DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment Vya PMU Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment Vya PMU Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project B L M U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Environmental Assessment Vya PMU Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project June 25, 2013 PREPARING OFFICE U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management 602 Cressler Street Cedarville, CA 96104 5302796101 5302792171 Environmental Assessment Vya PMU Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2013-0016-EA Prepared by U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Surprise Field Office Cedarville, CA Vya PMU Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project June 25, 2013 This page intentionally left blank Environmental Assessment iii Table of Contents _1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 _1.1. Background: .................................................................................................................... 1 _1.2. Proposed Action Location: ............................................................................................. 1 _1.3. Programmatic EA Approach: ......................................................................................... 2 _1.4. Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................... 3 1.4.1. Objectives of the Vya PMU Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Projects ... 3 1.4.2. Decisions to be Made ............................................................................................. 4 _1.5. Scoping ........................................................................................................................... 4 _1.6. Issues identified through internal and external scoping .................................................. 4 _1.7. Plan Compliance and Tiering .......................................................................................... 5 1.7.1. Tiering .................................................................................................................... 5 1.7.2. Land Use Plan (LUP) Conformance ...................................................................... 6 1.7.3. Relevant Laws, Regulations, Environmental Impact Statement (EISs), and Other Documents .................................................................................................. 6 _2. Proposed Action and Alternatives .......................................................................................... 9 _2.1. Description of the Proposed Action: ............................................................................ 11 2.1.1. Early Juniper Encroachment: Phase 1 and Early Phase 2 Juniper Areas ............ 15 2.1.2. Advanced Juniper Encroachment: Phase 2 and Early Phase 3 Juniper Areas ..... 16 2.1.3. Treatment Elements Common to All Sites .......................................................... 19 _2.2. Alternative 2 - No Action: ............................................................................................ 21 _2.3. Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Detailed Analysis .................................. 22 _3. Affected environment and environmental effects: .............................................................. 23 _3.1. General Description ...................................................................................................... 25 _3.2. Environmental Effects .................................................................................................. 25 3.2.1. Direct and Indirect Effects ................................................................................... 25 3.2.2. Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................... 25 _3.3. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions .......................................... 25 _3.4. Resource Issue Areas .................................................................................................... 28 _3.5. Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 29 3.5.1. Affected Environment .......................................................................................... 29 3.5.2. Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Action ................................................... 30 3.5.3. Cumulative Effects of Proposed Action .............................................................. 32 3.5.4. Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative .................................... 32 3.5.5. Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative ................................................ 32 3.5.6. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 33 _3.6. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 33 3.6.1. Affected Environment .......................................................................................... 33 3.6.2. Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Action ................................................... 35 3.6.3. Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action ......................................................... 36 3.6.4. Direct and Indirect Effects of No Action Alternative .......................................... 36 3.6.5. Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative ................................................ 36 June 25, 2013 Table of Contents iv Environmental Assessment 3.6.6. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 36 _3.7. Fire and Fuels ................................................................................................................ 37 3.7.1. Affected Environment .......................................................................................... 37 3.7.2. Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Action ................................................... 40 3.7.3. Cumulative Effects of Proposed Action .............................................................. 41 3.7.4. Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative .................................... 42 3.7.5. Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative ................................................ 42 3.7.6. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 42 _3.8. Fuel Wood Utilization ................................................................................................... 42 3.8.1. Affected Environment .......................................................................................... 42 3.8.2. Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Action ................................................... 43 3.8.3. Cumulative Effects of Proposed Action .............................................................. 43 3.8.4. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative ............... 43 3.8.5. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 44 _3.9. Global Climate Change ................................................................................................. 44 3.9.1. Affected Environment .......................................................................................... 44 3.9.2. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects .............................................................. 47 3.9.3. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative ............... 48 3.9.4. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 49 _3.10. Livestock Grazing ....................................................................................................... 49 3.10.1. Affected Environment ........................................................................................ 49 3.10.2. Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Action ................................................. 50 3.10.3. Cumulative Effects of Proposed Action ............................................................ 50 3.10.4. Direct and Indirect Effects of No Action Alternative ........................................ 51 3.10.5. Cumulative Effects of No Action Alternative ................................................... 51 3.10.6. Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................... 52 _3.11. Native American Religious Concerns ......................................................................... 52 3.11.1. Affected Environment ........................................................................................ 52 3.11.2. Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Action ................................................. 53 3.11.3. Cumulative Effects of Proposed Action ............................................................. 53 3.11.4. Direct and Indirect Effects of No Action Alternative ........................................ 53 3.11.5. Cumulative Effects of No Action Alternative .................................................... 53 3.11.6. Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................... 53 _3.12. Noxious Weed Species ................................................................................................ 54 3.12.1. Affected Environment .......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Upper Deschutes River · ·Basin Prehistory
    Upper Deschutes River · ·Basin Prehistory: A Preliminary Examination of Flaked Stone Tools and Debitage Michael W. Taggart 2002 ·~. ... .. " .. • '·:: ••h> ·';'"' •..,. •.• '11\•.. ...... :f~::.. ·:·. .. ii AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Michael W. Taggart for the degree of Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies in Anthropology. Anthropology. and Geography presented on April 19. 2002. Title: Upper Deschutes River Basin Prehistory: A Preliminary Examination of Flaked Stone Tools and Debitage. The prehistory of Central Oregon is explored through the examination of six archaeological sites and two isolated finds from the Upper Deschutes River Basin. Inquiry focuses on the land use, mobility, technological organization, and raw material procurement of the aboriginal inhabitants of the area. Archaeological data presented here are augmented with ethnographic accounts to inform interpretations. Eight stone tool assemblages and three debitage assemblages are analyzed in order to characterize technological organization. Diagnostic projectile points recovered from the study sites indicate the area was seasonally utilized prior to the eruption of ancient Mt. Mazama (>6,845 BP), and continuing until the Historic period (c. 1850). While there is evidence of human occupation at the study sites dating to between >7,000- 150 B.P., the range of activities and intensity of occupation varied. Source characterization analysis indicates that eight different Central Oregon obsidian sources are represented at the sites. Results of the lithic analysis are presented in light of past environmental and social phenomena including volcanic eruptions, climate change, and human population movements. Chapter One introduces the key questions that directed the inquiry and defines the theoretical perspective used. Chapter Two describes the modem and ancient environmental context of study area.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Goldeneyes Hatching from Cracked Eggs
    October 1976] General Notes 833 LITERATURE CITED A•rTEVS,E. 1940. Age of artifacts below peat beds in Lower Klamath Lake, Cali- fornia. Carnegie Inst. Washington Year-book 39: 307-309. A•rTEVS,E. 1955. Geologic-climaticdating in the West. Amer. Antiquity 20: 317- 355. CR•SS•AN, L. S., F. C. BAKER,P.S. CONOER,H. P. HANSEN,AND R. F. HEIZER. 1942. Archaeologicalresearches in the northern Great Basin. CarnegieInst. Washington Publ. 538. GR^•:soz%D.K. 1976. The Nightfire Island avifauna and the Altithermal. Pp. 74- 102 in Holocene environmental change in the Great Basin (R. Elston, Ed.). Nevada Archaeol. Surv. Res. Pap. No. 6, Reno, Univ. Nevada. HAZ•S•r, H. P. 1947. Postglacial forest succession,climate and chronology in the Pacific Northwest. Amer. Philos. Soc. Trans. 37. H^z•s•z•,H.P. 1967. Chronologyof postglacialpollen profiles in the Pacific North- west (U.S.A.). Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 4: 103-105. HEUSSER,C. 1966. Pleistoceneclimatic variations in the Western United States. Pp. 9-36 in Pleistocene and post~Pleistoceneclimatic variations in the Pacific area (D. I. Blumenstock,Ed.). Honolulu, B. P. Bishop Mus. Press. MEI•rZER, O.E. 1922. Map of the Pleistocenelakes of the Basin-and-Range Prov- ince and its significance. Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 33: 541-552. U.S. D•e^Rxm•rr or T•r• I_WXERIOR.1955. A special report on fish and wildlife re- sourcesaffected by developmentsproposed for the Upper Klamath Basin, Oregon and California. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. U.S. DEeARTm•rT Or T•rE I•rTE•IO•. 1958.
    [Show full text]
  • Spencer Creek Pilot Watershed Analysis
    Spencer Creek Pilot Watershed Analysis A day of huckleberry picking at Buck Lake around 1905 (photo courtesy of the Anderson family photo collection). August 1995 Appendix 1 Preparers 7 1895 7 1895 Appendix 1-2 Name Agency Position Andrew T. Peavy USFS Winema National Forest Forest GIS Coordinator Andy S. Hamilton BLM Klarnath Falls Resource Area Aquatic Biologist Michael W. Bechdolt BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Timber Manager Patricia R. Buettner USFS Winema National Forest/ Wildlife Biologist BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Mike Mathews USFS Winema National Forest Hydrologist Kristin M. Bald BLM Lakeview District Team Leader Tom Robertson U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Aquatic Ecosystems Coordinator Robin Bown U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Supervisory Wildlife Biologist Scott Senter BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Outdoor Recreat on Planner Rob McEnroe BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Timber Sale Plarner GIS Bill Yehle BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Archaeologist Bill Lindsey BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Range Conservationist Lou Whiteaker BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Botanist Heather Haycen BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Visual Information Specia, st Jim Vienop BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Writer/Editor 7. 18 95 Appendix 1-3 Appendix 2 Vegetation 7 18 95 Spencer Creek Watershed Analysis Appendix 2-27185 7/1 8,95 stages using the two different methods Vegetation- described above. In summary, it is important to note that Seral Stage historically the watershed contained about 8 to 11 percent nonforest land. In addition, the Breakdowns watershed had been impacted by fires historica,!y. Based upon Leiberg's descnp- (1899, 1945, and tion, the -Foresteo Area - 2MBF to 5MBF- was the result of an older burn.
    [Show full text]
  • C. Melvin Aikens
    C. Melvin Aikens Archaeology of Oregon Published 1986 Second Edition U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management Oregon State Office C. Melvin Aikens, author Foreword The Bureau of Land Management Oregon State Office is proud to present "Archaeology of Oregon" by Dr. C. Melvin Aikens. This volume presents a synthesisof the information that is available concerning the prehistory of Oregon. Dr. Aikenshas analyzedthe archaeological and anthropological data; in addition, he has added the insights and conclusions that have come to him through twenty years of concentrated study of the subject area. The Bureau of Land Management publishes this study in recognition of its responsibility to make the information gained through its Cultural Resources Management Program available to scholars and to the general public. State Director Oregon/Washington Bureau of Land Management Ill Preface chapter is organized utilizing the same themes. Thus attention is drawn, for example, to the reliance The Great Basin, the Columbia Plateau, the Lower on salmon in the Columbia gorge versus the use of Columbia and Coast, the Willamette Valley, the roots, seeds, and small game in the northern Great Southwestern Mountains: these Oregon Basin. Such differences must not obscure, however, environments have been explored and their the fact that there is a fundamental similarity in the resources used by man for at least the last 12,000 broad utilization of available resources and in the years. The evidence of that use has been resulting annual movement from lowland to upland painstakingly collected by archaeologists and and return. It is useful to observe that the same historians, and their descriptions of past life styles broad organizing principle is found to some degree based upon that evidence have been published in in all non-horticultural groups to the extent that they hundreds of different articles, monographs and are free from constraint.
    [Show full text]
  • Tule Lake, Upper Klamath, Lower Klamath, and Clear Lake Nwrs
    Appendix K – Wilderness Review 1 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Wilderness Review: Bear Valley, Tule Lake, Upper Klamath, Lower Klamath, and Clear Lake NWRs The purpose of a wilderness review is to identify and recommend for Congressional designation National Wildlife Refuge System (System) lands and waters that merit inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Wilderness reviews are a required element of comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs) and conducted in accordance with the refuge planning process outlined in 602 FW 1 and 3, including public involvement and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. There are three phases to the wilderness review: 1) inventory, 2) study; and 3) recommendation. Lands and waters that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness are identified in the inventory phase. These areas are called wilderness study areas (WSAs). WSAs are evaluated through the CCP process to determine their suitability for wilderness designation. In the study phase, a range of management alternatives are evaluated to determine if a WSA is suitable for wilderness designation or management under an alternate set of goals and objectives that do not involve wilderness designation. The recommendation phase consists of forwarding or reporting recommendations for wilderness designation from the Director through the Secretary and the President to Congress in a wilderness study report. If the review does not identify any areas that meet the WSA criteria, we document our findings in the administrative record for the CCP, fulfilling the planning requirement for a wilderness review. We inventoried Service lands and waters within Bear Valley, Tule Lake, Upper Klamath, Lower Klamath, and Clear Lake NWRs and found three areas that meet the eligibility criteria for a WSA as defined by the Wilderness Act.
    [Show full text]