1790A
DNA-2014
Lost Eagle Restoration
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
EUGENE DISTRICT OFFICE
DETERMINATION OF NEPA ADEQUACY (DNA) WORKSHEET
OFFICE:
Upper Willamette Resource Area
TRACKING NUMBER: DOI-BLM-OR-E060-2014-004-DNA
PROJECT NAME: Lost Creek/Eagle Creek Restoration Project
LOCATION/LEGAL DESCRIPTION: T19S R1W Section 31 and T20S R1W Section 11
A. Description of Proposed Action and any applicable mitigation measures
The project would be conducted in two phases during one season. Phase I, “Lost Creek LWD Harvest”,
would harvest, transport, and stockpile approximately 100 trees with attached rootwads and their tops to
selected locations on Lost Creek approximately 7.6 miles from the harvest site. Phase II, “Lost Creek
LWD Instream”, would skid large woody debris (LWD) from stockpile sites to stream treatment sites
where LWD would be used to create functionally stable log jams. Phase II would treat approximately
4,000 feet of stream channel. Project Design Features (PDFs) are included for this project in Appendix A
of this DNA. This Project was approved for RAC funding for 2014.
Phase I
Approximately 100 trees immediately adjacent to roads 19-1-31.0, 19-1-31.2, and 19-1-31.3 (all in T19S,
R1W Section 31) ranging from 18 inches to 28 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) would be
harvested with root wads intact using heavy equipment. Trees would be cut into 80-60 foot lengths.
Harvested trees with rootwads, tops with limbs would then be transported (retaining as much of the tree
as possible) to T20S, R1W Section 11 to marked stockpile sites on road 20-1-10.3. Preservation of root
system and tree integrity is crucial. Loose soil still attached to rootwads would be mechanically removed
at the site of harvest. Heavy equipment must be capable lifting whole trees for transport that would fully
contain rootwads. Tree tops would be transported via standard log haul equipment. The numbers of
rootwad trees per access point would be predetermined for each stockpile site. Rootwad trees and logs
would be stockpiled adjacent to the access routes for later instream placement by Phase II instream
contractors. The haul route from T19S, R1W Section 31 would use roads 19-1-21.0 (Guistina) to Lost
Valley Lane and onto Lost Creek Road (County Road) which leads to 20-1-10.3 (BLM). The haul route is
approximately 7.6 miles. After all the trees are removed and hauled from any given BLM road, the road
would be inspected. Identified disturbed areas would be smoothed over and ditchlines cleared of debris.
Areas of exposed soil would be grass seeded and mulched with native materials for erosion control to be
supplied by the government. All appropriate State permits for transport of oversized material and
transportation laws would be the responsibility of the contractor. Total time estimated for obtaining,
transporting and stockpiling of the trees and maintaining roads is 3-5 days. Harvest and stockpile
activities would be completed by July 31, 2014.
Phase II
Stockpiled LWD from Phase I would be transported to Eagle/Lost Creek stream channel. LWD would
then be transported to marked treatment sites located upstream and downstream of access routes (see
map). Up to six designated access routes would be used to supply LWD to approximately 22 instream
treatment sites to restore approximately 4,000 feet of stream. Stream width is approximately 25-30 feet.
Preservation of root system and tree integrity during both Phases is crucial. Access routes that cross
-1-
1790A
DNA-2014
Lost Eagle Restoration
1
active floodplain back channels would be corduroyed and trails slashed as needed to support heavy
machinery. Disturbance to floodplain, riparian trees, and stream banks would be minimized. Heavy
machine operators would minimize number of equipment passes across the floodplain to minimize
compaction. Some LWD would be trenched into gravel bars to provide stability. Most treatment sites
would place or weave LWD together into log jams. A sawyer may be needed to cut LWD to specific
lengths. BLM staff overseeing the project would specify placement of LWD and cutting for each treatment
site to create functionally stable log jams designed to enhance fish habitat, protect unstable banks and
floodplains, and encourage off channel habitat development. After LWD have been placed for a given
access route, heavy equipment would be used to rehabilitate the access routes by scarifying compacted
soils and placing slash and other forest material on the access routes to prevent erosion and block
vehicle access. Other disturbed soils would be smoothed over and areas of exposed soil would be grass
seeded and mulched with native materials for erosion control to be supplied by the government. Heavy
machinery working in-stream would use vegetable-based hydraulic fluid. All fueling would occur on
drivable road surface or other method or location to be approved by BLM staff. Total time estimated for
transporting and placing the rootwad trees and tops into Eagle Creek and Lost Creek, and rehabilitating
access routes would be 4-7 days. All work must be completed by the State mandated fish work window
designated for the Lost Creek watershed of August 31, 2014. Work would be conducted in both phases
after July 15 to avoid potential disruption to nesting raptors.
Surveys for aquatic special status lichens and bryophytes in Lost Creek would be done prior to project
implementation when water levels allow. If additional sites are found within the project area appropriate
actions would be taken to mitigate effects to the sites.
B. Land Use Plan (LUP) Conformance
LUP Name: Eugene District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (RMP), as
amended. Date Approved: June 1995
The proposed action is in conformance with the applicable LUP because it is specifically
provided for in the following LUP decisions:
Watershed Restoration is identified as one of the three components of the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. As stated in the Eugene District ROD, “watershed restoration will be an integral part of a
program to aid recovery of fish habitat, riparian habitat, and water quality. The most important
components are control and prevention of road-related runoff and sediment production, restoration of
the condition of riparian vegetation, and restoration of instream habitat complexity (Eugene District
ROD 1995, pg. 20).”
The Project is consistent with court orders relating to the Survey and Manage mitigation measure of
the Northwest Forest Plan, as incorporated into the Eugene District Resource Management Plan.
On December 17, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an order
in Conservation Northwest, et al. v. Rey, et al., No. 08-1067 (W.D. Wash.) ( Coughenour, J.),
granting Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and finding a variety of NEPA violations in the
BLM and USFS 2007 Record of Decision eliminating the Survey and Manage mitigation measure.
Judge Coughenour deferred issuing a remedy in his December 17, 2009, order until further
proceedings, and did not enjoin the BLM from proceeding with projects. Plaintiffs and Defendants
entered into settlement negotiations that resulted in the 2011 Survey and Manage Settlement
Agreement, adopted by the District Court on July 6, 2011.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion on April 25, 2013, that reversed the District
Court for the Western District of Washington’s approval of the 2011 Survey and Manage Settlement
Agreement. The case is now remanded back to the District Court for further proceedings. This
1
A corduroy trail (road) is a type of trail (road) made by placing logs perpendicular to the direction of the
trail (road) over a low or swampy area.
-2-
1790A
DNA-2014
Lost Eagle Restoration
means that the December 17, 2009, District Court order which found National Environmental Policy
(NEPA) inadequacies in the 2007 analysis and records of decision removing Survey and Manage is
still valid.
Previously, in 2006, the District Court (Judge Pechman) had invalidated the agencies’ 2004 RODs
eliminating Survey and Manage due to NEPA violations. Following the District Court’s 2006 ruling,
parties to the litigation had entered into a stipulation exempting certain categories of activities from
the Survey and Manage standard (hereinafter “Pechman exemptions”).
Judge Pechman's Order from October 11, 2006, directs: "Defendants shall not authorize, allow, or
permit to continue any logging or other ground-disturbing activities on projects to which the 2004
ROD applied unless such activities are in compliance with the 2001 ROD (as the 2001 ROD was
amended or modified as of March 21, 2004), except that this order will not apply to:
A. Thinning projects in stands younger than 80 years old;
B. Replacing culverts on roads that are in use and part of the road system, and removing
culverts if the road is temporary or to be decommissioned;
C. Riparian and stream improvement projects where the riparian work is riparian planting,
obtaining material for placing in-stream, and road or trail decommissioning; and where the
stream improvement work is the placement large wood, channel and floodplain
reconstruction, or removal of channel diversions; and
D. The portions of project involving hazardous fuel treatments where prescribed fire is applied.
Any portion of a hazardous fuel treatment project involving commercial logging will remain
subject to the survey and management requirements except for thinning of stands younger
than 80 years old under subparagraph a. of this paragraph.”
Following the District Court’s December 17, 2009, ruling, the Pechman exemptions still remained in
place. The Project has been reviewed in consideration of both the December 17, 2009, partial
summary judgment and Judge Pechman’s October 11, 2006, order. The project meets Exemption C
of the Pechman Exemptions (October 11, 2006, Order).
C. Identify applicable National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents and other related
documents that cover the proposed action.
Environmental Assessment for Eugene District Aquatic and Riparian Restoration Activities (Aquatic
Restoration EA) EA # DOI-BLM-OR-090-2009-0009-EA
National Marine Fisheries Service Fish Habitat Consultation for Fish Habitat Restoration Activities in
Oregon and Washington Biological Opinion (2008/03506) (ARBO I)
Reinitiation of Aquatic Restoration Activities in States of Oregon and Washington
NMFS Consultation Number: NWR-2013-9664 (ARBO II)
D. NEPA Adequacy Criteria
1. Is the new proposed action a feature of, or essentially similar to, an alternative analyzed in
the existing NEPA document(s)? Is the project within the same analysis area, or if the
project location is different, are the geographic and resource conditions sufficiently
similar to those analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s)? If there are differences, can
you explain why they are not substantial?
The Proposed Project was analyzed in the Aquatic Restoration EA to occur anywhere on the
District.
-3-
1790A
DNA-2014
Lost Eagle Restoration
2. Is the range of alternatives analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s) appropriate with
respect to the new proposed action, given current environmental concerns, interests, and
resource values?
The Aquatic Restoration EA analyzed a reasonable number of alternatives, including no action,
that showed differences in the effects in each alternative. No unexpected changes to the existing
environment or resource values have occurred that would trigger the initialization of new NEPA
analysis for this project.
3. Is the existing analysis valid in light of any new information or circumstances (such as,
rangeland health standard assessment, recent endangered species listings, updated lists
of BLM-sensitive species)? Can you reasonably conclude that new information and new
circumstances would not substantially change the analysis of the new proposed action?
The existing Aquatic Restoration EA analyzed these types of projects and no new information,
circumstances, or recent listings would alter the analysis that was conducted. There are no new
circumstances or new information that would change the original analysis conducted in the
Aquatic Restoration EA.
4. Are the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would result from implementation of
the new proposed action similar (both quantitatively and qualitatively) to those analyzed in
the existing NEPA document?
Yes. The effects analyzed in the Aquatic Restoration EA were programmatic in nature. The
Interdisciplinary Team reviewed this individual Project to ensure all applicable Project Design
Features (PDF (from the Aquatic Restoration EA and ARBO II) would be used to minimize and
avoid effects to individual resources. Further site specific PDFs are listed in Appendix A. The
Interdisciplinary Team determined no unique site conditions exist which were not considered in
the original EA.
5. Are the public involvement and interagency review associated with existing NEPA
document(s) adequate for the current proposed action?
Yes. The BLM completed the NEPA process for the Aquatic Restoration EA and responded to all
comments and questions associated with the EA. Copies of the Aquatic Restoration EA and
preliminary FONSIs were mailed to interested individuals on the Eugene District mailing list. The
Aquatic Restoration EA and FONSI are also available on the Eugene District Planning website.
-4-
1790A
DNA-2014
Lost Eagle Restoration
E. Persons/Agencies/BLM Staff Consulted
Name
Kristine Struck
Steve Liebhardt
Cheshire Mayrsohn
Rudy Wiedenbeck
Chris Langdon
Brian Barr
Janet Zentner
Jessica Le Roy
Heather Ulrich
Title
NEPA Coordinator
Fish Biologist
Botanist
Soil Scientist
Wildlife Biologist
Hydrological Tech.
Forester
Civil Engineer Tech.
Archaeologist
Resource
NEPA
Fish
Vegetation
Soil
Wildlife
Hydrology
Timber
Roads
Archaeology
Signature
/s/ Kristine Struck
/s/ Steve Liebhardt
/s/ Cheshire Mayrsohn
/s/ Rudy Wiedenbeck
/s/ Chris Langdon
/s/ Brian Barr
/s/ Janet Zentner
/s/ Jessica Le Roy
/s/ Heather Ulrich
Conclusion
Based on the review documented above, I conclude that this proposal conforms to the applicable land
use plan and that the NEPA documentation fully covers the proposed action and constitute BLM’s
compliance with the requirements of the NEPA.
Signature of Project Lead:
/s/ Steve Liebhardt
Steve Liebhardt, Fish Biologist
Date: 05/07/2014
Signature of NEPA Coordinator:
/s/ Kristine M. Struck
Kristine M. Struck, P&EC
Date: 05/08/2014
Signature of the Responsible Official:
/s/ William O’Sullivan
William O’Sullivan, Field Manager
Date: 05/08/2014
Note: The signed Conclusion on this Worksheet is part of an interim step in the BLM’s internal decision
process and does not constitute an appealable decision. However, the lease, permit, or other
authorization based on this DNA is subject to protest or appeal under 43 CFR Part 4 and the program
specific regulations.
-5-
1790A
DNA-2014
Lost Eagle Restoration
Appendix A
Project Design Features from Aquatic Restoration EA:
To prevent the introduction or spread of invasive plants:
x
x
x
x
x
x
Seed all disturbed ground using Government provided seed
Wash all equipment and vehicles prior to entering the project area. It should be clean of all plant
material(s), mud, or material that could transport seeds or plant material.
No equipment, vehicles, and materials are to be staged in known invasive plant populations
(behind gravel pile).
All equipment brought into the project area (clean fill, straw, gravel, large wood) should be free of
invasive plant material(s).
Minimize soil disturbance as part of restoration project(s) and retain native vegetation to the
extent practical.
Surveys for aquatic special status lichens and bryophytes in Lost Creek will be done prior to
project implementation when water levels allow. If additional sites are found within the project
area appropriate actions would be taken to mitigate effects to the sites.
To reduce impacts to Soils/Aquatics Resources:
Placement Sites
x
x
x
x
To minimize loss of soil productivity and reduce the potential for surface runoff, erosion, and subsequent degradation due to surface disturbance and compaction.
o Restrict machine operations to designated access trails only, and limit operations to
periods of low soil moisture when soils have the most resistance to compaction.
o Decompact/till access routes immediately after project completion, then seed and mulch
with BLM-supplied native species. To improve and accelerate soil/site productivity and
hydrological process recovery, logs, woody debris and brush would be scattered across
the tilled surfaces. Barricade all entry points with logs, woody debris, and brush to block
vehicular access.
Designated access routes have been planned to minimize damage to all standing hardwood and
conifer trees.
All operations are planned during the in-water work window as defined by Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). Any work outside of this period would require waivers from ODFW
and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The instream work window for the Lost Creek
Watershed is July 1 through August 31.
To minimize damage to sensitive riparian vegetation and soils heavy equipment would travel from
site to site within the well armored stream channel.
Harvest Sites
x
Machinery will stay on the roadbed at all times.
Placement and Harvest Sites
x
x
x
x
Removal, notification, transport and disposal of any diesel, hydraulic fluid, or other petroleum
product released into soil and/or water to be accomplished in accordance with all applicable laws
and regulations.
Keep a Spill Contamination Kit (SCK) on-site during any operation within the project area. Prior
to starting work each day, check all machinery for leaks and make necessary repairs.
Operators would be responsible for the clean-up, removal and proper disposal of contaminated
materials from the site.
Refuel equipment, including chainsaws and other hand power tools, at least 100 feet from water
bodies to prevent direct delivery of contaminants into streams and wetlands.
-6-
1790A
DNA-2014
Lost Eagle Restoration
To reduce impacts to aquatic resources:
x
x
x
x
Use waterbars, barricades, seeding, and mulching to stabilize bare soil areas along project
access routes prior to the wet season.
Rehabilitate and stabilize disturbed areas where soil will support seed growth by seeding and
planting with native seeds mixes or plants.
Do not store equipment in stream channels when not in use. Minimize damage of hardwoods within 50 feet of stream bank.
To minimize the risk of placed logs and boulders moving downstream during flood events:
x
x
Use key logs that are 1.5 times the active channel width and at least 24” in diameter.
Key logs would be wedged between trees on banks to prevent movement in high flow events.
To protect objects of cultural value:
x
If any cultural and/or paleontological resource (historic or prehistoric site or object) is discovered
during project activities all operations in the immediate area of such discovery shall be suspended
until an evaluation of the discovery can be made by a professional archaeologist to determine
appropriate actions to prevent the loss of significant cultural or scientific values.
To reduce impacts to wildlife species:
x
x
x
x
Project activities will not occur between March 1 and July 15, both days inclusive.
Project activities may be stopped at any time to avoid impacts to T&E, BLM Special Status
Species, or Bald/Golden eagles.
Snags shall be reserved except as necessary for human safety. Activities shall be relocated
away from snags occupied by sensitive species, if feasible. Snags occupied by sensitive species
that must be felled shall not be felled when in active use. All felled snags shall be left on site as
coarse woody debris.
Existing coarse woody debris and rootwads shall be reserved and protected from damage to the
extent possible. Coarse woody debris may be moved around project sites to facilitate operations.
-7-
1790A
DNA-2014
Lost Eagle Restoration
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
EUGENE DISTRICT OFFICE
DECISION RECORD
DOI-BLM-OR-E060-2014-004-DNA
Lost Creek/Eagle Creek Restoration Project
DECISION
It is my decision to implement this action as described in the Determination of NEPA Adequacy
documentation DOI-BLM-OR-E060-2014-004-DNA.
DECISION RATIONALE
The proposed action has been reviewed by BLM staff. The Proposed Action is in conformance with the
1995 Eugene District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (as amended). Based on the
Determination of NEPA Adequacy, I have determined that the existing NEPA documentation fully covers
the proposed action and constitutes BLM’s compliance with the requirements of the NEPA.
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
Any person adversely affected by this decision may appeal it to the Interior Board of Land Appeals
(IBLA), Office of the Secretary, in accordance with the regulations contained in 43 CFR, Part 4. If an
appeal is taken, a notice of appeal must be filed in this office within 30 days of this decision for transmittal
to the Board. If a notice of appeal does not include a statement of reasons, such statement must be filed
with this office and with the Board within 30 days after the notice of appeal was filed. A copy of a notice
of appeal and any statement of reasons, written arguments, or briefs, must also be served upon the
Regional Solicitor, Pacific Northwest Region, U.S. Department of the Interior, 805 SW Broadway, Suite
600, Portland, OR 97205.
Signature of the Responsible Official:
/s/ William O’Sullivan
William O’Sullivan
Upper Willamette Field Manager
Eugene District Office
05/08/2014
Date:
-1-
eek
20
22
23
19
-
29
T19S-R01W
30
08 r C
ar
20-1- 9.2
.4
.3
-17
20-1E-7
07
20-1- 11.2
20-1-11.5
20
20
-1
10
.5
20-1
-12
-13.1
ee
k
-1
-
20-1
20-1-13
20-1- 13.5
20
22.1
-1
-
13
.2
20
-1
13
.4
20-1- 24
4.1
Lost Creek Restoration Harvest Site and Stockpile Sites
20
20-1-13.3
.1
15
15
Lost Creek
Cr
ge
Go
sa
.1
18
-1
-
-1
-
.2
20-1-1
20
20
- 14
0.1
μ
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,
reliability, or 15
completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use 18
13
with other data. Original data 14
were compiled from various sources.
This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product
was developed through digital means and may be updated with notification.
20-1
16
20-1-1
9
.4
11
12
- 10
0
-1
.5
rr
17
.6
Ca
.1
20-1-18.2
16
20-1- 13
ek
Cr e
-1
18
20
13
3.2
20-2-13
3.1
.1
16
3.3
11
3
20-1-11.
10
- 11
T20S-R01E
20
20-1
-17
20
11
20-1
-1
1
-2-
202- 1
-18
14
06
2
1.
20
20
20-1
11
-1-
20-1-10.2
9
2
-1
20-1- 1.7
20
-1
.1
.2
0-1-7
20
Project LWD Stockpile
Instream Restoration Area
Cr e
ek
20-1- 4.1
09
T20S-R01W
C
-17
k
ee
01
320
9.
07
2
ek
re
r
Ca
r
rC
-1
20
20-2-1
.2
02
3
iley
.9
2
20-1-8.1
7
10-
-14
10-
-1
03
ek
20
20-1-7.6
20
5
1
5.
1.5
ee
k
Cr
rr
20-1- 6
.5
20
-7
2
- 7.8
6.1
20-1-7.5
20-1
7
7.
-2
-
-1
12
20
20-1
le Cr e
ek
12
11
T20S-R02W
-1
20
10-
05
re
20
Gu
1.
3
-2
20
-12.1
20-2
20-2
2
Midd
04
Lo
st
C
-2.1
- 1.4
Project LWD Harvest Area
06
20-1- 1
5
.2
-2
.1
20-1
-2
20
- 1.2
20-1- 1.1
20-1-3
3
-1-
20-2
.1
-2
01
33
20-1
02
-1
-
31
Kilometers
2
19
20-2-1.5
1
19-
33
19
1
-1-
- 31
reek
19-1
19-2- 36.2
36
0.5
2
Miles
20
19-1- 31.8
1.1
ge C
3
-1-
0
.4
19
Gosa
.4
-4
- 31
20-1
19-1
35
34
1
.1
31
.1
20-1- 6.2
33
0.5
20-1-1.3
0.2
0
Minnow C
19-1-3
10
-1
-
-31.3
-1
-
31
19-1
19
-1
-31.6
19-2-36
2
1
20-
19
21
32
1.2
35
36
19-1-3
-1
19-1-31.5
0.3
19-1
35
3
-1-
Corporate Streams
19
19
19
-2-36.1
30
T19S-R01E
BLM or Other Road
Bureau of Land Management
k Rd
Cree
Lost
T19S-R02W
25
Tree Extraction
reek
30
20
-1
-
28
Ca
19
-2
-
25
.1
19
26
27
stl
e
19-1- 30.1
58
P
O
Road Based Harvest Sites
Cr
ee
k
Dexter C reek
Private Road
Ca
19-2-25.4
58
O
P
County Road
Ln
19-2
.2
- 25
-30
25
26
BLM Road
ek
Noisy Cre
19-1
12
5.2
19
1.4
1.
0
21
19-2-2
24
Lost Creek Access Route
-1-
Wa gner C reek
20
19
19
58
O
P
Legend
Noisy Cr
24
ey
Lost Vall
23
Wa gner C reek
-30.1
5.
-2
-1
30
Legend
-2
25
1
19
-3
0
A
Dexter C reek
19
Roa d Ba sed Harvest Site s
Tree Extraction
h
nt
on
r
yC
k
ee
29
BLM or Other Road
Corporate Streams
Bureau of Land Management
0
0.125
0
0.125
0.25
0.25
t
An
0.5
Miles
Kilometers
0.5
19
19- 1-
.3
ek
n y Cre
An th o
6.1
19- 1
32
19- 1
T19S-R01W -21
-1
31
19
36
- 31.3
1
.5
-3
T19S-R02W
31.2
-1
19- 1- 31
k
ee
19
19- 2- 3
30
- 1-
n
ho
r
yC
- 31.
6
ony
C
reek
19-
1
19-1-31.8
.4
- 31
1
-3
9- 1
19-2-36.2
1 .1
19-
1- 3
1
An
th
on
y
Cr
ee
k A
n th
on
y
Cr
ee
k
An th
01
T20S-R02W
μ
06
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,
reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use
with other data. Original data were compiled from various sources.
05
T20S-R01W
This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product
was developed through digital means and may be updated with notification.
Lost Creek Restoration Harvest Site
01 k
reek
k
Access 1
02
k 03
kk
05 k
04
Access 2
Access 3
kk07
06
k
Access 4
kk09A
Lo
st
21
k
09
Lo
st
Ea gle Cre
ek
Cr
k
e
Cr
st
Lo
08
Cr
eek
ek
gl
Ea
Access 5
20
10 k
e
Cr
st
Lo
10
T20S-R01W
11 k
Legend
12 k
Large Wood Treatment Sites
Lost Creek Project Area
13 k
Lost Creek Project Area
County Road
Tree Extraction
eek
18 k
BLM or Other Road
k
19 k
Corporate Streams
Bureau of Land Management
0.1
μ
0.1
0.2
Miles
Kilometers
0.2
14
Lost Creek
0.05
r
Lost C
Road Based Harvest Sites
15
k
k 16
17 k
Private Road
0
Access 6
15 k
BLM Road
0.05
k
14 k
Lost Creek Access Route
0
ek
k
k
ree
C
e
20-1-11.5
k
11
Ea gle C reek
C
Lost
01A
Access 7
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,
reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use
with other data. Original data were compiled from various sources.
This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product
was developed through digital means and may be updated with notification.
Lost Creek Restoration Stockpile and Treatment Site Locations