Thunderbolt EA Thinning and Hazardous Fuels Treatment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Thunderbolt Thinning and Hazardous Fuels Treatment Environmental Assessment NEPA #: DOI-BLM-OR-R040-2010-011-EA U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management Roseburg District Swiftwater Field Office Roseburg, Oregon November 8, 2013 1 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Roseburg District Office 777 NW Garden Valley Blvd. Roseburg, Oregon 97471 This environmental assessment analyzes proposed thinning and hazardous fuels treatment designed in conformance with management direction provided in the 1995 Roseburg Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (ROD/RMP), as amended. The BLM is providing a 30-day period for public review and comment on the document and will accept comments until the close of business (4:30 PM, PST) on December 12, 2013. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment be advised that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by the law. If you wish to withhold your name or street address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comment. Submissions from organizations, businesses, and individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety. In keeping with Bureau of Land Management policy, the Roseburg District posts Environmental Assessments, Environmental Impact Statements, Findings of No Significant Impact, and Decision Records/Documentations on the district web page under Planning & Environmental Analysis, at http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/roseburg/plans/. A copy of these documents is also made available in the public reading room of the Roseburg Public Library. Individuals desiring a paper copy of such documents will be provided one upon request. Individuals with the ability to access these documents on- line are encouraged to do so as this reduces paper consumption and administrative costs associated with copying and mailing. 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 3 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action ........................................................................................ 7 A. Purpose & Need ..................................................................................................................... 7 B. Conformance .......................................................................................................................... 7 C. Decision Factors ................................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 2. Description of the Alternatives ................................................................................... 11 A. Terminology & Definitions .................................................................................................. 11 B. No Action Alternative .......................................................................................................... 14 C. Proposed Action Alternatives............................................................................................... 15 D. Design Features Common to All Proposed Action Alternatives ......................................... 16 E. Additional Design Features of Proposed Action Alternative 1 ............................................ 29 F. Design Features Unique to Proposed Action Alternative 2 .................................................. 30 G. Design Features Unique to Proposed Action Alternative 3 ................................................. 33 H. Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail ........................................................... 34 Chapter 3. Affected Environment & Consequences by Resource ................................................ 35 A. Forest Vegetation ................................................................................................................. 35 B. Fire and Fuels Management ................................................................................................. 43 C. Wildlife................................................................................................................................. 48 D. Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 76 E. Hydrology, Aquatic Habitat and Fisheries ........................................................................... 82 F. Botany ................................................................................................................................... 91 G. Noxious Weeds .................................................................................................................... 93 H. Carbon Storage ..................................................................................................................... 95 I. Resources Considered but not Analyzed in Detail ................................................................ 96 Chapter 4. Contacts, Consultations, and Preparers ....................................................................... 98 A. Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted ................................................................ 98 B. Public Notification ............................................................................................................... 99 C. List of Preparers ................................................................................................................. 100 D. References Cited ................................................................................................................ 101 Appendix A. Survey & Manage Wildlife Species ..................................................................... 112 Appendix B. Bureau Sensitive & Bureau Strategic Wildlife Species ....................................... 117 Appendix C. Landbirds .............................................................................................................. 121 Appendix D. Botany Summary .................................................................................................. 124 Appendix E. Aquatic Conservation Strategy Assessment ......................................................... 130 Appendix F. Effects on Live Vegetation Development Analytical Methodology..................... 136 Appendix G. Fire and Fuels Management ................................................................................. 139 Appendix H. Map Packet Table of Contents ............................................................................. 144 3 Executive Summary The Thunderbolt Thinning and Hazardous Fuels Treatment project would occur within the Adaptive Management Area (AMA), General Forest Management Area (GFMA), Connectivity/Diversity Blocks (C/D) and Riparian Reserve land use allocations administered by the Swiftwater Field Office, Roseburg District Office BLM. This Environmental Assessment (EA) considers four alternatives (including the No Action) for thinning of approximately 1,583 acres of forest stands, that are 49-95 years old in the proposed Big Thunder, Rolling Thunder and Thundering Herd timber sales. In addition, approximately 102 acres outside of proposed timber sale units are analyzed for treatment of hazardous fuels in stands 19- 200 years old. See Table i (Comparison of the Key Findings and Effects of the Thunderbolt Alternatives). This table highlights specific examples of the differences among the alternatives. For a complete discussion of the alternatives, see Chapters 2 and 3. The Roseburg District initiated planning and design for this project on April 1, 2010. The project conforms to and is consistent with the Roseburg District’s 1995 Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan (1995 ROD/RMP). Analysis of the effects of the proposed actions tiers to the analytical assumptions and conclusions of the 1994 Final - Roseburg District Proposed Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement ((PRMP/EIS) USDI/BLM 1994). Analysis of effects and information from the 2008 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management is incorporated by reference. Scoping comments gathered during the early stages in the planning process did not provide additional information specific to the proposed Thunderbolt Thinning project. As a consequence, these scoping comments did not prompt the Swiftwater Field Office to alter or include additional analyses beyond those already considered as pertinent by the interdisciplinary team. 4 Table i: Comparison of the Key Findings and Effects of the Thunderbolt Alternatives. Proposed Proposed Proposed No Action Key Finding/Effect Action Action Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Project Size 0 acres 1,583 acres 1,583 acres 1,583 acres Light thinning Light thinning Light thinning prescription – prescription – prescription – upland treatment upland treatment upland treatment areas areas areas