Wagner Anderson Forest Management Project
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for WAGNER ANDERSON FOREST MANAGEMENT PROJECT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT MEDFORD DISTRICT ASHLAND RESOURCE AREA DOI-BLM-OR-M060-2010-0014-EA UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT MEDFORD DISTRICT EA COVER SHEET RESOURCE AREA: Ashland ACTION/TITLE: Wagner Anderson Forest Management Project EA NUMBER: DOI-BLM-OR-M060-2010-014 LOCATION: Bear Creek 5th Field Watershed, Wagner and Anderson Sub-watersheds List of Preparers Title Responsibility Ted Hass Soils Scientist Soils, Project Lead Brad Tong Botanist Botany & Special Status Plants Armand Rebischke Botanist Botany & Special Status Plants Jason Reilly Wildlife Biologist T&E and Special Status Wildlife Dennis Byrd Recreation Planner Recreation & Visual Resource Management Greg Chandler Fuels Specialist Fire and Fuels Chris Volpe Fisheries Biologist Fisheries, Riparian, T&E Aquatic Mike Derrig Hydrologist Water Resources Frank Hoeper Forester Harvest/Logging Systems Sean Gordon Silviculturist Silviculture John McNeel Civil Engineer Engineering & Roads Marlin Pose Environmental Coordinator NEPA Compliance & ID Team Leader Lisa Brennan Archaeologist Cultural Resources Kristi Mastrofini Environmental Coordinator NEPA Compliance & Writer/Editor Wagner Anderson Project ii Environmental Assessment Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 A.INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1 B. THE PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................................................... 1-1 C. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................................... 1-2 D. DECISION FRAMEWORK .......................................................................................... 1-4 E. LAND USE CONFORMANCE & LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ....................................... 1-5 F. RELEVANT ASSESSMENTS & PLANS ..................................................................... 1-6 G. SCOPING & ISSUES .................................................................................................. 1-8 CHAPTER 2 ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 A. ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL ................................................................... 2-1 1. Alternative 1 – No-action ........................................................................................... 2-1 2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ............................................................................... 2-1 B. ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS ....... 2-19 CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT& ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ... 3-1 A. INTRODUCTION 1. Consideration of Past, Ongoing, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions .............. 3-1 2. Implementation of Proposed Mitigation ................................................................... 3-3 B. SOILS ......................................................................................................................... 3-3 C. WATER RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 3-10 D. FISH & AQUATIC HABITAT ....................................................................................... 3-20 E. CONSISTENCY WITH AQUATIC CONSERVATION STRATEGY .............................. 3-35 F. BOTANY ..................................................................................................................... 3-39 G. WILDLIFE ................................................................................................................... 3-54 H. FIRE AND FUELS ....................................................................................................... 3-75 I. SILVICULTURE ............................................................................................................ 3-84 J. RECREATIONAL & VISUAL RESOURCES ................................................................ 3-111 K. AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................. 3-114 L. OTHER EFFECTS ....................................................................................................... 3-117 CHAPTER 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ......................................................................... 3-118 References Wagner Anderson Project iii Environmental Assessment CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION A. INTRODUCTION The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Ashland Resource Area, proposes to implement the Wagner Anderson Project, a forest management project, designed to implement the Bureau of Land Management’s Medford District Resource Management Plan (RMP) (USDI 1995). This Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the environmental analysis conducted to estimate the site-specific effects on the human environment that may result from the implementation of the Wagner Anderson Forest Management Project. This EA complies with the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and the Department of the Interior’s regulations on Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (43 CFR part 46). B. THE PROPOSED ACTION This section provides a summary of BLM’s proposal for forest management. A more detailed description of BLM’s proposed action is included in Chapter 2, Alternatives. The 247-acre Wagner Anderson project involves harvesting trees in conifer forest stands on BLM-administered lands in the Anderson Creek and Wagner Creek drainages. A BLM silviculturist and wildlife biologist worked together to develop forest thinning prescriptions, tailored to the various site conditions (i.e. elevation, aspect, soil conditions, etc.) and northern spotted owl habitat conditions found throughout the project area, to meet the needs described below. A more detailed summary of the various prescriptions is included in Chapter 2. The proposed thinning would be accomplished through a combination of commercial timber sale and service contracts. Fuels created from commercial thinning (harvest slash) would be cut, hand-piled and burned on site or removed for biomass. The BLM proposes to maintain about 14 miles of roads (i.e., road grading, rock surfacing, and water drainage improvements). One temporary spur road (about 200 feet) would be constructed to minimum standards and closed immediately following completion of operations. Two sections of permanent road (about 0.2 miles) would be constructed; one section to provide ingress and egress for log hauling. The second section would provide a new approach at the entrance of the 39-1-14.2 road to accommodate access for log trucks and yarding equipment. Approximately 0.8 mile of existing road would be reconstructed which would involve road grading and widening (to accommodate trucks and equipment needed for timber harvesting), adding rock, and cleaning or adding drainage structures. About 350 feet of existing road would be renovated (road reshaping, vegetation removal, and rocking), and about 14 miles of existing road would be maintained. The project area is defined as the area where action is proposed. The legal description for the proposed Wagner Anderson Project area is: T. 39 S., R. 1 W., in Sections 7, 11, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28; W.M., Jackson County Oregon. Two alternatives were considered and analyzed in detail, a No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the Proposed Action (Alternative 2). A detailed description of BLM’s Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative is contained in Chapter 2, Alternatives. Wagner Anderson Project 1-1 Environmental Assessment C. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED WAGNER ANDERSON PROJECT The Wagner Anderson project is designed to implement the Bureau of Land Management’s 1995 Medford District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (RMP) (USDI 1995) in the Wagner Anderson planning area. This project proposal is designed to move the current conditions found in the Wagner Anderson project toward the desired forest stand conditions and to produce timber products in support of the District’s Allowable Sale Quantity declared in the RMP (RMP p. 73). Alternatives must meet the following objectives in order to receive consideration: Maintain and promote vigorously growing conifer forests, and provide timber resources in accord with sustained yield principles. Maintain nesting, roosting and foraging, and dispersal habitat conditions, in spotted owl habitat. Provide a transportation system within the project area that serves the management of resource program areas, while reducing delivery of sediments from the roads into nearby streams. The following discussion provides more detail concerning the need for forest and road management based on the RMP Management Actions/Direction that apply to matrix land allocation, current forest and road conditions, and their desired future conditions: 1. There is a need to maintain and promote vigorously growing conifer forests, reduce tree mortality, and provide timber resources, in accord with sustained yield principles, on BLM- Administered Matrix lands within the Wagner Anderson project area. Management Actions/Direction One of the applicable laws governing the major portion