,   |              |
|         | and all stream crossings should be          |              |
|         | rehabilitated to pre-fire conditions with   |              |
|         | adequate drainage structures to prevent     |              |
|         | resource damage. Efforts should focus on    |              |
|         | damage done by fire suppression activities. |              |
+---------+---------------------------------------------+--------------+
| M       | In areas that require mechanical treatment  | Resource &   |
| inimize | prior to burning, noxious weeds will be     | Visitor      |
| spread  | surveyed to determine the extent of weeds   | Protection;  |
| of      | present before ground disturbing activities | Maintenance  |
| noxious | are conducted. If found, measures will be   |              |
| weeds   | implemented to help avoid spreading and     |              |
|         | increasing the abundance of the weeds.      |              |
|         | Measures such as regular cleaning of        |              |
|         | equipment, minimal ground disturbance, and  |              |
|         | avoidance of areas by equipment may be      |              |
|         | needed.                                     |              |
+---------+---------------------------------------------+--------------+
| M       | Known raptor nest trees will be identified  | Planning &   |
| inimize | and protected during any mechanical         | Resource     |
| impacts | treatment or prescribed burning. Waterfowl  | Management;  |
| to      | nesting areas will be identified and        | Resource &   |
| w       | protected as part of project planning and   | Visitor      |
| ildlife | implementation. Snags will be left when     | Protection;  |
| and     | determined to be not a safety hazard and    | Maintenance  |
| w       | occasional patches of untreated trees will  |              |
| ildlife | be left for wildlife habitat needs          |              |
| habitat |                                             |              |
|         | For fire line construction, favor hand over |              |
|         | machine-built methods in late-successional, |              |
|         | riparian, and wet meadow habitats. Use      |              |
|         | historic line, existing skid trails, roads  |              |
|         | and trails, existing safety zones, and      |              |
|         | natural features as fuel breaks whenever    |              |
|         | possible, reducing the need to clear        |              |
|         | additional habitat.                         |              |
|         |                                             |              |
|         | When felling trees for safety and to        |              |
|         | maintain the fire line, keep wood in large  |              |
|         | lengths. In riparian zones, consider        |              |
|         | dropping trees toward the water body to     |              |
|         | assist with bank stabilization and fish     |              |
|         | habitat enhancement.                        |              |
+---------+---------------------------------------------+--------------+

## 

## D. Alternatives Considered But Rejected.

Two additional alternatives were considered but rejected from further
consideration. The first included the option of wildland fire use, along
with suppression, mechanical treatment, and prescribed fire. Wildland
fire use entails allowing natural caused fires, such as one started by
lighting, to burn freely as long as it stays within predetermined
prescription parameters. This is done in large pristine areas to allow
the natural, often beneficial, role of fire to achieve resource benefits
in fire dependent ecosystems. Because of the relatively small size of
the Memorial, and the presence of historical structures, it would not be
practical to use this option.

The second alternative would utilize full suppression actions on all
human/natural-caused wildland fires along with the use of prescribed
fire, but would not include use of mechanical methods for fuel reduction
or stand enhancement. This idea was rejected from further analysis
because there are some second growth forest stands with such a high
level of ladder fuels (small, suppressed trees) that they will require
mechanical thinning to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. Mechanical
thinning is also needed to help restore historic vegetative conditions.
Other reasons for rejecting the alternative include the need to remove
some trees mechanically to provide defensible space around structures.

## E. Environmentally Preferred Alternative

Alternative B is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative for the
following reasons:

It includes the use of mechanical methods for the treatment of forest
vegetation in situations where the use of prescribed fire would not be
acceptable.

Fire, under prescribed conditions, is used as a natural tool to reduce
forest fuel loads and restore more natural conditions.

Mitigation measures are included to protect cultural resources, soil,
air quality and sensitive plants and animals

Overall, it best meets the purpose for the Memorial to preserve,
conserve, and protect the integrity of natural and cultural resources.

# 

# 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This section describes the existing environment potentially affected by
the alternatives. An analysis of how the proposed action might affect
these resources is found in the Environmental Consequences Section.

## A. General Description

Fort Clatsop National Memorial is located near the extreme northwest
corner of Oregon within three miles of the town of Astoria. Historically
the area was dominated by the large Sitka spruce and western hemlock
forests of the Oregon Coast. The park is located at the convergence of
the Coast Range habitat and the extensive and fertile wetlands of the
Columbia River Estuary System.

The National Park Service administers the Memorial under the 2002 Fort
Clatsop Expansion Act. This law established the Memorial's size at 1,500
acres but the Memorial will actually be approximately 300 acres at the
time the Fire Management Plan is adopted. There is one main unit which
includes the fort replica, visitor center, Netul Landing. A second unit,
the Salt Works, consists of a 100 foot by 100 foot site situated in
downtown Seaside, OR.

A portion of the park, including the fort replica, is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. The Memorial also contains
important forest, wetland, water, flora and fauna resources. These
natural resources and processes determined, and are a part of, the
cultural and historic scene. The coastal forests, wetlands, elk, and the
other natural resources are as much a part of the Lewis and Clark story
and the cultural scene as the Fort replica itself.

The main unit of the Memorial is located along the tidally-influenced
portion of the Lewis and Clark River. Approximately three miles
downstream this river empties into Young\'s Bay, a portion of the
Columbia River. The Lewis and Clark River is one of the last streams to
empty into the Columbia River. It has traditionally been used for
intensive wood production, dairy, and agriculture.

The Salt Works unit is located within the city of Seaside. It is at or
near the site used by the Lewis and Clark Expedition to boil seawater to
obtain salt for their return journey. Nearly surrounded by private
residences, it is located over a hundred feet from the beach and Pacific
Ocean.

Topography of the main unit of the Memorial varies from the mudflats and
estuaries of the Lewis and Clark Valley to the steeper forested slopes
and benches of the eastern toe-slope of Clatsop Ridge, the northern-most
portion of the Oregon Coast Range. Elevation ranges from 6 to 60 feet
above sea level. The climate consists of relatively warm and dry summer
and fall with a cool and wet winter and spring. Rainfall averages
approximately 70 inches per year. With the relatively high rainfall
coupled with a large amount of moisture from frequent fog, there are
many surface streams and springs within this borderline temperate
rainforest. Within the main unit of the Memorial there are at least 10
fresh-water streams and many small isolated ponds. The spring located
near the Fort replica is believed to have been the principle source of
drinking water for the Lewis and Clark party during their winter stay at
Fort Clatsop in 1805/06.

**Resources**

## B. Air Quality

Fort Clatsop National Memorial is designated a Class II Airshed. This
designation was established by Congress to facilitate the implementation
of air quality provisions of the Clean Air Act. It allows a moderate
increase in certain air pollutants. The Clean Air Act requires that the
National Park Service comply with all federal, state, and local air
pollution control laws (Section 118). The state agency that manages air
quality related concerns is the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ). Clatsop County does not have county level ordinances
regarding air pollution: they defer these concerns to the State DEQ.

Air quality monitoring at the Memorial is not conducted by the DEQ
because coastal winds generally maintain clean air conditions in the
area.[^1] Under certain conditions, air quality can be occasionally
impacted by nearby forest slash burning and from living history fires
within the Memorial. Odors from pulp mills in western Washington can
infrequently be detected at the Memorial, but such impacts are generally
of short duration. Increasing industrial and urban development in the
surrounding area may cause air quality problems in the
future[]{#__RefHeading___Toc79385164 .anchor}

## C. Water Resources

Surface water consists of the tidal-influenced Lewis and Clark River,
low-gradient brackish sloughs, freshwater ponds, and small fresh water
streams and springs.

The Memorial contains ten types of wetlands within three wetland systems
(Palustrine, Estuarine & Riverine), as identified by the National
Wetland Inventory (NWI).[^2] The (NWI) identifies approximately one
third of the park as wetlands. Both tidal and non-tidal wetlands are
present. The Water Resources Division has assisted in identifying and
initiating wetland restoration projects and has prepared a Water Scoping
Report for the Memorial (1994). The Memorial is one of the few remaining
areas along the Pacific Coast containing estuarine resources.

Aquatic systems within the area surrounding the park have been greatly
altered. The Lewis and Clark River has been extensively diked, reducing
or eliminating fertile floodplains. These past floodplains are now used
for agriculture, dairy and rural and industrial development. Other
potential impacts consist of pesticide and fertilizer use, illegal
dumping of household and industrial rubbish and toxic waste, and soil
erosion from forest management activities.

Infrequent sampling by the Oregon DEQ indicates that the Lewis and Clark
River and Young\'s Bay has aluminum, dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform
levels that do not meet state water quality level standards.[^3] The
park is working with the Water Resources Division, National Biological
Service, and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to develop a
water quality inventory and monitoring program.

Portions of the Memorial west of the Lewis and Clark River are within
the river's 100 year floodplain. Memorial land on the east bank of the
Lewis and Clark River is completely within the 100 year floodplain, with
the exception of areas associated with diking levees. The Salt Works
unit is in a flood zone as designated by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).

A historic spring flows for approximately nine months of the year and is
the source for a small stream which flows to the Lewis and Clark River.
It is believed to be the water source for the Lewis and Clark party
while they wintered at the Memorial site.

## D. Soils/Geology

Geology of the Memorial generally consists of a stratum of older
Cenozoic marine and estuarine sedimentary rocks with minor volcanic
rocks covered by a layer of post-early Miocene marine sedimentary and
minor volcanic rocks. The Astoria Formation of sandstone and siltstone
intertwines with basalt flows and submarine breccias. The western edge
of the Columbia River Basalt Flow is also located in the area.

A specific and detailed soil inventory report, including soil maps, was
completed for the park in 1975. The report summarizes the park\'s soil
characteristics by classification, particle size, permeability,
available water capacity, pH, shrink/swell potential, erosion factor,
depth to water table, runoff, and the effective root depth.

Soils in the Memorial are classed as Coquille-Clatsop and
Grindbrook-Walluski-Hebo.[^4] These classifications include silt loams,
muck, and silty clay loams. The Coquille-Clatsop soils have wetness and
flood hazard limitations. The Grindbrook-Walluski-Hebo soils are limited
by slow permeability and susceptibility to compaction. The Salt Works
unit in Seaside is composed of Waldport soils (fine
sands).[]{#__RefHeading___Toc79385166 .anchor}

## E. Vegetation

The Lewis and Clark Expedition described the vegetation at the Memorial
site as a mixture of large, dense conifer forests and extensive fresh
and brackish water wetlands. Forest vegetation was a mixture of large
Sitka spruce and western hemlock and on the wetter sites, a combination
of western redcedar, Sitka spruce and red alder. The area was logged in
the 1850s and converted to residential, agricultural, and industrial
uses. By 1900, the old growth forests had disappeared from the Memorial.
The second growth forest was logged in the early 1900s. The forest is
considered an important part of the cultural landscape and the National
Park Service is attempting to use it to help visitors better understand
the historic significance of the Memorial.

The Memorial is located within the "Sitka Spruce Zone" as defined by
Franklin and Dyrness (1973).[^5] This vegetation zone is found along the
west coast from northern California to southeastern Alaska. Sitka spruce
is the most common tree species but western hemlock, western redcedar,
red alder and Douglas-fir are major components in this zone. Minor
species include Pacific silver fir, grand fir, shore pine, western white
pine, and big leaf maple.

Wind, mainly from a southwest direction, is the major disturbance factor
affecting vegetation at the Memorial. While somewhat sheltered by the
ridge immediately west of the Memorial, it is believed the historic
vegetative pattern is mainly a result of infrequent wind disturbances
which opened small openings suitable for the establishment of Sitka
spruce. Fire also plays a role but intervals between major fires are
thought to be very long. Although infrequent, wildland fires can be
severe and serve as a stand replacement event.

After establishing the Memorial in 1958, a program of vegetative
restoration on the original 125 acres was begun by a Memorial employee,
Ross Peterson.[^6] Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and some Douglas fir
and western redcedar were planted. Currently, approximately 50 acres of
the original Memorial is covered by conifer forests composed of
approximately 20 acres of older and 30 acres of younger trees. The 75
acres of non-forest lands are primarily wetlands and developed lands.

The Memorial maintains a vegetative species list that is approximately
80% complete. Presently there are no known vegetative or fungal species
listed as Threatened or Endangered, but the Memorial has not been
inventoried for rare plants. Preserved specimens of approximately 87
percent of the known plant species (as of 2003) have been collected and
cataloged into the park\'s reference collection. The major vegetation
habitat types have been mapped. Every tree over 91.4 centimeters (3
feet) in diameter at breast height has been measured, plotted, mapped
and entered into the park\'s data-base. The process of inventorying and
plotting the location of all trees over 60 centimeters (1.97 feet) has
recently begun. Data from established vegetation plots include tree
specie, height, age, diameter, location, position in crown, ground
cover, general health of the tree, safety and hazard potential, and
degree of decay of snags and logs. Each tree within plots is surveyed in
order to obtain the proper geographical reference. Other information
includes distance to nearest stem, density within age class, and density
of down woody material.

A minimum amount of vegetation is removed periodically to maintain two
historic views at the Fort replica site (Saddle Mountain and the Lewis
and Clark River). Currently, some vegetation management to maintain
views from the Fort replica site is required.

In 1986 the Cooperative Parks Study Unit at the University of Washington
provided the park with a conceptual plan for forest restoration at the
Memorial. The park is beginning to develop a comprehensive vegetation
management and forest restoration plan that incorporates the many
natural and cultural aspects and concerns into one unified plan.

Vegetation at the Memorial is managed to simulate the old-growth forest
that existed at the time of the Lewis and Clark party occupation.
Existing conditions can be described as a mosaic of various successional
stages, all of which will converge to a spruce-hemlock-cedar old growth
forest over time. Vegetative management recommendations from the
Cultural Resources Division of the Pacific Northwest Regional Office are
contained in the Visual Compatibility Guidelines and Cultural Landscape
Report.

**F. Wildlife**

Though small in size, Fort Clatsop contains diverse wildlife habitat and
wildlife species. Inventories of the park\'s birds, insectivores,
rodents, reptiles and amphibians have been initiated. Little is known of
the park\'s fish, invertebrate, and bat species.

**MAMMALS**

Roosevelt elk played a key role in the survival of the Lewis and Clark
Expedition by providing an important food source.[^7] The elk population
was severely depleted by 1900 but conservation efforts have been
successful in re-establishing their numbers in the Memorial area. The
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife reports their numbers are now
stable in Clatsop County. Other mammals recorded in the Memorial include
black-tail deer, opossum, raccoon, chipmunks, squirrels, beaver, mink,
river otter, coyote, bobcat, weasel, skunk, rabbit, muskrats, and seven
bat species. Exotic mammals include the Norwegian rat, black rat, and
nutria.

**BIRDS**

A high percentage of bird species found in the Memorial prefer mature to
old-growth forests. These species may be remnant or isolated
populations, since most of the region\'s old-growth had been cut by the
early 1980\'s.

Bird species commonly observed in the Memorial include woodpeckers,
flycatchers, wrens, kinglets, thrushes, vireos, owls, kingfishers,
swallows, sandpipers, rails, hawks, eagles, mergansers, mallards,
herons, cormorants and grebes. Sensitive species include the pileated
woodpecker which is frequently sighted in the Memorial, Barrow's
goldeneye, and Bufflehead. Bald eagles occasionally pass through the
Memorial; there is a nest site located about one-half mile from the
Netul landing. Peregrine falcons have been reported at the Warrenton
Airport, about two miles away.

**FISH**

Cutthroat and steelhead trout and eulachon have been reported in the
Memorial area. Historically, populations of wild Chinook, chum, and coho
existed in the Lewis and Clark River. There has been recent speculation
concerning the existence of "wild" coho salmon and the state has been
conducting investigations. Lower Columbia River stocks of chum and
Chinook salmon are federally listed as threatened while the coastal
cutthroat trout is proposed and coho salmon is a candidate for listing.

**REPTILES/AMPHIBIANS**

Amphibian surveys have confirmed the presence of the following in the
Memorial:

> rough-skinned newts,
>
> salamanders including; ensatina, northwest, western red-backed,
> Dunn's, Columbia torrent, and a giant (species, probably Pacific),
>
> red-legged and Pacific tree frogs,
>
> western toads,
>
> bullfrogs,
>
> northwest garter snakes.

The red-legged frog is a category 2 species. No other state or federally
listed species of reptiles are known to occur in the Memorial. However,
the long-toed, and Copes's giant salamander (sensitive) and tailed frog
(sensitive) have been confirmed near or adjacent to it. Further, the
Memorial is within the range of the Olympic clouded salamander
(sensitive). The Columbia torrent salamander is an ODF&W species of
concern.

**INVERTEBRATES**

No information is available concerning invertebrates at the Memorial.

## G. Sensitive Species

**[Federally Listed Species]{.underline}**

**MARBLED MURRELET**: Federally listed as Threatened, marbled murrelets
have not been surveyed for or confirmed to occur within Fort Clatsop
National Memorial, although suitable mature Sitka spruce-western hemlock
maritime forest nest habitat exists within the park. They have been
noted within the vicinity of the park.

Marbled murrelets are found year-round in late-successional and
old-growth forests near the western Oregon coast. They are not common at
the mouth of the Columbia River.[^8]

**BALD EAGLE**: Federally listed as Threatened, bald eagles are
year-round residents in the Columbia River estuary and are regularly
observed along the Lewis and Clark River within and near the Memorial.
An established nest is located in UTM zone 10, about one-half mile from
the Netul Landing. The Memorial is within regular feeding and perching
habitat for eagles using the Lewis and Clark River. Other documented
nests (through summer 2003) near the Memorial are at Fort Stevens State
Park and Tansy Point to the north, Stanley Lake in Seaside to the south,
and Cullaby Lake to the southeast. None of these sites is within one
mile of the Memorial.[^9]

**BROWN PELICAN**: The brown pelican feeds in near-shore waters along
the entire Oregon coast and into the Columbia River estuary during the
late summer-fall seasons. Frequent sightings of up to two dozen have
been made in the Sunset Beach area, but always offshore.

**NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL**: Surveys made during the 1990s documented the
presence of northern spotted owls in Clatsop County. Historically, the
Memorial area may have served as spotted owl habitat. Historic land
practices and current presence of Barred owls have precluded potential
presence of spotted owls. Spotted owls are not known to be in or near
the Memorial area and would not be expected to occur there.

**CHUM SALMON** (Lower Columbia River): Federally listed as Threatened,
chum salmon have been confirmed downriver and north of the Memorial area
in Youngs Bay (1990) and in the Youngs River near Wireless Road (2002).
The Netul Landing and proposed riverside trail within the park are
directly adjacent to habitat for anadromous species. Spawning habitat is
non-existent within or near the Memorial. Chum salmon, if present, would
be expected to migrate past the site as juveniles during their
out-migration from mid-March through May and, upstream as adults from
early October through mid-November.

**CHINOOK SALMON** (Lower Columbia River): Chinook salmon are a
Federally listed Threatened species. Their presence in the Lewis and
Clark River was confirmed in Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
survey data from 1948-1996, but none have been recorded since that
time.[^10] On 4/11/2002 one Chinook smolt was seined in RM1of Hansen
Creek (north of the park) during a fish presence survey by salmonid
biology students at Astoria High School. Spawning habitat is
non-existent within, near, or downstream of the project area.

In the Lewis and Clark River, juvenile Chinook salmon out-migration
occurs from mid-March through mid-June. Adult Chinook salmon upstream
migration occurs from late August through October/November.

**OREGON SILVERSPOT BUTTERFLY**: This butterfly is Federally listed as
Threatened. On the Clatsop Plains in Clatsop County, Oregon, the Oregon
silverspot butterfly occupies early successional coastal grasslands
containing its host plant, the early blue violet (*Viola adunca*),
nectar sources and adult courtship areas. Its historic population center
on the plains is approximately five miles long and one mile wide,
extending from Camp Rilea on the north to the Gearhart Golf Course on
the south.

Sunset Beach is within the butterfly's historic range (Gearhart Beach to
Clatsop Spit). The last documented sighting of this butterfly was in
1998 near Camp Rilea, previously the population stronghold in the
county.[^11] The Memorial does not contain suitable habitat for the
butterfly but expansion lands on the Clatsop Plains will include
potential habitat areas.

**[Proposed Species]{.underline}**

**COASTAL CUTTHROAT** (Columbia River): A Federally proposed Threatened
Species, cutthroat trout were documented on 2/6/2002 within RM1 of Alder
Creek in the southern area of the Memorial.[^12]

**[Candidate Species]{.underline}**

**COHO SALMON** (Lower Columbia River): Coho salmon have been found in
tributary streams of the Lewis and Clark River in recent Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife fish count data. A February 2002 fish
survey of Fort Clatsop streams found juvenile coho in RM2 of Hansen
Creek and RM1 of Alder Creek within the park. A 4/11/2002 fish survey in
RM1 of Hansen Creek (just north of the park) netted 7 juvenile
coho.[^13] The River Day Use Area and proposed riverside trail within
the park are directly adjacent to habitat for anadromous species.
Spawning habitat is non-existent within, near, or downstream of the
project area.

**[Species of Concern]{.underline}**

**PILEATED WOODPECKER:** This species prefers old-growth conditions and
is known to occur in the Memorial.

**VOLES**: The white-footed vole was historically documented within Fort
Clatsop NM in 1940[^14], but has not been found in more recent park
small mammal surveys (1993, 2001). This species is most frequently found
in riparian (especially alder) habitat within coniferous forests. Small
clearings with forb growth may also provide important habitat.

Red tree voles are found along the coast in Sitka spruce forests that
contain some Douglas fir. Its diet consists almost exclusively of
Douglas fir needles, and to a lesser extent those of western hemlock,
spruce and fir.

The Netul Landing and proposed trail area in the south area of the park
were included in a 2001 small mammal survey. Neither vole species was
found during the survey.

**BATS**: Fringed, long-legged and Yuma myotis were mist-netted in
coniferous forest habitat near the Fort Clatsop replica during 1995
surveys. Vouchers of these three species were obtained during an earlier
1940 mammal survey of the site. A park mammal survey in 2001 netted a
single long-eared myotis at Clay Pit Pond.

Pacific big-eared bats have not been found within Fort Clatsop NM. A
1958 Clatsop County record reports a Cannon Beach collection location
for the species. West of the Oregon Cascades, the bats are associated
with moderate to older coniferous forests. They are reported to be very
intolerant of human disturbance.

Silver-haired bats have not been found within the park. These bats occur
throughout Oregon except most areas of the Columbia Basin. Their primary
habitat is older Douglas fir/western hemlock forests with riparian
forage areas. The Netul landing and proposed trail area in the park have
the high quality feeding habitat as well as suitable roosting trees.

**BAND-TAILED PIGEON**: Band-tailed pigeons are present throughout the
Columbia River estuary, including within the Memorial, although it is
not known if they nest in the park's coniferous forests. It is somewhat
difficult to confirm breeding of band-tailed pigeons, but the Oregon
Breeding Bird Atlas notes they probably nest in the Fort Clatsop
vicinity.[^15]

**OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER:** Olive-sided flycatchers are summer residents
in coniferous forests of the Columbia River estuary, but have not been
surveyed for or documented within Fort Clatsop NM. They are most
frequently found in open coniferous forests with tall snags for
perching. It is difficult to confirm nesting for this species.[^16]

**PURPLE MARTIN:** Purple martin are summer residents in the Columbia
River estuary, but have not been surveyed for or documented within Fort
Clatsop NM. They primarily feed in riparian habitats, with most area
birds nesting in constructed boxes.

**NORTHERN RED-LEGGED FROG:** Numerous observation and voucher records
document the occurrence of northern red-legged frogs in Fort Clatsop's
forest and riparian habitats.[^17] The Memorial has portions of wetland
habitat and it is probable that it contains populations of red-legged
frogs which may be impacted by changes to the site.

**GREEN STURGEON:** Green sturgeon occur in mixing and seawater salinity
zones within the Columbia River estuary, but no records document them in
the Lewis and Clark River.[^18]

**RIVER LAMPREY, PACIFIC LAMPREY:** River and Pacific lamprey have not
been confirmed to exist in streams within Fort Clatsop NM, although a
2/2002 fish survey of Hansen Creek netted a juvenile lamprey of unknown
identity. Alder Creek within Fort Clatsop and the stream at the park's
south boundary are potential habitat, as well as the Lewis and Clark
River....[^19]

**ADDITIONAL SPECIES:** The following animal and plant species have not
been documented to occur within the project area: Columbia white-tailed
deer, peregrine falcon, streaked horned lark, mountain quail, tailed
frog, frigid shooting star, queen-of-the-forest, and the moss species
Limbella fryei.

## H. Cultural/Historic Resources

The 120 acres originally designated for the Memorial is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places: this listing is for both natural
processes and cultural values and includes the Fort replica, wetlands,
sloughs, estuary and the spruce/hemlock forests. The 120 acres is zoned
"historical" which defines the landscape as a cultural landscape within
the National Park Service's management policies.[^20]

The Oregon Historical Society began acquiring land for the Memorial in
1901 (approximately 3 acres) and added another two acres in 1928; a
bronze marker was then placed at the site. A replica of the Fort was
constructed in 1955 by local organizations. This effort helped
established the National Memorial. The Fort replica is the focal point
for a variety of interpretative and living history programs which are
designed to help visitors understand the significance of the Lewis and
Clark Expedition and to help them appreciate the role of local Indians
in the success the journey.

Additional historical features include:

> A spring located about 50 yards north of the Fort replica; it is
> believed to have been used by the Expedition members.
>
> A canoe landing and storage area located about 250 yards south and
> east of the Fort replica.
>
> An approximately two and one-half mile trail to the coast used by the
> Lewis and Clark party for hunting purposes and to access the Salt
> Works site. There were 31 documented trips from the Fort to the coast
> by party members. The exact location of the trail has not been
> determined.
>
> The Salt Works site used by the Expedition for salt making;
> approximately three and one-half bushels were made. While the Salt
> Works site is unattended, it has an interpretive plaque explaining the
> relationship of the site to the Fort.
>
> Museum collections of rare books, natural and cultural specimens, and
> historical photos and prints.

Historically, the Memorial involves more than just the Lewis and Clark
occupation. Previous and subsequent use of the site includes Indian
occupation, farming, an orchard, home-sites, clay mining and brick
firing, a saw mill, mid-19th century post office, dike construction,
boat repair, ship landing and wharf, and a stage line. Some of these
activities and cultures are included in existing interpretive programs,
especially as they relate to describing the landscape changes that have
occurred since the Expedition.

Archeological excavations conducted in 1948, 1956-57 and 1961 failed to
recover materials connected with the Lewis and Clark or Clatsop
occupation of the Fort Clatsop site. There have been no original
artifacts found at the Fort site that can be substantiated to have been
used by, or historically connected with, the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
However, several mid-nineteenth Century artifacts were recovered from
the park during these excavations. In 1990, an archaeological
research-geophysical survey was conducted to provide an overall view of
the immediate Fort area subsurface. While this geo-radar search detected
seven possible sub-surface features, no definitive results were
reported.

Items in the Memorial\'s collection consist of period tools, weapons and
trade items from both western Native American (primarily Clatsop) and
non-native pioneer cultures of the 1800\'s. Most are archeological
objects and specimens. There are also original and replicated items that
relate to the Memorial\'s history and objects portraying highlights of
the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

The park's museum collections consist of:

**Biology** (plant, bird, fish, and mammal specimens) Total 750
specimens

**Archeology** (objects recovered from archeological excavations) Total
3,607 objects

**History** (period tools and weapons, trade objects, and Total 1,088
objects

objects from the 1904-1906 Lewis and Clark Centennial)

**Ethnology** (Pacific Northwest tribal objects that include Total 974
objects

trade beads, baskets, mats, tools, canoes)

**Archives** (rare books, historic photographs, paintings, Total 7,500

prints, reports, and other documents)

While an ethnographic overview and assessment of the Memorial has not
been conducted, there is ample ethnographic information available and
funding has been requested to conduct the survey. There are many
historic documents, early ethnographic studies, books, and other
documents available. The survey will gather all of the ethnographic
information and compile it into one document.

A 1993 Cultural Landscape Report consolidates landscape recommendations
contained in nine separate planning documents, special studies, and
technical reports for the Memorial from 1976 to 1993.[^21] The report
also developed recommendations to delineate an overall scheme for
Memorial restoration. The report, along with General Management Plan and
the Resource Management Plan, confirms management objectives and
establishes a consistent strategy for preservation treatment at the Fort
and Salt Works sites.

## I. Visitor Use

Current annual visitation averages 200,000 to 275,000 and is increasing.
This number of people concentrated in such a small area can have a
dramatic impact on the resources of the park. Very little work to date
has assessed the degree of this impact. A carrying capacity study is
needed.

A pulse survey was conducted for the Memorial in 1986.[^22] The survey
was repeated in 1987 and 1988 to identify trends and add to the
information database. The survey provided park management a
comprehensive look at who park visitors are, where they come from and
why, and an evaluation of park services. Results showed that 60 percent
visited the park because of their interest in Lewis and Clark Expedition
history, 12 percent had heard about the park's programs, and another 11
percent expressed a passing interest. Approximately 70 percent were
first time visitors and more than half lived outside of Oregon; 75
percent were family groups. A considerable portion of visitation is
associated with commercial tours provided by charted buses and tour
ships (21,300 visits in 2003-04). An informal survey in 1992 indicated
that most visitors to the Salt Works had not visited the fort replica
site.

Physical limitations on visitor use at the Memorial involve the amount
of space available for visitor use including: seating capacity of the
auditorium and theater, parking spaces, and the number of picnic tables
available. Limitations associated with the capacity of the Fort replica
and Visitor Center also exist but are more related with the perception
of crowded conditions and what would constitute a quality recreation
experience. The potential of damage to park resources from excessive use
is also a consideration. The NPS has addressed the visitor use issue in
light of the upcoming bi-centennial celebration and has been
implementing visitor control measures including the use of mass
transportation (buses) to gain access to the Memorial during the event.
A timed entry ticketing system will be implemented to better distribute
use throughout the season.

## J. Safety

Public safety and safety of all personnel engaged in fire management
projects is the primary concern of the Fort Clatsop National Memorial.
Federal Wildland Fire Policy as expressed through NPS Fire Management
Directive (D.O.-18) makes safety the highest priority in determining
fire management strategies

# 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section analyzes environmental and sociological impacts of the two
alternatives described in Section 2.0. It is organized by each affected
resource, as presented in Section 3.0 Affected Environment*.* The
impacts of Alternative A & B will be discussed for each resource. To get
the overall impact of each alternative, read only the sections for a
single alternative all the way through this portion of the document.

## A. Methodology: 

Consequences of the two alternatives were estimated through a
combination of the following:

Discussions with Park Service resource personnel and observations made
onsite during site visits.

Phone and E-Mail communications with Park Service personnel.

Existing resource documents including the General Management Plan and
the Resource Management Plan.

Research of existing literature pertinent to the Impact Topics.

Environmental impacts are analyzed in terms of context, intensity,
duration and timing. They are further described as direct, indirect, and
cumulative consequences, both in short and long term periods. Direct
impacts are those that are caused by alternatives at the same time and
at the same place as the action. Indirect effects are impacts that occur
later in time, or farther in distance than the actions of the
alternatives. Cumulative effects are additive impacts to a particular
resource, without regard to ownership and include impacts from the past,
present, and foreseeable future.

Included in the analysis of environmental consequences is a conclusion
statement for each alternative by impact area. This conclusion section
contains a statement about whether an impairment of park values or
resources is likely, or would occur. In managing units of the National
Park System, the Service may undertake actions that have both beneficial
and adverse impacts on park resources and values. However, the Service
is prohibited from taking or authorizing any action that would, or is
likely to, impair park resources or values. Each impairment statement in
the conclusion sections is based on the analysis discussion for the
particular Impact Area.

The purpose and values for establishing Fort Clatsop National Memorial
are described in the background section of Chapter 1. Briefly, the
purpose for the Park is to:

-   Perpetuate the park\'s cultural resources.

-   Allow natural processes to prevail.

-   Reduce evidence of non-historic, human-related intrusions and
    impacts upon the park\'s cultural and natural environment or visitor
    experience.

-   Reclaim impacted areas.

-   Promote visitor understanding of park resources.

**Alternative A & B Consequences by Impact Topic**

## B. Air Quality:

**Alternative A -- No Action**

**Continue full suppression of all wildland fires. No use of mechanical
treatment or prescribed fires.**

This alternative would not directly affect air quality at the Memorial.
Air quality would be indirectly impacted by smoke from wildland fires
burning within the Memorial and by nearby wildland fires before they are
suppressed. These are conditions that Memorial currently experiences.
The level of impact of this alternative on air quality would be
dependent upon the incident rate, location, size, and time needed for
suppression of any fires that would occur in a given fire season.

Air quality impacts in the form of smoke from wildland fires within the
Memorial would generally be short term in nature. Because of the
relatively small size of the Memorial, most wildland fires would be
quickly suppressed. Impacts from wildland fires burning outside of the
Memorial could be longer lasting depending on the size of the fire and
the time needed for suppression.

Fire return interval for the Sitka spruce type in western Washington has
been estimated at about 1,100 years (Agee, 1989)[^23]. When wildland
fire does occur in this type, it generally burns under unusual
conditions with severe effects and is likely to be a stand replacement
fire. If this type of fire were to occur, impacts to air quality would
be severe but short term in nature.

Continued suppression of all wildland fires at the Memorial could lead
to fewer, larger, more intense wildland fires and impacts from smoke
during periods of varying smoke dispersal (sometimes poor) and during
prime recreation periods (summer). The effects of this alternative will
lead to fewer occasions of fire overall, but the fires that do burn will
be larger, more damaging, create significantly more smoke and may occur
during times of poor smoke dispersal. The large amount of smoke produced
and possibly the poor smoke dispersal during wildland fires will lead to
fewer but longer periods of unhealthy air quality and lower air quality
compared to Alternative B. Recreation users, Memorial personnel, and
adjacent landowners will experience these negative impacts. Since the
interval between large wildland fires at the Memorial is expected to be
great, the impacts caused by the suppression of all wildland fires is
considered minor.

[Conclusions:]{.underline} Because the strategy in this alternative is
immediate suppression of all wildland fires, the overall direct effect
to air quality is positive in the short term but will likely lead to
slightly increased negative effects to air quality at the Memorial in
the long-term from more large and severe wildland fires. For the impact
topic Air Quality, Alternative A would not cause impairment of the
values and resources for which the park was established.

**Alternative B -- Preferred Alternative**

**Suppression of all wildland fire, use of mechanical treatment, and use
of prescribed fire to achieve resource objectives.**

The effects to air quality from this alternative are the same as
Alternative A, with the exception of the effects caused by the
introduction of a limited use of prescribed fire to accomplish resource
objectives. Prescribed fire would be used for the restoration of
historic vegetative conditions, disposal of forest fuels, and for
control of unwanted vegetation. Air quality would be directly impacted
in a negative way from prescribed fire activities. The degree of impacts
from prescribed fire use would depend on the amount of fire use,
atmospheric conditions, and fuel moisture contents.

Prescribed fires will only be conducted when optimal, or near-optimal,
smoke dispersion periods are present leading to minor air quality
impacts in the immediate area. In general, prescribed fires produce less
smoke/emissions because they are carried out under less extreme
conditions and burn less fuel than many wildland fires.

Smoke from prescribed fire use at the Memorial would impact visitors at
the facility and nearby residents. Effects would be minor and short-term
in nature because the National Park Service would attempt to carry out
such projects during conditions of favorable smoke dispersal, low fuel
moisture content, and during low use periods.

Prescribe fire use at the Memorial would help create forest conditions
less likely to experience frequent wildland fires. Forest fuel loads
would be reduced and fuel ladder situations decreased. This would cause
direct and positive long term effects to air quality although the extent
of the impacts would be slight since few wildland fires occur in the
Memorial now.

With any prescribed fire use there is the potential for escapement and
increased impacts to air quality. When this happens, the activity
becomes a wildland fire and would be suppressed as soon as possible. The
risk of prescribed fire escapement in the Memorial is small if proper
procedures are followed by the National Park Service.

[Conclusions:]{.underline} The overall direct effect to air quality is
negative in the short-term because of the added impact from prescribed
fires. In the long-term, there is a slight positive effect as the number
of unplanned fires is reduced as result of the prescribed fire program.
For the impact topic Air Quality, Alternative B would not cause
impairment of the values and resources for which the Memorial was
established.

## C. Water Resources

**Alternative A - No Action**

**Continue full suppression of all wildland fires. No use of mechanical
treatment or prescribed fire.**

Wildland fire suppression activities can negatively affect water
quality, both in the short and long-term. Extensive suppression
activities will likely occur in large wildland fire situations
increasing the chances for soil disturbance and eventually, water
quality degradation. Because the timing and location of wildland fires
cannot be predicted, suppression activities are usually carried out
under emergency type situations. During these events, firefighters
respond quickly and there may not be ample time for the careful
development of plans to avoid disturbance to soils. .

Because this alternative continues the current policy of immediate
suppression of all wildland fire, it would not cause any direct effects
to soils or water quality. There could be indirect effects from wildland
fire suppression activities. Effects would be from the use of soil
disturbance equipment such as tractors or hand tools used to build fire
lines.

There is a slight chance that soil disturbing equipment would be used
during a wildland fire emergency situation to construct fire lines as
part of the suppression strategy. If this were to occur, negative
effects would generally be short-term in nature because of the ability
of existing soils to heal relatively quickly. The potential for severe
and long-lasting negative effects is very slight because of the concern
the Park Service would have for cultural resources at the Memorial. The
potential for negative impacts to water quality from wildland fire
suppression activities is also small because of the long intervals
between fires at the Memorial.

The occurrence of large and severe wildland fire can cause serious
impacts to the soil and vegetation. This will in turn increase the
amount of potential erosion and influx of ash and sediment impacting
water quality. The effects may last longer depending on total acreage,
severity of wildland fire, and suppression impacts. Soils that are
severely burned can become hydrophobic and not allow water to infiltrate
as well as unburned soil, which in turn increases run-off and soil
erosion. It will also take longer for severely burned soil and
vegetation to recover and subsequently reduce sediment run-off and
sedimentation.

Another impact of severe wildland fire is the catastrophic removal of
riparian vegetation along water courses. This will remove a sediment
buffer from the edge of the water increasing the chance for water
quality degradation. Removal of vegetation also causes an increase in
temperatures as the watercourse loses the shading protection of the
plant canopy. This increase in temperature to a watercourse is
degradation in water quality.

The potential for negative impacts to water quality from large and
severe wildland fire is small because of the long intervals between
fires at the Memorial.

[Conclusions:]{.underline} The overall effect to water resources is
positive in the short-term because of the immediate suppression of all
wildland fire policy. In the long-term, there is a slight negative
effect as the potential for large, severe wildland fire increases. For
the impact topic Water Resources, Alternative A would not cause
impairment of the values and resources for which the park was
established.

**Alternative B -- Preferred Alternative**

**Suppression of all wildland fire, use of mechanical treatment, and use
of prescribed fire to achieve resource objectives.**

The effects to water quality from wildfire suppression under this
alternative are the same as described for Alternative A.

Direct effects to water quality from prescribed fire use may include
increased water runoff causing soil erosion from the following
activities:

> Removal of vegetation by prescribed fire use to improve wildlife
> habitat or to remove undesirable vegetation.
>
> Creation of hydrophobic conditions at pile burning sites.

Prescribed fire use is conducted under pre-determined conditions
designed to minimize effects such as soil erosion. Therefore, negative
effects to soils, and in turn water quality, from prescribed fire use is
expected to be small. Pile burning would be conducted during conditions
which would limit soil temperatures. Additional mitigating measures to
protect soils and water quality are given for this Alternative in
Chapter 2.

Alternative B may eventually lead to the reduction of impacts of
wildland fire on water quality. The resultant reduction of fuels with
the use of prescribed fire will lead to smaller and lower intensity
wildland fires in areas that have been treated.

With any prescribed fire use there is the potential for escapement and
additional damage to water resources. When this happens, the activity
becomes a wildland fire and would be suppressed as soon as possible. The
risk of prescribed fire escapement in the Memorial is small if proper
procedures are followed by the National Park Service.

The mechanical treatment of vegetation to reduce hazardous fuel
situations, or to help restore historic vegetative conditions, could
also impact soils and in-turn, water quality. Because of the sensitive
nature of the cultural landscape at the Memorial, the Park Service would
not likely permit the use of mechanical equipment having the potential
to cause soil damage during vegetative treatment activities.

[Conclusions:]{.underline} There is a slight, direct negative effect to
water quality in the short-term because of the added impact from
prescribed fires. In the long-term, there is a slight positive effect as
the potential number of large and severe unplanned fires is reduced.

For the impact topic Water Resources, Alternative B would not cause
impairment of the values and resources for which the park was
established.[]{#__RefHeading___Toc79385175 .anchor}

## D. Soil

**Alternative A - No Action**

**Continue full suppression of all wildland fires. No use of mechanical
treatment or prescribed fire.**

Because this alternative continues the current policy of immediate
suppression of all wildland fires, it would not cause any direct effects
to soils. There could be indirect effects on soils from wildland fire
suppression activities. Effects would be from the use of soil disturbing
equipment such as tractors or hand tools used to build fire lines.

Large and severe wildland fires may occur and could cause serious
impacts to the soil. Because the interval between wildland fires in the
Memorial is long, those that occur can be intense with severe
consequences. Large and intense fires often have great acute and
long-term impacts on the soils. McNabb, et al. states that "natural
wildfires, particularly conflagrations that burn .... have a far greater
potential to seriously affect soil fertility than current prescribed
burns ... because the weather is usually more severe and fuel moistures
are normally lower (McNabb, 1990)[^24]." More severe fires have
proportionally greater negative effects on soil productivity by:
reducing nutrients; killing soil micro-organisms that are critical to
the soils fertility; altering soil structure, increasing impermeable
soil layers; and removing the forest floor and vegetation leading to
increased erosion (Walstad, 1990)[^25]

The use of heavy equipment such as caterpillars, tractors, and fire
trucks to suppress wildland fires could lead to great disruption of the
soil. Because the timing and location of wildland fires cannot be
predicted, suppression activities are usually carried out under
emergency type situations. During these events, firefighters respond
quickly and there may not be ample time for the careful development of
plans to avoid disturbance to soils and there is a good possibility that
some soil damage will occur, either from the intense heat generated or
by fire fighting activities. Although the risk of such a fire occurring
is small, the effects would be long-lasting in nature.

[Conclusions:]{.underline} Since the strategy in this alternative is
immediate suppression of all wildland fires, the overall direct effect
to soil is positive in the short term but may lead to negative effects
in the long-term as the risk of a severe wildland fire occurrence
increases over time. For the impact topic Soil, Alternative A would not
cause impairment of the values and resources for which the park was
established.

**Alternative B -- Preferred Alternative**

**Suppression of all wildland fire, use of mechanical treatment, and use
of prescribed fire to achieve resource objectives.**

The effects from wildfire suppression activities with this alternative
are the same as in Alternative A.

Prescribed fire would be used for the disposal of vegetation from
hazardous fuel reduction projects, restoration of natural vegetative
conditions, wildlife habitat improvement, and the removal of unwanted
vegetation. There could be positive and negative direct effects to soil
conditions both in the short and long-term from these activities.

The use of prescribed fire may reduce the risk of large and severe
wildland fire in the long-term which would reduce the acute and
long-term impacts to soils as described in Alternative A. Since the
wildland fire interval at the Memorial is so long, the effect of this
change is only minor.

All burning, whether wildland fire or prescribed, disrupts the cycling
of nutrients in forest ecosystems by changing the form, distribution,
and amount of nutrients. But McNabbe, et. al. (1990)[^26]states
"...sites with a history of frequent wildfires have already adapted to
repeated cycles of nutrient losses and are less likely affected by
prescribed burning". The use of prescribed burning at the Memorial will
attempt to simulate natural frequencies so as not to severely impact
forest soils.

This alternative may slightly reduce occasional impacts from wildland
fire suppression operations. As sites in the Memorial are brought into a
higher frequency and lower intensity fire regime, large and severe
wildland fires may become less frequent and/or less severe. This
reduction will lead to a reduced need to use heavy equipment in an
unplanned way on the landscape. Prescribed fires will be conducted in a
way to avoid soil damage by any equipment use.

With any prescribed fire use there is the potential for escapement and
further damage to the soil resource. When this happens, the activity
becomes a wildland fire and would be suppressed as soon as possible. The
risk of prescribed fire escapement in the Memorial is small if proper
procedures are followed by the National Park Service.

Under this alternative, soils could also be impacted by use of ground
disturbing equipment to assist in mechanical treatment of vegetation.
Soil compaction from use of heavy equipment to remove portions of the
trees may lead to increased erosion of soils and reduced productivity.
It also tends to remove ground cover potentially impacting soils.

Because of the sensitive cultural resource values associated with the
Memorial, there is small potential for soil damage from the use of heavy
equipment used for mechanical treatment of vegetation.

[Conclusions:]{.underline} In the short-term, there are minor positive
and negative effects to soil quality in this alternative. The long-term
effect to soil is positive as the fuel treatment program leads to less
frequent and severe wildland fires. For the impact topic soil,
Alternative B would not cause impairment of the values and resources for
which the park was established.

**E. Vegetation**

**Alternative A - No Action**

**Continue full suppression of all wildland fires. No use of mechanical
treatment or prescribed fire.**

This alternative continues the current policy of immediate suppression
of all wildland fires; therefore it would not cause any direct effects
to vegetation in the Memorial. There would be indirect effects to
vegetation from wildland fire suppression.

Although wind is the major disturbance factor for vegetation at the
Memorial, wildland fire also plays a role. The interval for large, stand
replacing wildland fires in the Memorial is long. Because of the long
period between conditions which would support a stand replacing fire, a
tremendous amount of vegetative material would typically accumulate in
the stand structure and on the surface. When conditions are ripe, an
intense wildland fire can occur because of the heavy fuel load that has
built up over time. The effects of such a fire can be severe and
long-lasting. A stand replacing fire would kill most of the spruce and
hemlock and delay re-establishment for decades.[^27] The wildland fire
suppression policy will increase the fuel load in the stand structure
and on the surface and could decrease the interval between stand
replacement fires.

Fire suppression activities could affect vegetation in the park, mainly
the herbaceous and forb layers. Because of the sensitive nature of the
cultural resources in the Memorial, the National Park Service would not
permit the use of ground disturbance equipment or fire suppression
actions which would cause long lasting effects to the forest vegetation
during fire suppression efforts. There would be some short-term, minor
effects from the use of hand tools and the application of water during
fire line building activities.

[Conclusions:]{.underline} There would be minor short and long-term
effects to the vegetation at the Memorial from this alternative. Effects
would be both positive and negative in nature. For the impact topic
Vegetation, Alternative A would not cause impairment of the values and
resources for which the park was established.

**Alternative B -- Preferred Alternative**

**Suppression of all wildland fire, use of mechanical treatment, and use
of prescribed fire to achieve resource objectives.**

The effects of wildfires and suppression activities in this alternative
are the same as described for Alternative A. Additional effects would be
caused by the introduction of a limited use of prescribed fire and
mechanical treatment to accomplish resource objectives.

Prescribed fire would be used for the disposal of vegetation from
hazardous fuel reduction projects, restoration of natural vegetative
conditions, wildlife habitat improvement, and the removal of unwanted
vegetation. There could be positive and negative direct effects to
vegetation in the short and long-term from these activities.

Prescribed fire use to dispose of hazardous fuels and vegetation removed
to help restore historic conditions could have negative effects on soil
quality which in turn could decrease soil productivity and the ability
to grow healthy vegetation. For these activities, forest materials
removed would be piled and burned within the Memorial. Effects can be
minimized by careful implementation of the burn plan and mitigation
measures identified in Chapter 3. The main mitigation measure is to burn
during conditions which would limit soil temperatures.

Prescribed fire use to improve elk habitat would have positive
short-term benefits for native vegetation. Improving elk habitat helps
meet one of the goals of the Management Plan for the Memorial. Elk
served as an important food source for Expedition members during their
stay at the Memorial site. Prescribed fire would also be used to help
reduce unwanted vegetation such as reed canary grass. This would have
long-term, positive effects to the Memorial creating more natural
vegetative conditions, a goal of the Management Plan.

With any prescribed fire use there is the potential for escapement with
varying effects on vegetation. When this happens, the activity becomes a
wildland fire and would be suppressed as soon as possible. The risk of
prescribed fire escapement in the Memorial is small if proper procedures
are followed by the National Park Service.

The mechanical treatment of vegetation to create more natural conditions
and reduce hazardous fuels will have some long-term, positive effects on
vegetation. Mechanical treatment will accelerate the restoration of the
vegetative type existing during the Lewis and Clark stay at the Memorial
site.

The use of mechanical treatment methods to reduce hazardous fuels would
serve to reduce the fuel load and extend the interval between large and
severe wildland fires.

[Conclusions:]{.underline} Overall, there would be mainly positive
effects to vegetation both in the short and long-term from the use of
prescribed fire and mechanical treatment in this alternative. For the
impact topic vegetation, Alternative B would not cause impairment of the
values and resources for which the park was established.

**F. Wildlife and Fish**

**Alternative A -- No Action**

**Continue full suppression of all wildland fires. No use of mechanical
treatment or prescribed fire.**

Fire effects on wildlife are complex because they are often indirect,
affecting habitat more than individuals. Some species tend to be
"winners" and others "losers" as fire alters the habitat. Many species
common in the Memorial are favored by habitat changes that reduce forest
cover or increase edge: deer, elk, coyote, black bear, beaver, ruffed
grouse, and some waterfowl. Others such as the northern flying squirrel
and the pileated woodpecker are likely to decrease after disturbance.

As previously discussed, the primary disturbance factor at the Memorial
has been wind, but fire plays a role during events separated by long
periods. Wind caused disturbances are generally small involving one, or
just a few trees at a time. Stand replacing fires occur at long
intervals but could involve the entire Memorial. Effects from wind
caused events, while important to wildlife are generally minor and
short-term. Stand replacing wildland fires cause severe and long-lasting
effects.

**[Mammals:]{.underline}**

Deer can be trapped and killed by fast-moving fires, although this would
not be common. In general, fires that create mosaics of forage and cover
are beneficial for deer. Also fire rejuvenates and improves browse
species, which are important winter range in some areas (Johnson,
1989)[^28]. Many shrubs that provide browse for deer will be stimulated
by fire if the intensity and severity are low.

Coyotes are very mobile and probably escape most fires. Fires that
reduce vegetation height and create open areas can increase hunting
efficiency by coyotes but may reduce habitat for prey species such as
rabbits. Surface fires often open substrates for quieter stalking and
easier capture of prey than can occur in closed forests.

Raccoons are very mobile and probably escape most fires. Loss of cover
can be detrimental as can the loss of plants that provide fruits.

Important habitat for squirrels includes mature trees unlikely to be
adversely affected by low-severity fire. Severe fire would have negative
impacts on squirrels due to the loss of large trees and their associated
canopy. Although in most areas squirrels may be able to move to new
areas, this would be a negative impact.

Deer mice can be directly killed by fire, and indirectly by predation,
loss of food supply, etc. Many survive by moving into underground
burrows.

**[Birds]{.underline}**

Adult birds can generally escape wildland fires and move to areas not
impacted by the fire. Major impacts to birds from wildland fires
include: interruption of nesting, death of baby birds in the nest
(McMahon, et al., 1990:241)[^29], alteration and loss of preferred
cover; and drastic change in habitat structure. Generally speaking
large, intense fires that burn an area clean may not have any clear
benefit to bird species in the short term (Clark, et al, 1990:88)[^30].

Effects to raptor species should be limited to ground nesters, impacts
to burned nest and roost trees and negative effects to prey species
habitats. Fires are noted to have effects on bald eagles, which are
impacted by severe fires that destroy nest and roosting trees. Regular
burning helps to keep habitats in a suitable condition for many prey
species of eagles and increases hunting efficiency (Landers,1987)[^31].
These same general impacts are reported for red-tailed hawks (Landers,
1987)[^32] and great horned owls (Lehman, 1989)[^33]. Peregrine falcons
can benefit from low to moderate intensity fire that creates a mosaic of
habitat for its prey species.

Passerine birds, like other birds can escape fire, but if the fire
occurs during nesting, negative impacts can occur. Some research has
shown black-capped chickadees decrease following fire, probably due to a
decrease in habitat complexity and available food (Niemi, 1978)[^34].

Woodpeckers are likely to benefit with fires that create additional, and
retain existing, snags. Generally speaking, fire can benefit or degrade
a species based on the severity of the fire and on what type of habitat
is affected.

Fire effects to water birds can be detrimental to the species in that
many nest in grass or grass like vegetation which readily burns. The
main impacts to waterfowl is the loss of nest and nestlings in the
spring nesting period and this includes: mallards (Hodson, 1965)[^35],
Canada geese, Northern pintails and blue-winged teal
(Bellrose,1980)[^36]. Adult waterfowl could be affected if a fire
occurred during molting. Fire has other notable benefits and impacts to
ducks including reduction of predator cover (Fritzell, 1975)[^37] and
creation of more nesting materials and areas (Vogl, 1967)[^38].

The impacts of fire on birds vary according to the timing, severity,
location, and extent. Generally speaking lower intensity fires that
create a mosaic of habitats tend to benefit the greatest number of
species, based on the previous discussion. Large, severe fires will have
the greatest negative impacts on the most species overall. Fire
suppression without additional prescribed burning may lead to larger
impacts to birds on the landscape.

**[Reptiles and Amphibians]{.underline}**

Little information was available to determine the impacts of wildland
fires on reptiles and amphibians. Since there are no reports of high
mortality for any herpetile species, amphibians and reptiles may not be
highly vulnerable to fire (Means, et al., 1981)[^39].

**[Fisheries]{.underline}**

As reported by Walstad, et al. (1990) the major impacts of fire on fish
involve an increase in water temperature and nutrients, decreases in
large woody debris, and sedimentation and turbidity. Some of these
conditions already exist for the main stem of the Lewis and Clark River.

[Conclusions:]{.underline} With the strategy in this alternative of
immediate suppression of all wildland fires and no use of prescribed
fire, the overall effect to wildlife/fish is negative for some species
and no-effect for others in the long-term. For the impact topic
Wildlife/Fish, Alternative A would not cause impairment of the values
and resources for which the park was established in the long-term.

**Alternative B -- Preferred Alternative**

**Suppression of all wildland fire, use of mechanical treatment, and use
of prescribed fire to achieve resource objectives.**

Effects from wildland fires to wildlife and fish will be the same as
described in Alternative A. As areas are treated with prescribed fire,
the impacts of future fires that pass through these same areas may be
slightly reduced. In general the small scale prescribed fires proposed
at the Memorial should not have long lasting effects on any one species.
Like other forest disturbances, fire (at least at the scale of typical
prescribed fires) seems to have negligible impacts on species abundance
and diversity. Some species disappear from burned areas, while others
appear which were absent prior to fire (McMahon, et al, 1990:244)[^40].
Disturbances caused by the mechanical treatment of vegetation will
create some positive and some negative effects to wildlife species,
depending on their individual habitat needs.

**[Mammals]{.underline}**

Deer and elk will likely benefit overall from prescribed fire use and
mechanical treatments at the Memorial due to the mosaic created which
tends to stimulate growth and nutrition of preferred forage plants.
Prescribed fire and mechanical treatments will also reduce the chance
for catastrophic fire by reducing existing fuel loads.

Coyotes will likely benefit from prescribed fire and mechanical
treatment. One of the primary benefits to coyotes will be the opening up
and thinning out of ground vegetation. This often improves the hunting
efficiency by coyotes. Mosaics created by prescribed fire will maintain
thermal and hiding cover for prey species.

Raccoons appear to benefit most from fires that are not severe and
create a mosaic of habitats that provide cover and improved foraging.
Prescribed fire may benefit raccoons by creating a mosaic typical of a
lower severity fire. Another benefit again will be the reduction in the
chance for a severe wildland fire, which may destroy large amounts of
cover vegetation required for raccoon survival. If prescribed fires
become severe they may tend to temporarily eliminate some fruit related
resources that are important food for raccoons.

Squirrels may see negative impacts from prescribed fires and mechanical
treatment. One of the eventual goals at the Memorial will be the
reduction in forest stem densities. This may create a more widely spaced
tree canopy that does not favor tree squirrels.

Deer mice will likely be negatively impacted in the short term by
prescribed fire due to the presence of loose ash or lack of food.
Reports show beneficial, deleterious, and neutral benefits to deer mice.
It is noted that deer mice are often the first animals to invade an area
that has been burned (Forde, 1983)[^41]. Since prescribed fire at the
Memorial will be introduced gradually, deer mice will probably not be
negatively affected by fire. Also prescribed fire use for fuel treatment
will reduce future fire intensity.

**[Birds]{.underline}**

Birds can potentially be impacted by prescribed fire and mechanical
treatment at the Memorial. Presumably some prescribed fires will occur
during the spring nesting periods and thus could cause nest abandonment
or outright mortality of nestlings. Impacts to adults are expected to be
low, except for the loss in productivity. Some of the overall impacts to
birds will be minimized by the relatively small size of proposed burns.

Prescribed fire in raptor habitats usually does not conflict with
habitat objectives and can in many cases be beneficial (Lehman,
1989)[^42]. Low-severity fires, such as those proposed for the Memorial,
probably have little direct effect on eagles (Landers, 1987)[^43]. In
fact if fires are kept to a low severity, they may benefit eagle prey.
These benefits generally will apply to red-tailed hawk, peregrine
falcon, and great horned owl. If prescribed fires become too intense or
severe and destroy older trees, then negative impacts can be expected
for raptors. Loss of large trees means loss of nests and roosting sites.
Known nest trees will be protected prior to any prescribed fire
ignition. Smoke may also have a negative impact on nesting raptors.
Overall the small size and timing of planned ignitions should limit the
negative impacts to raptors while often benefiting their prey.

Passerine birds are generally able to escape fire. The largest expected
impact will be to ground, shrub and small tree nesting birds. Post fire
conditions from proposed low severity prescribed fires should benefit
many passerine birds. These fires will help create mosaics that will
increase the "edge effect" that benefits many bird species. Also,
controlled prescribed fires will reduce the chance of severe fires that
could have a negative impact on bird cover. Loss of cover is detrimental
to small birds by leaving them vulnerable to raptors, especially in
large, severe fires, which leave few unburned refuges. Black-capped
chickadees tend to show a slight negative response to fire. Fire can
negatively impact chickadees from a decrease in habitat complexity and
available food.

Impacts to waterfowl by prescribed fire are expected to be minimal at
the Memorial. Major fire effects include destruction of nests and
nestlings during spring burns. Prescribed fire projects can be planned
to minimize the impact to nesting waterfowl. Some disturbance from fire
and smoke may occur at nesting sites, but many waterfowl species are
known to re-nest if they survive the fire (Hodson, 1965)[^44]. Fires are
also known to reduce fine ground vegetation, which can benefit waterfowl
in predator detection (Fritzell, 1975)[^45].

Gallinaceous birds can benefit and be negatively impacted by prescribed
fire and mechanical treatment. These birds are ground nesters so their
nests and young could be destroyed. Benefits of fire include the
reduction of ground cover, which in turn reduces a predator's ability to
hide. The reduction of ground cover also improves these birds' abilities
to move along the ground. A severe fire may remove too much hiding cover
while low to moderate intensity fires create mosaics, which increases
diversity and forage.

**[Reptiles and Amphibians]{.underline}**

The proposed prescribed fires will not likely include a large portion of
wet or riparian habitats and will not have many effects on amphibians.
Reptile habitats are more likely to be impacted. Prescribed fire may
improve prey species for reptiles but reduce cover as well.

**[Fisheries]{.underline}**

Although fire can negatively impact fish species, the prescribed fire
proposed for the Memorial is not expected to impact fish species in a
negative way. The Memorial controls only short portions of small
tributaries, so prescribed fire will have little impact on stream
temperature. Prescribed fire at the Memorial should have minimal impact
on fish.

[Conclusions:]{.underline} The use of prescribed fire and mechanical
treatment in this alternative will cause some minor direct negative
effects to wildlife in the short term but will likely lead to overall
positive indirect effects in the long-term. There will be no noticeable
effects to fish and fish habitat. For the impact topic Wildlife/Fish,
Alternative B would not cause impairment of the values and resources for
which the park was established.

## 

## 

## G. Sensitive Species

**Alternative A -- No Action**

**Continue full suppression of all wildland fires. No use of mechanical
treatment or prescribed fires.**

Suitable habitat for most of the federally listed species as described
in Chapter 3 does not exist within the Memorial: brown pelican, Oregon
silverspot butterfly, and the Lower Columbia chum and chinook salmon.

Bald eagles nest about one-half mile from the boundary of the Memorial
and pass by the area along the Lewis and Clark River. The 1986 Pacific
Bald Eagle Recovery Plan, pp 52-53, lists disturbance distances for nest
sites as ¼ mile for sound and ½ mile line of site. Neither of these
disturbance criteria will be violated under this alternative. No
potential roost or nest trees will be disturbed by actions under this
alternative. Long-term improvements to riparian vegetation may enhance
eagle habitat within the Memorial.

Habitat possibly exists for the marbled murrelet and northern spotted
owl, but they are not known to exist in the Memorial. Management actions
under this alternative would be a positive effect in the long-term as
the forest becomes more mature. However, a severe wildland fire could
destroy this habitat at any time.

Habitat for species Proposed for listing and for Candidate Species
(coastal cutthroat and Lower Columbia River coho) would not be affected
by this alternative.

[Conclusions:]{.underline} Since the strategy in this alternative is
immediate suppression of all wildland fires, the overall direct effect
to federally listed species is mainly no-effect in the short term but it
may lead to positive effects in the long-term for certain species
dependent on old-growth habitat. For the impact topic Sensitive Species,
Alternative A would not cause long-term impairment of the values and
resources for which the park was established.

**Alternative B -- Preferred Alternative**

**Suppression of all wildland fire, use of mechanical treatment, and use
of prescribed fire to achieve resource objectives.**

The effects to federally listed species from wildland fires and
suppression activities are similar to those described in Alternative A
in the short term. Because of the prescribed fire and mechanical
treatment program under this alternative, the potential for a large and
severe wildland fire in the Memorial is slightly less than with
Alternative A in the long-term. This would be a positive effect to
habitat for some listed species which could potentially use the Memorial
such as the marbled murrelet and the northern spotted owl. It would have
little or nor effect on habitat for other species such as the bald eagle
and the species Proposed for listing or for Species of Concern (as
described in Chapter 3).

[Conclusions:]{.underline} The use of prescribed fire and mechanical
treatment for beneficial purposes may lead to fewer, severe wildland
fires in the long-term which would be a positive effect to habitat for
those sensitive species dependent on old growth for their survival. For
the impact topic Sensitive Species, Alternative B would not cause
impairment of the values and resources for which the park was
established.

## H. Cultural Resources

**Alternative A --No Action**

**Continue full suppression of all wildland fires. No use of mechanical
treatment or prescribed fire.**

In the long-term, wildland fire could have a more devastating effect on
cultural resources under this alternative as compared with Alternative B
because there is a greater likelihood for large, devastating fires. Fuel
loads will continue to accumulate and eventually, a large wildland fire
with high intensity heat will occur. The greater heat intensity will
penetrate deeper into subsurface sites causing more damage to
sub-surface artifacts as compared with the effects from a small, cooler
fire.

Further, more extensive suppression activities will likely occur in
wildland fire situations increasing the chances for soil disturbance and
cultural resource damage. Because the timing and location of wildland
fires cannot be predicted, suppression activities are usually carried
out under emergency type situations. During these events, firefighters
respond quickly and there may not be ample time for the careful
development of plans to avoid disturbance to cultural resources. While
some of the disturbances caused by suppression can be avoided by careful
planning of hand lines and rehab work, the ability to consider cultural
resources during a wildland fire is much less likely to occur.

[Conclusions:]{.underline} Since the strategy in this alternative is
immediate suppression of all wildland fires, the overall direct effect
to Cultural Resources is positive in the short term but could lead to
some negative effects in the long-term. While there is the potential in
the long-term for cultural resource impacts, it would not result in the
type of impairment of the special values the park was specifically
established to commemorate. Alternative A would not cause impairment of
the values and resources for which the park was established.

**Alternative B -- Preferred Alternative**

**Suppression of all wildland fire, use of mechanical treatment, and use
of prescribed fire to achieve resource objectives.**

The effects to cultural resources from wildland fires and suppression
actions are similar to those described in Alternative A in the short
term. Because of the prescribed fire and mechanical treatment program
under this alternative, the potential for a large and severe wildland
fire in the Memorial is slightly less than with Alternative A in the
long-term. This would be a positive effect to cultural resources.

The use of prescribed fire would add an additional concern from ground
disturbing actions potentially affecting cultural resources. The Fire
Management Plan will state that all fire-management activities,
particularly the development of prescribed burn plans, will adhere to
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The adverse effects of
fire and fire suppression activities will thus be minimized or avoided
by pre-burn surveys,

implementing cultural resource protection procedures, and by carefully
locating ground-disturbing activities away form cultural sites.
Mechanical thinning for fuel reduction purposes is also a potential
threat to cultural resources.

The NPS will use the mitigation measures described in Chapter 2 to
minimize the potential for cultural resource damage during prescribed
burn and mechanical treatment operations. Even with the best planning,
there is the still the chance that cultural resource damage could occur.

[Conclusions:]{.underline} Since the strategy in this alternative is
immediate suppression of all wildland fires, the overall direct effect
to Cultural Resources is positive in the short term The use of
prescribed fire and mechanical treatment for beneficial purposes may
lead to fewer, severe wildland fires in the long-term which would be a
positive effect to cultural resources as compared with Alternative A.
For the impact topic Cultural Resources, Alternative B would not cause
impairment of the values and resources for which the park was
established.

## I. Visitor Use:

**Alternative A -- No Action**

**Continue full suppression of all wildland fires. No use of mechanical
treatment or prescribed fire.**

Under this alternative, visitor use would be impacted by wildland fires
as has occurred historically. Short-term impacts would culminate in
restrictions of use by visitors in areas affected by the spread of the
wildland fire event. Management actions such as visitor evacuations,
entry restrictions and other strategies removing visitors from areas
impacted by wildland fire would be instituted. Additionally, during the
fires and suppression efforts, smoke, and firefighter traffic would
cause temporary inconvenience and possible road closures to visitors and
local residents. Hazards left over after the suppression efforts, such
as hazard trees or soil erosion, may also impact visitor use. These
impacts would occur during the driest part of the fire season, which
correlates to the period of highest visitor use.

Indirect impacts on visitor use could also be experienced. Closures to
visitor entry into areas experiencing burned area rehabilitation
projects, closures of damaged park infrastructures until repairs are
completed, and other types of visitor use restrictions may occur.

[Conclusions:]{.underline} There will be negative effects to visitors
when wildland fires occur. The extent of these effects will depend on
the timing and severity of the fire event.

**Alternative B -- Preferred Alternative**

**Suppression of all wildland fire, use of mechanical treatment, and use
of prescribed fire to achieve resource objectives.**

The effects from wildland fires and resulting suppression activities are
similar to those described for Alternative A.

There would be additional effects to visitors from prescribed fire
projects, but these would short-term and minor in nature. Prescribed
fires would generally be undertaken during the pre- and post-visitor use
seasons when fire danger is lower and fewer visitors are present. There
will be restrictions on public entry into prescribed fire project areas
during the burn and mop-up stages. These restrictions would be of short
duration, generally two -- four days and the restrictions would be for a
specific site. The timing of visitor use restrictions due to mechanical
fuels reduction projects and prescribed fire projects can be determined
by project managers, this is not the case for wildland fire suppression
actions.

Long-term impacts on visitor use could diminish as hazard fuels are
removed and wildland fires move from potential high intensity, long
duration, to lower intensity, shorter duration events.

It is not expected that the mechanical thinning operations would affect
visitor use.

[Conclusions:]{.underline} Prescribed fires and wildland fires will
cause some short-term, negative effects to visitors under this
alternative. In the long-term, the overall effects will be less as
compared with those in Alternative A.

**J. Safety:**

**Alternative A -- No Action**

**Continue full suppression of all wildland fires. No use of prescribed
fire or mechanical treatments.**

Safety of the public and NPS personnel is the number one priority of the
Fort Clatsop National Memorial fire management program. Federal Wildland
Fire Management Policy as implemented through NPS D.O.-18 reinforces
that concept. This alternative relies on full suppression actions to
insure the safety of the public and park personnel, and with fire
fighting strategies to assure the safety of wildland fire fighters.

Short-term impacts on safety concerning Alternative A are similar to
historical impacts. The impacts are directly related to the severity of
the fire and its location. The more severe the fire, the more difficult
it will be for fire suppression resources to stop its spread. The larger
a wildland fire becomes, the more potential it has to impact the safety
of the public, Memorial personnel and firefighters.

Long-term impacts exhibited under Alternative A are for the continued
build-up of an unnatural fuel loading. With higher fuel loads, there is
more potential for severe fire behavior. As more events exhibit severe
fire behavior over time, there will be increased potential for impacts
on the safety of the public, park personnel and firefighters. However,
because the incidence of wildland fire at the Memorial is low, the
potential effects are minor in nature.

[Conclusions:]{.underline} Since the strategy in this alternative is
immediate suppression of all wildland fires, the overall direct effect
to safety is positive in the short term but may lead to more negative
effects in the long-term unless hazardous fuels are effectively reduced
by mechanical means.

**Alternative B -- Preferred Alternative**

**Suppression of all wildland fire, use of mechanical treatment, and use
of prescribed fire to achieve resource objectives.**

There will be an increase in fire events under Alternative B, due to the
inclusion of prescribed fire projects. In the short-term, wildland fires
will exhibit current fire behavior with associated safety concerns.
Safety concerns for a prescribed fire, in prescription, should be
minimal because of the controlled nature of the burn through the use of
a Fort Clatsop National Memorial Superintendent approved prescribed fire
burn plan. The safety risk to visitors from mechanical treatments is
also thought to be minimal because the NPS would take all necessary
precautions to prevent injury to visitors.

In the long-term there will be a decrease in the severity of wildland
fires as more of the park's hazard fuels are treated with prescribed
fire and mechanical fuel reduction projects. A decrease in fire severity
reduces fire containment times, thereby reducing the total area impacted
by that wildland fire event. A reduction in the severity of a fire and
the associated effort needed to stop its spread will reduce the amount
of time that the public, park personnel and firefighters are exposed to
the wildland fire situation, thereby reducing safety risks.

The provision in this alternative to reduce fuel loads thereby reducing
the risk of wildland fire spreading to adjacent private property
(Wildland Urban Interface) will make it safer for people living next to
the Memorial boundary in the long-term.

With any prescribed fire use there is the potential for escapement and
increased safety concerns. When this happens, the activity becomes a
wildland fire and would be suppressed as soon as possible. The risk of
prescribed fire escapement in the Memorial is small if proper procedures
are followed by the National Park Service.

[Conclusions:]{.underline} A similar level of safety risk exists under
this alternative as compared with Alternative A in the short term, but
the overall effect is less in the long-term.

## K. Cumulative Effects:

Cumulative effects are "additive" impacts to a particular resource. They
are analyzed without regard to land ownership (i.e., cumulative effects
may occur from actions on private or other agency land), and it includes
impacts of actions in the past, the present, and the reasonable
foreseeable future.

**Air Quality:**

Smoke from wildland fires outside the area will impact air quality
within the Memorial. The level of impact will depend on the severity of
the fire season and the wind direction on a particular day. It is
possible the Memorial could experience air quality impacts during
periods of atmospheric inversion, but this is not expected to be
frequent.

The Memorial could also be affected by pollution emissions from outside
the area. Sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and suspended particulate
matter are pollutants of concern which could originate from pulp and
paper mills along the Columbia River. The area could also experience
occasional episodes of high-suspended particulate matter of windblown
dust from logging operations and unpaved roads. Smoke from wood burning
stoves may affect the Memorial during wintertime atmospheric.

**Water Resources:**

Water quality in the Memorial has been, and could continue to be,
affected by logging operations in the Lewis and Clark River watershed.
Effects include discharge patterns, erosion and sedimentation, water
temperature, and possibly organic and nutrient loading. Log booming and
log transport leave woody deposits on the stream bottom which affects
oxygen levels and benthic organisms. Periodic dredging to facilitate
timber movement can have short-term effects on turbidity and long-term
effects on benthic fauna.

Draining and filling activities to create dikes and levees has had a
profound effect on estuarine and riverine wetlands once found along the
Lewis and Clark River at the Memorial. Surviving wetlands at the
Memorial have been radically changed from alterations in fresh and salt
water flows. These changes to the wetlands have reduced the natural
cleansing action they once provided.

Unauthorized dumps and landfills may have a localized effect on surface
and groundwater resources[^46]. Illegal dumping is already suspected of
leaking contaminants into at least one perennial stream entering the
Memorial. Other landfills may be affecting tributaries to the Lewis and
Clark River.

Farms and dairies along the Lewis and Clark River upstream of the
Memorial may contribute pesticides, fertilizers and livestock waste to
waters entering the Memorial.

**Soil:**

Fluctuations of fresh and salt waters levels in the Lewis and Clark
River continue to cause erosion of stream banks at the Memorial.

**Plants:**

Plants can also be adversely affected by pollutants in the air (see Air
Quality).

**Animals:**

Animals, and their habitat, have been greatly affected by the change in
fresh and salt water flows caused by dike and levee construction along
the Lewis and Clark River. Logging activities have also affected animal
species and numbers that now occupy the Memorial.

**Sensitive Species:**

Logging activities and wildland fires occurring before the Memorial was
created may have affected the well being of the some sensitive plant
species found there. It is impossible to determine the extent of these
impacts as few records of the plant\'s status before the Memorial was
created exist.

**Cultural Resources:**

Many things undoubtedly affected cultural resources of the Memorial
before it was created including looting, erosion, logging activities and
wildland fires. It is not possible to know just how much has been lost.
Looting and erosion is still a potential threat although it is
considered a small problem.

**Visitor Use:**

Many outside influences including the economy, weather and user
preferences affect visitor use in the Memorial. Effects from these
factors may even out somewhat over time. Also, the NPS can and does
affect the amount and type of visitor use by their management polices
and the facilities they provide.

The reduction of the natural wetlands and the change of the vegetative
makeup have reduced the overall aesthetic appeal of the Memorial for
visitors.

**Safety:**

Visitor safety is mainly affected by personal choices made by Memorial
users. It can also be affected somewhat by the management polices and
facilities provided by the NPS.

Wildland fires beginning on adjacent land and spreading to the Memorial
can potentially place visitors and fire fighters at risk.

## L. General Impairment Statement

Management of the Fort Clatsop National Memorial under either the No
Action Alternative or the Preferred Alternative would not result in the
impairment of the values for which the Memorial was created. Some
serious consequences (large wildfire) could result if the National Park
Service does not address forest fuel accumulations, especially aerial
fuels, which provide a ladder effect allowing wildfire to become a
conflagration with destructive effects to the forest. The fuel load
situation in the No-Action Alternative will likely become worse.
Prescribed fire use and mechanical treatment under the Preferred
Alternative offers an opportunity (as compared to the No Action
Alternative) to restore ecologic conditions existing during the time the
Expedition stayed at the Memorial. However, not being able to restore
these all these conditions, or the effects from a large wildfire, would
not be considered an impairment of the values for which the Memorial was
created.

# 

# 5.0 Consultation and Coordination

Public scoping for this Environmental Assessment was conducted from June
16 through July 16, 2004. A press release was issued and a scoping
letter was sent to 56 individuals/organizations. Three comment letters
were received.

The Draft Environmental Assessment was reviewed by the U.S Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Warrenton Fire department, Fort Clatsop National
Memorial staff, and the National Park Service Regional Office. Major
issues raised were:

> Clarify in the Fire Management Plan the role for the National Park
> Service and the Warrenton Fire Department for fire management in the
> Fort Clatsop National Memorial.
>
> Fuel pile burning needs to comply with Oregon Department of
> Environmental Quality open burning restrictions which currently
> prohibit such practices within three miles of the Warrenton city
> limits. Portions of the Memorial are within this area but the DEQ has
> issued permits for open burn piles in the past.
>
> The City of Warrenton Fire Department has a strong concern for any
> type of prescribed burn program other than DEQ permitted burn piles.
>
> While the Fish and Wildlife Service recognizes that protecting human
> life and property comes first, it wants to minimize effects to the
> extent possible to listed species during fire suppression efforts.
>
> The Fish and Wildlife Service recommends a Fire Management Plan
> objective to protect and restore habitats in a natural condition to
> support wildlife populations. An objective with the prescribed fire
> program should be to restore resources to the historical condition,
> and/or to benefit T&E species and other species of concern.
>
> Fire suppression should be conducted so equipment used will minimize
> impacts on natural resources. The Service recommends the following
> measures:

-   Hand fire line is preferred over machine line in late successional,
    riparian, and wet meadow habitat.

-   Keep wood in large lengths when felling for fire line purposes.
    Protect snags when possible.

-   Avoid the use of chemicals when there is potential for water
    contamination.

-   Avoid using retardant with YSP (sodium ferrocyanide), and use least
    toxic fire foams available.

-   Aircraft should use flight paths that avoid raptor nests.

-   Information about T&E species and their habitat should be available
    to fire staff before and during wildfire events.

-   Rehabilitate roads, trails, fire line, and all stream crossings to
    pre-fire conditions with adequate drainage structures to prevent
    resource damage.

# 

#  

# Appendix

## A. List of Preparers

This EA was prepared by James H. Hulbert and Associates and Francis Mohr
of Mohr Management Fire. Mr. Hulbert and Mr. Mohr are both retired from
the USDA Forest Service with backgrounds in fire management and
planning.

Mr. Hulbert is a professional forester with 26 years experience with the
USDA Forest Service in a variety of locations from the mid-west to the
Pacific northwest. He served in planning and administrative positions on
the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area, Hells Canyon National
Recreation Area and the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. Jim
was a District Ranger on the Okanogan National Forest in north-central
Washington for eight years. Since taking an early retirement in 1994 he
has worked as a consultant in the Pacific northwest, specializing in
wildland fire management and wildland planning projects; he resides at
267 El Camino Real, White Salmon, Washington. (509) 493-3863

Mr. Mohr began his career with the USDA Forest Service as a smoke jumper
working throughout the Pacific northwest. He later served on National
Forests in Idaho and Oregon specializing in fuels management and fire
suppression. Francis is well known for his pioneering work in
establishing low-impact fire suppression methods. Since retirement from
the Forest Service, he has worked as a consultant in the area of fire
management planning and has helped development plans for the National
Park Service, BLM, BIA, and the Forest Service. He resides at 1555
14^th^ Street, Baker City, OR 97814. (541) 523-6245.

## B. Glossary:

Activity fuels: Fuels resulting from, or altered by, forestry practices
such as timber harvest or thinning, as opposed to naturally created
fuels.

Aerial fuels: Standing and supported live and dead combustibles not in
direct contact with the ground and consisting mainly of foliage, twigs,
branches, stems, cones, bark, and vines.

Air pollution: The general term referring to the undesirable addition of
substances (gases, liquids, or solid particles) to the atmosphere that
are foreign to the natural atmosphere or are present in quantities
exceeding natural concentrations.

Air quality: The composition of air with respect to quantities of
pollution therein. It is used most frequently in connection with
\"standards\" of maximum acceptable pollutant concentrations. Used
instead of \"air pollution\" when referring to programs.

Canopy: The stratum containing the crowns of the tallest vegetation
present, (living or dead) usually above 20 feet.

Combustion: The rapid oxidation of fuel in which heat and usually flame
are produced. Combustion can be divided into four phases: pre-ignition,
flaming, smoldering, and glowing.

Conflagration: A raging, destructive fire. It is often used to connote a
fire with a moving front as distinguished from a fire storm.

Control a fire: To complete control line around a fire, any spot fire
there from, and any interior island to be saved; burn out any unburned
area adjacent to the fire side of the control lines, and cool down all
hot spots that are immediate threats to the control line, until the
lines can reasonably be expected to hold under foreseeable conditions.

Cooperating agency: An agency supplying assistance including but not
limited to direct tactical or support functions or resources to the
incident control effort (e.g. Red Cross, law enforcement agency,
telephone company, etc.).

Cumulative effects: The impacts on the environment that result from the
incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal
or non-federal) or person that undertakes such actions.

Crown fire: A fire that advances from top to top of trees or shrubs more
or less independent of a surface fire. Crown fires are sometimes classed
as running or dependent to distinguish the degree of independence from
the surface fire.

Dead fuels: Fuels with no living tissue in which moisture content is
governed almost entirely by absorption or evaporation of atmospheric
moisture (relative humidity and precipitation).

Debris fire: In fire suppression terminology, a fire spreading from any
fire originally ignited to clear land or burn rubbish, garbage, crop
stubble, or meadows (excluding incendiary fires).

Depth of fire: The reduction in forest floor thickness due to
consumption by fire.

Direct attack: Any treatment applied directly to burning fuel such as
wetting, smothering, or chemically quenching the fire or by physically
separating the burning from unburned fuel.

Dozer: Any tracked vehicle with a front mounted blade used for exposing
mineral soil.

Dozer line: Fire line constructed by the front blade of a dozer.

Ecosystem: An interacting natural system including all the component
organisms together with the biotic environment and processes affecting
them.

Endangered Species: A plant or animal species in danger of extension
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range if factors contributing to its decline continue. This is a
designation made by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Environment: The complex surroundings of an item or area of interest,
such as air, water, natural resources, and their physical conditions
(temperature, humidity).

Environmental Assessment (EA): A comprehensive evaluation of alternative
actions and their predictable short-term and long-term environmental
effects, including physical, biological, economic, social, and
environmental design factors and their intentions. An EA is not as
far-reaching as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Extreme fire behavior: Extreme implies a level of fire behavior
characteristics that ordinarily precludes methods of direct control
action. One or more of the following is usually involved: high rate of
spread, prolific crowning and/or spotting, presence of fire whirls,
strong convection column. Predictability is difficult because such fires
often exercise some degree of influence on their environment and behave
erratically, sometimes dangerously.

Fine fuel moisture: The probable moisture content of fast-drying fuels
which have a time lag constant of 1 hour or less; such as, grass,
leaves, ferns, tree moss, pine needles, and small twigs (0-1/4\").

Fine fuels: Fast-drying dead fuels, generally characterized by a
comparatively high surface area-to-volume ratio, which are less than
1/4-inch in diameter and have a timelag of one hour or less. These fuels
(grass, leaves, needles, etc.) ignite readily and are consumed rapidly
by fire when dry.

Fire behavior: The manner in which a fire reacts to the influences of
fuel, weather, and topography.

Fire benefits: Fire effects with positive monetary, social, or emotional
value or which contribute, through changes in the resource base, to the
attainment of organizational goals.

Fire cause: For statistical purposes fires are grouped into broad cause
classes. The nine general causes used in the U.S. are lightning,
campfire, smoking, debris burning, incendiary, machine use (equipment),
railroad, children, and miscellaneous.

Fire damage: Detrimental fire effects expressed in monetary or other
units, including the unfavorable effects of fire-induced changes in the
resource base on the attainment of organizational goals.

Fire danger: Sum of constant danger and variable danger factors
affecting the inception, spread, and resistance to control, and
subsequent fire damage; often expressed as an index.

Fire hazard: A fuel complex, defined by volume, type condition,
arrangement, and location that determines the degree of ease of ignition
and of resistance to control.

Fire interval: Time (in years) between two successive fires in a
designated area (i.e., the interval between two successive fire
occurrences); the size of the area must be clearly specified.

Fire management: Activities required for the protection of burnable
wildland values from fire and the use of prescribed fire to meet land
management objectives.

Fire management plan: Statement, for a specific area, of fire policy,
objective, and prescribed action; may include maps, charts, tables, and
statistical data.

Fire occurrence: The average number of fires in a specified area during
a specified time period.

Fire pre-suppression: Activities undertaken in advance of fire
occurrence to help ensure more effective fire suppression.

Fire prevention: Activities, including education, engineering,
enforcement and administration, that are directed at reducing the number
of wildfires, the costs of suppression, and fire-caused damages to
resources and property.

Fire regime: Periodicity and pattern of naturally-occurring fires in a
particular area or vegetative type, described in terms of frequency,
biological severity, and area extent.

Fire retardant: Any substance except plain water that by chemical or
physical action reduces flammability of fuels or slows their rate of
combustion.

Fire risk: The chance of fire starting, as determined by the presence
and activity of causative agents.

Firebreak: A natural or constructed barrier used to stop or check fires
that may occur, or to provide a control line from which to work.

Fuel class: Part of the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS).
Group of fuels possessing common characteristics. Dead fuels are grouped
according to 1-, 10-, 100-, and l000-hour time-lag, and living fuels are
grouped as herbaceous (annual or perennial) or woody.

Fuel treatment: Manipulation or removal of fuels to reduce the
likelihood of ignition and/or to lessen potential damage and resistance
to control (e.g., lopping, chipping, crushing, piling and burning).

Fuel type: An identifiable association of fuel elements of distinctive
species, form, size, arrangement, or other characteristics that will
cause a predictable rate of spread or resistance to control under
specified weather conditions.

Ground fire: Fire that consumes the organic material beneath the surface
litter ground, such as a peat fire.

Hazard: A fuel complex defined by kind, arrangement, volume, condition,
and location that forms a special threat of ignition and resistance to
control.

Initial attack: The actions taken by the first resources to arrive at a
wildfire to protect and property, and prevent further extension of the
fire.

Issue: A subject or question of widespread public discussion or
interest.

Ladder fuels: Fuels which provide vertical continuity between strata,
thereby allowing fire to carry from surface fuels into the crowns of
trees or shrubs with relative ease. They help initiate and assure the
continuation of crowning.

Mutual aid: A system wherein two or more fire departments, by prior
agreement, operate essentially as a single agency to respond routinely
across jurisdictional boundaries to render mutual assistance in
combating fire emergencies.

Mitigation: Measures designed to counteract environmental impacts, or to
make impacts less severe.

National Park: A federal reservation administered by the National Park
Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior in order to conserve
unique scenery, flora and fauna, and any natural and historic objects
within its boundaries for public enjoyment in perpetuity.

No Action: The most likely condition expected to exist in the future if
current management direction were to continue unchanged.

Preferred Alternative: The alternative recommended for implementation
based on the evaluation completed in the planning process.

Prescribed fire: A management ignited wildland fire that burns under
specified conditions where the fire is confined to a predetermined area
and produces the fire behavior and fire characteristics required to
attain planned fire treatment and resource management objective.

Prescribed natural fire: Naturally ignited wildland fire that burns
under specified conditions where the fire is confined to a predetermined
area and produce the fire behavior and fire characteristics to attain
planned fire treatment and resource management objectives.

Prescription: A written statement defining the objectives to be attained
as well as the conditions of temperature, humidity, wind direction and
speed, fuel moisture, and soil moisture, under which a fire will be
allowed to burn. A prescription is generally expressed as acceptable
ranges of the prescription elements, and the limit of the geographic
area to be covered.

Prevention: Activities directed at reducing the incidence of fires,
including public education, law enforcement, personal contact, and
reduction of fuel hazards (fuels management).

Rate of spread: The relative activity of a fire in extending its
horizontal dimensions. It is expressed as rate of increase of the total
perimeter of the fire, as rate of forward spread of the fire front, or
as rate of increase in area, depending on the intended use of the
information. Usually it is expressed in chains or acres per hour for a
specific period in the fire\'s history.

Retardant: A substance or chemical agent which reduces the flammability
of combustibles.

Risk: The chance of fire starting as determined by the presence and
activity of causative agents.

Rural fire district: An organization established to provide fire
protection to a designated geographic area outside of areas under
municipal fire protection. Usually has some taxing authority and
officials may be appointed or elected.

Smoke management: Application of fire intensities and meteorological
processes to minimize degradation of air quality during prescribed
fires.

Suppression: All the work of extinguishing or confining a fire beginning
with its discovery.

Surface fire: Fire that burns loose debris on the surface, which
includes dead branches, leaves, and low vegetation.

Surface fuel: Fuels lying on or near the surface of the ground,
consisting of leaf and needle litter, dead branch material, downed logs,
bark, tree cones, and low stature living plants.

Threatened: A species that is likely to become endangered within the
near future if factors contributing to its decline continue. The
designation is made by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Watershed: Geographic area that drains into a common water course.

Wildfire: A fire occurring on wildland that is not meeting management
objectives and thus requires a suppression response.

Wildland: An area in which development is essentially non-existent,
except for roads, railroads, power lines, and similar transportation
facilities. Structures, if any, are widely scattered.

Wildland Fire: Any fire occurring on the wild lands, regardless of
ignition source, damages or benefits.

Wildland/Urban Interface: The line, area, or zone where structures and
other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or
vegetative fuels.

## C. References:

A Conceptual Plan for the Forest Landscape of Fort Clatsop national
Memorial, Report CPSU/UW 89-2. College of Forest Resources, UW. 1989.

Agee, James H. A Conceptual Plan for the Forest Landscape of Fort
Clatsop National Monument. 1989. Report CPSU/UW 89-2. College of Forest
Resources, University of Washington, Seattle Wash.

Bellrose, Frank C. 1980. Ducks, geese and swans of North America.
Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books. 3rd ed. 540 p. \[19802\]

Bottom, Daniel L., Jones, Kim K., Herring, Margaret J. 1984. Fishes of
the Columbia River Estuary: Final Report on the Fish Work Unit of the
Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program. Dept. of Fish and
Wildlife Research and Development, Corvallis, Oregon.

Cain, Lee. Astoria High School Salmonid Biology Class Fish Presence
Survey, 4/11/2002.

Clark, Robert G., et al. Use of prescribed fire in rangeland ecosystems.
In Walstad, J., et al. (eds.), Natural and Prescribed fire in Pacific
Northwest forests: pp. 81-91. Corvallis: Oregon State University.

Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce. Birds of the Columbia River
Estuary. 1984.

Cultural Landscape Report, Landscape Recommendations. Fort Clatsop
National Memorial. 1993.

Csuti, Blair \[et al.\] Atlas of Oregon Wildlife: distribution, habitat
and natural history. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press, 1997.

Ek, David. Birds at Fort Clatsop National Memorial, 4/12/1999.Oregon
Breeding Bird Atlas, 1995-1999.

Ek, David. A Selection of Rare Wildlife Species, or Species of Concern,
within Clatsop County, Oregon. NPS: FOCL, 2/1997.

Fritzell, Erik K. 1975. Effects of agricultural burning on nesting
waterfowl. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 89: 21-27. \[14635\]

FOCL Fish Survey data, 2/2002.

Forde, Jon D. 1983. The effect of fire on bird and small mammal
communities in the grasslands of Wind Cave National Park. Houghton, MI:
Michigan Technological University. 140 p. Thesis. \[937\]

Franklin, J.F., and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and
Washington. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rpt. PNW-8.

Fritzell, Erik K. 1975. Effects of agricultural burning on nesting
waterfowl. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 89: 21-27. \[14635\]

General Management Plan, Fort Clatsop National Memorial, 1995

Hodson, N. L. 1965. Mallard\'s devotion to nest in face of fire. British
Birds. 58: 97. \[16011\]

Isaacs, Frank. Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Institute
\[541-929-7154\]

Johnson, Craig A. 1989. Early spring prescribed burning of big game
winter range in the Snake River Canyon of west-central Idaho. In:
Baumgartner, David M.; Breuer, David W.; Zamora, Benjamin A.; \[and
others\], compilers. Prescribed fire in the Intermountain region:
Symposium proceedings; 1986 March 3-5; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA:
Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 151-155. \[11263\]

Landers, J. Larry. 1987. Prescribed burning for managing wildlife in
southeastern pine forests. In: Dickson, James G.; Maughan, O. Eugene,
eds. Managing southern forests for wildlife and fish: a proceedings;
\[Date of conference unknown\]; \[Location of conference unknown\]. Gen.
Tech. Rep. SO-65. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 19-27. \[11562\]

Lehman, Robert N.; Allendorf, John W. 1989. The effects of fire, fire
exclusion and fire management on raptor habitats in the western United
States. In: Proceedings of the western raptor management symposium and
workshop; 1987 October 26-28; Boise, ID. Scientific and Technical Series
No. 12. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation: 236-244. \[22324\]

McMahon, Thomas E., David S. deCalesta. 1990. Effects of fire on fish
and wildlife. In Walstad, J., et al. (eds.), Natural and Prescribed fire
in Pacific Northwest forests: pp. 81-91. Corvallis: Oregon State
University.

McNabb, David H., Kermit Cromack, jr. "Effects of Prescribed Fire on
Nutrients and Soil Productivity" as included in Natural and Prescribed
Fire in Pacific Northwest Forests. 1990. Oregon State University Press,
Corvallis, OR.

Means, D. Bruce; Campbell, Howard W. 1981. Effects of prescribed burning
on amphibians and reptiles. In: Wood, Gene W., ed. Prescribed fire and
wildlife in southern forests: Proceedings of a symposium; 1981 April
6-8; Myrtle Beach, SC. Georgetown, SC: Clemson University, Belle W.
Baruch Forest Science Institute: 89-97. \[14814\]

Niemi, Gerald J. 1978. Breeding birds of burned and unburned areas in
northern Minnesota. Loon. 50: 73-84. \[14451\]

Oregon Breeding Bird Atlas, 1995-1999

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Peak Spawning Ground Counts of
Fall Chinook in Tributaries of Youngs Bay, 1948-97.

Resource Management Plan, Fort Clatsop National Memorial, 1994

VanBuskirk, R. 1998. Survey for the presence of the Oregon Silverspot
Butterfly, Speyeria zerene hippolyta (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae) on the
Clatsop Plains in 1998. University of Californai. The Nature
Conservancy, Portland, Oregon.

Vogl, Richard J. 1967. Controlled burning for wildlife in Wisconsin. In:
Proceedings, 6th annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference; 1967 March
6-7; Tallahassee, FL. No. 6. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research
Station: 47-96. \[18726\]

Walstad, J. D., S. R. Radosevich, D.V.Sandberg (editors). 1990. Natural
and Prescribed Fire in Pacific Northwest Forests. Oregon State
University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Water Resources Scoping Report, Fort Clatsop National Memorial.
Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-94/19. P.6.

[^1]: General Management Plan, Fort Clatsop National Memorial, 1995,
    Page 67.

[^2]: Water Resources Scoping Report, Fort Clatsop National Memorial,
    Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-94/19, 1994, Page 15.

[^3]: Resource Management Plan, Fort Clatsop National Memorial, 1994,
    Page 18.

[^4]: General Management Plan, Fort Clatsop National Memorial, 1995,
    Page 68

[^5]: Franklin, J.F., and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural Vegetation of
    Oregon and Washington. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rpt. PNW-8.

[^6]: A Conceptual Plan for the Forest Landscape of Fort Clatsop
    national Memorial, Report CPSU/UW 89-2. College of Forest Resources,
    UW. 1989. P.18.

[^7]: General Management Plan, Fort Clatsop National Memorial, 1995,
    Page 73

[^8]: Oregon Breeding Bird Atlas, 1995-1999.

[^9]: Isaacs, Frank. Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Institute
    \[541-929-7154\]

[^10]: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Peak Spawning Ground
    Counts of Fall Chinook in Tributaries of Youngs Bay, 1948-97.

[^11]: VanBuskirk, R. 1998. Survey for the presence of the Oregon
    Silverspot Butterfly, *Speyeria zerene hippolyta* (Lepidoptera,
    Nymphalidae) on the Clatsop Plains in 1998. University of
    Californai. The Nature Conservancy, Portland, Oregon.

[^12]: FOCL Fish Survey data, 2/2002.

[^13]: Cain, Lee. Astoria High School Salmonid Biology Class Fish
    Presence Survey, 4/11/2002.

[^14]: Csuti, Blair \[et al.\] *Atlas of Oregon Wildlife: distribution,
    habitat and natural history*. Corvallis: Oregon State University
    Press, 1997.

[^15]: Ek, David. Birds at Fort Clatsop National Memorial,
    4/12/1999.Oregon Breeding Bird Atlas, 1995-1999.

[^16]: Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce. Birds of the Columbia
    River Estuary. 1984.

    Oregon Breeding Bird Atlas, 1995-1999.

[^17]: Ek, David. A Selection of Rare Wildlife Species, or Species of
    Concern, within Clatsop County, Oregon. NPS: FOCL, 2/1997.

[^18]: Bottom, Daniel L., Jones, Kim K., Herring, Margaret J. 1984.
    Fishes of the Columbia River Estuary: Final Report on the Fish Work
    Unit of the Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program. Dept.
    of Fish and Wildlife Research and Development, Corvallis, Oregon.

[^19]: Bottom, Daniel L., Jones, Kim K., Herring, Margaret J. 1984.
    Fishes of the Columbia River Estuary: Final Report on the Fish Work
    Unit of the Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program. Dept.
    of Fish and Wildlife Research and Development, Corvallis, Oregon.

[^20]: General Management Plan, Fort Clatsop National Memorial, 1995,
    Page 4.

[^21]: Cultural Landscape Report, Landscape Recommendations. Fort
    Clatsop National Memorial. 1993.

[^22]: General Management Plan, Fort Clatsop National Memorial, 1995,
    Page 79

[^23]: Agee, James H. A Conceptual Plan for the Forest Landscape of Fort
    Clatsop National Monument. 1989. Report CPSU/UW 89-2. College of
    Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle Wash.

[^24]: 24 McNabb, David H., Kermit Cromack, jr. "Effects of Prescribed
    Fire on Nutrients and Soil Productivity" as included in Natural and
    Prescribed Fire in Pacific Northwest Forests. 1990. Oregon State
    University Press, Corvallis, OR.

[^25]: Walstad, J. D., S. R. Radosevich, D.V.Sandberg (editors). 1990.
    Natural and Prescribed Fire in Pacific Northwest Forests. Oregon
    State University Press, Corvallis, OR. Chapters 12-14.

[^26]: 26 McNabb, David H., Kermit Cromack, jr. "Effects of Prescribed
    Fire on Nutrients and Soil Productivity" as included in Natural and
    Prescribed Fire in Pacific Northwest Forests. 1990. Oregon State
    University Press, Corvallis, OR.

[^27]: Agee, J.K. A Conceptual Plan for the Forest Landscape of Fort
    Clatsop National Memorial. College of Forest Resources, UW. 1989, P.
    15.

[^28]: Johnson, Craig A. 1989. Early spring prescribed burning of big
    game winter range in the Snake River Canyon of westcentral Idaho.
    In: Baumgartner, David M.; Breuer, David W.; Zamora, Benjamin A.;
    \[and others\], compilers. Prescribed fire in the Intermountain
    region: Symposium proceedings; 1986 March 3-5; Spokane, WA. Pullman,
    WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 151-155.
    \[11263\]

[^29]: McMahon, Thomas E., David S. deCalesta. 1990. Effects of fire on
    fish and wildlife. In Walstad, J., et al. (eds.), Natural and
    Prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest forests: pp. 81-91. Corvallis:
    Oregon State University.

[^30]: Clark, Robert G., et al. Use of prescribed fire in rangeland
    ecosystems. In Walstad, J., et al. (eds.), Natural and Prescribed
    fire in Pacific Northwest forests: pp. 81-91. Corvallis: Oregon
    State University.

[^31]: Landers, J. Larry. 1987. Prescribed burning for managing wildlife
    in southeastern pine forests. In: Dickson, James G.; Maughan, O.
    Eugene, eds. Managing southern forests for wildlife and fish: a
    proceedings; \[Date of conference unknown\]; \[Location of
    conference unknown\]. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-65. New Orleans, LA: U.S.
    Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest
    Experiment Station: 19-27. \[11562\]

[^32]: Landers, J. Larry. 1987. Prescribed burning for managing wildlife
    in southeastern pine forests. In: Dickson, James G.; Maughan, O.
    Eugene, eds. Managing southern forests for wildlife and fish: a
    proceedings; \[Date of conference unknown\]; \[Location of
    conference unknown\]. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-65. New Orleans, LA: U.S.
    Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest
    Experiment Station: 19-27. \[11562\]

[^33]: Lehman, Robert N.; Allendorf, John W. 1989. The effects of fire,
    fire exclusion and fire management on raptor habitats in the western
    United States. In: Proceedings of the western raptor management
    symposium and workshop; 1987 October 26-28; Boise, ID. Scientific
    and Technical Series No. 12. Washington, DC: National Wildlife
    Federation: 236-244. \[22324\]

[^34]: Niemi, Gerald J. 1978. Breeding birds of burned and unburned
    areas in northern Minnesota. Loon. 50: 73-84. \[14451\]

[^35]: Hodson, N. L. 1965. Mallard\'s devotion to nest in face of fire.
    British Birds. 58: 97. \[16011\]

[^36]: Bellrose, Frank C. 1980. Ducks, geese and swans of North America.
    Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books. 3rd ed. 540 p. \[19802\]

[^37]: Fritzell, Erik K. 1975. Effects of agricultural burning on
    nesting waterfowl. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 89: 21-27. \[14635\]

[^38]: Vogl, Richard J. 1967. Controlled burning for wildlife in
    Wisconsin. In: Proceedings, 6th annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecology
    Conference; 1967 March 6-7; Tallahassee, FL. No. 6. Tallahassee, FL:
    Tall Timbers Research Station: 47-96. \[18726\]

[^39]: Means, D. Bruce; Campbell, Howard W. 1981. Effects of prescribed
    burning on amphibians and reptiles. In: Wood, Gene W., ed.
    Prescribed fire and wildlife in southern forests: Proceedings of a
    symposium; 1981 April 6-8; Myrtle Beach, SC. Georgetown, SC: Clemson
    University, Belle W. Baruch Forest Science Institute: 89-97.
    \[14814\]

[^40]: McMahon, Thomas E., David S. deCalesta. 1990. Effects of Fire on
    fish and wildlife. In Walstad, J., et al. (eds.), Natural and
    Prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest forests: pp. 81-91. Corvallis:
    Oregon State University.

[^41]: Forde, Jon D. 1983. The effect of fire on bird and small mammal
    communities in the grasslands of Wind Cave National Park. Houghton,
    MI: Michigan Technological University. 140 p. Thesis. \[937\]

[^42]: . Lehman, Robert N.; Allendorf, John W. 1989. The effects of
    fire, fire exclusion and fire management on raptor habitats in the
    western United States. In: Proceedings of the western raptor
    management symposium and workshop; 1987 October 26-28; Boise, ID.
    Scientific and Technical Series No. 12. Washington, DC: National
    Wildlife Federation: 236-244. \[22324\]

[^43]: Landers, J. Larry. 1987. Prescribed burning for managing wildlife
    in southeastern pine forests. In: Dickson, James G.; Maughan, O.
    Eugene, eds. Managing southern forests for wildlife and fish: a
    proceedings; \[Date of conference unknown\]; \[Location of
    conference unknown\]. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-65. New Orleans, LA: U.S.
    Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest
    Experiment Station: 19-27. \[11562\]

[^44]: . Hodson, N. L. 1965. Mallard\'s devotion to nest in face of
    fire. British Birds. 58: 97. \[16011\]

[^45]: Fritzell, Erik K. 1975. Effects of agricultural burning on
    nesting waterfowl. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 89: 21-27. \[14635\]

[^46]: Water Resources Scoping Report, Fort Clatsop National Memorial.
    Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-94/19. P.6.