ebook img

Draft environmental impact statement for the revision of the resource management plans of the Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts PDF

2007·106.2 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Draft environmental impact statement for the revision of the resource management plans of the Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts

BLM LIBRARY O) a> Jinvironmental 3 m Impact c Statement CQ (D 5 <D ::o for the Revision of the o (D Resource Management O' Plans of the c: cS Western Oregon Bureau Land of o o Management o Districts (/> CD &} of Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Coos Bay, and Medford Districts, and the Klamath Falls Resource (D I Area of the Lakeview District .3. Q) Volume II a 5 Q) 3 Q> 5r o 3 ? o' (D <0 > C (Q C (/) to As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interest of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. administration. ID Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 ofthis draft environmental impact statement analyzes the environmental consequences of the alternatives for the six resource management plans ofthe planning area that are being revised. In this chapter: 475 Introduction 494 Ecology ,534 Socioeconomics .554 Environmental Justice.. .557 Timber .590 Special Forest Products .593 Botany .611 Invasive Plants .633 Wildlife ,.723 Fisb •..•••••••••* 473 DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs Water 745 Fire and Fuels 765 Air 773 Recreation 775 Wilderness Characteristics 784 Visual Resources 789 National Landscape Conservation System 793 Soils 794 Grazing 798 Wild Horses 804 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 807 Cultural Resources ,..811 Energy and Minerals 816 474 Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences Introduction Chapter 4 describes the environmental consequences ofthe alternatives on the affected environment (described in Chapter i) within the planning area (defined in Chapter 2). The various resources and programs would be affected to various degrees by each ofthe four No alternatives (the Action Alternative and the three action alternatives). Also described in this chapter are the analytical assumptions, the key assumptions, the analytical methodology and modeling, and the data that were used in the analyses ofthis draft environmental impact statement. Finally, this chapter suggests mitigation measures that may be needed for some resources or programs to reduce impacts. Keep in mind that this draft environmental impact statement describes the generalized management-level actions and not the site-specific implementation-level actions. Analytical Assumptions The analytical assumptions that were used in the analysis ofthe alternatives are based on the science ofand the relationships within the natural systems that exist within the planning area. The specific assumptions that were used in this draft environmental impact statement for the analysis ofeach resource or program are contained within the 2006 ProposedPlanning Criteria and State Director Guidance document and its subsequent updates (incorporated by reference). In addition, the details about the methodology, including assumptions, that was used to model vegetation, water, large wood source areas, timber valuation, and socioeconomics are included as appendices. Following are the key assumptions that are common to all four alternatives. The assumptions that are specific to a resource or program are contained within the individual sections of Chapter 4 for those resources or programs. Common Key Assumptions and Information to All Four Alternatives Terminology The following tenns are used in this draft environmental impact statement. • Commercial forest lands. Those lands that are capable ofproducing 20 cubic feet per year ofwood ofcommercial species. These lands are identified in the timber productivity capability classification (see Appendix Q - Vegetation Modeling). These lands are biologically capable ofproducing a sustained yield oftimber. • Forested lands. Those lands that are capable of 10% tree stocking. This excludes roads and such nonforest areas as water, meadows, and rock outcrops, which are identified in the GIS data. 475 DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs • Long term. For the management direction ofthese resource management plan revisions, long term is considered to be 100 years. • Short term. For the management direction ofthese resource management plan revisions, short tenn is considered to be 10 years. Projection of Forest Conditions For all four alternatives, the lands that would be available for harvesting in support ofthe allowable sale quantity and sustained yield management (harvest land base) were mapped. Other lands (nonharvest land base) were also mapped and segregated into those lands where active management could occur and those lands where timber harvesting is prohibited. This mapping allowed the spatial application ofthe analytical assumptions ofthe alternatives, including timber harvesting, to model forest conditions over time. These modeled projections of forest conditions were expressed as classifications ofhabitat for the northern spotted owl, and as structural stages offorests, which were used by the interdisciplinary team in their analyses. See Appendix B - Ecology and Appendix Q - Vegetation Modeling. BLM As part ofthis revision effort, the has modeled timber harvesting and the development ofwildlife habitat on BLM-administered lands. See Q- Appendix Vegetation Modeling. This modeling allowed projections to be made ofthe changes to the vegetation over time in the harvest land base. See the Ecology section ofthis chapter. Information from the Northwest Forest's Plan 10-Year Monitoring Report Information from the Northwest Forest Plan’s 10-year monitoring report was considered in the analyses in this draft environmental impact statement. Some ofthe general key findings in this monitoring report were that; • watershed conditions improved, • late-successional and old-growth forest increased more than was anticipated, and • less timber harvesting occurred on federal lands than was anticipated. Specific information used from the report is referenced in the individual sections found in Chapters 3 and 4. Existing Federal and State Agency Plans For purposes ofanalysis, it is assumed that other federal and state agencies would continue the implementation oftheir current plans as written. Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences • The U.S. Forest Service would continue to implement their current land and resource management plans, which incorporate the standards and guidelines ofthe Northwest Forest Plan. The late- successional and riparian reserves would continue to grow into late-SLiccessional forest over time. The matrix lands would continue to provide the same overall amount and spatial pattern ofvegetation over time. • State lands and other federal lands would continue to provide the same overall amount and spatial pattern of vegetation over time. Although changes do occur on particular parcels of land, it is not feasible to project specific changes to millions of acres of land over time. Such a projection would be extremely complex and cost prohibitive to make. In the case of U.S. Forest Service’s matrix lands, the assumption that matrix lands would not appreciably change is conservative for species analysis, since forested stands in the matrix would continue to grow until harvested, and in some cases would develop into late-successional habitat. Private Lands It is assumed that private lands, including both industrial forest lands and non-industrial lands would continue to provide the same overall amount and spatial pattern ofvegetation over time as presently exists. Industrial forest lands are generally harvested on a short rotation basis, which is approximately every 40 years within the planning area. This means that these lands rotate through vegetative conditions in a regulated fashion from 0 to 40 years. At the landscape level, it is therefore expected that current vegetation patterns would remain approximately the same. Private, non-industrial lands are owned by a variety of individuals and entities (including private homeowners, local governments, and corporations). It would be cost and time prohibitive to predict the countless scenarios that could occur on these lands. In addition, these lands are less connected to the BLM’s management than the intenningled industrial forest lands, state lands, and other federal lands. Past Effects As the Council on Environmental Quality in guidance issued on June NEPA 24, 2005, points out, the “environmental analysis required under is forward-looking,” and review ofpast actions is required only “to the extent that this review infomis agency decisionmaking regarding the proposed action.” Use of infonnation on the effects on past action may be useful in two ways according to the CEQ guidanee. One is for 477 DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs consideration ofthe proposed action’s cumulative effects, and secondly as a basis for identifying the proposed action’s direct and indirect effects. The CEQ stated in this guidance that “[gjenerally, agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects ofpast actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” This is because a description ofthe current state ofthe environment inherently includes the effects ofpast actions. The CEQ guidance specifies that the “CEQ regulations do not require the consideration ofthe individual effects ofall past actions to determine the present effects ofpast actions.” Our information on the current environmental condition is more comprehensive and more accurate for establishing a useful starting point for a cumulative effects analysis, than attempting to establish such a starting point by adding up the described effects of individual past actions to some environmental baseline condition in the past that, unlike current conditions, can no longer be verified by direct examination. The second area in which the CEQ guidance states that information on past actions may be useful is in “illuminating or predicting the direct and indirect effects ofa proposed action.” Extrapolation ofdata from largely anecdotal information ofpast actions is not generally accepted as a reliable predictor ofeffects. The basis for predicting the direct and indirect effects ofthis proposed action and its alternatives is published empirical research, the general accumulated experience ofthe resource professionals in the agency with similar actions, and models that apply current scientific knowledge regarding relationships ofour proposed management actions and effects that are generally accepted by the scientific community in the various speeialized fields. Scoping for this project did not identify any need to exhaustively list individual past actions or analyze, compare, or deseribe the environmental effects of individual past actions in order to complete an analysis which would be useful for illuminating or predicting the effects ofthe proposed action. For purposes ofanalysis, projects designed under the current RMPs proposed prior to October 1, 2005, are assumed completed as proposed. For example, the habitat on acreage included in a timber sale project proposed prior to that date would be displayed and analyzed as harvested, whether or not that harvest has yet been eompleted in faet. BLM Budget It is assumed that all four alternatives would be adequately funded to implement the alternatives as designed.. Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences Administrative Actions It is assumed that these types ofroutine transaetions and activities (see Chapter 2 for details) would occur under all four alternatives at approximately the same level as during the past 10 years. The effects of these actions have been generally incorporated into the analysis for each resource or program. Reasonably Foreseeable Mineral Development Minerals that can be reasonably foreseeable for development include; • fluid minerals (from natural gas wells, oil wells, geothermal wells and plants, and coal bed natural gas wells); • salable minerals (from rock quarries and decorative stone collection); and • locatable minerals (from dredging and mines). With the exception ofcoal bed natural gas, it is assumed that these types ofactivities would occur at a rate consistent with the past 10 years and would not vary by alternative. Exploration and development ofcoal bed natural gas is occurring on private lands in the Coos Bay District and exploration on BLM-administered lands is expected to increase in the next A 10 years. Development scenarios would not vary by alternative. detailed description ofthe reasonably foreseeable development scenario can be found in Appendix P - Energy andMinerals. The effects ofthese actions have been generally incorporated into the analysis for each resource or program. Site-specific analysis would occur during project implementation. Threatened and Endangered Species It is assumed that the current listing status for species under the Endangered Species Act would remain in effect. Several recovery planning efforts and redesignations ofcritical habitat are currently underway. Information from these efforts was used in formulating the alternatives, management objectives and actions, and effects analyses to the extent practical. As these efforts are updated or completed, they would be considered between the draft and final environmental impact statements. The alternative that is subsequently adopted and implemented will be consistent with the recovery plan and management requirements for redesignated critical habitat. 479 DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs Analytical Methodologies and Models The analytical methodologies that were used in assessing the effects ofthe alternatives are described in detail in the 2006 ProposedPlanning Criteria and State Director Guidance document. The public was requested to provide comments on the methodologies. Those comments were used to refine the methodologies used in the analysis. The analyses are both qualitative and quantitative in nature. The methodologies consist ofprocedures or models from experimental forests, scientific papers, previous environmental impact statements, and procedures developed by the BLM’s specialists. Analytical models have been used to assess and compare some ofthe environmental consequences ofthe alternatives. These models simplify the complexity ofbiological, physical, or economic systems. Even though they are limited by current knowledge, they represent a synthesis ofthe knowledge ofBLM staffand other scientists who are familiar with the subjects ofconcern. Forest Vegetation and Habitat Modeling BLM The alternatives outline a range ofapproaches for managing the forest lands by varying the size and placement of land use allocations and varying the BLM intensity with which the forests are managed. These different management — approaches would result in a range ofoutcomes forest characteristics, A habitat types, and sustainable harvest levels. model was used to simulate the development ofthe forest over time under each alternative. The model simulated the application ofmanagement practices and forest development assumptions to characterize what the forests would be like in 10, 20, 50, and 100 years into the future. The outputs from this modeling form a quantitative basis for the analysis in this draft environmental impact statement that compares the alternatives. The OPTIONS model by D.R. Systems was used to model forest vegetation conditions, to model endangered species habitat, and to detemiine a sustainable harvest level. It is a scenario-based model and not an optimization model. A scenario-based model simulates the intensity ofmanagement and the analytical assumptions ofthe alternatives that produce a solution that satisfies both the objectives ofthe alternative and a sustainable harvest level. An optimization model seeks to find combinations ofthe types, timing, and intensity ofharvests that increase the value of a forest in terms of its economic value from timber harvesting, as well as its ecological and social value from its composition. The OPTIONS model is also a spatially explicit model. This allowed for the development ofmap-based scenarios for the estimation ofthe environmental consequences ofthe alternatives within the short term (10 years) and long tenn 00 years). ( 1 The OPTIONS model was applied to the approximately 2.5 million acres of BLM-administered lands within the planning area. The surrounding private, state, and other federal lands comprise approximately 22 million acres. Modeling the

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.