Eugene District 


RECORD OF DECISION & 


RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 


West Eugene Wetlands 


April 2015 

The BLM manages more 

than 245 million acres of 

public land, the most of 

any Federal agency. This 

land, known as the 

National System of Public 

Lands, is primarily located 

in 12 western states, 

including Alaska. The 

BLM also administers 700 

million acres of sub-surface 

mineral estate throughout 

the nation. 

The BLM's m1ss1on 1s to 

manage and conserve the 

public lands for the use 

and enjoyment of present 

and future generations 

under our mandate of 

multiple-use and sustained 

yield. In fiscal year 2013, 

the BLM generated 

billion in receipts 

public lands. 

$4.7 

from 

blm.gov/or 
	 	

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan

Table of Contents

Record of Decision ............................................................................................................................... 1
 

Decision.....................................................................................................................................................2
 

6
 

12
 

16
 

16
 

17
 

20
 

20
 

Management Considerations ‐ Rationale for the Decision.......................................................................

Alternatives Considered..........................................................................................................................

Mitigation................................................................................................................................................

Plan Monitoring and Evaluations............................................................................................................

Public Involvement .................................................................................................................................

Recommendation....................................................................................................................................

Approval..................................................................................................................................................

Resource Management Plan ...................................................................
 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................22
 

Land Use Allocations/Management Decisions .......................................................................................24
 

24
 

24
 

Prairie Restoration Area......................................................................................................................

Natural Maintenance Area..................................................................................................................

Resource Programs/Management Actions.............................................................................................27
 

27
 

28
 

32
 

35
 

36
 

37
 

41
 

41
 

42
 

42
 

42
 

44
 

44
 

Air Quality/Prescribed Burning/Wildfire Suppression........................................................................

Plants...................................................................................................................................................

Wildlife................................................................................................................................................

Soils and Water...................................................................................................................................

Cultural Resources..............................................................................................................................

Recreation...........................................................................................................................................

Visual Resources .................................................................................................................................

Special Products..................................................................................................................................

Travel and Transportation ..................................................................................................................

Minerals and Energy ...........................................................................................................................

Lands and Realty .................................................................................................................................

Hazardous Materials...........................................................................................................................

Research..............................................................................................................................................

Administrative Actions............................................................................................................................44
 

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................46
 

Appendix
 A ‐ Guidance for Use of the Resource Management Plan ........................................................ A‐1
 

............................................................................................................................B‐1
 

......................................................................................................C‐1
 

................................................................................................ D‐1
 

..................................................E‐1
 

............................................................................F‐1
 

.................................................................................................... G‐1
 

Appendix
 B ‐ Monitoring

Appendix
 C ‐ Recreation Management

Appendix
 D ‐ Best Management Practices

Appendix
 E ‐ Standard Operating Procedures for Herbicide Application

Appendix
 F ‐ Valid Existing Rights and Continuing Uses

Appendix
 G ‐ Travel Management Plan

Index.................................................................... 
 ..........................................

.......................................
 .... 21

......................................Index‐1
 

i
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

List of Tables

Table 1. Population recovery objectives for plants. ...................................................................................28
 

Table E‐1. Potential effects of herbicide use and standard operating procedures to minimize or avoid
 

effects..................................................................................................................................................E‐7
 

Table F‐1. Valid existing rights and continuing uses in the planning area by site. ....................................F‐1
 

Table G‐1. Evaluation of travel routes against designation criteria. ........................................................ G‐3
 

Table G‐2. Designated routes and permitted uses. .................................................................................. G‐5
 

List of Figures

Figure 1. BLM and West Eugene Wetland partnership administered lands...............................................23
 

Figure 2. West Eugene Wetlands RMP Land Use Allocations.....................................................................26
 

Figure 3. Botanical critical habitats within the West Eugene Wetlands RMP. ...........................................31
 

Figure 4. Wildlife critical habitats within the West Eugene Wetlands RMP...............................................34
 

Figure 5. Special Recreation Management Areas within the West Eugene Wetlands RMP.......................40
 

Figure B‐1. Land Use Planning, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management. ................................................B‐3
 

Figure F‐1. Parcel identifiers for valid existing rights within the West Eugene Wetlands RMP. ...............F‐4
 

Figure G‐1. Existing travel routes within the West Eugene Wetlands Travel Management Area............ G‐4
 

Figure G‐2. Designated travel routes within the West Eugene Wetlands Travel Management Area. ..... G‐6
 

ii
	 	

Record    of Decision

Record of Decision
 

1
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

       

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

     

   

       

     

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

     

     

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

       

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

Decision

The decision is hereby made to approve the RMP for the West Eugene Wetlands. This plan was developed

under the regulations implementing the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 CFR 1600).

An environmental impact statement was prepared for this plan in compliance with regulations

implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (40 CFR 1500). This plan is identical to the

one set forth in the November 2014 Proposed RMP/Final EIS for the West Eugene Wetlands.

Specific management decisions and guidance for West Eugene Wetlands public lands administered by the

BLM’s Eugene District are presented in the RMP attached to this Record of Decision. All decisions covered

by the Record of Decision are either land use planning decisions that were protestable during the

November 21, 2014, to December 22, 2014, protest period in accordance with the land use planning

regulations (43 CFR Part 1610), or implementation decisions that may be appealed in accordance with

Department of the Interior regulations at 43 CFR Part 4. The “Implementation Decisions and

Administrative Review” section in this Record of Decision identifies the implementation decisions that are

subject to appeal at this time and the appeal procedures.

What the Plan Will Provide

The major provisions of the RMP will include the following land use plan decisions:

 objectives for the management of BLM‐administered lands and resources;

 land

and

use allocations relative to future uses for the purposes of achieving the various objectives;

 man

rest

for t

nagement dir

rictions or re

the BLM‐adm

ection that id

quirements m

ministered lan

dentifies whe

may be placed

ds and resou

re future acti

d on those fu

rces.

ions may or m

ture actions t

may not be al

to achieve th

lowed and w

e objectives s

hat

et

What the Plan Will Not Provide

The plan does not authorize the implementation of on‐the‐ground projects. Implementation actions in the

management direction, such as habitat restoration and maintenance actions (including herbicide use) or

recreational resource actions, would be implemented only after additional NEPA compliance and decision‐

making subsequent to the approval of the RMP. The BLM’s implementation of this management direction

would occur only after additional decision‐making subsequent to the approval of the RMP. Additionally,

projected habitat restoration and maintenance, including herbicide use, would typically be described in a

program of work that would be made available to the public. For this program of work, BLM would

conduct a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) to determine whether additional NEPA analysis beyond

the analysis in the RMP/EIS is necessary and to evaluate conformance with the RMP. Where site‐specific

conditions differ, or circumstances change from those described in the RMP/EIS, or if a DNA is

inappropriate for other reasons, the BLM may need to conduct additional NEPA analysis prior to reaching a

decision to implement an action.

2
   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

   

     

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

       

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

       

   

     

   

     

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

       

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

       

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

Record of Decision

Application of the Plan to Existing Projects

Development of a RMP necessarily involves a transition from the application of previously coordinated

management to the application of the new RMP. The planning and analysis of future projects such as

habitat restoration projects typically requires at least one year of preparation before a site‐specific project

can be designed and a decision reached. Allowing for a transition from previous management to the new

RMP avoids disruption of the management of the BLM‐administered lands and allows the BLM to utilize

work already begun on the planning and analysis of projects. This section addresses the application of the

RMP to three categories of future projects:

 projects for which site‐specific decisions have been signed prior to the effective date of this Record

of Decision (ROD), but which have not yet been implemented;

 projects for which site‐specific decisions have not yet been signed, but for which preparation of

NEPA documents has begun prior to the effective date of this ROD; and

 projects for which site‐specific project planning and preparation of NEPA documents have not

begun prior to the effective date of this ROD.

For this discussion, “projects” are considered to be on‐the‐ground implementation actions including, but

not limited to, prescribed burning, mowing, haying, thinning, hand weeding, shade cloth, solarization,

thermal treatments, tilling/disking, fill removal, raking, grazing, herbicide application, and plant

augmentation.

Implementation of projects for which a decision has been signed prior to the effective date of this ROD is

not affected by this ROD. The effects of implementation of these projects were factored into the analysis

in the Final EIS either as an analytical assumption about current land treatment types and levels of activity,

or were generally considered as part of the current condition of the affected environment.

Site‐specific projects for which a decision has not been signed prior to the effective date of this ROD, for

which preparation of NEPA documentation began prior to the effective date of this ROD, and for which a

decision on the project is signed within one year of the effective date of this ROD may be implemented

consistent with the management direction of either the previously coordinated management (i.e., the plan

developed by the City of Eugene) or the Approved RMP attached to this ROD, at the discretion of the

decision maker. In context, the preparation of NEPA documentation is considered to have begun upon:

 public notification that the BLM will be preparing a NEPA document;
 

 initiation of external scoping;
 

 completion of documentation of a DNA; or
 

 completion of documentation of a Categorical Exclusion review.
 

If the decision maker elects to implement projects for which NEPA has begun consistent with the

previously coordinated management, they may include features not consistent with the management

direction in the Approved RMP attached to this ROD. However, any difference in the specific effects

resulting from implementation of such projects would not alter the analysis of effects in the Final EIS

3
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

       

       

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

because of their limited geographic extent. Additionally, any inconsistencies with the management

direction in the Approved RMP attached to this ROD, in almost all cases, are anticipated to result in less

change to the current condition of the affected environment than if projects were implemented consistent

with the Approved RMP. The primary inconsistency with the Approved RMP that has potential to occur

would be habitat restoration and management projects, and would result from the fact that herbicide

application was analyzed through the process to design this RMP and had not previously been available as

a management tool for restoration and enhancement or for control of invasive plants and noxious weed

management.

Projects for which preparation of NEPA documentation begins after the effective date of this ROD or for

which a decision is signed more than one year after the effective date of this ROD must be consistent with

the management direction in the Approved RMP.

Valid Existing Rights

This decision does not alter or extinguish valid existing rights on BLM‐administered lands. Valid existing

rights may be held by other Federal, State, or local government agencies; or by private individuals or

companies. Valid existing rights may pertain to energy leases, leases, easements, permits, and rights‐of‐

way (Appendix F).

Approved Changes to the RMP between the Final EIS and the Record of Decision

The following changes and corrections were made to the West Eugene Wetlands RMP. These changes

were made to correct errors and provide clarifications of existing management direction and objectives. In

addition to the items noted here, other minor typographical, table, and mapping errors were corrected.

The acres involved in these corrections are small and mostly reflect slivers and overlaps in data. The

changes and corrections noted below are relatively inconsequential and would not substantially change

the analytical conclusions described in the Final EIS.

	 Management Direction for Plants originally read: “On sites with listed plants where spring mowing is

needed to control overwhelming weed infestations, maintain a buffer of 6 feet from the nearest listed

plants if this will meet the management objective. However, if needed to control serious infestations

of weeds that reproduce mainly by seed, up to one‐half of the listed plant population at a site may be

mowed in an effort to reduce seed set by non‐native weeds. Set tractor mower decks at a level high

enough to avoid killing listed plants but low enough to remove weed flowers.” The last two sentences

have been deleted as unnecessary.

	 Management Direction for Plants originally read: “Do not seed or plant plugs within 6 feet of naturally

occurring federally‐listed plants.” “Seed or” has been deleted because recent research (Stanley et al.

2011b; Kaye, T., exec. dir., Institute for Applied Ecology, Corvallis, OR, pers. comm. to S. Villegas‐Moore

via e‐mail, December 18, 2013) shows the benefit of seeding annual plant species after herbicide

application.

	 Management Direction for Wildlife originally read: “Implement prescribed burning on sites with

Fender’s blue butterfly. The burn unit must be within 100 meters of unburned occupied habitat to

facilitate recolonization.” The second sentence has been deleted in favor of the two succeeding

Management Directions.

4
   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

     

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

         

   

     

   

   

   

       

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

Record of Decision

	 Management Direction for Wildlife originally read: “On sites with Fender’s blue butterflies, do not

mow with tractor mowers in the spring. Mowing with hand‐held mowers may be implemented during

the butterfly flight season (generally May 1 to June 30) as long as a buffer of at least 25 feet is

maintained between the mower and a Kincaid’s lupine plant. After the butterfly flight season, but

before Kincaid’s lupine senescence (generally June 30 through August 15), tractor mowing may occur

no closer than 6 feet from the nearest Kincaid’s lupine plants. Tractor mowing may be conducted

throughout sites with Fender’s blue butterflies after Kincaid’s lupine senescence and before lupine re‐

emergence (generally August 15‐March 1). Set tractor mower decks at least 6 inches above the ground

to reduce impacts to butterfly larvae.” The last sentence is revised to read “Mow to a height of at least

6 inches or greater to reduce impacts to butterfly larvae,” because the microtopography in the West

Eugene Wetlands would make the management objective difficult to achieve as it had been originally

stated.

	 Management Direction for Wildlife originally read: “Retain large snags and create 2 snags per acre

>14” diameter breast height where available in forested plant communities (oak woodland, ash

swale/riparian, plantation, and Douglas‐fir forest).” A clarification preceding this management

direction has been added that states “In forested plant communities where prescribed burning would

not be used for maintenance, retain large snags...”. Snag creation in areas where prescribed burning

would be used as a maintenance tool would present risk to firefighter safety and the ability for

containment.

Implementation Decisions and Administrative Review

In addition to land use plan decisions, this Record of Decision includes some implementation decisions.

While preparing the EIS for this RMP, the BLM considered various implementation actions that would be

approved either at the same time or after the RMP decisions are made. The West Eugene Wetlands RMP

includes implementation decisions of:

	 Designation of travel management networks, including identifying the specific roads and trails that are

available for public use and the limitations on use of roads and trails.

	 Continued application of the Final Supplementary Rules for Public Land within the West Eugene

Wetlands, Eugene District, OR, published in the Federal Register on July 28, 2005, and adoption of the

application of these rules throughout the planning area on BLM‐managed lands.

Any party adversely affected by an implementation decision may appeal within 30 days of publication of

the Notice of Availability of the RMP/ROD in the Federal Register in accordance with the provisions of 43

CFR Part 4.4. The appeal must include a statement of reasons or file a separate statement of reasons

within 30 days of filing the appeal. The appeal must state if a stay of the decision is being requested in

accordance with 43 CFR 4.21 and must be filed with the District Manager at the following address:

Eugene District Office
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

3106 Pierce Parkway, Suite E
 

Springfield, Oregon 97477
 

5
     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

       

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

     

	 	

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

       

     

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

     

   

       

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

A copy of the appeal, statement of reasons, and all other supporting documents should also be sent to the

Office of the Regional Solicitor, Pacific Northwest Region; U.S. Department of the Interior; 805 SW

Broadway, Suite 600; Portland, Oregon 97205. If the statement of reasons is filed separately, it must be

sent to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of Hearings and Appeals, 4015 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, Virginia 22203. It is suggested that any appeal be sent certified mail, return receipt requested.

Should you wish to file a motion for stay pending the outcome of an appeal of these implementation

decisions, you must show sufficient justification based on the following standards under 43 CFR 4.21:

• The relative harm to the parities if the stay is granted or denied.

• The likelihood of the appellant’s success on the merits.

• The likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted.

• Whether or not the public interest favors granting the stay.

As noted above, the motion for stay must be filed in the office of the authorized officer.

Management Considerations ‐	Rationale for the Decision

The decision to select the Proposed RMP as the Approved RMP is based on the conclusion that it best

meets the purpose and need and would have favorable outcomes for various resources and programs and

relatively low adverse environmental impacts in comparison to the other alternatives.

The decision regarding the Approved RMP is based on consideration and evaluation of:

 how well the purpose and need is met; and

 associated environmental consequences and the cost of implementation.

The facts found through analysis in the Final EIS provide the basis for determining how well the purpose

and need is met for considering the environmental consequences and costs of implementing the plan. The

decision is also based on the conclusion that the Proposed RMP has associated with it relatively low

adverse environmental impacts and relatively favorable outcomes for various resources and programs in

comparison to the other alternatives.

Purpose and Need

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act requires the BLM to develop RMPs to provide for the use of

public lands. Among other requirements, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act directs the BLM to

use and observe the principles of multiple use in the development of RMPs. There are specific

considerations in the planning area that lead the BLM to focus management on threatened and

endangered species: the scarcity of the listed species and their habitat; the importance of the planning

area to the recovery of the listed species; and the purposes for which the BLM acquired the lands in the

planning area. Therefore, the purpose and need for this RMP is more specific than the broad mandate of

multiple use alone.

6
   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

       

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

Record of Decision

The purpose of the action is to manage the planning area to contribute to the recovery of species listed

under the Endangered Species Act, while providing other benefits, particularly maintaining the ecological

function of wetlands; habitat for other plant and animal communities; and recreation and environmental

education opportunities, to the extent compatible with threatened and endangered species management.

The need for the action is established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for the Prairie

Species of Western Oregon and Southwestern Washington (Recovery Plan), which describes the

importance of the planning area to the recovery of Fender’s blue butterfly, Willamette daisy, Bradshaw’s

lomatium, and Kincaid’s lupine, and provides recovery strategies and objectives relevant to BLM

management (USFWS 2010). Section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act requires the BLM to use its

authorities to further the purposes of the Endangered Species Act by implementing programs for the

conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The

BLM Special Status Species Management Manual explains, “ways in which the BLM can carry out these

responsibilities include ... developing and implementing agency land use plans, implementation plans, and

actions in a manner consistent with conservation and/or recovery of listed species,” (BLM 2008b). The BLM

Special Status Species Management Manual further explains that the “BLM will incorporate objectives and

actions identified in recovery plans into BLM documents, as appropriate. Examples of such documents

include land use plans, implementation level plans, and species conservation plans or agreements,” (BLM

2008b). The planning area embraces some of the last remaining rare Willamette Valley prairie habitat, of

which less than 1% remains in comparison to historical extent. With so little habitat left, and with more

than one‐third of the planning area designated as critical habitat for the listed species, it is not likely that

recovery of these species can be achieved in this recovery zone without the BLM‐administered lands in the

West Eugene Wetlands.

The need for the action is also established in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which directs

BLM to develop RMPs to provide for the use of public lands. Neither the 1995 nor 2008 Eugene District

RMPs developed specific goals, objectives, or management direction for the planning area, other than to

state that the BLM–administered lands would be managed consistent with the West Eugene Wetlands plan

developed by the City of Eugene.

Most of the lands within the planning area are acquired lands that were attained with funds from the Land

and Water Conservation Fund. The justification for the Land and Water Conservation Fund acquisitions

typically highlighted the importance of the lands for threatened and endangered species and, for example,

specified that that the acquired lands will: (1) Provide a more natural system for water quality

enhancement, storm water, and flood control; (2) Provide habitat for sensitive plant and animal

communities, including rare species; and (3) Provide new opportunities for the recreational and

environmental education needs of the community. Almost all of the remaining lands in the planning area

were also acquired to provide, in part, habitat for threatened and endangered species.

7
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

     

   

     

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

     

   

     

   

       

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

       

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

Meeting the Purpose and Need, Environmental Consequences, and Costs of Implementation

The conclusions that the Proposed RMP best meets the purpose and need, has relatively low adverse

environmental impacts, and has relatively favorable outcomes for resources and programs in comparison

to the other alternatives are supported by the analysis and conclusions in the Final EIS.

The Proposed RMP provides direction that, if implemented in future actions, would be expected to meet

the purpose of managing the BLM‐administered lands to contribute to the recovery of species listed under

the Endangered Species Act:

 Proposed RMP would restore high quality prairie and oak savanna in all of the designated critical

habitat, and would create the most well‐connected network of high quality prairie and savanna

habitat of all alternatives

 Proposed RMP would meet all recovery targets for all listed plants

 Proposed RMP would provide for short‐term abundance of all listed plants would greatly exceed

recovery targets for abundance

 Proposed RMP would meet Fender’s blue butterfly recovery targets for habitat quality and

management

 Proposed RMP would create 65 acres of golden paintbrush and restore habitat to high quality for

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly

In accordance with Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, the BLM has conducted consultation

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the adoption of the Proposed RMP. For the purposes of analysis

of the impacts, the Proposed RMP and its effects to threatened and endangered species and their critical

habitats under analysis are most easily described by the individual components within the Proposed RMP.

Additionally, rationales for making determinations‐of‐effects differ by component. However, the apparent

individuality of those components does not override the fact that each is part of the single action under

review: adoption of the Proposed RMP.

In determining what the effects of a proposed action are likely to be, agencies are subject to the definition

of “effects of the action” found in the regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act. The

regulations define “effects of the action” to refer to “The direct and indirect effects of an action on the

species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or

interdependent with that action that will be added to the environmental baseline. The environmental

baseline includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human

activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that

have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of State or private actions

which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process. Indirect effects are those that are caused by

the proposed action and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur,” (50 CFR § 402.2).

While “direct effects” are not defined in the regulations, they are commonly understood to be the

immediate effects on a listed species or critical habitat that will result from the carrying out by the Federal

agency of the proposed action itself or from the carrying out by third parties of the activities authorized or

funded by the Federal agency. If the agency does what it is proposing to do, the “direct effects” are the

8
f

y

     

   

     

     

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

       

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

Record of Decision

effects that are the immediate and natural consequences of taking the proposed action. In other words,

“direct effects” are effects that will inevitably occur if the action is taken and are not dependent upon the

occurrence of any additional intervening actions for the impact to listed species or critical habitat to occur.

Like “direct effects”, indirect effects must be “caused by” the proposed action. Indirect effects are

distinguished from direct effects, however, in that they typically occur after the taking of actions other

than the proposed Federal action, and as such, they are not necessarily inevitable.

The Biological Assessment of the Proposed Resource Management Plan for the West Eugene Wetlands in

Lane County, Oregon (2014) determined that, in its entirety, the proposed action may affect, and is likely

to adversely affect, Bradshaw’s lomatium, Willamette daisy, Kincaid’s lupine, Fender’s blue butterfly,

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, and streaked horned lark; would harm Fender’s blue butterfly and streaked

horned lark; and may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect golden paintbrush or the critical habitats

addressed.

The BLM received a Biological Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluding that the proposed

action, in its entirety, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Willamette daisy,

Bradshaw’s lomatium, Kincaid’s lupine, golden paintbrush, Fender’s blue butterfly, Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly, or the streaked horned lark; and are not likely to adversely modify the critical habitats for

Willamette daisy, Kincaid’s lupine, and Fender’s blue butterfly. This conclusion was reached because the

proposed action was determined likely to appreciably increase the effectiveness of the conservation

program established under the Recovery Plan and critical habitat designations to protect these Willamette

valley species and their habitat on federal lands within their range including designated critical habitats.

Additionally, no known cumulative impacts changed the determinations made under the effects of the

proposed action, as the vast majority of adjacent non‐federal lands are managed by wetland conservation

partners who work in unison with the BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Biological Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service included an Incidental Take Statement for

Fender’s blue butterfly. Detection of incidental take on individuals of this species is recognized to be

difficult to determine within the project area. As such, even though incidental take is expected to occur

from management actions under the Proposed RMP, data are not sufficiently available to enable the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service to estimate an exact number of individuals. For this reason, the amount or extent

of incidental take was issued using the maximum acres of habitat area that could be treated on an annual

basis as a surrogate. These acres are identified by management activity and are listed in detail in the

Biological Opinion (pp. 109‐10), which is hereby incorporated by reference. The Biological Opinion

deferred issuance of an Incidental Take Statement on the streaked horned lark. Occupancy within the

planning area by this species was only verified a short time ago (during 2013), and little data is available on

the patterns of habitat use. Based on the effects analysis of management actions under the Proposed

RMP, there is currently insufficient information available to determine if take of the streaked horned lark is

likely to occur. The BLM shall submit all needed information to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to for

assessment of incidental take of streaked horned lark if they are encountered. Provided that the reported

action is consistent with the analysis described in the Biological Opinion, a project(s) specific Incidental

9
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

Take Statement/take exemption (as appropriate) will be provided to the BLM as an amendment to the

Biological Opinion.

The Proposed RMP provides direction that, if implemented in future actions, meets the purpose of

providing other benefits to the extent compatible with threatened and endangered species management;

particularly, maintaining the ecological function of wetlands, maintaining habitat for other plant and

animal communities, and providing recreation and environmental education opportunities:

	 In the short‐term, populations of all vascular sensitive plants would meet restoration targets under

the Proposed RMP

 Under the Proposed RMP long‐term increases in populations of BLM sensitive vascular plant
 

species would contribute to achieving the habitat quality recovery target for listed plants
 

 Habitat for animal species that are associated with high quality prairie and savanna, such as
 

Oregon vesper sparrow and Western pond turtle, would increase under the Proposed RMP

 Herbicide use under the Proposed RMP in the Natural Maintenance Area would be coordinated to

not impede and enhance opportunities and populations for traditional use plant gathering

 Stewart Pond under the Proposed RMP would have substantially increased recreation

opportunities

The Proposed RMP responds to the need for action, because it provides a framework that is consistent

with the Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of Western Oregon and Southwestern Washington; critical

habitat for Kincaid’s lupine, Willamette daisy, and Fender’s blue butterfly; and other species listed as

threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

The Final EIS identified eleven issues for analysis, some of which provided the analysis to how well the

alternatives meet the purpose and need for action:

 How would BLM management actions affect the restoration of native plant communities?

 How would BLM management actions contribute to meeting the recovery objectives described in

the recovery plan for ESA‐listed species?

 How would BLM management actions affect BLM sensitive and strategic plant and animal species?

 How would herbicide use affect soil, water, plants, and animals?

 How would prescribed burning affect air quality?

 How would changing climate conditions alter the effect of BLM management actions on resources?

 How would BLM management actions affect greenhouse gas emissions and carbon storage?

 How would BLM management actions affect archaeological, historical, and traditional use

resources?

 How would BLM management actions affect access to the planning area, authorizations over the

planning area, and authorizations for extractive uses in the planning area?
 

 How would BLM management actions affect recreation opportunities?
 

 How much would it cost to implement the alternatives?
 

The environmental impact with regard to the identified issues of future actions implemented in

accordance with the Proposed RMP are summarized below.

10
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

       

   

     

       

     

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

Record of Decision

Future actions implemented in accordance with the Proposed RMP are anticipated to contribute to the

recovery of threatened and endangered species:

 All recovery targets for all listed plants are anticipated to be met.

 Habitat quality and management recovery targets for Fender’s blue butterfly are anticipated to be

met.

 An estimated 22 acres of high quality habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly would be restored.

Future actions implemented in accordance with the goals of the Proposed RMP are expected to provide a

mix of recreational opportunities and experiences are expected to be substantially increased through the

designation of Stewart Pond as a Special Recreation Management Area.

The Proposed RMP provides direction that, if implemented in future actions, addresses the off‐highway

vehicle management by establishing plans that will limit off‐highway vehicle activity to designated roads

and is expected to improve protection of other resources compared to the No Action Alternative.

The Final EIS analyzed other potential environmental impacts and outcomes for resources and programs

beyond those described above. Future actions taken in accordance with the Proposed RMP are expected

to have favorable outcomes for various resources and programs and relatively low adverse environmental

impacts in comparison to the other alternatives. Under the management direction of the Proposed RMP:

 Without herbicide use, prairie and savanna habitats would not be restored to meet high quality

habitat conditions. Concentration of herbicides in the soil would be extremely low because of the

limited application methods, low rates of application, and the typical application timing. Off‐site

transport of herbicides by runoff, sedimentation, leaching, or drift would be extremely unlikely.

Herbicide application would result in some mortality of non‐target plants, but mortality would be

highly localized. Herbicide application would result in very limited exposure and low risk to most

animals.

 Particulate emissions under the Proposed RMP would constitute 1% or less of emissions from

BLM‐administered lands in western Oregon.

	 Listed plant species would not experience changes in abundance or range as a result of changing

climate conditions under a moderate climate change scenario. Fender’s blue butterfly would be

moderately vulnerable to changing climate conditions under a moderate climate change scenario.

The Proposed RMP would reduce the vulnerability of Fender’s blue butterfly to climate change

more than the other alternatives by creating greater connectivity of high quality habitat and

greater populations of Kincaid’s lupine.

	 Greenhouse gas emissions would vary annually under the Proposed RMP as a result of the amount

of prescribed burning and the conversion of forested plant communities to prairie and savanna

plant communities, ranging from 1,000 to 2,000 tonnes per year.

	 Nearly all effects to archaeological and historic sites would be reduced or eliminated by conducting

pre‐disturbance inventories to identify sites and avoiding or protecting identified sites. Habitat

restoration would generally benefit traditional use plants, but the use of herbicides could affect

traditional use plant gathering.

11
     

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

       

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

       

   

       

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

       

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

       

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

 There would be no reasonably foreseeable effects of future rights‐of‐way. There would be no

reasonably foreseeable effects of locatable or leaseable mineral development. There would be no

effects of future saleable mineral development.

 Total annual costs for implementation would be approximately $496,000 for the Proposed RMP,

the third highest of the alternatives.

The cost of implementation will be lower under the Proposed RMP than the No Action Alternative and will

be lower than current management costs. The use of herbicides and the concomitant decrease in the acres

of other treatments (mowing and other manual treatments) would reduce the costs for habitat

management.

New Information

The analysis in the Final EIS was based on the best available information at the time the analysis was

conducted. Some data, such as Geographic Information System (GIS) data is continually being refined and

adjusted, and it is expected that refinements and adjustments in GIS data will occur during Plan

implementation. Plan evaluations review the land use plan to determine if plan decisions are implemented

as expected, and whether the associated NEPA analysis are still valid. Changes that do not expand the

scope of resource uses or restrictions or change the terms, conditions, and decisions of the Approved RMP

would be accomplished through Plan maintenance. Changes that would expand the scope of resource uses

or restrictions or change the terms, conditions, and decisions in the Approved RMP would be accomplished

through Plan amendment or revision.

Since the release of the Final EIS, new information has arisen relevant to soils analysis conducted in

designing the RMP. Recent (2014) soil chemistry research results have confirmed that gray clay within the

West Eugene Wetlands is smectitic montmorillinite clay. When conducting GLEAMS modeling analysis for

the EIS, the specific type of gray clay was unknown. Smectitic montmorillinite clay was used in the

modeling because it possesses high shrink/swell characteristics, which had been observed characteristics

of the gray clay in the West Eugene Wetlands. As this new information confirms the accuracy of the

assumptions made when using the GLEAMS model, it does not result in effects outside the range analyzed

in the Final EIS and, therefore, does not require supplementation of the Final EIS.

Alternatives Considered

Seven alternatives for the BLM‐administered lands and resources were analyzed in the Final EIS: the No

Action Alternative, Alternative 1, the Proposed RMP, Alternative 2B, and Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C. The

Final EIS (Chapter 2) provides a detailed description of the land use allocations, Area of Critical

Environmental Concern designation, and management objectives and direction of each alternative.

All alternatives considered two land use allocations, the Prairie Restoration Area and the Natural

Maintenance Area. Variation in the design of the alternatives resulted from variations in the extent and

location of the land use allocations and management direction to resolve the planning issues. In addition

to the two land use allocations, some alternatives included allocation of the Long Tom ACEC. The

management needed to protect the relevant and important values of the Long Tom ACEC would be

consistent with the management objectives and management direction identified in the Prairie

12
   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

     

     

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

         

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

       

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

       

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

Record of Decision

Restoration Area. In alternatives that would include the Long Tom site in the Prairie Restoration Area, such

as the Proposed RMP, there would be no need for any special management other than the management

applied throughout the Prairie Restoration Area land use allocation. Therefore, the Proposed RMP and

alternatives that included the Long Tom site in the Prairie Restoration Area would not designate the Long

Tom site as an ACEC. The key features (allocations, designations, and management direction) of the

alternatives are summarized and compared in Table 1 in the Final EIS. The key impacts of the alternatives

are summarized and compared in Table 3 in the Final EIS. The Final EIS is hereby incorporated by

reference.

As a result of the information gained in the analysis in the Draft EIS, the Proposed RMP was designed so

that the Proposed RMP would better meet the purpose and need, and that future actions taken in

accordance with the Proposed RMP would be anticipated to avoid or reduce adverse environmental

impacts and have favorable outcomes for various resources and programs, compared to other alternatives.

Because all the action alternatives were designed to address the purpose and need for the action, they

share a relative commonality in their objectives. However, the land use allocations and management

direction by which the objectives would be achieved through future actions varies among the alternatives.

All alternatives address threatened and endangered species habitat restoration and provision of other

benefits.

Objectives for habitat restoration and management were addressed in the No Action Alternative,

Alternative 1, and Alternatives 3B and 3C through a mix of management direction that excluded the use of

herbicides. Alternative 2B, Alternative 3A, and the Proposed RMP addressed habitat restoration and

management through the same mix of management direction but also included the use of herbicides.

Analysis in the Final EIS determined that, without herbicide use, prairie and savanna habitats would not be

restored to meet high quality habitat conditions. As a result, the No Action alternative and Alternatives 3B

and 3C would restore no high quality prairie or oak savanna. Alternative 1 would restore high quality

prairie and oak savanna in most of the planning area. The Proposed RMP and Alternative 2B would restore

high quality prairie and oak savanna in most of the designated critical habitat. Alternative 2B and the

Proposed RMP would create the most well‐connected network of high quality prairie and savanna habitat

of all alternatives. Alternative 3A would restore high quality prairie in most sites currently occupied by

listed species.

The planning area currently provides recreation opportunities for bicycling, hiking, bird watching, and

educational activities. The Fern Ridge Path through the planning area receives consistently heavy bicycle

and pedestrian use. The quantity of recreation opportunities would remain unchanged under all

alternatives for all sites in the planning area except Stewart Pond under Alternative 3C and the Proposed

RMP, which would have substantially increased recreation opportunities. Under the Proposed RMP and

Alternative 3C, Stewart Pond would be designated as a Special Recreation Management Area for the

development of a disc golf course. Overwhelming public support for a disc golf course was received during

the 30‐day comment period on the Draft EIS.

13
   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

       

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

       

     

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

       

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

     

     

   

     

   

     

     

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

     

     

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

Alternatives 1, 2B, 3A, and 3B would fail to coordinate management for opportunities of traditional use

plant collection throughout the Natural Maintenance Area if implemented in future actions. The

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde have expressed interest in collecting traditional use plant materials in

the planning area, including but not limited to; camas, tarweed, rushes, willows, and hazel. Habitat

restoration would generally benefit traditional use plants, but the use of herbicides could adversely affect

traditional use plant gathering. Herbicide use would not be allowed under Alternatives 2B and 3A on the

Stewart Pond and Eastern Gateway sites, which The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde tribe identified

as potential sites for traditional use plant gathering. Herbicide management in the Natural Maintenance

Area under the Proposed RMP would be coordinated with The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde to

identify application locations, timings, rotations, and target species to meet weeds and invasive plants

management needs and enhancing opportunities for traditional use plants where possible. Additionally, an

agreement with the tribe the option for excluding herbicide use in some Natural Maintenance Area parcels

can be determined at a later date under a signed Memorandum of Understanding.

As described in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS, the No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need

for the action. The analysis in the Final EIS indicates that the management direction provided in Alternative

1, Alternative 2B, and Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C would fail to meet some aspect of the purpose and need

and, if implemented in future actions, would have resulted in substantive adverse impacts or relatively low

favorable outcomes for various resources and programs. For example, Alternatives 1, 3B, and 3C would

each fail to restore high quality savanna habitats if implemented in future actions. Alternatives 3B and 3C

would fail to increase populations of BLM sensitive vascular plant species to contribute to recovery targets

if implemented in future actions; would fail to meet all recovery targets for all listed plants if implemented

in future actions; would fail to meet recovery targets for Fender’s blue butterfly habitat quality and

management if implemented in future actions; and would lead to eventual declines in populations of all

listed plants if implemented in future actions.

Of all the alternatives considered, the Proposed RMP best meets the purpose and need while anticipated

to have relatively low adverse environmental impacts and favorable outcomes for resources and programs

as a result of future actions taken consistent with the Plan.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

Environmental preference is judged based on the criteria expressed in the regulations implementing the

National Environmental Policy Act. The Council of Environmental Quality has stated, “The environmentally

preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed

in NEPA’s Section 101. Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological

and physical environment; it also means the alternative that best protects, preserves, and enhances

historic, cultural, and natural resources,” (Question 6s. Council on Environmental Quality, Forty Most

Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981).

Title I, Section 101(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act establishes the following goals:

14
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

     

   

     

   

   

     

       

   

       

   

       

   

     

   

   

   

       

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

       

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

     

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

Record of Decision

 fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding

generations;

 assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing

surroundings;

 attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health

or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences;

 preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage; and maintain,

whenever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice;

 achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living

and wide sharing of life’s amenities; and

 enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of

depletable resources.

The effects of future actions consistent with each of the alternatives at the scale of the planning area of

the timeframes analyzed in the Final EIS are complex and difficult to summarize into a single statement of

environmental preference. For many resources, implementation of the management direction of the No

Action Alternative would cause the least damage to the biological and physical environment of all

alternatives. However, the No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the action and

therefore is not a reasonable alternative.

Of all the action alternatives, the Proposed RMP is the environmentally preferable alternative. The

following rationale is not intended to provide a complete list of favorable outcomes anticipated under the

Proposed RMP but to highlight those areas in which favorable outcomes are anticipated to be substantially

greater than those under the other alternatives.

Most acres are anticipated to be allocated to the Prairie Restoration Area land use allocation under the

Proposed RMP than the other alternatives except Alternative 1. Although the Proposed RMP would

allocate less land to this restoration land use allocation than Alternative 1, the Prairie Restoration Area

coincides with critical habitats and high‐quality habitats for threatened and endangered species and is

specifically designed to meet the recovery needs identified in the Recovery Plan.

The Proposed RMP is the only alternative the implementation of which would incorporate herbicide

application in management of noxious weeds and invasive (native and non‐native) plants in the Natural

Maintenance Area.

The Proposed RMP is the only alternative the implementation of which would incorporate collaborative

management of traditional use plants throughout the Natural Maintenance Area.

The Proposed RMP is one of only two alternatives (the second being Alternative 2B) the implementation of

which would restore high quality prairie and oak habitat in all designated critical habitat, and would create

the most well‐connected network of high quality prairie and savanna habitat.

15
f

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

       

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

       

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

The Proposed RMP is one of only two alternatives (the second being Alternative 3C) the implementation of

which would increase recreational opportunities by establishing a Special Recreation Management Area at

Stewart Pond.

Mitigation

The regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act state that mitigation includes

avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, eliminating, or compensating for adverse environmental

impacts. The analysis of the Proposed RMP in the Final EIS indicated that levels of impacts from

implementation of future actions for the various resources would be anticipated to be low. This is primarily

because almost all measures to avoid, rectify, or reduce environmental impacts were incorporated into the

design of the Proposed RMP where practicable and consistent with meeting the purpose and need of the

Plan. Additional site‐specific project‐level mitigation measures that are consistent with approved RMP

objectives and direction may be implemented as determined necessary through site‐specific analysis at the

time of the project, but are not specifically listed in the Approved RMP.

Plan Monitoring and Evaluations

The effectiveness of future actions implemented in accordance with the Approved RMP will be monitored

in accordance with the monitoring plan attached to this document. The approved monitoring plan details

the monitoring strategy to be used, monitoring questions, program reporting items, reporting intervals,

and an adaptive management process.

The monitoring plan is designed to focus specifically on monitoring the resource management plan itself

and is not intended as an overarching plan that addresses all ongoing monitoring and research efforts. The

monitoring plan does not address science questions or issues of a regional or interagency scale. There are

many ongoing local, regional, interagency, and research (science‐based) efforts in which the BLM

participates. For lands in the West Eugene Wetlands, this includes interagency monitoring efforts such as

Fender’s blue butterfly population monitoring and continuing research efforts for habitat restoration such

as the Fern Ridge project. Soil and water chemistry research and monitoring continues in relation to the

unique characteristics of the smectitic gray clay found in the planning area. These other efforts also have

important implications for BLM‐administered lands and resources in the West Eugene Wetlands.

Adaptive management will be applied by acting on information found through monitoring. Adaptive

management associated with monitoring will include corrective actions precipitated by findings of non‐

compliance. Corrective action precipitated by monitoring can range from simple changes in administrative

procedures, refinements of the plan through plan maintenance, or more substantive changes through plan

amendments.

In addition to monitoring results, new information or changed circumstances will be evaluated to

determine its significance and if changes in resource management plan decisions or changes in supporting

NEPA analyses would be warranted. Adaptive management tools and procedures that will be used to make

changes in the plan in response to monitoring information, new information, or changed circumstances

include: plan maintenance, plan evaluations, plan amendments, and plan revisions.

16
     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

       

     

     

     

     

     

     

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

       

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

       

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

     

     

     

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

Record of Decision

The Approved RMP will be formally evaluated at five‐year intervals. In addition to the monitoring results,

underlying assumptions regarding levels of activities and anticipated environmental consequences will be

examined at the time of the five‐year plan evaluation to determine if plan objectives are being met or are

likely to be met. The evaluation will also assess whether changed circumstances or new information have

created a situation in which expected impacts or environmental consequences of the Plan are significantly

different than those anticipated in the Final EIS. The plan evaluation will make a finding of whether or not

a plan amendment or plan revision is warranted. In addition to formal evaluations at five year intervals, a

plan evaluation may be conducted to address changed circumstances or new information that would

substantially call into question the underlying assumptions, anticipated environmental consequences, or

decisions of the Plan.

Public Involvement

The formal scoping period started with printing of the Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on June 8,

2011, and concluded on July 8, 2011. In addition, the BLM sent a scoping letter to 49 individuals,

organizations, and agencies that have an interest in BLM management within this planning area. On June

22, 2011, the Eugene Register‐Guard newspaper published a news story on the West Eugene Wetlands

RMP scoping process and provided contact information for scoping comments.

The BLM received thirteen comments during the formal scoping period and one comment after the close

of the formal scoping period. Agencies and organizations providing comments included: the Environmental

Protection Agency, the City of Eugene Parks and Open Space Division, the Long Tom Watershed Council,

the North American Butterfly Association, Institute for Applied Ecology, The Nature Conservancy, Oregon

Wild, and Friends of Eugene. Other comments were from individuals. One comment was submitted on a

compact disc mailed to the BLM; one comment was provided as a telephone conversation; all other

comments were submitted as email. The BLM received a comment letter after the close of the formal

scoping period from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The BLM prepared a scoping report, which summarizes the results of scoping including a summary of the

issues raised. The scoping report and scoping comments are available at:

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/eugene/plans/eugenermp.php.

The BLM received more than 80 comments on the Draft EIS during a 3‐month comment period. Agencies

and organizations providing comments included: the Environmental Protection Agency, the City of Eugene

Parks and Open Space Division, the Long Tom Watershed Council, the North American Butterfly

Association, Institute for Applied Ecology, The Nature Conservancy, Oregon Wild, and Friends of Eugene.

Other comments were from individuals. Most comments were submitted as emails, or attachments to

emails. The response to comments on comments received on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS are included as

Appendix G in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS.

The Final EIS for the Proposed RMP was provided to the Governor of Oregon on September 30, 2014, to

begin the 60‐day Governor’s consistency review. This review ended November 30, 2014, with no

comments received from the Governor’s office.

17
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

   

     

     

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

The Final EIS for the Proposed RMP was released in November 2014. On November 21, 2014, a Federal

Register notice was published announcing the beginning of a 30‐day protest period for the Proposed RMP.

This protest period ended December 22, 2014, with no protests received.

Formal Cooperators

The Council on Environmental Quality NEPA regulations specify that a Federal agency, state agency, local

government, or tribal government may qualify as a cooperating agency because of “... jurisdiction by law

or special expertise.”

1) Jurisdiction by law means “... agency authority to approve, veto, or finance all or part of the

proposal.” (40 CFR 1508.15).

2) Special expertise means “... statutory responsibility, agency mission, or related program

experience.” (40 CFR 1508.26).

Cooperators provide expertise in much of the subject matter being analyzed, and some cooperators can

provide advice based on experiences with similar planning efforts. The BLM invited the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, City of Eugene Parks and Open Space Division, and the

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde to be cooperators in the preparation of this RMP. The U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, City of Eugene Parks and Open Space Division, and the Confederated Tribes of Grand

Ronde agreed to be cooperators. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declined the BLM invitation to be a

cooperator.

Government‐to‐Government Relationships

The BLM invited potentially affected tribes ‐ The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, Confederated

Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, and the

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs ‐ to participate in government‐to‐government coordination in the

development of this RMP. The BLM mailed scoping letters to the tribes providing information about the

planning process and the planning area and inviting their involvement. None of the tribes provided any

comments during the formal scoping period. In addition, the BLM telephoned cultural resources directors

and natural resources managers of the tribes to inquire whether they needed additional information or

would like to receive a briefing on the RMP. The Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and

Siuslaw Indians responded that they do not wish to be involved in the planning process, because the

planning area is outside of their ancestral territory. Members of the RMP team have met several times

with staff of The Confederated Tribes of Grande Ronde to provide more information on the RMP and the

planning process; discuss development of the RMP; and receive input from the tribal staff.

Consultation

The BLM has completed in March 2013 a conservation review of the West Eugene Wetlands RMP with the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act, in addition to

conducting formal consultation under section 7(a)(2). A conservation review under section 7(a)(1), though

not required for land management planning, allowed the BLM to gain the advice of the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service earlier in the planning process than the formal consultation process under section 7(a)(2).

18
   

   

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

       

     

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

Record of Decision

This conservation review is appropriate for this planning process because of the unique conditions of this

planning area, including the abundance of designated critical habitat in the planning area, the relationship

of the Recovery Plan to the planning effort, and the central role of management of threatened and

endangered species in the RMP.

As part of formal consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, the BLM prepared a

Biological Assessment (BA) on the effect of the RMP on Fender’s blue butterfly, streaked horned lark,

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, Willamette daisy, Bradshaw’s lomatium, Kincaid’s lupine, golden

paintbrush, and designated critical habitat for Fender’s blue butterfly, Willamette daisy, and Kincaid’s

lupine. This BA was submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for use in developing a Biological

Opinion on these species. The Biological Opinion was received August 11, 2014, and concluded that the

adoption of the Proposed RMP would not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species

considered, nor would it adversely modify their critical habitat. Consultation on other threatened or

endangered species found in the region, such as northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, bull trout, or

Oregon chub, will not be necessary, because there are no populations or existing or potential habitat for

these species in the planning area.

The Biological Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service included an Incidental Take Statement for

Fender’s blue butterfly. Detection of incidental take on individuals of this species is recognized to be

difficult to determine within the project area. As such, even though incidental take is expected to occur

from management actions under the Proposed RMP, data are not sufficiently available to enable the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service to estimate an exact number of individuals. For this reason, the amount or extent

of incidental take was issued using the maximum acres of habitat area that could be treated on an annual

basis as a surrogate. These acres are identified by management activity and are listed in detail in the

Biological Opinion (pp. 109‐10), which is hereby incorporated by reference. The Biological Opinion

deferred issuance of an Incidental Take Statement on the streaked horned lark. Occupancy within the

planning area by this species was only verified a short time ago (during 2013), and little data is available on

the patterns of habitat use. Based on the effects analysis of management actions under the Proposed

RMP, there is currently insufficient information available to determine if take of the streaked horned lark is

likely to occur. The BLM shall submit all needed information to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to for

assessment of incidental take of streaked horned lark if they are encountered. Provided that the reported

action is consistent with the analysis described in the Biological Opinion, a project(s) specific Incidental

Take Statement/take exemption (as appropriate) will be provided to the BLM as an amendment to the

Biological Opinion.

Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Endangered Species Act was not

necessary, because the planning area contains no threatened or endangered anadromous fish or

designated critical habitat for listed anadromous fish.

19
   

   

__________

Stan

   

__________

Jerome E. Pe

State Direct

   

     

___________

n    

   

   

___________

erez   

or,

   

   

___________

   

     

___________

   

   

   

___________

   

___________

     

     

     

_    ___

Da

   

_    ___

     

___________

te

___________

Date

   

   

       

_________

   

_________

   

       

West Eugene Wetlands

Recommendation

I have considered how the alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS meet the purpose and need, the

associated environmental impacts, and public input. Based on these considerations, I recommend approval

of the attached RMP for the West Eugene Wetlands on the Siuslaw Resource Area of the Eugene District.

Kathryn

_

gl

_

District Manager,
 

Eugene District BLM
 

Approval

I approve the attached RMP for the West Eugene Wetlands as recommended. This Record of Decision is

effective immediately.

o

Oregon/Wa

_

shington BLM

_

20
Resource Management Plan

Resource Management Plan
 

21
   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

       

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

Introduction

This document describes the RMP of the Bureau of Land Management Eugene District’s West Eugene

Wetlands.

The Eugene District of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has developed this RMP for the West

Eugene Wetlands planning area, which is comprised of BLM‐administered land within and near the city of

Eugene, Oregon. The planning area includes the approximately 1,340 acres of BLM‐administered land and

96 acres of lands on which BLM has an ownership interest (conservation easement) within and near the

city of Eugene, Oregon, described as the West Eugene Wetlands (see Figure 1). The planning area is made

up of acquired lands or survey hiatuses, and most lands were acquired with funds appropriated from the

Land and Water Conservation Fund. This RMP only addresses management of BLM‐administered lands in

the West Eugene Wetlands.

This RMP consists of land use allocations, management objectives, and management direction.

 Land use allocations are areas where specific activities are allowed, restricted, or excluded in all or

part of the planning area.

 Management objectives describe the desired outcomes from management of a particular

resource.

 Management directions provide measures that will be applied to planning activities to achieve the

management objectives for resources.

Management direction will be used where and when necessary and practical to achieve management

objectives. However, the BLM may not apply a management direction when:

 Site‐specific circumstances would make application of the management direction unnecessary to

achieve RMP objectives.

 Site‐specific circumstances would make application of the management direction impractical.

 Application of the management direction would be inconsistent with other RMP decisions.

See Appendix A ‐ Guidance for the Use of the Resource Management Plan and Appendix B ‐ Monitoring for

the monitoring that will be conducted and reported.

22
             

-- =--~ 

I 

I -~/1 

l 

West Eugene Wetlands 

Resource Management Plan 

Partner Landowners 

~ City of Eugene 

~ Army Corps of Engineers 

k::::J The Nature Concervancy 

.. BLM 

(©~==-,---=-= 

---vnPL- J__ --

·~ 

--=u--~ . .. r 

Resource Management Plan

Figure 1. BLM and West Eugene Wetland partnership administered lands.

23
	 	

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

Land Use Allocations/Management Decisions

The BLM‐administered lands within the West Eugene Wetlands planning area are allocated to the

following two land use allocations (see Figure 2):

	 Prairie Restoration Area (556 acres)

	 Natural Maintenance Area (784 acres)

Prairie Restoration Area

Management Objective

	 Restore, enhance, and maintain habitat for prairie‐related species.

Management Direction

	 Apply vegetation management treatments, including prescribed burning, native plant seeding,

mowing, and manual control, as needed to restore and maintain high quality habitat for

prairie‐related species.

	 Apply herbicides for vegetation control where prescribed burning, manual, mechanical, and

other non‐chemical vegetation treatments do not provide sufficient vegetation control for

restoration and maintenance of high quality habitat for prairie‐related species. Herbicides may

be used for control of noxious weeds, invasive non‐native plants, and invasive native plants.

Use standard operating procedures for herbicide application (see Appendix E).

	 Allow collection of traditional use plants where consistent with other resource objectives and

subject to restrictions as needed to avoid conflict with restoration and maintenance of high

quality habitat for prairie‐related species. Collection of traditional use plants would also be

subject to restrictions as needed to avoid resource damage and to provide for the continued

availability of traditional use plants.

 Exclude new rights‐of‐way, subject to valid existing rights and with the exception of buried

lines in the rights‐of‐way of existing roads.

 Close to saleable mineral exploration, development, and disposal.

Natural Maintenance Area

Management Objective

	 Maintain and enhance existing plant and animal habitat and provide opportunities for a variety of

goods and services.

Management Direction

	 Apply vegetation management treatments, including prescribed burning, mowing, and manual

control, as needed to control noxious weeds and invasive native and non‐native plant species.

24
   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

Resource Management Plan

	 Maintain and enhance remnant higher‐quality prairie habitat patches, Bureau sensitive

species/species of concern habitat sites, seed collection sites, and traditional use plant sites,

using vegetation management treatments, including prescribed burning, mowing, and manual

control.

	 Apply herbicides for vegetation control where prescribed burning, manual, mechanical, and

other non‐chemical vegetation treatments do not provide sufficient vegetation control for

maintenance and enhancement of existing plant and animal habitats. Herbicides may be used

for control of noxious weeds, invasive non‐native plants, and invasive native plants to achieve

habitat goals identified as part of recovery or delisting or for conservation management of

special status species. Use standard operating procedures for herbicide application (see

Appendix E).

	 Manage sites for the availability and accessibility of traditional use to the extent feasible and

subject to demand for traditional use plant collection.

	 Allow collection of traditional use plants where consistent with other resource objectives and

subject to restrictions as needed to avoid resource damage and to provide for the continued

availability of traditional use plants.

	 Application of herbicides in areas identified for collection of traditional use plants would be

timed and located so that herbicide application would not impede opportunities for plant

collection. Where herbicide use would impede collection of traditional use plants, and

herbicide use has not been identified as needed to promote or preserve the occurrence or

persistence of desired plant or animal habitats, herbicide application would be prohibited.

	 Close to saleable mineral exploration, development, and disposal.

25
           

0.55 u 

West Eugene Wetlands 

Resource Management Plan 

Land Use Allocations 

[0i?J Natural Maintenance 

~ Prairie Restoration Area 

I 

West Eugene Wetlands

Figure 2. West Eugene Wetlands RMP Land Use Allocations.

26
     

     

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

Resource Management Plan

Resource Programs/Management Actions

The management direction listed in this section by individual resource program will be applied in any land

use allocation, unless otherwise specified.

Air Quality/Prescribed Burning/Wildfire Suppression

Management Objectives

 Avoid impacts to air quality in non‐attainment areas.
 

 Reduce hazards to the public, fire‐fighters, and resources from prescribed burning.
 

 Reduce risk to public, fire‐fighters, and resources through active suppression of wildfire.
 

Management Direction

 Implement prescribed burns in compliance with Lane Regional Air Protection Agency and unit‐

specific Prescribed Fire Burn Plans.

 Implement prescribed burning in late summer and early fall, when soils have low moisture

values, and can support fire‐fighting vehicles without damage to the soils.

 Ignite prescribed burns by hand, using propane torches, fusees, hand‐launched flares, drip

torches, and/or similar devices.

 Suppress unplanned ignitions (wildfire) to minimize risk to values while minimizing resource

damage caused by suppression operations.

	 Accomplish fire control/suppression with the use of existing barriers, wet‐lining, fire‐retardant

foam, fire‐retardant gel, and/or mowing an area approximately 10‐20 feet wide around the

outside boundary of the burn unit. Where necessary to minimize risk to values due to woody

fuels, topography, or critical holding points, fire control will be accomplished by constructing a

fireline composed of bare‐mineral soil: reseeding would be required. Avoid fire retardant

chemicals or use sparingly near listed plant species and follow labeled restrictions and state

regulations or guidelines for use near water.

	 Restrict vehicle travel necessary to accomplish fire control/suppression primarily to the

perimeter of the burn unit. Vehicle travel within the interior of the burn unit is limited to

tactical missions. Consolidate vehicle travel within units to minimize number of trails.

	 Implement mop‐up and line construction operations in a manner to minimize mixing or

displacement of soils and to avoid damaging of anthills. Ground‐disturbing operations would

require reseeding. Mop‐up and line construction would avoid all threatened and endangered

and bureau sensitive sites, as feasible.

27
      

   

   

                       

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

                        

     

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

     

       

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

     

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

     

   

       

         

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

   

     

   

West Eugene Wetlands

Plants

Management Objectives

 Maintain and enhance habitat for Willamette daisy and Bradshaw’s lomatium to support three

populations1 of each species of at least 5,000 individuals each.

 Maintain and enhance habitat for Kincaid’s lupine to support a total of 7,500 square meters of

plant cover in three populations that are stable or increasing for 10 years.

 Maintain and enhance habitat for golden paintbrush to support one population of at least 1,000

flowering individuals that is stable or increasing over 5 years.

	 Maintain and enhance habitat for the BLM sensitive plants shaggy horkelia, Hitchcock’s blue‐eyed

grass, cluster goldweed, and Oregon timwort to support three populations of each species of at

least 5,000 individuals each that are stable or increasing over 10 years.

 Maintain and enhance habitat for the BLM sensitive plant thin‐leaved peavine to support one

population of at least 1,000 individuals that is stable or increasing over 10 years.

 Maintain and enhance habitat for the BLM sensitive plant white‐topped aster to support a

population of 7,500 square meters that is stable or increasing over 10 years.

 Maintain and enhance high quality wet prairie for the BLM sensitive mosses Bruchia flexuosa,

Ephemerum crassinervium, and Ephemerum serratum.

Table 1. Population recovery objectives for plants.

Species # of Populations Minimum Population Size Population Trend

Willamette daisy 3 5,000 individuals n/a

Bradshaw’s lomatium 3 5,000 individuals n/a

Kincaid’s lupine 3 7,500 square meters = or ^ for 10 years

golden paintbrush 1 1,000 individuals = or ^ for 5 years

shaggy horkelia 3 5,000 individuals = or ^ for 10 years

Hitchcock’s blue‐eyed grass 3 5,000 individuals = or ^ for 10 years

cluster goldenweed 3 5,000 individuals = or ^ for 10 years

Oregon timwort 3 5,000 individuals = or ^ for 10 years

thin‐leaved peavine 1 1,000 individuals = or ^ for 10 years

white‐topped aster 1 7,500 square meters = or ^ for 10 years

1 In these management objectives and throughout the analysis conducted in the Final EIS, “population” is used in the

general sense to refer to any discrete group of individuals of a species. From a technical standpoint, “population” would

more accurately refer to a group of freely interbreeding individuals sufficiently separated from other groups that there is

infrequent or no gene flow. The use of a more general definition of population here maintains consistency with the

Recovery Plan usage (see, e.g., USFWS 2010, p. IV‐25).

28
   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

       

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

Resource Management Plan

Management Direction

	 Apply the following management tools as needed to restore, enhance, and maintain habitat:

prescribed burning, mowing, haying, thinning, hand weeding, shade cloth, solarization,

thermal treatments, tilling/disking, fill removal, raking, grazing, and plant augmentation.

	 Implement prescribed burning in late summer or early fall after listed plant species have gone

dormant. See Air Quality for additional management direction for implementing prescribed

burns.

	 Mow using tractor mowers or hand‐held mowers to control invasive plants and enhance

prairie habitats.

	 On sites with listed and Bureau sensitive plants, generally mow in the late summer, fall, and

winter, after listed plants have senesced for the season (generally after August 15 through

February). Mowing height will be sufficiently high to avoid soil gouging or displacement

(generally 6 inches on deck‐set mowers).

	 On sites with listed plants where spring mowing is needed to control overwhelming weed

infestations, maintain a buffer of 6 feet (radius) from the nearest listed plants if this will meet

the management objective.

	 Apply thinning to control and remove invasive woody plants and reduce tree density. Pile or

chip all cut material and spread away from populations of listed plants or haul off‐site for

disposal or burning.

	 Implement hand weeding at any time of year. Generally remove non‐native plant material off‐

site.

	 Do not apply shade cloth, solarization, tilling/disking, or fill removal closer than 6 feet (radius)

to listed plant species.

	 Rake as needed to reduce thatch build‐up. Rakes may be mounted on rubber tracked tractors

or hand‐held. Rake after listed plants have gone dormant for the season.

	 Apply grazing as appropriate under contract for the purpose of habitat restoration or invasive

plant control. If needed for habitat restoration or invasive plant control, graze at low or

moderate levels during the dry season (typically after August 1). Issue no leases for grazing.

	 Augment populations of Bradshaw’s lomatium, Kincaid’s lupine, golden paintbrush, and shaggy

horkelia through planting of plugs and seeding.

	 Augment populations of Willamette daisy, white‐topped aster, Hitchcock’s blue‐eyed grass,

thin‐leaved peavine, and cluster goldweed through planting of plugs.

	 Augment populations of Oregon timwort by seeding.

	 For augmentation of Willamette daisy, Bradshaw’s lomatium, and Kincaid’s lupine, use genetic

material derived from within the population in the Eugene West Recovery Zone.

	 Do not plant plugs within 6 feet (radius) of naturally occurring federally‐listed plants.

	 Implement plant augmentation consistent with the guidelines in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service Programmatic Formal Consultation on Western Oregon Prairie Restoration Activities,

Biological Opinion (USFWS 2008, pp. 16‐18).

29
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

  

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

West Eugene Wetlands

 Seed with native upland and wet prairie species to meet prairie diversity recovery targets,

especially after ground‐disturbing activities.

 Do not operate heavy machinery within 6 feet (radius) of federally‐listed plants during the

growing season of the federally‐listed plants (generally February to August). Avoid using heavy

machinery in areas wet enough that the machinery causes permanent rutting/changes to

hydrology at the site.

 Minimize use of heavy equipment, do not apply shade cloth or solarization, and avoid creating

thatch within 300 feet of large populations (>100 square meters) of BLM sensitive mosses

Bruchia flexuosa, Ephemerum crassinervium, and Ephemerum serratum.

 Clean all vehicles and heavy equipment to remove mud, debris, and vegetation prior to

entering the project area to reduce the spread of noxious weeds and non‐native plants.

 Implement protection measures such as stabilization, fencing and signing, or withdrawal for

sites when threatened by natural processes or human activity.

Bradshaw’s lomatium

30
                 

0.55 1.1 

West Eugene Wetlands 

Resource Management Plan 

Critical Habitat - Plants 

~ Kincaid's lupine 

~ Willamette daisy 

I 

Resource Management Plan

Figure 3. Botanical critical habitats within the West Eugene Wetlands RMP.

31
f

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

         

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

       

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

       

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

Wildlife

Management Objectives

	 Maintain and enhance habitat for Fender’s blue butterfly to support functioning populations that

are stable or increasing to meet targets for downlisting and delisting of the species.

	 Maintain and enhance habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly to support functioning
 

populations that are stable or increasing.
 

	 Maintain and enhance habitat for streaked horned lark to support functioning populations that are

stable or increasing.

	 Maintain and enhance habitat conditions for western pond turtles to support populations that are

stable or increasing.

	 Maintain and enhance up to four patches of at least 50 acres or more of contiguous high quality

wet prairie or upland prairie for grassland birds, such as Oregon vesper sparrow and grasshopper

sparrow.

	 Enhance forest habitats by increasing abundance of snags in forested plant communities.

	 Maintain and enhance 100 acres of oak woodland habitats in patches of at least 15 acres in size for

species associated with oak woodlands, such as Lewis’ woodpecker.

Management Direction

	 Apply the following management tools as needed to restore, enhance, and maintain habitat:

prescribed burning, mowing, haying, thinning, hand weeding, shade cloth, solarization,

thermal treatments, tilling/disking, fill removal and soil recontouring, raking, grazing, and plant

augmentation, as described above under Plants.

	 On sites with Fender’s blue butterflies, do not mow with tractor mowers in the spring. Mowing

with hand‐held mowers may be implemented during the butterfly flight season (generally May

1 to June 30) as long as a buffer of at least 25 feet is maintained between the mower and a

Kincaid’s lupine plant. After the butterfly flight season, but before Kincaid’s lupine senescence

(generally June 30 through August 15), tractor mowing may occur no closer than 6 feet from

the nearest Kincaid’s lupine plants. Tractor mowing may be conducted throughout sites with

Fender’s blue butterflies after Kincaid’s lupine senescence and before lupine re‐emergence

(generally August 15‐March 1). Mow to a height of at least 6 inches or greater to reduce

impacts to butterfly larvae.

	 Do not mow within ground‐nesting and other key bird breeding areas during the nesting

season (generally April 15‐July 15). If streaked horned larks are found to be nesting, a buffer

will be created around breeding pair(s) or until August 10.

 Implement prescribed burning on sites with Fender’s blue butterfly.

 Raking may be used if burning is not feasible to implement on sites with Fender’s blue

butterflies. Remove thatch and leaf litter off site.

 At sites with 100 or more Fender’s blue butterflies, burn and/or rake no more than one‐third

of the occupied habitat actively used by butterflies annually. At sites with less than 100

32
   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

     

       

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

     

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

Resource Management Plan

Fender’s blue butterflies, burn and/or rake no more than one‐quarter of the occupied habitat

actively used by butterflies annually.

	 Create patches of bare ground, seed with a diverse seed mix in order to create heterogeneous

structure and varying vegetation heights (4 to 36 inches), and density for grassland bird habitat

requirements.

	 Protect any western pond turtle nest sites found during project implementation and during

surveys.

	 Install silt/drift fences where needed to direct western pond turtles away from project

activities. Remove fences after project completion.

	 Protect and enhance areas with suitable characteristics for western pond turtle nesting

(typically sunny sites on hard, compacted clay soils with south to southwest facing slopes;

short, sparse vegetation; and within 500 feet of water bodies). Maintain short vegetation and

create bare soil areas for nest excavation. Control woody species to prevent encroachment on

nesting areas and reduce shading of nest sites. Recontour soil or augment with other soils if

needed to enhance nesting suitability for western pond turtle turtles.

	 Create nesting areas for western pond turtle by building upland mounds (typically at least 10

feet wide and 2 to 3 feet high) that have a south or southwest‐facing slope. Create mounds

from soils excavated on site or from other sites within the planning area after composting or

sterilization to remove viable weed seeds.

	 Remove barriers to western pond turtle movement. Maintain clear visual and travel paths

between water bodies and occupied or potential nesting sites and remove obstructions to

movement in aquatic corridors/stream channels, including removal vegetation that could

obstruct turtle movement.

	 Place logs, large rootwads, or boulders in ponds to create basking sites for western pond

turtle.

	 Create 2 permanent ponds to enhance western pond turtle habitat.

	 In forested plant communities where prescribed burning would not be used for maintenance,

retain large snags and create 2 snags per acre >14” diameter breast height where available in

forested plant communities (oak woodland, ash swale/riparian, plantation, and Douglas‐fir

forest).

	 Implement protection measures such as stabilization, fencing or withdrawal for sites when

threatened by natural processes or human activity.

33
               

J O 

West Eugene Wetlands 

Resource Management Plan 

Critical Habitat -Wildlife 

Fender's blue butterfly 

I 

West Eugene Wetlands

Figure 4. Wildlife critical habitats within the West Eugene Wetlands RMP.

34
f

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

       

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

       

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

Resource Management Plan

Soils and Water

Management Objectives

 Maintain and restore water quality.
 

 Maintain and restore wetland soil productivity.
 

 Maintain wet prairie micro‐topography on treatment areas.
 

 Limit soil compaction, displacement, and erosion during forest and woodland treatments.
 

 Maximize wetland water storage to enhance ecological function.
 

 Prevent soil loss along actively eroding side slopes of streams.
 

Management Direction

 Apply best management practices as needed to restore or maintain water quality (see

Appendix D).

 When using tractor mowers, limit soil compaction by using low ground‐pressure equipment,

rubber‐tired or rubber tracked equipment (recommended <6.5 psi).

 To the extent possible while achieving other objectives, limit tractor mowing to times of low

soil moisture conditions (generally <25% moisture and from July 1 to October 15).

 Mowing equipment shall not expose bare soil or leave visible ruts or indentations under

normal operating conditions.

 To the extent possible while achieving other objectives, avoid mowing over ant mounds.

 For thinning implemented with vehicle‐supported machinery, use low ground‐pressure skid‐

steer tractors with implements to reduce soil disturbance. Conduct thinning activities during

times of low soil moisture (<25%). Design treatment to limit equipment passes across soil

surface (such as by using single passes; designing predetermined skid trails; and walking on

slash).

 Design ground‐disturbing activities to retain organic materials.
 

 Design excavation of native soils to minimize disturbance to the historic native soil profile.
 

 Conduct soil‐disturbing work during the dry season to minimize compaction. Use low ground‐

pressure equipment to minimize compaction. Use tilling for decompaction where needed

during low moisture soil conditions.

	 Retain topsoil on site, if possible. Where feasible, salvage disturbed soil, segregate during

storage, compost, and reuse in a similar location and depth. Where feasible, salvage and reuse

wetland soils in wetland areas.

	 Minimize the disturbance and loss of native soil during sod rolling or fill removal.

35
   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

Cultural Resources

Management Objective

	 Conserve scientific, traditional use, educational, public and recreational values of cultural resource

sites.

Management Direction

	 Avoid ground‐disturbing actions on sites that are listed (or eligible for listing) on the National

Register of Historic Places. Recover scientific value of sites prior to disturbance through

practices such as data recovery, which include excavation, relocation, or documentation if

avoidance is not practical.

 Classify cultural properties to the following use categories:

- Classify cultural properties that are determined to be available for consideration as the

subject of scientific or historical study as scientific use sites or experimental use sites.

- Classify unusual cultural properties that are not currently available for scientific or

historical study, because of scarcity, a research potential that surpasses the current state‐

of‐the‐art, singular historic importance, cultural importance, tribal importance,

architectural interest, or comparable reasons as conservation for future use sites. Select

sites for the purpose of retaining a representative sample of site types from those

available in areas where conflicts with other resource management activities are not

anticipated. Preserve these sites.

- Classify cultural properties known to be important in maintaining the cultural identity,

heritage, or well‐being of a specified and recognized tribe as traditional use sites. Manage

these sites to accommodate their continuing traditional use.

- Classify cultural properties found to be appropriate for use as interpretive exhibits at their

original location (i.e., in place), or found to be appropriate for related educational and

recreational uses as public use sites. Priority locations for these interpretive exhibits will

include developed recreation sites, recreation corridors, and locations where recreation is

being promoted. Preserve these sites.

- Provide no special management for cultural properties that are only important for their

scientific values and whose research potential is effectively exhausted (ones where the

salient information has been collected and preserved, or has been destroyed by natural or

human activity). These are discharged use sites.

	 The use categories for existing sites and new sites may be assigned or changed by comparing

the site’s characteristics to these use category descriptions.

	 Implement protection measures such as stabilization, fencing or withdrawal for sites classified

as traditional use, public use or future use when threatened by natural processes or human

activity.

	 Excavate, and recover the data where warranted by the scientific importance of the cultural

sites threatened by natural processes or human activity.

36
   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

     

       

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

       

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

Resource Management Plan

	 Implement public interpretation and education around the types of archaeological resources

and/or traditional uses found within the planning area.

Recreation

Management Objective

	 Provide opportunities for pedestrian and other non‐motorized recreational use in the Fern Ridge

Path Special Recreation Management Area.

Management Direction

	 Manage the Fern Ridge Path Special Recreation Management Area for a community

recreation‐tourism market.

	 Consistent with the Final Supplementary Rules for Public Land within the West Eugene

Wetlands, continue to prohibit motorized vehicle use on the Fern Ridge Path, as described

below and in Appendix F.

Management Objective

	 Provide opportunities for pedestrian recreational use in the Extensive Recreation Management

Area.

Management Direction

	 Maintain existing Tsanchiifin Walk at Balboa and existing trails at Danebo, Stewart Pond, and

Eastern Gateway.

 Maintain existing interpretive sites.

 Improve parking access and facilities at Stewart Pond parking lot.

 Consistent with the Final Supplementary Rules for Public Land within the West Eugene

Wetlands, continue to prohibit motorized and non‐motorized vehicle in the Extensive

Recreation Management Area off of the roads designated for vehicle use, as described below

and in Appendix G.

Management Objective

	 Provide opportunities for commercial, competitive, educational, and organized group activities in

the planning area.

Management Direction

	 Require Special Recreation Permits for organized groups of 20 or more persons per day within

the planning area. Consider applications for Special Recreation Permits for organized group

activities only where not in conflict with the management objectives of the site. Do not issue

Special Recreation Permits for visits to areas occupied by listed or sensitive species if use

would adversely affect listed or sensitive species.

37
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

     

       

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

	 Continue to apply the Final Supplementary Rules for Public Land within the West Eugene

Wetlands, Eugene District, OR, published in the Federal Register on July 28, 2005. Application

of these rules shall be adopted throughout the planning area on BLM‐managed lands. In

summary, these rules prohibit the following activities by the public in the planning area:

- littering;

- entering areas that are posted or otherwise delineated, fenced, or barricaded to close

them to public;

- using or occupying any area one hour after sunset through one hour before sunrise, except

traveling on the Fern Ridge Path;

- discharge of fireworks, firearms, air guns, slingshots or use any other projectile launching

device;

- leaving personal property unattended;

- using or operating motorized vehicles on the Fern Ridge Path, or operating motorized or

non‐motorized vehicles off those roads or paths or parking areas specifically designated

for vehicle use;

- building or using campfires or other open flame fires;

- possessing, disturbing, or collecting any natural resource unless specifically permitted by

the authorized officer;

- allowing entry of domesticated animals (pets or livestock) into areas closed to pet or

livestock use;
 

- possessing or consuming alcoholic beverages; and
 

- possessing glass beverage containers.
 

Additional information on these restrictions is provided in the supplemental rules (Federal

Register, Vol. 70, No. 144, Thursday, July 28, 2005 43713 – 43715).

Management Objective

	 Increase levels and types of recreation uses at the Stewart Pond Special Recreation Management

Area that contribute to meeting recreational demand and quality visitor experiences.

Management Direction

	 Extend existing trails and construct new trails in the future depending on recreational

demand and feasibility.

 Pave the parking area at Stewart Pond.

 Install a concrete vault restroom at the Stewart Pond parking area.

 Construct additional loop trails at Stewart Pond to create routes of various lengths.

 Improve facilities at Stewart Pond, including kiosks, picnic tables, benches, interpretive

signs.

 Develop a disc golf course at Stewart Pond (Figure 5) that incorporates the following

management direction:

38
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

   

     

   

       

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

Resource Management Plan

- Develop course to reduce conflict with other recreational opportunities (e.g., trail

running, walking) available in the Stewart Pond area.

- Develop the course routes and tee/basket locations to provide for year‐round play.

Course routes and tee/basket locations installed in seasonally wet areas would be

subject to seasonal closure.

- Design course to include a variety of challenge for player skill and interest through

varying fairways or development of skill shots.

- Reduce compaction at baskets by placing woodchip or other appropriate materials on

the ground around the basket and providing for multiple basket location options

where available.

- Apply woodchip or other appropriate materials along trails, fairways, around tees and

baskets, or otherwise as needed to ameliorate soil impacts, reduce tramping of

vegetation, and clearly define designed route of travel.

- Route course in a manner to avoid hazards to players, such as roads or poisonous

plants.

- Trail rehabilitation work to ameliorate compaction using mechanized equipment

should occur when soil moistures are low (approximately 25%).

- Tees shall be clearly locatable and properly designed to reduce compaction.

- Install trunk/limb protection as needed.

- Incorporate environmental education opportunities throughout the course to include

information about local features of the wetlands.

39
                 

• ,, ... ,.. p 

West Eugene Wetlands 

Resource Management Plan 

Special Recreation Management Areas 

- ------ Fern Ridge Bike Path 

I 

!Willow Comer Annexf 

West Eugene Wetlands

Figure 5. Special Recreation Management Areas within the West Eugene Wetlands RMP.

40
   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

     

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

       

   

   

       

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

Resource Management Plan

Visual Resources

Management Objective

	 Partially retain the existing character of the landscape in Class III visual resource management

areas.

Management Direction

	 Designate Long Tom, North Taylor, South Taylor, Hansen, Oak Hill, and Fir Butte sites to visual

resource management Class III.

	 Manage sites to allow for moderate levels of change to the characteristic landscape.

Management activities may attract attention, but would not dominate the view of the casual

observer. Changes would repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, texture, and scale

found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

Management Objective

	 Allow for major modification of the existing character of the landscape in Class IV visual resource

management areas.

Management Direction

 Designate all sites not designated to visual resource management Class III to visual resource

management Class IV.

 Manage sites to allow for high levels of change to the characteristic landscape. Management

activities may dominate the view and may be the major focus of viewer attention.

Special Products

Management Objective

	 Provide opportunities where consistent with other resource objectives for the harvest and

collection of special products, such as boughs and branches, edible and medicinal plants, wood

products, and firewood.

Management Direction

 Restrict collection amounts and collection activities of special products in a manner that limits

adverse impacts to other resources.

 Rotate or restrict areas for the collection of individual products as needed to maintain the

availability and sustainability of products, and limit adverse impacts to other resources.

 Restrict the collection of plant species and plant materials whose sustainability would be in

question due to low reproductive rates or other life history factors.

41
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

     

     

       

   

   

   

     

       

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

       

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

       

   

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

Travel and Transportation

Management Objective

	 Provide public and administrative access in a manner that attains resource objectives and supports

the agency’s mission. This may include the agency use of motorized vehicles in order to transport

personnel, supplies, and equipment.

Management Direction

	 The entire planning area is “limited to designated roads” for off‐road vehicle (ORV) use. The

minimization criteria used to determine ORV area designations is in Appendix G.

- The designated roads available for use include:

- the parking area at the Stewart Pond site off of Stewart Road, and

- the paved entrance road and gravel parking lot at the Danebo site off of South Danebo

Avenue (see Map G‐1 and Appendix G for more detail).

Minerals and Energy

Management Objective

	 Manage mineral and energy resources to provide opportunities for exploration and development

where consistent with other management objectives.

Management Direction

 Public domain lands (i.e., survey hiatuses) in the planning area would continue to be

available for locatable mineral entry under the Mining Act of 1872.

 Include a no surface occupancy stipulation in any leases for leasable minerals.

Lands and Realty

Management Objectives

 Make land tenure adjustments to facilitate the management of resources.
 

 Manage acquired lands for the purposes for which they were acquired.
 

Management Direction

	 Retain lands in Zone 1 under BLM administration. Lands in Zone 1 would include all parcels

in the planning area except the Danebo parcel.

 Retain lands in Zone 2 for exchange. No lands in the planning area would be in Zone 2.

 Retain lands in Zone 3 for disposal. The only parcel in Zone 3 is the Danebo parcel, because

it is included in Public Law 109‐457 (120 Stat. 3392) whereby ownership of this parcel

would transfer to the City of Eugene if certain conditions are met. If the conditions are not

met, the Danebo parcel will revert back to the United States of America. If the Danebo

42
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

     

       

   

     

     

   

     

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

Resource Management Plan

parcel reverts back to the United States of America, it will be managed under the

jurisdiction of BLM, and subsequently the parcel would be transferred to Land Tenure

Zone 1 without RMP amendment or revision.

	 Any additional BLM‐administered lands identified within the planning area boundary

shown in Figure 1 through the future identification of survey hiatuses would be assigned

to Land Tenure Zone 3 and would be available for disposal using appropriate disposal

mechanisms.

	 Any future unintentional occupancy trespassed lands (including any unintentional realty‐

related use, occupancy, or developed lands) in the planning area would be assigned to

Land Tenure Zone 3 and would be available for disposal using appropriate disposal

mechanisms.

	 Land tenure zones may be changed without RMP amendment or revision due to

congressional action, such as mandated land exchanges.

	 Any future land acquisitions within the planning area boundary, if acquired by the BLM

under Section 205 or 206 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, would take on

the status of “acquired lands,” and would be managed for the purpose for which they

were acquired or consistent with the management objectives for adjacent BLM‐

administered lands.

Management Objectives

	 Continue to make BLM‐administered lands available for needed rights‐of‐way, permits, leases, and

easements where consistent with federal, state and local planning goals and rules and the

exclusion areas identified in this RMP.

	 Provide legal administrative access to BLM‐administered lands adequate to support resource

management programs.

Management Direction

	 Recognize existing rights‐of‐way, permits, leases, and easements as valid existing rights

(see Appendix F).

	 Issue no new rights‐of‐way in right‐of‐way exclusion areas identified in this RMP, except

for buried lines in the rights‐of‐way of existing roads, which will be evaluated on a case‐by‐

case basis.

	 Outside of right‐of‐way exclusion areas, evaluate right‐of‐way and lease requests on a

case‐by‐case basis.

	 Issue temporary‐use permits, as identified under the Federal Land Policy and Management

Act (Section 302), for a variety of uses, such as, but not limited to, stockpile and storage

sites and as tools to authorize unintentional trespass situations pending final resolution.

 Issue no new leases or permits for landfills or solid waste disposal sites.

 Utilize land‐use authorizations to resolve agricultural or occupancy trespasses, where

appropriate.

43
       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

West Eugene Wetlands

Hazardous Materials

Management Objectives

 Limit the use of hazardous materials.
 

 Eliminate hazardous wastes.
 

Management Direction

 Respond to hazardous material incidents through actions such as cleanup, proper notifications,

criminal investigations, and site assessments.

 Store, treat, and dispose of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable laws and

regulations.

 Protect employees and the public from known hazardous materials on BLM‐administered

lands.

 Apply best management practices as needed for spill prevention and abatement (see Appendix

D).

Research

Management Objective

	 Provide for research to support the management of lands and resources within the planning area.

Management Direction

	 Allow ongoing research projects to continue according to current or updated study plans. If

management direction on existing study sites conflicts with research objectives, defer

implementation of management direction until the research is complete.

	 For new research projects, require study plans or project proposals that are consistent with

the RMP.

Administrative Actions

Administrative actions are routine transactions and activities that are required to serve the public and to

provide optimum management of resources. Administrative actions occur in all land use allocations.

Implement administrative actions including, but not limited to the following:

- Facility maintenance
 

- Improvements to existing facilities
 

- Road maintenance
 

- Recreation site maintenance
 

- Recreation site improvement
 

- Fence and gate repairs on existing sites
 

44
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

Resource Management Plan

- Lands and realty actions (including the issuance and administration of grants, leases, and permits

issued under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act)

- Resolution of trespasses

- Hazardous and solid waste materials removal

- Law enforcement

- Surveys to determine legal land or mineral estate ownership

- Engineering support to assist in mapping

- Design of projects including any needed surveys

- Sampling and monitoring, including both non‐destructive and destructive data collection

- Incidental removal of trees, snags, or logs for safety or operational reasons

Roads, maintenance yards, buildings, and other facilities do not have specific management objectives or

management direction, but will be managed for the purpose for which the facilities were constructed or

acquired.

45
   

   

   

     

       

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

       

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

     

   

       

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

       

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

       

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

Glossary

This section provides definitions of terms used in this document that may not be found in a standard

dictionary or have a specific or specialized meaning in this document.

anadromous fish. Fish that mature in the sea and swim up freshwater rivers and streams to spawn,

such as salmon, steelhead, and sea‐run cutthroat trout.

archaeological sites. Locations on the landscape that contain the physical remains of past human

activities.

augmentation. Planting of plugs or seeding to increase plant populations.

Best Management Practices (BMPs). Methods, measures, or practices selected on the basis of site‐

specific conditions to ensure that water quality will be maintained at its highest practicable level. BMPs

include, but are not limited to, structural and nonstructural controls, operations, and maintenance

procedures. BMPs can be applied before, during, and after pollution‐producing activities to reduce or

eliminate the introduction of pollutants into receiving waters (40 CFR 130.2, EPA Water Quality

Standards Regulation).

conformance. A proposed action shall be specifically provided for in the land use plan or, if not

specifically mentioned, shall be clearly consistent with the goals, objectives, or standards of the

approved land use plan.

critical habitat. An Endangered Species Act term denoting a specified geographic area occupied by a

federally listed species, and on which the physical and biological features are found that are essential

to the conservation and recovery of that species and that may require special management or

protection.

cultural resources. The locations and materials contained within archaeological, historical, or

traditional use sites.

delist. To remove a plant or animal species from the list of endangered or threatened species.

Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA). An interim step in the BLM’s internal analysis process that

concludes that a proposed action is adequately analyzed in an existing NEPA document (an EIS or EA).

Where applicable, the determination also addresses conformance with an approved land use plan.

downlist. To change the status of an endangered species to threatened.

endangered species. An animal or plant species, listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National

Marine Fisheries Service, as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its

range.

haying. Gathering the cut herbaceous vegetation created by mowing.

historic sites. Artifacts, features, or structures that are older than 50 years.

46
   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

       

       

   

     

       

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

Glossary

invasive plants. Plants that 1) are not part of (if non‐native), or are a minor component of (if native),

the original plant community or communities; 2) have the potential to become a dominant or co‐

dominant species on the site if their future establishment and growth is not actively controlled by

management interventions; or 3) are classified as exotic or noxious plants under state or federal law.

This West Eugene Wetlands EIS definition differs from the Oregon Vegetation Treatments Using

Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon FEIS by including species native to the ecosystem under

consideration. This definition is consistent with the BLM's Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on

BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic EIS.

larva. A distinct wingless juvenile form of many insects before metamorphosis.

listed species. An animal or plant species, listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National

Marine Fisheries Service, as threatened or endangered.

litter. The uppermost layer of organic debris on the soil surface, which is essentially the freshly fallen

or slightly decomposed vegetation material, such as stems, leaves, twigs, and fruits.

manual treatments. The physical removal of herbaceous or woody plants using hand‐held tools, such

as shovels, hand‐held mowers, or chainsaws.

mastication. Mechanical crushing and chopping of vegetation, especially woody vegetation.

mechanical treatments. The physical removal of herbaceous or woody plants using mechanized tools,

such as mowers and tractors.

minerals, leasable. Minerals generally found in bedded deposits and include oil, gas, coal, chlorides,

sulfates, carbonates, borates, silicates, and nitrates of potassium (potash), or sodium and related

products; sulfur; phosphate and its associated and related minerals; asphalt; and gilsonite.

minerals, locatable. Metallic minerals (gold, silver, lead, copper, zinc, nickel, etc.) and nonmetallic

minerals (fluorspar, mica, certain limestone and gypsum, tantalum, heavy minerals in placer form and

gemstones) in land belonging to the United States that are open to citizens of the United States for

exploration, discovery, and location which conveys the exclusive right to extract the locatable minerals

upon receiving all required authorizations in accordance with regulations at 43 CFR 3802 for lands in

wilderness review and 3809 for other public lands.

minerals, saleable. Minerals including but not limited to: petrified wood and common varieties of

sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, cinder, clay, and rock.

mowing. Cutting herbaceous vegetation by either mechanical or manual means.

non‐attainment area. A geographic area that has not consistently met the clean air levels set by the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

noxious weed. A subset of invasive plants that are county, state, or federally listed as injurious to

public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife, or any public or private property.

47
   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

       

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

O&C lands. Public lands granted to the Oregon and California Railroad Company and subsequently

revested to the United States. O&C lands are only in Oregon, and most are managed by the BLM.

off‐highway vehicle (OHV). OHV is synonymous with Off‐Road Vehicles (ORV). ORV is defined in 43

CFR 8340.0‐5(a): Off‐road vehicle means any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or

immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding: (1) Any nonamphibious registered

motorboat; (2) Any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being used for

emergency purposes; (3) Any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized officer, or

otherwise officially approved; (4) Vehicles in official use; and (5) Any combat or combat support

vehicle when used in times of national defense emergencies.

OHV area designation. RMP allocations that permit, establish conditions, or prohibit OHV activities on

specific areas of public lands. Designations in this RMP include:

- open: Motorized vehicle travel is permitted year‐long, with no special restrictions, and there

are no compelling resource protection needs, user conflicts, or public safety issues that

warrant limiting cross‐country travel.

- limited: Motorized vehicle travel within specified areas and/or on designated routes, roads,

vehicle ways, or trails is subject to restrictions, such as number or type of vehicles or time or

season of use.

- closed: Motorized vehicle travel is prohibited in the area to protect resources, promote visitor

safety, or reduce conflicts.

planning area. The geographic area within which the BLM will make decisions through this RMP.

planning area boundary. The broader geographic area surrounding the planning area, including all

land ownerships.

plugs. Seedlings, cuttings, or vegetative plant materials used for planting.

population. A discrete group of individuals of a species occupying a defined area.

prescribed burning. An intentional ignition of grass, shrub, or forest fuels for specific purposes

according to predetermined conditions.

public domain lands. Original holdings of the United States that were never granted or conveyed to

other jurisdictions or never reacquired by exchange for other public domain lands.

recovery plan. A plan for the conservation and survival of an endangered species or a threatened

species listed under the Endangered Species Act for the purpose of improving the status of the species

to the point where listing is no longer required.

resource management plan (RMP). A BLM planning document, prepared in accordance with Section

202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act that presents systematic guidelines for making

resource management decisions for a specific geographic area.

risk. The likelihood that a given exposure to an item or substance that presents a certain hazard will

produce illness or injury.

48
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

       

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

       

     

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

       

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

       

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

       

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

   

     

       

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

Glossary

risk assessment. The process of gathering data and making assumptions to estimate short‐ and long‐

term harmful effects on human health or the environment from particular products or activities.

sensitive species. A special status species category established by the BLM that includes those plant

and animal species eligible for status as federally listed, federal candidate, state listed, or state

candidate (plant) species; on List 1 of the Oregon Natural Heritage Database or approved for this

category by the BLM state director; or included under agency species conservation policies.

shade cloth. A vegetation control technique in which the target plants are covered with a dark cloth,

which typically remains in place for two years, killing the target plants.

snag. A standing dead tree, usually larger than 5 feet tall and 6 inches in diameter at breast height.

soil productivity. The capacity or suitability of a soil for establishment and growth of a plant species,

primarily through nutrient availability. For wetlands, these are the physical, chemical, and biological

indicators of wetland soil health leading to values related to wetland function.

solarization. A vegetation control technique in which the target plants are covered with plastic

sheeting, which typically remains in place for the subsequent growing season, killing the target plants.

special recreation management area (SRMA). SRMAs are lands allocated to include management for

unique recreation resources.

surfactant. A material that improves the emulsifying, dispersing, spreading, wetting, or other surface‐

modifying properties of liquids. Surfactants are often added to herbicides to increase coverage on

target vegetation.

survey hiatus. A gap between survey lines that results in the identification of public domain land

where none was previously known to exist.

thatch. The dense covering of cut vegetation that remains after mowing, which can inhibit the growth

of new plants.

thermal treatments. A vegetation control technique in which the target plants are burned in a spot

treatment of heat or fire, such as with a hand‐held propane torch.

thinning. Cutting some but not all of the trees in an area.

threatened species. An animal or plant species, listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National

Marine Fisheries Service, as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all

or a significant portion of its range.

traditional use sites. Areas identified by local Native American tribes as being important to those living

communities’ historically rooted practices, customs and beliefs.

trespass. Any use, occupancy, or development of the public lands, other than casual use, without

authorization.

49
   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

West Eugene Wetlands

Travel Management Area. A delineated area where travel management (either motorized or non‐

motorized) requires particular focus. These areas may be designated as open, closed, or limited to

motorized use and will typically have an identified or designated network of roads, trails, ways, and

other routes that provide for public access and travel across the planning area.

wetlands. Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a

frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstance do support, a

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

50
   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

	 	

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

     

     

	 	

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

	 	

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

Appendix A ‐ Guidance for Use of the RMP

Appendix A ‐	Guidance for Use of the

Resource Management Plan

This section provides guidance on how the RMP will be implemented, evaluated, and changed by the

District.

Requirement for Further Environmental Analysis

The BLM makes many types of decisions. It is important to distinguish between land use plan decisions and

implementation decisions because: (1) the administrative remedies and the timing of those remedies

differ; (2) the NEPA analysis necessary to support implementation decisions is generally more site specific

than the analysis necessary to support land use plan decisions; (3) the authority to make these types of

decisions varies; and (4) the scope and effect of each type of decisions would be considered during the

compliance and consultation proceedings required under various environmental laws.

Land use plan decisions consist of desired outcomes (goals, standards, objectives), allowable uses (land use

allocations, levels of use, restrictions on uses), and management direction necessary to achieve outcomes.

Implementation decisions are actions to implement land use plans. These types of decisions are based on

site‐specific planning and NEPA analyses. Implementation decisions in this RMP are:

	 Designation of travel management networks, including identifying the specific roads and trails that

will be available for public use and the limitations on use of roads and trails.

	 Continued application of the Final Supplementary Rules for Public Land within the West Eugene

Wetlands, Eugene District, OR, published in the Federal Register on July 28, 2005, and adoption of

the application of these rules throughout the planning area on BLM‐managed lands.

A‐1
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

         

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

       

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

     

     

     

   

West Eugene Wetlands

This RMP only provides direction for the management of natural resources on BLM‐administered lands.

This plan does not authorize the implementation of any specific project‐level actions. Habitat restoration

and maintenance actions in the management direction, including prescribed burning, mowing, haying,

thinning, hand weeding, shade cloth, solarization, thermal treatments, tilling/disking, fill removal, raking,

grazing, and plant augmentation, would be implemented only after additional NEPA compliance and

decision‐making subsequent to the approval of the RMP. Herbicide use would occur only after additional

decision‐making subsequent to the approval of the RMP. Additionally, projected herbicide use would

typically be described in an annual program of work that would be made available to the public. For this

annual program of work, BLM would conduct a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) to determine

whether additional NEPA analysis beyond the analysis in the RMP/EIS is necessary and to evaluate

conformance with the RMP. Where site‐specific conditions differ, or circumstances change from those

described in the RMP/EIS, or if a DNA is inappropriate for other reasons, the BLM may need to conduct

additional NEPA analysis prior to reaching a decision to implement an action.

Plan Evaluation

Evaluation is the process of reviewing the land use plan to determine whether plan decisions are being

implemented as expected, and whether the associated NEPA analyses are still valid. Based on this

evaluation, a determination is made as to whether a plan amendment or revision is warranted. Land use

plans are evaluated to determine if:

 decisions remain relevant to current issues

 decisions are effective in achieving (or making progress toward achieving) desired objectives

 any decisions need to be revised

 any decisions need to be dropped from further consideration

 any areas require new decisions

The plan will be formally evaluated every 5 years, or as necessitated by changed circumstances or

significant new information. These evaluations will focus on issues resulting from monitoring or new

information.

The evaluation will also review major assumptions regarding the level of management activities used in the

analysis of effects for the Final EIS for the West Eugene Wetlands RMP. Much of the data needed for

evaluating these assumptions related to anticipated levels of activity will be collected through program

reporting associated with the RMP monitoring plan.

Unscheduled plan evaluations could be conducted to address certain unanticipated events or new

information that calls into question the underlying analysis and decisions of the plan. These unscheduled

plan evaluations may examine a single or relatively narrow aspect of the RMP.

Plan Maintenance

Land use plan decisions can be maintained to reflect minor changes in data. Maintenance is limited to

further refining, documenting, or clarifying a previously approved decision. Plan maintenance will not

A‐2
 
f

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

     

	 	

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

       

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

       

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

Appendix A ‐ Guidance for Use of the RMP

expand the scope of resource uses or restrictions or change the terms, conditions, and decisions of the

approved plan.

Plan Amendments

New information, updated analysis, or new resource use or protection proposals may require amending or

revisiting land use plans and updating implementation decisions. Re‐examining existing plan decisions, or

the analysis in the Final EIS for the Revision of the West Eugene Wetlands RMP will be appropriate if new

information or circumstance has come to light that could significantly alter the underlying conclusions of

the Final EIS regarding environmental consequences or the ability to achieve management objectives.

Plan amendments change one or more of the terms, conditions, or decisions of an approved land use plan.

Plan amendments are most often prompted by the need to:

 Consider a proposal or action that does not conform to the plan.

 Implement new or revised policy that changes land use plan decisions, such as an approved

conservation agreement between the BLM and USFWS.

 Respond to new, intensified, or changed uses on public land.

 Consider significant new information from resource assessments, plan evaluations, monitoring, or

scientific studies.

Plan amendments will follow BLM planning regulations and can be accompanied by either an
 

environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
 

Plan Revisions

RMP revisions involve preparation of a new plan to replace an existing one. RMP revisions will be

necessary if monitoring and evaluation findings, new data, new or revised policy, or changes in

circumstances indicate that decisions for an entire plan or a major portion of the plan would no longer

serves as a useful guide for resource management. Plan revisions are accomplished through the BLM

planning regulations and are accompanied by an environmental impact statement.

Valid Existing Rights

Considering the segmented nature of the planning area, an immense number of rights‐of‐way, leases,

corridors, and other established legal rights have been granted over the years in establishing an effective

cooperative management framework among a variety of owners. Valid existing rights may pertain to

energy leases, leases, easements, permits, and rights‐of‐way (Appendix F). When implementing this RMP,

it is recognized that there are some instances when actions that may occur on public lands are subject to

these valid existing rights. In those cases, authorization for implementing an action may be subject to

approval by the holders of valid existing rights and may not be discretionary to the BLM.

Management of Newly Acquired Lands

Lands may come under BLM administration through exchange, donation, purchase, revocation of

withdrawals to other federal agencies, or relinquishment of Recreation and Public Purpose leases.

A‐3
   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

Discretionary acquisitions (such as exchanges, donations, or purchases) will be based on the ability to

manage the lands in accordance with the purpose and need established RMP objectives. Newly acquired or

administered lands or interests in lands will be managed for their highest potential or for the purposes for

which they are acquired. For example, lands acquired within specially designated areas with Congressional

or resource management plan allocations/direction will be managed in conformance with management

objectives and guidelines for that area. Lands acquired outside of designated specially designated areas

will be managed in the same manner as comparable or adjacent BLM‐administered lands. In the West

Eugene Wetlands, this implies habitat maintenance or restoration activities would be the predominate

purposes for land management.

A‐4
 
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

	 	 	

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

	 	

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

       

     

     

   

   

       

   

     

   

       

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

	 	

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

     

Appendix B ‐ Monitoring

Appendix B ‐	Monitoring
 

Monitoring Plan for the West Eugene Wetlands Resource Management Plan

The monitoring plan for the West Eugene Wetlands RMP is carefully designed to avoid prohibitive costs

and effectively answer monitoring questions and reporting levels of activities. It is not necessary or

desirable to monitor every activity and management action or objective of a RMP.

Monitoring for the RMP will examine if activities are in accordance with management directions

(implementation monitoring), if management objectives are being met or are likely to be met

(effectiveness monitoring), and if management objectives and management actions are based on correct

assumptions (validation monitoring). Most monitoring will be designed to provide information as to

whether activities are in accordance with management direction.

Some management objectives and management directions in the West Eugene Wetlands RMP are not

measurable or quantifiable, or do not have a standard threshold for acceptability, and therefore will not

lend themselves to being addressed through monitoring questions which are almost always dependent on

a quantifiable basis of measurement. The level of activity for certain management directions that do not

have standards or thresholds of acceptability will be monitored in the form of a program reporting item.

In some cases, where monitoring indicates very high compliance with the plan, the frequency or interval of

monitoring will subsequently be adjusted for cost and time efficiency.

Sampling or evaluation of a subset of actions will be employed to avoid unnecessary detail and

unacceptable costs. Projects to be monitored will be selected on a basis of those that will yield a greater

amount of information or be more beneficial. For example, a random sample may result in monitoring of a

B‐1
   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

       

     

   

     

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

       

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

     

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

relatively small straightforward project that will yield limited information; where as a more complex

project might be available for monitoring that will yield more information or be more effective. Sampling

will be done at the level of the entire administrative unit, the BLM‐administered lands within the West

Eugene Wetlands

The monitoring questions will be evaluated at each monitoring interval to ascertain if the questions,

reporting, methods, sample size, or intervals need to be changed. Such changes to the monitoring plan will

be accomplished through plan maintenance.

Monitoring results will be reported annually in a Monitoring Report and published as part of the Annual

Program Summary for the Eugene District. The Monitoring Report will report, track, and assess the

progress of plan implementation; state the findings and conclusions made through monitoring; and serve

as a report to managers and the public. Monitoring reports will also include any discussions and analysis of

non‐compliance and recommendations for corrective action.

Other Monitoring

The monitoring plan for the West Eugene Wetlands RMP is designed to focus specifically on monitoring the

RMP itself and is not intended as an overarching plan that addresses all ongoing monitoring and research

efforts. This monitoring plan does not attempt to address science questions or issues of a regional or

interagency scale. There are many ongoing regional, interagency, and research (science‐based) efforts in

which the BLM participates that address these broader issues. Although these other efforts in which the

BLM participates often have important implications for BLM‐administered lands and resources in the West

Eugene Wetlands, they will be addressed externally from this monitoring plan.

Plan Evaluations

Plan evaluations will occur at 5‐year intervals. In addition to the monitoring results, many of the underlying

assumptions regarding levels of activities and anticipated environmental consequences will be examined at

the time of the 5‐year plan evaluation to determine if the plan objectives are being met or are likely to be

met. The evaluation will also assess whether changed circumstances or new information have created a

situation in which the expected impacts or environmental consequences of the plan are significantly

different than those anticipated in the Final EIS for the West Eugene Wetlands RMP (November 2014). The

plan evaluation will make a finding of whether or not a plan amendment or plan revision is warranted.

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management is not a stand‐alone program or process. Adaptive management for the West

Eugene Wetlands Management Plan will be integrated into NEPA and land use planning processes. See

Figure B‐1 (Land use planning, monitoring, and adaptive management). Identified outcomes for the RMP

are described in the Plan’s management objectives. RMP monitoring will determine if the objectives are

being met or are likely to be met.

B‐2
 
   

       

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

         

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

Appendix B ‐ Monitoring

Define RMP Management Goals

Develop RMP LUAs/Direction

Revise/Amend Plan

D

D

Predict E

Develop Assu

Describe Relat

Environmenta

umptions

tionships

al Consequen

Supplement Analysis

nces

New

Make Decision (Select an Alternative)

Continue or Continue or

Implement Actio

ess)

ns

(Effect

Test Areas of

tiveness/Vali

Uncertainty

dation Monit

y

oring)

Adapt* Adapt*

(Im

Monito

plementatio

r Actions

on/Effectiven

Revise/Amend Plan

Revise/Amend Plan

Supplement Analysis

* When monitoring shows the Plan is being implemented as written, continue to implement. Where management direction

specifically describes the conditions where adaptation is allowable without supplementing, revising, or amending the Plan,

then adapt to the actions. Additionally, the monitoring plan should consider the areas of uncertainty and the sensitivity of

assumptions and relationships.

Figure B‐1. Land Use Planning, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management.

In addition to monitoring results, new information or changed circumstances will be evaluated as to

whether changes in RMP decisions or changes in supporting NEPA analyses are warranted. Adaptive

management tools and procedures that will be used to make changes in the Plan in response to

monitoring information, new information, or changed circumstances include: plan maintenance, plan

B‐3
   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

       

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

       

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

       

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

       

   

   

     

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

       

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

evaluations, plan amendments and plan revisions. In addition to these planning instruments, NEPA

documentation may be necessary. The NEPA procedures relevant to adaptive management will include the

use of categorical exclusions, determination of NEPA adequacy reviews, environmental assessments, and

environmental impact statements. Unscheduled plan evaluations can be conducted to address certain

unanticipated events or new information that could call into question the underlying analysis and decisions

of the Plan.

In some instances, management direction provides for a range of activities or resource uses. In these

cases, levels of activities or resource uses will vary within the range prescribed by the management action

without the use of planning steps or NEPA analyses. The level of activities will be adapted within the range

given by management action, depending on variation in resource needs or organizational capability.

In addition to the constraints or latitude provided by management direction, the ability to adapt or change

management without the use of planning steps or NEPA analyses will be restricted by how much of a

departure there would be from analytical assumptions in the Planning Criteria. This is because the

conclusions regarding environmental consequences are derived from analytical assumptions. Analytical

assumptions include such things as levels or methods of activities, number of acres treated, and miles of

roads maintained.

If, as a result of the need for adaptive management changes, implementation of the RMP would so alter

the methods or levels of activities to the degree that the environmental consequences might be

substantively different than those anticipated in the Final EIS, then formal planning steps and NEPA

procedures will be required. The determination as to when formal planning steps and NEPA procedures

will be required will be made through the plan evaluation process. Plan evaluations could include an

overall RMP evaluation such as occurs at five‐year intervals or a narrowly focused evaluation of a specific

aspect of the RMP. Plan evaluations will be scheduled at five‐year intervals. Unscheduled plan evaluations

can be conducted to address certain unanticipated events, such as a very large wildfire, or new

information, such as new species listings or critical habitat designations by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service.

Adaptive management will also be applied by acting on information found through the monitoring

questions. Adaptive management associated with monitoring will include corrective actions precipitated

by findings of non‐compliance. Corrective action precipitated by monitoring can range from simple

changes in administrative procedures, refinements of the plan through plan maintenance, or more

substantive changes through plan amendments.

Monitoring Questions

Monitoring of certain questions will not take place in the early years of implementation, because project

would not yet have been completed and, therefore, would not be ready for monitoring. Although

incomplete projects may be informally examined by managers to assess progress towards implementing

management actions and achieving objectives, the evaluation of incomplete projects will not be part of

formal plan monitoring.

B‐4
 
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

Appendix B ‐ Monitoring

Prairie Restoration Area

M1. Monitoring Question: Are vegetation management treatments in accordance with the RMP?

Monitoring Requirement: 20% of completed treatments.

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

M2.	 Monitoring Question: Were applicable standard operating procedures for herbicide application

applied during project implementation?

Monitoring Requirement: 20% of completed treatments.

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

M3.	 Monitoring Question: Were applicable best management practices applied during project

implementation?

Monitoring Requirement: 20% of completed treatments.

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

Natural Maintenance Area

M4. Monitoring Question: Are vegetation management treatments in accordance with the RMP?

Monitoring Requirement: 20% of completed treatments.

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

M5.	 Monitoring Question: Were applicable standard operating procedures for herbicide application

applied during project implementation?

Monitoring Requirement: 20% of completed treatments.

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

M6.	 Monitoring Question: Were applicable best management practices identified and applied

during project implementation?

Monitoring Requirement: 20% of completed treatments.

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

M7.	 Monitoring Question: Were management actions for the collection and management of

traditional use plants implemented in accordance with the RMP?

Monitoring Requirement: 100% of completed treatments.

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

B‐5
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

West Eugene Wetlands

Air Quality, Prescribed Burning, and Wildfire Suppression

M8.
 

M9.

Plants

M10.

M11.

M12.

Monitoring Question: Have smoke intrusions occurred to cause air quality to exceed National
 

Ambient Air Quality Standards?
 

Monitoring Requirement: Report through Lane Regional Air Protection Agency.
 

Monitoring Interval: Annual.
 

Monitoring Question: Have unplanned ignitions occurred for which suppression did not

minimize acres burned?

Monitoring Requirement: All unplanned ignitions that burn five or more acres will be

evaluated.

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

Monitoring Question: Were management actions for threatened and endangered plants
 

implemented in accordance with RMP direction?
 

Monitoring Requirement: 100% of completed treatments.
 

Monitoring Interval: Annual.
 

Monitoring Question: Were management actions for vascular and non‐vascular sensitive and
 

strategic plants implemented in accordance with RMP direction?
 

Monitoring Requirement: 20% of completed treatments.
 

Monitoring Interval: Annual.
 

Monitoring Question: Were management actions implementing the control of noxious weeds,

native invasive plants, and non‐native invasive plants conducted in accordance with RMP

direction?

Monitoring Requirement: 20% of completed treatments.

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

B‐6
 
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

  

   

   

   

  

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

Appendix B ‐ Monitoring

Wildlife

M13. Monitoring Question: Were management actions for Fender’s blue butterfly implemented in

accordance with RMP direction?

Monitoring Requirement: 20% of actions completed.

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

M14.	 Monitoring Question: Were management actions for western pond turtle implemented in

accordance with RMP direction?

Monitoring Requirement: 20% of actions completed.

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

M15.	 Monitoring Question: Were management actions for ground‐nesting grassland birds

implemented in accordance with RMP direction?

Monitoring Requirement: 20% of actions completed.

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

M16.	 Monitoring Question: Were snags created for bureau sensitive birds and bats implemented in

accordance with RMP direction?

Monitoring Requirement: 20% of actions completed.

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

M17.	 Monitoring Question: Were management actions to maintain or enhance habitat for woodland

associated bird species implemented in accordance with RMP direction?

Monitoring Requirement: 20% of actions completed.

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

Cultural Resources

M18. Monitoring Question: Are cultural resources that are listed or eligible for the National Register

identified and avoided or mitigated prior to project activities disturbing or destroying them?

Monitoring Requirement: Conduct post‐project inventory of 20% of high and medium

probability areas to identify new sites inadvertently discovered during project activities.

Monitor 100% of known and recorded sites before and after project activities to note possible

changes in site condition.

Monitoring Interval: Annually.

B‐7
   

     

   

   

   

  

   

  

   

   

   

   

     

   

       

   

       

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

M19.	 Monitoring Question: Are all cultural resources recorded within the planning area assigned to

a use category and managed accordingly?

Monitoring Requirement: Once assigned, review 100% of sites assigned to a use category and

evaluate if it remains accurate.

Monitoring Interval: Every 5 years, or as needed based on changes in site condition.

Recreation, Public Outreach, and Volunteers

M20. Monitoring Question: Are special recreation management areas managed in accordance with

their planning frameworks?

Monitoring Requirement: 100% of the special recreation management areas.

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

M21.	 Monitoring Question: Are extensive recreation management areas managed to maintain

recreational use opportunities?

Monitoring Requirement: 20% of managed features (trails, interpretive sites, etc.) in extensive

recreation management areas.

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

M22.	 Monitoring Question: Are recreational demand and quality visitor experiences being
 

maintained?
 

Monitoring Requirement: Report 100% of new recreational features.

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

Visual Resources

M23. Monitoring Question: Is the level of change in character for the areas designated to be

managed as VRM III consistent with RMP requirements?

Monitoring Requirement: 20% of activities that have the potential to affect the existing

character in VRM III.

Monitoring Interval: Annual. Every three years if three consecutive years of monitoring show

100% compliance.

B‐8
 
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

Appendix B ‐ Monitoring

Minerals and Energy

M24.	 Monitoring Question: Has the level of opportunities for the exploration and development of

locatable, leasable, and salable energy and mineral resources, and for casual mineral

prospecting been maintained?

Monitoring Requirement: Report new withdrawals.

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

Lands and Realty, Access, and Transportation

M25. Monitoring Question: Have uses on acquired lands been consistent with the purposes for

which they were acquired?

Monitoring Requirement: 20% of all activities.

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

M26.	 Monitoring Question: Has the availability of BLM‐lands for needed rights‐of‐way, permits,

leases, and easements where consistent with federal, state and local planning goals and rules

and the exclusion areas identified in this RMP, been maintained?

Monitoring Requirement: Report new requirements that would limit access.

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

Hazardous Materials

M27. Monitoring Question: Has the response to hazardous material incidents included cleanup,

proper notifications, criminal investigations, and site assessments as applicable?

Monitoring Requirement: 100% of hazardous material incidents.

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

M28.	 Monitoring Question: Are hazardous materials stored, treated, and disposed of in accordance

with applicable laws and regulations?

Monitoring Requirement: 100% of District‐stored, treated, and disposed hazardous materials.

Monitoring Interval: Annual.

B‐9
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

Program Reporting Items

Program reporting items involve activities that are either related to: (1) certain analytical assumptions that

are pertinent to non‐specific management actions; or (2) analytical assumptions pertinent to the analysis

of environmental consequences. Not all programs or resources have reporting items.

Prairie Restoration Area

P1. Program Rep

maintenance

orting Item:

e, or enhance

Report the ac

ment. Report

cres of vegeta

ting will be do

ation manage

one annually

ement for hab

by treatmen

bitat restorat

t type.

tion,

P2. Program Rep

plant prairie

porting Item:

species meet

Report on tot

ting recovery

tal acres mee

targets. Repo

eting high‐qua

orting will be

ality habitat c

e every five ye

conditions for

ears.

P3. Program Reporting Item: Report the acres treated with herbicides. Reporting will be annual.

Natural Maintenance Area

P4. Program Reporting Item: Report the acres of vegetation management for maintenance and

enhancement of existing habitats. Reporting will be done annually by treatment type.

P5.	 Program Reporting Item: Report the amount of traditional use plant collections. Reporting will

be done annually.

P6.	 Program Reporting Item: Report the acres treated with herbicides. Reporting will be annual.

Plants

P7. Program Reporting Item: Report the total number of plants of established threatened and

endangered and Bureau sensitive plant populations. Reporting will be every 5 years.

P8.	 Program Reporting Item: Report the number of plants meeting population recovery targets.

Reporting will be annual.

P9.	 Program Reporting Item: Report the acres of noxious weed, native invasive, and non‐native

invasive plant management actions. Reporting will be annual.

B‐10
 
   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

Appendix B ‐ Monitoring

Wildlife

P10. Program Reporting Item: Report on total acres meeting high‐quality habitat conditions for

wildlife prairie species. Reporting will be every five years.

P11.	 Program Reporting Item: Report the number of wildlife meeting population recovery targets.

Reporting will be every 5 years.

P12.	 Program Reporting Item: Report the total acres of habitat connectivity for wildlife. Reporting

will be every 3 years.

Recreation, Public Outreach, and Volunteers

P13. Program Reporting Item: Report the number of commercial, competitive, educational, and

organized group activities. Reporting will be annual.

P14.	 Program Reporting Item: Report the number of service‐oriented and outreach programs,

including interpretation and education provided to visitors. Reporting will be annual.

P15.	 Program Reporting Item: Report the number of volunteer hours for recreation, education,

interpretation, and restoration activities. Reporting will be annual.

Special Products

P16. Program Reporting Item: Report the number of permits for harvest and collection of special

products. Reporting will be annual.

Research

P17. Program Reporting Item: Provide a narrative update on status, goals, and findings of research

projects in support of the management of lands and resources administered by the BLM.

P18.	 Program Reporting Item: Report the total acres treated with research and demonstration

herbicides. Reporting will be annual.

B‐11
   

West Eugene Wetlands

Fender’s blue butterfly

B‐12
 
   

     

   

   

   

	 	

   

   

   

	 	

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

       

Appendix C ‐ Recreation

Appendix C ‐	Recreation Management
 

This appendix provides supplemental material for the recreational section of the West Eugene Wetlands

RMP.

Planning Frameworks for Special Recreation Management Areas

This section presents management guidelines for special recreation management areas in BLM‐

administered lands within the West Eugene Wetlands.
 

Fern Ridge Path

Primary Market Strategy: Destination

Niche: Opportunities for hard‐surface, non‐motorized trail recreation.
 

Management Objectives: Provide pedestrian and non‐motorized vehicle recreation opportunities.
 

Targeted Outcomes

Activities: biking, walking, jogging, wildlife viewing, touring, and commuting
 

Experiences: Physical activity (biking, walking, jogging) in an area with views of wildlife; tour
 

routing; commuting.
 

Benefits: Green travel, physical exertion, appreciation of natural surroundings, exercise.
 

C‐1
   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

Prescribed Setting Character

Physical: Urban interface ‐ adjacent to Amazon Canal portions, traverses major and minor roads

within Eugene.

Social: High levels of use, commuters and casual recreationists; no possibility for solitude. Traffic

noise prevalent.

Administrative: Regulations posted.

Activity Planning Framework

Management: Continue to provide hard‐surface, non‐motorized riding opportunities; use
 

information and interpretation to provide for visitor safety.
 

Marketing: Work with partners to promote the trail.
 

Monitoring: Monitor for visitor compliance and satisfaction.
 

Administrative: Provide visitor services and law enforcement presence. Maintain OHV closure on
 

trail.
 

Stewart Pond

Primary Market Strategy: Destination

Niche: Disc golf, wildlife viewing, hiking.

Management Objectives: Increase levels and types of recreation uses that contribute to meeting

recreational demand and quality visitor experiences.

Targeted Outcomes

Activities: disc golf, group events, hiking, competitive sport activities.
 

Experiences: Physical activity (disc golf, hiking) in an area with views of wildlife.
 

Benefits: Exercise, physical exertion, appreciation of natural surroundings.
 

Prescribed Setting Character

Physical: Urban interface – surrounded by industrial, residential, and commercial buildings;

wetland and ash woodland.

Social: High levels of use, commuters and casual recreationists; no possibility for solitude. Traffic

noise prevalent.

C‐2
 
   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

       

   

   

Appendix C ‐ Recreation

Administrative: Urban interface – Develop interpretive information of the local environment to

incorporate into the disc golf course; provide visitor services and law enforcement presence.

Activity Planning Framework

Management: Increase recreational opportunities through development of a disc golf course;
 

continue to provide management of trail network.
 

Marketing: Work with partners to develop and promote the disc golf course and maintain
 

recreational infrastructure.
 

Monitoring: Monitor for visitor compliance and satisfaction.
 

Administrative: Provide visitor services and law enforcement presence.
 

C‐3
   

West Eugene Wetlands

western pond turtle

C‐4
 
       

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

	 	

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

Appendix D ‐ Best Management Practices

Appendix D ‐	Best Management

Practices

A Best Management Practice (BMP) is a practice, or combination of practices that have been determined

to be the most effective and practicable in preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by

diffuse sources to a level compatible with water quality goals (40 CFR 130.2 [m]). BMPs are a type of water

pollution control. This section defines the best management practices (i.e., methods and measures) that

were developed for the lands within the planning area to comply with the requirements of the Clean

Water Act. Those BMPs that are necessary for typical situations have been included. When applied, BMPs

are expected to prevent water quality degradation and to meet water quality standards.

Best management practices are required by the amended federal Clean Water Act to reduce nonpoint

source pollution to the maximum extent practicable. Nonpoint source pollution is detected in a

concentrated water source such as a stream, or lake that come from a wide range of land management

activities. The BMPs are considered the primary controls for achieving Oregon’s water quality standards.

Oregon’s narrative criteria, which include numeric standards, are designed to protect designated beneficial

uses (such as resident fish and aquatic life, domestic water supplies, and water‐contact recreation). The

BMPs are methods, measures, or practices selected on the basis of site‐specific conditions to ensure that

water quality will be maintained at its highest practicable level. The BMPs include, but are not limited to,

avoidance, structural and nonstructural treatments, operations, and maintenance procedures. Although

normally preventative, BMPs can be applied before, during, and after pollution‐producing activities to

reduce or eliminate the introduction of pollutants into receiving waters (40 CFR 130.2, EPA Water Quality

Standards Regulation).

D‐1
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

       

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

Some BMPs that relate to instream activities may coincidently be similar to applicable practices specified

in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of State Lands, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

joint removal/fill permits, Department of Environmental Quality water quality permits and 401

certifications, or project design criteria contained in biological assessments. The BMPs in the following

tables are not specific permit requirements, but rather demonstrate the process by which nonpoint source

pollution from instream activities would be controlled.

Selection of BMPs is made by resource specialists during project‐level analyses. It is not intended that all of

the BMPs listed would be selected for any specific management action. Each activity is uniquely based on

site‐specific conditions, and the selection of an individual BMP or a combination of BMPs and measures

would become the BMP design.

The BMPs would be applied in a manner that would be consistent with all RMP objectives. The overall goal

would not be to adhere strictly to a particular set of BMPs, but to meet water quality objectives when

implementing management actions. Describing non‐point pollution causal mechanisms would allow

specialists to exercise discretion as to what would work best in a particular situation. Although this

appendix does not provide an exhaustive list of BMPs, the included BMPs are believed to cover most

project activity situations in the planning area. Additional nonpoint source control measures may be

identified during the interdisciplinary process when evaluating site‐specific management actions and

implemented during planned actions.

Where found to be ineffective, BMPs may require modification to meet water quality objectives.

Specialists may consider baseline environmental conditions, type of activity, proximity to water,

disturbance level, direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and timing. They may also evaluate new

technology and relevant implementation or effectiveness monitoring data, published studies or other

sources of information, in refining existing BMPs or recommending new BMPs. This process involves

continued learning and applying monitoring feedback.

Review and update of this appendix, including BMP corrections or additions that are derivatives of existing

BMPs, would be completed through plan maintenance.

In addition to the BMPs listed below, the standard operating procedures for herbicide application related

to Water Resources would constitute additional BMPs to meet water quality objectives for the alternatives

that would propose herbicide use (Appendix E).

Habitat Restoration

 Recontour ditches to reroute water for retention on site.

 Plant native vegetation to stabilize head cutting and piping at actively eroding sites.

 Encourage streams to reconnect with floodplain when possible using check‐dams.

 Do not allow grazing animals within 50 feet of any stream or river channel.

D‐2
 
j

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

	 	

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

       

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

       

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

Appendix D ‐ Best Management Practices

 Design soil‐disturbing restoration techniques (where disruption of nitrogen removal, sediment

stabilization, and phosphorus retention might occur) to protect functionality of wetland and riparian

sites.

 Place protective barriers around specified staging areas, drainages, ditches, and stream edges as

needed to minimize sedimentation. Remove protective barriers after project completion.

 Construct sediment traps/retention ponds, as needed, during project implementation to intercept

runoff from disturbed areas. Locate sediment traps/retention ponds away from natural stream

channels. The sediment traps/retention ponds should be adequate in size and number to provide for

storm events and predicted sediment accumulation.

 Use certified weed‐free native straw mulch or geo‐textiles to minimize erosion from bare soils

adjacent to streams, ditches or drainage ways and prevent the introduction of undesirable weeds.

Spill Prevention and Abatement

	 Inspect and clean heavy equipment as necessary prior to moving on to the project site, in order to

remove oil and grease, noxious/invasive weeds, and excessive soil.

	 Inspect hydraulic fluid and fuel lines on heavy‐mechanized equipment for proper working condition.

	 Where possible, maintain and refuel equipment a minimum of 100 feet away from streams and other

waterbodies.

	 All mixing of herbicides will occur at least 100 feet from surface waters or well heads.

	 All hoses used to add dilution water to spray containers will be equipped with a device to prevent

back‐siphoning.

	 Applicators will mix only those quantities of herbicides that can be reasonably used in a day.

	 Equipment used for transportation, storage, or application of chemicals shall be maintained in a leak‐

proof condition.

	 In the event of a spill or release, all reasonable and safe actions to contain the material will be taken.

Specific actions are dependent on the nature of the material spilled.

	 Use spill containment booms or as required by Department of Environmental Quality. Have access to

booms and other absorbent containment materials.

	 Immediately remove waste or spilled hazardous materials (including but not limited to herbicides,

diesel, oil, hydraulic fluid) and contaminated soils near any stream or other waterbody, and dispose of

it/them in accordance with the applicable regulatory standard. Notify Oregon Emergency Response

System of any spill over the material reportable quantity, and any spill not totally cleaned up after 24

hours.

	 Store equipment containing reportable quantities of toxic fluids outside of riparian areas.

	 If more than 42 gallons of fuel or combined quantity of petroleum product and chemical substances, as

project materials, would be transported to a project site, the following precautions will be

implemented.

1. Plan a safe route and material transfer sites so that all spilled material will be contained easily at

that designated location.

D‐3
     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

     

     

     

     

   

   

       

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

       

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

2. Plan an active dispatch system that can relay the information to appropriate resources.

3. Ensure a spill containment kit that can adsorb and contain 55 gallons of petroleum product and

chemical substances is readily available.

4. Provide for immediate notification to Notify Oregon Emergency Response System in the event of

a spill. Have a radio‐equipped vehicle lead the chemical or fuel truck to the project site.

5. Assemble a spill notification list that includes the district hazardous materials coordinator,

Department of Environmental Quality, and spill clean‐up contractors.

6. Construct a downstream water user contact list with addresses and phone numbers.

7. When operating within Source Water watersheds, pre‐estimate water flow travel times through

the watershed to predict downstream arrival times.

8. Be prepared to sample water and carry sample containers.

9. Be prepared to assist Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in assessing wildlife impacts of

any material spilled.

	 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan: All operators shall develop a modified Spill

Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan prior to initiating project work if there is a potential risk

of chemical or petroleum spills near water bodies. The Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure

Plan will include the appropriate containers to be used and design of the material transfer locations.

No interim fuel depot or storage location other than a manned transport vehicle.

	 Spill Containment Kit: All operators shall have a Spill Containment Kit as described in the Spill

Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan on‐site during any operation with potential for run‐off

to adjacent water bodies. The Spill Containment Kit will be appropriate in size and type for the oil or

hazardous material carried by the operator.

	 Operators shall be responsible for the clean‐up, removal, and proper disposal of contaminated

materials from the site.

D‐4
 
   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

	 	

     

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

Appendix E ‐ SOPs for Herbicide Application

Appendix E ‐	Standard Operating

Procedures for Herbicide Application

The following standard operating procedures have been identified to reduce adverse effects to

environmental and human resources from vegetation treatment activities based on guidance in BLM

manuals and handbooks, regulations, and standard BLM and industry practices. The list is not all

encompassing, but is designed to give an overview of practices that would be considered when designing

and implementing a specific vegetation treatment project in the planning area. The following standard

operating procedures have been adopted in part from the BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on

BLM Lands in Oregon Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2010). Minor edits have been made to some

standard operating procedures for applicability to this RMP and to clarify intent. Additional standard

operating procedures have been added relevant to the specific resources present in the planning area.

Effects described in the EIS are predicated on the assumption that the standard operating procedures

would be applied, or a site‐specific determination would be made that the application of a specific

standard operating procedure would be unnecessary to achieve their intended purpose or protection.

Like the BMPs in Appendix D, it is not intended that all of the procedures listed would be selected for any

specific management action. The overall goal would not be to adhere strictly to a particular set of

procedures, but to reduce adverse effects to environmental and human resources when applying

herbicides. Although this appendix does not provide an exhaustive list of procedures, the included

procedures are believed to cover most herbicide application situations in the planning area. Additional

procedures may be identified during the interdisciplinary process when evaluating site‐specific

management actions and implemented during planned actions. Where found to be ineffective, procedures

may require modification to reduce adverse effects to environmental and human resources when applying

herbicides. Specialists may consider baseline environmental conditions, type of application, proximity to

E‐1
   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

       

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

       

West Eugene Wetlands

water, proximity to sensitive resources, disturbance level, direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and

timing. They may also evaluate new technology and relevant implementation or effectiveness monitoring

data, published studies or other sources of information, in refining existing procedures or recommending

new procedures. Review and update of this appendix, including procedure corrections or additions that

are derivatives of existing procedures, would be completed through plan maintenance.

Guidance Documents

BLM Handbook H‐9011‐1 (Chemical Pest Control); and manuals 1112 (Safety), 9011 (Chemical Pest

Control), and 9015 (Integrated Weed Management).

General

 Prepare an operational and spill contingency plan in advance of treatment.
 

 Select the herbicide that is least damaging to the environment while providing the desired results.
 

 Select herbicide products carefully to minimize additional impacts from degradates, adjuvants,
 

other ingredients, and tank mixtures.

 Apply the least amount of herbicide needed to achieve the desired result.

 Follow herbicide product label for use and storage.

 Review, understand, and conform to the “Environmental Hazards” section on the herbicide

product label. This section warns of known herbicide risks to the environment and provides

practical ways to avoid harm to organisms or to the environment.
 

 Minimize the size of application area, when feasible.
 

 Comply with herbicide‐free buffer zones to ensure that drift will not affect crops or nearby
 

residents/ landowners.

 Adhere to entry restrictions identified on the herbicide product label for public and worker access.

 Post treated areas and specify reentry or rest times.

 Notify the public and adjacent landowners prior to treatment, if appropriate.

 Keep records of each application, including the active ingredient, formulation, application rate,

date, time, and location.

 Avoid accidental direct spray and spill conditions to minimize risks to resources.

 Conduct pre‐treatment surveys for sensitive habitat and Special Status species within or adjacent

to proposed treatment areas.

 Consider site characteristics, environmental conditions, and application equipment in order to

minimize damage to non‐target vegetation.

 Refer to the herbicide product label when planning revegetation to ensure that subsequent

vegetation would not be injured following application of the herbicide.

 Clean off‐highway vehicles to remove plant material, soil, mud and excess oil prior to entering BLM

lands.

 Use only vegetable oil based surfactants.

E‐2
   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

Appendix E ‐ SOPs for Herbicide Application

Worker Protection Measures

 Keep a copy of Material Safety Data Sheets at work sites. Material Safety Data Sheets are available

for review at http://www.cdms.net/.

 Have licensed or certified applicators or State‐licensed “trainees” apply herbicides, or have BLM

employees apply herbicides under the direct supervision of a BLM‐certified applicator.

 Have all BLM employees applying herbicides wear appropriate protective clothing. At a minimum,

use the type and amount of protective clothing listed on the herbicide label.

	 Develop a Job Hazard Analysis for BLM employees involved in herbicide applications, providing a

detailed description of the jobs and associated risks involved with herbicide use and application.

Identify requirements for personal safety equipment, training, and certification to perform specific

tasks.

	 Conduct herbicide applications done by BLM employees in compliance with all aspects of EPA’s

Worker Protection Standard under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act,

including protection during applications, restricted entry intervals, personal protective equipment,

notification of workers, decontamination supplies, emergency assistance, herbicide safety training

and safety posters, and access to labeling and site‐specific information.

Air Quality

See Manual 7000 (Soil, Water, and Air Management).

	 Consider the effects of wind, humidity, temperature inversions, and heavy rainfall on herbicide

effectiveness and risks.

	 Apply herbicides in favorable weather conditions to minimize drift. For example, treat when winds

are between 2 and 10 miles per hour. Do not apply herbicides if rainfall is imminent, or if snow or

ice is on the ground.

 Use drift reduction agents, as appropriate, to reduce the drift hazard.

 Select proper application equipment (e.g., spray equipment that produces 200‐ to 800‐micron

diameter droplets [spray droplets of 100 microns and less are most prone to drift]).

 Select proper application methods (e.g., set maximum spray heights, use appropriate buffer

distances between spray sites and non‐target resources).

Soil

See Manual 7000 (Soil, Water, and Air Management).

	 Minimize treatments in areas where herbicide runoff is likely, such as steep slopes when heavy

rainfall is expected.

Water Resources

See Manual 7000 (Soil, Water, and Air Management).

	 Conduct mixing and loading operations in an area where an accidental spill would not contaminate

an aquatic body.

E‐3
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

       

   

       

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

	 Do not rinse spray tanks in or near water bodies.

	 Use appropriate herbicide‐free buffer zones for herbicides not labeled for aquatic use based on

risk assessment guidance, with minimum widths from water of 25 feet for vehicle (boom or

broadcast type sprayers), and 10 feet for hand spray applications.

Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms

See manuals 6500 (Wildlife and Fisheries Management) and 6780 (Habitat Management Plans).

 Use appropriate buffer zones based on label and risk assessment guidance.

 Minimize treatments near fish‐bearing water bodies during periods when fish are in life stages

most sensitive to the herbicide(s) used, and use spot rather than broadcast treatments.

 Use appropriate application equipment/method near water bodies if the potential for off‐site drift

exists.

 Establish appropriate herbicide‐specific buffer zones for water bodies, habitats, or fish or other

aquatic species of interest, and recommendations in individual ecological risk assessment.

	 To protect Special Status fish and other aquatic organisms, implement all conservation measures

for aquatic animals presented in the Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands

in 17 Western States Programmatic Biological Assessment (see BLM 2010a, Appendix 5).

Wildlife

See manuals 6500 (Wildlife and Fisheries Management) and 6780 (Habitat Management Plans).

	 Use herbicides of low toxicity to wildlife, where feasible.

	 Use spot applications or low‐boom broadcast operations where possible to limit the probability of

contaminating non‐target food and water sources, especially non‐target vegetation over areas

larger than the treatment area.

 Use timing restrictions (e.g., do not treat during critical wildlife breeding or staging periods) to

minimize impacts to wildlife.

 To minimize risks to terrestrial wildlife, do not exceed the typical application rate for applications

of glyphosate or triclopyr, where feasible.

	 To protect Special Status wildlife species, implement conservation measures for terrestrial animals

presented in the Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western

States Programmatic Biological Assessment (See BLM 2010a, Appendix 5).

Threatened and Endangered Species

See manual 6840 (Special Status Species).

	 Herbicide treatments that are implemented when listed plants are growing and Fender's blue

butterfly are active (i.e., in the spring) will be done in a manner that minimizes effects to listed

species by using targeted application methods (e.g., wick application or spot spray), distance

buffers and/or baffling systems to minimize the risk of listed species coming into contact with

herbicides.

E‐4
 
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

Appendix E ‐ SOPs for Herbicide Application

	 Glyphosate (by broadcast or spot‐spray) and triclopyr, clopyralid, or aminopyralid (by spot‐spray or

direct basal application) could be applied any time outside of patches of listed plants as long as

application is within label.

	 Within patches of listed plants, application of glyphosate, triclopyr, clopyralid, or aminopyralid

would generally be done in fall when listed plants are dormant. Occasional within‐patch

treatments could occur anytime, but listed plants would be protected by distance or baffling

systems.

	 Invasive woody species within Kincaid’s lupine patches could be treated with triclopyr (spot‐spray

or direct basal application) in the fall with no contact with listed plant species.

	 Fluazifop could be broadcast using boom sprayers or handguns mounted on tractors or all‐terrain

vehicles, applied by workers on foot with backpack sprayers, or spot applied to manage

competitive grasses.

	 Fluazifop could be applied in spring or fall (approximately 3 weeks after burning) when target

plants are actively growing within or outside of patches of listed plants.

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources

See handbooks H‐8120‐1 (Guidelines for Conducting Tribal Consultation) and H‐ 8270‐1 (General

Procedural Guidance for Paleontological Resource Management), and manuals 8100 (The Foundations for

Managing Cultural Resources), 8120 (Tribal Consultation Under Cultural Resource Authorities), and 8270

(Paleontological Resource Management). See also: Programmatic Agreement among the Bureau of Land

Management, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic

Preservation Officers Regarding the Manner in Which BLM Will Meet Its Responsibilities Under the

National Historic Preservation Act.

 Follow standard procedures for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation

Act as implemented through the Programmatic Agreement among the Bureau of Land

Management, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State

Historic Preservation Officers Regarding the Manner in Which BLM Will Meet Its Responsibilities

Under the National Historic Preservation Act and State protocols or 36 Code of Federal Regulations

Part 800, including necessary consultations with State Historic Preservation Officers and interested

tribes.

 Follow BLM Handbook H‐8270‐1 (General Procedural Guidance for Paleontological Resource

Management) to determine known Condition I and Condition 2 paleontological areas, or collect

information through inventory to establish Condition 1 and Condition 2 areas, determine resource

types at risk from the proposed treatment, and develop appropriate measures to minimize or

mitigate adverse impacts.

 Consult with tribes to locate any areas of vegetation that are of significance to the tribe and that

might be affected by herbicide treatments; work with tribes to minimize impacts to these

resources.

 Follow guidance under Human Health and Safety in BLM 2010a in areas that may be visited by

Native peoples after treatments.

E‐5
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

       

     

   

West Eugene Wetlands

Visual Resources

See handbooks H‐8410‐1 (Visual Resource Inventory) and H‐8431‐1 (Visual Resource Contrast Rating), and

manual 8400 (Visual Resource Management).

	 Minimize the use of broadcast foliar applications in sensitive watersheds to avoid creating large

areas of browned vegetation.

	 Minimize off‐site drift and mobility of herbicides (e.g., do not treat when winds exceed 10 mph;

minimize treatment in areas where herbicide runoff is likely; establish appropriate buffer widths

between treatment areas and residences) to contain visual changes to the intended treatment

area.

	 Lessen visual impacts by designing projects to blend in with topographic forms and revegetating

the site following treatment.

	 When restoring treated areas, design activities to repeat the form, line, color, and texture of the

natural landscape character conditions to meet established Visual Resource Management

objectives.

Recreation

See Handbook H‐1601‐1 (Land Use Planning Handbook, Appendix C).

	 Schedule treatments to avoid peak recreational use times, while taking into account the optimum

management period for the targeted species.

	 Mitigation measures that may apply to recreational resources are associated with human and

ecological health (see mitigation measures for Vegetation, Fish and Other Aquatic Resources,

Wildlife Resources, and Human Health and Safety).

Social and Economic Values

	 Notify local emergency personnel of proposed treatments.

	 To the degree possible within the law, hire local certified or licensed contractors and workers to

assist with herbicide application projects and purchase materials and supplies for herbicide

treatment projects (including the herbicides) through local suppliers.

	 Provide public educational information on the need for vegetation treatments and the use of

herbicides in an integrated vegetation management program for projects proposing local use of

herbicides.

Rights‐of‐way

 Coordinate vegetation treatment activities where joint or multiple use of a right‐of‐way exists.

 Notify other public land users within or adjacent to the right‐of‐way proposed for treatment.

 Use only herbicides that are approved for use in right‐of‐way areas.

E‐6
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

         

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

       

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

Appendix E ‐ SOPs for Herbicide Application

Human Health and Safety

 Establish a buffer between treatment areas and human residences based on guidance given in the

human health risk assessment, with a minimum buffer of 100 feet for ground applications, unless a

written waiver is granted.

 Provide public notification in newspapers or other media where the potential exists for public

exposure.

 Store herbicides in secure, herbicide‐approved storage.

 Notify local emergency personnel of proposed treatments.

 Contain and clean up spills and request help as needed.

 Secure containers during transport.

 Dispose of unwanted herbicides promptly and correctly.

 Use the typical application rate, where feasible, when applying triclopyr to reduce risk to workers

and the public.

Table E‐1 describes potential adverse effects of herbicide use and standard operating procedures that

would minimize or avoid the adverse effect. This is not a complete list of either the potential adverse

effects of herbicide use or relevant standard operating procedures; this list highlights the most directly

related standard operating procedures. Most of the potential effects identified in Table 44 are not

reasonably foreseeable. The identified potential effects are possible, but highly unlikely, as described in

Chapter 4. The relevant standard operating procedures act to even further reduce the likelihood of or

entirely avoid an effect that is already highly unlikely.

Table E‐1. Potential effects of herbicide use and standard operating procedures to minimize or avoid

effects.

Potential effect Standard Operating Procedures to minimize or avoid adverse effect

Drift

herb

of

bicides

• Comply w

or nearby

• Consider t

on herbici

• Apply her

treat when

rainfall is i

• Use drift r

• Select pro

800‐micro

prone to d

• Select pro

appropriat

with herbicide

residents/ la

the effects of

de effectiven

rbicides in fav

n winds are b

imminent, or

reduction age

oper applicati

on diameter d

drift]).

oper applicati

te buffer dist

‐free buffer z

ndowners.

f wind, humid

ness and risks

vorable weath

between 2 an

if snow or ice

ents, as appro

on equipmen

droplets [spra

on methods

ances betwee

zones to ensu

dity, tempera

s.

her condition

d 10 miles pe

e is on the gr

opriate, to red

nt (e.g., spray

ay droplets of

(e.g., set max

en spray sites

ure that drift w

ture inversio

s to minimize

er hour. Do no

ound.

duce the drift

y equipment t

f 100 microns

ximum spray

s and non‐tar

will not affec

ns, and heavy

e drift. For ex

ot apply herb

t hazard.

that produces

s and less are

heights, use

rget resource

t crops

y rainfall

ample,

bicides if

s 200‐ to

most

s).

E‐7
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

       

   

   

   

     

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

West Eugene Wetlands

Potential effect Standard Operating Procedures to minimize or avoid adverse effect

Runoff of

herbicides

water

to

• Min

whe

• Do

• Use

use

feet

app

nimize treatm

en heavy rain

not rinse spr

e appropriate

based on risk

t for vehicle (

plications.

ments in areas

fall is expecte

ay tanks in or

e herbicide‐fre

k assessment

boom or broa

s where herb

ed.

r near water b

ee buffer zon

t guidance, w

adcast type s

icide runoff is

bodies.

nes for herbic

ith minimum

prayers), and

s likely, such

ides not labe

widths from

d 10 feet for h

as steep slop

led for aquat

water of 25

hand spray

pes

tic

Spill of

herbicides

water

in

• Pre

• Con

not

• Do

• Use

use

feet

app

• Sto

• Sec

epare an oper

nduct mixing

contaminate

not rinse spr

e appropriate

based on risk

t for vehicle (

plications.

re herbicides

cure containe

rational and s

and loading o

e an aquatic b

ay tanks in or

e herbicide‐fre

k assessment

boom or broa

s in secure, he

rs during tran

spill contingen

operations in

body.

r near water b

ee buffer zon

t guidance, w

adcast type s

erbicide‐appr

nsport.

ncy plan in ad

an area whe

bodies.

nes for herbic

ith minimum

prayers), and

roved storage

dvance of trea

ere an acciden

ides not labe

widths from

d 10 feet for h

e.

atment.

ntal spill wou

led for aquat

water of 25

hand spray

ld

tic

Exposure t

public

o

• Adh

and

• Pos

• Not

• Sch

acco

• Esta

here to entry

d worker acce

st treated are

tify the public

hedule treatm

ount the opti

ablish a buffe

restrictions i

ss.

eas and specif

c and adjacen

ments to avoid

mum manage

er between tr

dentified on

fy reentry or r

nt landowners

d peak recrea

ement period

reatment area

the herbicide

rest times.

s prior to trea

ational use tim

d for the targe

as and human

e product labe

atment, if app

mes, while tak

eted species.

n residences

el for public

propriate.

king into

based on

guid

100

• Pro

exis

dance given in

0 feet for grou

ovide public n

sts for public e

n the human

und applicatio

otification in

exposure.

health risk as

ons, unless a w

newspapers

ssessment, w

written waive

or other med

with a minimu

er is granted.

dia where the

m buffer of

.

e potential

E‐8
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

Appendix E ‐ SOPs for Herbicide Application

Potential effect Standard Operating Procedures to minimize or avoid adverse effect

Expo

work

sure to

kers

• Adhere to

and worke

• Have licen

herbicides

of a BLM‐c

• Have all B

At a minim

herbicide

• Develop a

applicatio

involved w

safety equ

• Conduct h

aspects of

Fungicide,

entry inte

decontam

safety pos

o entry restric

er access.

nsed or certif

s, or have BLM

certified appl

BLM employee

mum, use the

label.

a Job Hazard A

ns, providing

with herbicide

uipment, train

herbicide app

f EPA’s Worke

, and Rodenti

rvals, persona

ination suppl

sters, and acc

ctions identifi

ied applicato

M employees

icator.

es applying h

type and am

Analysis for B

a detailed de

e use and app

ning, and cert

plications don

er Protection

cide Act, incl

al protective

lies, emergen

ess to labelin

ied on the he

rs or State‐lic

apply herbic

erbicides we

mount of prote

BLM employe

escription of t

plication. Iden

tification to p

ne by BLM em

Standard und

uding protect

equipment, n

ncy assistance

ng and site‐sp

erbicide produ

censed “train

cides under th

ar appropriat

ective clothin

es involved in

the jobs and

ntify requirem

perform speci

mployees in co

der the Feder

tion during a

notification o

e, herbicide s

pecific inform

uct label for p

ees” apply

he direct supe

te protective

ng listed on th

n herbicide

associated ris

ments for per

fic tasks.

ompliance wit

ral Insecticide

pplications, r

of workers,

afety training

ation.

public

ervision

clothing.

he

sks

sonal

th all

e,

restricted

g and

Expo

non‐

vege

osure to

‐target

etation

• Conduct p

within or a

• Consider s

equipmen

• Apply the

pre‐treatmen

adjacent to p

site character

nt in order to

least amoun

t surveys for

roposed trea

ristics, enviro

minimize dam

t of herbicide

sensitive hab

tment areas.

onmental con

mage to non‐

e needed to a

bitat and Spec

ditions, and a

target vegeta

achieve the d

cial Status sp

application

ation.

esired result.

ecies

Expo

terre

anim

osure to

estrial

mals

• Conduct p

within or a

• Use spot a

the proba

non‐target

• Use timin

staging pe

pre‐treatmen

adjacent to p

applications o

bility of conta

t vegetation o

g restrictions

eriods) to min

t surveys for

roposed trea

or low‐boom

aminating no

over areas lar

s (e.g., do not

nimize impact

sensitive hab

tment areas.

broadcast op

n‐target food

rger than the

t treat during

ts to wildlife.

bitat and Spec

perations whe

d and water s

e treatment a

critical wildli

cial Status sp

ere possible t

ources, espec

rea.

fe breeding o

ecies

to limit

cially

or

Expo

aqua

sure to

atic animals

• Minimize

in life stag

broadcast

• Use appro

for off‐site

• Establish a

fish or oth

ecological

treatments n

ges most sens

treatments.

opriate applic

e drift exists.

appropriate h

her aquatic sp

risk assessm

near fish‐bear

sitive to the h

cation equipm

herbicide‐spe

pecies of inter

ent.

ring water bo

herbicide(s) us

ment/method

ecific buffer zo

rest, and reco

odies during p

sed, and use

d near water b

ones for wate

ommendation

periods when

spot rather t

bodies if the

er bodies, hab

ns in individu

fish are

han

potential

bitats, or

al

E‐9
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

       

   

   

   

     

     

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

West Eugene Wetlands

Potential effect Standard Operating Procedures to minimize or avoid adverse effect

Exposure to

threatened or

endangered

species

• Conduct pre‐treatment surveys for sensitive habitat and Special Status species

within or adjacent to proposed treatment areas.

• Herbicide treatments that are implemented when listed plants are growing and

Fender's blue butterfly are active (i.e., in the spring) will be done in a manner that

minimizes effects to listed species by using targeted application methods (e.g.,

wick application or spot spray), distance buffers and/or baffling systems to

minimize the risk of listed species coming into contact with herbicides.

• Glyphosate (by broadcast or spot‐spray) and triclopyr, clopyralid, or aminopyralid

(by spot‐spray or direct basal application) could be applied any time outside of

patches of listed plants as long as application is within label.

• Within patch of listed plants, application of glyphosate, triclopyr, clopyralid, or

aminopyralid would generally be done in fall when listed plants are dormant.

Occasional within‐patch treatments could occur anytime, but listed plants would

be protected by distance or baffling systems.

• Invasive woody species within Kincaid’s lupine patches could be treated with

triclopyr (spot‐spray or direct basal application) in the fall with no contact with

listed plant species.

• Fluazifop could be broadcast using boom sprayers or handguns mounted on

tractors or all‐terrain vehicles, applied by workers on foot with backpack sprayers,

or spot applied to manage competitive grasses.

• Fluazifop could be applied in spring or fall (approximately 3 weeks after burning)

when target plants are actively growing within or outside of patches of listed

plants.

E‐10
 
t

                  

   

   

   

   

   

                       

     

   

   

                   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

  

   

   

   

   

   

	 	

   

   

       

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

	 	

   

     

Appendix F – Valid Existing Rights

Appendix F ‐	Valid Existing Rights and

Continuing Uses

Considering the segmented nature of the planning area, an immense number of rights‐of‐way, leases,

corridors, and other established legal rights have been granted over the years in establishing an effective

cooperative management framework among a variety of owners. The following map (Figure F‐1) and table

(Table F‐1) displays these rights.

Table F‐1. Valid existing rights and continuing uses in the planning area by site.

Parc

No

el

.

* Name Serial No. D

si

eed

gned Acres Valid Existing Rights

1 Eastern

Gateway

OR 48444 11/3/92 16.85 City drainage ditches, public utilities

2 Stewart Pond OR 48585 8/20/93 8.848 Public rights on Bailey Hill Rd

3 Stewart Pond OR 48588 12/22/93 12.34

4 Stewart Pond OR 49375 9/9/93 6.5

City u

City 1

of‐wa

utilities (unde

10‐foot slope

ay & utilities

erground & o

e easement; C

verhead);

ity right‐

5 Stewart Pond OR 49367 6/30/94 41.51 City utilities

6 Stewart Pond OR 48446 4/1/94 10.18

7 Burley OR 50498 12/22/94 3.054

8 Burley OR 52092 4/10/97 0.57 City easement

9 Burley OR 52093 2/25/97 0.448

10 Willow C

Confluen

reek

ce

OR 48463 10

5/

/15/93;

31/96 3.4 Amazon canal channel easement

* Parcel numbers are in reference to parcels shown in Figure F‐1.

F‐1
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

Parcel

No.* Name Serial No. Deedsigned Acres Valid Existing Rights

11 Speedway OR 56179 4/30/02

5/13/03

; 4.2 Storm drainage & sewer easement

12 Speedway OR 54027 9/19/00 32.71 City easement & construction permit

13 Speedway OR 54338 1/2/02 46.12

Conservatio

easement a

easement

on easement,

and construct

, City sewer

tion permit,

14 W

Co

illow Creek

onfluence OR 54854 6/26/00 4.69 Public right

buffer

ts on County road, City WEW

15 Re

(D

d House

Danebo) OR 23598 9/21/79 12.36

16 OR 48462 12/19/94 12.27 Public acces

waterline e

ss to Danebo

easement, pip

Street,

eline easement

17 Balboa OR 48441 5/12/94 69.97

Maintenanc

sewer ease

easement, C

canal easem

private sew

undergroun

channel enh

Memorial G

ce for Amazo

ment, City po

City bike path

ment, City uti

werline easem

nd utilities ea

hancement e

Gardens wate

on Canal, City

owerline

h easement, C

lities easeme

ment, EWEB

sement, WEW

easement, Lan

erline easeme

City

ent,

W

ne

ent

18 Rosy OR 54424 4/7/99 2.7 City utility e

WEW buffe

easement, 3 "

er restrictions

"no build" or

s

19 Nolan OR 53388 9/5/97 1.03

BPA power

powerline e

easement

line easemen

easement, Cit

nt, City

ty utility

20 Oxbow West OR 48443 5/30/94

10/13/9

;

4 25.29

State of Ore

Mountain S

powerline e

easement

egon for Ama

States power

easement, Co

azon Canal,

easement, Ci

one canal

ity

21 Oxbow West OR 54610 3/16/00 10.55

City easeme

buffers and

agreement

ent, 3 reserva

d drainage ma

ations for WE

aintenance

W

22 Vinci OR 48587 9/11/98 52.86

Mountain S

public road

Davidson In

easement, C

water prote

reservation

State powerlin

and utility ea

ndustries railr

City powerlin

ection and W

n

ne easement,

asements,

road spur

ne easement,

EW buffer

,

23 Oxbow West OR 48582 3/14/96 21.95 Mountain State powerline easement

F‐2
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

Appendix F – Valid Existing Rights

Parc

No

el

.

* Name Serial No. D

si

eed

gned Acres Valid Existing Rights

24 Oxbow East OR 49366 3/27/96 39.77

Mou

priva

ease

Chan

ease

ntain State p

ate utility ease

ment, City ea

nnel and bike

ment, City co

owerline ease

ement, EWEB

asement for A

path, City uti

onstruction ea

ement,

B utility

Amazon

ility

asement

25 Summer Oaks OR 48581 4/15/96 55.16

State

Cone

ease

e of Oregon fo

e sewer easem

ment

or Amazon Ca

ment, City cha

anal,

nnel

26 Spectra Physics OR 52335 9/17/97 46.76 Priva

WEW

te well & wat

W mitigation m

terline easem

measures

ent,

27 Nielson OR 48589 2/10/93 58.83 Mou

priva

ntain States p

ate well & wat

powerline eas

terline easem

sement,

ent

28 Larson OR 50850 12/12/94 53.21

Publi

road,

ease

ic rights on G

, waterline &

ments

reenhill Road

buried powe

d, private

erline

29 Turtle Swale OR 49374 9/20/94 25.38

30 Turtle Swale OR 48592 2/10/95 32.55 Publi

Wate

ic rights for C

er District cha

County road, A

annel easeme

Amazon

nt

31 Turtle Swale OR 52354 7/16/96 0.325 City easement

32 Fir Butte OR 52334 4/29/97 18.2

33 Greenhill OR 48590 11/15/93 79.39

EWE

road,

ease

B powerline e

, waterline, p

ments

easements, p

phone & powe

private

rline

34 Oak Hill OR 52512 2/

7/

10/98;

17/06 9.11

BPA

powe

ease

powerline ea

erline easeme

ment

sement, City

ent, City utility

35 Isabelle OR 52332 4/11/97 5.04 Publi

restr

ic utility ease

ictions

ments, WEW buffer

36 Oak Hill OR 51894 1/26/96 44.12 BPA

powe

powerline ea

erline easeme

sements, EW

ent

EB

37 Hansen OR 51144 8/26/94 1

3

34.3 Deed

Adm

restrictions,

inistration ea

, Farmers Hom

asement

e

38 Hansen OR 54629 9/2/99 8.42

39 North an

Taylor

d South O

48

R

077P5 2/5/97 310.4

40C OR 51673 3/5/01 6.08

41C OR 54856 3/2/99 9.69

42C OR 54855 4/5/99 8.77

43C OR 54958 8/20/99 19.52

44C OR 55086 11/10/00 6.36

45C OR 55454 11/23/99 22.2

46C OR 57414 8/28/02 23.44

F‐3
                       

West Eugene Wetlands 

Resource Management Plan 

c=J Valid Existing Rights Parcels 

West Eugene Wetlands

Figure F‐1. Parcel identifiers for valid existing rights within the West Eugene Wetlands RMP.

F‐4
   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

	 	

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

Appendix G – Travel Management Plan

Appendix G ‐	Travel Management Plan
 

Travel and Transportation Management is an interdisciplinary approach to travel and transportation

planning and management that addresses resource uses and associated access to public lands and waters,

including motorized, non‐motorized, mechanical and animal‐powered modes of travel. It is a

comprehensive approach to on‐the‐ground management and administration of travel networks and

transportation systems which include areas, roads, primitive roads, trails, and other managed routes. This

comprehensive approach is driven by the need to provide access to, and across public lands, for a wide

variety of users (including authorized, commercial, recreational, traditional, and other travel purposes),

while establish a long‐term, sustainable, multi‐modal transportation system of open areas, roads, primitive

roads, and trails that addresses public and administrative access needs to and across BLM‐managed lands

and related waters.

Travel Management Plans are the primary decision documents regarding the management of public lands

travel networks and the BLM’s transportation systems. The decisions made in the document are

considered implementation level decisions and stem from those goals, objectives and management actions

decided upon within the RMP. This Travel Management Plan documents the designations applied to the

West Eugene Wetlands Travel Management Area designated under the West Eugene Wetlands RMP.

Resource Management Plan OHV Area Designations

Consistent with 43 CFR 8340.0‐5(a), all public lands are required to have off‐highway vehicle (OHV) area

designations. The OHV area designations are land use allocations that must be determined in the RMP and

classified as open, limited, or closed to motorized travel. The OHV area designations do not apply to non‐

motorized travel, though areas can be designated for non‐motorized transportation systems in the RMP

G‐1
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

	 	

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

       

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

process. The West Eugene Wetlands RMP designated the entire planning area as “limited to designated

roads”. All other portions of the travel management area would be closed to motorized use.

Travel Management Route Designation Criteria

The following route selection criteria for travel and transportation designations have been used based on

the protection of the resources of the public lands, the promotion of the safety of all the users of the

public lands, and the minimization of conflicts among various uses of the public lands, consistent with 43

CFR 8342:

	 Areas and trails shall be located to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, air, or other

resources of the public lands, and to prevent impairment of wilderness suitability.

	 Areas and trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of

wildlife habitats. Special attention will be given to protect endangered or threatened species and

their habitats.

	 Areas and trails shall be located to minimize conflicts between off‐road vehicle use and other

existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, and to ensure the

compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account noise

and other factors.

	 Areas and trails shall be located in natural areas only if the authorized officer determines that off‐

road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, esthetic, scenic, or other

values for which such areas are established.

Additionally, route selection criteria were identified for use in designating routes in a manner consistent

with the objectives established in the West Eugene Wetlands RMP:

	 Provide public and administrative access in a manner that attains resource objectives and attains

the agency’s mission. This may include the agency use of motorized vehicles in order to transport

personnel, supplies, and equipment.

Existing Travel Routes

Within in the West Eugene Wetlands Travel Management Area, there are approximately 4.4 miles of

official travel routes and 4.5 miles of known unofficial or user‐created travel routes (Map G‐1). Evaluation

of these routes against the designation criteria (Table G‐1) determines whether or not designation of these

travel routes is appropriate. As shown in Table G‐1, and as described in detail following, use on some

existing travel routes would cause adverse impacts to resources, wildlife, habitats, other recreational uses,

and values established.

G‐2
 
   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

       

Appendix G – Travel Management Plan

Table G‐1. Evaluation of travel routes against designation criteria.

Wha

not c

at route desig

cause:

nation would Damag

Soil or O

Resou

ge to

Other

rces

Harass

to Wild

Hab

sment

dlife &

itat

Confl

Ot

Recr

ict with

ther

reation

Adve

fo

Est

erse Affect

r Values

tablished

R

A

O

Restricted

Access for

RMP

Objectives

Stewart Pond parking area M M M M M

Danebo entrance & parking area M M M M M

Fern Ridge Path C C C C C

Balboa trail (Tsanchiifin Walk) P P P P P

Danebo trails P P P P P

Stewart Pond trails P P P P P

Eastern Gateway trail P P P P P

Unauthorized Route: Hansen N N N N N

Unauthorized Routes: Vinci N N N N N

Unauthorized Routes: Speedway N N N N N

Unauthorized Routes: North Taylor N N N N N

Unauthorized Routes: South Taylor N N N N N

Unauthorized Route: Long Tom N N N N N

* M = motorized; C = mechanized; P = pedestrian; N = none.

G‐3
               

West Eugene Wetlands 

Resource Management Plan 

Existing Travel Routes 

---- Mechanized Trails 

= Pedestrian Trails 

'""'" Unauthorized Routes 

West Eugene Wetlands

Figure G‐1. Existing travel routes within the West Eugene Wetlands Travel Management Area.

G‐4
 
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

     

   

       

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

   

     

     

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

       

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

       

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

Appendix G – Travel Management Plan

Travel Route Designations

Motorized

The designated roads available for motorized vehicle use are as follows (Map G‐2):

 the parking area at the Stewart Pond site off of Stewart Road, and

 the paved entrance road and gravel parking lot at the Danebo site off of South Danebo Avenue.

The length of these motorized routes totals less than 0.1 mile and covers a total of approximately 0.7 acres

(Table G‐2). Motorized use on designated routes does not establish a threat to listed species nor adversely

affect listed prairie species because they are existing, paved or graveled structures and currently do not

provide habitats needed. However, any continued unauthorized use would continue to contribute to

existing management concerns. OHV use has been identified as a threat to the listed species in the

Recovery Plan and as adversely affecting listed prairie species in the Conservation Plan. Designation of

authorized uses through the West Eugene Wetlands RMP and this Travel Management Plan include the

development of implementation plans for signing, education, enforcement, and rehabilitation to reduce

impacts and threats from unauthorized uses.

Table G‐2. Designated routes and permitted uses.

Designation Routes Permitted Uses Miles Area (acres)

Stewart Pond parking area street‐legal <0.1 0.1

Motorized Danebo entrance & parking area

vehi

p

icles; bicycles

pedestrians

; <0.1 0.6

Mechanized Fern Ridge Path

p

bicycles;

edestrians 1.9 2.8

Balboa trail (Tsanchiifin Walk) 0.6 0.4

Pedestrian Danebo trailspedestrians 0.2 0.1

Stewart Pond trails 1.6 1.2

Eastern Gateway trail 0.1 0.1

total ‐ ‐ 4.4 5.3

Motorized vehicle use on any other roads within the planning area is prohibited. Motor vehicles being

used by duly authorized emergency response personnel, including police, ambulance and fire suppression,

as well as BLM or BLM‐authorized vehicles being used for official duties, are excepted.

Motorized routes are available for pedestrian use, mechanized use (such as bicycles), and motorized use

by street legal vehicles. In addition, city and county roads provide access to the public lands in the planning

area. City and county roads do not actually cross BLM‐administered lands, but are nearby or border many

BLM‐administered parcels in the planning area, including areas in which the property boundaries are not

evident. This Travel Management Plan does not limit or restrict any use of city or county roads.

G‐5
               

11 

West Eugene Wetlands 

Resource Management Plan 

Travel & Transportation Routes 

----- Mechanized Trails 

= Pedestrian Trails 

I 

West Eugene Wetlands

Figure G‐2. Designated travel routes within the West Eugene Wetlands Travel Management Area.

G‐6
 
     

     

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

       

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

   

     

     

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

     

   

     

       

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

     

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

Appendix G – Travel Management Plan

Mechanized

The mechanized routes in the planning area are limited to one trail, the Fern Ridge Path, which is identified

on Map G‐2. The Fern Ridge Path is a paved bicycle path that serves as a recreational trail and commuting

route for local residents. The path was constructed in the late 1990s, and transects the TMP area primarily

along the Amazon Canal. The Fern Ridge Path is limited to pedestrian and non‐motorized vehicle use: no

motorized use or equestrian use is allowed on the Fern Ridge Path. Mechanized use (i.e., non‐motorized

vehicle use) is restricted to the designated roads identified above for motorized use and the Fern Ridge

Path, consistent with the 2005 final supplemental rules. The length of the mechanized routes totals

approximately 1.9 miles and covers a total of approximately 2.8 acres (Table G‐2).

The travel and transportation objective for the Fern Ridge Path is to provide pedestrian and non‐motorized

vehicle recreation opportunities. The Path travels by and through critical habitat designated for Fender’s

blue butterfly and Willamette daisy. Fragmentation of these habitats results from both the Path and

Amazon Canal. Continued use of the Path by mechanized and pedestrian traffic would not change the

currently occurring fragmentation or disruption to these habitats. However, similar to motorized travel

routes, the West Eugene Wetlands RMP and this Travel Management Plan provide additional enforcement

opportunities and rehabilitation tools to reduce impacts and threats from unauthorized uses.

Pedestrian

Routes designated for pedestrian use are identified on Map G‐2 and include the existing Tsanchiifin Walk

at Balboa and existing trails at Danebo, Stewart Pond, and Eastern Gateway. These trails are limited to

pedestrian use only. No motorized or mechanical use is allowed on these trails. No equestrian use is

allowed on these trails. The length of these pedestrian routes totals approximately 2.9 miles and covers a

total of approximately 1.8 acres (Table G‐2).

The travel and transportation objective for these trails is to provide access to public lands in the planning

area and provide pedestrian recreation opportunities. Pedestrian use would continue to cause disruption

to individuals and habitats near the trail. However, the West Eugene Wetlands RMP and this Travel

Management Plan provide additional enforcement opportunities and rehabilitation tools to reduce

impacts and threats from unauthorized uses. Signage and educational opportunities would also reduce

unintended damage to resources through increasing awareness.

Transportation Linear Features

Transportation linear features not part of the travel network or transportation system are considered

transportation linear disturbances. In the West Eugene Wetlands Travel Management Area, these features

consist of unauthorized routes or routes no longer needed.

Rehabilitation of unauthorized trails in the planning area would include the following measures:

 Removal of debris and trash;
 

 Stabilization or decompaction of disturbed soil as needed;
 

G‐7
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

	 	

   

     

       

     

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

   

     

   

   

       

     

   

   

     

	 	

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

       

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

 Use of certified weed‐free native straw mulch or geo‐textiles to minimize erosion and prevent the

introduction of undesirable weeds as needed;

 Seeding or planting with native plant material; and

 Fencing the area or providing other physical barriers as needed and likely to be effective to avoid

future unauthorized trails.

Travel Management Plan Modifications and Maintenance

Travel and Transportation Management is a dynamic process. As such, it is critical that Travel and

Transportation Management continue after an initial Travel Management Plan is completed and are

continually updated as Travel and Transportation Management related decisions are made.

Updates to the Travel Management Plan are independent, but could also be interrelated to updates of the

RMP. Minor modifications of the road and trail network during RMP implementation are allowed as RMP

maintenance. Consistent with 43 CFR 1610.5‐4, minor modifications of the road and trail network would

constitute minor changes in data. Such RMP maintenance is limited to further refining or documenting a

previously approved decision incorporated in the plan. RMP maintenance shall not result in expansion in

the scope of resource uses or restrictions, or change the terms, conditions, and decisions of the approved

plan. Maintenance is not considered a RMP amendment and shall not require the preparation of an

environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. In this context, minor modifications would

be realignments of less than one‐quarter mile of a road or trail. Such minor modifications would not

include the construction of a new road or trail, unrelated to one of the roads designated for motorized

vehicle use or designated trails.

G‐8
 
   

   

   

   

   

         

   

       

       

       

   

       

     

   

       

       

   

       

     

   

       

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

Index

Index

adaptive management.................................................................................................................... 16, B‐2, B‐3, B‐4
 

air quality ..............................................................................................................................10, 27, 29, 47, B‐6, E‐3
 

annual program summary....................................................................................................................................B‐2
 

best management practices.........................................................................................35, 44, 46, B‐5, D‐1, D‐2, E‐1
 

Bradshaw’s lomatium ....................................................................................................................... 7, 9, 19, 28, 29
 

clean water act.................................................................................................................................................... D‐1
 

critical habitat .........................................................................................7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 19, 31, 34, 46, B‐4, G‐7
 

cultural resources ............................................................................................................... 18, 36, 46, B‐7, B‐8, E‐5
 

disc golf .............................................................................................................................................13, 38, C‐2, C‐3
 

endangered species act ........................................................................................................ 7, 8, 10, 18, 19, 46, 48
 

Fender’s blue butterfly .............................................................4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 19, 32, B‐7, E‐4, E‐10, G‐7
 

golden paintbrush............................................................................................................................. 8, 9, 19, 28, 29
 

Kincaid’s lupine ........................................................................................... 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 19, 28, 29, 32, E‐5, E‐10
 

Index‐1
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

           

     

   

       

       

       

       

     

     

   

       

       

     

     

     

   

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

     

   

       

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

West Eugene Wetlands

land tenure zone ...................................................................................................................................................43
 

land use allocation.................................................................................... 2, 12, 13, 15, 22, 24, 26, 27, 44, A‐1, G‐1
 

minerals...................................................................................................................
 

monitoring.............................16, 17, 22, 45, A‐2, A‐3, B‐1, B‐2, B‐3, B‐4, B‐5, B‐6,
 

Natural Maintenance Area......................................................................................
 

O&C Act...................................................................................................................
 

off‐highway vehicle .................................................................................................
 

Prairie Restoration Area ..........................................................................................
 

rights‐of‐way ...........................................................................................................
 

Special Recreation Management Area............................................................... 11
 

special status species ..............................................................................................
 

streaked horned lark ...............................................................................................
 

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly.................................................................................
 

...12, 24, 25, 27, 42, 45, 47, B‐9

B‐7, B‐8, B‐9, C‐2, C‐3, D‐2, E‐2

..... 10, 12, 14, 15, 24, B‐5, B‐10

..............................................48

..................11, 48, C‐2, E‐2, G‐1

........... 12, 13, 15, 24, B‐5, B‐10

. 4, 12, 24, 43, A‐3, B‐9, E‐6, F‐1

, 13, 16, 37, 38, 40, 49, B‐8, C‐1

..... 7, 25, 49, E‐2, E‐4, E‐9, E‐10

....................................9, 19, 32

................................8, 9, 11, 19

traditional use plants/resources .....................................................10, 11, 14, 15, 24, 25, 36, 37, 46, 49, B‐5, B‐10
 

travel management..............................................................................5, 50, A‐1, G‐1, G‐2, G‐4, G‐5, G‐6, G‐7, G‐8
 

valid existing rights..................................................................................................
 

visual resources.......................................................................................................
 

water quality ...........................................................................................................
 

Willamette daisy......................................................................................................
 

.............. 4, 24, 43, A‐3, F‐1, F‐4
 

............................... 14, B‐8, E‐6
 

.....................7, 35, 46, D‐1, D‐2
 

............ 7, 9, 10, 19, 28, 29, G‐7
 

Index‐2
Willamette daisy 
United States Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management- Oregon & Washington 

Eugene District 

3106 Pierce Parkway, STE E 

Springfield, OR 97477 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 

FIRST 

POSTAG

Bureau of 

Per