Environmental Assessment for Eugene District Aquatic and Riparian Restoration Activities Environmental Assessment # DOI-BLM-OR-090-2009-0009-EA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT EUGENE DISTRICT 2010 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Eugene District Office 3106 Pierce Parkway, Suite E Eugene, Oregon 97477 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. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. In keeping with Bureau of Land Management policy, the Eugene District posts Environmental Assessments, Findings of No Significant Impact, and Decision Records on the district web page under Plans & Projects at www.blm.gov/or/districts/eugene. Individuals desiring a paper copy of such documents will be provided one upon request. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION I. Introduction .......................................................................................................4 II. Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................4 III. Conformance .....................................................................................................5 IV. Issues for Analysis ............................................................................................8 CHAPTER TWO - DISCUSSION OF THE ALTERNATIVES I. Actions and Design Features Common to All Alternatives .….........................9 A. Description of Proposed Aquatic and Riparian Restoration Activities .......9 B. Project Design Features .............................................................................10 II. No Action Alternative .....................................................................................13 III. Alternative One ...............................................................................................13 IV. Alternative Two ..............................................................................................15 V. Alternative Three ............................................................................................16 CHAPTER THREE - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT I. Water ...............................................................................................................19 II. Fish Species and Aquatic Habitat ...................................................................20 III. Invasive Plants ................................................................................................26 V. Wildlife ...........................................................................................................33 CHAPTER FOUR – ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS I. Water, Fish, Aquatic Habitat ..........................................................................39 II. Invasive Plants ................................................................................................47 III. Wildlife ...........................................................................................................57 CHAPTER FIVE – TRIBES, INDIVIDUALS, ORGRANIZATIONS, OR AGENCIES CONSULTED I. Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted ...........................................61 II. Public Notification ..........................................................................................61 III. State, County, and Local Government Agencies ............................................62 IV. Public Comment Period ..................................................................................62 CHAPTER SIX – LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................63 CHAPTER SEVEN – REFERENCES ....................................................................64 APPENDIX A – AQUATIC CONSERVATION STRATEGY ............................72 APPENDIX B – FISHERIES ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY ....................76 APPENDIX C – INVASIVE PLANTS ...................................................................83 APPENDIX D – WILDLIFE .................................................................................110 CHAPTER ONE - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION I. Introduction The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to complete a variety of aquatic and riparian habitat restoration activities on BLM-administered lands and non-BLM-administered lands within the Eugene District and identify watersheds that would have the highest priority for restoration. Given the checkerboard land ownership pattern, restricted ownership in certain watersheds, and limited resources, the BLM recognizes that aquatic restoration cannot be accomplished exclusively by the BLM-administered lands. As such, the BLM partners with other federal agencies (such as the Willamette National Forest), state agencies (such as Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality), private timber companies, watershed councils and other non-profit organizations to accomplish watershed restoration. Such partnering may include funding or cost-sharing and/or contributions of expertise, materials, or equipment, and may contribute to aquatic restoration work occurring on non-BLM-administered land. This EA considers projects on BLM-administered lands and projects on private lands where the BLM has provided either full funding or partial funding as a partnering agency. II. Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of this action is to use aquatic and riparian restoration activities identified in the National Marine Fisheries Service Fish Habitat Consultation for Fish Habitat Restoration Activities in Oregon and Washington Biological Opinion (2008/03506) (ARBO) to improve aquatic and riparian habitat on BLM-administered lands and non-BLM-administered lands, and to prioritize watersheds where aquatic and restoration activities would be emphasized. Project activities would include: • Large Wood, Boulder, and Gravel Placement • Fish Passage Culvert and Bridge Projects • Reconnection of Existing side Channels and Alcove • Head-cut Stabilization and Associated Fish Passage • Streambank Restoration • Reduction of Recreation Impacts • Riparian vegetation treatments (non-commercial thinning, mechanical treatments, does not include hardwood conversions) • Riparian Area Invasive Plant Treatment • Riparian Exclusion Fencing • Road Treatments The need for action has been established through the results of aquatic habitat inventories, monitoring, and watershed analysis which indicate that the current condition of many stream channels and riparian areas on BLM-administered lands and non-BLM-administered lands within the Eugene District are not properly functioning. There is also an opportunity to prioritize watersheds in order to focus restoration in areas with the highest priority. Priority watersheds would be identified where restoration would have a greater benefit to fish species and aquatic habitat. Restoration activities could be emphasized in these watersheds, but would not be limited to these watersheds since other factors may determine where restoration would occur (funding, logistics, partnerships, etc). Decision To Be Made The BLM will decide whether to adopt an aquatic and riparian restoration strategy where future aquatic and riparian restoration activities would be emphasized in watersheds identified as having higher priority for fish. This EA is programmatic in nature, and analyzes the effects of watershed restoration activities within the Eugene District based upon years of professional experience, review of available literature, and consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Because this analysis is broad-scale in nature and covers a variety of restoration actions, this EA does not list every discrete, site-specific proposed action that may occur. The programmatic analysis limits the amount of site-specific detail within the analysis, instead relying on project design features to reduce or avoid impacts to different resources. This EA is intended to analyze actions in sufficient detail so that we could implement many of the specific restoration actions without additional NEPA analysis, following an eventual decision on the restoration plan. We would implement each specific restoration action (or group of related actions) under the eventual restoration plan with its own Decision Record, prior to which we would conduct a “Determination of NEPA Adequacy” (DNA) to determine whether additional NEPA analysis would be necessary. The DNA itself is not a NEPA document, but is merely an interim step in the BLM internal analysis process. Where site-specific conditions differ, or circumstances change, from those described in the EA, or if a DNA is inappropriate for other reasons, we may need to conduct additional NEPA analysis prior to reaching a decision to implement specific restoration actions. However, such instances would be expected to be the exception. The public would generally receive notice of pending decisions through the District Quarterly Planning Update preceding the specific restoration actions. Specific project locations and site-specific design features would be described at that time. III. Conformance All action alternatives analyzed in this EA would be in conformance with the 1995 Eugene District Record of Decision and Resource