Worksheet Documentation of Land Use Plan Conformance and NEPA Adequacy (DNA) U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Transcription

1 Worksheet Documentation of Land Use Plan Conformance and NEPA Adequacy (DNA) U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Note: This worksheet is to be completed consistent with the policies stated in the Instruction Memorandum entitled Documentation of Land Use Plan Conformance and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Adequacy transmitting this worksheet and the Guidelines for Using the DNA Worksheet located at the end of the worksheet. (Note: The signed CONCLUSION at the end of this worksheet is part of an interim step in the BLM s internal analysis process and does not constitute an appealable decision.) A. BLM Office: Klamath Falls Office Lease/Serial/Case File No. _ Proposed Action Title/Type: Field Office Prescribed Fire Operations for FY 2001 and Location of Proposed Action: Klamath Falls Resource Area, Lakeview District, Oregon Description of the Proposed Action: PRESCRIBED FIRE as identified in Environmental Assessment OR on the following projects initiated through random selection: Stukel Mtn. 98-2, Stukel Mtn. 98-7&9, Rattlesnake 1 & 7, Norcross, Wild-Midway, Brady Butte, Stateline, Big Adobe, Devaul Plus (Wilkerson Horse Camp), Kakapoo Stew, Yainax Butte, Hamaker Canyon. In addition the following projects have a separate Environmental Assessment(s), and/or DNA s in addition to the OR listed above: Stiles Springs, Barnes Valley Canyon, Upper Swan, Frosty, Baldy Crest (Frosty EA), Kakapoo Stew (Lower Spencer). B. Conformance with one or more of the following Land Use Plans (LUPs) and/or Related Subordinate Implementation Plans: Klamath Falls Resource Area Record of Klamath Falls Resource Area Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (June 2, 1995) (KFRA ROD/RMP) Final Klamath Falls Resource Area Management Plan and EIS (FEIS) (Sept. 1994) Klamath Falls Resource Area Fire Management EA#OR (June 10, 1994) Klamath Falls Resource Area Integrated Weed Control Plan (July 21, 1993) Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States FEIS and ROD (1991), Lakeview District Fire Management Plan - Phase 1 (1998) Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (April 1994) also known as the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of Northern Spotted Owl (Feb. 1994)(FSEIS). *List applicable LUPs (e.g., Resource Management Plans or applicable amendments).

2 **List applicable activity, project, management, water quality restoration, or program plans. X The proposed action is in conformance with the applicable LUPs because it is specifically provided for in the following LUP decisions: The Environmental Assessment OR is specifically incorporated without modification into the RMP by reference on page 4. All random selected Fuels Treatment Zones (called Fire Management Units in the Environmental Assessment OR ) are by reference incorporated into the KFRA Resource Management Plan. After further analysis, the 1995 RMP increased (to 84,900) the decadal total number of acres to be treated in fuels treatments. The proposed action is in conformance with the LUP, even though it is not specifically provided for, because it is clearly consistent with the following LUP decisions (objectives, terms, and conditions) and, if applicable, implementation plan decisions: N.A. C. Identify the applicable NEPA document(s) and other related documents that cover the proposed action. List by name and date all applicable NEPA documents that cover the proposed action. All random selection prescribed fire are consistent with Environmental Assessment OR KFRA Fire Management. Non-Random: Upper Swan Prescribed Fire EA OR Frosty & Baldy Crest EA OR Lower Spencer (Kakapoo Stew) EA OR Stiles Springs EA OR Barnes Valley Canyon EA OR Miller Creek/Frog Camp EA OR List by name and date other documentation relevant to the proposed action (e.g., source drinking water assessments, biological assessment, biological opinion, watershed assessment, allotment evaluation, rangeland health standard s assessment and determinations, and monitoring the report). Lower Spencer Landscape Analysis, Topsy - Pokegamma Landscape Analysis, Jenny Creek Watershed Analysis. All burns are covered under the Programmatic Informal Consultation for the Prescribed Fire Program I-77, May 1999.

3 DNA OR Prescribed Fire Page 3 D. NEPA Adequacy Criteria 1. Is the current proposed action substantially the same action (or is a part of that action) as previously analyzed? YES All random selections are part of the original group processed by methodology discussed in 1995 IDT for EA OR The process included the use of weighted values for each FTZ. All FTZ s were entered into a Quattro Pro spreadsheet and compared to a random number generated by the spreadsheet program. A second random process (drawing FTZ numbers from a hat) was used to further decrease the selected treatment population. 2. Is the range of alternatives analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s) appropriate with respect to the current proposed action, given current environmental concerns, interests, resource values, and circumstances? YES A review of the Landscape/Watershed Assessments and Environmental Assessments written for non-random prescribed fire projects attest to the general thoroughness of the OR document. 3. Is the existing analysis adequate and are the conclusions adequate in light of any new information or circumstances (including, for example, riparian proper functioning condition [PFC] reports; rangeland health standards assessments; Unified Watershed Assessment categorizations; inventory and monitoring data; most recent Fish and Wildlife Service lists of threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species; most recent BLM lists of sensitive species)? Can you reasonably conclude that all new information and all new circumstances are insignificant with regard to analysis of the proposed action? YES No new information applies so the same conclusion exists as the OR document. 4. Do the methodology and analytical approach used in the existing NEPA document(s) continue to be appropriate for the current proposed action? YES Even though there are new computer models available, the original methodology and analytical approach used in the existing NEPA documents continues to give equal or better results. 5. Are the direct and indirect impacts of the current proposed action substantially unchanged from those identified in the existing NEPA document(s)? Does the existing NEPA document

4 DNA OR Prescribed Fire Page 4 sufficiently analyze site-specific impacts related to the current proposed action? YES Everything remains basically the same. The number of Survey and Manage Species requiring monitoring has actually decreased in relation to the original analysis. 6. Can you conclude without additional analysis or information that the cumulative impacts that would result from implementation of the current proposed action are substantially unchanged from those analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s)? YES The cumulative impacts resulting from implementation of the current proposed action remain unchanged. 7. Are the public involvement and interagency review associated with existing NEPA document(s) adequately for the current proposed action? YES The projects have been available to the public through a combination of several methods 1) legal notice in the local newspaper (spring 1999 and 2000), 2) requested public comment for site specific non-random Environmental Assessments i.e. Stiles Spring and Barnes Valley Canyon. 3) The concept was well addressed during the process for the programmatic Environmental Assessment OR , 4) telephone contacts and face to face visits to adjacent land owners are made by resource area staff (this is documented by staff), 5) The pre-burn notification process using public radio and television announcements. The nature of the public involvement associated with the existing NEPA is still valid. E. Interdisciplinary Analysis: Identify those team members conducting or participating in the preparation of this worksheet. Resource Name Title Represented Joe Foran Fuels Management Specialist Fire Gayle Sitter Wildlife Biologist Wildlife William Lindsey Range Conservationist Range Lou Whiteaker Botanist Vegetation Projects are discussed and approved by Interdisciplinary Team on a yearly basis and specialists are consulted throughout the planning and implementation process. All project areas have been or are contracted to be surveyed for Cultural Resources, Threatened

5 DNA OR Prescribed Fire Page 5 and Endangered Species, and Survey and Manage Species where required. F. Mitigation Measures: List any applicable mitigation measures that were identified, analyzed, and approved in relevant LUPs and existing NEPA document(s). List the specific mitigation measures or identify an attachment that includes those specific mitigation measures. Document that these applicable mitigation measures must be incorporated and implemented. Best management practices will apply. Project Design Features identified under informal consultation will be incorporated as appropriate. CONCLUSION X 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 NEPA. Note: If one or more of the criteria are not met, a conclusion of conformance and/or NEPA adequacy cannot be made and this box cannot be checked / Teresa A. Raml / Signature of the Responsible Official April 25, 2001 Date

6