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

2007·106.2 MB·English

by  United States. Bureau of Land Management. Oregon State Office

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