BLM LIBRARY 88067122 i^orth Bank Habitat Management Area/ACEC Final Environmental Impact Statement September 2000 U.S. Department of the Interior In Cooperation with: Bureau of Land Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife QRfoen )istrict Office HD irden Valley Blvd Oregon 97470 243 .07 N6785 2000 Library P;Vvcf Fet!eral Center I^L50’ OC'521 &ox 25047 ^iwer, CO 80225 B LM/O R/W A/PT-00/051+1792 tfD 2 43 & ■ U.S. Department of the Interior N&?25 Bureau of Land Management ^ODO North Bank Habitat Management Area and Area of Critical Environmental Concern Final Environmental Impact Statement Prepared by Roseburg District Office September 2000 l United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Roseburg District Office 777 NE Garden Valley Blvd 1849*1999 Roseburg, Oregon 97470 IN REPLY REFER TO: Dear Reader: This is the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the North Bank Habitat Management Area (NBHMA)/Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). This document has been developed in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The FEIS analyzes the environmental effects of three alternatives. Each alternative has a different emphasis. The action alternatives were designed to accomplish the purpose and need and resolve the issues that have been identified for the NBHMA. Alternative A is the no action alternative that would continue management as outlined in the Dunning Ranch Exchange environmental assessment (EA) Decision Record. Alternative B proposes to manage the NBHMA through more passive and less intru¬ sive management, while Alternative C proposes more active management of the NBHMA. Alternative C has been identified as the preferred alternative. The purpose of this FEIS is to examine probable environmental impacts and to assure that those impacts are considered along with technical, regulatory, legal and other factors in the decision making process. Although the analysis in this FEIS will be the basis for the final decisions, there are several distinct steps which must be undertaken prior to final decisions being made. Formal consultation will be undertaken with both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The results of these consultations will be incorporated into the Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD will be issued as a separate document. The analysis provided here has been refined and updated based on public comment, scientific commu¬ nity, interagency review and internal review of the Draft EIS (DEIS). We received 28 letters containing 124 specific comments during the public comment period for the DEIS. The interdisciplinary team assessed these comments using available information, and made changes to the alternatives and analysis. We sincerely appreciate the efforts of those who took the time to provide us with their comments. We feel that your efforts have resulted in improved and stronger alternatives and environmental effects analysis. We believe that you will find that the FEIS has improved clarity, greater specificity, and evidence to support analytical conclusions. Overall, it is more understandable. The Purpose and Need in Chapter 1 has been clarified, refined and additional specificity has been added. The description of the alternatives in Chapter 2 has been refined to better capture the themes suggested by public comment and more specificity regarding proposed management actions has been added. The description of the affected environment in Chapter 3 has been refined to add additional background information to provide a more solid basis for understanding the environmental effects analysis. The environmental effects analysis in Chapter 4 is more specific and comprehensive, and is better described in quantitative and qualitative terms. There are two proposals, grazing and timber management, contained in the alternatives that deserve some discussion because of their public interest and sensitivity in relation to management of an ACEC and habitat for the Columbia white-tailed deer (CWTD). Timber management for commercial purposes is not proposed on the over 6,000-acre North Bank ACEC. However, there are 342 acres of the Connec¬ tivity/Diversity Block land use allocation within the NBHMA on which timber management would occur. The forest stands on these 342 acres are relatively young and, therefore, active timber manage¬ ment would not occur for at least 30 years. As a result, the environmental analysis and decisions regard¬ ing any specific timber management is not ripe for consideration because of the high likelihood that changed circumstances or new information would occur prior to the timber management activity actu¬ ally being implemented. NEPA analysis will be completed for timber management activities at the time they are proposed and ripe for consideration. Grazing is also of interest in this EIS. Grazing is normally seen as an activity for the purpose of com¬ modity production. However, in this EIS our use of grazing is different. Based on what we feel is good scientific evidence, grazing has been proposed for the sole purpose of accomplishing ecological objec¬ tives related to management of habitat for CWTD. We invite the reader to carefully examine the envi¬ ronmental analysis related to grazing to see why we feel grazing could be a tool in successfully accom¬ plishing the goals of maintaining, protecting and restoring habitat for the CWTD. We would like to briefly mention stream and watershed restoration activities that are proposed for the NBHMA. We feel that the evidence contained in our analysis and which is illustrated by photographs in this document is dramatic. The streams and riparian ecosystems and associated problems and opportuni¬ ties on NBHMA are different from those that the Roseburg District typically manages. However, we believe that you will find that the specialists’ analyses have been thorough and that the proposals for management are compelling. If you desire assistance in understanding this document, you may contact Jay Carlson or Ralph Klein at (541) 440-4930. Thank you for your continued interest in the management of your public lands and resources. Field Manager Swiftwater Resource Area IV Roseburg District North Bank Habitat Management Area Final Environmental Impact Statement Draft () Final (X) Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Roseburg District 1. Type of Action: Administrative (X) Legislative ( ) 2. Abstract: This Final Environmental Impact Statement describes and analyzes the environmental impacts of implementing three alternatives for managing the 6,581 acre North Bank Habitat Manage¬ ment Area. The alternatives include: A) no action alternative, B) passive and less active management alternative, and C) active management alternative. The action alternatives respond to the need for managing habitats on the North Bank Habitat Management Area to maintain or enhance Columbia white-tailed deer, the need to restore and maintain water quality, and the need to manage lands in accor¬ dance with existing land use plan decisions. The action alternatives propose different levels of a variety of management actions including planting, seeding, in-stream restoration, upland watershed restoration, development of water sources, development of forage plots, and the maintenance or enhancement of habitat through burning, fertilization, mowing and grazing. 3. For further information contact: Ralph Klein or Jay Carlson Bureau of Land Management 777 NW Garden Valley Blvd. Roseburg, Oregon 97470 (541)440-4930 VI Table of Contents Summary xiii Introduction .xiii Purpose and Need.xiii The Alternatives.xiii Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives.xv Vegetation Management.xv Noxious Weeds.xvi Timber.xvi Aquatic Resources.xvii Wildlife.xviii Recreation.xix Soil Productivity.xix Air Quality.xix Cultural Resources.xix Chapter One - Purpose and Need. 1 Introduction .2 Need for the Action.3 Purpose 4 Background and Scoping Summary.4 Key Issues .5 Legal Requirements.5 Consistency with State, Local, Tribal and Other Lederal Plans.6 Using the Document.7 Ligure 1. North Bank Habitat Management Area Vicinity Map.8 Chapter Two - The Alternatives.9 Introduction .10 Actions Common to All Alternatives. 10 Roads . 10 Trails . 11 Noxious Weeds. 12 Special Status Animals. 12 Cultural Resources Education. 12 Actions Common to the Action Alternatives. 12 Prescribed Burning. 12 Mowing. 13 In-Stream Rehabilitation. 13 Special Status Plants. 13 Description of Alternative A, the No-Action Alternative. 13 Description of Alternative B. 13 Description of Alternative C, the Preferred Alternative. 14 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study. 15 Intensive Recreation Alternative. 15 No Recreation Alternative. 16 vii Administrative Actions.16 Table 2-1. Road Segments Needing Repair.26 Table 2-2. Road Problem Areas.26 Table 2-3. Management Activities to Enhance Special Status Plants.27 Table 2-4. Approximate Acres Treated by Management Action (Alternative B).27 Table 2-5. Approximate Acres Treated by Management Action (Alternative C).27 Table 2-6. Management Objectives and Management Actions by Alternative.28 Figure 2. North Bank Habitat Management Area (Base Map). 17 Figure 3. Trails. 18 Figure 4. Roads Alternatives A and C. 19 Figure 5. Roads Alternative B.20 Figure 6. Pull Out Areas.21 Figure 7. Water Resources: Springs and Wetlands Potential Development.22 Figure 8. Potential Areas for Deer Forage Plots.23 Figure 9. Timber Management Areas and Areas Managed for Large Residual Conifers.24 Figure 10. Grazing Exclusion Areas.25 Chapter Three - The Affected Environment.51 Introduction .52 Physical Characteristics.52 Geology and Soils.52 Vegetation .53 Fuels 56 Fire History . 57 Historical Setting.58 Resources Identified, but Not Used for Planning.59 Columbian White-Tailed Deer.59 Special Status Plants.60 Wildlife .61 Recreation .62 Water Quality .63 Chasm Drainage.65 Powerline (Jackson Creek Drainage).65 Whitetail Drainage.65 Hydrologic Factors Affecting Water Quality.65 Past Timber Harvest.65 Roads.66 Soil Compaction.67 Fluvial Process.68 Riparian and Wetland Habitat.70 Fisheries .70 Table 3-1. Topography by Slope.76 Table 3-2. Vegetation Types on the North Bank Habitat Management Area.76 Table 3-3. Noxious Weed Species on the North Bank Habitat Management Area.76 Table 3-4. Special Status Plant Species on the North Bank Habitat Management Area.77 Table 3-5. Soil Compaction on the NBHMA.77 Figure 11. CWTD Spring Trend.71 viii