Determination of NEPA Adequacy {DNA) for Ashland Resource Area's Road Obliteration Project DOI-BLM-OR-M060-2014-0013-DNA Under the Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Enhancement Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-OR-M000-2013-0004-EA Proposed Action Title/Type: Ferris Gulch and Lost Creek Road Obliteration
Location/Legal Description: T 38 S, R 4 W, NW
~,Sec
31, and T 37 S, R 2 E, SE
~Sec
35.
A. Description of the Proposed Action The Ashland Resource Area of the Medford District BLM is proposing to obliterate a non­
system spur road in the Ferris Gulch area and to obliterate a user-created route in the Lost Creek area. The first action involves obliterating a non-system road, which is approximately 0.25 miles in
length, adjacent to Ferris Gulch. The proposal is to use an excavator to obliterate this road by
completely or partially pulling up the fillslope and recontouring to allow for dispersion of water.
Slash, rocks and other material would be placed on the former road surface to discourage
motorized use and seeded with native species. The road is located entirely within the Riparian
Reserve. The road originates on BLM-managed land and terminates on private property. It is
considered a non-system road, which means it was likely not constructed by the BLM. The road
is not currently being managed to protect resources and is not needed for future forest
management or any other purpose. Currently it is blocked at its entrance and owing to the fact it
terminates on private property, receives little to no traffic. The road is severely eroded, with ruts
exceeding three feet in places. Active erosion has resulted in sediment deposition to the stream,
thus adversely affecting water quality and aquatic species. Since the road receives no
maintenance and lacks effective drainage, these effects are expected to persist.
The proposed action also includes obliterating approximately 0.20 miles of an unauthorized user
created road in the Lost Creek area. The entrance to this route would be scarified and blocked
using boulders, slash, logs and other native materials. The route itself would be scarified and
drained so that runoff is dispersed. Where necessary, native seed and straw mulch would be
applied and planting with trees and shrubs may occur. This road accesses Lost Creek Falls and is
located within the Lost Lake Research Natural Area (RNA) (Medford District ROD and RMP,
1995, Map 8). In addition, Lost Creek is a tributary of South Fork Little Butte Creek, which is a
Tier 1 Key Watershed. Tier 1 Key Watersheds contribute directly to conservation of at-risk
anadromous salmonids and have a high potential ofbeing restored through implementation of
watershed restoration projects. The route is also located within a Riparian Reserve (interrupted
intermittent). Currently OHVs are utilizing this route to access Lost Creek Falls where fragile
shallow soils exist in open meadow habitat. Dispersed vehicle use, particularly during wet
conditions has resulted in damage to soil and vegetation. Vehicle ruts along the route and
Road Obliteration Project DNA
Pagel
adjacent to the falls intercept and route surface flow, resulting in accelerated erosion and adverse
impacts riparian habitat, including increased sediment transport to streams.
B. Land Use Plan (LUP) Conformance
The Proposed Action is in conformance with the 1995 Medford District Record of Decision and
Resource Management Plan (1995 ROD/RMP) because it is specifically provided for in
management direction on pages 23, 28, and 29:
Watershed restoration will be an integral part ofa program to aid recovery offish
habitat, riparian habitat, and water quality. The most important components ofa
restoration program are control and prevention ofroad-related runoffand sediment
production, restoration ofthe condition ofriparian vegetation, and restoration ofin­
stream habitat complexity (page 23).
Meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives by closing and stabilizing, or obliterating
and stabilizing roads based on the ongoing potential effects to Aquatic Conservation
Strategy and riparian reserve objectives and considering short-term and long-term
transportation needs (page 28). Road obliteration, restricting access through barrier
installation, and closing unauthorized routes falls within the intent of these objectives.
The 1995 Medford District RMP incorporated the Record ofDecision for Amendments to Forest
Service and Bureau ofLand Management Planning Documents within the Range ofthe Northern
Spotted Owl and the Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional
and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range ofthe Northern Spotted Owl (USDA
and USDI 1994).
The Proposed Action is consistent with the 2001 Record ofDecision and Standards and
Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation
Measures Standards and Guidelines (200 1 ROD), as incorporated in the Medford District
Resource Management Plan.
The project uses the species list from the 2001 ROD. At the time this project was initiated, the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was involved in legal proceedings on the Record of
Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines from
Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plans within the Range of the Northern
Spotted Owl. Due to uncertainties surrounding these proceedings, this project utilized the last
valid ROD, specifically the 2001 ROD and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the
Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines
(not including subsequent Annual Species Reviews).
The Proposed Action is also consistent with BLM Manual 6840 (USDI 2008), the purpose of
which is to provide policy and guidance for the conservation of BLM Special Status species and
the ecosystems upon which they depend on ELM-administered lands. BLM Special Status
species include those species listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), as well as those designated as Bureau Sensitive by the State Director(s). The objectives
of the BLM Special Status policy are: To conserve and/or recover ESA-listed species and the
ecosystems on which they depend so that ESA protections are no longer needed for these
Road Obliteration Project DNA
Page 2
species; and to initiate proactive conservation 1 measures that reduces or eliminates threats to
Bureau Sensitive species to minimize the likelihood of and need for listing of these species under
the ESA (USDI 2008: section 0.02) ..
This proposal is also in compliance with the direction given for the management of public lands
in the Medford District by the Oregon and California Lands Act of 1937 (O&C Act), Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(ESA) , the Clean Water Act of 1987 (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (as amended
1986 and 1996) (SOWA), Clean Air Act of 1990, and the Archaeological Resources Protection
Act of 1979 (ARPA).
• Project design features included in the proposed action incorporate Best Management
Practices for road decommissioning (1995 RMP, Appendix D, p. 165) (RMP Plan
Maintenance for BLM Roads, Sept, 2011).
• Focus watershed restoration on removing and upgrading roads (1995 RMP p. 23).
• Closing and stabilizing, or obliterating and stabilizing roads based on the ongoing and
potential effects to Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) and riparian reserve objectives
and considering short-term and long-term transportation needs (1995 RMP p. 28).
• Objective: To reduce soil compaction, minimize or reduce sedimentation, and improve
site productivity by decommissioning roads and landings and rehabilitating the land.
Practices: Return roads or landing not needed for future resource management to resource
production by revegetating with native species. Apply mulch and fertilizer where
appropriate (1995 RMP p. 165).
• Roads would avoid special habitats and minimize effects to wetlands and riparian areas.
Off-highway vehicle closure. Meadows and wetlands would be closed to off-highway
vehicle use (1995 RMP p. 45).
• Lost Lake Research Natural Area (RNA) is a low elevation natural lake and mixed
conifer forest for scientific research and baseline study area. Management direction
states that this area is closed to OHV use (1995 RMP p. 61).
C. Identify applicable National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents and other
related documents that cover the proposed action.
• Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Enhancement Environmental Assessment (DOI-BLM-OR­
M000-2013-0004-EA) (March 2014)
• Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Enhancement Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Record (April16, 2014) 1Conservation: as applied to Bureau sensitive species, is the use of programs, plans, and management practices to reduce or eliminate
threats affecting the status of the species, or improve the condition of the species' habitat on BLM-administered lands (USDI 2008, Glossary p.
2).
Road Obliteration Project DNA Page3
• Little Butte Creek Watershed Analysis, November 1997
• Middle Applegate Watershed Analysis, August 1995
• North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Water Quality Restoration Plan, May 2006
• Applegate Subbasin Water Quality Restoration Plan, January 2005
D. NEPA Adequacy Criteria
1. Is the current proposed action substantiaUy the same action (or is a part of that action)
as previously analyzed? Is the current proposed action within the same analysis area of
the previously analyzed project? The Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Enhancement EA,
listed above, analyzed programmatically a suite of activities for maintaining and restoring
watershed conditions, including decommissioning roads located in Riparian Reserves across
the Medford District BLM. This site-specific project proposes to decommission up to 0.45
miles of these roads and PDFs under the above referenced EA are included in this project
(EA, p. 11-14).
The Middle Applegate River Watershed Analysis, The Little Butte Watershed Analysis,
North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Water Quality Restoration Plan, and the
Applegate Subbasin Water Quality Restoration Plan attribute degraded water quality and
aquatic habitat conditions to road and OHV use. To comply with State and Federal statutes,
in addition to BLM management direction (RMP), it is recommended that road densities be
decreased through road decommissioning and other measures necessary to protect sensitive
areas.
2. Is the range of alternatives analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s) appropriate
with respect to the new proposed action, given current environmental concerns,
interests, and resource values? The range of alternatives analyzed in the NEPA document
is appropriate with respect to the current proposed action because it meets the specific
purposes discussed, which includes; improve water infiltration, reduce sedimentation,
reduce road densities, and improve soil productivity (EA, p.1 0-11 ). The current
environmental concerns, interests, and resource values are the same as in the referenced
documents.
3. Is the existing analysis valid in light of any new information or circumstances (such as,
rangeland health standard assessment, recent endangered species listings, and updated
lists ofBLM-Sensitive species)? Can you reasonably conclude that new information and
new circumstances would not substantiaUy change the analysis of the new proposed
action? This project is consistent with the suite of activities analyzed in the above
referenced EA. The project proponent planning and overseeing the implementation of this
site-specific project sent a detailed description of the proposed action to resource specialists
(Fisheries Biologist, Hydrologist, Botanist, Wildlife Biologist, and Archaeologists) according
to the specified time frame (at least 14 days prior to implementation). Resource specialists
reviewed the design of this project against those documented in the above referenced CE and
found the existing analysis to be valid for this proposed action. The Archaelogist did identify
Road Obliteration Project DNA Page4
a site near the proposed action and has flagged the area for protection as required in the
Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Enhancement EA (p.13). The wildlife biologist has notified the
project lead of a seasonal restriction for the Ferris Gulch portion of the proposal to protect a
historic northern spotted owl site. The Botanist has surveyed both road locations for noxious
weed populations; no concerns were identified.
4. Are the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the current proposed action similar to
those identified in the existing NEPA documents? The direct, indirect, and cumulative
effects that would result from the proposed road obliteration are similar to those analyzed in
the Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Enhancement EA. The methods of decommissioning would
be the same as those analyzed in Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Enhancement EA.
5. Are the public involvement and interagency review associated with existing NEPA
document(s) adequate for the current proposed action? Public involvement for the
Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Enhancement EA began in January 2013 with the mailing of a
scoping letter to federal, state, and county agencies; Tribes; private organizations; and
individuals that requested to be informed ofprojects of this type. The EA was made available
for a 30-day public comment period in March of 2014. The public was notified via a
newspaper notice and letters to individuals, Tribes, organizations, and government entities
who expressed a wish to continue to be informed about the project.
E. Interdisciplinary Analysis: This document, which includes a detailed description of the
project, was distributed to the appropriate members of the Ashland Resource Area
Interdisciplinary Team for review and input within at least 14 days prior to implementation of
the project. Interdisciplinary team members notified were:
Name
Michael Derrig
Chris Volpe
Steve Godwin
Armand Rebischke
Lisa Rice/Cheryl Foster-Curley
John McNeel
Stephanie Kelleher
Resource
Hydrology
Fisheries
Wildlife
Botany/Noxious Weeds
Cultural
Engineering
NEP A Compliance
F. Mitigation Measures: Project Design Features (PDFs}, discussed in Section A above, are
included as part of the proposed action for the purpose ofreducing or eliminating anticipated
adverse environmental impacts.
Road Obliteration Project DNA PageS
CONCLUSION
Based on the review documented above, I conclude that this proposal conforms to the applicable
land use plan and that the existing NEPA documentation fully covers the proposed action and
constitutes BLM's compliance with the requirements of the NEPA.
Michael Derrig
Project Lead
'
\
Date
1 - \ - 1~ S tephaniJl Kelleher
NEPA Coordinator
'
Date
~Q_,(Y\u.~
John Gerritsma L Field Manager Ashland Resource Area Road Obliteration Project DNA
Page 6
••
~
\
/
\
\
I
"
·-.....
I
I
·.
•
'
J
)
\
\
'\
\
\
(
\
\
I,
\
\
'
\
\
..
I
·I
.-...
-....
~-··
I
/
.
.
'"""
lh
I
.
\
\
.;;>.
~~
en
/
Oregon Washington Data
0
GNIS All Summits
Larger than 100,000
0
50,000- 99,999
0
10,000 -49,999
0
,.•,.
\,
\
'
r"'
\
'
·.29
...
'··
Less than 10,000
Recreation Sites - Point
C
Boat Launch Po1nt
g
CabinSite
,...
Campsite Point
1!:1
Cave Entrance Point
Environmental Education Pomt
...... .......
Hangijliding Launch Point
· ·~
.
Hot Springs S1te
'-- -.....
lnlonmallon Center (staffed)
Interpretive S1te (unstaffed ~iosk. sign, panel d1spl
Mator Visnor Information Center (staffed)
Preparat1on/Park1ng Area Po1nt
· Ferrjs Spur
....·.31
f
Roadside To1let Structure
:::!
Scemc Ove~ook Po1nt
~
Sw1mm1ng Area Po1nt
~
Trailhead Po1nt I§J
Water Access Po1nt (no developed boat ramp) Recreation Sites- Point (Area) '• ,'\.
.'\. . .\..­
(!]
r;'!
Campground Area
Jr
Climbing Area
~
Day·Use Area
......
No wan11nty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to tho
accuracy, reliability or completeness of these data for indM dual or
aggregate usa wlh other data. Original data Yv'ere comp~ed from variou s
sources. This infonnation may not meet Notional Map Accuracy Standprds.
This product was developed through d1Q1tal means and may be updated
'Mthout notltication For intomal use ontv
0
0.86
Miles
Scale 1: 27,273
August27, 2013
http://teamspace/or/sites/gis/mapping/Pages/interactive.aspx