A Legacy of Land Treatments

Final Report of the 2002 BLM Legacy Program

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.240277777777778in"
height="4.924305555555556in"}

Bureau of Land Management

National Science and Technology Center

December, 2002

Table of Contents

[Executive Summary 3](#executive-summary)

[Introduction 4](#introduction)

[Sites Visited During Legacy 2002 6](#sites-visited-during-legacy-2002)

[Eastern Oregon 6](#eastern-oregon)

[Southcentral Idaho 7](#southcentral-idaho)

[Western Colorado 7](#western-colorado)

[Central Wyoming 7](#central-wyoming)

[Land Treatments in the Arid West---Lessons Learned
8](#land-treatments-in-the-arid-westlessons-learned)

[Monitoring, Data Management and Reference Areas
10](#monitoring-data-management-and-reference-areas)

[The Importance of Long-term Monitoring
10](#the-importance-of-long-term-monitoring)

[Recordkeeping and Data Management
10](#recordkeeping-and-data-management)

[Reference Areas 11](#reference-areas)

[Opportunities for Volunteers 11](#opportunities-for-volunteers)

[Conclusions and Recommendations 13](#conclusions-and-recommendations)

[Literature Cited 15](#literature-cited)

[Appendix A -- Guidance for Site Visits
16](#appendix-a-guidance-for-site-visits)

[Guiding Questions for the Legacy Program, FY 2002
16](#guiding-questions-for-the-legacy-program-fy-2002)

[Recommended Outline for Site-specific Reports
16](#recommended-outline-for-site-specific-reports)

[Appendix B - List of Participants, FY 2002
18](#appendix-b---list-of-participants-fy-2002)

[Legacy Participants (Retirees & Active Employees)
18](#legacy-participants-retirees-active-employees)

[Participating Field Offices 18](#participating-field-offices)

[Appendix C - Site-specific Reports
19](#appendix-c---site-specific-reports)

Vale Project (Authors: Bob Kindschy, Al Logosz, Chad McBurney, Roger
Mertens, Ed Spang) ..........C1

Jarbidge Field Office (Author: Gary
Blincow)................................................................\...C20

Uncompahgre Plateau (Authors: George Hollis and Dave
Wickstrom)......................................C30

Blue Mesa (Author: Dave
Wickstrom)...........................................................................C40

Lander (Author: James "Smokey"
O'Conner)...................................................................C46

Worland (Author: James "Smokey"
O'Conner)....................................
............................C50

[Cover Photo]{.underline}

####### Burt Silcock, BLM Director (1971-1973), and contour furrows in the 15-mile Watershed near Worland, Wyoming. Photograph taken circa 1957.

# Executive Summary

The BLM Legacy Program was created to provide current BLM field managers
and specialists with an opportunity to learn about past land management
practices and land treatments and evaluate the results of those
practices 25 or more years later. In many cases, those land treatments
resulted in the landscape conditions that we see today throughout the
West. Many of the professionals who were involved in those activities
have since retired or are nearing retirement. The Legacy Program is
intended to bring together current land managers and specialists with
those retired and still active employees who performed the land
treatments in the past. Many of the professionals who were involved in
those activities have since retired or are nearing retirement. The
underlying philosophy is: if we don't learn from the past, we are bound
to repeat our mistakes in the future.

The focus for 2002 was on vegetation treatments such as sagebrush
control, pinõn-juniper chaining, grass reseeding, and prescribed fire.
The goal was to evaluate these past land treatments in several
representative areas: eastern Oregon, southcentral Idaho, western
Colorado, and central Wyoming. For each location, we matched volunteer
retirees and/or senior BLM employees with cooperating BLM field offices.
The field visits were not formal evaluations. We simply wanted to
observe these older projects and learn from them and from the people who
worked on them. The teams did not have the time, nor was it our
objective, to do an in-depth scientific analysis of the land treatments.
The door was left open for field offices to follow-up with more in-depth
evaluations or monitoring of the project results and site conditions.
All the land treatments visited in 2002, whether deemed successes or
failures, have value in that they provide opportunities for learning how
different plant communities respond to various land treatments and how
those responses are influenced by post-project management and by
wildfire.

Land treatments are investments that need to be tracked, evaluated, and
maintained throughout their effective lives. Proper management of
treated areas, including use monitoring and use adjustments, is a
critical aspect of protecting those investments. Vegetation
manipulations in sagebrush steppe and pinõn-juniper often require
re-treatment in 15 to 20 years. A better understanding of site potential
and plant community dynamics, coupled with new technology (GPS, GIS) and
wider variety of treatment options (mechanical, chemical, prescribed
fire), provides enhanced opportunities for re-treating those areas.

The 2002 Legacy field visits pointed out the need for a Bureau-wide
commitment to long-term ecological monitoring and proper data
management. We believe that volunteers, especially retirees, could be
used effectively for monitoring and data management activities.

The Public Lands Foundation (PLF) was a valuable partner in the 2002
Legacy effort. PLF could play a larger role in the future, in terms of
co-organizing Legacy activities, making PLF members aware of volunteer
opportunities, and brokering volunteer opportunities for PLF members on
a state-by-state basis.

# Introduction

The BLM Legacy Program was created to provide current BLM field managers
and specialists with an opportunity to learn about past land management
practices and land treatments and evaluate the results of those
practices 25 or more years later. The Program is intended to bring
together current land managers and specialists with those retired and
active employees who performed the land treatments in the past. The
underlying philosophy is: if we don't learn from the past, we are bound
to repeat our mistakes in the future. In that sense, the past
[can]{.underline} contribute knowledge to the future.

The BLM has been authorizing uses, conducting studies, performing land
treatments and vegetation manipulations, and implementing various other
practices on its lands for the past 55 years. Many of these activities
were state-of-the-knowledge when they were performed. They resulted in
the landscape conditions that we see today throughout the West. Many of
the professionals who were involved in those activities have since
retired or are nearing retirement. The Bureau has an opportunity to
learn much from those activities that occurred over the years. In
particular, we have the opportunity to assess and determine the
successes or failures of various land treatments and practices over time
and to apply this knowledge to current management activities.

The focus for 2002 was on vegetation treatments such as sagebrush
control, pinõn-juniper chaining, rangeland reseeding, and prescribed
fire. The goal was to evaluate these past land treatments in several
representative areas. Four areas were selected: eastern Oregon, southern
Idaho, western Colorado, and central Wyoming. Cooperating field offices
included the Jordan Resource Area, Vale District, Jarbidge Resource Area
in the Boise District, Grand Junction Field Office, Montrose Field
Office, Lander Field Office, and Worland Field Office. For each
location, retirees and/or senior BLM employees were matched with
cooperating field offices. Each team was asked to address a set of
standard questions (Appendix A) for the land treatments visited. An
introductory meeting of the volunteers and cooperating field office
personnel was held at each location prior to the field tour*.* Following
the field tour, a close-out meeting was held to discuss observations,
conclusions, and recommendations.

The field visits were not formal evaluations. The goal was to observe
these older projects and learn from them and from the people who worked
on them. The teams did not have the time, nor was it our objective, to
do an in-depth scientific analysis of the land treatments. The door was
left open for field offices to follow-up with more in-depth evaluations
or monitoring of the project results and site conditions.

Most of the land treatments discussed in this report were implemented
prior to 1970, predating both FLPMA and NEPA, and thus were responding
to the land management paradigm of that period. The management
objectives at that time were more narrowly focused on increasing forage
for livestock. Under the old paradigm, sagebrush was something to be
eradicated and pinõn-juniper trees were to be replaced with grass.
Concerns over wildlife habitat, visual impacts, and biodiversity have
changed the way we think about sagebrush steppe and pinõn-juniper plant
communities. Our current observations and conclusions about past land
treatments are influenced by these changing resource management
paradigms.

# ![](media/image2.jpeg){width="6.239583333333333in" height="4.159722222222222in"} 

# Sites Visited During Legacy 2002

The project sites visited during the summer of 2002 are listed below.
Site-specific reports, prepared by the Legacy 2002 participants, are
included in their entirety in Appendix C. The reader is encouraged to
read the individual reports for detailed information on individual
sites.

## Eastern Oregon

> Vale Rangeland Rehabilitation Project (C-1)
>
> Vale Tour Summary (C-6)
>
> Lytle Boulevard (C-7)
>
> Succor Creek Riparian Project (C-8)
>
> Spring Creek Seeding (C-8)
>
> Big Ridge Seeding (C-8)
>
> Shellrock Brush Control (C-8)
>
> Schnable Creek Seeding (C-8)
>
> Mud Creek Well and Northwestern Cow Creek (C-8)
>
> Owyhee Butte Seeding (C-8)
>
> CCC Exclosure (C-8)
>
> Antelope Seeding (C-8)
>
> Cantor Corral Noodle-Bowl Project (C-9)
>
> Gluch Pit Seeding and Exclosure (C-9)
>
> Rock Creek Reservoir Project (C-9)
>
> Jackies Butte Seeding (C-9)
>
> Battle Creek Seeding (C-9 and C-10)
>
> Vale Project Interpretative Site (C-10)
>
> Greely Seeding (C-10)
>
> Rome Seeding (C-10)
>
> Overshoe Seeding (C-10)
>
> Rattlesnake Reservoir Project (C-10)
>
> Echave Reservoir Project (C-10)
>
> Antelope Creek Project (C-11)
>
> Highway 95 Fire Rehabilitation Seedings (C-11)
>
> Bankofier Spray and Seed Project (C-11)
>
> Bretz Seeding (C-11)
>
> Disaster Peak Seeding (C-11)
>
> Whitehorse Seeding (C-11)
>
> Little Whitehorse Creek Exclosure (C-11)
>
> Willow Creek Project (C-12)
>
> Hooker Creek Seeding (C-12)
>
> Big Ridge Seeding (C-12)

## Southcentral Idaho

> Upper Pothole Plowing and Crested Wheatgrass Seeding (C-29)
>
> Three Tip Plowing and Crested Wheatgrass Seeding (C-31)
>
> Buffer Extension Plowing and Crested Wheatgrass Seeding (C-33)
>
> Buffer Extension Re-Drill of Crested Wheatgrass (C-34)
>
> Balanced Rock Plowing and Crested Wheatgrass Seeding (C-36)
>
> Coonskin Chemical Sagebrush Spraying Project (C-37)
>
> Grassy Hills Wildfire Seeding (C-39)

## Western Colorado 

> Uncompahgre Plateau Pinõn-juniper Chainings (C-40 to C-49)
>
> Simms Mesa
>
> Paxton
>
> Highway 90
>
> Log Hill Mesa
>
> Blue Mesa Timber Sales and Reforestation Project (C-50)

## Central Wyoming 

> Lander\--Granite Mountain Sagebrush Spraying Project (C-55)
>
> Worland\--Burnt Wagon Contour Furrowing (C-58)
>
> Worland---15-Mile Waterspreader Dikes and Contour Furrowing (C-58)

# Land Treatments in the Arid West---Lessons Learned

Several common threads ran through the 2002 Legacy site visits. The most
obvious lesson learned is that management objectives have changed
considerably during the past 30 to 40 years. In the 1950s and 1960s,
management goals for sagebrush steppe and pinõn-juniper vegetation types
focused on increasing forage availability for livestock, halting soil
erosion, increasing soil moisture, and stabilizing the local livestock
industry. Those objectives led to treating very large areas essentially
the same. Today, management goals are different and perhaps more
complex. They include greater vegetation diversity, reestablishment of
native species, and wildlife habitat improvement. Management objectives
are likely to become even more complex in the future.

Each and every land treatment, regardless of outcome, was successful
because we can glean valuable information from them if we take an
objective, unbiased approach. In essence, every land treatment project
represents a story worth documenting. For example, the Vale Project is
unique in BLM because it offers many opportunities to learn from
vegetation manipulations on different sites subjected to different
post-treatment management. The Vale Project was a pilot program and was
to serve as an example for similar management actions on BLM-managed
public lands in other locations around the West.

Some of the retirees noted that they lacked a complete understanding of
sagebrush physiology and plant community dynamics when the sagebrush
plowing and grass reseeding projects were planned and implemented. They
lacked knowledge about how sagebrush-grass plant communities would
respond to treatment over the long term and how long it would take for
sagebrush to reinvade. Similarly, one retiree remarked that little was
known about site potential, especially soils information, when he was
involved in pinõn-juniper chaining. The present availability of better
information on site potential and vegetation dynamics coupled with new
equipment such as GPS, roller choppers, Hydro-axe, Lawson Renovator,
etc., make it possible now to better design treatments that produce
mosaic-type vegetation patterns and diverse habitats in pinõn-juniper
plant communities. In the case of sagebrush steppe, large areas often
were treated uniformly, leaving a very homogenous landscape. With more
knowledge of site potential and more tools for manipulating sagebrush,
vegetation treatments today can result in mosaic-type patterns and more
diverse habitat in sagebrush steppe plant communities.

Land treatments are investments with finite lives and the BLM has the
responsibility to protect those investments. To maximize the return from
those investments, treated areas require periodic inspections, use
monitoring, evaluations, maintenance, and proper post-project
management. Sagebrush has reinvaded many of the treated areas.
Re-treatment of sagebrush steppe (prescribed fire, mechanical or
chemical control) or pinõn-juniper stands (mechanical thinning or
prescribed fire) may be necessary after 15 to 20 years to regain desired
results. In southcentral Idaho (Jarbidge Resource Area), wildfire or
prescribed fire was an effective re-treatment in sagebrush steppe some
20 years following sagebrush plowing and grass reseeding.

Post-project evaluations are important learning tools and should be
conducted periodically following all land treatments. Evaluations of the
Vale Project were done by university scientists (Heady and Bartolome,
1977; Heady, 1988), thus providing an independent, unbiased view of
those land treatments. It was the consensus of the Legacy team that
initial evaluations of land treatments should be done within five years
following project completion and every 10 years thereafter. Since the
Vale Project was last evaluated in 1988, another evaluation should be
completed in FY03 or FY04.

Most field offices had kept and maintained their project records.
However, in a few cases records had been lost. Proper data management is
an important facet of the land treatment legacy and its importance
cannot be overemphasized. Record files should include original project
documentation on the planning and implementation phases, monitoring data
and interpretations, inspection and evaluation results, and photographs.

There was no consistent approach to monitoring of the land treatments
that were visited. Monitoring of project results, use monitoring, and
long-term monitoring of ecological conditions must be a Bureau-wide
commitment. We address this topic in more detail in the following
section. One of the most important lessons learned in the Legacy 2000
site visits was the significance and value of project documentation and
record maintenance, including project description and objectives,
baseline or reference area documentation, follow-up monitoring, data
analysis and application of results. This is not a new or surprising
finding, but important enough to deserve a separate section in this
report.

# ![](media/image3.jpeg){width="6.239583333333333in" height="4.159722222222222in"} 

# Monitoring, Data Management and Reference Areas

## The Importance of Long-term Monitoring

A common thread that ran throughout many of the sites we visited was the
ubiquitous problem of the lack of monitoring data. In many cases project
monitoring was not done, or it was done sporadically without consistent
documentation, or monitoring was done but the records had been lost or
destroyed. This is not a criticism of any single field office, but a
universally-recognized shortcoming that needs resolution Bureau-wide.

It is worth noting that Bob Kindschy, wildlife biologist retired from
the Vale District, was recognized in the 1988 evaluation of the Vale
Project for his "foresight in establishing permanent plots to monitor
change in vegetation, wildlife species populations, and riparian
conditions" (Heady, 1988). Kindschy's periodic sampling of those plots
provided Dr. Heady's evaluation team a more than 25-year-record of
post-treatment conditions in the Vale Project area. Kindschy has
continued to re-sample those plots on a voluntary basis, providing the
Vale District with an extremely valuable long-term data set.

Monitoring must have well-defined objectives. Ed Spang reminded us that
monitoring must be consistent, timely, and useable. Both managers and
resource specialists must recognize the value of long-term,
uninterrupted monitoring and make a firm commitment to funding and
implementing appropriate monitoring activities.

We were particularly impressed with the Montrose Field Office's "model"
for monitoring. Montrose employs a full-time ecologist responsible for
monitoring. The position is shared by several resource programs and
funded by several subactivities. The Montrose model should be considered
by BLM for implementation in other field offices, and perhaps also in
the Washington Office.

## Recordkeeping and Data Management

Good documentation, recordkeeping, and data management should accompany
monitoring. Permanent sites used for monitoring, such as exclosures,
transects, plots, and photo points, should be marked with GPS-located
aluminum project markers and entered into the Rangeland Improvements
Project System (RIPS) database. The availability of modern technology
(GPS, GIS, digital photography, and computer-based data storage media)
provides the BLM the opportunity to more effectively and efficiently
accomplish project documentation and record management*.* The BLM may
never recover the valuable data that has been lost or destroyed. BLM
will probably not be able to digitize the available analog data that
exists in hard copy files. A deliberate effort should be made to
implement data management guidelines and requirements to capture and
properly archive new monitoring data. This is particularly important and
necessary in today's times with the increasing emphasis by BLM
management and the public on the application of good science in making
BLM resource management decisions.

## Reference Areas

BLM Handbook H-4180-1 (Rangeland Health Standards) defines ecological
reference areas as landscape units in which ecological processes are
functioning within a normal range of variability and the plant community
has adequate resistance to and resiliency from most disturbances. Based
on that definition, ecological reference areas may be selected to
represent the ecological potential of a landscape unit in terms of
ecosystem structure and function and biological health.

Exclosures represent one type of reference area. The 1977 evaluation of
the Vale Project pointed out that many (approx. 70) exclosures were
built in the Vale District for studies, plot monitoring, protection of
riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat, and protection of reservoirs
(Heady and Bartolome, 1977). Exclosures are important sources of
"benchmark" information for evaluating adjacent treated and managed
rangelands. If exclosures are to be used as reference areas, they must
be maintained.

Untreated, unfenced areas in desired plant communities could also be
used as reference areas for ecosystem restoration or vegetation
manipulation projects. One example would be research natural areas.
Laycock (1975) pointed out that rangeland reference areas might also
include fairly large areas in good ecological condition, set aside or
managed carefully to preserve or maintain that condition. Under that
scenario, the reference areas could serve as comparison or control sites
for land treatments or restoration projects.

## Opportunities for Volunteers

Several of the Legacy volunteers remarked that field office staff 30
years ago spent the majority of their time in the field and very little
time in the office. Today, for a variety of reasons, the reverse seems
to be true. The Legacy 2002 field visits suggested the opportunity for
BLM field offices to use the experience and expertise of retirees as a
resource to accomplish monitoring activities that could not otherwise be
accomplished by a limited field office workforce. We identified several
field-oriented opportunities for volunteers. Under the broad topic of
monitoring, volunteers could assist field offices in monitoring,
including the sampling of plots and transects, installing project
markers at plots, transects, and exclosures, replacing signs, updating
and maintaining records on past land treatments, retaking photo points,
and collecting location information for permanent plots, transects, and
exclosures for input to the RIPS database.

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="5.804861111111111in"
height="5.222916666666666in"}

# Conclusions and Recommendations

The Legacy Program is about connecting people and learning from the
past. It connects retirees and senior BLM employees with the field
offices where they worked earlier in their careers. It connects retirees
with each other and it connects "old hands" with "new hands." As a pilot
effort during August, 2002, we linked 12 Legacy volunteers (10 retirees
and 2 senior employees) with six field offices. We visited 49 land
treatment sites in four states, focusing on the sagebrush steppe and
pinõn-juniper vegetation types. The objective was to see what we could
learn from these past land treatments.

# 

All the land treatments visited in 2002, whether deemed successes or
failures, had value in that they provided opportunities for learning how
different plant communities responded to various land treatments and how
those responses were influenced by post-project management and by
wildfire. Land treatments are investments that need to be tracked,
evaluated, and maintained throughout their effective lives. Proper
management of treated areas, including use monitoring and use
adjustments, is a critical aspect of protecting those investments.
Vegetation manipulations in sagebrush steppe and pinõn-juniper often
require re-treatment in 15 to 20 years. A better understanding of site
potential and plant community dynamics, coupled with new technology
(GPS, GIS) and wider variety of treatment options (mechanical, chemical,
prescribed fire), provides enhanced opportunities for re-treating those
areas.

The 2002 Legacy field visits pointed out the need for a Bureau-wide
commitment to long-term ecological monitoring and proper data
management. Reference areas, including both exclosures and unfenced
areas, should be established at the initiation of a management
treatment. They should be GPS-located, monumented, properly maintained,
and consistently checked. Permanent transects and plots used for
monitoring should be GPS-located, monumented, and entered into the RIPS
database. Project records should include an inventory of exclosures,
monitoring plots and transects, and should be properly maintained and
archived. We believe that volunteers, especially retirees, could be used
effectively for monitoring and data management activities.

The Public Lands Foundation (PLF) was instrumental in distributing
Legacy Program information throughout their membership. We suggest that
PLF could play a larger role in co-organizing Legacy activities, making
PLF members aware of volunteer opportunities, and brokering volunteer
opportunities for PLF members on a state-by-state basis.

Legacy 2002 was highly successful and we recommend the Legacy Program be
continued and evaluated at the end of FY03. An immediate benefit of
implementing the pilot effort in 2002 was planting the seed for state
offices and field offices to sponsor their own legacy programs in the
future. To increase the effectiveness of the Legacy Program in FY2003 we
recommend that earlier notification and requests for site nominations be
made to the field offices and additional time be provided to the
retirees for preparation for visits to the respective field offices.

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="6.239583333333333in"
height="4.159722222222222in"}

# Literature Cited

Heady, Harold F. and Bartolome, James. 1977. The Vale Rangeland
Rehabilitation Program: The Desert Repaired in Southeastern Oregon. USDA
Forest Service Resource Bulletin PNW-RB-70. Portland, Oregon: U. S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 139p.

Heady, Harold F. 1988. The Vale Rangeland Rehabilitation Program: An
Evaluation. USDA Forest Service Resource Bulletin PNW-RB-157. Portland,
OR: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station. 151p.

Laycock, William A. 1975. Rangeland reference areas. Range Science
Series #3. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 66p.

U. S. Bureau of Land Management. 2001. BLM Handbook H-4180-1 - Rangeland
Health Standards. Release 4-107, January 19, 2001. Washington DC: U. S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 39p.

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="6.239583333333333in"
height="4.159722222222222in"}

# Appendix A -- Guidance for Site Visits

## Guiding Questions for the Legacy Program, FY 2002

The following questions were used to guide the field visits and the
preparation of the various site reports. Using the same questions for
all site visits allowed us to look at regional trends and conclusions.

We asked participants to address Questions 1 thru 6 prior to the field
visit. Questions 7 & 8 were addressed during the close-out of each site
visit.

1\. What were the project objectives?

2\. What were the goals or expectations in terms of future resource
values or uses?

2\. When was the project implemented?

3\. What vegetation treatments were done? (R~x~ fire, mechanical,
chemical, etc.) Treatment/application methods used? (aerial spray,
ground spray, chaining, tilling, etc.)

4\. Was monitoring included in the project? If so, what type of
monitoring was conducted (transects, photo points, plots)?

5\. If photo points were established, have they been re-taken recently?

6\. What post-project management was planned or used? (e.g.\--summer
grazing, winter grazing, rest rotation grazing, rest, follow-up
treatments like prescribed burning, etc).

7\. What are your observations and conclusions based on the 2002 site
visit?

8\. What do you recommend in terms of follow-up actions?

## Recommended Outline for Site-specific Reports

# 

I.  Project Description

    a.  Name of Project or Area

    b.  Location (field office, allotment, watershed)

II. Project Objectives (what were the stated project objectives?)

    a.  Management Goals (in terms of longer-term expectations)

    b.  Resource values

III. Vegetation changes

IV. Pre-project baseline data and/or monitoring

    a.  Transects or plots

    b.  Photo points

    c.  Type and location of documentation

V.  Implementation

    a.  Implementation dates (when implemented?)

    b.  Describe treatments

VI. Post-project land management

    a.  Fencing, water developments

    b.  Grazing system (stocking rates, season of use, initial rest)

    c.  Follow-up treatments (e.g. prescribed fire)

VII. Post-project monitoring

     a.  Transects or plots

     b.  Photo points

     c.  Type and location of documentation

     d.  Cross-walk the information to planning and implementation

VIII. Results

      a.  Observations and conclusions

      b.  Were objectives met in terms of project objectives?

      c.  Were expectations met in terms of longer term goals and
          expectations?

      d.  Other conclusions (vegetation composition, cover, wildlife
          habitat, overall land health)

      e.  What would you do differently today

      f.  What are the lessons learned that could be applied in this
          area in the future?

IX. Recommendations

    a.  What recommendations do you have for the current field manager?

    b.  Follow-up treatments?

    c.  New treatments needed?

    d.  Management?

    e.  Monitoring? (use supervision and long-term monitoring)

# Appendix B - List of Participants, FY 2002

## Legacy Participants (Retirees & Active Employees)

Gary Blincow (Worland FO)

George Hollis (WO-220)

Gus Juarez (R)

Bob Kindschy (R)

Bob Kline (R)

Al Logosz (R)

Chad McBurney (R)

Roger Mertens (WYSO)

Smokey O'Connor (R)

Al Piersen (R)

Ed Spang (R)

Bruce Van Haveren (NSTC)

Bill Wagner (R)

Dave Wickstrom (R)

## Participating Field Offices

Jordan Resource Area, Vale District, Oregon

Jarbidge Resource Area, Boise District, Idaho

Grand Junction Field Office, Colorado

Montrose Field Office, Colorado

Lander Field Office, Wyoming

Worland Field Office, Wyoming

# Appendix C - Site-specific Reports

## Vale Project (Authors: Bob Kindschy, Al Logosz, Chad McBurney, Roger Mertens, Ed Spang), pages C1-C11

## Jarbidge Field Office (Author: Gary Blincow) pages C12-C22

## Uncompahgre Plateau (Authors: George Hollis and Dave Wickstrom) pages C23-C31

## Blue Mesa (Dave Wickstrom) pages C32-C36

## Lander (Author: James "Smokey" O'Conner) pages C37-C38

## Worland (Author: James "Smokey" O'Conner) pages C39-C40