U.S. Department of Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Volume 3
Appendices, Literature Cited, Glossary,
Abbreviations and Acronyms
BLM
Draft Resource Management Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement
Vale District
Baker Field Office
October 20052011
As the Nation’s principal
conservation agency, the
Department of the Interior has
responsibility for most of our
nationally owned public lands
and natural resources. This
includes fostering the wisest use
of our land and water resources,
protecting our fish and wildlife,
preserving the environmental and
cultural values of our national
parks and historical places, and
providing for the enjoyment of
life through outdoor recreation.
The Department assesses our
energy and mineral resources
and works to assure that their
development is in the best interest
of all our people. The Department
also has a major responsibility
for American Indian reservation
communities and for people who
live in Island Territories under
U.S. administration.
Prepared by
Baker Resource Area
Vale District
October 2011
Edward W. Shepard
State Director.
Oregon/Washington
Don Gonzalez
District Manager
Vale District Office
Ted Davis
Field Manager
Baker Resource Area
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
VOLUME 3
List of Appendices
Chapter 1
Appendix 1.1. Laws, Regulations, And Policies that Apply to all Alternatives
Chapter 2
Appendix 2.1.
Appendix 2.2.
Appendix 2.3.
Appendix 2.4.
Appendix 2.5.
Appendix 2.6.
Appendix 2.7.
Appendix 2.8.
Appendix 2.9.
Best Management Practices
Aquatic and Riparian Management Strategy
Livestock Grazing Systems
Sagebrush Structure and Canopy Closure
Determining Stocking Carrying Capacity
Process for Relinquishment Of Preference
Recreation Management Areas
Extensive Recreation Management Area (Erma) Direction
Area of Critical Environmental Concern Monitoring Form
Chapter 3
Appendix 3.1. 303(D) Listed Streams Within The Decision Area
Appendix 3.2. Comparison Between Rangeland Health Assessment and the Ironside Ecosite
Inventory
Appendix 3.3. Sensitive Plant Species
Appendix 3.4. Fragstats Analysis of the Baker Subpopulation of Greater Sage-Grouse
Appendix 3.5. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments
Appendix 3.6. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing
Management for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington
Appendix 3.7. 2010 Progress Report On Evaluations and Determinations of Rangeland Health by
Allotment and Management Category
Appendix 3.8. Details on the Communication Sites Currently Located in the Decision Area
Appendix 3.9. Vale District Office Inventory of Potential Wild and Scenic Rivers in the Baker
Resource Management Plan Planning Area
Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................... LC-1
Glossary ..................................................................................................................................... G-1
Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................................ AA-1
TOC-1
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
APPENDIX 1.1 - LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES
Table of Contents
A. Federal, State, and Local Laws, Regulations, and Policies that Apply to all Resources and
Resource Uses ............................................................................................................................ 1
B. Federal, State, and Local Laws, Regulations, and Policies that Apply to Specific Resources
and Resource Uses ..................................................................................................................... 1
1. Climate ............................................................................................................................... 1
2. Air quality .......................................................................................................................... 1
3. Water Resources................................................................................................................. 2
4. Soil Resources.................................................................................................................... 3
5. Vegetative Communities .................................................................................................... 4
6. Noxious Weeds .................................................................................................................. 4
7. Fish and Wildlife and Special Status Species .................................................................... 4
8. Fire and Fuels Management .............................................................................................. 8
9. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 14
10. Paleontological Resources ............................................................................................. 16
11. Visual Resources ............................................................................................................ 17
12. Cave and Karst Resources ............................................................................................. 17
c. Resource Uses .................................................................................................................. 18
1. Forestry and Woodland Products .................................................................................... 18
2. Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................................ 19
3. Minerals ........................................................................................................................... 20
4. Recreation ........................................................................................................................ 21
5. Renewable Energy ........................................................................................................... 22
6. Lands and Realty ............................................................................................................. 22
d. Special Designations ........................................................................................................ 23
1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ........................................................................ 23
2. Wild and Scenic Rivers .................................................................................................... 23
3. Wilderness Study Areas ................................................................................................... 23
e. Social and Economic Conditions ..................................................................................... 24
1. Tribal Interests ................................................................................................................. 24
2. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice .................................................................... 26
3. Public Safety .................................................................................................................... 27
Appendices 1.1 – p. i
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
APPENDIX 1.1: LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES THAT
APPLY TO ALL ALTERNATIVES
A. FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND
POLICIES THAT APPLY TO ALL RESOURCES AND RESOURCE USES
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended, 43 USC.
1701 et seq., provides the authority for BLM land use planning. The act mandates that public
lands be managed for multiple uses in a manner that protects ecological values, maintains
their natural condition, and provides food and habitat for wildlife.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.,
requires the consideration and public availability of information regarding the environmental
impacts of major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
This includes the consideration of alternatives and mitigation of impacts.
Executive Order 13352 of 2004 (Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation), directs Federal
agencies to implement laws relating to the environment and natural resources in a manner
that promotes cooperative conservation, with an emphasis on appropriate inclusion of local
participation in Federal decision making, in accordance with their respective agency
missions, policies, and regulations.
B. FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND
POLICIES THAT APPLY TO SPECIFIC RESOURCES AND RESOURCE
USES
1. Climate
Secretary of the Interior Order No. 3221, Amendment No. 1 (January 16, 2009) directs
department bureaus and offices to consider and analyze potential climate change impacts
when undertaking long-range planning exercises, which includes RMPs.
2. Air quality
Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes, and Orders
The Clean Air Act, as amended (1990), 42 U.S.C. 7418, requires federal agencies to comply
with all federal, state, and local requirements regarding the control and abatement of air
pollution. This includes abiding by the requirements of state implementation plans. The
following sections of the Act apply to this planning process:
Applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Section 109)
State Implementation Plans (Section 110)
Control of Pollution from Federal Facilities (Section 118)
Prevention of Significant Deterioration, including visibility impacts to mandatory federal
Class I Areas (Section 160 et. seq.)
Appendices 1.1 – p. 1
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
Conformity Analyses and Determinations (Section 176(c))
Policies
United States Department of Interior (DOI) Manual (910 DM 1.3)
1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
2001 Updated Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (1995 Federal Wildland Fire
Management Policy update)
1998 Departmental Manual 620 Chapter 1, Wildland Fire Management General Policy and
Procedures
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 43 (1610) (BLM’s planning guidance and
regulations)/BLM Manual 1601
Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations: As amended annually,
describes policy and operations for all fire-related activities in the DOI and US Department
of Agriculture (USDA).
BLM Manual Section 9214, Prescribed Fire Management (1988), and BLM Handbook 9214
(2000): Describes the authority and policy for prescribed fire use on public lands
administered by the Bureau of Land Management
Other
Vale District Fire Management Plan (BLM 2009)
State Laws and Regulations
OAR 340-200-0040, State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan: This
implementation plan contains control strategies, rules, and standards prepared by the
Department of Environmental Quality.
Oregon Statute 477.013 Smoke Management Plan: This plans places management of smoke
under the authority of the State Forester and the Department of Environmental Quality and
takes into consideration weather, volume of material to be burned, distance of the burning
from designated areas, burning techniques, and provisions for cessation of further burning
under adverse air quality conditions.
3. Water Resources
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1323, requires the Federal land manager
to comply with all Federal, State, and local requirements regarding the control and abatement
of water pollution in the same manner and to the same extent as any non-governmental entity.
The Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 201, is designed to make the Nation’s waters
“drinkable” as well as “swimable.” Amendments establish a direct connection between safe
drinking water, watershed protection, and management.
The Public Water Reserve No. 107 was signed by President Calvin Coolidge on April 17,
1926. The order withdrew certain lands from settlement, location, sale, or entry, and reserved
them for public use. The lands withdrawn are those in public ownership at the time of the act,
Appendices 1.1 – p. 2
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
and those with vacant, unappropriated land containing a spring or waterhole, and all land
within one quarter of a mile of every spring or waterhole
The Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (16 U.S.C. 2001) provides for
conservation, protection and enhancement of soil, water, and related resources.
The Floodplains and Wetlands Executive Orders 11990 and 11988 require BLM to avoid
adverse impacts to floodplains and wetlands.
ORS 390.835(2) sets rules for dredging in State Scenic Waterways. This law requires a permit
for any dredging, regardless of the amount, from the Oregon Division of State Lands
(ODSL). In other waters, a permit is required only for movement of more than 50 cubic
yards. Also, suction dredging in SSWs may not:
a) divert a waterway or obstruct fish passage;
b) include nozzling outside the wet perimeter;
c) move boulders or logs from the wet perimeter, except by hand;
d) disturb any woody plants;
e) excavate from the streambank;
f) fail to level pits and furrows outside the main channel;
g) occur without a ODEQ discharge permit;
h) occur on federal lands without permission;
i) impede boating;
j) operate within 500 feet of a home or campground between 6 pm and 8 am; or,
k) operate within posted swimming areas.
CFR 3809 regulates mineral exploration and development on public land is to prevent
unnecessary andundue land degradation.
BLM management is largely guided by the DOI Strategic Plan (2007 to 2012). Mission Goal
Number One is to “Protect the nation’s natural, cultural, and heritage resources to “improve
health of watersheds, landscapes, and marine resources that are DOI managed or influenced,
consistent with obligations and state law regarding the allocation and use of water.” The first
performance goal to measure success toward achieving this outcome is “…to achieve desired
conditions on 90% of DOI managed stream/ shoreline miles where condition is known and as
specified in management plans by 2012.” This is measured annually by accounting for a the
miles of stream/shoreline achieving PFC.
Taylor Grazing Act, 43 USC 315 was passed in 1934 to stop injury to the public grazing
lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration, to provide for their orderly use,
improvement, and development, to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public
range, and for other purposes.
4. Soil Resources
The Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (16 U.S.C. 2001) provides for
conservation, protection and enhancement of soil, water, and related resources.
Appendices 1.1 – p. 3
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
5. Vegetative Communities
Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for
Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the States of Oregon and
Washington (USDI-BLM, 1997) provides direction to promote healthy sustainable rangeland
ecosystems, restore and improve public rangelands, and to provide sustainable resources to
support the livestock industry.
BLM’s National Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (November 2004) contains
guidance for the management of sagebrush plant communities for sage grouse conservation.
6. Noxious Weeds
Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species) provides that no federal agency shall authorize,
fund or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or
spread of invasive species unless, pursuant to guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency has
determined and made public its determination that the benefits of such actions clearly
outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent
measures to minimize risk or harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions.
The Carlson-Foley Act of 1968 and the Plant Protection Act of 2000 (PL 90-583 codified in
43 U.S. Code [USC] 1241) establishes legal guidance and responsibility for the management
of weeds on federal lands. This law authorizes federal agencies to allow states to take weed
control measures on federal lands. It authorizes the BLM to manage noxious weeds and to
coordinate with other federal and state agencies in activities to eradicate, suppress, control,
prevent, or retard the spread of any noxious weeds on federal lands.
The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended (7 USC. 2814) provides for the
designation of a lead office and a person trained in the management of undesirable plants;
establishment and funding of an undesirable plant management program; completion and
implementation of cooperative agreements with State agencies; and establishment of
integrated management systems to control undesirable plant species.
The Noxious Weed Control Act of 2004 established a program to provide assistance through
states to eligible weed management entities to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds
on public and private lands.
The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 requires BLM to manage, maintain, and
improve the condition of the public rangelands so that they become as productive as feasible.
Final Vegetation Treatments on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement and Associated Record of Decision. (BLM 2007)
7. Fish and Wildlife and Special Status Species
Federal Laws and Statutes
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16USC 1531 et seq.), as amended: Provisions of the ESA,
as amended, apply to plants and animals that have been listed as endangered or threatened,
those proposed for being listed, and designated and proposed critical habitat. The Act directs
Appendices 1.1 – p. 4
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
BLM to 1) conserve Threatened and Endangered Species and the ecosystems upon which
they depend, and 2) not contribute to the need to list a species.
Sikes Act of 1974, Title II (16 USC 670g et seq.), as amended: This Act directs the Secretaries
of Interior and Agriculture to, in cooperation with the state agencies, develop, maintain, and
coordinate programs for the conservation and rehabilitation of wildlife, fish, and game
species. Such conservation and rehabilitation programs shall include, but are not limited to,
specific habitat improvement projects and related activities and adequate protection for
species considered threatened or endangered.
The Migratory Bird Act of 1929, as amended: This Act establishes federal responsibility to
protect international migratory birds and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, through the
USFWS, to regulate hunting of migratory birds. The North American Waterfowl
Management Plan signed in 1986 between Canada and USA further sets population goals and
how to achieve them.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended: This Act prohibits anyone,
without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from "taking" bald eagles, including
their parts, nests, or eggs. The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who "take,
possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at
any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part,
nest, or egg thereof." The Act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill,
capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb."
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act (MSA) as amended in 1996:
This Act requires federal agencies to consult with National Marine Fisheries Service on
activities that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) of federally managed
commercial fishery species. The BLM is required to consult on effects to Chinook salmon,
Coho salmon, and Puget Sound pink salmon. The definition of EFH is “...those waters and
substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, or growth to maturity.”
Federal/State Plans and Policies
Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon
and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (USDA-FS & USDI-BLM 1995),
commonly referred to as PACFISH, provides guidance for managing and monitoring grazing
lands adjacent to streams where anadromous fish are present or potentially present.
Decision Notice/Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Environmental
Assessment for the Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing
Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California. (USFS
and BLM 1995).
Eastside Draft EIS. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP)
1(1):7 (USFS and BLM 1997a, 1997 b, 1997c); Scientific Findings. Supplemental Draft EIS,
ICBEMP (USFS and BLM 2000); Interior Columbia Basin Strategy. ICBEMP (USFS and
BLM 2003).
Interagency MOU for the Interior Columbia Basin Strategy. USDA Forest Service, Regions
1, 4, 6, Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain Research Stations, USDI Bureau of Land
Management, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana (USFS et al. 2002).
Appendices 1.1 – p. 5
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
BLM Manual 6521 – State Agencies: This manual updates the Bureau policies and
procedure with State wildlife agencies with emphasis on wildlife-related work on public
lands.
BLM Manual 1745: This manual replaces the BLM manual section 6820, Wildlife
Introduction and Transplants and transmits a revived BLM manual section. It expands the
coverage to plants; provides for implementation of Executive Order 11987; and identifies
key policies and guidelines for the planning, coordination, and execution of fish, wildlife,
and plant introductions, transplants, augmentations, and reestablishment. It provides the
basis to ensure that decisions made are ecologically sound and will not adversely impact
ecosystems.
BLM Manual 6600- Fish, Wildlife, and Special Status Plant Resource Inventory and
Monitoring: This manual updates policy and programs guidance; identifies inventory and
monitoring processes and standards; and establishes evaluation procedures.
BLM Manual 66008/2/1990: Fish, Wildlife, and Special Status Plant Resource Inventory
and Monitoring: This manual updates policy and programs guidance; identifies inventory
and monitoring processes and standards; and establishes evaluation procedures.
BLM Special Status Species Policy BLM Manual 6840 (BLM 2001): It is the BLM’s policy
to comply with the following stipulations:
1. Conserve federally listed and proposed threatened or endangered species and the habitats
on which they depend.
2. Ensure that actions requiring authorization or approval by the BLM are consistent with
the conservation needs of special status species (SSS) and do not contribute to the need to
list any SSS, either under provisions of the ESA or other provisions of this policy.
CA BLM Manual Supplement 6840.06 - BLM Sensitive Species Policy 3/25/1996: It is the
BLM’s policy is to provide sensitive species with the same level of protection as is provided
for candidate species in that is, to “ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out do
not contribute to the need for the species to become listed.” The Sensitive Species
designation is normally used for species that occur on Bureau administered lands for which
BLM has the capability to significantly affect the conservation status of the species through
management.
BLM Manual 6840 Special Status Species Management (BLM 2001): Policy guidance for
sage-grouse habitat conservation is summarized in this manual. It provides national level
policy direction, consistent with appropriate laws, for the conservation of special status
species of animals and plants and the ecosystems on which they depend. Conservation in
this Strategy, and consistent with 6840 policy, means the use of all methods and procedures
necessary to improve the condition of special status species.
National Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (BLM 2004): The objective of this
strategy is to manage public land in a manner that will maintain, enhance, and restore sage
grouse habitats while providing for multiple uses public land. The following five goals will
guide BLM’s implementation of the national strategy:
1. Develop a consistent and effective management framework for addressing conservation
needs of Sage grouse on public lands.
Appendices 1.1 – p. 6
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
2. Increase our understanding of resource conditions and priorities for maintaining and
restoring habitat.
3. Expand available research and information that supports effective management of Sage
grouse habitat.
4. Develop partnerships to enhance effective management of Sage grouse habitats.
5. Ensure leadership and resources are adequate to implement national and state-level Sage
grouse habitat conservation strategies.
The Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USFWS 1986) covers the states of
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, California, and Nevada. The Plan
established recovery population goals, habitat management goals, and 47 management
(recovery) zones. The High Cascades and Blue Mountain Zones (Zone 11 and 9,
respectively) includes the Planning Area. The Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan
described specific criteria for the Pacific Recovery Area (PRA) as necessary for delisting.
Unity Reservoir Bald Eagle Management Plan (USFS 1985): This plan remains in effect
because, although the bald eagle has been delisted, it is considered a BLM sensitive species.
Wind Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) (2006):
Evaluates the potential impacts associated with the proposed action to develop a Wind
Energy Development Program, including the adoption of policies and best management
practices (BMPs) and the amendment of 52 BLM land use plans to address wind energy
development.
GOA Wind Power Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating
Development and Protecting Wildlife (2005): Assesses (1) what available studies and experts
have reported about the impacts of wind power facilities on wildlife in the United States and
what can be done to mitigate or prevent such impacts, (2) the roles and responsibilities of
government agencies in regulating wind power facilities, and (3) the roles and
responsibilities of government agencies in protecting wildlife.
Management Recommendations for Northern Goshawk in Southwestern United States Tech
Manual RM-217 (USFS 1991): This manual provides technical guidelines on how we should
manage habitat that could support goshawks. Furthermore, this manual has various
management suggestions such as snags/acre, times to avoid logging, and habitat densities.
Executive Order No. 13186 directs the BLM to protect, restore, enhance and manage habitat
of migratory birds and prevent the loss or degradation of remaining habitats on BLM
managed lands.
Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-050 provides interim guidance to enhance coordination
and communication toward meeting the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM)
responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Executive Order (EO)
13186. This interim management guidance establishes a consistent approach for addressing
migratory bird populations and habitats when adopting, revising, or amending land use plans
and when making project level implementation decisions until a national Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is established.
Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-114 (BLM participation and support of development of
State Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy development), directs the BLM State Directors,
Appendices 1.1 – p. 7
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
District and Field Managers to consider State Wildlife Action Plans (also known as
Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategies) in land use and conservation planning on public lands.
Executive Order # 13443 “Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation”
(2007) directs Federal agencies that have programs and activities that have a measurable
effect on public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management to facilitate
the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game
species and their habitat.
Oregon Washington Special Status Species Policy, IM No. OR-91-57, issued 11/5/90, as
amended by IM No. OR-91-57 change 1, issued 8/5/91, provides protection for plants which
are not federally listed, proposed or candidates, and assigns these species to one of three lists:
Bureau Sensitive, Assessment, and Tracking. The policy relies in part on the State of Oregon
rules, which includes the Oregon Endangered Species Act, and lists prepared by the Oregon
Natural Heritage Data Base.
Oregon Conservation Strategy (ODFW 2005)
Assessing big sagebrush at multiple spatial scales: An example in southeast Oregon. (Karl,
M. and J. Sadowski 2005)
Oregon’s bighorn sheep and Rocky Mountain goat Management plan (ODFW 2003)
Mule deer management plan (ODFW 2003b)
Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2002)
Migratory Bird Management (http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/bcc2002.pdf)
Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United
States (USFWS 2003)
The Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia): A Technical Conservation Assessment (McDonald
et al. 2004)
Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain
and Enhance Populations and Habitat (Hagen, C.A., ODF&W; 2005): The Baker Local
Area Planning Group includes representatives from the Oregon Department of Wildlife, the
Bureau of Land Management, ranchers. In the future, this working group would encourage
conservation groups, local minors, University’s, and the like to participate in sage-grouse
decisions.
8. Fire and Fuels Management
Federal Laws and Statutes
Protection Act of September 20, 1922 (42 Stat. 857; USC 594)
Reciprocal Fire Protection Act of May 27, 1955 (69 Stat. 66; 42 USC 1856, 1856a)
Economy Act of June 30, 1932 (47 Stat. 417; 31 USC 686)
Disaster Relief Act, Section 417 (Public Law 93-288)
Annual Appropriations Acts for the DOI
The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960
The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of August 17, 1974
Appendices 1.1 – p. 8
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
Healthy Forest Restoration Act, December 2003 (PL 108-148)
Policies
Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations (USDI and USDA 2010)
BLM Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook H-1742-1 (BLM
2007)
Department of Interior Departmental Manual 620 DM 3 (DOI 2004).
1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (USDI and USDA 1995)
2001 Updated Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (1995 Federal Wildland Fire
Management Policy update) (USDI and USDA 2001)
1998 Departmental Manual 620 Chapter 1, Wildland Fire Management General Policy and
Procedures (DOI 1998)
CFR Title 43 (1610) (BLM’s planning guidance and regulations), BLM Manual 1601 (BLM
2000)
BLM National Fire Policy
43 CFR 9212.0-6 Policy: It is the policy of the BLM to take all necessary actions to protect
human life, the public lands, and the resources and improvements thereon through the
prevention of wildfires.
BLM Manual Section 9212, Fire Prevention (BLM 1992): Consistent with Departmental
policy (910 DM 1.4), it is the BLM’s policy that:
1. Prevention of catastrophic wildfires is a high priority. Commitment to an effective
wildfire prevention program is expected at all levels within the Bureau.
2. The wildfire prevention program shall be designed to minimize losses from fire
consistent with resource objectives identified in the RMPs.
3. Wildfire prevention shall stress the analysis of risks, hazards, and values and the
development of specific educational, engineering, enforcement, and administrative
prevention actions.
4. Wildfire prevention activities shall be coordinated with all federal, state, county, and
municipal agencies.
5. Each state and district office shall provide coordination, guidance, and assistance to
achieve an aggressive wildfire prevention program and shall maintain and update as
required a wildfire prevention plan integrated with the fire management planning process.
6. Wildfire Prevention Program funding shall be consistent with the identified needs as
determined through a prevention analysis that is approved as an operational plan of the
fire management plan (BLM 9212-1).
7. The BLM shall emphasize the use of hazardous fuels reduction techniques as part of the
wildfire prevention program.
BLM Manual Section 1742, Emergency Fire Rehabilitation (BLM 2007) and BLM Handbook
1742 (BLM 2007) provide for guidance for emergency fire rehabilitation including measures
to prevent accelerated soil erosion, establishment of noxious and/or invasive plant species,
Appendices 1.1 – p. 9
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
and post-fire management of restoration areas. Fire line rehabilitation would include
restoration of surface contours and closure to vehicles.
BLM Manual Section 9214, Prescribed Fire Management (1988), and BLM Handbook 9214
(2000) describes the authority and policy for prescribed fire use on public lands administered
by the Bureau of Land Management. It is BLM policy that:
1. The role of fire and its potential use will be considered in establishing the management
strategy for all ecosystems.
2. Prescribed fires may be initiated by planned or unplanned (unscheduled) ignition. See
definitions under BLM Manual Section 9210.
3. All prescribed fires (including hazard reduction) projects will support one or more
approved land management objective(s) derived from the Bureau’s land and management
planning process.
4. The planning and execution of the prescribed fire will be funded by the benefiting
program(s).
5. Each prescribed fire project will have an approved Prescribed Fire Plan completed before
ignition and well be reported upon completion. Other agency projects supported by the
Bureau will have approved participation.
6. Each prescribed fire will be managed and executed in conformance with the approved
plan by qualified personnel. The term qualified will include experience, training, and
physical fitness for key positions.
7. Prescribed fire projects will comply with federal, state, and local regulations and
standards, including air quality and smoke management programs.
8. Pre-burn, burn, and post-burn fuel and weather measurement(s) will be taken on all
prescribed fire projects for planning purposes, prescription compliance, and project
evaluation. It may not be necessary to take post-burn weather measurements on fuel
reduction projects.
9. Pre-burn and post-burn monitoring will be conducted to determine whether resource and
fire objectives are achieved, unless where previous documented experience is adequate to
predict post-burn results.
Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations, as amended annually, describes
policy and operations for all fire-related activities in DOI and USDA.
BLM Manual 1740 and BLM Manual Handbook H-1740-1 provide guidance and procedures
for management and treatment of renewable resources, including utilization of managementprescribed fire and emergency fire rehabilitation.
The 2001 Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy states:
1. Safety: Firefighter and Public Safety is the first priority. All Fire Management Plans and
activities must reflect this commitment.
2. Fire Management and Ecosystem Sustainability: The full range of fire management
activities will be used to help achieve ecosystem sustainability, including its interrelated
ecological and social components.
3. Response to Wildland Fire: Fire, as a critical natural process, will be integrated into land
use plans and RMPs and activities on a landscape scale, and across agency boundaries.
Response to wildland fire is based on ecological, social, and legal consequences of the
Appendices 1.1 – p. 10
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
fire. The circumstances under which a fire occurs, and the likely consequences on
firefighter and public safety and welfare, natural and cultural resources, and values to be
protected dictate the appropriate management response to the fire.
4. Use of Wildland Fire: Wildland fire will be used to protect, maintain, and enhance
resources and, as nearly as possible, be allowed to function in its natural ecological role.
Use of fire will be based on approved Fire Management Plans and will follow specific
prescriptions contained in operational plans.
5. Rehabilitation and Restoration: Rehabilitation and restoration efforts will be undertaken
to protect and sustain ecosystems, public health, and safety, and to help communities
protect infrastructure.
6. Protection Priorities: The protection of human life is the single, overriding priority.
Setting priorities among protecting human communities and community infrastructure,
other property and improvements, and natural and cultural resources will be based on the
values to be protected, human health and safety, and the costs of the protection. Once
people have been committed to an incident, these human resources become the highest
value to be protected.
7. Wildland Urban Interface: The operational roles of federal agencies as partners in the
Wildland Urban Interface are wildland firefighting, hazardous fuels reductions,
cooperative prevention and education, and technical assistance. Structural fire
suppression is the responsibility of tribal, state, or local governments. Federal agencies
may assist with exterior structural protection activities under formal Fire Protection
Agreements that specify mutual responsibilities of the partners, including funding.
(Some federal agencies have full structural protection authority for their facilities on
lands they administer, and may also enter into formal agreements to assist state and local
governments with full structural protection.)
8. Planning: Every area with burnable vegetation must have an approved Fire Management
Plan. Fire Management Plans are strategic plans that define a program to manage
wildland and prescribed fires based on the area’s approved land management plan. Fire
Management Plans must provide for firefighter and public safety; include fire
management strategies, tactics, and alternatives; address values to be protected and public
health issues; and be consistent with resource management objectives, activities of the
area, and environmental laws and regulations.
9. Science: Fire Management Plans and programs will be based on a foundation of sound
science. Research will support ongoing efforts to increase our scientific knowledge of
biological, physical, and sociologic factors. Information needed to support fire
management will be developed through an integrated interagency fire science program.
Scientific results must be made available to managers in a timely manner and must be
used in the development of land management plans, Fire Management Plans, and
implementation plans.
10. Preparedness: Agencies will ensure their capabilities to provide safe, cost-effective fire
management programs in support of land and RMPs through appropriate planning,
staffing, training, equipment, and management oversight.
Appendices 1.1 – p. 11
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
11. Suppression: Fires are suppressed at minimum cost, considering firefighter and public
safety, benefits, and values to be protected, consistent with resource objectives.
12. Prevention: Agencies will work together and with their partners and other affected groups
and individuals to prevent unauthorized ignition of wildland fires.
13. Standardization: Agencies will use compatible planning processes, funding mechanisms,
training and qualification requirements, operational procedures, values to be protected
methodologies, and public education programs for all fire management activities.
14. Interagency Cooperation and Coordination: Fire management planning, preparedness,
prevention, suppression, fire use, restoration and rehabilitation, monitoring, research, and
education will be conducted on an interagency basis with the involvement of cooperators
and partners.
15. Communication and Education: Agencies will enhance knowledge and understanding of
wildland fire management policies and practices through internal and external
communication and education programs. These programs will be continuously improved
through the timely and effective exchange of information among all affected agencies and
organizations.
16. Agency Administrator and Employee Roles: Agency administrators will ensure that their
employees are trained, certified, and made available to participate in the wildland fire
program locally, regionally, and nationally as the situation demands. Employees with
operational, administrative, or other skills will support the wildland fire program as
necessary. Agency administrators are responsible and will be held accountable for
making employees available.
17. Evaluation: Agencies will adopt and implement a systematic method of evaluation to
determine effectiveness of projects through implementation of the 2001 Federal Fire
Policy. The evaluation will assure accountability, facilitate resolution of conflicts, and
identify resource shortages and agency priorities.
A Report to the President in Response to the Wildfires of 2000 (September 2000), “Managing
the Impacts of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment” contains the following key
points and recommendations:
1. Continue to Make All Necessary Firefighting Resources Available: As a first priority,
DOI will continue to provide all necessary resources to ensure that fire suppression
efforts are at a maximum efficiency in order to protect life and property.
2. Restore Damaged Landscapes and Rebuild Communities: After ensuring that suppression
resources are sufficient, invest in the restoration of communities and landscapes impacted
by the year 2000 fires.
3. Investment in Projects to Reduce Fire Risk: The fires of 2000 have underscored the
importance of pursuing an aggressive program to address the fuels problem with the help
of local communities, particularly those in the wildland-urban interface areas, where
threats to lives and property are greater and the complexity and cost of treatments higher.
4. Work directly With Local Communities: Working with local communities is a critical
element in restoring damaged landscapes and reducing fire hazards proximate to homes
and communities.
Appendices 1.1 – p. 12
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
5. Be Accountable: A Cabinet-level management structure should be established to ensure
that the actions recommended by the Departments receive the highest priority.
A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risk to Communities and the
Environment: 10 Year Comprehensive Strategy (USDI and USDA 2001): This document
provides a foundation for wildland agencies to work closely with all levels of governments,
tribes, conservation, and commodity groups and community-based restoration groups to
reduce wildland fire risk to communities and the environment. It also provides a suite of
core principles and four goals. The core principles include the concepts of collaboration,
priority setting, and accountability. The four goals are:
Improve Prevention and Suppression.
Reduce Hazardous Fuels.
Restore Fire Adapted Ecosystems.
Promote Community Assistance.
A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the
Environment, 10 Year Comprehensive Strategy: Implementation Plan (USDI and USDA
2001): This Implementation Plan establishes a collaborative, performance-based framework
for achieving these goals and actions with performance measures and tasks to identify key
benchmarks and track progress over time. It also provides tools to deliver national goals at
the local level in an ecologically, socially, and economically appropriate manner. The
Implementation Plan contains the following Implementation outcomes that respond to the
four goals established in the 10 Year Comprehensive Strategy:
1. Losses of life are eliminated, and firefighter injuries and damage to communities and the
environment from sever, unplanned and unwanted wildland fires are reduced.
2. Hazardous fuels are treated, using appropriate tools, to reduce the risk of unplanned and
unwanted wildland fire to communities and the environment.
3. Fire adapted ecosystems are restored, rehabilitated and maintained, using appropriate
tools, in a manner that will provide sustainable environmental, social and economic
benefits.
4. Communities at risk have increased capacity to prevent losses from wildland fire and the
potential to seek economic opportunities resulting from treatment and services.
Restoring Fire Adapted Ecosystems on Federal Lands: A Cohesive Strategy for Protecting
People and sustaining Natural Resources, (USFS October 2002): The primary goal is to
coordinate an aggressive, collaborative approach to reduce the threat of wildland fire to
communities and to restore and maintain land health.
Healthy Forests: An Initiative for Wildfire Prevention and Stronger Communities (Executive
Order 2002): The Healthy Forest Initiative will implement core components of the National
Fire Plan’s 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan. This historic plan
which was adopted by federal agencies and western governors, in collaboration with county
commissioners, state foresters, and tribal officials, calls for protecting communities and the
environment through local collaboration on thinning, planned burns and forest restoration
projects. The initiative will complement the National Fire Plan by reducing unnecessary
regulatory obstacles and allowing more effective and timely actions.
Appendices 1.1 – p. 13
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
Healthy Forest Restoration Act, 2003 [P.L.108-148] – Purposes of the Act include the
following:
1. To reduce wildfire risk to communities, municipal water supplies, and other at-risk
federal land through a collaborative process of planning, prioritizing, and implementing
hazardous fuel reduction projects;
2. To authorize grant programs to improve the commercial value of forest biomass (that
otherwise contributes to the risk of catastrophic fire or insect or disease infestation) for
producing electric energy, useful heat, transportation fuel, and petroleum-based product
substitutes, and for commercial purposes;
3. To enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address threats to forest and rangeland
health, including catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape;
4. To promote systematic gathering of information to address the impacts of insect and
disease infestations and other damaging agents on forest and rangeland health;
5. To improve the capacity to detect insect and disease infestations at an early stage,
particularly with respect to hard-wood forests;
6. To promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species;
7. To improve biological diversity; and
8. To enhance productivity and carbon sequestration
9. Cultural Resources
Federal Laws and Statutes
The Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. 431-433, provides guidance for protecting cultural
resources on federal lands and authorizes the President to designate national monuments on
federal lands.
The Historic Sites Act of 1935 established a national policy to preserve for public use historic
sites, buildings, and objects of national significance for the inspiration and benefit of the
people of the United States.
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470, directs
agencies to consider the effects of proposed actions on properties eligible for or included on
the National Register of Historic Places. A “Historic property” is any district, building,
structure, site, or object that is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
because the property is significant at the national, state, or local level in American history,
architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. In some cases, such properties may be
eligible because of historical importance to Native Americans, including traditional religious
and cultural importance. Section 110 of the NHPA requires each federal agency to establish
an affirmative program to identify, evaluate, protect, and preserve historic properties in
consultation with others.
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. 1996, establishes a national
policy to protect and preserve the right of American Indians to exercise traditional Indian
religious beliefs or practices including but not limited to access to religious sites. Agencies
are to avoid unnecessary interference with traditional tribal spiritual practices. In addition,
Appendices 1.1 – p. 14
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
compliance requires consultation with tribes when land uses might conflict with Indian
religious beliefs or practices.
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) 16 USC 470, as amended,
defines and provides for the protection of archaeological resources on federal lands,
irrespective of eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places, establishes a permit
system for resources over 100 years old, and requires agencies to provide for public
education and continuing inventory of federal lands.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, 25 U.S.C. 3001,
establishes rights to Indian tribes and Native Hawaiians to claim ownership for the
repatriation of human remains, and also funerary, sacred, and other objects, controlled by
federal agencies and museums. Agency discoveries of such human remains and associated
cultural items during land use activities require consultation with appropriate tribes to
determine ownership and disposition.
National Trails System Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-543; 16 U.S.C. 1241 et. seq. as amended through
P.L. 107-325, December 4, 2002) established a National Trails system to promote
preservation of, public access to, travel within, and enjoyment of the open-air, outdoor areas,
and historic resources of the nation. The Act designated initial trail system components and
established methods and standards for adding additional components.
Executive Order 11593 of 1971, directs federal agencies to inventory public lands and to
nominate eligible properties to the National Register of Historic Places.
Executive Order 13007 of 1996 (Indian Sacred Sites), (61FR104), explicitly does not create
any new right for Indian tribes, but does requires federal agencies to the extent practicable,
permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with essential agency functions to:
Accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious
practitioners;
Avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites; and
Maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites.
Executive Order 13175 of 2000 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) provides, in part, that each federal agency shall establish regular and
meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian tribal governments in the development
of regulatory practices on federal matters that significantly or uniquely affect their
communities.
Executive Order 13287 of 2003 (Preserve America), directs federal agencies to provide
leadership in preserving America’s heritage by actively advancing the protection,
enhancement, and contemporary use of historic properties managed by the federal
government, and by promoting intergovernmental cooperation and partnerships for the
preservation and use of historic properties, and establishing agency accountability for
inventory and stewardship.
36 CFR 60 and 63 discuss the National Register of Historic Places and eligibility criteria for
listing properties.
36 CFR 68 describes the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the treatment of historic
properties.
36 CFR 800 outlines the NHPA Section 106 process for protecting historic properties.
Appendices 1.1 – p. 15
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
43 CFR 3 and 7 discuss the preservation of American antiquities and archaeological sites.
43 CFR 10 discuss requirements for implementing the Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act.
BLM Regional Policy, Direction, and Guidance
BLM Manuals 8100 Series: Cultural Resources Management: The manual is a reference
source that provides basic information and general summary guidance for BLM’s cultural
resource management program. The series includes 8110: Identifying Cultural Resources;
8120: Tribal Consultation under Cultural Resource Authorities; 8130: Planning for Uses of
Cultural Resources; 8140: Protecting Cultural Resources; H-8120-1: Guidelines for
Conducting Tribal Consultation.
The BLM meets its NHPA responsibilities under a protocol agreement with the Oregon State
Historic Preservation Office, as provided for in the national BLM Programmatic Agreement,
and through consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Related Management Plans
Oregon Trail Management Plan (1989): The management plan provides direction for
management of the Oregon Trail within the Planning Area.
10. Paleontological Resources
Federal Laws and Statutes
FLPMA of 1976 (P.L. 94-579) requires that the public lands be managed in a manner that
protects the ". . . quality of scientific . . ." and other values. The Act also requires the public
lands to be inventoried and provides that permits may be required for the use, occupancy, and
development of the public lands.
NEPA of 1969 (P.L. 91-190) requires that ". . . important historic, cultural and natural aspects
of our national heritage . . ." be protected, and that ". . . a systematic, interdisciplinary
approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences ... in planning
and decision making ..." be followed.
Title 43 CFR, Subpart 8365 addresses the collection of invertebrate fossils and, by
administrative extension, fossil plants.
Title 43 CFR, Subpart 3622 addresses the free use collection of petrified wood as a mineral
material for non-commercial purposes.
Title 43 CFR Subpart 3621 addresses collection of petrified wood for specimens exceeding
250 pounds in weight.
Title 43 CFR, Subpart 3610 addresses the sale of petrified wood as a mineral material for
commercial purposes.
Title 43 CFR, Subparts 3802 and 3809 address protection of paleontological resources from
operations authorized under the mining laws.
Title 43 CFR, Subpart 8200 addresses procedures and practices for the management of lands
that have outstanding natural history values, such as fossils, which are of scientific interest.
Appendices 1.1 – p. 16
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
Title 43 CFR, Subpart 1610.7-2 addresses the establishment of areas of critical environmental
concern (ACECs) for the management and protection of significant natural resources, such as
paleontological localities.
Title 43 CFR Subpart 8364 addresses the use of closure or restriction of public lands to
protect resources. Such closures or restrictions may be used to protect important fossil
localities.
Title 43 CFR Subpart 8365.1-5 addresses the willful disturbance, removal and destruction of
scientific resources or natural objects and 8360.0-7 identifies the penalties for such
violations.
Title 36 CFR, Subpart 62 addresses procedures to identify, designate, and recognize national
natural landmarks, which include fossil areas.
18 USC Section 641 addresses the unauthorized collection of fossils as a type of government
property.
Secretarial Order 3104 grants to BLM the authority to issue paleontological resource use
permits for lands under its jurisdiction.
Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 and 43 CFR Title 3162 provide for the protection of
natural resources and other environmental concerns, used to protect paleontological resources
where appropriate.
Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-691) and Title 43 CFR Subpart 37
address protection of significant caves and cave resources, including paleontological
resources.
Washington Office Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2009-011: Assessment and Mitigation of
Potential Impacts to Paleontological Resources provides guidelines for assessing potential
impacts to paleontological resources in order to determine mitigation steps for federal actions
on public lands.
BLM Regional Policy, Direction, and Guidance
BLM Manual 8270: Paleontological Resource Management Program and Handbook 8270-1
provides uniform policy and direction for the BLM Paleontological Resource Management
Program. The objective of the program is to provide a consistent and comprehensive
approach in all aspects relating to the management of paleontological resources, including
identification, evaluation, protection, and use.
The BLM OR/WA strategy document for managing vertebrate fossil resources (Martin 1995).
11. Visual Resources
BLM Handbook 8400; Visual Resource Management (BLM 1992).
12. Cave and Karst Resources
Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988, 16 USC 4301, requires federal agencies to
identify, protect, and maintain significant caves. The locations of such caves may be kept
Appendices 1.1 – p. 17
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
confidential. Protection is afforded to not only the geologic structure, but also the associated
decorations, inhabitants, artifacts, and water resources.
BLM’s Interim Cave Management Policy (Instruction Memorandum No. OR-95-021)
provides for the following: Where known or potential adverse impacts from human use to
threatened, endangered, and/or sensitive plants or animals … are present … the responsible
authorized officer shall act to protect these resources.
C. RESOURCE USES
1. Forestry and Woodland Products
Federal Laws and Statutes
Stewardship End Result Contracting; Section 323, P.L. 108-7 (U.S. Congress, February
2003): Stewardship contracting focuses on the end result of forest restoration work. It allows
for the exchange of goods (typically forest products) for service work (thinning, road repair,
etc.) to be implemented in contracts up to ten years in length. Planning is done in a
collaborative manner with local government, industry, environmental and citizens at large.
Contracts are performance based; thus, they are awarded on a best value basis to the
contractor that proposes the most efficient, and often most innovative, way to accomplish the
tasks.
H.R. 1904 - The Healthy Forests Restoration Act; P.L. 108-148 (U.S. Congress, December
2003): The Healthy Forests Restoration Act provides a variety of provisions intended to
expedite hazardous-fuel reduction and forest-restoration projects on specific types of Federal
land that are at risk of wildland fire or insect and disease epidemics. The Act also provides:
Encouragement to remove and utilize biomass generated from project implementation;
Protection to watersheds;
Large scale silvicultural research;
Monitoring and early warning systems for insect and disease outbreaks;
Expedited NEPA analysis;
Requirements to maintain and restore old-growth forest stands and retain larger, earlier
seral, fire tolerant tree species in all HFRA projects;
Collaboration between Federal agencies and local communities;
Expedites judicial review of legal challenges to HFRA projects.
Federal Policy and Initiatives
The Healthy Forests Initiative (Office of the President, August 2002): The Healthy Forest
Initiative is intended to expedite administrative procedures for hazardous-fuel reduction and
ecosystem-restoration projects on Federal lands. The intent is to protect communities and the
environment by restoring forest health and reducing hazardous-fuels through forest thinning
and prescribed burning. All activities are planned in a collaborative manner with local
government, industry, environmental and citizens at large.
Appendices 1.1 – p. 18
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
BLM 5400 Manual Series – Sales of Forest Products (BLM, rev. January 1996): Provides
guidance on the planning, award and conduct of timber sales and sales of special forest
products on Public Lands.
State Laws and Statutes
Oregon Forest Practices Act (Oregon State Legislature, 1971): The Oregon Forest Practices
Act establishes minimum harvesting standards and protection measures for forest
management actions within the state of Oregon. This Act serves as a baseline for BLM forest
management design procedures and mitigating measures.
2. Livestock Grazing
Federal Laws and Statutes
Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934, as amended (42 USC 315, 315a through 315r), provides
direction to protect rangelands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration while
providing for managed use and improvement, and to stabilize the livestock industry
dependent upon public lands.
FLPMA of 1976 (43 USC 1701 et seq.) recognizes livestock grazing as one of the "principal
or major uses" of the public lands. It directs that the public lands be managed on the basis of
multiple use and sustained yield in a manner that will provide food and habitat for fish and
wildlife and domestic animals while protecting the quality of other values (i.e. scientific,
scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource and
archeological).
Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 USC 1901 et seq.) provides policy to
manage, maintain, and improve the condition of public rangelands to increase productivity in
accordance with management objectives and the land use planning process.
43 CFR 4100 Grazing Administration, exclusive of Alaska, provides uniform guidance for
administration of grazing on the public lands.
Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and Standards and Guidelines for Grazing
Administration (43 CFR 4180 et seq.) defines the minimum resource conditions that must be
achieved and maintained and the acceptable management practices to be applied to achieve
those conditions: Also, where rangeland health standards are not met and livestock are a
causal factor, adjustments would be made to livestock grazing
Policies
Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for
Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the States of Oregon and
Washington (USDI-BLM, 1997) provides direction to promote healthy sustainable rangeland
ecosystems, restore and improve public rangelands, and to provide sustainable resources to
support the livestock industry.
BLM Manual Handbook H-1740-1, Renewable Resource Improvement and Treatment
Guidelines and Procedures, modified by Washington Office IM-2009-018, require
Appendices 1.1 – p. 19
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
categorization of all livestock grazing allotments and identifies criteria for shifting from one
category to another.
BLM Manual Handbook H-1742-1, Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation,
requires that burned areas will be rested from grazing until site-specific rehabilitation
objectives (confirmed through monitoring and documented in writing) are achieved.
BLM Handbook 4100, Grazing Administration, Oregon/Washington Supplement Release 4107, provides guidance for adjusting livestock grazing during periods of drought conditions.
3. Minerals
Federal Laws and Statutes
The General Mining Law, as amended, 30 U.S.C. 21 et seq., allows the location, use, and
patenting of mining claims on sites on public domain lands of the United States.
Amendments established a policy of fostering development of economically stable mining
and minerals industries, their orderly and economic development, and studying methods for
disposal of waste and reclamation.
43 CFR 3809 regulates mineral exploration and development on public land is to prevent
unnecessary and undue land degradation.
The Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act, 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq., provides that:
Potential oil and gas resources be adequately addressed in planning documents;
The social, economic, and environmental consequences of exploration and development
of oil and gas resources be determined; and
Any stipulations to be applied to oil and gas leases be clearly identified.
The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended; the “Geothermal Steam Act” of 1970, as
amended; and the “Mining and Mineral Policy Act” of 1970, declare that it is the continuing
policy of the Federal government to foster and encourage private enterprise in the
development of domestic mineral resources.
Section 102 of FLPMA directs that the public land will be managed in a manner that
recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals and other resources.
BLM mineral policy (1984) states that public land shall remain open and available for
mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is
clearly justified in the national interest.
The 2001 President’s National Energy Policy states the measures that will increase and
diversify our nation’s sources of both traditional and alternative energy resources, improve
our energy transportation network, and ensure sound environmental management. This policy
was emphasized by Executive Order 13212 which states that BLM must “…take appropriate
actions, to the extent consistent with applicable law, to expedite projects that will increase the
production, transmission or conservation of energy.”
Executive Order 13212 provides the decisions made by BLM to take into account the adverse
impacts on the President’s National Energy Policy.
The Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970, 30 U.S.C. 21a, establishes a policy of fostering
development of economically stable mining and minerals industries, their orderly and
economic development, and studying methods for disposal of waste and reclamation.
Appendices 1.1 – p. 20
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq., requires
application of unsuitability criteria prior to coal leasing and also to proposed mining
operations for minerals or mineral materials other than coal.
ORS 390.835(2) sets rules for dredging in State Scenic Waterways. This law requires a permit
for any dredging, regardless of the amount, from the Oregon Division of State Lands
(ODSL). In other waters, a permit is required only for movement of more than 50 cubic
yards. Also, suction dredging in SSWs may not:
a) divert a waterway or obstruct fish passage;
b) include nozzling outside the wet perimeter;
c) move boulders or logs from the wet perimeter, except by hand;
d) disturb any woody plants;
e) excavate from the streambank;
f) fail to level pits and furrows outside the main channel;
g) occur without a ODEQ discharge permit;
h) occur on federal lands without permission;
i) impede boating;
j) operate within 500 feet of a home or campground between 6 pm and 8 am; or,
k) operate within posted swimming areas.
4. Recreation
Federal Laws and Statutes
The Recreation and Public Purposes Act, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 869 et seq., authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to lease or convey BLM managed lands for recreational and public
purposes under specified conditions.
Executive Order 11644 (37 FR 2877; February 8, 1972) provided that off-highway vehicle
(OHV) use will be controlled and managed to protect resource values, promote public safety
and minimize conflicts with uses of public lands. This executive order directed federal
agencies to designate specific areas and trails on public lands where OHV use may be
permitted and areas where OHV use may not be permitted.
Executive Order 11989 (May 24, 1977) further defined OHV, administrative use exemptions,
and directed agencies to immediately close areas and trails whenever the agency determines
that the use of OHV will cause or is causing considerable adverse effects on the soil, wildlife,
and wildlife habitat, cultural or historic resources (42 USC 4321).
43 CFR 8340 regulates Off-Road Vehicles. Subpart 8340 (Off-Road Vehicles) defines OHV
and Open, Limited and Closed areas and defines spark arrestor. Subpart 8341 (Conditions of
Use) defines regulations governing use of OHVs on public lands and lists special rules
restricting OHV use and its effects on resource values. Subpart 8342 (Designation of Areas
and Trails) lists area and trail designation criteria, procedures, and changes. Subpart 8343
(Vehicle Operations) lists vehicle operation standards, including noise restrictions, and permit
requirements for certain types of OHV use.
Appendices 1.1 – p. 21
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
BLM Regional Policy, Direction, and Guidance
The BLM's National Management Strategy for Motorized OHV Use on Public Lands (2001)
provides agency guidance and offers recommendations for future actions to improve
motorized vehicle management.
5. Renewable Energy
Federal Laws and Statutes
Executive Order 13212 states that “[i]t is the policy of this Administration that executive
departments and agencies (agencies) shall take appropriate actions, to the extent consistent
with applicable law, to expedite projects that will increase the production, transmission, or
conservation of energy.”
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Implementation of a Wind Energy
Development Program and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments. (BLM 2005).
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Designation of Energy Corridors on
Federal Land in 11 Western States (DOE and BLM 2006)
6. Lands and Realty
Federal Laws and Statutes
FLPMA of 1976
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.)
Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926, as amended (43 USC 869 et seq.)
The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1971
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000
The Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended
43 CFR 2100 (Acquisitions)
43 CFR 2200 (Exchanges)
43 CFR 2300 (Withdrawals)
43 CFR 2400 (Land Classification)
43 CFR 2500 (Disposition: Occupancy and Use)
43 CFR 2600 (Disposition: Grants)
43 CFR 2700 (Disposition: Sales)
43 CFR 2800 (Use: Rights-of-Way)
43 CFR 2900 (Uses: Leases and Permits)
43 CFR 9230 (Trespass)
IM 2006-067 (BLM’s Wind Energy Development Policy )
IM 2005-006 (Solar Energy Development Policy)
BLM-H-2200-1 (Land Exchange Handbook)
BLM-H-1790-1 (NEPA Handbook)
BLM-H-2100-1 (Acquisition Handbook)
Appendices 1.1 – p. 22
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
BLM-H-2740-1 (Recreation and Public Purposes)
BLM-MS-2200 (Land Exchange Handbook)
BLM-MS-2880 (Oil & Natural Gas Pipeline Handbook)
Wind Energy Development PEIS and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments (BLM 2005)
PEIS, Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Land In the 11 Western States (DOE/EIS0386) (Draft October 2007)
D. SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes, and Orders
FLPMA and BLM policy (Manual 1613 [BLM 1988a]) require the BLM to give priority to
the designation and protection of ACECs during the land use planning process
This analysis and the resultant findings for ACEC relevance and importance criteria and
RNA designation and management has been performed pursuant to FLPMA Section 202 (43
USC 1712[c][3]), 43 CFR 1610.7-2 and BLM Manual 1613 (BLM 1988a) and BLM
Supplemental program Guidance for Land Resources (for Research Natural Areas) 1623
(Oregon State Office 10/1987).
2003 Oregon Natural Heritage Plan, Oregon State Land Board. Depart of State Lands,
Salem, OR
2. Wild and Scenic Rivers
Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes, and Orders
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq., requires federal land
management agencies identify river systems and then study them for potential designation as
wild, scenic, or recreational rivers.
Wild and Scenic Rivers - Policy and Program Direction, for Identification, Evaluation, and
Management, BLM Manual 8351. (BLM 1993)
Clarification of Policy in the BLM Manual Section 8351, Wild and Scenic Rivers, with
Respect to Eligibility Criteria and Protective Management (IM 2004-196)
3. Wilderness Study Areas
Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes, and Orders
The Wilderness Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq., authorizes the President to make
recommendations to the Congress for federal lands to be set aside for preservation as
wilderness.
Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review, (BLM Handbook H-8550-1
Appendices 1.1 – p. 23
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
E. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
1. Tribal Interests
Treaties and Executive Orders
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation: The Treaty with the Walla Walla,
Cayuse, and Umatilla, signed June 9, 1855, ratified March 8, 1859 (12 STAT. 945), reserved
rights for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation to fish off-reservation
at usual and accustomed stations, and to hunt, gather resources, and pasture animals on
public lands in common with other citizens of the United States.
Nez Perce Tribe: The Treaty with the Nez Perce, signed June 11, 1855, ratified March 8,
1859, reserved rights for the Nez Perce Indians to fish off-reservation, at usual and
accustomed stations and to hunt, gather resources, and pasture animals on public lands in
common with other citizens of the United States.
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation: The Treaty with the Tribes of Middle
Oregon, signed June 25, 1855, ratified March 8, 1859 (14 STAT. 751), reserved rights for the
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs to fish off-reservation at usual and accustomed
stations, and to hunt, gather resources, and pasture animals on public lands in common with
other citizens of the United States. Members include descendants of Northern Paiute bands
who were removed to the reservation in the 1880s.
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation: Executive Order (July 2, 1872) established
the present location of the Colville Reservation in Washington. Subsequent orders led to the
progressive diminishment of the reservation, and it was not until 1956 that a significant
portion of withdrawn lands was restored to tribal ownership. Many descendants of the
Joseph Band of the Nez Perce are members of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation. Traditional homelands of the Joseph Band of the Nez Perce are located in
northeast Oregon and southeast Washington.
Burns Paiute Tribe: Executive Order (October 13, 1972) federally recognized the Burns
Paiute Tribe and established the Burns Paiute Reservation. The original Malheur Reservation
was established by executive order in 1872, but was dissolved by subsequent executive order
in 1883. Members include descendants of Northern Paiute bands.
Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, Fort Hall Reservation: July 3, 1868 Treaty with the Shoshone
(Eastern band) and Bannock tribes of Indians, 15 Stat 673 (Fort Bridger Treaty). June 14,
1867 Executive Order to establish reservation for the Boise and Bruneau bands of Shoshones
and Bannock July 30, 1869. The 1868 Treaty articles include the right to hunt on unoccupied
lands of the United States.
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes, Duck Valley Reservation: April 16, 1877 reservation established by
Executive Order for the Western Shoshone; May 4, 1886 Executive Order expanded the
reservation for Northern Paiute; July 4, 1910 also expanded the reservation. The creation and
subsequent expansion of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation relocated bands of Northern
Paiute, Northern Shoshone, and Bannock people.
Appendices 1.1 – p. 24
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes, Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation: In 1892,
allotments of land were made to the Northern Paiute and Shoshone under the General
Allotment Act of 1887. Reservation lands are located in Nevada and Oregon.
Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes, and Orders
NEPA of 1969 establishes national policy for protection and enhancement of the human
environment. Part of the function of the federal government, as stated in the Act, is to
"…preserve important … cultural … aspects of our national heritage and maintain whenever
possible an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice."
FLPMA of 1976 requires coordination with Indian tribes, as well as with other federal
agencies and state and local governments, in the preparation and maintenance of an inventory
of the public lands and their various resource and other values, in the development and
maintenance of long- range plans providing for the use management of the public lands.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 resolves that it shall be the policy of the
United States to protect and preserve for the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native
Hawaiian the inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise their traditional
religions, including but not limited to access to religious sites, use and possession of sacred
objects, and freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites. Federal agencies
are directed to evaluate their policies and procedures to determine if changes are needed to
ensure that such rights and freedoms are not disrupted by agency practices. The Act, a
specific expression of First Amendment guarantees of religious freedom, is not implemented
by regulations.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, addresses preservation of historic
properties, including historical, archaeological, and architectural districts, sites, buildings,
structures, and objects that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. In some
cases, such properties may be eligible because of historical importance to Native Americans,
including traditional religious and cultural importance. Federal agencies must take into
account effects of their undertakings on eligible properties.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 provides for the protection and
management of archaeological resources, and specifically requires notification of the affected
Indian tribe if archaeological investigations proposed in a permit application would result in
harm to or destruction of any location considered by the tribe to have religious or cultural
importance.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, 25 U.S.C. 3001,
establishes rights to Indian tribes and Native Hawaiians to claim ownership and repatriate
human remains, and also funerary, sacred, and other objects, controlled by federal agencies
and museums. Agency discoveries of human remains and associated cultural items during
land use activities require consultation with appropriate tribes to determine ownership and
disposition.
Executive Order 13007 of 1996 (Indian Sacred Sites), (61FR104), explicitly does not create
any new right for Indian tribes, but does requires federal agencies to the extent practicable,
permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with essential agency functions to:
Appendices 1.1 – p. 25
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
Accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious
practitioners;
Avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites; and
Maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites.
Executive Order 13175 of 2000 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) provides, in part, that each federal agency shall establish regular and
meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian tribal governments in the development
of regulatory practices on federal matters that significantly or uniquely affect their
communities.
Secretarial Order 3206 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act) requires DOI agencies to consult with
Indian Tribes when agency actions to protect a listed species, as a result of compliance with
ESA, affect or may affect Indian lands, tribal trust resources, or the exercise of American
Indian tribal rights.
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations) (49 FR 7629) (1994) requires that each federal
agency consider the impacts of its programs on minority populations and low-income
populations.
Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 (currently listed in the Federal Register for reauthorization) provides a tool for tribes to propose work and enter into contracts and
agreement with the USFS or BLM to reduce threats from catastrophic events that originate
on federal lands adjacent to Indian trust land and Indian communities.
BLM Regional Policy, Direction, and Guidance
The BLM Oregon State Office and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation signed an MOU for coordination and consultation on resource management and
preservation issues.
The BLM Oregon State Office and the Burns Paiute Tribe signed an MOU for coordination
and consultation on resource management and preservation issues.
The BLM Oregon State Office and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation
signed an MOU for coordination and consultation on resource management and preservation
issues.
2. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
BLM Regional Policy, Direction, and Guidance
BLM planning regulations (43 CFR 1610.4-3 and 1610.4-6) require that RMPs consider
social, economic, and institutional information.
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations) (49 FR 7629) requires that each federal agency
consider the impacts of its programs on minority populations and low-income populations.
Appendices 1.1 – p. 26
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 1.1: Laws, Regulations, and Policies
3. Public Safety
Federal Laws, Regulations, Statutes, and Orders
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, Pub. L. 94-580), as amended: In 1976,
RCRA established a system for managing non-hazardous and hazardous solid wastes in an
environmentally sound manner. Specifically, it provides for the management of hazardous
wastes from the point of origin to the point of final disposal (i.e., “cradle to grave”). RCRA
also promotes resource recovery and waste minimization.
Appendices 1.1 – p. 27
Baker FO Draft RMP
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
APPENDIX 2.1 - BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 1
1. Climate Change.................................................................................................................. 1
3. Water and Soil Resources .................................................................................................. 1
4. Invasive Plants and noxious weeds .................................................................................... 9
5. Invasive Species (Other than Plants) ............................................................................... 10
6. Fisheries and Status Species (Aquatic Species) ............................................................... 11
7. Wildlife and Special Status Species (Wildlife) ................................................................ 11
8. Special Status Species (Plants) ........................................................................................ 19
9. Fire and Fuels Management ............................................................................................. 19
10. Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 20
11. Visual Resources ............................................................................................................ 21
B. RESOURCE USES............................................................................................................. 21
1. Facilities ........................................................................................................................... 21
2. Forestry and Woodland Products ..................................................................................... 22
3. Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................................ 25
4. Recreation ........................................................................................................................ 29
5. Transportation .................................................................................................................. 31
7. Lands & Realty ................................................................................................................ 42
C. SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS ............................................................................................. 56
1. Wild and Scenic Rivers .................................................................................................... 56
2. Wilderness Study Areas ................................................................................................... 57
NOXIOUS/INVASIVE WEEDS RISK ASSESSMENT ...................................................... 59
Appendices – 2.1 p. i
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
APPENDIX 2.1: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Best management practices (BMPs) are applied during implementation of projects and help to
ensure that adverse impacts to natural resources are minimized. They are applied based on sitespecific evaluation and are effective and practical means to achieve management goals for a
given site. The BLM selects and applies BMPs on a site-specific basis. While BMPs are often
developed in conjunction with land use plans, they are not considered a land use plan decision
because they are not mandatory. As such, BMPs can be up-dated or modified without a plan
amendment.
future decisions on state data or information that is subject to change this should be identified in
the RMP/EIS and a statement included that future decisions will be based on the information
current at the time of the future action. Example: if the BMP’s outlined in Appendix 2.1 are
based on current species data provided by the state wildlife agency and the agency routinely
updates its data, the RMP/EIS should reflect that the data is likely to be updated and future
decisions utilizing the information will be based on data at the time of the future action.
A. RESOURCES
1. CLIMATE CHANGE
1. Consider opportunities to optimize carbon sequestration (storage) when planning forest
health projects and other vegetation treatments.
2. Promote vegetation management activities and projects that will reduce the intensity and
size of future wildfires.
3. Plan fuel reduction treatments and other prescribed burn projects to minimize carbon
release and greenhouse gas emissions that will still meet resource objectives for the site.
4. Consider expected long term changes in future rainfall and temperature patterns when
making seed and seed stock selections for restoration and rehabilitation projects.
5. Aggressively follow an “Early Detection-Rapid Response” management strategy for
noxious weeds and other invasive species as climate change factors are expected to give
some unwanted species an increased competitive advantage over the next several
decades.
6. Plan for larger peak flows in the future during design and placement of new structures
including: bridges, culverts, and other management facilities.
3. WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES
General
1. Limit detrimental soil disturbance from management activities to 15 percent of a project
area.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 1
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
2. Stabilize all management related erosion. Minimize soil loss and sediment delivery that
is in excess of natural disturbance processes.
3. Retain or promote infiltration, permeability, and soil moisture storage.
4. Prevent pollutants such as fuels, lubricants, bitumens, raw sewage, wash water and other
harmful materials from being discharged into or near rivers, streams, and impoundments.
5. Locate ground disturbing activities and facilities away from hydric soils and wetlands.
6. Ground altering activities should not degrade conditions beyond which five or more years
are necessary to recover soil compaction and restore the local native vegetation and
sediment regime. Prohibit actions that compact hydric or wetland soils, reduce site
potential vegetation and thermal cover, and alter hydrology (e.g., infiltration) except to
the minimum extent allowable as determined by the ID team.
7. Use plantings and manage for obligate, facultative, or wetland species around degraded
riparian/wetland sites
8. Do not allow ground-based machinery use within Riparian Management Areas that
increases soil compaction or removes vegetation that exposes soil to additional erosion
processes unless it is needed for restoration work and adverse effects can be mitigated.
9. Changes in hydrology of a stream, spring, lake, or wetland should be for restoration
purposes only.
10. Limit activities within the Riparian Management Areas to those that have either a neutral
or beneficial effect on aquatic objectives.
11. In Riparian Management Areas, employ measures to decrease stream sediment input both
during and after culvert replacement construction activities (e.g., adequate road ditch
relief, cross drains, wing wall rip-rapping).
12. Prior to construction or use of heavy equipment in and around Riparian Management
Areas, flag critical riparian vegetation areas, wetlands, and other sensitive sites to prevent
ground disturbance in these areas.
13. Place sediment barriers prior to construction around sites where significant levels of
erosion may enter the stream directly or through road ditches. Maintain barriers
throughout construction.
14. Plan rehabilitation of all disturbed riparian areas in a manner that results in conditions
similar to or better than pre-work conditions through spreading of stockpiled materials,
seeding, and/or planting.
15. Stabilization measures will be instigated within three days of construction completion or
disturbance. Short-term stabilization measures will be maintained until permanent
erosion control measures are effective. In riparian areas, planting shall be completed no
later than spring planting season of the year following end of disturbance.
16. Retain vegetation on cut slopes unless it poses a safety hazard or restrict maintenance
activities.
17. Prohibit activities that would degrade the sediment regime of perennial, perennial
interrupted or intermittent stream channels unless the long-term objective of the activity
is to restore stream physical function (e.g. juniper removal, thinning conifer
encroachment, etc).
Appendices – 2.1 p. 2
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
18. Limit treatment of riparian areas within each sixth field subwatershed, to less than 10
percent of the total riparian vegetation within any one-year period.
19. Protect soil and vegetation along streams, lakes, bogs, swamps marshes, wet meadows,
springs, seeps or other sources where the presence of water is indicated from disturbance
that could cause non-attainment of Aquatic and Wildlife Objectives with special
consideration around sources that supply domestic water. Leave streamside buffer strips
of vegetation to attain Aquatic Objectives and protect natural streamside beauty.
Biological Crusts
1. Where biological crusts are present, grazing should occur when crusts are less vulnerable
to shear and compressional forces.
2. In areas where biological crusts exceed 10 percent of the potential ground cover, consider
modifying the season of use to avoid trampling of biological crusts in the dry season.
3. Provide designated trails, and restrict use to trails in high density recreational areas with
biological crusts.
4. Where seeding occurs after a fire in areas with biotic crusts use minimal till or no till
drills or other seeding methods that minimize soil surface and compressional impacts.
5. Avoid disturbance of intact biological crusts where possible.
6. Locate salt and water developments at least 500 feet away from well functioning intact
biological crusts.
Weeds
1. Specify mixing and loading locations away from water bodies so that accidental spills do
not contaminate surface waters. Require that spray tanks be mixed or washed further
than 100 feet from surface water.
2. Implement effective invasive plant treatment using the least ground disturbing method
available.
3. Reestablish vegetation as quickly as possible. Stabilize and protect unvegetated areas
until vegetation is reestablished.
Fuels and Fire
1. Ensure that removal of vegetation or ground disturbing activities do not increase erosion
for more than one season. Mitigation measures such as buffers, hydro-seeding, and
wattles must be applied prior to fall precipitation (usually in October).
2. Prohibit ignition within riparian management areas, and locate ignition lines away from
large open meadows, unless prescribed to meet aquatic objectives.
3. Avoid dropping fire retardant that is detrimental to aquatic communities in streams, lakes,
ponds, and in riparian/wetland areas. Prohibit delivery of foam or additives within 100
feet of waterbodies, floodplains, or wetlands.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 3
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
4. Stabilize all areas that have had their erosion potential significantly increased or their
drainage pattern altered by wildfires or by suppression related activities. Treatments
include, but are not limited to:
a. installing water bars and other drainage diversions in fire roads, fire lines, and
other cleared areas;
b. seeding, planting and fertilizing to provide vegetative cover;
c. spreading slash or mulch to protect bare soil;
d. repairing damaged road drainage facilities;
e. clearing stream channels of structures or debris that is deposited by suppression
activities;
f. installing log erosion barriers (contour-felled and anchored trees);
g. installing channel stabilization structures;
h. installing trash racks above road drainage structures; and
i. installing debris-retention structures.
5. Reduce erosion rates and provide for water quality protection by formulating fire
prescriptions to minimize formation of water repellant soil and maintain adequate ground
cover.
6. Maintain soil productivity, minimize erosion, and prevent ash, sediment, nutrients, and
debris from entering water bodies during prescribed fires. Some of the techniques used to
prevent water quality degradation include: maintaining the integrity of the Stream
Management Unit or stream course; and planning prescribed fires with intensities that
will not result in soils becoming hydrophobic.
7. Minimize surface disturbance and avoid the use of heavy earth-moving equipment where
possible on all fire suppression and rehabilitation activities, including “mop-up”, except
where high value resources, including life and property, are being protected.
8. Install waterbars and seed all mechanically constructed firelines with native or adapted
nonnative species as appropriate.
9. The location and construction of handlines should result in minimal surface disturbance
while effectively controlling the fire. Hand crews should locate lines to take full
advantage of existing land features that represent natural fire barriers. Whenever
possible, handlines should follow the contour of the slope to protect the soil, provide
sufficient residual vegetation to capture and retain sediment, and maintain site
productivity.
10. Suppression in riparian areas should be by handcrews when possible.
11. To protect soil productivity, burning should be conducted if possible under conditions
when a low-intensity burn can accomplish stated objectives. Burn only when conditions
of organic surface or duff layer have adequate moisture to minimize effects to the
physical and chemical properties of the soil and maximize the retention of the organic
surface or duff layer.
12. Pile and burn slash outside of riparian/wetland areas. If riparian/wetland areas are within
or adjacent to the prescribed burn unit, piles should be fire lined or scattered prior to
burning.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 4
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
13. When preparing a unit for burning, avoid piling concentrations of large logs and stumps;
pile small material (3-8 inches in diameter). Slash piles should be burned when soil and
duff moisture are adequate to reduce potential damage to soil resources.
Livestock Grazing
1. Limit livestock trailing, bedding, watering, salting, loading, and other handling efforts to
those areas and times that will not retard or prevent attainment of aquatic objectives.
2. If necessary at water gaps, the stream bank and approach lanes can be stabilized with
native vegetation and/or angular rock to reduce chronic sedimentation. The stream
crossing or water gap should be armored with up to cobble-size rock, and use angular
rock if natural substrate is not of adequate size.
3. Livestock crossings or water gaps should not be located in areas where compaction or
other damage may occur to sensitive soils and vegetation (e.g., wetlands) due to
congregating livestock.
4. The maximum width of a water gap or stream crossing should be no less than 10 feet and
no more than 20 feet wide in the upstream-downstream direction.
5. Install water developments (i.e., spring developments, pipelines/troughs and reservoirs)
to facilitate upland distribution and reduce concentration in riparian wetland areas of
livestock, wildlife. As springs are developed, fence to protect water source and areas
where significant overflow from troughs occurs to protect riparian vegetation.
6. Locate fences so that they do not confine or concentrate livestock near the riparian zone.
Timber
1. Timber harvest and thinning should occur in RMAs only as necessary to maintain, restore
or enhance conditions that are needed to support aquatic and riparian dependent resources
and meet RMA objectives.
2. All protected streams would be illustrated on the Sale Area Map.
3. There would be no yarding of trees or logs, through, in, or across stream channels except
in designated skyline corridors no more than 15 feet wide with full suspension within 25
feet of the active channel within an RMA.
4. Maintain a minimum of 50 percent ground cover to reduce surface runoff and erosion.
5. Identify sensitive soils and maintain a minimum of 60 percent ground cover on these
sites.
6. Minimize site disturbance. Reestablish vegetation as soon as practicable.
7. Ensure that constructed erosion control structures are stabilized and working.
8. Keep detrimental soil disturbance under 15 percent or use remedial treatments to achieve
this result. If disturbed condition on sensitive soils is expected to last for more than one
winter, implement restoration treatments such as seeding, planting, or mulching to protect
soils from elevated levels of erosion.
9. Time logging activities to the season in which soil damage can be kept to acceptable
limits.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 5
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
10. Harvesting and skidding operations during wet conditions would follow the following
guidelines:
a. Cut-to-Length System - Processing of material on the designated skid trails by a
harvester may occur when soils are dry to a depth of four inches. Limit harvester to
one or two passes over the same piece of ground. The forwarder would stay on
designated skid trails covered with a minimum of six inches of slash.
b. Traditional Tractor Logging - Skidding may occur by conventional high-groundpressure equipment when soils are dry to a depth of 4 inches. Equipment is
restricted to the designated skid trails. End lining would be used to move material to
the designated skid trails until soils are dry to a depth of 10 inches. Equipment may,
by agreement, leave designated skid trails when soils are dry to a depth of 10
inches.
11. Generally, confine tractor skidding operations to slopes of less than 35 percent.
12. If debris should enter any stream, such debris shall be removed concurrently with the
yarding operation and before removal of equipment from the project site. Removal of
debris shall be accomplished in such a manner that natural streambed conditions and
stream bank vegetation are not disturbed.
13. Provide adequate width no-cut/no-skid buffers for all perennial streams, springs and
seeps as well as for non-perennial streams, springs and seeps which significantly impact
water quality in perennial waters.
14. Maintain native vegetation on primary disturbed areas (temporary roads, skid trails,
landings, etc.) by seeding with diverse native grass varieties.
Landings
1. Use mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of erosion, and subsequent sedimentation,
on log landings.
2. Shape landings to disperse drainage and direct runoff away from watercourses at the time
of construction.
3. Rock armoring and silt fences with straw bales may be used as necessary to direct water
to areas of suitable drainage and to capture sediment.
4. All new landing cut and fill slopes would be mulched and the mulch would be maintained
throughout the life of the project.
5. Fuel containment systems would be used at all landings.
6. Landings that would not be used again would be contour ripped and covered with slash or
weed free straw if necessary.
Skid Trails and Temporary Roads
1. Scatter slash on all skid trails if necessary and available.
2. Temporary roads would be graded, outsloped and covered with slash if needed at
termination of activities during the season of use.
3. A barrier would be placed at the takeoff of the temporary roads.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 6
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
4. Skid trails that may direct runoff onto roads or landings would have the first 25 feet
covered with fine slash or weed-free straw (achieving 90 percent soil cover).
5. Design and locate skid trail and skidding operations to use designated crossings on draws
to minimize soil compaction and erosion and potential transport of sediment to streams.
6. Install water bars on skid trails when logging is finished (forester, hydrologist or soil
scientist will provide assistance as requested or needed). Water bar spacing is based on
the percent slope of the skid trail, soil texture and erosion hazard rating for the unit.
7. Place water bar outlets, whenever possible, where concentrations of slash or other organic
materials occur to disperse runoff and trap sediment before it can reach a drainage
channel.
Rights-of-Way and Utility Corridors
1. Rights-of-way and utility corridors should use areas adjoining or adjacent to previously
disturbed areas whenever possible, rather than traverse undisturbed communities.
2. Waterbars or dikes should be constructed on all of the rights-of-way and utility corridors,
and across the full width of the disturbed area, as directed by the authorized officer.
3. Disturbed areas within road rights-of-way and utility corridors should be stabilized by
vegetation practices designed to hold soil in place and minimize erosion. Vegetation
cover should be reestablished to increase infiltration and provide additional protection
from erosion.
4. Sediment barriers should be constructed when needed to slow runoff, allow deposition of
sediment, and prevent transport from the site. Straining or filtration mechanisms may also
be employed for the removal of sediment from runoff.
Minerals Management
1. Minimize or avoid adverse effects to aquatic and other riparian-dependent resources from
mineral operations. Ensure operators take all practicable measures to maintain, protect,
and rehabilitate water quality and habitat for fish and wildlife and other riparian
dependent resources that may be affected by operations in RMAs.
2. Structures, support facilities, and roads should be located outside RMAs. Where no
suitable alternative sites exist, locate facilities and roads in a way to minimize adverse
effects to aquatic and other riparian dependant resources.
3. Existing roads should be maintained to minimize damage to aquatic and riparian
dependent resources.
4. Oversized boulders shall not be wasted but shall be broken and utilized concurrently with
the excavated material.
5. The operator shall comply with local and state safety codes covering quarry operations,
warning signs, and traffic control. All necessary permits must be obtained from state and
county agencies.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 7
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
6. Use of the site for equipment storage and stockpiling rock material is allowed for the
duration of the contract or permit. Use of the site beyond that time would be authorized
under a special use permit.
7. All topsoil shall be stockpiled or windrowed, as appropriate, for use in reclamation.
8. Prior to abandonment, all material sites will be graded to conform with the surrounding
topography. Reject and oversize material that is not usable will be placed in the bottom of
the pit, graded, and the pit floor and cutslopes covered with topsoil. Reseeding, if
necessary, will be done as prescribed by the resource area manager. Access roads no
longer needed by the BLM will be abandoned and reclaimed as directed by the resource
area manager.
9. The following operational guidelines for mining activities have been compiled to assist
the miner in complying with the 43 CFR 3809 regulations, which apply to all mining
operations on BLM-administered lands. The manner in which the necessary work is to be
done will be site specific and all of the following standards may not apply to each mining
operation. It is the mining claimant's and operator's responsibility to avoid "unnecessary
or undue degradation" and they must perform all necessary reclamation work. Refer to 43
CFR 3809 regulations for general requirements and performance standards. The BLM
will provide site specific guidelines for some mining proposals.
Fertilizers
1. Apply fertilizers at appropriate agronomic rates so that no ground water pollution will
occur below the root zone.
2. Do not apply fertilizer during or right before significant weather events, such as heavy
rainfall, which will cause runoff.
3. Storage and loading areas should be located where accidental spills will not enter surface
waters and should not be located near wellheads.
4. Follow label directions for storage, mixing, and disposal.
5. Prevent fertilizers from entering streams, use generous setbacks where drinking water
intakes occur.
6. Contain and clean up all spills immediately; report to appropriate regulatory agency.
Recreation
1. Prohibit solid and sanitary waste facilities in RMAs.
2. Sanitation facilities (ranging from pit toilets to treatment plants) will be planned, located,
designed, constructed, operated, inspected, and maintained to minimize possibilities of
water contamination. All activities related to location, design, inspection, operation, and
maintenance will be performed by trained, qualified personnel.
3. Refuse disposal will be managed to protect surface and subsurface soil and water
resources from contamination by nutrients, bacteria, and chemicals.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 8
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
4. Prohibit discharges and disposal of human and animal waste, petroleum products, and
other hazardous substances in or near streams in recreation areas. Educate the public to
conduct their activities in ways that will not degrade water quality.
5. Avoid degradation of water quality by locating pack and riding stock facilities at safe
locations away from springs, streams, lakes, wet meadows, and other surface waters.
6. Recreational vehicle sewage waste should not be disposed of in septic system drainfields
given the potential for chemicals in the sewage waste to kill the microorganisms that
drainfields need to function.
7. Place barriers-boulders, fences, gates, etc-outside of the bankfull width and across traffic
routes to prevent unauthorized ORV access into and across streams and RMAs.
4. INVASIVE PLANTS AND NOXIOUS WEEDS
1. Prior to project implementation, surveys for weeds would be conducted. If weeds are
discovered, they would be controlled prior to ground disturbance or mitigation measures
would be employed to minimize weed spread.
2. Perform a noxious weed risk assessment when it is determined that an action may
introduce or spread noxious weeds or when known habitat exists. (The Noxious/Invasive
Weeds Risk Assessment form is located at the end of this appendix.)
3. All ground disturbing activities should be conducted to minimize or prevent the potential
spread or establishment of invasive species.
4. Materials used for construction, stabilization or restoration projects should be free of
invasive species.
a. Gravel, fill, sand, stockpiles, and borrow materials should be free of invasive
species before use or transport.
b. All seed, hay, straw, mulch, or other vegetation material transported and used on
BLM land for site stability, construction or restoration projects should be certified
by a qualified Federal, state or county officer as free of noxious weeds and
noxious weed seed.
c. All baled feed, pelletized feed, and grain used to feed livestock on BLM land
should also be certified as free of noxious weed seed and propagules.
d. Plant only all states certified noxious weed free seed on construction, stabilization
or restoration projects.
5. All contractors and land-use operators moving equipment in or out of weed-infested areas
should clean their equipment before and after use on public land to remove weed seed
and propagules.
6. All vehicles, including off-road and all-terrain traveling in or out of weed-infested areas
should be cleaned to remove weed seed and propagules.
7. Control weeds annually in areas frequently disturbed such as gravel pits, recreation sites,
road sides, and livestock concentration areas.
8. Consider livestock quarantine, removal, or timing limitations in weed-infested areas.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 9
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
9. Do not locate incident bases, camps (including spike/remote camps), helibases, staging
areas, constructed helispots, and other centers for incident activities in weed infested
areas.
10. The application of herbicides should be conducted to minimize or eliminate direct or
indirect negative effects to non-target species and water quality.
11. Aerial application of herbicides should not be authorized or allowed within 300 feet of
developed campgrounds, recreation residences, or private land unless otherwise
authorized by adjacent landowners.
12. Only daily use quantities of herbicides will be transported to the project site. For remote
locations, such as portions of the Grande Ronde River, not more than a five day quantity
will be transported.
13. When approved herbicides are transported to a project site in a watercraft (inflatable boat,
motor boat, etc), the following protections shall be implemented: herbicide(s) shall be
transported in a buoyant sealed water- and air-tight container. The entire package should
be securely tied to the watercraft.
14. Application of chemicals would be carefully controlled in/near sites with special status
plants.
5. INVASIVE SPECIES (OTHER THAN PLANTS)
(Refer to BMPS specifically listed for noxious weed management related activities. Unwanted
plants are frequently the most common threat posed by invasive species and many of those
BMPs have value for non-plant invasive species as well.)
1. Educate/promote awareness among BLM employees and the public of the threats that
unwanted species pose to public land and natural resources. Report possible discoveries
to appropriate state and federal agencies for further action depending on the species
discovered.
2. Maintain regular contact and coordination with other federal and state agencies that are
also involved with invasive species management.
3. Follow an “Early Detection-Rapid Response” management strategy.
4. Insure that the BMPs listed under Transportation and Roads Management are followed as
roads systems are frequently the most common vector for the spread of invasive species.
5. Insure that BMPs for vegetation treatment projects, timber harvests, silviculture, and
ground disturbing activities are followed.
6. Monitor boats using waters managed by BLM for compliance with the new Oregon law
that requires boats that are of certain classes and size to display an aquatic invasive
species permit. Continue to assist the state with signing boat ramps and intakes, etc.
regarding the new law and with implementation.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 10
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
6. FISHERIES AND STATUS SPECIES (AQUATIC SPECIES)
1. Construction or reconstruction of stream crossings should allow passage for fish and
other riparian dependent species where connectivity has been identified as an issue.
2. Fish passage barriers should be retained where they serve to restrict access by undesirable
nonnative species and are consistent with restoration of habitat for native species.
3. Protect fish habitat and water quality when withdrawing water for administrative
purposes
7. WILDLIFE AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES (WILDLIFE)
General
1. Wildlife escape ramps (bird ladders or other devices) will be installed in all existing and
proposed livestock water troughs and guzzlers to reduce incidences of small animal
entrapment and drowning.
2. Biological (plants and animals) surveys will be completed prior to initiation to all
developmental projects at the proper season to determine absence or presence of special
status species.
3. If any threatened, endangered, or sensitive species are located during project layout or
implementation, management activities will be altered to include proper protection
measures.
4. Use temporal restrictions for permitted activities during sensitive breeding and seasonal
periods for special status species to minimize potential impacts from direct disturbance of
habitat and indirect effects from increased noise and human presence.
5. Use livestock fencing to control livestock distribution and to exclude livestock from
important breeding or seasonal special status species habitats (e.g., riparian zones).
6. Construct fences in accordance with Bureau Manual 1741. The proposed fence lines
would not be bladed or scraped and would be designed to comply with Visual Resource
Management (VRM) policy. Design fences with proper wire spacing to prevent the
passage of livestock without stopping the movement of wildlife. All fences will be
installed with wire stays and smooth wire bottom strands to reduce incidence of injury
and/or death to big game animals.
7. Use riding and herding livestock to control use in sensitive areas.
8. Employ radio-telemetry as appropriate to acquire detailed wildlife data including: habitat
use, home range size, mortality and survivorship, and migration timing and routes.
9. Developments actions (i.e. construction and maintenance) will be avoided during peak
breeding, nesting, and brooding seasons. (Refer to requirements for specific species.)
10. Use of pesticides shall comply with the applicable Federal and State laws. Pesticides
shall be used only in accordance with their registered uses and within limitations imposed
by the Secretary of the Interior.
11. Apply vegetation treatments may on either a localized or widespread basis to achieve the
desired ranges of vegetation conditions discussed in Section 2.5 and employing tools,
individually or in combination, identified in Appendix G.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 11
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
12. Reseed disturbed areas no later than the fall following the end of construction or
operation and maintenance activities with BLM-approved the seed mixtures and
application methods.
13. Maintain habitat for snag-dependent species and species dependent on large-diameter
trees.
a. Avoid/protect veteran and relic fire survivor trees and snags during location, design,
and construction of proposed new roads, skid trails, and cable corridors.
b. The tree marking guide will assure a diversity of snag structural classes and the
highest probability for long-term retention with emphasis on retention of the largest
snags.
c. Where necessary, an unharvested perimeter will be left around large, relic, fireburned trees and/or snags to protect them from harvest operations.
d. Design silvicultural prescriptions to retain large diameter, live trees (except those
posing safety concerns and infected or at-risk Douglas-fir) which may be managed
for future snag recruitment and retention. Large diameter trees that are felled for
safety concerns will be left on the ground, unless they are within approximately 150
feet of an accessible road and will likely be taken for firewood. In this case, they
could be removed by the operator.
14. Down logs in excess of minimum down wood guidelines within the fuelbreak zone
adjacent to privately owned land would also be removed. In grapple-pile treatment units,
the large-diameter logs will be left in place.
Bats
1. Avoid disturbance of bat maternity and roost sites.
2. Install bat gates at the entrance of caves and mines where necessary to protect important
bat habitats, minimize potential impacts to roosting bats, and protect human health and
safety.
3. Solutions for reducing bat mortality at wind turbines are under development. These
include acoustical deterrents, feathering blades during low wind periods, and increasing
the cut-in wind speed for blade rotation.
Northern goshawk
1. Survey for the presence of nesting goshawks in suitable goshawk habitat for all major
management actions (e.g., timber sales) prior to the implementation of management
activities. Two years of surveys are recommended for all new timber sales.
2. For goshawk, ensure that the most recent version of the E-4 Special Provision issued May
10, 1996, in Instruction Memorandum No. OR-96-78 is included in all new sale
contracts.
3. Management activities should not alter stand structure within a radius of 660 feet from
known goshawk nests.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 12
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
4. Minimize human disturbance in active northern goshawk nest areas between March 1 and
September 30.
5. Nest disturbing management activities should not occur within a radius of 1,320 feet from
known active goshawk nests between April 1 and August 1.
6. For restoration of northern goshawk habitat: retain large pre-settlement trees,
aggressively thin small post-settlement trees, and retain carefully selected small trees as
eventual replacements for the large trees.
7. To sustain northern goshawk and prey habitat implement prescribed fire, various slash
treatments, and thinning from below to achieve non-uniform spacing of trees larger than
46 centimeters DBH, not to exceed 30 to 50 percent canopy opening.
8. Retain some defect and cull trees and trees with dwarf mistletoe brooms for goshawk nest
trees within stands being developed or maintained as nesting habitat.
9. Create a diversity of canopy closures above 40 percent including greater than 60 percent
canopy closures in at least 20 percent of the area to enhance goshawk foraging habitat.
10. Implement group selection, group shelterwood, and variable-spaced shelterwood
treatments along with stand maintaining prescribed fire in dense and multistoried
Douglas-fir potential vegetation types to rejuvenate the stand without destroying the
forest structure important to the goshawk.
11. Implement treatments to convert stands of ponderosa pine located in the ponderosa pine
potential vegetation type occupied by small crowded stems into open stands dominated
by large fire resistant trees with non-uniform, irregular tree spacing through mechanical
means or fire.
12. Limit all overstory or regeneration harvest and increase harvest rotation length in nest
area clusters.
13. Retain at least 60 percent of foraging habitat in mid-aged (20 percent), mature (20
percent), and old (20 percent) forest successional classes.
14. Large diameter snags and logs should be retained in goshawk foraging areas.
15. Retain at least five large (greater than 46 centimeter dbh [18 inches], greater than 9.1
meters [30 feet] in height) snags per hectare (two large snags per acre), and at least seven
large (greater than 30 centimeters [12 inches] diameter, greater than 2 meters [7 feet] in
length) downed logs per hectare (three per acre) in foraging areas comprised of
ponderosa pine forest in eastern Washington. At least 7 large snags per hectare (3 per
acre) with at least 12 large downed logs per hectare (5 per acre) should be retained in
interior-fir forests.
16. Conservation of goshawk habitat should be managed on a landscape-scale and multiple
spatial scales.
17. Closely monitor the impact of the removal of northern goshawks from the wild for
falconry purposes.
Post-Fledgling Family Area (PFA)
a. Within the PFA, design forest health projects and timber sale activities to promote
retention and development of late-successional forest structure. This may include the
Appendices – 2.1 p. 13
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
thinning of overstocked early and mid-seral stage forest stands (approximately 20-80
years) that may or may not have late-successional structural components. Specific
management considerations within the PFA and nest buffers includes:
Harvesting activities would be undertaken within the PFA, with a minimum of 60
percent managed as late-successional forest (e.g., approximately 150 + years) where
sufficient acreage exists to do so. Harvest of late-successional forest stands may
occur only when based upon a risk assessment and a determination of imminent threat
to the viability of the habitat. An example would be harvesting for the creation of a
fire break.
Retention of all large trees, especially ponderosa pine greater than 18 inches DBH
within the buffer area.
PFAs for drier forests east of the Cascade crest should have greater than 60 percent
canopy closure.
Avoid removing late-seral forest in PFAs, and retain snags and downed logs.
Initiate snag creation and recruitment within the PFA.
Management activities must avoid or minimize disturbance during the bonding and
nesting period. Accordingly, seasonal restrictions would preclude all disturbances
from April 1 through August 30.
Use understory prescribed burning and/or thinning when and where appropriate to
reduce fuel loads and accelerate development of late-seral conditions.
Minimize mechanized harvest activities that increase susceptibility to invasion of
exotic and noxious weeds and soil erosion.
Rocky Mountain elk
1. Prohibit motor vehicle use within crucial winter range between December 1 and April 30.
2. Avoid management activities that disrupt areas identified by state fish and wildlife
agencies as important elk calving areas from May 1 to June 30.
3. Avoid management activities that disturb elk wallows.
4. Design vegetation manipulation projects using irregular patterns, untreated patches, and
other methods to provide for optimum edge effect for visual and wildlife considerations.
Layout and design would be coordinated with local ODFW biologists. Seeding would
only be done to enhance and sustain multiple-use values.
5. Consult with ODFW prior to undertaking major construction and/or surface disturbing
activities in high value wildlife habitats, particularly in areas such as ridgelines, saddles,
and upper drainage heads.
6. Maintain adequate thermal and security cover in deer and elk habitat, particularly within
timber stands adjacent to primary winter foraging areas.
7. Range developments will be designed to achieve both wildlife and livestock grazing
management objectives.
8. Post treatment surveys will be conducted on big game.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 14
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
Bald eagle
1. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits
all activities that may disturb nesting and roosting bald eagles.
2. No project activities will occur from February 1 through July 30 (both dates inclusive)
within 0.5miles from any occupied bald eagle nest site that may occur in a project area.
If it is determined that a nest was unsuccessful for the nesting season, the BLM
authorized officer may issue a written waiver to this term and condition.
3. Project activities that have potential to disturb bald eagle winter roosts, shall be restricted
within 400 meters of the roosting area from November 1 to April 30.
4. Where bald eagle nests are blown from trees during storms or are otherwise destroyed by
the elements, continue to protect the site in the absence of the nest for up to three (3)
complete breeding seasons.
5. In bald eagle habitat, a biological evaluation will be conducted or reviewed by a journeylevel biologist to determine if the use of the area by eagles is incidental or essential.
6. An area determined to be essential bald eagle habitat, will be protected from adverse
modification through curtailment of conflicting activities, modification of activities,
seasonal restriction of activities, or avoidance of the area
7. In bald eagle habitat, predator and rodent control using baited traps and/or poisons will
not take place within one mile of an active bald eagle nest or ¼ mile of a known roost.
8. In bald eagle management areas (BEMAs) and essential habitat, fuel wood cutting and
gathering will not be permitted, unless a site specific review determines that it is
necessary to promote desired future habitat conditions for bald eagle and other desired
wildlife species. If fuel wood cutting is deemed necessary to promote habitat conditions,
then the following protective measures will be implemented:
9. sign cut unit boundary prior to the fuel wood cutting season;
10. down or standing fuel wood will not be cut and gathered within ¼ mile of the nest
between January 1 and August 31 if a bald eagle nest is active; down woody material may
be gathered outside of the nesting season;
11. no standing dead tree greater than 18inches dbh shall be cut or removed within 500
meters (i.e., 0.31 mile) of the nest at any time of the year; and
12. no standing dead trees greater than 16 inches dbh shall be cut, unless it meets the longterm management objectives
13. In bald eagle management areas and essential habitat, prescribed fire managers need to
use smoke management forecasts to minimize smoke entering suitable habitat and to
ensure that dissipation will be adequate.
14. In bald eagle management areas and essential habitat, predator and rodent control using
baited traps and/or poisons will not take place.
15. In bald eagle management areas and essential habitat, all vegetation manipulations need
to promote the development of large trees capable of supporting future bald eagle nesting,
perching, and roosting regardless of other land allocations. Timber harvest is allowable
only for the purpose of initiating long-term stand management to achieve bald eagle
habitat objectives.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 15
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
16. In bald eagle management areas and essential habitat, protect all known nesting, roosting,
and perch trees and provide alternative and future perch trees. Generally, these are any
live trees (Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, etc.) or snags over 21” in diameter at breast
height.
17. Reduce bald eagle mortality associated with shooting and trapping which may include
education and enforcement during the nesting season. Provide public information
explaining any need for closures and other measures to protect the bald eagle nest sites.
18. Determine the need and cooperate with other land management agencies on tree planting
for roosting/nesting. Build short-term artificial platforms for roosting and nesting, if
necessary.
Columbia spotted frog
1. Do not fragment or convert wetland habitat to upland habitat through management
activities including, but not limited to: water diversions, road construction, maintenance,
or recreational facilities expansion.
2. Do not degrade wetland habitat or water quality for Columbia spotted frog.
3. Where possible restore wetlands for Columbia spotted frog. Digging in channels, lakes,
or shorelines would be for restoration purposes only and would require protection of
Columbia spotted frogs.
4. Do not locate landings within Riparian Management Areas with Columbia spotted frog
habitat.
5. Do not construct fire lines within Riparian Management Areas with Columbia spotted
frog habitat.
6. New temporary roads will be located outside of zones delivering sediment to Columbia
spotted frog habitat (as determined by soil type, ground vegetation, and slope), will
provide relief drainage, and will be hydrologically closed.
7. Commercial road use, including hauling/blading, will not contribute to siltation off the
road into Columbia spotted frog habitat.
8. Do not allow in-channel, in lake, or shoreline digging where removal of substrate occurs
or significant disruption where Columbia spotted frog spawning or rearing habitat occurs
(e.g., in-stream gravel mining or dredging).
9. Activities will not reduce the amount of vegetative cover to the point of creating
streambank instability. Maintain 90 percent streambank stability for Columbia spotted
frogs.
10. In reservoirs which can provide Columbia spotted frog habitat, allow maintenance or
development of shallow water habitat with emergent vegetation through July to provide
egg laying and development.
11. Limit activities within the Riparian Management Areas to those that have either a neutral
or beneficial effect on aquatic objectives. Timing of those activities will be outside
Columbia spotted frog egg laying/hatching for that area. If not known, restrict activities
from March 1 to May 31.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 16
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
12. Habitat connectivity will be maintained through properly functioning streams, marsh, in
stream, and floodplain vegetation. Restore native sedges, rushes, and willows and protect
Columbia Spotted Frog.
13. Buffers shall be placed in areas where there are established breeding and spawning pools
or Columbian spotted frog habitat.
Utility Corridors and Rights-of-way
1. Unless otherwise agreed to by the authorized officer in writing, power lines shall be
constructed in accordance to standards outlined in 'Suggested Practices for Avian
Protection on Power lines, 'Raptor Research Foundation, Inc., 2006. The holder shall
assume the burden and expense of proving that pole designs not shown in the above
publication are 'avian safe.' Such proof shall be provided by an avian expert approved by
the authorized officer. The BLM reserves the right to require modifications or additions
to all power line structures placed on this right-of-way, should they be necessary to
ensure the safety of large perching birds (i.e. Install bird diverters on any above ground
lines.) Such modifications and/or additions shall be made by the holder without liability
or expense to the United States.
2. Use existing utility corridors and rights-of-way to consolidate activities to reduce habitat
loss, degradation, and/or fragmentation from new construction. Where possible, install
new power lines within existing powerline corridors or highway rights-of-way.
3. If installation is not possible within existing corridors, seek to minimize disturbance to
known breeding, nesting, and brooding habitats by placing powerline corridors >3.2 km
(2mi) from these areas
4. Aggressively treat noxious weeds and other invasive plants where they threaten quality
wildlife habitat and apply best management practices to prevent infestations from
occurring.
5. Managers will err on the side of wildlife protection and use the greatest set-back distance
where feasible and necessary.
Sage-grouse
Livestock Grazing
1. Spring or early winter livestock trailing will be routed in a manner that will avoid direct
overlap with sage-grouse during the breeding season of March 1 April 30 to avoid noise
and disturbance to ongoing breeding activities. Lek locations will be provided to
permittees so they may comply with this conservation measure.
2. Rangeland development actions (such as fence construction or development of water
troughs) in sage-grouse breeding habitat will be avoided during the peak of strutting and
nesting activities (March 1-May 31) and will be located away from established lek sites
in accordance with guidelines established in the “Greater sage-grouse conservation
assessment and strategy for Oregon: a plan to maintain and enhance population and
habitat” (Hagen 2005).
Appendices – 2.1 p. 17
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
Wind Energy Development
1. Sage-grouse protection measures at each tower site (MET and turbine) shall be as
follows:
a. Install perch-guard devices on each anemometer arm to discourage raptors from
perching.
b. Install bird deflectors on the lower portion of each guy wire.
c. Tie at least two (2) brightly colored ribbons on each guy wire, one at a minimum
of four feet and one approximately seven feet, above the ground. These ribbons
should be long enough to allow movement in light winds.
2. The location of MET towers shall be avoided within two miles of an active lek or known
seasonal concentration area (i.e. roost areas, brood rearing areas). A MET tower may be
located within two miles of an active lek or seasonal concentration area if it can be placed
out of the direct line of sight of these areas or if the visibility of the tower can be reduced
in such a manner that reproductive activities are not adversely impacted.
3. Self supporting MET towers are strongly recommended and use of towers requiring guy
wires is discouraged. If guy wires are necessary, all wires shall have permanent markers
(bird flight diverters) attached for their entire length to increase visibility.
4. Additional Best Management Practices (BMPs) may be required to mitigate negative
effects of installing MET towers in sage-grouse habitats.
5. Operators are to provide for monitoring of nearby leks or seasonal concentration areas as
determined by the BLM. This information and associated requirements should be
provided to prospective applicants for wind energy testing and monitoring authorizations
at the pre-application meeting in advance of application filing.
6. Power down applications to each turbine will be installed when winds are strong and
facing perpendicularly to the slope.
7. Any resulting water developments (i.e. temporary reservoirs) will be monitored for
mosquito activity so it shall not be a vector of disease (West Nile) in sage-grouse.
8. Bird-deterring methods will be followed like painting the blades in such a way as to
accentuate them (Hodos 2003).
Ferruginous Hawks
1. Improve prey habitat for ferruginous hawks by providing native shrub vegetation and
increasing edge habitat.
a. Windrow chained brush to provide cover for prey.
b. Maintain or restore sagebrush-grass rangeland by removing Western juniper.
2. Maintain ownership of public lands that have substantial numbers of ferruginous hawks.
3. Avoid seeding of exotic grasses and cultivating in ferruginous hawk habitat, where
possible.
4. Do not disturb nest sites from March 15 to July 15.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 18
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
5. Generally, avoid treatments between March 1 and August 1 each year, especially during
the incubation period when ferruginous hawks are more prone to abandon nests if
disturbed.
8. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES (PLANTS)
1. Conduct botanical inventory for the presence/absence of special status plants prior to all
ground disturbing project implementation. Inventory would be conducted during the time
of year appropriate for species identification, allowing occupied plant habitat to be
identified, mapped, flagged and protected as needed.
2. Avoid locating fire suppression surface-disturbing activities (i.e. control lines, access
routes, helipads, etc.) within special status plant habitats, except when human life or
private property is threatened.
3. Avoid actions that cause concentrated use or disturbance (e.g. trampling, ORVs, road
construction, range improvements) in special status plant habitats.
4. Utilize integrated weed management treatments where invasive plants are encroaching on
special status plant habitats.
5. Avoid adverse impacts of herbicide spraying on special status plants.
6. Avoid application of insecticides within 1/4 mile of occupied habitat unless clearly
beneficial to special status plants, to protect pollinators.
7. Avoid seeding within occupied special status plant’s habitats unless it is clearly beneficial
to special status plants.
8. Use only native seed for reseeding special status plant habitats, when seeding is required.
9. Do not authorize late season grazing in Snake River goldenweed (Pyrrocoma radiate)
locations to reduce browse and trampling damage. (Provide common and scientific
name?)
10. Do not authorize early season grazing in biennial stanleya (Stanleya confertiflora) sites to
reduce trampling damage. (Provide common and scientific name?)
11. Both implementation and effectiveness monitoring would be completed for projects
where there are potential impacts to special status plants.
9. FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT
Refer also to BMPs listed in the “WATER AND SOILS RESOURCES – Fuels and Fire” section.
1. Minimize surface disturbance and avoid the use of heavy earth-moving equipment where
possible, on all fire suppression and rehabilitation activities, including “mop-up”, except
where high value resources (including life and property) are being protected.
2. Install waterbars and seed all mechanically constructed firelines with native or adapted
nonnative species as appropriate.
3. Avoid dropping fire retardant that is detrimental to aquatic communities in streams, lakes,
ponds, and in riparian/wetland areas. Prohibit delivery of foam or additives within 100
feet of waterbodies, floodplains, or wetlands.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 19
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
4. The location and construction of handlines should result in minimal surface disturbance
while effectively controlling the fire. Hand crews should locate lines to take full
advantage of existing land features that represent natural fire barriers. Whenever
possible, handlines should follow the contour of the slope to protect the soil, provide
sufficient residual vegetation to capture and retain sediment, and maintain site
productivity.
5. Suppression in riparian areas should be by handcrews when possible.
6. To protect soil productivity, burning should be conducted if possible under conditions
when a low-intensity burn can accomplish stated objectives. Burn only when conditions
of organic surface or duff layer have adequate moisture to minimize effects to the
physical and chemical properties of the soil. When possible, maximize the retention of
the organic surface or duff layer.
7. Slash should not be piled and burned with riparian/wetland areas. If riparian/wetland
areas are within or adjacent to the prescribed burn unit, piles should be fire lined or
scattered prior to burning.
8. When preparing a unit for burning, avoid piling concentrations of large logs and stumps;
pile small material (3-8 inches in diameter). Slash piles should be burned when soil and
duff moisture are adequate to reduce potential damage to soil resources.
10. CULTURAL RESOURCES
General Cultural Resources BMPs
1. Protect prehistoric, historic, and traditional cultural properties unless an exemption is
specified in a programmatic agreement or a project specific mitigation plan is developed
in consultation with the appropriate recognized tribes and/or State Historic Preservation
Officer.
2. Maintain and enhance cultural resource databases and spatial data.
3. Assess wildfire and suppression effects to all cultural resources known to exist within the
burned area and stabilize or rehabilitate where necessary.
4. Develop predictive models in consultation with the Oregon SHPO and the appropriate
tribal entities for use during cultural resource inventories. Validate and refine modeling
efforts over time, utilizing the most current GIS data available.
BMPs Specific to Construction and Mining
1. Operators shall not knowingly alter, injure, or destroy any scientifically important
paleontological (fossil) remains or any historical or archaeological site, structure, or
object on Federal lands.
2. The operator shall immediately bring to the attention of the resource area manager, any
paleontological (fossil) remains or any historical or archaeological site, structure, or
object that might be altered or destroyed by exploration or mining operations, and shall
leave such discovery intact until told to proceed by the resource area manager.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 20
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
3. The resource area manager shall evaluate the discovery, take action to protect or remove
the resource, and allow operations to proceed within 10 working days.
11. VISUAL RESOURCES
Scenery
1. Short-term reductions to existing scenic integrity levels should be authorized only when
needed to achieve the long-term restoration or rehabilitation of scenic integrity and/or
scenic stability. Reductions should reduce scenic integrity by no more than one level, and
mitigation measures should be designed to minimize the impacts.
2. Special design and reclamation measures may be required to protect scenic and natural
landscape values. This may include transplanting trees and shrubs, mulching and
fertilizing disturbed areas, use of low profile permanent facilities, and painting to
minimize visual contrasts. Surface-disturbing activities may be moved to avoid sensitive
areas or to reduce the visual effects of the proposal.
3. Above ground facilities requiring painting should be designed to blend in with the
surrounding environment.
4. Disturbed areas should be contoured to blend with the natural topography. Blending is
defined as reducing form, line, and color contrast associated with the surface disturbance.
Disturbance in visually sensitive areas should be contoured to match the original
topography, where matching is defined as reproducing the original topography and
eliminating form, line, and color caused by the disturbance as much as possible.
5. Consider the effects on visual values (complete VRM contrast rating) from all new
surface disturbing activities.
B. RESOURCE USES
1. FACILITIES
Septic Systems
1. Septic systems designed for more than 20 people per day, fall under state or US EPA
underground injection control Class V regulations. If septic systems are designed for
fewer than 20 people per day, then other state or local regulations may apply.
2. Locate septic systems far enough from drinking water sources to avoid potential
contamination (minimum setback distances are typically defined by state or local
governments that have oversight of underground injection control or septic programs).
3. Septic tanks and drainfields must be of adequate size to properly treat the volume of
wastewater.
4. Design should be completed by a licensed engineer.
5. Proper operation and maintenance are imperative.
6. Pump septic tanks every two to five years.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 21
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
7. Hazardous chemicals should be taken to a hazardous waste collection site rather than
disposed into a septic system.
Parking Lots
1. Design parking lots to manage runoff appropriately with techniques such as grassy swales
and vegetated filter strips.
2. Design parking lots to allow infiltration, for example concrete grid pavement is a good
option.
3. Sweep up litter and debris, especially around storm drains or other direct connections to
surface water.
All Surface/soil Disturbing Activities
1. Construct recreation sites and provide appropriate sanitation facilities to minimize
impacts to resource values, public health and safety, and minimize user conflicts of
approved activities and access within an area as appropriate.
2. FORESTRY AND WOODLAND PRODUCTS
Timber Harvest and Silviculture
1. Timber harvest projects should be developed through interdisciplinary review that
considers multiple use of the general area and ensures that the harvest systems used are
appropriate for the site.
2. Timber harvest or other ground disturbing projects should not cause irreversible damage
to soil, slope, or other watershed conditions.
3. Clear cutting should only be used only where it is silviculturally essential to accomplish
the relevant forest management objectives, or where the size of clear-cut blocks, patches,
or strips is kept at the minimum necessary to accomplish silvicultural and other multipleuse management objectives. Cutting units should not exceed 40 acres in normal
circumstances; more than 40 acres may be appropriate for salvage of an area already
environmentally damaged by fire, insect or wind, or where larger cutting units would
sanitize the area from an insect or disease infestation.
4. The selection of trees in partial cuts would be made in a manner to improve the genetic
composition of the residual stand.
5. Use directional felling systems where needed to minimize site damage; to protect
streams, buffer strips, riparian areas, cultural sites, or reserved timber (including wildlife
trees); or to increase timber utilization.
6. Logging activities would be timed to minimize adverse impacts to other resource values.
7. Logging units will be laid out in a manner that would reduce the risk of windthrow.
8. Design harvest units and forest health treatments to blend with natural terrain.
9. Each sale plan must include plans for prompt reforestation of the sale area after
completion of the timber harvest operation by natural or artificial means. Disturbed areas
Appendices – 2.1 p. 22
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
will be artificially reforested when natural forest regeneration cannot be reasonably
expected in 5 to15 years.
Logging Systems
1. Plan for use of harvest systems that minimize damage to the site and reserved trees, and
provide maximum protection from fire, insects, disease, wind and other hazards.
2. Ground-based skidding systems are not recommended on slopes that are 35 percent or
greater. Specialized ground-based systems (cut-to-length, harvester-forwarder) may
exceed this limitation based on site specific conditions.
3. Utilize designated skid trails, where feasible, when using ground-skidding logging
systems.
4. Locate skid trails on upper slope positions, as far as possible from surface water. Avoid
skidding across drainage bottoms or creating conditions that concentrate and channelize
surface flow.
5. Skyline yarding systems should have a minimum distance of 150 feet between either the
yarder or tail-hold end, of yarding corridors.
6. Outdated or hybrid cable yarding systems such as hi-lead or jammer systems are
discouraged, but may be approved on a case specific basis.
Slash Treatment
1. To achieve fire hazard reduction and to provide for reforestation and other forest
management opportunities, full consideration must be given at time of sale planning to
desirability and method of slash disposal and site preparation.
2. Slash disposal will be done in a manner conducive to re-vegetation and advantageous to
wildlife.
3. Slash may be burned when necessary and such burning will be in conformance with state
air pollution regulations.
4. Slash may be scattered in cutting units and treatment areas, consistent with fuel loading
limitations.
Landings
1. Design landings to minimize disturbance consistent with safety and efficiency of
operation. (Refer also to BMPs in the “Landings” subsection of the “WATER AND SOIL
RESOURCES – Timber” section.)
2. Landings will be of minimum size commensurate with safety and equipment
requirements and located on stable areas to minimize the risk of material entering
adjacent streams and waters. Landings should be located on firm ground away from
RMAs or surface water. Avoid landing locations on unstable areas, steep side hills or
areas which require excessive excavation.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 23
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
Utilization
1. Encourage complete utilization of all harvested trees, including marginal and noncommercial species. Each forest products sale will provide opportunity for maximum use
of all timber or other vegetative resources sold.
2. Explore opportunities for utilization of unmerchantable material as biomass.
Roads
1. The existing road network should be adequate for most forest management needs. Where
necessary, construct only temporary spur roads. (Refer to the BMPs in the
“TRANSPORTATION – Roads” section.)
Temporary and Restricted System Roads: Closure, Stabilization and Obliteration
1. Close, stabilize or obliterate temporary and restricted system roads upon completion of
all forest management activities. If subsequent treatment access is required following
primary treatment, retain temporary roads until all work is completed.
a. Close by obstructing the road with gates, earthen barricades, logs, stumps, or
boulders as necessary to accomplish temporary closure.
b. Stabilize by leaving road in a condition that provides adequate drainage without
further maintenance.
c. Obliterate by decompacting road surface (ripping and/or sub-soiling) and
obstructing all entrances to the former roadway.
Soil Protection
1. Conduct forested land treatments when soil surfaces are either frozen, dry, or have
adequate snowpack to minimize impacts to soil and water resources.
a. When soils or road surfaces become saturated to a depth of 3 inches, BLMauthorized activities, such as log yarding and hauling, should be limited or cease
unless otherwise approved by the authorized officer.
b. Timber harvest on frozen ground should have a minimum snow cover of one foot
and should be stopped during periods of thawing or other wet periods. If any
rutting of native surface roads occurs, winter logging activity and hauling should
be stopped during these periods.
2. Install water-bars and apply native seed, when available, to skid trails and landings prior
to temporary seasonal closures and following harvest operations. Consider ripping or
sub-soiling on temporary haul roads, landings and main, arterial skid trails to reduce
compaction where soil and slope conditions permit.
3. When ground-skidding or cable-yarding, logs should have the lead end suspended.
4. Use low pressure grapple equipment, if possible, when piling slash.
5. Design and locate skid trail and skidding operations to avoid across ridge and across
drainage operation and minimize soil compaction.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 24
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
6. Allow no more than 12 percent of the area, excluding permanent roads, to become
compacted during initial stand entry. Reentry of previously compacted stands will
include mitigation (ripping, sub-soiling, etc.) to reduce compaction to acceptable levels.
7. Follow-up evaluation of stabilization measures should be conducted to insure that
restoration measures are adequate for re-vegetation, soil productivity and stabilization.
RMAs and Water Quality
1. Timber harvest projects should include provisions to avoid detrimental changes in water
temperatures, blockages of water courses, and deposits of sediment.
2. For each landing, skid trail, or fire trail, provide and maintain a drainage system to
control the dispersal of water and to prevent sediment from entering streams.
3. Where timber should be removed to achieve forest and/or riparian management
objectives that results in inadequate shade protection, plan to promptly reestablish cover
along the stream after cutting is completed. Fast growing deciduous species or other
suitable vegetation may be required to restore shade as quickly as possible. Leave
understory vegetation as undisturbed as possible to filter runoff and help stabilize the soil.
4. Avoid trapping and turning small streams out of their natural streambeds.
3. LIVESTOCK GRAZING
Grazing Treatments
1. Grazing schedules are developed and adjusted through the adaptive management process
on an allotment-specific basis. This process controls grazing to mitigate impacts to
resource values, make progress toward multiple use management objectives, and achieve
sustainability. Grazing management practices would be consistent with Standards for
Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (Appendix 3.6)
and Grazing Systems in the Planning Area (Appendix 2.3).
Rangeland Improvements
Implementation of rangeland projects and improvements is one facet of adaptive management
employed to reduce resource management conflicts and to achieve multiple use management
objectives. The standard design elements and procedures for rangeland improvements
summarized below have been standardized over time to mitigate impacts and will be adhered to
when constructing and maintaining rangeland projects.
1. Preparation of site-specific NEPA analysis documentation (EIS, EA, categorical
exclusion, or administrative determination) of the proposed project will be completed
prior to implementation. Proposed rangeland improvements may be modified or
abandoned or an EIS may be required if the analysis indicates that significant adverse
environmental impacts cannot be avoided or mitigated.
a. Impacts of all rangeland management activities, including project development and
maintenance, in wilderness study areas (WSAs) will be assessed prior to
Appendices – 2.1 p. 25
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
implementation to ensure that they meet wilderness Interim Management Policy and
Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review unless and until the area is removed
from the study category (either wilderness designation or the WSA is released by
Congress).
b. A cultural resources inventory will be completed prior to any surface-disturbing
activities associated with the implementation of proposed rangeland improvements. If
significant cultural values are identified, every effort will be made to avoid adverse
impacts through relocation, redesign or abandonment of the project. Where avoidance
is not possible, the BLM will consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in accordance with the
programmatic memorandum of agreement by and between the BLM, the Council, and
the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (January 14, 1980) to
develop appropriate mitigative measures in compliance with section 106 of the
“National Historic Preservation Act” (1966). Management adherence to agreed upon
mitigative measures will be implemented in compliance with these regulations.
c. Pre-project on-the-ground special status species surveys would be completed in areas
where federally listed, federal candidate and/or Bureau Sensitive species are likely to
occur. If a project could potentially affect any listed or proposed threatened or
endangered species or its critical habitat, consultation with the USFWS will be
initiated (ESA). The project may be modified, relocated, or abandoned in order to
meet ESA requirements. If a project may contribute to the need to list a Federal
candidate or Bureau sensitive species, a technical assistance request will be made to
the USFWS. Mitigation measures or protections to minimize impacts to federally
listed, federal candidate and Bureau Sensitive species will be incorporated into
project design features.
d. Projects which have the potential to adversely affect relevant or important values in
ACEC’s would be evaluated to identify potential impacts. Proposed actions would be
redesigned to avoid adverse impacts, appropriate mitigating actions would be
required, or the proposed project would be abandoned to maintain the relevant and
important values for which the ACEC was designated.
e. A visual resource contrast rating procedure would be employed to minimize adverse
impacts created by proposed projects on the landscape.
2. Surface-disturbing activities associated with project implementation will be held to a
minimum necessary to complete the project. Disturbed soil will be rehabilitated to blend
into surrounding soil surfaces and vegetated as needed with adapted perennial species to
stabilize soils and preclude invasion and dominance of undesirable and weedy species.
3. The existing road and trail system will be utilized to provide access for rangeland project
construction and maintenance. If needed, unimproved trails and tracks may be developed
to reach construction sites unless this action is inconsistent with the management of
SMAs, then other means of access may be required. New trails and tracks would continue
to be used for project maintenance. Any new authorized road construction would be in
accordance with standard operating procedures and BMPs for road construction.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 26
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
4. Normal maintenance of existing projects and new projects will occur, as consistent with
original design, through the life of the plan in order to support authorized uses of public
land. Maintenance can include activities such as replacement of pipeline sections,
fencepost and wire replacement, cleaning of reservoirs within the original disturbance
area, replacement of water troughs, cleaning and maintenance of spring boxes, cleaning
or resetting of cattleguards, and maintenance of livestock handling facilities. While
maintenance of existing facilities may occur in SMAs, there may be further mitigation
actions required to ensure that values of these places are not impaired.
Vegetation Treatments
1. Projects which manipulate vegetation composition, including seedings and woody species
control projects, will be completed primarily to direct vegetation composition toward
desired conditions and to enhance and sustain multiple use values.
2. The preferred method for control of woody species is burning with management ignited
or natural ignited fire, but may include cutting, chaining, or spraying of herbicides.
Vegetation treatment projects will be designed and implemented utilizing irregular
patterns of treatment consistent with topography, VRM, and site potential.
3. Design will provide optimum edge effect for visual quality and desirable landscape
diversity for all values. Layout and design will be coordinated with interested publics,
including ODFW.
4. Current and accepted technologies (including drilling, broadcast seeding, and planting of
seedlings) will be implemented to ensure the success of establishment of desired species
mixtures and attainment of desired future conditions within vegetation communities.
Methods of establishment used will be determined on a site-specific basis during project
planning.
a. Seed mixtures will be determined on a site-specific basis to include perennial species
adapted to climatic and edaphic conditions, based on the best available information
from appropriate State and local rangeland and wildlife experts.
b. Seeding of herbaceous and shrub species will be accomplished primarily by use of
rangeland drill or similar techniques to enhance the probability of seeding success.
Where rangeland drills are used, slopes will be drilled on the contour to minimize soil
movement.
c. Broadcast seeding of herbaceous and shrub species will occur on small disturbed
areas, rough terrain, and rocky areas where drilling is inappropriate.
d. Proposed seeding within WSA’s or RNA’s would be addressed on a case-by-case
basis in accordance with policies.
e. All seedings, including those areas rehabilitated following wildland fire, will be
deferred from livestock grazing until seeding establishment objectives have been
achieved. Additional herbaceous production resulting from vegetation manipulation
projects and fire will not be allocated for use until monitoring data support that it is
available on a sustained basis.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 27
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
Water Developments
1. Water developments would follow established standards for construction (BLM Manual
Handbook H-1741-2).
2. Reservoir development would involve the construction of pits and dams to impound
surface water for livestock, wildlife, and other resource values.
a. Rights to use water on public land associated with the construction of reservoirs and
pits be acquired, perfected, maintained and administered under the substantive and
procedural laws of the State of Oregon.
b. Pits would be constructed in playas, dry lake-beds, and other natural depressions.
Dams would be constructed in drainages.
c. Water storage capacity of pits or reservoirs would generally be less than 2.0 acrefeet. Fill material to complete dam construction may come from the impoundment
area or a borrow area outside the impoundment area.
d. Excavated material from pits would be piled adjacent to the pit.
e. Topsoil would be stockpiled to be used for rehabilitation of borrow areas and other
areas stripped of soil. As consistent with resource objectives, reservoirs and pits may
be excluded from livestock use through fencing or other means.
3. All State of Oregon water well drilling regulations would be adhered to, both in drilling
and equipping.
a. A safety device would be installed on new power line transformers to prevent
electrocution of raptors.
b. Metal storage tanks would be painted to blend with the surrounding landscape.
c. Consistent with VRM objectives of the area, wells and associated structures would
be located where topographic features or vegetation would serve to screen associated
structures and disturbances from the casual observer.
4. Spring development would involve digging or drilling to intercept naturally occurring
waterflow.
a. Perforated pipe and/or collection boxes would be utilized to collect and divert water
through a pipeline to troughs away from riparian vegetation associated with spring
areas.
b. Usually, the spring source and trough overflow area would be fenced to prevent
livestock grazing and trampling impacts to riparian vegetation communities.
c. Water would be made available inside fenced spring developments for wildlife use.
d. In those areas that receive recreation use, access may be provided via a style (stairs
over a fenceline) or a walk-through device specifically designed to preclude
livestock passage.
5. Pipelines will be constructed to convey water from wells, springs, reservoirs, and other
water sources to troughs in areas lacking adequate water to maintain appropriate animal
distribution.
6. Troughs will usually be placed in upland vegetation communities less vulnerable to
livestock impacts and soil compaction.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 28
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
7. Generally, 1 to 2-inch diameter plastic pipe would be installed with pipe-laying
equipment consisting of a modified ripper tooth mounted on a tractor and buried to a
depth adequate to protect the development, though seldom deeper than 30 inches. Where
obstructions prohibit pipeline burial, the pipe may be laid on the ground surface and
covered with borrow soil.
8. At times, reservoirs and other storage facilities may be constructed along pipelines.
Reservoirs associated with pipelines will normally be fenced to exclude livestock, while
providing water for wildlife use. In the event of equipment failure, reservoirs may
provide temporary emergency water for livestock.
9. Access points to and escape routes from water troughs will be provided for birds and
small mammals.
Fences
1. Established standards for fence construction on public land would be followed (BLM
Manual Handbook H-1741-1). Fences would be designed to develop a barrier to livestock
movement while minimally impeding wildlife movement (in accordance with A
Landowner’s Guide to Wildlife Friendly Fences, Paige, 2008).
2. Design features would be developed specific to each proposed fencing project to
accomplish the desired objectives while avoiding undesired impacts and controversy.
3. Surface disturbance associated with fence construction and maintenance will be
minimized. Though the canopy of vegetation along fencelines may be removed and
scattered, no blading or scraping would be authorized to clear routes for fence
construction.
4. All fences would be consistent with the VRM class of the area.
5. Gates would be located and constructed at appropriate locations to provide for livestock
passage. Gates and cattleguards, as appropriate, will be located at road crossings to
provide vehicular passage. Gates will be constructed adjacent to all cattleguards to
provide passage by equipment which cannot cross cattleguards.
6. Recreation access would be provided where fences are necessary in the vicinity of
recreation sites.
4. RECREATION
Refer also to BMPs in the “WATER AND SOILS – Recreation” section.
1. Generally avoid placing new facilities or infrastructure within expected long-term
channel migration zones. Where activities, such as the placement or construction of roadstream crossings, boat ramps, docks, and interpretive trails, inherently must occur in
RMAs, locate them to minimize impacts on riparian dependent resource conditions (e.g.,
within geologically stable areas, avoiding major spawning sites).
2. Consider removing or relocating existing recreation facilities which are causing
unacceptable impacts in RMAs.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 29
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
3. Construct recreation sites and provide appropriate sanitation facilities to minimize
impacts to resource values, public health and safety, and minimize user conflicts of
approved activities and access within an area as appropriate.
4. Harden site and locations subject to prolonged/repetitive concentrated recreational uses
with selective placement of gravel or other porous materials and allow for dust
abatement, paving and engineered road construction.
5. Use public education and/or physical barriers (such as rocks, posts, vegetation) to direct
or prelude uses and to minimize impacts to resource values.
6. As appropriate, employ limitations of specific activities to avoid or correct adverse
impacts to resource values.
7. Employ land use ethics programs and techniques such as “Leave No Trace” and “Tread
Lightly.” Use outreach efforts of such programs to lessen needs to implement more
stringent regulatory measures to obtain resource protection.
8. Restoration of dispersed and developed campgrounds usually includes some or all of the
following:
a. removal of campground fill material and/or structures, such as berms, toilets, fences,
picnic tables
b. ripping or sub-soiling sites to remove compaction
c. stream bank restoration
d. placement of rock or other barriers such as fences to block vehicle access; gravel
surfacing of existing sites to designate access routes and parking
e. planting shrubs and trees to restore streamside, floodplain, and meadow vegetation
f. reducing or clearing noxious weeds
9. Design remedial actions to restore floodplain characteristics (elevation, width, gradient,
length, and roughness) in a manner that closely mimics, to the greatest degree possible,
those that would naturally occur at that stream and valley type.
10. Overburden or fill comprised of native materials, which originated from the project area,
can be used to reshape the floodplain, placed in small mounds on the floodplain, used to
fill anthropogenic holes, buried on site, and/or disposed of in upland areas.
11. To the greatest degree possible, non-native fill material originating from outside the
project area shall be removed from the floodplain to an upland site.
12. Consider de-compaction of soils once overburden material is removed.
13. Design, construct, and operate recreation facilities, including trails and dispersed sites, in
a manner that does not retard or prevent attainment of the aquatic objectives. Complete
and ID team analysis of aquatic objectives prior to construction of new recreation
facilities inside riparian management areas (RMAs). (Refer also to BMPs in the “WATER
AND SOILS RESOURCES – Recreation” section.)
14. For existing recreation facilities inside RMAs, assure that the facilities or use of the
facilities will not prevent attainment of aquatic objectives. Relocate or close recreation
facilities where aquatic objectives cannot be met.
15. Adjust dispersed and developed recreation practices that retard or prevent attainment of
aquatic objectives. Where adjustment measures such as education, use limitations, traffic
control devices, increased maintenance, relocation of facilities, and/or specific site
Appendices – 2.1 p. 30
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
closures are not effective in meeting aquatic objectives and avoiding adverse effects on
aquatic objectives, eliminate the practice or occupancy.
16. Develop campgrounds, OHV play areas, and other areas concentrating recreational uses
well away from special status plant habitat.
17. Limit OHV use to designated routes when adjacent to special status plant habitat.
18. Manage public vehicle access to maintain the habitat effectiveness of security cover and
key seasonal habitat (such as winter range) for deer and elk.
5. TRANSPORTATION
Road Construction
1. Minimize new road construction. Emphasize the use of existing roads through continued
use or reconstruction.
2. Base road design criteria and standards on road management objectives such as traffic
requirements of the proposed activity and the overall transportation plan, economic
analysis, safety requirements, and resource objectives.
3. Design roads to: minimize total surface disturbance and disruption of natural drainage
patterns; conform with topography; and maintain forest productivity, water quality, and
fish and wildlife habitat.
4. Minimize sediment production from borrow pits and gravel sources through proper
location, development, and reclamation. Provide for quarry drainage to prevent sediment
from entering streams.
5. Minimize excavation when constructing roads through: the use of balanced earthwork;
designing roads no wider than necessary to accommodate the immediate anticipated use;
and end hauling where sideslopes are between 50 and 70 percent.
6. Design full-bench roads for slopes over 60 percent. End-haul excess material to a
geologically stable site for disposal and away from riparian conservation areas. Use
balanced cut-and-fill road construction where practical.
7. Where possible, locate roads on stable terrain and well-drained soils such as ridgetops,
natural benches, and flatter transitional slopes near ridges and valley bottoms and
moderate sideslopes. Avoid slumps, rock bluffs, slide prone areas, concave slopes, clay
beds, and where rock layers dip parallel to the slope.
8. Avoid head walls, midslope locations on steep, unstable slopes, fragile soils, seeps, old
landslides, sideslopes in excess of 70 percent, and areas where the geologic bedding
planes or weathering surfaces are inclined with the slope. Implement extra mitigation
measures when these areas cannot be avoided.
9. If possible, construct roads when soils are dry and not frozen. Hold wet-weather road
building to a minimum, particularly on poorly drained, erodible soils which may drain
mud directly to streams. When soils or road surfaces become saturated to a depth of 3
inches, BLM-authorized activities should be limited or cease unless otherwise approved
by the authorized officer.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 31
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
10. Design cut and fill slopes at the normal angle of repose – approximately 3(h):1(v) – or
less where feasible. Locate roads to minimize heights of cutbanks. Avoid high, steeply
sloping cutbanks in highly-fractured bedrock. Vary the steepness of slopes on cut and fill
slopes commensurate with the strength of the soil and bedrock material as established by
an engineering geologist or other specialist in soil mechanics.
11. Build fills in lifts to ensure optimum compaction and minimize slumpage. Avoid the
inclusion of slash, logs and other organic debris in fills.
12. On primary roads wherever serious erosion is likely, large cut-and-fill slopes should be
stabilized with plant cover as soon as possible. Seed (revegetate) cuts and fills the first
fall season following disturbance. Local experience will indicate the best practices and
species to use.
13. Generally, berms should be removed or at least broken frequently to allow lateral
drainage to non-erodible areas. Berms are desirable on large erodible fills to prevent
drainage from the road crown down the center of the fill section.
14. Plan ditch gradients steep enough (generally greater than 2 percent) to prevent sediment
deposition.
15. Strip and stockpile topsoil ahead of construction of new roads, if feasible. Reapply soil to
cut and fill slopes prior to revegetation.
16. Plan transportation networks to avoid road construction within riparian conservation
areas. Vegetation strips between roads and streams will be of adequate size to support
achievement of indicators of watershed/aquatic conditions.
17. Minimize and balance cuts and fills, especially near streams. Design roads to balance cuts
and fills or use full bench construction where stable fill construction is not possible.
18. Plan to dispose of excavated waste material on geologically stable sites and away from
Riparian Conservation Areas.
19. Construct roads to comply with Oregon Forest Practices Act plan and design guidelines.
20. In rippable materials, construct roads with no overhanging banks.
Road Drainage
1. Design road drainage systems to prevent fill erosion and avoid direct sediment discharge
into streams. Use the Forest Service “Guide for Controlling Sediment from Secondary
Logging Roads” or equivalent to assist in drainage design.
2. Minimize water velocity, and minimize water travel time on roads, road cuts, road fills, in
ditches and in other drainage features containing coarse or fine sediment.
3. Provide adequate drainage from the surface of all roads by using outsloped or crowned
roads, well-placed dips or water bars, or insloped roads with ditches and cross-drains or
relief culverts as appropriate.
4. In some areas, alternating inslope and outslope sections can be built into the road,
especially if road grades are rolled to dispose of road surface flow.
5. Outsloped roads are appropriate when fill slopes are stable, drainage will not flow
directly into stream channels, and transportation safety considerations can be met.
Sloping the road base to the outside edge for surface drainage is normally recommended
Appendices – 2.1 p. 32
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
for local spurs or minor collector roads where low traffic volume and lower traffic speeds
are anticipated, in situations where long intervals between maintenance will occur, and
where minimum excavation is wanted. Out-sloping is not recommended on steep slopes.
6. For insloped roads, generally design ditch gradients to be between 2 and 8 percent to
prevent sediment deposition and ditch erosion. The higher gradients may be suitable for
more stable soils; use the lower gradients for less stable soils. Sloping the road base to the
inside edge is an acceptable practice on roads with steep sideslopes and where the
underlying soil formation is very rocky and not subject to appreciable erosion or failure.
7. Crown and ditching is recommended for arterial and collector roads where traffic volume,
speed, intensity and user comfort are considerations. Recommended gradients range from
0 to 15 percent where crown and ditching may be applied, as long as adequate drainage
away from the road surface and ditch lines is maintained.
8. Vary road grades to reduce concentrated flow in road surface, ditches, and culverts and on
fill slopes and road surfaces. If necessary, include short road segments with steeper
grades, consistent with traffic needs and safety, to avoid problem areas or to take
advantage of terrain features.
9. Size drainage structures appropriately to handle anticipated flow during normal runoff or
storms. Install drainage structures on roads before fall or spring runoff.
10. Locate cross drains, culverts, water bars, dips, and other drainage structures in such a
manner as to avoid discharge onto erodible soils, fill slopes, and unstable terrain such as
head walls or slumps without outfall protection. Culverts should be placed on solid
ground to avoid road failures. Install culverts or drain dips frequently enough to avoid
accumulations of water that will cause erosion or road ditches and the area below the
culvert and drain dip outlets.
11. Use riprap, woody debris, downspouts, or similar devices where necessary to reduce the
erosion energy of the emerging water and prevent erosion of fills. Provide rock or other
basins at the outlet of culverts and rock the drain dips if economically feasible.
12. When installing culverts and drain dips, avoid changes in channel orientation and place
these structures to conform to the natural channel gradient. Design culverts for maximum
stream flow (e.g., 25year discharge).
13. Use drainage dips instead of culverts on roads where gradients would not present a safety
issue. Locate drainage dips in such a way so water would not accumulate or where
outside berms prevent drainage from the roadway.
14. Construct drain dips deep enough into the subgrade so that traffic will not obliterate
them. Dips should be angled 20 to 45 degrees perpendicular to the road and have a
drainage grade of 2-8 percent.
15. Plan ditch gradients steep enough (generally greater than 2 percent) to prevent sediment
deposition.
16. Install relief culverts with a minimum drain grade of 2 percent.
17. Where possible, install relief culverts at the gradient of the original ground slope;
otherwise armor outlets with rock or anchor downspouts to carry water across the fill
slope.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 33
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
18. Skew relief culverts 20 to 30 degrees toward the inflow from the ditch to improve inlet
efficiency. Develop the catch basin at sufficient size to prevent the culvert inlet from
plugging.
19. Culverts in natural drainage ways would be oriented to minimize fill slope erosion or to
carry water beyond fills.
20. Provide drainage where groundwater causes slope instability.
21. Prevent downslope movement of sediment by using sediment catch basins, drop inlets,
changes in road grade, headwalls, recessed cut slopes, slash filter windrows, or other
design features.
22. Route road drainage through vegetative filtration fields, slash windrows, or other
sediment settling structures. Install road drainage features above stream crossings to route
discharge into filtration zones before entering a stream.
Riparian Areas
1. Avoid new road construction in RMAs, except where necessary for stream crossings.
Avoid riparian/wetland areas where feasible; locate in these areas only if the roads do not
interfere with the attainment of proper functioning condition (PFC) and riparian
management objectives (RMOs).
2. Keep stream disturbance to an absolute minimum. Avoid stream courses, wetlands, and
unstable areas when reconstructing existing roads or constructing new roads and
landings. Minimize impacts where avoidance is not practical.
3. Construct roads in a manner that prevents debris, overburden, and excess materials
(including sidecast soil, stumps, logs or other material) from entering a stream. Deposit
excess materials outside of stream protection zones in stable locations well above the
high-water level and never into the stream channel. Include these waste areas in soil
stabilization planning for the road.
4. Construct catchment basins, brush windrows, and culverts in a way to minimize sediment
transport from road surfaces to stream channels. Install culverts in natural drainage
channels in a way to conform with the natural streambed gradients with outlets that
discharge onto rocky or hardened protected areas.
5. Retain adequate vegetation between roads and streams to filter runoff caused by roads.
6. When constructing roads near streams, use slash filter windrows to minimize sediment
reaching the stream. Minimize the amount of woody debris buried in embankments and
minimize the amount of snow, ice, and frozen soil added to embankments.
7. Establish adapted vegetation on all cuts and fill immediately following road construction
and maintenance.
8. Minimize hydrologic connectivity and sediment delivery from roads and route drainage
away from potentially unstable channels, fills, and hillslopes inside and outside of RMAs.
9. Unless no other source is available, gravel should not be taken from streambeds except
from dry gravel bars. Washing of gravel into streams will normally cause sedimentation
and should be avoided.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 34
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
10. Avoid placing fill material in floodplain unless the material is large enough to remain in
place during flood events.
Stream Crossings
1. Obtain all necessary permits for stream crossings before beginning activities.
2. Minimize the number of stream crossings. Comply with Stream Channel Alteration Law
(Title 42, Chapter 38, Idaho Code) and ensure that all Class I stream culvert installations
allow fish passage. Cross streams as close to a right angles to the main channel as
possible. Locate the crossing where the channel is well-defined, unobstructed, and
straight.
3. Before working in a stream channel or in a streamside riparian habitat conservation area
(RHCA), all heavy equipment or other machinery will be inspected for hydraulic or other
leaks. Fix identified problems before entering areas that drain directly to stream. Clean
equipment with accumulations of oil, grease, or other toxic materials prior to use in these
areas. An emergency spill containment kit will be located on site during construction
activity.
4. Fuel storage and fueling of equipment will not occur within streamside riparian habitat
conservation areas (RHCAs).
5. Minimize the number of unimproved stream crossings. When a culvert or bridge is not
feasible, locate drive-through (low water crossings) on stable rock portions of the
drainage channel. Harden crossings with the addition of rock and gravel if necessary. Use
angular rock if available.
6. Use materials that would withstand 100-year flow events (e.g., concrete, well anchored
concrete mats, etc.) on permanent low water ford crossings.
7. Utilize natural bedrock geology to provide hardened and stable low water ford crossings.
Where erosive soils exist, harden approaches with non-erodible materials on permanent
crossings. Provide relief drainage on approaches.
8. Use washed rock/gravel in temporary low water ford crossings, where a non-fill structure
is not possible.
9. Do not locate stream crossings strictly on a grade basis. Choose a stable site and adjust
grade to it, when possible.
10. Grade control structures are permitted to prevent headcutting above or below the culvert
or bridge. Grade control typically consists of boulder structures that are keyed into the
banks, span the channel, and are buried in the substrate. The hydraulic impacts of grade
control structures must be analyzed for effects on the stream crossing.
11. Structures containing concrete must be cured or dried (approx 7 days) before they come
into contact with stream flow.
12. Incorporate road dips into stream crossing design, to ensure catastrophic flood events will
transport overflow back into the stream channel instead of onto the road bed.
13. Locate and design drainage dips immediately upgrade of stream crossings and provide
buffer areas and catchment basins to prevent sediment from entering the stream.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 35
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
14. The toes of fills on larger creek crossings should be protected above the high-water line
to prevent soil movement.
15. For long-term roads, Design and locate water crossing structures in natural drainage
channels to accommodate adequate fish passage, provide for minimum impacts to water
quality, and capable of handling a 100-year event for runoff and floodwaters.
16. In bridge location, plan to avoid relocation of the stream channel. Where the stream must
be changed, use riprap, vegetative cover, or other means to reduce soil movement into
stream.
17. In building bridge footings and abutments, limit machine work as much as possible to
avoid disturbing the stream. This initial work often greatly increases turbidity and
sediment movement.
18. Projects should be reviewed by an engineer with design input from an experienced
fisheries biologist and hydrologist. Such personnel shall oversee or review the project
during construction to ensure that BMPs are being properly implemented. A licensed
engineer will provide design review for projects that result in structures that are greater
than 20’ in width.
19. Assess sites for a potential to headcut below the natural stream gradient. Use field
surveys and quantitative analysis to assess headcut potential.
20. Use culverts that pass, at a minimum, a 50-year storm event and/or have a minimum
diameter of 24 inches for permanent stream crossings and a minimum diameter of 18
inches for road crossdrains.
21. Proper sized aggregate and riprap should be used during culvert construction. Place
riprap at culvert entrance to streamline water flow and reduce erosion.
22. Replace undersized culverts and repair or replace damaged culverts and downspouts.
Provide energy dissipators at culvert outlets or drainage dips.
23. For removal or replacement of existing road-stream crossing structures (culverts, bridges,
etc.), restore the stream channel and reconnect the floodplain at the site. Heavy
equipment may only be used when an ID team has determined that it will not retard
attainment of Aquatic Objectives. Upstream of the isolated project area, divert stream
flow through use of coffer dams (diversions) constructed with non-erosive materials or
by-pass culvert.
24. For culvert removal projects, restore natural drainage patterns and when possible promote
passage of all fish species and life stages present in the area. Evaluate channel incision
risk and construct in-channel grade control structures when necessary.
25. Flood relief culverts will be designed to restore and maintain access to off-channel
holding areas for aquatic species (including fish). Therefore, existing floodplain channels
should be the first priority for location of flood relief culverts. Flood relief culverts
should be installed in a manner that match floodplain gradient and do not lead to scour at
the outlet.
26. The stream slope at the stream crossing shall approximate the average channel gradient of
the natural stream up and downstream of the structure. The maximum slope for closedbottomed culverts shall not exceed 6 percent because of difficulties in retaining substrate
Appendices – 2.1 p. 36
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
in the culvert at higher gradients. Open-bottom arches can be placed in channel gradients
that exceed 6 percent.
27. If a closed culvert is used, the bottom of the culvert shall be buried into the streambed not
less than 20 percent and not more than 50 percent of the culvert height. For openbottomed arches and bridges, the footings or foundation shall be designed to be stable at
the largest anticipated scour depth. Substrate and habitat patterns within the culvert
should mimic stream patterns that naturally occur above and below the culvert. Coarser
material may be incorporated to create velocity breaks during high flows, thereby
improving fish passage, and to provide substrate stability.
28. The use of riprap is permissible above bankfull height to protect the embankment. If the
use of riprap is required for structure stability, then an additional analysis may be
required to ensure that the structure is not undersized. Riprap may only be placed below
bankfull height when necessary for protection of abutments and pilings for bridges.
However, the amount and placement of riprap around the abutments and/or pilings should
not constrict the bankfull flow.
29. Limit activities of mechanized equipment to streambank areas or temporary platforms
when installing or removing structures, unless channel is dewatered.
30. If access is required through construction site, a temporary crossing shall be constructed
and removed within the same instream period and the disturbed ground shall be
rehabilitate to pre-existing conditions. Rehabilitation will include re-vegetating,
recontouring and controlling surface erosion through the following two years.
31. Re-vegetate disturbed areas with vegetation of similar structure and composition to preexisting vegetation and ground cover. Use native species. Conserve on-site woody
vegetation for rehabilitating disturbed areas (in channel structure, upland down wood,
bank erosion control, etc). Flush cut or remove entire root wad. If wood is kept on site to
meet upland down wood objectives, place away from area prone to firewood use. Large
woody debris resulting from clearing activities may be placed in the downstream channel
to meet aquatic objectives.
32. Monitor structures after high flow events, which occur during the first fall/winter/spring
after project completion. Assess the following parameters: headcutting below natural
stream gradient, substrate embeddedness in the culvert, scour at the culvert outlet, and
erosion from sites associated with project construction. Apply remedial actions to correct.
33. Minimize disturbance of existing vegetation in ditches and at stream crossings. Limit
cutting or removal of vegetation on the closed road-bed to the amount required to access
the culvert site
34. Restore natural drainage patterns and when possible promote passage of all fish species
and life stages present in the area. Evaluate channel incision risk and construct in-channel
grade control structures when necessary.
35. Use sediment control barriers immediately adjacent to the stream, between the
disturbance areas and the stream as necessary to ensure no visible increase in stream
turbidity occurs.
36. Space drainage features used for storm-proofing and treatment projects to prevent road
surface runoff from entering stream channels.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 37
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
37. Dispose of slide and waste material in stable sites out of the flood prone area (the
elevation at two times max bankfull depth). Waste material other than hardened surface
material (asphalt, treated timbers, metal objects, etc) may be used to restore natural or
near-natural contours.
38. When removing a culvert from a first or second order, second order, or non-fishing
bearing stream, ID team shall determine if culvert removal should require dewatering or
fish removal or both. If necessary to meet Aquatic Objectives, isolate construction area
and remove fish from project area.
39. For any repair work in streams occupied by native fish, instream work will be timed to
avoid disturbance of staging adult fish, redds, or gravels with unemerged juveniles where
possible. Timing restrictions may be waived in cases of overriding safety concerns or the
threat of further severe resource damage.
40. Diversions constructed with material mined from the streambed or floodplains are not
permitted.
41. Pumps must have fish screens and be operated in accordance with state and federal fish
screen criteria.
42. If diversion allows for downstream fish passage, (i.e., is not screened), place diversion
outlet in a location to promote safe reentry of fish into the stream channel, preferably into
pool habitat with cover.
43. Dissipate flow energy at the bypass outflow to prevent damage to riparian vegetation or
stream channel.
44. When necessary, pump seepage water from the de-watered work area to a temporary
storage and treatment site or into upland areas and filter water prior to reentering the
stream channel.
45. When dewatering is no longer required, slowly release water back into the channel.
Prevent loss of surface water downstream as the construction site streambed absorbs
water. Prevent a sudden increase in stream turbidity. Monitor downstream during this
process to prevent stranding of aquatic organisms below the construction site.
46. Use temporary stream crossings to access the opposite side with any equipment or
vehicles (including ATVs).
47. Design temporary crossings to pass existing flow plus the 10 year event (probability) for
6 hr rainfall events to account for summer thunderstorms or 24 hour event for winter
flows.
48. Restrict access to temporary crossings.
49. Use ramped low water fords in debris flow susceptible streams (e.g., if the temporary
crossing is a low water ford, access should be restricted to blocked residences, emergency
vehicles, contractors, and BLM inspection personnel).
50. Clear drainage ways of all debris generated during construction or maintenance that may
interfere with drainage or affect water quality.
51. Before fall or spring runoff, stabilize slopes where exposed material (such as excavation,
embankment, waste piles) may erode and enter streams by seeding, compacting,
riprapping, benching, mulching, or other suitable means.
52. Disturbed areas will be seeded following work, mulch may be applied.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 38
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
53. Place drainage diversions approximately 50 ft above stream crossings so that water may
be filtered through vegetative buffers before entering the stream.
Road Maintenance
1. Maintain all roads immediately after logging and the primary roads whenever necessary
by cleaning ditch lines, blading debris from empty landings, trimming damaged culvert
ends and cleaning out culvert openings.
2. Grade road surfaces only as often as necessary to maintain a stable running surface and to
retain the original surface drainage.
3. Maintain erosion control features through periodic inspection and maintenance, including
cleaning dips and cross-drains, repairing ditches, marking culvert inlets to aid in location,
and clearing debris from catch basins and culverts.
4. Maintenance should be performed to conserve existing surface material, retain the
original crowned or out-sloped, self-draining cross section, prevent or remove rutting
berms (except those designed for slope protection) and other irregularities that retard
normal surface runoff.
5. Avoid undercutting back slopes. Do not disturb the toe of cut slopes.
6. Remove berms from the downslope side of roads, consistent with safety considerations.
7. Avoid casting graded material over the fill slope or shoulder where it can cause stream
sedimentation or weaken slump-prone areas.
8. Place all excess material removed by maintenance operations in safe disposal areas and
stabilize these sites to prevent erosion. Avoid locations where erosion will carry materials
into a stream.
9. Inspect roads after major runoff events and intense or prolonged rainstorms, placing
priority on roads in municipal watersheds.
10. Evaluate all bridges and culverts on roads to be closed to determine the need for removal
or periodic maintenance.
11. Avoid using roads during wet periods if such use would damage the road drainage
features.
12. Monitor surface drainage during wet periods and close the road if necessary to avoid
undue damage.
13. Consider improving inadequately surfaced roads that are to be left open to public traffic
during wet weather with gravel or pavement to minimize sediment production and
maximize safety.
14. Maintain roads in special management areas (SMA’s) according to SMA guidance.
Generally, retain roads within existing disturbed areas and sidecast material away from
the SMA.
15. When landslides occur, save all soil and material usable for reclamation or stockpile for
future reclamation needs. Avoid side casting of slide material where it can damage,
overload, and saturate embankments, or flow into down-slope drainage courses.
Reestablish vegetation as needed in areas where vegetation has been destroyed due to
side casting.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 39
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
16. Apply dust abatement or other surface stabilizing chemicals in a manner which prevents
entry into streams. Do not place in road ditches, and do not allow pooling on the road
surface.
17. Control roadside brush only to the extent required for good road maintenance and safety.
Roadside brushing of vegetation should be done in a way that prevents disturbance to
root systems and visual intrusions (i.e., avoid using excavators for brushing).
18. For road segments that parallel stream courses, consider the need for stream shade along
with safety considerations during brushing operations. This may necessitate hand
brushing, partial brushing, or limbing, with consideration for providing growth for future
shade.
19. Avoid brushing along stream channels and floodplains. Preserve as much ground
vegetation as possible, and brush only where necessary for human safety or to avoid
threats to structural stability. Do not brush beyond 4 feet of the road as measured by the
edge of the drivable road surface (not measured from turnouts or road shoulder).
Maintain riparian overstory to provide stream shade. Maintaining a minimum height of
riparian vegetation by brushing once every 3 years instead of once every 5 years. Prune
riparian vegetation rather than completely removing it.
20. To provide for woody debris recruitment, when removing down logs in the road which
extend into a stream, any material on the fill slope and in the stream will not be removed,
except in cases where the retention of this material would result in a safety concern (i.e.,
downstream facilities).
21. During maintenance or repair, place woody debris from the road-crossing inlet
downstream of the road crossing.
Snow Removal
1. Plow snow only on existing roads.
2. Snow should not be completely removed on unpaved roads. In general, a minimum two
inches of snow should be left on the roadway during plowing operations to protect the
surface of the road.
3. When plowing snow for winter use of roads, provide breaks in snow berms to allow for
road drainage. Drainage holes should be spaced as required to obtain satisfactory surface
drainage without discharge on erodible fills.
4. Avoid plowing snow into streams. Avoid plugging ditches and culverts during snow
plowing operations.
Timber Roads and Landings
1. Logging road locations, particularly on sensitive areas, should be evaluated by a forester,
soil scientist, wildlife biologist, and other specialists as needed. The location should be
fitted to the topography to minimize cut and fill situations. In areas of important big game
habitat, consultation with the wildlife biologist will be necessary to reduce impacts on
wildlife, particularly in areas such as ridgelines, saddles and upper drainage heads. Where
Appendices – 2.1 p. 40
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
alternative locations are not possible, incorporate mitigating measures into road
development plans. Avoid stream crossings, if possible. If not possible, minimize
approach cuts and fills and channel disturbance and maintain stream bank vegetation.
For timber harvest spur roads, take advantage of natural landing areas (flatter, better
drained, open areas) to reduce soil disturbance associated with log landings and
temporary work roads.
Mitigate loss of snags where snags will not create a safety hazard.
Locate landings outside of Jurisdictional Wetlands and RMAs.
Locate new landings outside of Riparian Management Areas or at least 300 ft from
waterbodies (whichever is greater) and avoid expanding existing landings in Riparian
Management Areas when sediment delivery to stream channels could occur.
Locate landings in areas with low risk for landslides.
Road Rehabilitation (Renovation, Closure, and Obliteration)
1. Conduct road rehabilitation with an overall goal of restoring hydrologic functions,
including: eliminate or reduce erosion and mass-wasting hazards associated with roads;
eliminate or reduce human access and associated impacts to aquatic systems; and
enhancing natural hydrologic processes through reduction of drainage network.
2. Rehabilitation actions to be employed include bridge and culvert removal, removal of
asphalt and gravel, installing drainage culverts, constructing road dips, subsoiling or
ripping of road surfaces, outsloping, waterbarring, fill removal, sidecast pullback,
revegetating with native species, and placement of large wood and/or boulders
3. Reconstruct road and drainage features that: do not meet design criteria or operation and
maintenance standards; have been shown to be less effective for controlling sediment
delivery; prevent attainment of terrestrial, aquatic, or riparian objectives; or do not protect
watersheds from increased sedimentation and peak flows. Prioritize reconstruction based
on current and potential damage to terrestrial, aquatic, or riparian resources; ecological
value of the resources affected; and feasibility of options such as helicopter logging and
road relocation out of riparian conservation areas.
4. Close and stabilize or obliterate and stabilize roads not needed for future management
activities. Prioritize based on current and potential damage to terrestrial, aquatic, and
riparian resources and ecological value of the resources affected.
5. Leave abandoned roads in a condition that provides adequate drainage without further
maintenance. Remove culverts. Close abandoned roads to traffic. Physically obstruct the
road with gates, large berms, trenches, logs, stumps, or rock boulders as necessary to
accomplish permanent closure.
6. For culvert removals on closed roads, limited cutting or removal of vegetation on the
closed road-bed to access the culvert site may be required.
7. For road obliteration within riparian areas, re-contour the affected area to mimic natural
floodplain contours and gradient to the greatest degree possible.
8. Consider temporary or permanent road closure for all dead-end roads or roads with an
expected duration of use of fewer than five years.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 41
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
9. When obliterating or removing segments immediately adjacent to the stream, consider
using sediment control barriers between the project and the stream.
10. Drainage features used for storm proofing and treatment projects should be spaced as to
hydrologically disconnect road surface runoff from stream channels.
11. Dispose of slide and waste material in stable sites out of the flood prone area (the
elevation at two times max bankfull depth). Waste material other than hardened surface
material (asphalt, treated timbers, metal objects, etc) may be used to restore natural or
near natural contours.
12. Minimize disturbance of existing vegetation in ditches and at stream crossings to the
greatest extent possible.
7. LANDS & REALTY
Aboveground Storage Tanks
1. Aboveground storage tanks should have spill and overfill prevention and leak detection.
2. Secondary containment should be designed to contain the entire volume of the materials
that can be stored in the aboveground storage tank.
3. Tanks should be protected from corrosion.
4. Aboveground storage tanks should be protected from physical damage and vandalism
through use of guard posts and fencing, as necessary.
5. Aboveground storage tanks should be operated, maintained, and closed appropriately.
Land Exchanges and Sales
1. The following general management criteria would be applied when considering land
exchanges within the planning area. To be considered to be in the public interest,
exchanges must:
a. facilitate access to public land and resources
b. maintain or enhance important public values and uses
c. maintain or enhance local social and economic conditions
d. facilitate implementation of other goals and objectives of the RMP
2. It is important to minimize the impact to the local tax base by emphasizing exchanges
rather than direct purchases.
Direct Purchases
1. Direct purchases of non-Federal lands may occur when the same public interest general
management criteria apply as described under Land Exchanges above.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 42
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
Disposal of Land by Sale
1. Current BLM Washington Office policy prohibits the disposal of land acquired with Land
and Water Conservation Funds. Generally, exchanges are the preferred method of
disposal but sales will be utilized when:
a. sale is required by national policy
b. sale is required to achieve disposal objectives on a timely basis, and where
disposal through exchange would cause unacceptable delays
c. disposal through exchange is not feasible.
2. The preferred method of selling public land will be by competitive bidding at public
auction to qualifying purchasers. However, modified competitive bidding procedures may
be used when there is no legal public access to a tract, when necessary to avoid
jeopardizing an existing use on adjacent land, or to avoid dislocation of existing public
land users. Public land may be sold by direct sale at fair market value when:
a. such land is needed by state or local governments
b. direct sale is needed to protect equities arising from authorized use
c. from inadvertent unauthorized use that was caused by survey errors or title defects
d. there is only one adjacent landowner
Methods of Disposal
1. Methods of disposal for implementing land disposal actions include the following:
a. BLM and other Federal jurisdictional transfers
b. transfers to state and local agencies (e.g., “Recreation and Public Purpose Act”
patents, in-lieu selections, airport patents)
c. state exchanges
d. private exchanges
e. sales
f. desert land entries
Public Parcels within Privately-Owned Land
1. Scattered parcels of public land located within consolidated private areas could be
exchanged or sold. Land exchanges would be the preferred method of disposal because
this would maintain the current public and private land bases. Parcels of public land may
be exchanged for land with greater resource values within BLM retention areas.
All Surface/soil Disturbing Activities
1. Disturbance from rights-of-way and/or disturbance in utility corridors use areas adjoining
or adjacent to previously disturbed areas, rather than traverse undisturbed communities.
2. Areas disturbed during project construction will be reseeded with a mixture of grasses,
forbs and shrubs to meet site specific needs or habitat requirements.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 43
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
3. Disturbed areas should be contoured to blend with the natural topography. Blending is
defined as reducing form, line, and color contrast associated with the surface disturbance.
Disturbance in visually sensitive areas should be contoured to match the original
topography, where matching is defined as reproducing the original topography and
eliminating form, line, and color caused by the disturbance as much as possible.
Rights-of-Way and Utility Corridors
1. Rights-of-way and utility corridors should use areas adjoining or adjacent to previously
disturbed areas whenever possible, rather than traverse undisturbed communities.
2. Waterbars or dikes should be constructed on all of the rights-of-way and utility corridors,
and across the full width of the disturbed area, as directed by the authorized officer.
3. Disturbed areas within road rights-of-way and utility corridors should be stabilized by
vegetation practices designed to hold soil in place and minimize erosion. Vegetation
cover should be reestablished to increase infiltration and provide additional protection
from erosion.
4. Sediment barriers should be constructed when needed to slow runoff, allow deposition of
sediment, and prevent transport from the site. Straining or filtration mechanisms may also
be employed for the removal of sediment from runoff.
Wind Energy Program
Site Monitoring and Testing
1. The area disturbed by installation of meteorological towers (i.e., footprint) shall be kept
to a minimum.
2. Existing roads shall be used to the maximum extent feasible. If new roads are necessary,
they shall be designed and constructed to the appropriate BLM road design standards.
3. Meteorological towers shall be located to avoid sensitive habitats or areas where
ecological resources known to be sensitive to human activities (e.g., sage-grouse) are
present.
4. Installation of towers shall be scheduled to avoid disruption of wildlife reproductive
activities or other important behaviors, and shall be consistent with sage-grouse
management strategies. (Refer to BMPs in the “WILDLIFE – Sage-grouse” section.)
5. Guy wires on permanent meteorological towers shall be avoided, however, may be
necessary on temporary meteorological towers installed during site monitoring and
testing. If guy wires are necessary, the meteorological towers shall be periodically
inspected to determine whether permanent markers (bird flight diverters) attached to the
guy wires are necessary to increase visibility.
6. Meteorological towers installed for site monitoring and testing shall be inspected
periodically (at least every 6 months) for structural integrity.
7. A study design strategy shall be required for any environmental studies initiated or
baseline data collected during the site testing and monitoring period. The operator shall
submit the study design strategy to the BLM authorized officer for review.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 44
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
Plan of Development Preparation
1. Site turbines close together to minimize the development footprint (subject to technical
constraints such as the need for greater separation between larger turbines).
2. The BLM and operators shall contact appropriate agencies, property owners, and other
stakeholders early in the planning process to identify potentially sensitive land uses and
issues, rules that govern wind energy development locally, and land use concerns specific
to the region.
3. Available information describing the environmental and socio-cultural conditions in the
vicinity of the proposed project shall be collected and reviewed as needed to predict
potential impacts of the project.
4. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-required notice of proposed construction
shall be made as early as possible to identify any required air safety measures.
5. To plan for efficient use of the land, necessary infrastructure requirements shall be
consolidated wherever possible, and current transmission and market access shall be
evaluated carefully.
6. The project shall be planned to utilize existing roads and utility corridors to the maximum
extent feasible and to minimize the number and length/size of new roads, lay-down areas,
and borrow areas.
7. A monitoring program shall be developed to ensure that environmental conditions are
monitored during the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases. The
monitoring program requirements, including adaptive management strategies, shall be
established at the project level to
8. Ensure that potential adverse impacts of wind energy development are mitigated. The
monitoring program shall identify the monitoring requirements for each environmental
resource present at the site, establish metrics against which monitoring observations can
be measured, identify potential mitigation measures, and establish protocols for
incorporating monitoring observations and additional mitigation measures into standard
operating procedures and BMPs.
9. “Good housekeeping” procedures shall be developed to ensure that during operation the
site will be kept clean of debris, garbage, fugitive trash or waste, and graffiti; to prohibit
scrap heaps and dumps; and to minimize storage yards.
Wildlife and Other Ecological Resources
1. Operators shall review existing information on species and habitats in the vicinity of the
project area to identify potential concerns.
2. Operators shall identify important, sensitive, or unique habitats in the vicinity of the
project and design the project to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to these habitats.
Such measures may include avoidance, relocation of project facilities or lay-down areas,
and/or relocation of biota.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 45
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
3. Operators shall conduct surveys for Federal and/or State-protected species and other
species of concern (including priority wildlife and special status plant and animal species)
within the project area and design the project to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to
these resources. The amount and extent of ecological baseline data required shall be
determined on a project-specific basis.
4. Operators shall evaluate avian and bat use of the project area using surveys consistent
with current methodologies and standards shall be conducted and design the project to
minimize or mitigate the potential for bird and bat strikes (e.g., development shall not
occur in riparian habitats and wetlands).
5. Operators shall determine the presence of bat colonies and avoid placing turbines near
known bat hibernation, breeding, and maternity/nursery colonies; in known migration
corridors; or in known flight paths between colonies and feeding areas.
6. Operators shall determine the presence of active raptor nests (i.e., raptor nests used
during the breeding season) and design the project to provide for spatial buffers and
timing restrictions for surface disturbing activities. Measures to reduce raptor use at a
project site (e.g., minimize road cuts, maintain either no vegetation or plant species that
are unattractive to raptors around the turbines) shall also be identified.
7. Turbines shall be configured to avoid landscape features known to attract raptors if site
studies show that placing turbines there would pose a significant risk to raptors. New
wind turbines should be mounted on taller towers as close together as feasible and outside
canyons, ravines, and valleys, and where rodent and owl burrows are relatively scarce.
8. Facilities shall be designed to discourage their use as perching or nesting substrates by
birds. For example, power lines and poles shall be configured to minimize raptor
electrocutions and discourage raptor and raven nesting and perching.
9. A habitat restoration plan shall be developed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate negative
impacts on vulnerable wildlife while maintaining or enhancing habitat values for other
species. The plan shall identify reclamation, soil stabilization, and erosion reduction
measures that shall be implemented to ensure that all temporary use areas are restored.
The plan shall require that restoration occur as soon as possible after completion of
activities to reduce the amount of habitat converted at any one time and to speed up the
recovery to natural habitats.
Refer also to BMPs in the “WILDLIFE” and “WATER AND SOILS RESOURCES” sections.
Visual Resources
1. The public shall be involved and informed about the visual site design elements of the
proposed wind energy facilities. Possible approaches include conducting public forums
for disseminating information, offering organized tours of operating wind developments,
and using computer and visualization simulations in public presentations.
2. Visual resource management (VRM) considerations shall take place early in the project
planning phase in accordance with BLM VRM manual and handbooks.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 46
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
3. Visual mitigation planning and design shall be performed through field assessments,
applied GPS technology, photo documentation, use of computer-aided design and
development software, and visual simulations to reflect a full range of visual resource
best management practices.
4. Operators shall utilize digital terrain mapping tools at a landscape/viewshed scale for site
planning and design, visual impact analysis, and visual impact mitigation planning and
design. The digital terrain mapping tools shall be at a resolution and contour interval
suitable for site design and accurate placement of proposed developments into the digital
viewshed.
5. Visual simulations shall be prepared and evaluated in accordance with BLM Handbook
H-8432-1, or other agency requirements, to create spatially accurate depictions of the
appearance of proposed facilities. Simulations shall depict proposed project facilities
from Key Observation Points and other visual resource sensitive locations.
6. Turbine arrays and turbine design shall be integrated with the surrounding landscape.
Design elements to be addressed include visual uniformity, use of tubular towers,
proportion and color of turbines, nonreflective paints, and prohibition of commercial
messages on turbines.
7. Other site design elements shall be integrated with the surrounding landscape. Elements
to address include minimizing the profile of the ancillary structures, burial of cables,
prohibition of commercial symbols, and lighting. Regarding lighting, efforts shall be
made to minimize the need for and amount of lighting on ancillary structures.
Ground Transportation
1. An access road siting and management plan shall be prepared incorporating existing
BLM standards regarding road design, construction, and maintenance such as those
described in the BLM 9113 Manual and the Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines
for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development (revised 2007).
2. A transportation plan shall be developed, particularly for the transport of turbine
components, main assembly cranes, and other large pieces of equipment. The plan shall
consider specific object sizes, weights, origin, destination, and unique handling
requirements and shall evaluate alternative transportation approaches. In addition, the
process to be used to comply with unique state requirements and to obtain all necessary
permits shall be clearly identified.
3. A traffic management plan shall be prepared for the site access roads to ensure that no
hazards would result from increased truck traffic and that traffic flow would not be
adversely impacted. This plan shall incorporate measures such as informational signs,
flaggers when equipment may result in blocked throughways, and traffic cones to identify
any necessary changes in temporary lane configuration.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 47
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
Noise
1. Proponents of a wind energy development project shall take measurements to assess the
existing background noise levels at a given site and compare them to the anticipated noise
levels associated with the proposed project.
Noxious Weeds and Pesticides
1. Operators shall develop a plan for control of noxious weeds and invasive species to
address monitoring, education of personnel on weed identification, the manner in which
weeds spread, and methods for treating infestations.
2. The use of certified weed-free mulch and certified weed-free seed shall be required.
3. If trucks and construction equipment are arriving from locations with known invasive
vegetation problems, a controlled inspection and cleaning area shall be established to
visually inspect construction equipment arriving at the project area and to remove and
collect seeds that may be adhering to tires and other equipment surfaces.
4. If pesticides are used on the site, an integrated pest management plan shall be developed
to ensure that applications will be conducted within the framework of BLM and DOI
policies and entail only the use of EPA-registered pesticides.
5. Pesticide use shall be limited to non-persistent, immobile pesticides and shall only be
applied in accordance with label and application permit directions and stipulations for
terrestrial and aquatic applications.
6. Any applications of herbicides will be subject to BLM herbicide treatment standard
operating procedures. Only herbicides on the list of approved herbicide formulations
(updated annually) will be used on public lands.
Cultural/Historic Resources
1. The BLM will consult with Indian tribal governments early in the planning process to
identify issues regarding the proposed wind energy development, including issues related
to the presence of cultural properties, access rights, disruption to traditional cultural
practices, and impacts to visual resources important to the tribe(s).
2. The presence of archaeological sites and historic properties in the area of potential effect
shall be determined on the basis of a records search of recorded sites and properties in the
area and/or, depending on the extent and reliability of existing information, an
archaeological survey. Archaeological sites and historic properties present in the area of
potential effect shall be reviewed to determine whether they meet the criteria of eligibility
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
3. When any right-of-way application includes remnants of a National Historic Trail, is
located within the viewshed of a National Historic Trail’s designated centerline, or
includes or is within the viewshed of a trail eligible for listing on the NRHP, the operator
shall evaluate the potential visual impacts to the trail associated with the proposed project
and identify appropriate mitigation measures for inclusion as stipulations in the POD.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 48
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
4. If cultural resources are present at the site, or if areas with a high potential to contain
cultural material have been identified, a cultural resources management plan (CRMP)
shall be developed. This plan shall address mitigation activities to be taken for cultural
resources found at the site. Avoidance of the area is always the preferred mitigation
option. Other mitigation options include archaeological survey and excavation, and
monitoring. If an area exhibits a high potential, but no artifacts were observed during an
archaeological survey, monitoring by a qualified archaeologist may be required during all
excavation and earthmoving in the high-potential area. A report shall be prepared
documenting these activities. The CRMP also shall (1) establish a monitoring program,
(2) identify measures to prevent potential looting/vandalism or erosion impacts, and (3)
address the education of workers and the public to make them aware of the consequences
of unauthorized collection of artifacts and destruction of property on public land.
Paleontological Resources
1. Operators shall determine whether paleontological resources exist in a project area on the
basis of the sedimentary context of the area, a records search for past paleontological
finds in the area, and/or, depending on the extent of existing information, a
paleontological survey.
2. If paleontological resources are present at the site, or if areas with a high potential to
contain paleontological material have been identified, a paleontological resources
management plan shall be developed. This plan shall include a mitigation plan for
collection of the fossils; mitigation may include avoidance, removal of fossils, or
monitoring. If an area exhibits a high potential but no fossils were observed during
survey, monitoring by a qualified paleontologist may be required during all excavation
and earthmoving in the sensitive area. A report shall be prepared documenting these
activities. The paleontological resources management plan also shall (1) establish a
monitoring program, (2) identify measures to prevent potential looting/vandalism or
erosion impacts, and (3) address the education of workers and the public to make them
aware of the consequences of unauthorized collection of fossils on public land.
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management
1. Operators shall develop a hazardous materials management plan addressing storage, use,
transportation, and disposal of each hazardous material anticipated to be used at the site.
The plan shall identify all hazardous materials that would be used, stored, or transported
at the site. It shall establish inspection procedures, storage requirements, storage quantity
limits, inventory control, nonhazardous product substitutes, and disposition of excess
materials. The plan shall also identify requirements for notices to Federal and local
emergency response authorities and include emergency response plans.
2. Operators shall develop a waste management plan identifying the waste streams that are
expected to be generated at the site and addressing hazardous waste determination
procedures, waste storage locations, waste-specific management and disposal
Appendices – 2.1 p. 49
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
requirements, inspection procedures, and waste minimization procedures. This plan shall
address all solid and liquid wastes that may be generated at the site.
3. Operators shall develop a spill prevention and response plan identifying where hazardous
materials and wastes are stored on site, spill prevention measures to be implemented,
training requirements, appropriate spill response actions for each material or waste, the
locations of spill response kits on site, a procedure for ensuring that the spill response kits
are adequately stocked at all times, and procedures for making timely notifications to
authorities.
Storm Water
1. Operators shall develop a storm water management plan for the site to ensure compliance
with applicable regulations and prevent offsite migration of contaminated storm water or
increased soil erosion.
Human Health and Safety
1. A safety assessment shall be conducted to describe potential safety issues and the means
that would be taken to mitigate them, including issues such as site access, construction,
safe work practices, security, heavy equipment transportation, traffic management,
emergency procedures, and fire control.
2. A health and safety program shall be developed to protect both workers and the general
public during construction, operation, and decommissioning of a wind energy project.
Regarding occupational health and safety, the program shall identify all applicable
Federal and State occupational safety standards; establish safe work practices for each
task (e.g., requirements for personal protective equipment and safety harnesses;
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard practices for safe use
of explosives and blasting agents; and measures for reducing occupational electric and
magnetic fields (EMF) exposures); establish fire safety evacuation procedures; and define
safety performance standards (e.g., electrical system standards and lightning protection
standards). The program shall include a training program to identify hazard training
requirements for workers for each task and establish procedures for providing required
training to all workers. Documentation of training and a mechanism for reporting serious
accidents to appropriate agencies shall be established.
3. Regarding public health and safety, the health and safety program shall establish a safety
zone or setback for wind turbine generators from residences and occupied buildings,
roads, rights-of-ways, and other public access areas that is sufficient to prevent accidents
resulting from the operation of wind turbine generators. It shall identify requirements for
temporary fencing around staging areas, storage yards, and excavations during
construction or decommissioning activities. It shall also identify measures to be taken
during the operation phase to limit public access to hazardous facilities (e.g., permanent
fencing installed only around electrical substations, and turbine tower access doors
locked).
Appendices – 2.1 p. 50
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
4. Operators shall consult with local planning authorities regarding increased traffic during
the construction phase, including an assessment of the number of vehicles per day, their
size, and type. Specific issues of concern (e.g., location of school bus routes and stops)
shall be identified and addressed in the traffic management plan.
5. If operation of the wind turbines is expected to cause significant adverse impacts to
nearby residences and occupied buildings from shadow flicker, low-frequency sound, or
EMF, site-specific recommendations for addressing these concerns shall be incorporated
into the project design (e.g., establishing a sufficient setback from turbines).
6. The project shall be planned to minimize electromagnetic interference (EMI) (e.g.,
impacts to radar, microwave, television, and radio transmissions) and comply with
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations. Signal strength studies shall be
conducted when proposed locations have the potential to impact transmissions. Potential
interference with public safety communication systems (e.g., radio traffic related to
emergency activities) shall be avoided.
7. The project shall be planned to comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
regulations, including lighting regulations, and to avoid potential safety issues associated
with proximity to airports, military bases or training areas, or landing strips.
8. Operators shall develop a fire management strategy to implement measures to minimize
the potential for a human-caused fire and respond to natural fire situations.
Construction
General
1. All control and mitigation measures established for the project in the POD and the
resource-specific management plans that are part of the POD shall be maintained and
implemented throughout the construction phase, as appropriate.
2. The area disturbed by construction and operation of a wind energy development project
(i.e., footprint) shall be kept to a minimum.
3. The number and size/length of roads, temporary fences, lay-down areas, and borrow
areas shall be minimized.
4. Topsoil from all excavations and construction activities shall be salvaged and reapplied
during reclamation.
5. All areas of disturbed soil shall be reclaimed using weed-free native grasses, forbs, and
shrubs. Reclamation activities shall be undertaken as early as possible on disturbed areas.
6. All electrical collector lines shall be buried in a manner that minimizes additional surface
disturbance (e.g., along roads or other paths of surface disturbance). Overhead lines may
be used in cases where burial of lines would result in further habitat disturbance.
7. Operators shall identify unstable slopes and local factors that can induce slope instability
(such as groundwater conditions, precipitation, earthquake activities, slope angles, and
the dip angles of geologic strata). Operators also shall avoid creating excessive slopes
during excavation and blasting operations. Special construction techniques shall be used
where applicable in areas of steep slopes, erodible soil, and stream channel crossings.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 51
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
8. Erosion controls that comply with county, State, and Federal standards shall be applied.
Practices such as jute netting, silt fences, and check dams shall be applied near disturbed
areas.
Wildlife
1. Timing restrictions for construction activities may be implemented to minimize impacts
to wildlife.
2. In accordance with the habitat restoration plan, restoration shall be undertaken as soon as
possible after completion of construction activities to reduce the amount of habitat
converted at any one time and to speed up the recovery to natural habitats.
3. All construction employees shall be instructed to avoid harassment and disturbance of
wildlife, especially during reproductive (e.g., courtship and nesting) seasons. In addition,
pets shall not be permitted on site during construction.
Visual Resources
1. Operators shall reduce visual impacts during construction by clearly delineating
construction boundaries and minimizing areas of surface disturbance; preserving
vegetation to the greatest extent possible; utilizing undulating surface disturbance edges;
stripping, salvaging and replacing topsoil; contoured grading; controlling erosion; using
dust suppression techniques; and restoring exposed soils as closely as possible to their
original contour and vegetation.
Ground Transportation
1. Existing roads shall be used, but only if in safe and environmentally sound locations. If
new roads are necessary, they shall be designed and constructed to the appropriate BLM
road design standards and be no higher than necessary to accommodate their intended
functions (e.g., traffic volume and weight of vehicles). Excessive grades on roads, road
embankments, ditches, and drainages shall be avoided, especially in areas with erodible
soils. Special construction techniques shall be used, where applicable. Abandoned roads
and roads that are no longer needed shall be recontoured and revegetated.
2. Access roads and on-site roads shall be surfaced with aggregate materials, wherever
appropriate.
3. Access roads shall be located to follow natural contours and minimize side hill cuts.
4. Roads shall be located away from drainage bottoms and avoid wetlands, if practicable.
5. Roads shall be designed so that changes to surface water runoff are avoided and erosion
is not initiated.
6. Access roads shall be located to minimize stream crossings. All structures crossing
streams shall be located and constructed so that they do not decrease channel stability or
increase water velocity. Operators shall obtain all applicable Federal and State permits.
7. Existing drainage systems shall not be altered, especially in sensitive areas such as
erodible soils or steep slopes. Potential soil erosion shall be controlled at culvert outlets
Appendices – 2.1 p. 52
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
with appropriate structures. Catch basins, roadway ditches, and culverts shall be cleaned
and maintained regularly.
8. Project personnel and contractors shall be instructed and required to adhere to speed
limits commensurate with road types, traffic volumes, vehicle types, and site-specific
conditions, to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow and to reduce wildlife collisions and
disturbance and airborne dust.
9. Traffic shall be restricted to the roads developed for the project. Use of other unimproved
roads shall be restricted to emergency situations.
10. Signs shall be placed along construction roads to identify speed limits, travel restrictions,
and other standard traffic control information. To minimize impacts on local commuters,
consideration shall be given to limiting construction vehicles traveling on public
roadways during the morning and late afternoon commute time. Consideration shall also
be given to opportunities for busing of construction workers to the job site to reduce
traffic volumes.
Air Emissions
1. Dust abatement techniques shall be used on unpaved, unvegetated surfaces to minimize
airborne dust.
2. Speed limits (e.g., 25 mph [40 km/h]) shall be posted and enforced to reduce airborne
fugitive dust.
3. Construction materials and stockpiled soils shall be covered if they are a source of
fugitive dust.
4. Dust abatement techniques shall be used before and during surface clearing, excavation,
or blasting activities.
Excavation and Blasting Activities
1. Operators shall gain a clear understanding of the local hydro-geology. Areas of
groundwater discharge and recharge and their potential relationships with surface water
bodies shall be identified.
2. Operators shall avoid creating hydrologic conduits between two aquifers during
foundation excavation and other activities.
3. Foundations and trenches shall be backfilled with originally excavated material as much
as possible. Excess excavation materials shall be disposed of only in approved areas or, if
suitable, stockpiled for use in reclamation activities.
4. Borrow material shall be obtained only from authorized and permitted sites. Existing sites
shall be used in preference to new sites.
5. Explosives shall be used only within specified times and at specified distances from
sensitive wildlife or streams and lakes, as established by the BLM or other federal and
state agencies.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 53
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
Noise
1. Noisy construction activities (including blasting) shall be limited to the least noisesensitive times of day (i.e., daylight hours only or specified times) and weekdays.
2. All equipment shall have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on
the original equipment. All construction equipment used shall be adequately muffled and
maintained.
3. All stationary construction equipment (i.e., compressors and generators) shall be located
as far as practicable from nearby residences.
4. If blasting or other noisy activities are required during the construction period, nearby
residents shall be notified in advance.
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
1. Unexpected discovery of cultural or paleontological resources during construction shall
be brought to the attention of the responsible BLM authorized officer immediately. Work
shall be halted in the vicinity of the find to avoid further disturbance to the resources
while they are being evaluated and appropriate mitigation measures are being developed.
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management
1. Secondary containment shall be provided for all onsite hazardous materials and waste
storage, including fuel. In particular, fuel storage (for construction vehicles and
equipment) shall be a temporary activity occurring only for as long as is needed to
support construction activities.
2. Wastes shall be properly containerized and removed periodically for disposal at
appropriate offsite-permitted disposal facilities.
3. In the event of an accidental release of hazardous materials to the environment, the
operator shall document the event, including a root cause analysis, appropriate corrective
actions taken, and a characterization of the resulting environmental or health and safety
impacts. Documentation of the event shall be provided to the BLM authorized officer and
other Federal and State agencies, as required.
4. Any wastewater generated in association with temporary, portable sanitary facilities shall
be periodically removed by a licensed hauler and introduced into an existing municipal
sewage treatment facility. Temporary, portable sanitary facilities provided for
construction crews shall be adequate to support expected onsite personnel and shall be
removed at completion of construction activities.
Public Health and Safety
1. Temporary fencing shall be installed around staging areas, storage yards, and excavations
during construction to limit public access.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 54
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
Operation
General
1. All control and mitigation measures established for the project in the POD and the
resource-specific management plans that are part of the POD shall be maintained and
implemented throughout the operational phase, as appropriate. These control and
mitigation measures shall be reviewed and revised, as needed, to address changing
conditions or requirements at the site throughout the operational phase. This adaptive
management approach will help ensure that impacts from operations are kept to a
minimum.
2. Inoperative turbines shall be repaired, replaced, or removed in a timely manner.
Requirements to do so shall be incorporated into the due diligence provisions of the
rights-of-way authorization. Operators will be required to demonstrate due diligence in
the repair, replacement, or removal of turbines; failure to do so may result in termination
of the right-of-way authorization.
Wildlife
1. Employees, contractors, and site visitors shall be instructed to avoid harassment and
disturbance of wildlife, especially during reproductive (e.g., courtship and nesting)
seasons. In addition, any pets shall be controlled to avoid harassment and disturbance of
wildlife.
2. Observations of potential wildlife impacts, including wildlife mortality, shall be reported
to the BLM authorized officer immediately.
Visual Resources
1. Operators shall monitor and maintain visual mitigation measures for the approved project
in accordance with a visual monitoring and compliance plan. The operator shall maintain
revegetated surfaces until a self-sustaining stand of vegetation is reestablished and
visually adapted to the undisturbed surrounding vegetation. No new disturbance shall be
created during operations without completion of a VRM analysis and approval by the
authorized officer.
Ground Transportation
1. Ongoing ground transportation planning shall be conducted to evaluate road use,
minimize traffic volume, and ensure that roads are maintained adequately to minimize
associated impacts.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 55
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
Monitoring Program
1. Site monitoring protocols defined in the POD shall be implemented. These will
incorporate monitoring program observations and additional mitigation measures into
standard operating procedures and BMPs to minimize future environmental impacts.
2. Results of monitoring program efforts shall be provided to the BLM authorized officer.
Public Health and Safety
1. Permanent fencing shall be installed and maintained around electrical substations, and
turbine tower access doors shall be locked to limit public access.
2. In the event an installed wind energy development project results in electromagnetic
interference (EMI), the operator shall work with the owner of the impacted
communications system to resolve the problem. Additional warning information may also
need to be conveyed to aircraft with onboard radar systems so that echoes from wind
turbines can be quickly recognized.
Decommissioning
General
1. Prior to the termination of the right-of-way authorization, a decommissioning plan shall
be developed and approved by the BLM. The decommissioning plan shall include a site
reclamation plan and monitoring program.
2. All management plans, BMPs, and stipulations developed for the construction phase shall
be applied to similar activities during the decommissioning phase.
3. All turbines and ancillary structures shall be removed from the site.
4. Topsoil from all decommissioning activities shall be salvaged and reapplied during final
reclamation.
5. All areas of disturbed soil shall be reclaimed using weed-free native shrubs, grasses, and
forbs.
6. The vegetation cover, composition, and diversity shall be restored to values
commensurate with the ecological setting.
C. SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
1. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
1. New proposals for outfitting and guiding special use permits or recreation event permits
should be approved only when the special use or event is consistent with Outstandingly
Remarkable Values (ORVs), wild and scenic rivers desired conditions, and when a need is
identified by a Needs Assessment and Capacity Analysis.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 56
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
2. Hitching, tethering, hobbling, and confining of saddle and pack animals within wild and
scenic river corridors should be authorized or allowed only in designated stock facilities
or at hardened campsites.
3. New trails should not be constructed within 200 feet of Class 1 and 2 streams unless no
other feasible alternative exists.
4. Recreation livestock should be allowed or authorized only in designated areas.
5. Timber harvest roads should not be constructed within wild and scenic river corridors.
6. Firewood collection (except for use at onsite campfires) should be allowed only at
designated sites within wild and scenic river corridors.
7. The construction of roads and river crossings that are visible from the river corridor of
wild and scenic sections should be prohibited except when necessary to meet recreation
purposes. S-36 Oil and gas leasing shall not be authorized within 1,320 feet of the high
water mark in wild river corridors.
2. WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS
General BMP for Wilderness Study Areas
1. Existing and proposed uses that could compromise wilderness study area (WSA)
eligibility prior to congressional designation should not be authorized.
Normal Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Guidelines for Wilderness Study Areas
1. Rehabilitation following wildland fire in a WSA will comply with Wilderness Interim
Management Policy (IMP) H-8550-1. When a proposed rehabilitation project addresses
an area coving land both within and outside a WSA, it will be treated as two separate
projects. The area outside the WSA will be treated in accordance with this guide. The
area inside the WSA will be treated in accordance with the Wilderness IMP referenced
above.
2. Interested parties will be allowed a 30-day comment period on the proposed treatment in
WSA’s, unless it is not possible to do so because of emergency conditions (i.e., the 30day comment period would result in missing the optimum period for treatment). If a full
30-day period would result in missing the optimum period for rehabilitation, key contacts
would be notified for immediate comment, and a follow up copy of the treatment
prescription would be forwarded.
3. Disturbance caused by fire suppression actions will be evaluated in WSA’s. If it is
determined that wilderness suitability is affected by the fire suppression disturbance,
mitigation of the disturbance will occur prior to release of suppression resources. Costs
associated with mitigating suppression actions will be covered by wildland fire
suppression funds, not emergency fire rehabilitation funds.
4. The “minimum tool” will be applied to all fire rehabilitation projects within WSA’s. Any
rehabilitation actions must maintain an area’s suitability for preservation as wilderness.
Fire rehabilitation should be accomplished using methods and equipment that causes the
Appendices – 2.1 p. 57
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
least damage to wilderness resources. The use of motorized vehicles and mechanical
equipment will be minimized to the extent possible.
5. The appropriate species and methods for seeding will be considered on a case-by-case
basis to determine if the proposed method meets the policy and guidelines for WSA’s.
Seed and planting will utilize native species, and will minimize cross-country use of
motorized equipment. Seedings and plantings will be staggered or irregular so as to avoid
a straight-line plantation appearance. Seed will be applied aerially unless the area to be
rehabilitated is small, or ground application will not impair wilderness characteristics.
6. Because the covering of seed greatly affects its successful germination, mechanized
equipment may be considered to cover the seed after aerial application. If the burned area
is determined to be crucial wildlife habitat, and shrub seed is not applied aerially, then
seedlings may be hand planted.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 58
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
NOXIOUS/INVASIVE WEEDS RISK ASSESSMENT
Directions: Adjust spacing as necessary. Retain one copy of this document with your project files.
Provide the Weed Coordinator with a second copy of the form and a project map which will be retained
for future use. A definition for each of the two factors can be found on the next page.
1. Project Name:
NEPA No.
2. Date Risk Assessment was completed:
3. Describe steps taken to complete Risk Assessment: E.G. compared map of project area with weed
inventory layer. Visited site and conducted weed inventory, spoke with weed coordinator, etc.
4. Project Description:
5. Project Location: Be specific.
6. Factor 1 assesses the likelihood of noxious/invasive weed species spreading to the project area. For
this project, the factor rates as _ and _ at the present time. This rating was based on the following
findings:
Describe here.
7. Factor 2 assesses the consequences of noxious/invasive weed establishment in the project area. For
this project, the factor rates as __ and __. This rating was based on the following findings:
Describe here.
8. Factor 1 * Factor 2 = Risk Rating: ___, __ (Score and rating).
(The Risk Rating is obtained by multiplying Factor 1 by Factor 2.)
9. Based on this risk rating, preventative management measures are/ are not (circle one) needed or
this project. Preventative management measures developed for this project are as follows:
Describe here.
10. Based on this risk rating, project modifications are/are not (circle one) needed for this project.
Project modifications developed for this project are as follows.
Describe here.
Weed Risk Assessment completed by: Name and Title_______________________________
Reviewed by/Date Reviewed: __________________________ (weed coordinator) Date:_______
Appendices – 2.1 p. 59
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.1: Best Management Practices
Risk Factors
Factor 1
NONE, (0): Noxious/invasive weed species are not found within or are adjacent to the proposed project area.
Project activity is not likely to result in the establishment of noxious/invasive weed species in the project area.
LOW, (1-3): Noxious/invasive weed species present in areas adjacent to but not within the project area. Project
activities can be implemented and prevent the spread of noxious/invasive weeds into the project area.
MODERATE, (4-7): Noxious/invasive weed species located immediately adjacent to or within the project area.
Project activities are likely to result in some areas becoming infested with noxious weed species even when
preventative management actions are followed. Control measures are essential to prevent the spread of
noxious/invasive weeds within the project area.
HIGH, (7-10): Heavy infestations of noxious/invasive weeds are located within or immediately adjacent to the
project area. Project activities, even with preventative management actions, are likely to result in the establishment
and spread of noxious/invasive weeds on disturbed sites throughout much of the project area.
Factor 2
LOW TO NONEXISTENT (1-3): None. No cumulative effects expected.
MODERATE, (4-7): Possible adverse effects on site and possible expansion of infestation within the project area.
Cumulative effects on native plant communities are likely, but limited.
HIGH, (7-10): Obvious adverse effects within the project area and probable expansion of noxious weed infestations
to areas outside the project area. Adverse cumulative effects on native plant communities are probable.
FACTOR 1 * FACTOR 2 = Risk Rating
Risk Rating
NONE, (0): Proceed as planned.
LOW, (1-10): Proceed as planned. Initiate control treatment on noxious weed populations that get established in the
area.
MODERATE, (11-49): Develop preventative management measures for proposed project to reduce the risk of
introduction or spread of noxious weeds into the area. Preventative management measures should include
modifying the project to include seeding the area to occupy disturbed sites with desirable species. Monitor area for
at least 3 consecutive years and provide for control of newly established populations of noxious weeds and followup treatment for previously treated infestations.
HIGH, (50-100):
Project must be modified to reduce risk level through preventative management measures, including seeding with
desirable species to occupy disturbed sites and controlling existing infestations of noxious weeds prior to project
activity. Project must provide at least 5 consecutive years of monitoring. Projects must also provide for control of
newly established populations of noxious weeds and follow-up treatment for previously treated infestations.
Appendices – 2.1 p. 60
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
APPENDIX 2.2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE AQUATIC AND
RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY (BAKER ARMS)
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
2. Purpose........................................................................................................................................ 1
3. Background ................................................................................................................................. 2
4. Expectations and Limitations of the Baker ARMS ..................................................................... 2
5. Aquatic AND Riparian Ecosytems ............................................................................................. 4
6. Ecosystem Management ............................................................................................................. 6
7. Watershed and Aquatic Habitat Conditions in the Baker Field Office Planning Area ............... 7
8. Restoring and Maintaining Watershed Conditions ..................................................................... 8
9. Components of the Baker ARMS ............................................................................................. 10
10. Aquatic and Riparian Resource Management Goals .............................................................. 10
11. Desired Conditions and Applicable Scales ............................................................................. 11
12. Desired Conditions ................................................................................................................. 14
1. Watershed Function.............................................................................................................. 14
2. Species Diversity ................................................................................................................. 21
3. Productive Capacity ............................................................................................................. 22
4. Disturbance Processes.......................................................................................................... 23
5. Invasive Species ................................................................................................................... 24
6. Soil Quality .......................................................................................................................... 24
7. Water Quality ....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
8. Fishing Opportunities........................................................................................................... 26
13. Riparian Management Areas (RMAs) .................................................................................... 26
1. Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 26
2. Definition ............................................................................................................................. 27
3. RMA Widths ........................................................................................................................ 27
4. RMA Delineation and Modification .................................................................................... 27
5. RMA Delineation Criteria .................................................................................................... 28
6. Default RMA Widths ........................................................................................................... 30
7. Desired Conditions............................................................................................................... 31
14. Conservation and Restoration Watersheds.............................................................................. 33
1. Conservation Watersheds ..................................................................................................... 34
2. Restoration Watersheds ........................................................................................................ 35
15. Priority Ranking for Conservation and Restoration Watersheds ............................................ 36
16. Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Management Strategies ........................................................... 40
1. Protection ............................................................................................................................. 40
2. Passive Restoration .............................................................................................................. 40
3. Active Restoration ................................................................................................................ 40
4. Rehabilitation ....................................................................................................................... 40
Appendix 2.2 – p. i
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
17. Multi-Scale Analysis ............................................................................................................... 41
1. Watershed Analysis .............................................................................................................. 42
2. Objectives of a Watershed Analysis ..................................................................................... 42
3. Appropriate Methodology .................................................................................................... 42
4. The Six Steps of Site-Specific Analysis............................................................................... 43
5. Baker FO Watershed Analysis Direction ............................................................................. 43
18. Standards and Guidelines........................................................................................................ 44
19. Adaptive Management and Monitoring .................................................................................. 53
1. Adaptive Management ......................................................................................................... 53
2. Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring .................................................................... 54
3. Monitoring and Evaluation of the RMP and Baker ARMS ............................................. …57
LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................................. 58
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Default Riparian Management Area Widths (No Action Alternative and Alternative 1)..... 30
Table 2: Default Riparian Management Area Widths (Alternatives 2 and 3) ................................... 30
Table 3: Default Riparian Management Area Widths (Alternatives 4 and 5) ................................... 31
Table 4: Special status fish species in the Baker FO Planning Area. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 5: Baker FO Priority Conservation Watersheds. ..................................................................... 38
Table 6: Baker FO Priority Restoration Watersheds. ........................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 7: RMA Standards and Guidelines. ......................................................................................... 45
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Natural Connectivity Model. ............................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: Influences on stream channels at a range of spatial and temporal scales .......................... 13
Figure 3: Relationship between recovery time and sensitivity to disturbance for different spatial
scales. ................................................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 4: A hierarchy of spatial scales and terms for managing watersheds and aquatic ................. 14
and riparian resources. ....................................................................................................................... 14
Appendix 2.2 – p. ii
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
APPENDIX 2.2: AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT
STRATEGY
1. INTRODUCTION
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office (FO) Aquatic and Riparian
Management Strategy (ARMS) provides guidance and programmatic direction for watershed,
subwatershed, riparian, and aquatic conservation and restoration, and is also integrated with
other management direction. Conservation of fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats at risk of
degradation should be considered together with the full array of broad-scale ecosystem and
social components, which include, but are not limited to, the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
landscape dynamics
terrestrial source habitats
aquatic and riparian species
hydrologic processes
socio-economics
tribal governments
Management actions will balance short-term risks to aquatic and riparian resources (as well as
other resources) with long-term benefits as actions are considered that move these resources
toward a natural range of variability for desired conditions.
The Baker ARMS provides the core set of goals, desired conditions, and standards and guidelines
for aquatic and riparian management within the Baker FO Planning Area administrative
boundary.
2. PURPOSE
The impetus behind the development of the Baker ARMS is based on A Framework for
Incorporating the Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Component of the Interior Columbia Basin
Strategy into BLM and Forest Service Plan Revisions (USDA and USDI 2004), which provides
direction and guidance for use in developing the aquatic and riparian resource components for
federal land management plan revisions. It is intended to provide a consistent foundation for
implementation of the Aquatic and Riparian Habitat component of the Interior Columbia Basin
(ICB) Strategy (USDA and USDI 2003). It also facilitates consistency among both BLM and
Forest Service land management plans in terms of the structure of the aquatic and riparian
components, while providing for a high level of discretion to agency decision makers in the
substance of their individual land management plan revisions.
In August 2008, BLM Oregon/Washington and Idaho State Office managers submitted the
Guidance for Developing Aquatic Conservation Strategies for BLM Resource Management Plans
in the Interior Columbia Basin (BLM 2008), which provides clarification, guidance, and
Appendix 2.2 – p. 1
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
examples for developing aquatic and riparian management strategies in conjunction with BLM
RMP revisions. It is also intended for BLM District and Field Managers to further implement
BLM policy and assure that aquatic and riparian management strategies are consistent across the
Pacific Northwest.
3. BACKGROUND
The Baker ARMS is a refinement of earlier strategies, including: the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy (ACS) (USDA and USDI 1994a and 1994b), the Interim Strategies for Managing
Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions
of California (PACFISH) (USDA and USDI 1995), and the BLM Interim Bull Trout Habitat
Conservation Strategy (BLM Bull Trout Strategy) (BLM 1995).
Two independent assessments were completed to evaluate the utility and effectiveness of these
earlier strategies (Reeves 2006, Heller and McCammon 2004). Both concluded that the basic
approaches and associated management direction are sound, generally understood and
implemented by federal land management agency personnel, and have significantly changed the
way aquatic resources are managed on federally-managed lands in the Pacific Northwest (USFS
2010). Specifically, they found that the strategies have led to improved and proactive
management of aquatic resources and these changes appear to++ be maintaining and restoring
aquatic and riparian habitat conditions at the watershed and larger scales. In addition, Reeves
(2006) noted that implementation of the ACS has resulted in positive changes in federal land
management agency culture.
Scientific studies completed after these strategies were initiated (Naiman et al. 2000, Spence et
al. 1996) continue to support their general framework and assumptions. Evaluations of the
strategies, as described above, indicate the need for and utility of a more localized riparian and
aquatic management strategy that incorporates new science (e.g., Hobbs and Huenneke 1992,
Reeves et al. 1995) and addresses issues and clarifications identified during more than a decade
of field-level implementation.
These needed refinements provide a primary basis for development of the Baker ARMS. They
include increased recognition that disturbance is integral to the resiliency of ecosystems,
consideration of scale effects (spatial and temporal) on ecosystem processes, confirmation of the
value and utility of watershed-scale analysis, the need for a monitoring component, and
establishment of improved connection between management intent and direction in the strategy.
4. EXPECTATIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE BAKER ARMS
The Baker ARMS is designed to provide a consistent approach to maintain and restore the
ecological health and processes of watersheds and aquatic and riparian ecosystems on public
lands administered by the BLM Baker FO. It recognizes that periodic disturbances are often
necessary to maintain ecological function. The goal of the strategy is to prevent degradation of
Appendix 2.2 – p. 2
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
riparian and aquatic ecosystems and to restore habitat and the ecological processes responsible
for creating habitat over broad landscapes (USDA and USDI 1994b). It is not expected that all
watersheds will be in good condition at any point in time, nor will any particular watershed be in
a certain condition through time. Instead, if the Baker ARMS is effective, the proportion of
watersheds in good condition is expected to remain the same or increase over time (Reeves et al.
2006). The Baker ARMS does not identify a particular desired or acceptable distribution of
watershed condition.
The Baker ARMS maintains the goal of the ACS, which is to develop networks of properly
functioning watersheds that support populations of fish and other aquatic and riparian-dependent
organisms across the Baker FO Planning Area. To accomplish all of the desired conditions will
likely take several decades to possibly more than a century (USDA and USDI 1994b). Similar to
the ACS, the Baker ARMS is intended to protect watersheds in the short term (10-20 years) that
currently have good habitat and fish populations (FEMAT 1993). The strategy is expected to
improve the ecological condition of watersheds, but the condition of most watersheds
extensively degraded from past management activities will likely take an extended period time to
improve (FEMAT 1993).
The Baker ARMS is expected to contribute to the recovery of Endangered Species Act (ESA)
listed fish, particularly anadromous salmon and trout1 by increasing the quantity and quality of
freshwater habitat (FEMAT 1993). By itself, however, it is not expected to prevent the listing of
any species or distinct population segment, primarily because federal land management agencies
are responsible only for the habitat they manage. State fish and wildlife agencies are responsible
for populations on all lands and for the regulation of activities that affect populations and habitats
on other ownerships. For listed salmon and trout, factors outside the responsibility of federal
land managers contribute to the status and trends of populations. These include changes in
freshwater and estuarine habitats, harvest in commercial and recreational fisheries, management
of dams, and the effects of hatchery practices and introductions (National Research Council
1996).
An additional factor beyond the scope of the federal land manager control is climate change.
Nonetheless, federal land managers have responsibility to address and be responsive to climaterelated impacts. An adaptive management approach can be used to make adjustments in plan
components as the local effects of climate change become apparent or as the ability to make
accurate projections improves.
1
Anadromous fish spend their early life in freshwater, move to the ocean to mature, and then return to freshwater to
reproduce.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 3
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
5. AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN ECOSYTEMS
Aquatic and riparian ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest are dynamic in space and time (Reeves
et al. 1995). Ecologically healthy watersheds are maintained by natural disturbances that create
spatial heterogeneity and temporal variability in the physical components of the system (Naiman
et al. 1992a). Natural disturbances have resulted in a mosaic of habitat conditions over time and
native fish populations have adapted to this dynamic environment (Naiman et al. 1992a, Reeves
et al. 1995). Aquatic and riparian ecosystems are most resilient2 to the types of disturbances
under which they have developed. Recovery from disturbance may take decades or longer,
depending on its magnitude and extent, but some improvements can be expected in 10 to 20
years (Reeves 2006).
Naiman et al. (1992b) describe different disturbance regimes based on the frequency and
magnitude of disturbance and its location within a watershed (e.g., headwaters, middle, or lower
reaches). Under natural disturbance regimes, a landscape would have watersheds exhibiting a
range of conditions because of the asynchronous nature of large and infrequent disturbance
events. More recent studies describe stream systems as complex, branching networks rather than
linear systems, providing a better understanding of the ecological processes that link riparian and
aquatic and headwater and downstream ecosystems (Benda et al. 2004, Fisher 1997). These
perspectives imply that aquatic ecosystems are not static. Rather, streams are invariably
dynamic, and conditions vary in space and time because of periodic events such as wildfire, large
storms and subsequent floods, hillslope failures, landslides, debris flows, and channel migration.
An important implication is that streams and aquatic ecosystems are linked to the dynamics of
both the riparian and upland communities and the watershed and physical processes that shape
them.
Small streams3 serve as critical source areas for high quality water. Because the spatial extent of
headwater streams makes up a major portion of the total catchment area (Sidle et al. 2000, Meyer
and Wallace 2001), these and adjacent upland ecosystems are important sources of sediment,
water, nutrients, energy, and organic matter for downstream systems (Furniss et al. 2005, Gomi et
al. 2002, Meyer et al. 2003, Wipfli et al. 2007). These relationships are illustrated by the Natural
Connectivity Model (Figure 1).
Riparian ecosystems are among the most diverse, dynamic, and complex biophysical habitats on
the landscape. They have many interfaces, edges, or ecotones and possess a relatively high
diversity of resources. Riparian zones control energy and material flux, are sites of biological
and physical interaction at the terrestrial/aquatic interface, support unique vegetation
2
Resiliency of an ecosystem is the degree to which the system can be disturbed and recover to a state where
processes and interactions function as before (Holling 1973, Reeves et al. 1995).
3
Small streams are also called headwater, intermittent, ephemeral, seasonal, low-order, and upper network streams
(after Furniss et al. 2005).
Appendix 2.2 – p. 4
Baker FO
O Draft RMP
P/EIS
Appendix 2.2: AR
RMS
assemblaages, providee critical hab
bitats for raree and threateened speciess, and are reffuges and souurce
areas for a wide varieety of speciees (Kauffman
n et al. 2001 ).
p a criticaal role in con
nnectivity off watersheds by providinng dispersal aand
Riparian zones also play
travel hab
bitat and corrridors acrosss the landscape for bothh terrestrial aand riparian--dependent
species. The function
ns of living and dead vegetation in rriparian zonees include reegulating bannk
erosion, providing
p
an
n adequate an
nd continuou
us supply off coarse wooody debris too streams, annd
providing
g shade and microclimatte protection
n.
Most verrtebrates (53 percent of wildlife
w
speccies occurrinng in Oregonn and Washinngton) use
riparian zones
z
for at least part off their activities (Kauffm
man et al. 20001). Moreovver,
approxim
mately 26 and
d 30 percentt of flora in Oregon
O
and W
Washingtonn, respectivelly, are faculttative
or obligaate wetland species
s
(USD
DA Natural Resource
R
Coonservation S
Service 20066, FEMAT
1993). These
T
speciess play a critiical role in th
he productivvity, resilienccy, and functtion of ripariian
zones.
onnectivity Model.
M
Head
dwater streaams are sourcces of energyy and serve as
Figure 1.. Natural Co
cond
duits for fish
h, amphibian
ns and other biota,
b
nutriennts, energy, and wood, linking uplannd
ecossystems with
h larger navig
gable waterss downstream
m (modified from Wipflii et al. 2007)).
Appen
ndix 2.2 – p.. 5
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
6. ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
Management and conservation strategies (Holling and Meffe 1996, Dale et al. 2000), including
those involving aquatic organisms (National Research Council 1996, Independent
Multidisciplinary Scientific Team 1999), require consideration of large spatial and temporal
extents and the conservation of biophysical processes rather than just individual biological and
physical elements. In the case of many legally listed fish, this necessitates a transition from the
current focus on relatively small spatial extents with little or no consideration of temporal
dimensions, to larger spatial extents (ecosystems and landscapes) over longer (i.e., 10 – 100
years) time periods (Reeves et al. 1995, Poff et al. 1997, Naiman and Latterell 2005). Williams
et al. (1989), for example, found that no fish species listed under the ESA was ever recovered
after listing and attributed this failure to the general focus of recovery efforts on habitat attributes
rather than on restoration and conservation of ecosystems.
Factors to be considered in developing ecosystem management plans and policies include the
frequency, magnitude, extent, duration (Pickett and White 1985, Hobbs and Huenneke 1992),
and context of interacting disturbance regimes (including legacy effects) in managed ecosystems
(Hobbs and Huenneke 1992, Reeves et al. 1995, Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002). The
resilience of an ecosystem can be reduced if any of these factors are modified. Reduced
resilience can lead to a decrease in the range of conditions that an ecosystem can experience,
extirpation of some species, increases in species favored by available habitats, and an invasion of
exotic species (Lugo et al. 1999, Levin 1974, Harrison and Quinn 1989, Hansen and Urban
1992). The effects of land management on the ecosystem depend on how closely the
management disturbance regime resembles the natural disturbance regime with regard to these
factors.
The focus of ecosystem management on ecological processes and dynamics is well supported in
the scientific literature. Ecosystems constantly change through time. They are not steady state,
and periodic disturbance is necessary to maintain the long-term productivity and integrity of an
ecosystem (Lugo et al. 1999). Based on recognition of ecosystem dynamics, a key focus of
ecosystem management and the Baker ARMS is maintaining or restoring ecological processes
and resilience as opposed to attempting to maintain a desired set of static conditions through time
(Dale et al. 2000). Ecosystem management also strives to maintain a variety of ecological states
or patches in a desired spatial and temporal distribution (Gosz et al. 1999, Concannon et al.
1999).
Ehrenfeld (1992) supports these perspectives, noting that conditions in many ecological
communities are in flux because of disturbance. This makes it difficult to determine a normal
state. Applying fixed standards developed for ecological conditions at small spatial extents with
the expectation of achieving constant conditions over large areas is likely to compromise or
decrease the long-term productivity of ecosystems and can create false or unrealistic expectations
about the outcomes of policies or regulations (Holling and Meffe 1996, Bisson et al. 1997,
Caraher et al. 1999, Dale et al. 2000, Poole et al. 2003).
Appendix 2.2 – p. 6
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
A variety of sources, including interested citizens, interest groups, scientific review and
evaluation groups (e.g., the Independent Multidisciplinary Scientific Team 1999, National
Research Council 1996), regulatory agencies, and policy- and decision makers have called for
developing policies and practices to manage the freshwater habitats of at-risk fish at ecosystem
and landscape extents. Ecosystem management responds to this need and the failure of previous
conservation strategies by focusing on larger, varied spatial extents and longer timeframes.
7. WATERSHED AND AQUATIC HABITAT CONDITIONS IN THE BAKER FIELD
OFFICE PLANNING AREA
BLM-administered public lands within the Baker FO Planning Area are generally located in
northeastern Oregon, the majority of which are located in Baker County, Oregon, and are part of
the Blue Mountain Physiographic Province. Watershed conditions in most areas of the Blue
Mountain Physiographic Province have been degraded to varying degrees by a long history of
land use activities, including placer and lode mining, timber harvesting, road construction,
livestock grazing, irrigated agriculture, water diversions, and other human uses (USDA 2010).
The impacts of these activities are still reflected in the condition of many watersheds today
(McIntosh et al. 1994a, 1994b, and Wissmar 2004). The extent and quality of aquatic habitats, as
well as watershed and soil conditions, have been greatly reduced from historic conditions, and
populations of anadromous and resident fishes have declined as a result (Gregory and Bisson
1997). In particular, large declines in pool habitat, large wood, and aquatic habitat diversity have
been noted in streams in the Blue Mountain Physiographic Province (McIntosh et al. 1994a,
1994b). In addition, high road densities contribute sediment, alter riparian habitats, and increase
the rate of watershed runoff. Access to more than 3,700 stream miles on National Forest System
(NFS) lands are blocked or partially blocked by culverts that were not originally designed to
provide for fish passage.
Remaining high-quality aquatic habitats are often isolated and fragmented. Increasingly, these
habitats are limited to federally-managed lands and no longer represent the full range of habitat
types or conditions to which aquatic species are adapted. Restoration of watershed and aquatic
habitat conditions has been underway for decades but will require an increasingly more
integrated approach to improve effectiveness. Restoration needs to address terrestrial, riparian,
and aquatic habitats over multiple spatial scales and multiple ownerships. In some cases,
improvements may not be seen for decades or centuries (Reeves et al. 1995). Habitat restoration,
by itself, is not a substitute for appropriate environmental protection, and management that relies
solely on rehabilitation of altered habitats cannot sustainably provide for ecosystem health
(Gregory and Bisson 1997; Wissmar et al. 1994a, 1994b).
Degraded habitat conditions and several other factors have contributed to the federal listing of
several fish species under the ESA: Snake River Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are listed as threatened; middle Columbia Basin steelhead
Appendix 2.2 – p. 7
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
are listed as threatened; and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are listed as threatened within
their entire range in the western United States (USDA 2010).
Water quality does not meet standards in more than 1,200 miles of stream in Oregon and
Washington. Water quality limited stream segments occur in every major drainage within the
Blue Mountain Physiographic Province on both private and public lands (USDA 2010).
Water that flows from forested lands is used downstream for drinking water, irrigation, and
hydroelectric power generation, among other uses. Watershed restoration may have varying
societal benefits, depending on geographic location, by improving water quality for downstream
users, moderating flood flows, maintaining the quantity of water that flows from streams and
rivers on public lands, and reducing the amount of sediment that enters the streams (USDA
2010).
8. RESTORING AND MAINTAINING WATERSHED CONDITIONS
The overall strategy of the Baker ARMS is to accelerate improvement of watershed and aquatic
and riparian habitat conditions across the landscape by: 1) conducting new and ongoing
management activities in a manner that, across broad scales, protects watersheds in good
condition and allows for passive recovery of those that are degraded; 2) actively restoring
conditions at watershed scales in high-priority areas by implementing integrated, strategicallyfocused sets of restoration treatments that facilitate recovery of critical watershed processes.
Much of the forested and non-forested vegetation in the Baker FO Planning Area is highly
departed from desired conditions. Dry forest vegetation types have both the greatest extent of
departed acres and the greatest level of departure. Alteration of vegetative conditions has
cascading effects on the extent and quality of riparian and aquatic habitats and overall watershed
conditions. Riparian and aquatic habitats in the Baker FO Planning Area have become
fragmented to the extent that local populations of some aquatic species have become extinct,
while the sustainability of remaining species is at increasing risk (USDA 2010).
The overall strategy of the Baker ARMS incorporates the assumption that the level of restoration
needs within the Planning Area is large and exceeds the capacity of the existing BLM workforce
and budgets. As a consequence, there is a need to prioritize implementation of projects in order
to efficiently use available resources. Those projects that benefit multiple resources across broad
scales should have a higher priority than those that benefit just one resource.
Restoration will be accomplished by a combination of active and passive management. Active
management will be concentrated in watersheds with functionally impaired aquatic and riparian
ecosystems or in areas where previous investments in the land have been made. Undeveloped
areas will remain largely undeveloped, and unplanned fire will be the main tool utilized to
improve ecosystem resilience in those areas. The full range of wildfire suppression strategies,
from aggressive suppression to monitoring, will be used within all areas so long as the effects are
Appendix 2.2 – p. 8
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
compatible with maintaining or achieving desired conditions. The BLM also recognizes that
restoration should not just occur in areas that are the most departed from desired conditions. By
treating or maintaining areas that are close to or at the desired condition, management may
prevent a departure that could result in the need for expensive restoration treatments.
The highest priority is to first restore critical watershed processes in watersheds in which the
structure and function of the aquatic and riparian ecosystems are largely intact, but are threatened
by existing or projected watershed conditions. Resource priority conflicts (e.g., aquatic species
versus terrestrial species, forest health versus rangeland health) will be resolved through
interoffice, interagency, and/or interdisciplinary team discussion during outyear program and
project development or on a project-by-project basis. However, management actions shall not
preclude the attainment of aquatic and riparian desired conditions (see Section 12).
The overall objective of the Baker ARMS is to protect and restore whole watersheds, while
reducing risk to remaining populations of aquatic species and increasing the availability and
connectivity of high quality aquatic and riparian habitats. Watersheds in good condition should
be preserved by reducing existing impacts, implementing best management practices or
standards and guidelines, and through more comprehensive project design. Watershed
restoration activities should be prioritized so that investments are made in areas that have the
highest restoration potential while providing the greatest benefit to multiple resources and the
least risk to existing special status species populations. These areas are identified as priority
watersheds. Restoration actions may take place in watersheds of lower priority or even in nonprioritized watersheds as circumstances warrant and as opportunities are presented.
Land managers should recognize and seek to restore the processes responsible for creating and
maintaining aquatic and riparian habitats, as well as the diversity of those habitats. This may
include, but is not limited to:
Altering the structure and composition of upland vegetation in order to move towards
achieving desired conditions
Managing vegetation to reduce wildfire risk and restore stand structure and resiliency
Reducing road-related erosion and sediment delivery to streams through road closure,
road obliteration, improved maintenance, and/or improved erosion control
Removing barriers that block or restrict access to historically occupied habitats or restrict
connectivity between habitats
Altering riparian habitats to favor deciduous trees and shrubs as appropriate where such
species were formerly abundant
Reintroducing keystone species, such as beaver, into suitable habitats within their former
range
Increasing the diversity and complexity of aquatic and riparian habitats by promoting
natural establishment and succession of riparian plant communities
Restoring the natural range of stream flows to the extent possible
Managing invasive species to maintain the composition and diversity of native species
Appendix 2.2 – p. 9
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Restoring complexity and aquatic and riparian habitat
Adapting management actions to account for the expected effects of climate change
9. COMPONENTS OF THE BAKER ARMS
The Baker ARMS combines ecosystem and landscape4 perspectives to forge a management
strategy that is intended to be applied over broad heterogeneous areas. The key components of
the Baker ARMS are listed, in no particular order, as follows and described below in further
detail:
Aquatic and riparian resource management goals (Section 10) and desired conditions
(Section 12)
Establishment of Riparian Management Areas (RMAs), which are areas where aquatic
and riparian-dependent resources receive primary management emphasis (Section 13).
Restoration and conservation watershed designation (Section 14) and prioritization
(Section 15), including protection of special status fish species.
Restoration and conservation management strategies and guidance (Section 16).
Multi-scale analysis for use in subsequent project-level decisions (Section 17).
Standards and guidelines that are applicable to all RMAs and to projects and activities in
areas outside of RMAs that are identified through National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) analysis as potentially degrading to RMAs and/or desired conditions, or that
retard or prevent the attainment of aquatic and riparian habitat desired conditions (Section
18).
Monitoring and adaptive management to determine if the RMP and Baker ARMS are
being implemented correctly and are achieving resource goals and desired conditions
(Section 19).
Interaction of the aforementioned components at the watershed or landscape scale provides the
basis for watershed, aquatic, and riparian ecosystem management and restoration. These
components work together and complement each other to achieve the goal of a distribution of
watershed conditions that are resilient to natural disturbance and that maintain, restore, and
enhance habitat for inland and anadromous fish, other aquatic organisms, and a variety of
wildlife and other riparian-dependent resources on BLM lands in the Baker FO Planning Area.
They will not achieve desired results if implemented alone or in limited combination. As such,
they are designed to be applied in an integrated manner.
10. AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GOALS
Desired conditions establish an expectation of the characteristics of healthy and properly
functioning watersheds, riparian areas, and associated fish habitats. Because the quality of water
4 A landscape is a collection of biophysical elements and ecosystem types that occupy relatively large (105-107 acres) contiguous areas (Hunter 1996, Concannon et al. 1999).
Appendix 2.2 – p. 10
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
and fish habitat in aquatic systems is inseparably related to the integrity of upland and riparian
areas within the watersheds, the desired conditions are to maintain or restore the following:
Water quality, to a degree that provides for stable and productive riparian and aquatic
ecosystems and conditions that promote compliance with state water quality standards.
Stream channel integrity, channel processes, and the sediment regime (including the
elements of timing, volume, and character of sediment input and transport) of the natural
aquatic and riparian ecosystems.
Instream flows to support healthy riparian and aquatic habitats, which promote the
stability and effective function of stream channels, and the ability to effectively route
flood discharges.
Natural timing and variability of the water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.
Diversity and productivity of native and desired plant communities in riparian zones.
Riparian vegetation to:
• Provide an amount and distribution of large woody debris characteristic of natural
aquatic and riparian ecosystems;
• Provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation within the riparian and
aquatic zones;
• Help achieve rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration
characteristic of the natural aquatic and riparian ecosystems.
Riparian and aquatic habitats necessary to foster the unique genetic fish stocks that
evolved within the specific geo-climatic region.
Habitat to support populations of well-distributed native and desirable non-native plant,
vertebrate, and invertebrate populations that contribute to the viability of ripariandependent communities.
Improve connectivity of travel and dispersal corridors for terrestrial and aquatic species.
11. DESIRED CONDITIONS AND APPLICABLE SCALES
The Baker ARMS is designed to contribute to the sustainability of aquatic and riparian
ecosystems and species. Thus, the Baker ARMS is intended to maintain and restore the
ecological health of watersheds and to retain the ability of riparian and aquatic ecosystems to
recover from natural disturbances. To provide for resilient, productive, and persistent natural
systems, it is important for management to conserve natural processes that constrain or influence
the structure and variability in landscapes; conserve the natural variation or diversity; and
account for the influence of scale by identifying and conserving patterns and key processes at
multiple spatial and temporal scales (Rieman et al. 2006).
Stream habitats are heterogeneous and dynamic in longitudinal (headwaters to larger rivers),
lateral (stream, floodplain, riparian area interactions) and vertical (stream channel-hyporheic
interactions) dimensions (Stanford and Ward 1992). Stream and riparian habitats also vary in
time in relationship to disturbance (Reeves et al 1995). Different physical processes may affect
aquatic habitat at different spatial and temporal scales. Figure 2 displays the relative frequencies
Appendix 2.2 – p. 11
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
and scales of selected disturbances that may affect stream channels and watersheds, producing
spatially and temporally variable habitats. For example, disturbance from storms, debris flows
and/or fires are typically more frequent and occur at smaller spatial scales than climate change
and tectonic processes. The probability that a particular location will be affected by disturbance
at a particular time may be low, but it increases with increasing spatial scale.
The scale of biological response to disturbance will vary depending upon spatial requirements
(home range, territory size, migratory patterns) and temporal constraints (e.g., generation time,
migration time) of different species (Rieman et al 2006). Similarly, the relationship between
recovery time and the relative sensitivity to disturbance will vary depending on the relative scale
of various habitat and stream features (Figure 3). For example, individual sites have a relatively
high sensitivity to disturbance but have relatively short recovery periods. Conversely,
watersheds have a relatively low sensitivity to an individual disturbance, but have a relatively
long recovery period. Aquatic and riparian ecosystems management needs to account for
processes interacting at multiple scales to establish the context for aquatic resource conservation
(Fausch et al. 2002).
The general desired conditions for the Baker ARMS apply at the landscape or watershed scale,
not at a particular site. The national hydrologic unit code (HUC) is the basis for defining the
scales at which desired conditions apply. The three HUC fields (or watershed scales) most
relevant to implementation of the Baker ARMS are: subbasin (4th field HUC), watershed (5th
field HUC), and subwatershed (6th field HUC). Individual project assessments often use data
collected at finer scales such as the subwatershed, drainage, valley segment, site, or stream reach
scale (Figure 4).
Appendix 2.2 – p. 12
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Figure 2. Influences on stream channels at a range of spatial and temporal scales
(Montgomery and Buffington 1998).
Figure 3. Relationship between recovery time and sensitivity to disturbance for different
spatial scales (Frissell et al. 1986, Naiman 1998, Naiman et al. 1992b).
Appendix 2.2 – p. 13
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Figure 4. A hierarchy of spatial scales and terms for managing watersheds and aquatic
and riparian resources.
Aquatic populations can be nested in a manner consistent with the watershed-scale definitions.
Bull trout core populations (Whitsell et al. 2004) and anadromous fish populations for example
have been generally identified at the subbasin level (4th field HUC). Bull trout local populations
and anadromous fish major and minor spawning areas are generally located within watersheds
(5th field HUC) or subwatersheds (6th field HUC).
12. DESIRED CONDITIONS
The following desired conditions explain the conditions, processes, and relationships that the
BLM Baker FO will seek to achieve over time using adaptive management and monitoring data,
including trend data when available and where applicable. Desired conditions are generally to be
applied at the watershed scale but some are more appropriate at the subbasin or subwatershed
scale. Some conditions may already exist; some are achievable over the life of the RMP; others
may only be achievable over a longer period of time, possibly decades. Movement towards
achieving desired conditions will depend on funding and program direction provided by higher
levels within the BLM, the Department of Interior, and Congress, and will also be affected by
natural events.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 14
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
It is also important to recognize that because of limited and scattered BLM ownership throughout
the Baker FO Planning Area, the opportunity or ability to attain desirable and/or functioning
resource conditions is not always possible from management actions conducted on BLM lands
alone. And in some cases, the BLM cannot achieve desired conditions over the life of the RMP
because resource and landscape recovery is typically a long-term and gradual process.
Therefore, BLM efforts to collaborate with other public land and resource management agencies
and non-governmental organizations, as well as private landowners, to achieve or maintain
desired conditions are crucial.
12.1 Watershed Function
Watershed function includes all of the surface and subsurface processes acting on or beneath
hillslopes and within stream channels that control the movement of water, wood, sediment, and
nutrients. The rate at which these processes occur is affected by local geology, topography, and
climate and is moderated by local soil and vegetation. The movement of water and sediments
modifies the physical structure of watersheds and determines the spatial distribution and
composition of riparian and aquatic habitats (USDA 2010).
Several elements combine to control the multiple processes that are fundamental to the
development and long-term vitality of watersheds. These include characteristics of flow regime,
composition of riparian areas and wetlands, stream channel characteristics, and habitat
characteristics, each of which is described in this section.
Properly functioning watersheds will provide a range of benefits both on and off of BLMadministered lands, including, but not limited to, providing habitat for terrestrial, aquatic, and
riparian-dependent species; maintaining water quality; providing channel stability; reducing
erosion; moderating floods; and maintaining reliable stream flows for downstream users.
Desired Conditions for Conservation Watersheds
1.
Watersheds with good habitat and functionally intact ecosystems that contribute to and
enhance the conservation and recovery of specific threatened or endangered fish species
and provide high water quality and quantity. Watersheds that contribute to short-term
conservation and long-term recovery at the Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU),
Recovery Unit, or other appropriate population scale. Scale: Watershed or subwatershed.
2.
Roads in conservation watersheds do not present substantial risk to aquatic and riparian
resources. Scale: Watershed or subwatershed.
3.
Conservation watersheds that have high watershed integrity and provide resilient aquatic
and riparian ecosystems. Scale: Watershed or subwatershed.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 15
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Desired Conditions for All Watersheds
1.
Watershed-scale processes that control the routing of water, sediment, wood, and organic
material operate at levels that result in self-sustaining riparian and aquatic ecosystems
that do not require human intervention or restoration. Scale: Watershed or subwatershed.
2.
The distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features,
including natural disturbance regimes, provide aquatic and riparian ecosystems to which
species, populations, and communities are uniquely adapted. Scale: Subbasin.
3.
Spatial connectivity exists within and between watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and
drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, uplands, riparian areas,
headwater tributaries, and intact habitat refugia. These network connections provide
chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history
requirements of aquatic, riparian-dependent, and many upland species of plants and
animals. Scale: Spatial connectivity is between watersheds at the subbasin scale for
resource area-wide planning; spatial connectivity is between subwatersheds at the
watershed scale for project planning.
12.2 Hydrologic Function
Hydrologic function includes all of the processes involved in the conversion of precipitation to
streamflow, as well as properties of the flow regime, including the magnitude, frequency,
duration, timing, and variability of streamflow within a watershed. All important physical and
biological processes within watersheds, including the movement of water, sediment, wood, and
nutrients, as well as the creation of aquatic habitats, are driven by variability of the flow regime
(Angermeier 1997). Recurring flows of moderate to high magnitude are responsible for most
sediment transport and maintain stream channel size and shape (Wolman and Miller 1960). High
flows rearrange and create riparian habitats by dispersing seeds and creating sites for
establishment of riparian species. In summer months, low flows sustain riparian vegetation that
provides channel and bank stability, especially on low-gradient streams in wide, unconfined
valleys. Differences in topography within riparian zones, combined with the differing water
requirements and tolerances of riparian plant species result in diversity of habitat types (USDA
2010).
On hillslopes, the primary controls of hydrologic function are topography, the type and density of
vegetation, and the physical properties of soils. The alteration or removal of vegetation or ground
cover by activities such as fire, timber harvest, the use of mechanized equipment, livestock
grazing, and the construction of roads alters hydrologic pathways in ways that can result in
increased hillslope and stream channel erosion rates (USDA 2010).
Appendix 2.2 – p. 16
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Groundwater inflows and hyporheic exchange in streams and floodplains are important
contributors to streamflow, especially in summer, and has the additional benefit of being a source
of cool water that helps moderate stream temperatures (USDA 2010).
Desired Conditions
1.
Instream flows, including water yield, timing, frequency, magnitude, and duration of
runoff, are sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to
retain patterns of movement of sediment, nutrients, and wood. The timing, magnitude,
duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows are within the natural range
of variability in which the system developed. Scale: Watershed.
2.
The species composition and structural diversity of native plant communities in riparian
management areas, including wetlands, provides adequate summer and winter thermal
regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and
channel migration and supplies amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris and
fine particulate organic matter sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability.
Scale: Subbasin scale for resource area-wide planning; watershed scale for project
planning.
3.
The timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation are within the natural range
of variability. Scale: Watershed.
4.
The sediment regime is within the natural range of variability. Elements of the sediment
regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and
transport. Scale: Watershed.
5.
The timing, duration, and variability of inundation, or water table elevation, in wetlands,
seeps, and springs are within the natural range of variability. Scale: Watershed or
subwatershed.
12.3 Riparian Function
Riparian areas are loosely defined as the zones adjacent to stream channels, ponds, and lakes that
are transitional between the channel and upland habitats (NRC 2002). Riparian vegetation
includes species that require free or unbound water or conditions more moist than normally
found in the area (Franklin and Dyrness 1973).
Riparian areas are important for their critical role in nutrient cycling, stream channel and bank
stability, water quality, filtering of sediment from upslope areas, and the supply of particulate and
woody organic material to stream systems. Riparian vegetation provides stream shade that
contributes to thermal regulation in both winter and summer. Particulate organic material
derived from riparian vegetation forms the base of aquatic food webs, while large organic
Appendix 2.2 – p. 17
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
material creates channel structure and habitat complexity. Some aquatic insects require certain
types of riparian vegetation (e.g., willows) in order to complete their life cycles, while an
estimated 75 percent of terrestrial wildlife species in the Blue Mountain Physiographic Province
either depend on riparian zones directly or utilize them more than other habitats (Raedeke 1989,
Thomas 1979). Riparian areas are considered the most critical of wildlife habitats in the Blue
Mountain Physiographic Province (Johnson and O’Neil 2001). This is due not only to the unique
habitat features found in riparian zones, but also because they serve as natural corridors or
migration routes and as connecting corridors between patches of suitable habitat in an otherwise
fragmented landscape.
Desired Conditions
1.
Riparian areas within any given watershed reflect a natural composition of native and
desired non-native plant and animal (aquatic and terrestrial) species and a distribution of
physical, chemical, and biological conditions appropriate to natural disturbance regimes
affecting the area. Scale: Watershed or subwatershed.
2.
Key riparian processes and conditions, including slope stability and associated vegetative
root strength; bank stability; wood delivery to streams; input of leafy and organic matter
to aquatic and terrestrial systems; solar shading; microclimate; and water quality, are
within ranges typical of the biophysical setting and the corresponding disturbance regime.
Scale: Watershed or subwatershed.
3.
Riparian vegetation has the species composition, structural diversity, age class diversity,
and extent that is characteristic of the setting in which it occurs and the hydrologic and
disturbance regimes in which it developed. The condition and composition of small
habitat patches may change over small temporal and spatial scales but remains relatively
constant at larger scales. Scale: Subwatershed to subbasin.
4.
Riparian shrub communities occupy their historical range and extent. Individual plants
are capable of reaching the full potential for a typical individual of a particular species, as
defined by plant height, width, and growth form. Individual plants are able to propagate,
or reproduce, vegetatively and/or sexually. Plant communities are similar in species
composition, age class structure, canopy density, and ground cover to plant associations
(Crowe and Clausnitzer 1997) that are representative of a particular setting.
Scale: Watershed or subwatershed.
5.
Riparian areas consist of native assemblages of riparian-dependent plants and animals
free of persistent non-native species and provide for dispersal and travel corridors, as well
as connectivity, between geographically important areas for both terrestrial and aquatic
animals and plant species within the planning area. Scale: Watershed or subwatershed.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 18
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
12.4 Wetland Function
Wetlands, including swamps, bogs, seeps, fens, springs, peatlands, and marshes, occur in areas
where the soil is either inundated by water or saturated for at least part of the growing season.
Wetland vegetation includes species that are adapted to saturated soil conditions. Some, but not
all, streamside riparian areas that meet the above criteria may be classified as riverine wetlands
(Cowardin et al. 1979), but wetlands occur in a variety of settings where there is a source of
either surface or groundwater. Wetlands, in general, have disproportionately higher plant species
diversity relative to surrounding upland habitats.
Small wetlands may be isolated from other surface waters and often represent unique habitats
that are highly important to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Some wetlands are also critical
habitat for many sensitive, rare, or uncommon plant and lichen species, many of which occur
only in these habitats.
Wetlands play an important role in protecting water quality, processing excess nutrients, and
contributing to groundwater recharge, among other functions, but not all wetland types provide
the same functions, nor do they provide them equally (Euliss et al. 2004). Many wetlands are
sites of natural water storage that, depending on where they occur, contribute to groundwater
recharge and reduce the magnitude of floods. Because of the contribution to biological diversity,
wetlands are regulated under Federal law by the Clean Water Act and through Executive Order
119901, which requires federal agencies to limit or avoid activities that result in impacts to
wetlands.
In addition, some wetlands are essential breeding, rearing, and feeding grounds for many species
of fish and wildlife, including breeding bird populations, migratory bird, fish, and shellfish
species. Approximately 75 percent of the terrestrial wildlife species in the Blue Mountain
Physiographic Province are known to use riparian or wetland habitats during their lifetimes
(Raedeke 1989, Thomas 1979).
Desired Conditions
1.
The extent and diversity of wetland types on BLM-administered lands within the Baker
FO Decision Area is maintained or increased. Scale: Subbasin.
2.
The surface and subsurface flow paths that support wetland habitats are undisturbed. The
timing and duration of inundation of wetlands are within natural ranges. Plant species
composition in wetlands is characteristic of the biophysical setting in which they occur.
Scale: Watershed or subwatershed.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 19
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
12.5 Stream Channel Function
Streams and rivers convey water, as well as sediment, nutrients, organic material, and dissolved
substances. The physical attributes of stream channels are determined largely by local geology,
topography, climate, and characteristics of the flow and sediment transport regimes.
Desired Conditions
1.
The physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom
configurations, are properly functioning and in dynamic equilibrium with the flow and
sediment regimes under which aquatic systems have evolved. Scale: Watershed to
subwatershed.
2.
Channel morphology, structure, complexity, and diversity are in ranges that are
characteristic of the local geo-climatic setting. Scale: Watershed or subwatershed.
3.
The sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved is maintained, including
the timing, volume, rate and character of input, storage, and transport. Scale: Watershed.
12.6 Aquatic Habitat Function
Aquatic habitats are an important source of biodiversity because of the variety of physical
and hydrologic settings in which they occur. Aquatic habitats can be divided into lotic areas
(streams and rivers) and lentic areas (lakes, ponds, and wetlands). Open water habitats, or lentic
areas, occur on river floodplains and in topographic depressions and may be hydrologically
supported by either ground water or surface water. Backwater or off-channel areas that have
physical connections to streams and rivers (i.e., lotic areas) can be biologically important as
rearing habitat for many aquatic species, including trout and salmon.
Aquatic habitats are shaped by a combination of physical and biological factors (including
streamflow variability, sediment transport, stream channel characteristics, riparian habitat
characteristics, water quality, accumulation, and the processing of wood and other organic
material) and the connectivity and spatial distribution of habitat types within and adjacent to
channel networks.
Desired Conditions
1.
Aquatic habitats contribute to ecological conditions capable of supporting self-sustaining
populations of native and desired non-native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate ripariandependent species. Scale: Subwatershed to subbasin.
2.
Management activities contribute to the protection of population strongholds for listed or
proposed threatened and endangered species, state classified sensitive species, and
narrow endemics, as these strongholds provide high quality habitat and support expansion
Appendix 2.2 – p. 20
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
and re-colonization of species to adjacent watersheds. These areas conserve key
demographic processes likely to influence the persistence of populations or
metapopulations. Scale: Subwatershed to subbasin.
3.
Habitat elements (including spawning and rearing habitat, substrate, pool habitat, winter
habitat, migration corridors, cover, food, habitat complexity, water quality, refugia,
productivity, and connectivity) are in functional condition and are sufficiently distributed
to support self-sustaining populations of native resident and anadromous fish.
Scale: Subbasin.
4.
Native fish species have access to historically occupied aquatic habitats and connectivity
between habitats allows for the interaction of local populations. Scale: Subbasin.
12.7 Species Diversity
Providing for the appropriate amount, distribution, and quality of habitat for native and desired
non-native aquatic and riparian-dependent species (plants and animals, vertebrates and
invertebrates) within the Baker FO Planning Area is an integral component of ecological
function. The ability to sustain this habitat over time, as well as the connectivity of habitat
patches, is also important to the maintenance of ecological function.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act requires land and resource management plans to
contribute to the diversity of plant and animal communities, based on the suitability and
capability of the land area, while meeting overall multiple-use objectives. The overall goal for
this framework is to provide the ecological conditions that support a diversity of native plant and
animal species within a planning area. Natural ecosystems are only sustainable when the native
biodiversity (the variety of life and its processes) and the functional basis of productivity are
maintained (Johnson and O’Neil 2001).
In general, comparing the existing vegetative communities to a set of reference conditions (presettlement, natural range of variability, etc.) allows the evaluation of changes in disturbance
regimes and acts as a check on the adequate representation of ecological communities (Samson
2002), which in turn should support species diversity. There are instances where maintaining
ecosystem diversity might not provide the ecological conditions necessary to sustain populations
of certain species, in which case a species-specific approach is warranted. This is often the case
for those species that are listed under the ESA by either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
Desired Conditions
1.
The natural range of habitats for native and desired non-native aquatic and ripariandependent species (plants and animals, vertebrates and invertebrates), including
threatened and endangered species, species identified as being of local or regional
Appendix 2.2 – p. 21
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
conservation concern, and focal species, is of adequate quality, distribution, and
abundance to contribute to maintaining native and desired non-native species diversity.
This includes the ability of species and individuals to interact, disperse, and find security
within habitats in the planning area.
2.
Population strongholds for the fish focal species provide high quality habitat and support
expansion and re-colonization of species to adjacent unoccupied habitats. These areas
conserve key demographic processes likely to influence the sustainability of aquatic
species.
3.
Federally listed species trend towards recovery or are delisted. Management activities
improve the conservation status of species identified as being focal species or of local or
regional conservation concern. Habitats and populations are managed in accordance with
conservation planning documents, recovery plans, best available science, and local
knowledge.
4.
Specialized habitat components, such as caves, standing dead trees, seeps, and springs,
are found across the landscape in amounts and types commensurate with the natural
communities in which they occur.
Scale: Desired conditions for species diversity can be applied at a variety of scales (i.e.,
resource area-wide, subbasin to subwatershed). During project analysis and implementation,
these desired conditions should be used concurrently with resource management direction and
design criteria provided in the RMP. Design criteria include Best Management Practices
(BMPs) and Standards and Guidelines that provide specific information and guidance for project
decision-making. Design criteria may also include references to other applicable guidance, such
as laws and regulations, which are already in place and not necessarily repeated in this strategy.
12.8 Productive Capacity
Productive capacity is described in terms of the growth and accumulation of riparian plant
biomass (primary productivity), as well as the growth of aquatic and riparian-dependent animal
species (vertebrate and invertebrate) that use the products of primary productivity (secondary
productivity). Key elements of productivity include the physical, chemical, and biological
properties of soils that provide for vegetative growth and the accumulation and cycling of
nutrients.
Productivity is based on using natural resources no faster than they are produced or can be
replaced and is based on using natural resources without impairment of the long-term productive
capacity of the ecosystems from which they are derived. Recent science recognizes that the
sustainability of natural systems requires the preservation of the key processes under which those
systems developed (Aber et al. 2000, Chapin et al. 1996, Holling 1992, Reeves et al. 1995). In
aquatic systems, variability of the flow regime is responsible for creating and maintaining
Appendix 2.2 – p. 22
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
habitats, influencing riparian establishment and succession, controlling the routing of sediment,
and regulating nutrient cycles.
Desired Conditions
1.
Long-term productivity of BLM-administered lands is sustained by the ecological
processes as described in the aforementioned ecological desired conditions. Forest and
rangeland ecosystems provide ecological goods and services for human consumption
without diminishing long-term productive capacity. Scale: Resource area-wide.
12.9 Disturbance Processes
Natural disturbances include wildfire, insects and disease, flooding, drought, landsides,
windstorms, and herbivory. There are two types of wildland fire: planned fires (prescribed fires)
and unplanned fires (wildfires). Planned fires are ignited by a management action and are
designed to meet specific land management objectives. Unplanned fires are those not ignited by
management actions; although some unplanned fires may be managed to meet specific land
management objectives (USDA 2010).
Disturbances, either of natural or of human origin, affect all aspects of ecosystems at a landscape
level. Human-caused disturbances include timber harvesting, road construction, mining,
domestic livestock grazing, and the introduction of exotic species. Disturbances can impact
aquatic and riparian habitat stages, successional stages, structural differentiation, nutrient cycles,
forage availability, water quality and quantity yields, successional pathways, wildlife variety and
quantity, carbon balances, scenic variability, and the availability and economic value of products
(USDA 2010).
In many ecosystems, biotic communities have developed adaptations to specific disturbances.
Many plant species, for example, may rely on either fire or floods for reproduction and are thus
disturbance-dependent. The effect of any particular disturbance is a property of the disturbance
as well as the system it affects. One example is the effect of flooding on rivers in which a
regularly recurring flood pulse is responsible for maintaining the long-term dynamics of the river
channel, as well as vegetation, on the adjacent floodplain. In this case, the flood is an integral
part of the system and is not a disturbance in the same sense (Pickett and White 1985). Instead,
disturbance in such systems occurs when there is significant departure from the average
hydrological regime (Bayley 1995). Disturbance also depends on spatial scale.
Desired Conditions
1.
Wildland fire plays an appropriate ecological role in creating the resilient forest and
rangeland conditions and aquatic and riparian habitat needed to adapt to the conditions
that result from climate changes. Scale: Subbasin to subwatershed.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 23
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
2.
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Normal levels of insects and disease disturbances fulfill the natural role by creating
diverse landscapes and important riparian-dependent species habitat components, such as
hollow trees, dead wood, and mistletoe brooms. Scale: Resource area-wide.
12.10 Invasive Species
Invasive species are recognized as a major threat to native aquatic and riparian-dependent
species (plants and animals, vertebrates and invertebrates) and habitat, as well as social and
economic conditions. The effects of invasive species can cause reductions in long-term
productivity of the land, cause economic loss, disrupt recreational use, and reduce resource
production.
A wide range of species can be invasive, including plants, fish, animals, insects, fungi, mussels,
and pathogens. Some aquatic invasive species are commonly transported between water bodies
by recreational boating and fishing activities. The area affected by invasive plant species has
increased throughout the Interior Columbia Basin over the last 100 years (Quigley and Arbelbide
1997). Many highly invasive aquatic species are well established in neighboring states, in the
Columbia River, and in the lower reaches of major tributaries adjacent to BLM-administered
lands. Streams and springs on public land are at risk of invasion by detrimental invasive
organisms, such as New Zealand mudsnails and Asian clams. Lakes and reservoirs are at risk of
invasion by zebra mussels, hydrilla, and other highly undesirable introduced plant and animal
species.
Desired Conditions
1.
Healthy, native, and desired non-native aquatic and riparian-dependent species and high
quality aquatic and riparian habitat dominate the landscape and are resilient. Invasive
species are absent or occur in small areas. Invasive species do not jeopardize the ability
of BLM-administered lands to provide the goods and services communities expect or the
habitat that aquatic and riparian-dependent species diversity depends upon.
Scale: Watershed scale.
12.11 Soil Quality
Soils develop over long time periods (from decades to centuries), depending on local site
characteristics, including climate, the nature of geological parent material (rock type), the actions
of living organisms (including vegetation, soil organisms, and microbes), topography, and
weathering and decomposition processes (Brady 1990, Harvey et al. 1994). The biological,
physical, and chemical properties of soils contribute to both the biological productivity of
riparian plant communities and the hydrologic functioning of watersheds. In addition, soils
likely store as much carbon as is contained in above ground vegetation and, as a result, are
important when considering the effects of climate change (USDA 2010).
Appendix 2.2 – p. 24
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Decomposition of organic material is the principal source of nutrients in soil and varies with
vegetation type, species composition, and fire history (Jurgensen et al. 1997). Important
properties include soil depth, organic matter content, nutrient content, ground cover (litter), soil
texture, water holding capacity, and infiltration capacity, all of which have biological and
physical importance (Childs et al. 1989, Meurrisse et al. 1990). Soil properties vary greatly
across the landscape and between different soil types.
Surface soil erosion and sediment delivery to streams are common contributors to reduced water
quality (Coats and Miller 1981). Sediment in streams is commonly known for its effects on
aquatic species and habitats (Bisson and Bilby 1982, Bjornn and Reiser 1991, Cordone and Kelly
1961, Waters 1995).
High intensity wildfires may result in elevated post-fire water temperatures (Dunham et al.
2007), channel incision (Moody and Kinner 2006), greatly elevated erosion rates (MacDonald
and Robichaud 2008, Shakesby and Doerr 2006) and loss of soil carbon and nitrogen (Bormann
et al. 2008).
Desired Conditions
1.
2.
The productivity of forested and rangeland ecosystem soils is maintained at levels that
contribute to long-term sustainability of those ecosystems. Soil organic matter, soil
physical properties (ground cover, bulk density, and texture), and coarse woody material
are at levels that maintain soil productivity and hydrologic function.
Surface erosion rates are within the natural range of variability for a given biophysical
setting.
Scale: Watershed to subwatershed depending on the severity of the disturbance.
12.12 Water Quality
Water quality is regulated nationally by authority of the Clean Water Act. Water quality criteria
are established by the individual states and some tribes for the protection of aquatic species and
humans. Water quality criteria vary depending on the beneficial use of water. For example, the
criteria for irrigation use, domestic use, and coldwater fisheries are all different.
For aquatic species, water quality concerns include elevated stream temperature, elevated fine
sediment levels, and the availability of nutrients on which aquatic food webs are based. Rivers
that originate on public lands (mostly national forests) are used for irrigation of agricultural crops
and for human consumption. These rivers must meet appropriate water quality criteria for those
uses. Ongoing protection of water quality in domestic supply watersheds and protection and
enhancement of riparian areas is a priority.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 25
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Desired Conditions
1.
Water quality of surface and groundwater is sufficient to support healthy riparian, aquatic,
and wetland ecosystems. It is within the range that maintains the biological, physical,
and chemical integrity of the system and is capable of benefiting the survival, growth,
reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.
2.
The quality of water emanating from BLM-administered land is sufficient to provide for
state- designated beneficial uses, including human uses.
3.
Water quality in streams on BLM-administered land is sufficient to meet applicable state,
local, and tribal water quality criteria.
Scale: Resource area-wide.
12.13 Fishing Opportunities
Fishing is a traditional recreational and subsistence use within the Baker FO Planning Area. It is
an important aspect of local lifestyles and cultures and provides recreational and economic
opportunities to surrounding communities, tribes, family groups, and individuals to socialize and
harvest food for their own use.
Desired Conditions
1.
Opportunities for hunting and fishing are available in a variety of settings. BLMadministered lands provide a mix of opportunities that foster recreational and subsistence
fishing, support Oregon and Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife management
objectives, and contribute to local, tribal, and regional economies and lifestyles.
Scale: Resource area-wide.
13. RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT AREAS (RMAs)
13.1 Purpose
Because aquatic and riparian resources on public lands are associated with streams, lakes,
reservoirs, ponds, wetlands, and adjacent riparian vegetation, it is critical that such areas be
clearly identified. Within such areas, riparian-dependent resources receive primary management
emphasis. Functionally, RMAs: 1) influence delivery of coarse sediment, organic matter, and
woody debris to streams; 2) accommodate vegetation that provides root strength for channel
stability; 3) provide stream shade; and 4) protect water quality (Naiman et al. 1992a).
Values to consider when identifying and managing RMAs, in addition to factors addressed within
this strategy, include the contribution of fine organic matter to the stream system, provision of
Appendix 2.2 – p. 26
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
bank stability, role or function in controlling sediment inputs to streams, contribution of nutrients
and other dissolved materials, influence on riparian microclimate and productivity, minimizing
wind throw, importance of stream order, gradient, and perennial and intermittent flows.
13.2 Definition
RMAs are portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive primary
management emphasis. RMAs are not intended to be treated as ‘no management’ zones, since
treatments may be essential to achieving or maintaining desired riparian and aquatic conditions.
RMAs include riparian corridors, wetlands, intermittent, perennial, and headwater streams, and
other areas where “proper” ecological function is crucial for maintaining water, sediment, woody
debris, and nutrient delivery to the system, so that they function within the natural range of
variability. Management activities adjacent to or within RMAs are subject to specific standards
and guidelines (Section 18).
13.3 RMA Widths
RMA width is a function of site condition and is based on potential to affect aquatic and riparian
function and value. This strategy allows for adjustment of RMA widths to reflect site-specific
conditions while also recognizing watershed-wide riparian conditions and trends. In general,
RMA widths are intended to:
Maintain and restore riparian structure and function;
Benefit fish and riparian-dependent resources;
Maintain or enhance water quality conditions;
Maintain or enhance water flow;
Enhance conservation of organisms dependent on the transition zone between uplands and
instream habitats; and
Improve connectivity of travel and dispersal corridors for terrestrial and aquatic species.
13.4 RMA Delineation and Modification
Delineation and modification of RMAs requires watershed or site-specific analysis to reflect
regional variation in site characteristics. Boundary adjustments or changes in land use within
RMAs should be based on site-specific or reach-scale analysis. Such analysis should use the six
components of the Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis (RIEC 1995) (Section 17.4).
The widths of RMAs shall be adequate to protect the stream from non-channelized sediment
inputs and sufficient in size to deliver organic matter and woody debris, as well as to provide
stream shade and bank stability. RMAs shall also be delineated according to the following rule
set:
Appendix 2.2 – p. 27
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
1.
2.
3.
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
RMAs shall differentiate or delineate areas of particular value for aquatic conservation.
This may be accomplished in a variety of ways such as mapping, through establishment
of default widths, or through the use of criteria.
RMAs shall include streams, ponds, lakes, wetlands, and unstable lands that are likely to
affect the condition and/or function of the channel network and aquatic habitat.
RMAs shall include lands adjacent to all waters occupied by special status species, and
key intermittent tributaries to those waters.
RMA dimensions may be modified or adjusted via watershed analysis, or where stream reach
data and/or site-specific analysis supports a modification to default RMA dimensions, including
during project-level planning. Watershed and site-specific analyses are not decision-making
processes, but they provide information on riparian and aquatic processes, functions, resource
values, and risks, as well as ecologically appropriate criteria that support site-specific
determinations regarding default RMA width modification. These criteria can be identified using
existing riparian and aquatic condition data, in combination with best available science, local
knowledge, and professional judgment.
Application of criteria to modify RMA dimensions should address management activities that
can retard or prevent the attainment of established riparian and aquatic management desired
conditions. Pertinent site-specific, stream reach, and watershed values should also be addressed
in supporting rationale for modifying RMA dimensions and land management activities
occurring in these areas. In all cases, management actions shall not preclude the attainment of
aquatic and riparian desired conditions (Section 12) and the rationale supporting RMA width
modification and its effects will be documented through the appropriate analysis and decisionmaking process.
13.5 RMA Delineation Criteria
The four categories of stream or waterbody as recommended in PACFISH will be applied:
Category 1:
Category 2:
Category 3:
Category 4:
Fish-bearing streams
Perennial non-fish bearing streams
Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than one acre
Intermittent or seasonally flowing streams and wetlands less than one acre,
and unstable areas (i.e., landslides and landslide-prone areas).
The following RMA delineation criteria are similar to those recommended in PACFISH, with a
few minor additions and modifications:
In forested ecosystems, and in non-forested rangeland ecosystems within watersheds (5th HUC)
that support ESA-listed fish species and/or critical habitat, Category 1 and 2 RMAs consist of
the stream and the area on either side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream
channel to the top of the inner gorge, or the extent of the Rosgen flood-prone area width (Rosgen
Appendix 2.2 – p. 28
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
1996), or to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to the extent of unstable source areas5, or
the default minimum slope distance (in feet) on both sides of the stream channel (see Section
11.6), whichever is greatest.
In non-forested rangeland ecosystems within watersheds (5th HUC) that do not have documented
current presence of ESA-listed fish species and/or critical habitat, Category 1 and 2 RMAs
consist of the stream and the area on either side of the stream extending from the edges of the
active stream channel to the extent of the Rosgen flood-prone area width.
The use of the Rosgen flood-prone area width as a RMA delineation criterion replaces the 100year floodplain, as recommended in PACFISH, to avoid having to determine or map such an
arbitrary or political flow level. The 100-year floodplain designation is normally made for socioeconomic descriptions and has no particular geomorphic significance. The flood-prone area
generally includes the active floodplain and the low terrace (i.e., abandoned floodplain). The
flood-prone area width is measured at the elevation that corresponds to twice the maximum
depth of the bankfull channel as taken from the established bankfull stage (Rosgen 1996).
In forested and non-forested rangeland ecosystems, Category 3 RMAs consist of the body of
water or wetland and the area to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to the extent of the
seasonally saturated soil, or the default minimum slope distance (in feet) (see Section 13.6) from
the edge of the maximum pool elevation of constructed ponds and reservoirs, or from the edge of
the wetland, pond, or lake, whichever is greatest.
Category 4 includes features with high variability in size and site-specific characteristics. In
forested and non-forested rangeland ecosystems, Category 4 RMAs only apply to intermittent or
seasonally flowing streams that have a defined channel with signs of annual scour and
deposition. At a minimum, a Category 4 RMA must include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
the intermittent stream channel and the extent of unstable source areas (if present)
the intermittent stream channel or wetland and the area to the outer edges of riparian
vegetation
in watersheds (5th HUC) that support ESA-listed fish species and/or critical habitat, the
area from the edges of the stream channel or wetland to the outer edges of riparian
vegetation, or the default minimum slope distance (in feet) (see Section 13.6), whichever
is greatest.
in watersheds (5th HUC) that do not have documented current presence of ESA-listed
fish species and/or critical habitat, the area from the edges of the stream channel or
wetland to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or the default minimum slope distance
(in feet) (see Section 13.6), whichever is greatest.
5
Unstable source areas are defined as those areas that provide source for in-channel structure, which includes
channel components that provide roughness, sediment capture and release, and instream habitat. These components
can vary by vegetation and stream type, stream size, and ecologic zone.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 29
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
13.6 Default RMA Widths
In the absence of watershed or site-specific analysis, default RMA widths will be based on those
recommended in PACFISH (Table 1). The Interior Columbia Basin (ICB) Strategy concluded
that RMA widths and delineation criteria prescribed in PACFISH would be sufficient to provide
for riparian function (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997).
Modification of default RMA widths requires either watershed or site-specific analysis to provide
the ecological basis for the change, or may be specific to the management activities proposed and
conducted within RMAs. In all cases, rationale acquired through watershed or site-specific
analysis will be used to support the modification of default RMAs.
Table 1. Default Riparian Management Area Widths (No Action Alternative and Alternative 1)
Category*
Default RMA Width*
300 feet slope distance on either side of the stream, or to the extent of additional
1 - Fish-bearing streams
delineation criteria, whichever is greatest.
2 - Perennial non-fish bearing
150 feet slope distance on either side of the stream, or to the extent of additional
streams
delineation criteria, whichever is greatest.
150 feet slope distance from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of
3 - Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and
constructed ponds and reservoirs, or from the edge of the wetland, pond, or lake,
wetlands greater than one acre
or to the extent of additional delineation criteria, whichever is greatest.
In watersheds that support ESA-listed fish species and/or critical habitat, 100 feet
slope distance from the edges of the stream channel or wetland to the outer edges
4 - Intermittent or seasonally
of riparian vegetation, whichever is greatest.
flowing streams and wetlands
less than one acre
In watersheds that do not have documented current presence of ESA-listed fish
species and/or critical habitat, 50 feet slope distance from the edges of the stream
channel or wetland to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, whichever is greatest.
*
Additional criteria apply (see Section 13.5)
Table 2. Default Riparian Management Area Widths (Alternatives 2 and 3)
Category*
Default RMA Width*
300 feet slope distance on either side of the stream, or to the extent of additional
1 - Fish-bearing streams
delineation criteria, whichever is greatest.
2 - Perennial non-fish bearing
100 feet slope distance on either side of the stream, or to the extent of additional
streams
delineation criteria, whichever is greatest.
50 feet slope distance from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of
3 - Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and
constructed ponds and reservoirs, or from the edge of the wetland, pond, or lake,
wetlands greater than one acre
or to the extent of additional delineation criteria, whichever is greatest.
In watersheds that support ESA-listed fish species and/or critical habitat, 50 feet
slope distance from the edges of the stream channel or wetland to the outer edges
4 - Intermittent or seasonally
of riparian vegetation, whichever is greatest.
flowing streams and wetlands
less than one acre
In watersheds that do not have documented current presence of ESA-listed fish
species and/or critical habitat, 25 feet slope distance from the edges of the stream
channel or wetland to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, whichever is greatest.
*
Additional criteria apply (see Section 13.5)
Appendix 2.2 – p. 30
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Table 3. Default Riparian Management Area Widths (Alternatives 4 and 5)
Category*
Default RMA Width*
300 feet slope distance on either side of the stream, or to the extent of additional
1 - Fish-bearing streams
delineation criteria, whichever is greatest.
2 - Perennial non-fish bearing
200 feet slope distance on either side of the stream, or to the extent of additional
streams
delineation criteria, whichever is greatest.
150 feet slope distance from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of constructed
3 - Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and
ponds and reservoirs, or from the edge of the wetland, pond, or lake, or to the extent
wetlands greater than one acre
of additional delineation criteria, whichever is greatest.
In watersheds that support ESA-listed fish species and/or critical habitat, 150 feet
slope distance from the edges of the stream channel or wetland to the outer edges of
4 - Intermittent or seasonally
riparian vegetation, whichever is greatest.
flowing streams and wetlands
less than one acre
In watersheds that do not have documented current presence of ESA-listed fish
species and/or critical habitat, 75 feet slope distance from the edges of the stream
channel or wetland to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, whichever is greatest.
*
Additional criteria apply (see Section 13.5)
13.7 RMA Desired Conditions
The overall desired condition for RMAs within any given watershed is to a provide a distribution
of aquatic and riparian habitat conditions, within the range consistent with the aquatic and
riparian ecosystems in which they developed, to support a natural composition of native and
desired non-native aquatic and riparian-dependent species (plants and animals, invertebrates and
vertebrates).
The dynamic nature and complexity of aquatic and riparian ecosystems can result in a wide
range of values that make selection of precise target values difficult. The following habitat
features may not all occur within a specific stream segment within a given watershed, but all
generally should be represented and achievable at the watershed scale over the long-term. It is
recognized that because of past land uses and legacy effects, it may not be possible to achieve
desired habitat conditions during the life of the RMP (15-20 years), even with intensive
restoration actions taking place.
Desired habitat features and conditions may change as scientists gain a greater understanding of
aquatic and riparian ecosystem processes and functions (e.g., PIBO EM/IM trend data). Desired
habitat features and conditions may be modified to better reflect conditions that are attainable in
a specific watershed or stream reach based on local geology, topography, climate, and vegetation
potential. Modifications can be made in the absence of watershed analysis where watershed or
site-specific data or analysis supports the change. In all cases, rationale supporting modifications
will be documented. In watersheds that support ESA-listed fish species, modifications would be
subject to approval by, or in consultation with, USFWS and/or NMFS. Additionally, standards
and guidelines (Section 18) will be used to guide management actions to maintain or achieve
RMA desired conditions.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 31
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Except where indicated below, all of the desired habitat features and conditions would apply to
both forested and non-forested ecosystems in watersheds that support special status fish species
(Table 4). Application of the desired conditions for the habitat features below would require
thorough analysis. That is, if the desired condition for an important habitat feature such as pool
frequency is met or exceeded, there may be some latitude in assessing the importance of the
desired condition for other habitat features that contribute to good habitat conditions. For
example, in headwater streams with an abundance of pools created by large boulders, fewer
pieces of large wood might still constitute good habitat. The overall goal is to achieve a high
level of habitat diversity and complexity, through a combination of habitat features, to meet the
life history requirements of the fish community inhabiting a watershed.
Table 4. Special status fish species in the Baker FO Planning Area
Federal Status
Washington
Oregon
Common Name
Scientific Name
(ESA)
Status1
Status2
Chinook salmon – Snake River
Spring/Summer Run
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Threatened
C
Threatened
Evolutionarily Significant Unit
(ESU)
Chinook salmon – Snake River
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Threatened
C
Threatened
Fall Run ESU
Steelhead – Snake River
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Threatened
C
S-V
Basin ESU
Steelhead –Mid Columbia ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss
Threatened
C
S-V
Bull trout
Salvelinus confluentus
Threatened
C
S-C
Redband trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss gibbsi
Species of Concern
-S-V
Pacific lamprey
Lampetra tridentata
Species of Concern
SM
S-V
1 WA Status Definitions: C = Candidate; SM= State Monitor
2 OR Status Definitions: S-US = Sensitive-Unclear Status; S-C = Sensitive-Critical; S-V = Sensitive-Vulnerable
Within any given watershed, BLM-authorized land uses would be evaluated at the project or
reach level and would strive to support the attainment of desired conditions, or not impede the
attainment of desired conditions, over the long-term. Areas where desired conditions already
exist or are close to being achieved would be maintained and would not be adversely affected
over the long-term.
1. Habitat Connectivity
Native fish species have access to historically occupied habitats. Decisions to remove barriers
would be dependent on evaluations of the potential impacts from non-native species competition
and/or maintenance of genetic integrity of special status and other native fish species.
2. Water Temperature - Cold Water Biota
Habitat complexity provides daily, seasonally, annually, and spatially variable water temperatures
within desired species-specific ranges. Maximum water temperatures for specific fish species
life histories are:
Anadromous salmonid migration and rearing: less than 18°C (NMFS 1996);
Anadromous salmonid spawning: less than 16°C (NMFS 1996);
Appendix 2.2 – p. 32
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Inland native salmonid migration: less than 15°C (INFISH 1995);
Inland native salmonid spawning and rearing: less than 9°C (INFISH 1995);
Bull trout migration: less than 15°C (FWS 1998);
Bull trout spawning: less than 10°C (FWS 1998);
Bull trout rearing: less than 15°C (FWS 1998);
Bull trout incubation: less than 6°C (FWS 1998)
3. Pool Frequency
One pool every five to seven channel widths in pool-riffle stream channels and one to four
channel widths in step-pool stream channels.
4. Width to Depth Ratio
Less than or equal to 10:1 for confined channel types (Rosgen channel types A, E, and G); less
than 20:1 for moderately confined channel types (Rosgen channel type B); and less than 40:1 for
unconfined channel types (Rosgen channel types C and F).
5. Channel Substrate Condition
Spawning gravel surface fines (<6.4 mm) <10 percent C channels (e.g., pool tails); spawning
gravels surface fines <5 percent A and B channels; spawning gravel fines by depth, <25 percent;
or cobble embeddedness less than 30 percent in Rosgen channel types A2 and A3; B2 and B3;
C2 and C3; E3; and G2 and G3.
6. Large Woody Material (applicable to forested ecosystems only)
Near-natural patterns in size and amount of in-channel, large woody material and potential wood
recruitment on streambanks and floodplains.
7. Bank Stability
For Rosgen channel types A, B, and E, 80 percent of any stream reach should have bank stability
greater than 95 percent. For Rosgen channel type C, 80 percent of any stream reach should have
bank stability greater than 90 percent.
8. Riparian Vegetation
Riparian and wetland conditions in proper functioning condition.
Generally mature to late seral conditions.
Over 75 percent of the plant community type along the streambank provides high bank
stability, deep fibrous roots, and good resistance to streambank erosion.
Riparian vegetation provides adequate shade, large wood debris recruitment (in forested
ecosystems), and habitat connectivity.
14. CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION WATERSHEDS
Identification of conservation and restoration watersheds (5th HUC) provides a means for
prioritizing management direction and for establishing goals, desired conditions, and standards
Appendix 2.2 – p. 33
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
for monitoring and management. Based on the availability of staff and budgetary resources
when planning for management of RMAs, the BLM should identify the most effective and costefficient opportunities for conservation and restoration. Managers must acknowledge that some
watersheds will not be restored to physical or biological potential within the RMP timeframe (up
to 20 years) because of cumulative effects and/or legacy effects of past land management actions,
as well as private land and other existing land uses not controlled by the BLM. These
watersheds would be reduced in priority for treatment or designation.
All watersheds with BLM land within the Baker FO Planning Area were identified as either
conservation or restoration watersheds. In general, all watersheds that support anadromous fish
species were categorized as conservation watersheds due to their high quality habitat conditions
and hydrologic functions that reflect natural conditions. The remaining watersheds were
identified as restoration watersheds due to their generally low quality habitat conditions and
hydrologic functions that do not reflect natural conditions. Geographically, all conservation
watersheds lie downstream of Hells Canyon Dam, while all restoration watersheds lie upstream
of Hells Canyon Dam. Construction of the Hells Canyon Complex of dams, beginning with
Brownlee Dam in 1958 and ending with Hells Canyon Dam in 1967, created the furthest
upstream barriers to anadromous Snake River fish passage and extirpated salmon and steelhead
runs upstream of Hells Canyon Dam.
Due to scattered and limited BLM ownership, primary criteria for identifying conservation and
restoration watersheds depended on ESA-listed fish species presence (i.e., distribution), BLM
ownership within a given watershed, and other public land ownership, including other Federal
and State land and resource management agencies based on available GIS data in November
2009. Other criteria considered in the watershed identification process included special status
fish species and habitat presence, amount of perennial stream miles adjacent to BLM land,
watershed, upland and riparian condition (i.e., Proper Functioning Condition [PFC] [BLM
1998]) and Rangeland Health Standards [BLM 1997]), existing aquatic species diversity, fish and
riparian habitat potential and productivity, and other special status species presence and resource
needs (plants and animals, vertebrates and invertebrates).
The purpose is to provide resource managers and the public with a clear intent of watershed,
riparian, and aquatic resource management emphasis and priorities when considering land uses
and management actions.
14.1 Conservation Watersheds
The management goal for conservation watersheds is to maintain the existing habitat condition.
Conservation watersheds are often associated with ESA-listed anadromous fish species (i.e.,
Chinook salmon) and/or aquatic species strongholds and contain populations or subpopulations
of both ESA-listed anadromous and resident (i.e., bull trout) fish species with high genetic
integrity, connectivity, and/or expansion potential into nearby watersheds. Conservation
watersheds are often outstanding in watershed processes and/or functions that are relatively
Appendix 2.2 – p. 34
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
undisturbed and natural in setting. Hydrologic functions, such as sediment routing and flow
regimes, are within a natural range of frequency, duration, and intensity. Waters meet designated
or existing beneficial uses. Land uses and human activities do not influence aquatic and
hydrologic function as indicated by low road density and few stream crossings. Examples of
conservation areas include roadless, undeveloped, and forested ecosystem-dominated watersheds
that support anadromous fish species. However, conservation areas or portions thereof may be
subject to management that allows limited land use while maintaining natural processes.
Conservation watersheds generally rely on passive restoration while monitoring habitat
conditions to assess habitat loss or gain without action. However, conservation watersheds can
also be actively managed to conserve or restore physical and biological processes. For example,
a conservation watershed where vegetative species and structure trend outside the historic range
of variability as a result of fire suppression may be actively managed to reduce the risk of a
devastating wildfire that could disrupt ecological processes in the watershed for a prolonged
period. Active management may also involve road and trail maintenance to minimize erosion
and sediment delivery to streams and other waterbodies to conserve hydrologic and biological
processes. As a general rule, minimal investment in conservation watersheds over time is
necessary to maintain function and critical elements of instream and riparian habitat.
Within all conservation watersheds, however, opportunities for active restoration are limited due
to limited and discontinuous BLM land ownership. The opportunity or ability to attain desirable
and/or functioning resource conditions is not always possible from management actions
conducted on BLM lands alone, and in some cases cannot achieve desired conditions within the
life of the RMP because resource and landscape recovery is typically a long-term and gradual
process. Therefore, efforts to collaborate with other public land and resource management
agencies and non-governmental organizations to accomplish active restoration in conservation
watersheds are crucial.
14.2 Restoration Watersheds
The management goal for restoration watersheds is to restore or improve habitat conditions
where biological and physical processes and functions do not reflect natural conditions due to
cumulative and/or legacy effects of past land management actions or natural disturbances.
Common disturbances to these watersheds may include long-term (decadal) increases of
sediment input to streams, loss or depletion of large wood or recruitment potential, altered
hydrologic processes, and/or elevated water temperatures. Cumulative impacts and natural
disturbances (i.e., fire, landslides, and floods) exacerbate altered conditions and active
management may be necessary to restore the physical and biological function of these systems.
Identifying and assessing adverse impacts of management on restoration watersheds will allow
managers to focus restoration in the most cost-effective manner for achieving hydrologic and
biological recovery. This implies the utilization of a wide range of active restoration treatments
to achieve desired landscape responses and accomplish land management objectives.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 35
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Restoration watersheds are often associated with special status resident fish species (i.e., redband
trout) and ESA-listed resident fish species (i.e., bull trout) with low genetic integrity,
connectivity, and/or expansion potential into nearby watersheds.
Management activities within restoration watersheds should minimize or avoid adverse effects to
resources and accelerate achievement of restored watershed and habitat conditions. Individual
discretion to balance short-term risks to fish species and other aquatic and riparian resources with
long-term benefits for multiple resources will move these watersheds toward a natural range of
variability.
Within some restoration watersheds, however, opportunities for active restoration may be limited
due to limited BLM and other public land ownership. The opportunity or ability to attain
desirable and/or functioning resource conditions is not always possible from management actions
conducted on BLM lands alone, and in some cases cannot achieve desired conditions within the
life of the RMP because resource and landscape recovery is typically a long-term and gradual
process. Therefore, efforts to collaborate with other public land and resource management
agencies and non-governmental organizations, as well as private landowners, to accomplish
restoration actions are crucial.
15. PRIORITY RANKING FOR CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION
WATERSHEDS
The primary criteria used in the initial priority ranking of BLM conservation and restoration
watersheds included the following (within a given 5th HUC watershed) based on available GIS
data in November 2009:
1. ESA-listed fish species distribution and designated critical habitat presence(using
StreamNet data as of November 2009);
2. amount of BLM-administered acres (500-acre minimum);
3. percent BLM ownership (based on acres);
4. percent public land (federal and state) ownership (based on acres) (40% minimum);
and
5. amount of perennial stream (length in miles) adjacent to BLM land (9-mile
minimum).
Due to scattered and limited BLM ownership within most watersheds, the purpose behind the use
of a minimum criteria process was to identify and prioritize those watersheds in which the BLM
has a majority of land ownership and could affect the most change when acting as a sole agency
and public land manager.
There are a total of 70 watersheds (5th HUC) within the Baker FO Planning Area that contain
BLM-administered lands. Of those 70 watersheds, 44 were identified as conservation
watersheds and 26 were identified as restoration watersheds.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 36
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Of the 44 conservation watersheds, only 8 of those watersheds met two or more of the minimum
prioritization criteria and were prioritized and ranked accordingly (Table 5). As such, 36
conservation watersheds currently remain non-prioritized and unranked; 17 of which didn’t meet
any of the minimum prioritization criteria. Conservation watersheds not currently prioritized are
those where BLM ownership is relatively minor, isolated, or otherwise limits opportunities for
effective restoration work.
Of the 26 restoration watersheds, 20 watersheds met two or more of the minimum prioritization
criteria. However, all 26 restoration watersheds were prioritized and ranked because they all met
at least one of the minimum prioritization criteria (Table 6).
Other criteria that can be used to further refine the initial priority ranking of BLM conservation
and restoration watersheds or prioritize currently non-prioritized watersheds include, but are not
limited to: water quality (i.e., 303(d) stream listings), upland and riparian condition based on
monitoring results (e.g., Proper Functioning Condition [PFC], Rangeland Health Standards
(RHS) (BLM 1997), PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion [PIBO] monitoring, and Multiple
Indicator Monitoring [MIM] [Burton et al. 2008]), other special status species presence and
resource needs (plants and animals, vertebrates and invertebrates), and subbasin plans and ESAlisted species recovery plans as available and where applicable. Conservation and restoration
opportunities within each watershed should also be identified in the near future and should
consider the expected cost and response time to effect measurable changes toward achieving
aquatic and riparian resource goals.
As stated before, it is possible that the BLM may choose to conduct restoration work in a
conservation watershed, or vice versa, especially if there are funding and/or partnership
opportunities available. Priorities are subject to change as the BLM receives new information or
management direction, including new listings or delistings of species under the ESA.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 37
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Table 5. Baker FO Priority Conservation Watersheds
5th HUC
Total
Acres
Lower Joseph Creek
104,684
Lower Grande Ronde River 160,688
Cherry Creek-Snake River
87,931
Grossman Creek-Grande
114,755
Ronde River
Mud Creek-Grande Ronde
154,044
River
Upper Walla Walla River
101,804
Upper Camas Creek
104,725
Rank
5th HUC
Number
1
2
3
1706010606
1706010607
1706010301
4
1706010601
5
1706010602
6
7
1707010201
1707020205
8
1706010405 Upper Catherine Creek
5th HUC Name
117,253
BLM
Total
Acres
9,078
8,617
3,950
Percent
BLM
Listed Fish
BLM
Perennial
Species
Acres* Stream Miles
Present**
58.3
9.2
STL
5.4
27.4
BT, STL, CHS
55.7
10.6
BT, STL, CHS
3,146
46.8
9.7
BT, STL, CHS
3,985
39.8
9.9
BT, STL, CHS
2,735
1,431
43.7
83.3
9.1
4.9
BT, STL
BT, STL, CHS
1,018
45.0
1.8
BT, STL, CHS
*
Includes federal and state land ownership (i.e., BLM, FS, and State of Oregon)
*
STL = steelhead; BT = bull trout; CHS = Chinook salmon
Table 6. Baker FO Priority Restoration Watersheds
Rank
5th HUC
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1705020206
1705020308
1705020205
1705020208
1705020311
1705020207
1705020103
1705020309
1705020107
1705020106
1705020204
1705020302
1705020310
1705020102
1705020202
1705020203
1705020104
1705020201
1705020307
1705020304
1705020306
1705011904
1705020303
5th HUC Name
5th HUC
Total
Acres
BLM
Total
Acres
Burnt River Canyon-Burnt River
Ruckles Creek-Powder River
Clarks Creek-Burnt River
Burnt River
Lower Powder River
Alder Creek-Pritchard Creek
Rock Creek-Snake River
Love Creek-Powder River
Indian Creek-Snake River
Pine Creek
Big Creek-Burnt River
Sutton Creek-Powder River
Eagle Creek
Birch Creek-Snake River
South Fork Burnt River
Camp Creek
Brownlee Creek-Snake River
North Fork Burnt River
Big Creek
Rock Creek-Powder River
Wolf Creek-Powder River
Middle Willow Creek
Baldock Slough-Powder River
53,630
166,605
60,564
15,4478
61,474
89,273
146,154
87,931
117,723
193,439
94,063
115,766
123,493
90,113
75,101
51,923
70,987
124,134
54,822
120,685
108,611
123,392
72,435
32,503
60,718
12,648
54,579
23,134
30,802
31,991
22,118
16,842
19,319
13,581
8,150
3,631
10,285
2,615
4,203
6,461
1,346
1,898
3,556
3,820
6,533
4,774
Appendix 2.2 – p. 38
Percent
BLM
BLM
Perennial
Acres* Stream Miles
69.1
52.3
42.7
35.4
38.4
34.5
21.9
25.2
34.6
68.2
26.1
29.4
88.0
14.4
63.6
50.5
9.1
84.5
47.2
24.6
17.0
9.7
11.2
52.5
43.0
18.0
68.8
22.1
19.5
56.5
46.6
42.1
2.3
15.4
14.8
7.1
8.5
5.9
0.8
12.5
2.8
2.3
8.9
8.4
3.5
0.1
Listed
Fish
Species
Present**
None
None
None
None
BT
None
None
None
BT
BT
None
None
None
None
None
None
BT
None
None
BT
BT
None
None
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Table 6. Baker FO Priority Restoration Watersheds
Rank
5th HUC
Number
5th HUC Name
5th HUC
Total
Acres
BLM
Total
Acres
Percent
BLM
BLM
Perennial
Acres* Stream Miles
24 1705011902 Upper Willow Creek
112,808
2,396
2.1
25 1705020305 North Powder River
75,055
122
63.0
26 1705020301 Upper Powder River
105,386
25
77.7
*
Includes federal and state land ownership (i.e., BLM, FS, and State of Oregon)
**
BT = bull trout
Appendix 2.2 – p. 39
0.7
0.4
0.0
Listed
Fish
Species
Present**
None
BT
BT
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
16. AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN HABITAT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
16.1 Protection
The Baker ARMS strives to protect aquatic and riparian ecosystems that are currently in good
condition so that naturally regenerative processes can continue to operate. Management actions
should conserve riparian areas that are ecologically intact and fully functional, while human
activities that significantly impair aquatic and riparian ecological functions should be restricted.
Conservation watersheds that include wilderness areas and minimally developed watersheds
would fall within this management strategy. However, high priority restoration projects may
exist within portions of some conservation watersheds; while some restoration watersheds may
have a stream segment or portion of land that is ecologically intact and functional, which would
also warrant protection of aquatic and riparian ecosystems.
16.2 Passive Restoration
This management strategy generally applies to low priority restoration watersheds, but can be
applied to any watershed regardless of designation or priority. Under this strategy, management
actions should prevent further loss of aquatic and riparian ecosystem integrity, and to the extent
possible, remove anthropogenic disturbances from altered aquatic and riparian ecosystems to
allow natural processes to be the primary agents of recovery. Management actions should also
allow the natural disturbance regime to dictate the speed of recovery in areas that have a high
probability of returning to a fully functional state without human intervention, keeping in mind
that the speed of recovery may be several decades (or more) once anthropogenic disturbances are
removed or mitigated.
16.3 Active Restoration
Under this strategy, management actions should return functionally impaired aquatic and riparian
ecosystems to more natural or pre-existing conditions, based on location, by combining elements
of natural recovery with active management activities that accelerate the development and
recovery of self-sustaining and ecologically healthy aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Several
watershed, riparian, and stream restoration activities fall under this category, including:
vegetation treatment, stream channel and instream habitat restoration, stream crossing removal or
improvement, road density reduction, and road condition improvement. In general, the speed of
recovery under this strategy would be more rapid than with passive restoration, but could take
several years (or decades) once anthropogenic disturbances are removed or mitigated.
16.4 Rehabilitation
Under this strategy, management actions should recover or restore naturally self-sustaining
aquatic and riparian ecosystems to the extent possible, while acknowledging that irreversible
resource modification, such as dam construction, permanent channel changes due to urbanization
and roads, stream channel incision, and floodplain development, allows for only partial recovery
Appendix 2.2 – p. 40
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
or restoration of ecological functions. Where ecological self-sufficiency cannot occur, actions
that combine both natural and active management approaches should be applied.
17. MULTI-SCALE ANALYSIS
Generally, no single assessment will adequately address the complex issues facing resource
managers today. Fine-scale assessments provide necessary context for management and project
planning, but they cannot adequately address broad patterns and processes, such as habitat
conditions for wide-ranging species. Broad-scale assessments provide necessary context for
policy formulation and for mid- and fine-scale assessment, but they cannot by themselves
provide detailed information, such as site-specific habitat conditions. Together, issue-driven
multi-scale assessments provide a comprehensive basis for sustainable land and resource
management.
Multiple levels of review and assessment provide the context to implement broad-scale decisions
on individual BLM Districts or within a particular Resource Area. As needed, multi-scale
analysis may be used for future plan amendments or revisions and for subsequent project-level
decisions. The four potential analysis scales are basin, subbasin, watershed, and project.
Analysis at the appropriate scale is generally recognized to provide needed context for (and thus
it improves) decision making.
Following are the four levels of review/assessment that may be used for multi-scale analysis:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Broad-scale (e.g., analysis of ecosystems in the Interior Columbia River Basin);
Mid-scale (e.g., ecosystem analysis at the subbasin scale);
Fine-scale (e.g., ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale);
Site-scale (e.g., reach analysis, project-based or site-specific analysis).
Management considerations for multi-scale analysis include the following:
Plans are generally developed and analyzed at the scale of the land management unit,
normally analogous to a subbasin (or group of subbasins) scale.
Subsequent finer scale analysis, such as to support restoration prioritization and
monitoring strategy development, should include interagency coordination.
Assessments should include evaluation of existing conditions, factors limiting aquatic
species populations, resource risks, management needs, and restoration opportunities.
Information developed at the finer scale should be considered in implementing the
aquatic conservation or restoration measures and used to make adjustments or
modifications to appropriate management actions, as warranted.
Multi-scale analysis provides a basis for integrating and prioritizing conservation
measures for wide-ranging species.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 41
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Existing mid and fine-scale analyses that serve as a source of information for the Baker FO
include Northwest Power Planning Council subbasin plans, ESA salmon/steelhead recovery
plans, and Water Quality Restoration Plans (WQRPs).
17.1 Watershed Analysis
The purpose of an ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale is to develop and document an
understanding of the ecological structures, functions, processes, and interactions occurring at the
watershed scale. This process is designed to describe past and current conditions and develop
restoration and management recommendations. The ultimate goal is to provide guidance for
management actions that would sustain or improve the health and productivity of natural
resources.
17.2 Objectives of a Watershed Analysis
1. Evaluate cumulative watershed effects – watershed analysis enhances the ability to
estimate direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of management actions.
2. Define watershed restoration needs, goals, and objectives – provides guidance on the
type, location, and sequence of appropriate activities within a watershed.
3. Monitor the effectiveness of watershed protection measures – process for adaptive
management feedback loop.
4. Provide sufficient watershed context for understanding and carrying out land use
activities with a geomorphic context – important tool used in meeting ecosystem
management goals and desired conditions.
17.3 Appropriate Methodology
The Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis (RIEC 1995) provides resource managers with the
flexibility and discretion to focus a watershed analysis as necessary to meet management goals
and desired conditions, such as defining the number and scope of issues to be addressed. A
watershed analysis can be a very simple and straightforward process, taking a few days or weeks
to develop, or a complicated process that takes several weeks or months to accomplish.
Although watershed analysis is not a decision-making process, it helps to identify opportunities
for future management actions, including planning, project development, and regulatory
compliance.
For small or scattered tracts of public lands, watersheds with small amounts of BLM lands, or in
areas where a watershed analysis has not been completed, the use of site-specific analysis or
stream-reach analysis is appropriate. The site-specific or reach analysis should follow the sixstep process identified below, which is similar to watershed analysis but limited in geographic
scope. The level of a focused site-specific or reach analysis should be commensurate with the
scope, magnitude, and issues related to BLM activities or projects and related aquatic resources
and values. Where appropriate, an abbreviated watershed analysis may be used in conjunction
with a more focused site-specific analysis. A site-specific analysis includes the following steps:
Appendix 2.2 – p. 42
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
17.4 The Six Steps of Site-Specific Analysis
Step 1: Characterization - Characterize the RMA and vicinity, including reference to aquatic
habitat, channel type, valley type, and stream gradient.
Step 2: Issues and Key Questions - Describe the issues, including aquatic and riparian resource
goals and desired conditions, which will be affected by existing and proposed actions being
considered for NEPA decision. This includes the factors limiting aquatic species populations,
resource risks, management needs, restoration opportunities, and interagency coordination.
Step 3: Current Conditions - Describe the current condition of the RMA within the context of
the proposed action. This may include discussion of riparian function (e.g., PFC). This should
also include quantitative stream and riparian condition data (e.g., Multiple Indicator Monitoring
[MIM]).
Step 4: Reference Conditions - Describe the expected or desired future condition. If an
undisturbed reference reach similar in channel, valley, and vegetation type is available, measure
conditions there for comparison or reference condition.
Step 5: Synthesis and Interpretation - Compare existing and reference conditions of specific
ecosystem elements including differences, similarities, trends, and triggers. Identify the
capability of the system to achieve desired conditions.
Step 6: Recommendations - Summarize conclusions from steps one through five by addressing
each of the issues and answering the key questions. Document the logic flow through the
analysis, linking issues and key questions from step two with the interpretation presented in step
five, and based on conclusions from steps one, three, and four. Identify monitoring and
recommendations responsive to issues and key questions, as well as data gaps and limitations of
the analysis.
17.5 Baker FO Watershed Analysis Direction
BLM lands within the Baker FO Decision Area often consist of small scattered tracts of land;
therefore, BLM ownership usually does not comprise the majority of land ownership within most
watersheds. Many watersheds also have scattered tracts of land that are primarily of private or
non-federal ownership. The greatest opportunity for completing or updating existing watershed
or other multi-scale analyses occurs in drainages where majority land ownership is comprised of
both BLM and Forest Service lands. Because BLM is typically not the majority landowner, the
BLM Baker FO should continue to collaborate with the Forest Service to complete or update
watershed or other multi-scale analyses, which can be used to provide guidance for cumulative
effects analysis, prioritization for restoration and management actions, and direction and
Appendix 2.2 – p. 43
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
information for landscape and ecosystem management efforts that involve mixed land
ownerships.
18. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
Standards and guidelines (Table 7) are technical and scientific specifications to be used in the
design and constraint of projects and activities in RMAs. Both standards and guidelines are
intended to assure that management activities that disturb or modify land, water or vegetation in
RMAs will only occur if the activities maintain, restore, or enhance riparian dependent resources
when viewed at the watershed or larger scale over time. They help assure that the relevant
processes for which RMAs are established are assessed to avoid watershed scale effects and
minimize effects to aquatic and riparian resources at the site scale.
Standards:
Standards are constraints placed upon project and activity decision-making and
are established to help achieve the goals and desired conditions of the Baker
ARMS or to comply with applicable laws, regulations, Executive orders, and
directives. A standard is a requirement to be met in the design of projects and
activities.
Guidelines:
Guidelines provide guidance and information for carrying out projects and
activities to help achieve the goals and desired conditions.
Laws, regulations, and other agency policy and directives are generally not repeated in the Baker
ARMS and are not repeated in the standards and guidelines. For example, threatened and
endangered species have very specific direction in law, regulation, policy, agency directives, and
other sources, such as recovery plans. Therefore, standards and guidelines for threatened and
endangered species are limited. If a particular resource is not addressed in these standards
and guidelines, it does not mean the resource is not managed for or that the BLM considers a
particular resource less important than those listed.
Neither standards nor guidelines are commitments or final decisions approving projects and
activities. Standards and guidelines do not compel or force action; they apply only when an
action is being taken.
Standards and guidelines apply to all RMAs, including projects and activities conducted outside
of RMAs that are identified through NEPA analysis as potentially degrading to RMAs, after the
RMP and Baker ARMS is approved. For convenience, standards and guidelines (see Table 7) are
numbered consecutively with an alphanumeric system; an “S” indicates a standard, while a “G”
indicates a guideline.
For land management activities proposed in watersheds that support listed fish species and/or
designated critical habitat, in conjunction with informal and formal ESA Section 7 consultation,
Appendix 2.2 – p. 44
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
all applicable guidelines shall become standards or PDCs and/or conservation measures shall be
developed that address resource and/or regulatory agency concerns.
Table 7. RMA Standards and Guidelines
S-1
G-1
G-2
G-3
S-2
S-3
S-1
G-1
G-2
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
G-3
Riparian Management Areas
When RMAs are functioning properly, project activities shall be designed to maintain those conditions.
When RMAs are not properly functioning, project activities shall be designed to improve those conditions.
Management actions in RMAs shall avoid or minimize adverse effects on special status fish species and
other native aquatic species and their habitats.
Management actions in RMAs shall not result in long-term degradation to aquatic and riparian conditions at
the watershed scale. Limited short-term or site-scale effects from activities in RMAs may be acceptable
when they support, or do not diminish, long-term benefits to aquatic and riparian habitat and species.
Trees may be felled within RMAs when they pose a safety risk, and should be kept on-site when needed to
maintain or enhance riparian and aquatic habitat.
Coordinate with federal, tribal, state, and local governments to secure instream flows needed to maintain
riparian resources, channel conditions, and aquatic habitat.
Coordinate with federal and state fish management agencies to identify and eliminate adverse effects on
special status fish species and their habitat from unauthorized or illegal habitat manipulation, fish stocking,
and fish harvest.
Apply herbicides, insecticides, pesticides and other toxicants, and other chemicals only to maintain, protect,
or enhance aquatic and riparian resources or to restore native plan communities. When conducting chemical
treatments within a RMA, a spill kit and containment plan should be on-site at all times.
Prohibit storage and mixing of fuels and other chemicals, including refueling, within RMAs unless there are
no other practicable alternatives. Refueling sites and storage areas within or adjacent to an RMA must have
an approved refueling and spill containment plan.
Timber Management
Timber harvest and thinning shall occur in RMAs only as necessary to maintain, restore, or achieve desired
conditions.
New landings, designated skid trails, staging, or decking should not occur in RMAs, unless there are no
reasonable alternatives, in which case they should:
• Be of minimum size
• Be located outside the active floodplain
• Minimize effects to large wood, bank integrity, temperature, and sediment levels
Yarding activities should achieve full suspension over the active channel.
Timber harvest projects shall include provisions to avoid detrimental changes in water temperatures,
blockages of water courses, and deposits of sediment.
Firewood collection shall not be authorized or allowed in the active floodplain or within primary source
areas for large woody debris.
Clearcutting, shelterwood, and other even-aged methods of harvest shall be allowed within RMAs only when
an interdisciplinary team/deciding official has determined that protection can be assured for resources, such
as soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation, aesthetics, and the regeneration of the timber resource. It shall
also be determined as the optimal harvest method for any of the following reasons:
• Establishing, maintaining, or improving habitat for special status aquatic and riparian-dependent
species
• Obtaining a desired resource management plan outcome, such as reducing hazardous fuels or enhancing
aquatic or riparian species habitat.
When soils or road surfaces become saturated to a depth of 3 inches, BLM-authorized activities (e.g., heavy
machinery operation, yarding, and hauling) should be limited or prohibited unless otherwise approved by the
authorized officer.
Avoid skidding across channel bottoms or creating conditions that concentrate and channelize surface flow.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 45
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Table 7. RMA Standards and Guidelines
G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
G-7
G-8
G-9
G-10
G-11
G-12
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
Riparian Management Areas
Use directional felling, when applicable, to minimize skidding distance and locate skid trails outside of
RMAs.
Wildland Fire and Fuels Management
Generally, management actions should balance short-term risks with long-term benefits to aquatic and
riparian habitat and resources.
Disturbed areas, such as firelines, drop-points, camps, roads, and trails should be restored by scattering slash
piles, replacing logs and boulders, scarifying soils, recontouring terrain, and reseeding with native species.
All firelines within 100 feet of intercepting trails, roads, or stream crossings should be restored by cutting
stumps flush and close to the ground (height of 4 to 5 inches), covering tops with a layer of soil (1 to 2
inches), and chopping and roughening the ends of logs and stumps with an ax or Pulaski.
Waterbars should be constructed on fireline slopes that exceed 10 percent.
Chemicals and retardant should not be used for suppression and mop-up activities within riparian areas.
Water drafting sites should be located and managed to minimize adverse effects on stream channel stability,
sedimentation, and in-stream flows needed to maintain riparian resources, channel conditions, and aquatic
species habitat.
Pumping directly from a stream channel should be avoided if chemical products are to be injected directly
into the system. When chemicals are to be used, pumping should be conducted from a fold-a-tank that is
located outside the riparian area.
Temporary firefighting facilities (e.g., incident bases, camps, helibases, staging areas, helispots, and other
centers) for incident activities should be located outside RMAs.
An interdisciplinary (ID) team, including a fisheries biologist, should be used to pre-determine incident base,
dipping, and helibase locations during pre-suppression planning. If the only suitable location for these
activities is within a RMA, an exemption may be granted following a review and recommendation by an ID
team and/or a resource advisor. The ID team and/or resource advisor should prescribe the location,
conditions of use, and rehabilitation requirements that comply with the primary goal of avoiding adverse
effects to terrestrial, aquatic, and riparian habitat and resources.
Aerial application of chemical retardant, foam, or other firefighting chemicals and petroleum should be
avoided within 300 feet of waterways. An exception is warranted where overriding safety imperatives exist
or, following a review and recommendation by a resource advisor and fisheries biologist, when the action
agency determines fire activity would cause more long-term damage to riparian and aquatic habitat and
species than suppression activities (e.g., chemical delivery to surface waters).
Water drafting sites should be located and managed to minimize adverse effects on stream channel stability,
sedimentation, and in-stream flows needed to maintain riparian resources, channel conditions, and fish
habitat.
Generally locate and configure firelines to minimize sediment delivery, creation of new stream channels, and
unauthorized roads and trails.
Pumps shall be screened at drafting sites to prevent entrainment of native and desired non-native fish and
shall have one-way valves to prevent back-flow into streams.
Portable pump set-ups shall include containment provisions for fuel spills and fuel containers shall have
appropriate containment provisions. Vehicles should be parked in locations that avoid entry of spilled fuel
into streams.
Use Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) (NWCG 2006) techniques during wildfire suppression
activities in RMAs.
To minimize soil damage when chipping fuels within RMAs, limit chip bed depths on dry soils to 7.5 cm or
less (Busse et al. 2005).
Prohibit mechanical slash piling within riparian management areas and prohibit the use of mechanical fuel
reduction equipment within RMAs.
Only hand piling of slash material and burning can be conducted within RMAs when approved by a soil,
hydrology, and/or fisheries specialist and the deciding official. Rationale for allowing slash pile burning
Appendix 2.2 – p. 46
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Table 7. RMA Standards and Guidelines
G-13
G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
G-7
G-8
G-9
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
G-13
S-5
S-6
G-14
G-1
G-2
G-3
Riparian Management Areas
within RMAs must be documented using site-specific analyses contained within appropriate NEPA and/or
Section 7 ESA consultation documents. If RMAs are within or adjacent to a prescribed burn unit, piles
should be firelined or scattered by hand prior to burning.
When preparing a unit for burning, avoid piling concentrations of large logs and stumps within or adjacent to
RMAs. Instead, pile material no bigger than 8 inches in diameter. Slash piles should only be burned when
soil and duff moisture is adequate to reduce potential damage to soil, water, and riparian resources.
Roads Management
Avoid new road construction in RMAs, except where necessary for stream crossings.
Wetlands and unstable areas should be avoided when reconstructing existing roads or constructing new roads
and landings. Consider aligning new roads or realigning existing roads outside of RMAs. Minimize impacts
where avoidance is not practical.
Construction or reconstruction of stream crossings should allow passage for other riparian-dependent species
where connectivity has been identified as an issue.
Fish passage barriers should be retained where they serve to restrict access by undesirable non-native species
and are consistent with restoration of habitat for native species.
Minimize hydrologic connectivity and sediment delivery from roads. This includes roads inside and outside
of RMAs.
Road drainage should be routed away from potentially unstable channels, fills, and hill slopes. This applies
both inside and outside of RMAs.
Route road drainages so they cannot reach streams, which may be accomplished by directing road drainages
away from streams and filtering them through adequate vegetation buffers.
Protect fish habitat and water quality when withdrawing water for administrative purposes.
Stabilize, close, or obliterate roads not needed for future management activities. Prioritize these actions
based on current and potential damage to native aquatic species and the ecological value of riparian
resources affected.
Avoid side-casting (placement of unconsolidated earthen waste materials resulting from road construction or
maintenance) in RMAs.
Avoid placing fill material on organic debris in RMAs.
Minimize or avoid disruption of natural hydrologic flow paths, including diversion of streamflow and
interception of surface and subsurface flow, when constructing or reconstructing roads or landings either
inside or outside of RMAs.
New or replaced permanent stream crossings will accommodate at least the 100-year flood event, including
associated bedload and debris.
Where physically feasible, construction or reconstruction of stream crossings will avoid diversion of
streamflow out of the channel and down the road in the event of crossing failure.
In fishbearing streams, construction or reconstruction of stream crossings will provide and maintain passage
for all fish species and all life stages of fish.
Temporary roads within RMAs will be decommissioned a maximum of three years after their construction.
Avoid brushing along stream channels and other water sources unless it is necessary for human safety or to
avoid threats to structural stability where modifying structure design would not eliminate the need for
brushing. Do not brush beyond 4 feet of a road as measured by the edge of the drivable road surface (not
measured from turnouts or road shoulder). Maintain riparian overstory to provide stream shade by pruning
riparian vegetation rather than completely removing it. Preserve as much ground vegetation as possible.
Livestock Grazing Management
During allotment management planning or the permit renewal process, consider the removal of existing
livestock handling or management facilities from RMAs.
Minimize livestock trailing, bedding, watering, loading, and other handling in RMAs and adjacent to springs,
wetlands, and seasonally wet meadows.
Avoid trampling of special status fish species and/or redds by livestock.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 47
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Table 7. RMA Standards and Guidelines
S-1
S-2
S-3
G-5
G-6
G-7
G-8
G-9
S-4
S-5
S-6
G-10
G-11
S-1
G-1
S-2
Riparian Management Areas
Manage the timing and intensity of grazing to maintain or achieve desired conditions and meet rangeland
health standards and guidelines.
New livestock handling and/or management facilities shall be located outside RMAs, except for those that
inherently must be located in an RMA and those needed for resource protection.
Salt blocks or other supplements to distribute livestock shall be placed in the uplands and away from riparian
areas.
Grazing after wildland fire should be deferred until vegetation recovers to a condition where grazing will not
cause the percent composition of native species to be reduced (cause a downward trend in key species). This
generally will take a minimum of 1 to 2 years, but could be more or less depending on the extent and severity
of the fire and other factors.
Consider the development of off-channel water sources (e.g., spring developments, pipelines/troughs, and
reservoirs) to decrease grazing pressure in riparian areas.
Surface disturbance related to range improvement projects (e.g., fencing and off-channel water sources)
would be held to a minimum. Disturbed soil would be rehabilitated to blend into surrounding soil surface
and reseeded as needed with a mixture of grasses, forbs, and browse as applicable to replace ground cover
and reduce soil loss from wind and water erosion.
Locate fencing so that it does not confine or concentrate livestock near riparian areas. Minimize vegetation
removal, especially potential large wood recruitment sources, when constructing fence lines.
Livestock stream crossings and water access points (i.e., water gaps) shall not be constructed within known
or suspected native salmonid spawning areas or areas with suitable spawning substrate.
Fencing at stream crossings and water gaps shall not inhibit upstream or downstream movement of fish or
impede bedload movement. Consider passage of large wood and other debris when constructing fencing at
water gaps.
At water gaps, streambanks and approach lanes shall be stabilized with native vegetation and/or angular rock
to reduce chronic sedimentation. Livestock stream crossings and water gaps should be armored with up to
cobble-size substrate, or use angular rock if natural substrate is not of adequate size. Refer to water gap
design criteria in the FWS and NMFS aquatic restoration biological opinions (ARBOs).
New livestock stream crossings and water gaps shall not be located in areas where compaction or other
damage may occur to hydric, fine-textured soils and associated vegetation (e.g., seeps, springs, or wetlands)
due to congregating livestock.
Where practicable, develop springs with a buried collection system (i.e., installing a short pipeline that
delivers water to a trough). Immediately after spring development, construct fencing around the spring in
order to minimize soil disturbance and compaction at the source.
Locate troughs associated with off-channel water developments on ground with a slope, vegetated buffer,
and distance (25 foot minimum) from stream channels and lentic areas to ensure that the disturbed area
associated with the water development does not contribute sediment to or remove vegetation from hydric
soils, riparian, or wetland areas. Use an automatic shut-off system or efficiently return overflow to the
source in a short return interval.
Recreation Management
Avoid placing new facilities or infrastructure within expected long-term channel migration zones. Where
activities, such as the placement or construction of road-stream crossings, boat ramps, docks, and interpretive
trails, inherently must occur in RMAs, locate them to minimize impacts on riparian dependent resource
conditions (e.g., within geologically stable areas, avoiding major spawning sites) and to allow for the
attainment of desired conditions.
Consider removing or relocating existing recreation facilities which are causing unacceptable impacts in
RMAs.
Sanitation facilities shall be planned, located, designed, constructed, operated, inspected, and maintained to
minimize possibilities of surface water and groundwater contamination. All activities related to location,
design, inspection, operation, and maintenance will be performed by trained and qualified personnel.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 48
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Table 7. RMA Standards and Guidelines
G-2
G-1
G-2
G-3
S-1
G-4
G-5
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-1
G-1
S-2
G-2
Riparian Management Areas
Prohibit discharges and disposal of human and animal waste, petroleum products, and other hazardous
substances in or near streams in recreation areas. Educate the public to conduct their activities in ways that
will not degrade water quality.
Minerals Management
Adverse effects to aquatic and other riparian-dependent resources from mineral operations should be
minimized or avoided. For operations in RMAs, ensure operators take all practicable measures to maintain,
protect, and rehabilitate water quality and habitat for fish and wildlife and other riparian-dependent resources
that may be affected by the operations.
Structures, support facilities, and roads should be located outside RMAs. Where no alternative to siting
facilities in RMAs exists, locate them in a way to minimize adverse effects to aquatic and other ripariandependent resources. Existing roads should be maintained to minimize damage to aquatic and ripariandependent resources.
Where possible, adjust the operating plans for existing activities to minimize adverse effects to aquatic and
riparian dependent resources in the RMAs to allow for attainment of desired conditions.
For activities conducted pursuant to valid existing rights and operating plans that may pose risks to aquatic
and riparian habitat, existing authorities shall be used to mitigate and/or require, to the extent authorized,
design features that would contribute to the maintenance of banks, shorelines, water quality, amount and
distribution of woody debris, thermal regulation, characteristic erosion rates, and amount and distribution of
source habitats.
When management activities are conducted in RMAs, ground disturbance shall be minimized and sufficient
ground cover shall be retained (existing vegetation and/or by seeding, plantings, and erosion control
measures) to limit soil movement within RMAs. Buffer widths, vegetation cover, and/or natural topography
features should be sufficient to minimize risks of erosion/sediment reaching stream channels and other
waterbodies.
Establish an interdisciplinary team to develop a rehabilitation plan whenever RMAs or adjacent uplands have
experienced severe damage to soils and vegetation from either fire or fire suppression activities.
Permit sand and gravel mining and extraction within RMAs only if no alternatives to do so outside of RMAs
exist, and if adverse effects to aquatic and riparian habitat and species would be avoided.
Locate mine waste facilities with the potential to generate hazardous material (per the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [CERCLA] of 1980) outside of RMAs. If no
reasonable alternative to locating these facilities in RMAs exists, then locate and design the waste facilities
using the best conventional techniques to ensure mass
stability and prevent the release of acid or toxic materials.
Evaluate and apply the results of inspection and monitoring to modify mineral plans, leases, or permits as
needed to eliminate adverse impacts to riparian and aquatic habitat and species.
Lands and Realty
Authorizations for all new and existing rights-of-way shall result in the reestablishment, restoration, or
mitigation of habitat conditions and ecological processes identified as being essential for the maintenance or
improvement of habitat conditions for fish, water, and other riparian-dependent species and resources. These
processes include in-stream flow regimes, physical and biological connectivity, water quality, and integrity
and complexity of riparian and aquatic habitat.
If existing support facilities are located within RMAs, they should be operated and maintained to restore or
enhance aquatic and riparian-dependent resources. At the time of permit reissuance, consider removing
support facilities, where practical.
Locate new hydroelectric power support facilities outside of RMAs. Support facilities include any facilities
or improvements (e.g., workshops, housing, switchyards, staging areas, and transmission lines) not directly
integral to the production of hydroelectric power or necessary for the implementation of prescribed
protection, mitigation or enhancement measures.
Use land acquisition, exchange, and conservation easements to support the conservation and restoration of
Appendix 2.2 – p. 49
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Table 7. RMA Standards and Guidelines
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
S-3
S-1
S-2
S-3
G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
S-1
G-7
G-8
S-2
Riparian Management Areas
aquatic and riparian habitat and species.
Rights-of-way and utility corridors should use areas adjoining or adjacent to previously disturbed areas
whenever possible, rather than traverse undisturbed communities.
Waterbars or dikes should be constructed on all of rights-of-way and utility corridors, and across the full
width of the disturbed area, or as directed by the deciding official.
Disturbed areas within road rights-of-way and utility corridors should be stabilized by vegetation practices
designed to hold soil in place and minimize erosion. Vegetation cover should be reestablished to increase
infiltration and provide additional protection from erosion.
Sediment barriers should be constructed when needed to slow runoff, allow deposition of sediment, and
prevent transport from the site. Straining or filtration mechanisms may also be employed for the removal of
sediment from runoff.
For water diversions and canals, condition permit issuance to require meeting existing appropriate fish
screening criteria based on fish presence (i.e., ESA-listed fish and non-listed fish).
Prioritized Conservation and Restoration Watersheds
There shall be no net increase in the mileage of BLM-administered roads in any prioritized watershed unless
the increase results in a reduction in road-related risk to watershed condition. Priority should be given to
roads that pose the greatest relative ecological risks to riparian and aquatic ecosystems.
Hydroelectric and other surface water development authorizations should include requirements for in-stream
flows and habitat conditions that maintain or restore special status fish and other desirable aquatic species
populations, riparian dependent resources, favorable channel conditions, and aquatic connectivity.
New hydroelectric facilities and water developments shall not be located in a prioritized watershed unless it
can be demonstrated that there are minimal risks and/or no adverse effects to aquatic and riparian habitat and
species.
General Watershed and Habitat Restoration
Watershed restoration projects should be designed to maximize the use of natural ecological processes as a
tool in meeting and maintaining restoration goals and desired conditions.
Watershed restoration projects should be designed to minimize the need for long-term maintenance.
Watershed and habitat restoration projects should avoid or minimize adverse effects on special status fish
species and their habitats. Management actions should balance short-term risks with long-term benefits to
aquatic and riparian resources.
Design and implement watershed and habitat restoration projects in a manner that promotes the long-term
ecological integrity of ecosystems and conserves the genetic integrity of special status fish species and other
native aquatic species.
All ground-disturbing activities should be conducted to minimize or prevent the potential spread or
establishment of invasive species.
Materials used for restoration projects on BLM-administered lands should be free of invasive species.
State certified weed-free straw and mulch shall be used for restoration projects conducted or authorized on
BLM-administered lands.
Native plant materials should be used for restoration activities where timely natural regeneration of the
native plant community is not likely to occur. Non-native non-persistent plant species may be used in the
following situations: emergency situations to protect basic resource values, as an interim non-persistent
measure to aid re-establishment of native plant communities if native plant material is not available, or in
permanently altered plant communities.
Cooperate with federal, state, local, and tribal agencies and private landowners to develop watershed-based
coordinated resource restoration plans or other cooperative agreements.
Do not use planned restoration as a substitute for preventing habitat degradation; that is, use planned
restoration only to mitigate existing problems and not to mitigate the effects of
proposed management activities. It is acknowledged that some proposed activities may have short-term
adverse effects, but they shall not degrade or preclude trends to achieve aquatic and riparian resource goals
Appendix 2.2 – p. 50
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Table 7. RMA Standards and Guidelines
G-9
G-10
G-11
G-12
G-13
G-14
G-15
S-3
S-4
G-16
G-1
Riparian Management Areas
and desired conditions over the long-term.
Conduct water quality monitoring before, during, and after project implementation to determine the effects
of restoration activities on water resources.
Conduct non-commercial treatments of vegetation in RMAs as a means to help restore plant species
composition and structure that would occur under natural disturbance regimes. The resulting benefits to
aquatic systems should include one or more of the following: desired levels of stream shade, bank stability,
stream nutrients, large wood inputs, increased grasses, forbs, and shrubs, and reduced soil erosion. An
additional benefit includes fuels reduction, which decreases the probability of a catastrophic fire in a
watershed containing isolated populations of special status fish species and habitat. Treatments may include,
but are not limited to, the following: thin conifers in even-age stands (typically plantations) to expedite lateseral conditions; thin conifer understory to maintain viability of later-seral trees; create stand structure that
would be expected under natural disturbance regimes; alder treatments; disease pocket treatments; create
planting gaps to promote growth of conifers, deciduous trees, shrubs, and grass. Brush (felled trees)
removal, planting of tree seedlings (conifer and deciduous) and shrubs, and animal damage control (no
pesticides) are also included.
Conduct riparian vegetation planting as a means to help restore plant species composition and structure that
would occur under natural disturbance regimes. The resulting benefits to the aquatic systems should include
desired levels of stream shade, bank stability, stream nutrients, large wood inputs, increased grasses, forbs,
and shrubs, and reduced soil erosion. Activities may include the following: planting of conifers, deciduous
trees, and/or shrubs; placement of sedge and or rush mats; gathering and planting willow cuttings.
Restore meadow sites along stream corridors or adjacent uplands through removal of conifers which have
become established as a result of fire exclusion or other anthropogenic causes.
To restore or increase species diversity of riparian vegetation, fell conifer and/or hardwood trees (if above
natural stocking levels) to create riparian planting gaps.
An interdisciplinary (ID) team, including, but not limited to, a silviculturist, botanist or ecologist, fisheries
biologist, and wildlife biologist, should be involved in designing restorative vegetation treatments within
RMAs.
Restoration activities should be designed to produce native facultative and obligate wetland species in
wetland/hydric soils.
Design invasive plant treatments to reduce or eliminate adverse effects to riparian and aquatic habitat and
species. Use site-specific project design (e.g., application rate and method, timing, wind speed and direction,
nozzle type and size, buffers, etc.) to minimize the potential for adverse disturbance and/or contaminant
exposure to special status aquatic species.
Mixing/refilling and storage of chemicals or fuels shall be take place outside of RMAs or where an
accidental spill will not run into surface waters or result in groundwater contamination. Impervious material
shall be placed beneath mixing/refilling and storage areas in such a manner as to contain any spills associated
with mixing/refilling and storage.
When approved pesticides are transported to a project site in motorized or non-motorized watercraft, the
following protections should be implemented: only daily quantities of pesticide(s) should be transported to
project site; pesticide(s) should be transported in one gallon or smaller containers, sealed in a water- and airtight container, and placed in a buoyant dry-bag. The entire package should be securely tied to the
watercraft.
Instream Habitat Improvements
Large wood and boulders should only be placed in areas where they would naturally occur and in a manner
that closely mimics natural accumulations for that particular stream type. Large wood includes whole
conifer and hardwood trees, logs, and root wads. Large wood size (diameter and length) should account for
bankfull width and stream discharge rates. When available, trees with rootwads should be a minimum of 1.5
times the bankfull channel width, while logs without rootwads should be a minimum of 2 times the bankfull
width. Structures may partially or completely span stream channels or be positioned along stream banks.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 51
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Table 7. RMA Standards and Guidelines
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-1
G-2
G-3
Riparian Management Areas
Key boulders (footings) or large wood can be buried into streambanks or channels but should not constitute
the dominant placement method of boulders and large wood within a given watershed.
Anchoring large wood with cable should be used sparingly and when the protection of infrastructure or
consideration of downstream landowner concerns is a high priority. Before using cable, attempt to use, when
feasible, the following anchoring alternatives, in preferential order:
a. use adequate-sized wood sufficient for stability;
b. orient and place adequate-sized wood in such a way that wood movement is unlikely;
c. use ballasting (gravel and/or rock) to increase the mass of the structure to resist movement;
d. use large boulders as anchor points for large wood; or
e. pin wood to large rock with rebar to increase wood weight.
Gravel augmentation should only occur in areas where the natural supply of gravel has been eliminated or
significantly reduced through anthropogenic means (e.g., directly downstream of dams). Gravel to be placed
in streams should be of properly-sized gradation for that stream, clean, and non-angular. When possible, use
gravel of the same lithology as found in the watershed. After gravel placement, allow the stream to naturally
sort and distribute the material.
Install boulder weirs low in relation to channel dimensions so that they are completely overtopped during
channel-forming flow events (~ 1.5 year flow events). If larger boulders are needed to withstand bankfull
flows, boulder size should be determined through a site-specific analysis (e.g., shear stress analysis) and
should not promote bank scouring and channel routing around the structure.
Boulder weirs should be placed diagonally across the channel or in a traditional
“V” or “U” shaped configuration with the apex oriented upstream. Boulder weirs should be constructed to
allow upstream and downstream passage of all native aquatic species and life stages that occur in the stream.
For fish species, this can be accomplished by providing plunges no greater than 6” in height, allowing for
juvenile fish passage at all flows.
Headcut Stabilization and Associated Fish Passage
When armoring a headcut, use sufficient sizes and amounts of material to prevent continued upstream
movement of the headcut. Materials may include both rock and organic materials that are native to the area.
Minimize lateral migration of channel around headcut (i.e., flanking) by placing rocks and/or organic
material at a lower elevation in the center of the channel cross-section to direct flows to the middle of the
channel.
In streams with known or presumed fish presence, provide fish passage over stabilized head-cuts. Log or
rock weir structures may be used to provide fish passage. Construct weirs in a “V” shape, oriented with the
apex upstream, and lower in the center to direct flows to the middle of the channel.
Key weirs into the streambed to minimize structure undermining due to scour, preferably at least 2.5 times
their exposure height. The weir should also be keyed greater than 8 feet into both banks, if feasible.
If several structures will be used in a series, space the weirs at appropriate distances to promote fish passage
of all life stages of native fish. Incorporate State fish passage criteria (e.g., jump height, pool depth, etc.) in
the design of weir structures. Recommended weir spacing should be no closer than the net drop divided by
the channel slope. For example, a one-foot high weir in a stream with a two-percent gradient will have a
minimum spacing of 50-feet.
Removal of Legacy Structures
Remove large wood, boulders, rock gabions, and other in-channel structures that were constructed to
improve fish habitat but were installed in a manner that was and continues to be inappropriate for the given
stream type, or where these structures have resulted in widened stream channels, increased width/depth
ratios, decreased sinuosity, and increased stream exposure to solar radiation.
If the structure being removed is keyed into the bank, fill in “key” holes with native materials as to restore
contours of streambank and floodplain. Compact the fill material adequately to prevent washing out of the
soil during flood events. Do not mine material from the stream channel to fill in “key” holes.
When removal of buried (keyed) structures may result in significant disruption to riparian vegetation and/or
Appendix 2.2 – p. 52
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Table 7. RMA Standards and Guidelines
G-4
G-1
G-2
G-3
G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
Riparian Management Areas
the floodplain, consider using a chainsaw to extract the portion of log within the channel and leaving the
buried sections within the streambank.
Assess sites for potential headcutting below the natural stream gradient. If headcutting and channel incision
are likely to occur due to structure removal, additional measures must be taken to avoid or reduce these
impacts.
Bank Restoration
Restore eroding streambanks to reduce chronic bank erosion, improve water quality, restore natural channel
cross-sections, expand floodplain area, promote growth of riparian vegetation, and create undercut banks for
fish hiding cover. Projects should not significantly restrict the channel migration zone and ability of the
channel to form and maintain habitat.
To the extent possible, use bank stabilizing materials that would naturally occur at that site, such as large
wood, woody and herbaceous plantings, native sedge/rush mats, and native rock.
Streambanks may be reshaped and sloped where the objective is to reduce bank slope angle to provide more
favorable planting surfaces. However, such work should not change the location of the bank toe.
Floodplain Overburden Removal
Remove anthropogenic overburden and fill, such as dredged mine tailings, railroad beds, dikes, berms,
levees, and other fill types, from floodplains to restore natural floodplain functions, including overland flow
during high-water events, dissipation of flood energy, increased water storage to augment low flows,
sediment and debris deposition, growth of riparian vegetation, nutrient cycling, and development of side
channels.
Create floodplain characteristics (i.e., elevation, width, gradient, length, and roughness) that mimic those that
would naturally occur at that particular stream and valley type.
Overburden or fill comprised of native materials that originated from the project area may be used to reshape
the floodplain, used to fill anthropogenic holes, buried on site, and/or disposed into upland areas.
Conduct a contaminant survey for mine tailing removal projects prior to project implementation. If
contaminants are found above levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency, consult with appropriate
agencies.
19. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING
19.1 Adaptive Management
Adaptive management is a decision process that promotes flexible decision making that can be
adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events
become better understood. Adaptive management is a systematic approach for improving
resource management by learning from management outcomes (BLM 2006).
Adaptive management requires knowledge of the current conditions, potential or capability of
riparian sites and streams, current management and effects of the management on the resources,
and management changes that may be made to move the current condition toward the desired
condition. Single indicators of conditions or trend are usually not adequate to make good
decisions. Information on the condition and trend of the vegetation, streambanks, aquatic
resources, and knowledge of current management practices can help establish cause-and-effect
relationships that are important to make appropriate decisions. Such information allows
refinement and development of more realistic, site-specific project or activity design, standards,
and criteria.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 53
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Monitoring is an integral component of many management approaches, including adaptive
management and ecosystem management. Adaptive management is based on monitoring that is
sufficiently sensitive enough to detect relevant ecological changes. In addition, the success of
adaptive management depends on the accuracy and credibility of information obtained through
inventories and monitoring. Close coordination and interaction between monitoring and research
are important for the adaptive management process to succeed. Data obtained through
systematic and statistically valid monitoring can be used by scientists to develop research
hypotheses related to priority issues. Conversely, the results obtained through research can be
used to further refine the protocols and strategies used to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness
of Baker RMP and Baker ARMS implementation.
Monitoring results provide resource managers with the information to determine whether an
objective has been met, and whether to continue or modify the management direction. Findings
obtained through monitoring, together with research and other new information will provide a
basis for adaptive management changes to the plan. The monitoring process and adaptive
management share the goal of improving effectiveness and permitting response to increased
knowledge and dynamic landscapes. Monitoring plans will also not remain static and should be
periodically evaluated to ascertain that monitoring questions and standards are still relevant, and
should be adjusted as appropriate and necessary. As such, some monitoring protocols might be
discontinued or others might be added as knowledge and issues change with implementation.
19.2 Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring
Monitoring is a process of gathering information through observation and measurement to ensure
that project design criteria and mitigations are implemented correctly and effectively, and to
determine if project or resource goals and desired conditions are being achieved.
Plan-level (e.g., Environmental Analysis [EA] and Environmental Impact Statement [EIS]) and
compliance-level (e.g., Biological Assessment [BA] and Biological Opinion [BO]) monitoring
should (1) determine if the plan, project, or activities are being implemented correctly and are
achieving desired results or conditions; (2) provide a mechanism for accountability and
oversight; (3) evaluate the effectiveness of recovery and restoration efforts; and (4) provide a
feedback loop for adaptive management so that management direction and actions can be
evaluated and, if necessary, modified.
The two main types of plan-level and compliance-level monitoring are implementation and
effectiveness monitoring, specifics of which are described below:
Implementation monitoring is used to determine if management actions, decisions, and
standards and guidelines, as identified in plan-level or compliance-level documents, are
being implemented in a timely manner and according to agency policy or protocol.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 54
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Effectiveness monitoring is used to determine if management actions and decisions, as
designed and executed, are effective in meeting project goals and objectives as defined in
activity plans, EAs, EISs, BAs, or BOs. Effectiveness monitoring provides a measure of
achievement or progress toward achieving desired outcomes or conditions, and may
require long-term monitoring of established ecological indicators at different scales.
An example of a monitoring protocol that can be used for both implementation and effectiveness
monitoring is the Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) protocol (Burton et al. 2008), which
provides for both short-term (implementation) and long-term (effectiveness) indicators to be
measured at the site-specific scale, which allows observers to directly link a management change
to resource goals and desired conditions. This provides critical information for establishing
cause and effect relationships when evaluating condition and trend.
The PIBO monitoring program is designed to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions
in meeting aquatic and riparian resource goals and desired conditions provided in the PACFISH
and INFISH (USDA 1995) strategies, and the effectiveness of aquatic and riparian resource goals
and desired conditions in federal land use plans in the Upper Columbia River Basin (UCRB).
More specifically, the program is intended to answer the following questions:
What is the status and trend of stream reaches as indicated by in-channel indicators in the
UCRB?
What is the status and trend in watershed condition in the UCRB?
What is the relationship between grazing practices (implementation) and stream reach
condition (effectiveness) in the UCRB?
What are the distributions for reference and managed watersheds? This enables the
development of appropriate management goals and desired conditions for stream and
riparian parameters.
What are the distributions for reference and managed streams and riparian areas, and are
there differences in their trends?
Management considerations for riparian monitoring should be:
Objective-based: Monitoring should be focused on answering specific or key questions.
Properly located: Locate priorities for monitoring and Designated Monitoring Area
(DMA) locations using a broad-scale inventory such as PFC (BLM 1998).
Measurable: Apply quantitative, site-specific methods such as MIM at local indicator
sites (i.e. DMAs) for trend monitoring and short-term compliance with resource
management criteria and desired conditions.
Management considerations for all monitoring should include the following:
Focus monitoring on key questions that inform decision making and allow adjustments to
management.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 55
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Monitoring emphasis and intensity should be commensurate with the importance of the
question(s) being asked. For example, if adaptive decision making is being used, it
would be important to monitor key parameters to the degree necessary in order to support
the current course of action or to trigger an alternate approach.
Plan level monitoring should make use of, and not duplicate, broad-scale monitoring
programs. To the extent practicable, monitoring conducted at the plan scale should be
compatible with, and complementary to, broader and finer-scale monitoring.
Monitoring should be coordinated with, and where possible consolidated with, similar
efforts of other agencies or interested parties.
Outcome-based management approaches rely on monitoring for their success and
typically require a different level and type of monitoring than prescriptive approaches.
Monitoring commitments in plans should be feasible and achievable.
The results of monitoring efforts should be summarized and shared with other state and federal
regulatory, land, and/or natural resource management agencies and Native American tribes, as
requested.
Project design criteria, mitigation, and applicable standards and guidelines should be monitored
on a specific action or subsample of activities or project area. Agency representatives overseeing
the actions should do the monitoring, as well as an interdisciplinary or multi-agency team,
through a combination of any of the following methods:
Review EAs, BAs, and BOs for identified standards and guidelines, BMPs, project
specifications, and terms and conditions to ensure that they are provided for in contracts
or plans of operation (project design and mitigation criteria)
Review contract administration reports (daily diaries)
Review activities on the ground before, during, and after implementation
Assess whether identified standards and guidelines, BMPs, project
specifications, and terms and conditions in NEPA and/or Section 7 ESA consultation
documents were implemented
Where appropriate, photograph site conditions before, during, and after implementation
(i.e., photo monitoring).
The Baker FO implementation and effectiveness monitoring strategy will include the use of
approved databases and reporting mechanisms, while ensuring that data is collected and reported
in a consistent manner. Monitoring protocols will be in accord with appropriate BLM technical
references or other acceptable monitoring methods that address aquatic and riparian resource
goals and desired conditions. Acceptable monitoring methods would include consistent
application of protocols that document existing conditions, allow for comparison and trend, and
have been generally approved and accepted by other state and federal land and/or natural
resource management agencies, and Native American tribes.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 56
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
19.3 Monitoring and Evaluation of the RMP and Baker ARMS
BLM planning regulations require the monitoring and evaluation of RMPs at appropriate
intervals. Monitoring is an essential component of natural resource management because it
provides information on the relative success of management strategies. The implementation of
the RMP and the Baker ARMS will be monitored to ensure that management actions follow
prescribed management direction (implementation monitoring), meet desired conditions
(effectiveness monitoring), and are based on accurate assumptions (validation monitoring).
After approval of the RMP and the Baker ARMS, an implementation schedule will be completed
and would incorporate monitoring plans. Monitoring data will be used to assess resource
conditions, identify resource issues and conflicts, determine if resource goals and desired
conditions are being met, determine trends for achievement of desired conditions, and
periodically refine and update desired conditions and management strategies.
Monitoring will be coordinated with other appropriate agencies and organizations in order to
enhance the efficiency and usefulness of the results across a variety of administrative units. The
approach will build on past and present monitoring work. In addition, specific monitoring
protocols, criteria, goals, and reporting formats will be developed.
Management actions (see Chapter 2 of the RMP) will be monitored to determine whether aquatic
and riparian resource goals and desired conditions, including standards and guidelines, are being
achieved or implemented for the benefit of special status aquatic species populations and their
habitats. Monitoring data will be collected, maintained, and used to evaluate the effectiveness of
management actions in meeting aquatic and riparian resource goals and desired conditions,
including standards and guidelines, provided in the Baker ARMS.
Implementation and effectiveness monitoring strategies will include the use of agency-approved
databases and reporting mechanisms. Monitoring methods will be in accord with appropriate
BLM policies, technical bulletins and references, or other agency-approved monitoring protocols
that address aquatic and riparian management resource goals and desired conditions provided in
the Baker ARMS. Acceptable monitoring methods would be adaptive and include protocols that
have been generally approved and accepted by other state and federal land and/or natural
resource management agencies, and Native American tribes.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 57
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
LITERATURE CITED
Aber, J., N. Christensen, I. Fernandez, J. Franklin, L. Hidinger, M. Hunter, J. MacMahon, D.
Mladenoff, J. Pastor, D. Perry, R. Slangen and H. van Miegroet. 2000. Applying
ecological principles to management of the U.S. National Forests. Issues in Ecology 6
(Spring).
Angermeier, P. L. 1997. Conceptual roles of biological integrity and diversity. In: Watershed
restoration: principles and practices. J. E. Williams, C. A. Wood and M. P. Dombeck,
eds. Bethesda, MD. American Fisheries Society: 49-65.
Bayley, P. B. 1995. Understanding large river-floodplain ecosystems. BioScience 45(3): 153158.
Benda, L., N.L. Poff, D. Miller, T. Dunne, G. Reeves, G. Pess, and M. Pollock. 2004. The
network dynamics hypothesis: how channel networks structure riverine habitats.
Bioscience, 54, 413– 427.
Bisson, P. A. and R. E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2(4): 371-374.
Bisson P.A., G.H. Reeves, R.E., Bilby, and R.J. Naiman. 1997. Watershed management and
Pacific salmon: desired future conditions. In: Stouder, D.J., Bisson, P.A., Naiman, R.J.
(Eds.), Pacific Salmon and their Ecosystems: Status and Future Options. Chapman &
Hall, New York, pp. 447–474.
Bjornn, T. C. and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In:
Influences Of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their
Habitats. W. R. Meehan, ed. Bethesda, MD. American Fisheries Society. Special
Publication 19: 83-138.
Bureau of Land Management , Department of the Interior. 1995. Interim Bull Trout Habitat
Conservation Strategy. Instruction Memorandum No. OR-96-010. Oregon/Washington
State Office. Portland, OR.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Department of the Interior. 1997. Standards for
Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands
in Oregon in Oregon and Washington. BLM Oregon State Office: Portland, OR.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Department of the Interior. 1998. A User Guide to
Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas.
Technical Reference 1737-15. National Applied Resource Sciences Center, Denver, CO.
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. 2006. A Field Guide For
Incorporating Adaptive Management Principles Into the Bureau of Land Management,
National Environmental Planning Act Analysis, and the Land Use Planning Process.
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. 2008. Guidance for Developing
Aquatic Conservation Strategies for BLM Resource Management Plans in the Interior
Columbia Basin. Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, OR and Idaho State Office,
Boise, ID.
Bormann, B. T., P. S. Homann, R. L. Darbyshire and B. A. Morrissette. 2008. Intense forest
wildfire sharply reduces mineral soil C and N: the first direct evidence. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research 38(11): 2771-2783.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 58
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Brady, N. C. 1990. The Nature and Properties of Soils. New York, MacMillan Publishers, 2
Ltd.
Burton, T. A., E. R. Cowley, and S. J. Smith. 2008. Monitoring Stream Channels and Riparian
Vegetation – Multiple Indicators. Interagency Technical Bulletin. Version 5.0/April 2008.
Boise, ID: Bureau of Land Management Idaho State Office and US Forest Service Rocky
Mountain Research Station. BLM/ID/GI-08/001+1150.
Busse, M. D. and G. M. Riegel. 2005. Managing ponderosa pine forests in central Oregon: who
will speak for the soil? In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Ponderosa Pine: Issues,
Trends, and Management, October 18-21, 2004, General Technical Report PSW-GTR198. M. W. Ritchie, D. A. Maguire and A. Youngblood, eds. Albany, CA. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 109-122.
Caraher, D.L., J. Henshaw, F. Hall, W.H. Knapp, B.P. McCammon, J. Nesbitt, R.J. Pederson, I.
Ragenovitch, and C. Tiez. 1992. Restoring Ecosystems in the Blue Mountains – A
Report to the Regional Forester and the Forest Supervisors of the Blue Mountain Forests.
U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Chapin, F. S., III, M. S. Torn and M. Tateno. 1996. Principles of ecosystem sustainability.
American Naturalist 148(6): 1016-1037.
Childs, S. W., S. P. Shade, D. W. R. Miles, E. Shepard and H. A. Froehlich. 1989. Soil physical
properties: importance to long-term forest productivity. In: Maintaining the long-term
productivity of Pacific Northwest forests. D. A. Perry, R. Meurisse, B. Thomas, R.
Miller, J. Boyle, J. Means, C. R. Perry and R. F. Powers, eds. Portland, OR. Timber
Press: 53-66.
Coats, R. N. and T. O. Miller. 1981. Developing best management practices for California
forests. A 208 progress report. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 36(4): 205-208.
Concannon, J.A., C.L. Shafer, R.L. DeVelice, R.M.; Sauvajot, S.L. Boudreau, T.E. Demeo, and J.
Dryden. 1999. Describing landscape diversity: a fundamental tool for landscape
management. In: Szaro, R.C.; Johnson, N.C.; Sexton, W.T.; Malick, A.J., eds. Ecological
stewardship: a common reference for ecosystem management. Oxford, United
Kingdom: Elsevier Science, Ltd.: 195-218. Vol. 2.
Cordone, A. J. and D. W. Kelley. 1961. The influences of inorganic sediment on the aquatic life
of streams. California Fish and Game 47(2): 189-228.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. December 1979.
Crowe, E. A. and R. R. Clausnitzer. 1997. Mid-montane wetlands classification of the Malheur,
Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. February
1997.
Dale V.H., L.A. Joyce, S. McNulty, and R.P. Neilson. 2000. The interplay between climate
change, forests, and disturbances. Science of the Total Environment, 262, 201-204.
Dunham, J. B., A. E. Rosenberger, C. H. Luce and B. E. Rieman. 2007. Influences of wildfire
and channel reorganization on spatial and temporal variation in stream temperature and
the distribution of fish and amphibians. Ecosystems 10(2): 335-346.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 59
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Ehrenfeld, D. 1992. Ecosystem health and ecological theories. In: Constanza, Island Press,
Washington, DC (1992), pp. 135–143.
Euliss, N., J. LaBaugh, L. Fredrickson, D. Mushet and M. Laubhan. 2004. The wetland
continuum: a conceptual framework for interpreting biological studies. Wetlands 24(2):
448-458.
Fausch, K.D., C.E. Torgersen, C.V. Baxter, and H.W. Li. 2002. Landscapes to riverscapes:
bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes. BioScience, 52,
483-498.
FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem
management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of Interior [and others]. [Irregular
pagination].
Fisher, S.G. 1997. Creativity, idea generation, and the functional morphology of streams.
Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 16, 305-318.
Franklin, J. F. and C. T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. General
Technical Report PNW-GTR-8. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Portland, OR. 417 pp.
Frissell, C.A., W.J. Liss, C.E. Warren, and M.D. Hurley. 1986. A hierarchical framework for
stream classification: Viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental
Management,10, 199-214.
Furniss, M.J. and C.J. Colby. 2005. Draft Annotated bibliography of small and intermittent
streams and related topics. USFS-PNW Research Station Aquatic and Land Interactions
Program. Corvallis, OR. 218 p.
Gomi, T., R.C. Sidle, and J.S. Richardson. 2002. Understanding processes and downstream
linkages of headwater streams. BioScience, 52, 905-916.
Gosz, J.R., J. Asher, B. Holder, R. Knight, R. Naiman, G. Raines, P. Stine, and T.B Wigley.
1999. An ecosystem approach for understanding landscape diversity. In: Szaro, R.C.;
Johnson, N.C.; Sexton, W.T.; Malick, A.J., eds. Ecological stewardship: a common
reference for ecosystem management. Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier Science, Ltd.:
157-194. Vol. 2.
Gregory, S. V. and P. A. Bisson. 1997. Degradation and loss of salmonid habitat in the Pacific
Northwest. In: Pacific salmon and their ecosystems. D. J. Stouder, P. A. Bisson and R.
J. Naiman, eds. New York. Chapman & Hall: 277-314.
Hansen, A.J. and D.L. Urban. 1992. Avian response to landscape patterns: the role of species
life histories. Landscape Ecology, 7, 163-180.
Harrison, S. and J.F. Quinn. 1989. Correlated environments and the persistence of
metapopulations. Oikos, 56, 293-298.
Harvey, A. E., J. M. Geist, G. L. McDonald, M. F. Jurgensen, P. H. Cochran, D. Zabowski and R.
T. Meurisse. 1994. Biotic and abiotic processes in eastside ecosystems: the effects of
management on soil properties, processes, and productivity. General Technical Report
PNW-GTR-323. Portland, OR, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station: 71 p.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 60
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Heller, D., and B. McCammon. 2004. Aquatic strategies in Region 6 – Are they working?
Unpublished report. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Region, Natural Resources, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208.
Hobbs, R.J. and L.F. Huenneke. 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: implications for
conservation. Conservation Biology, 6, 324-337.
Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics, 4, 1-23.
Holling, C. S. 1992. Cross-scale morphology, geometry, and dynamics of ecosystems.
Ecological Monographs 62(4): 447-502.
Holling, C.S. and G.K. Meffe. 1996. Command and Control and the Pathology of Natural
Resource Management. Conservation Biology, 10(2), 328–337.
Hunter, M.L. 1996. Fundamentals of conservation biology. Blackwell Science, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Independent Multidisciplinary Scientific Team. 1999. Recovery of wild salmonids in western
Oregon forests: Oregon Forest Practices Act rules and the measures in the Oregon Plan
for salmon and watersheds. Tech. Rep. 1999-1 to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and
Watersheds. Salem, OR: Governor’s Natural Resource Office. 99 p.
Johnson, D. H. and T. A. O'Neil, eds. 2001. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and
Washington. Corvallis, OR, Oregon State University Press.
Jurgensen, M. F., A. E. Harvey, R. T. Graham, D. S. Page-Dumroese, J. R. Tonn, M. J. Larsen
and T. B. Jain. 1997. Impacts of timber harvesting on soil organic matter, nitrogen,
productivity, and health of inland northwest forests. Forest Science 43(2): 234-251.
Kauffman, J.B., M. Mahrt, L.A. Mahrt, W.D. Edge. 2001. Wildlife of riparian habitats. In:
Johnson, D.H., O'Neil, T.A. (Eds.), Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and
Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. pp. 361-388.
Levin, S. 1974. Dispersion and population interactions. American Naturalist, 108, 207-228.
Lindenmayer, D.B. and J.F. Franklin. 2002. Conserving Forest Biodiversity: A Comprehensive
Multiscale Approach. Washington, DC: Island Press. 351 p.
Lugo, A.E., J.S. Baron, T.P. Frost, T.W. Cundy, and P. Dittberner. 1999. Ecosystem processes
and functioning. In: Szaro, R.C.; Johnson, N.C.; Sexton, W.T.; Malick, A.J., eds.
Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference For Ecosystem Management. Oxford,
United Kingdom: Elsevier Science, Ltd.: 219-254. Vol. 2.
MacDonald, L. H. and P. R. Robichaud. 2008. Post-Fire Erosion and the Effectiveness of
Emergency Rehabilitation Treatments over Time. Stream Notes January: 1-6.
McIntosh, B. A., J. R. Sedell, J. E. Smith, R. C. Wissmar, S. E. Clarke, G. H. Reeves and L. A.
Brown. 1994a. Historical changes in fish habitat for select river basins of eastern Oregon
and Washington. Northwest Science 68(Special Issue): 36-53.
McIntosh, B. A., J. R. Sedell, J. E. Smith, R. C. Wissmar, S. E. Clarke, G. H. Reeves and L. A.
Brown. 1994b. Management history of eastside ecosystems: changes in fish habitat over
50 years, 1935 to 1992. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-321, Volume III. Portland,
Oregon, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 55 pp.
Meurisse, R. T., W. A. Robbie, J. Niehoff and G. Ford. 1990. Dominant soil formation processes
and properties in western-montane forest types and landscapes-some implications for
Appendix 2.2 – p. 61
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
productivity and management. Proceedings - management and productivity of westernmontane forest soils, General Technical Report INT-280, Boise, Idaho, USDA Forest
Service, Intermountain Research Station.
Meyer, J.L. and J.B. Wallace. 2001. Lost linkages and lotic ecology: rediscovering small
streams. In: Press, M.C.; Huntley, N.J.; Levins, S., eds. Ecology: Achievement And
Challenge. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Scientific: 295-317.
Meyer, J.L., L.A. Kaplan, D. Newbold, D.L. Srayer, D.J. Woltemade, J.B. Zedler, R. Beilfuss, Q.
Carpenter, R. Semlitsch, M.C. Watzin, and P.H. Zedler. 2003. Where Rivers Are Born:
The Scientific Imperative For Defending Small Streams And Wetlands. Sierra Club and
American Rivers. 24 pp.
Montgomery, D.R. and J.M. Buffington. 1998. Channel Processes, Classification, And
Response, In River Ecology and Management, edited by R. Naiman and R. Bilby,
Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, pp. 13-42.
Moody, J. A. and D. A. Kinner. 2006. Spatial structures of stream and hillslope drainage
networks following gully erosion after wildfire. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
31(3): 319-337.
Naiman, R. J., T. J. Beechie, L. E. Benda, D. R. Derg, P. A. Bisson, L. H. MacDonald, M. D.
O’Connor, P. L. Olson, and E. A. Steel. 1992a. Fundamental Elements of Ecologically
Healthy Watersheds in The Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecoregion. Pages 127–188 in R. J.
Naiman, editor. Watershed Management. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Naiman, R.J., T.J. Beechie, L.B. Benda, D.R. Berg, P.A. Bisson, L.H. MacDonald, M.D.
O’Connor, P.L. Olson, and E.A. Steel. 1992b. Fundamental elements of ecologically
healthy watersheds in the Pacific Northwest coastal ecoregion. In R.J. Naiman, ed.,
Watershed Management: Balancing Sustainability and Environmental Change.
Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Naiman, R.J. 1998. Biotic stream classification. Pages 97-119 in R.J. Naiman and R.E. Bilby
(Editors). River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Naiman, R.J., R.E., Bilby, and P.A. Bisson. 2000. Riparian ecology and management in the
Pacific coastal rain forest. BioScience, 50, 996-1011.
Naiman, R.J., and J.J. Latterell. 2005. Principles for linking fish habitat to fisheries
management and conservation. J. Fish Biol., 67, 166-185.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Making Endangered Species Act
Determinations for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale. August.
Environmental and Technical Services Division, Habitat Conservation Branch.
National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific
Northwest. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 452 p.
National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for
Management. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.
Pickett, S.T.A. and P.S. White. 1985. The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics.
Academic Press, New York, USA
Appendix 2.2 – p. 62
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, B.D. Richter, R.E. Sparks and J.C.
Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime. A paradigm for river conservation and
restoration. BioScience, 47, 769-784.
Poole W.R., D.T. Nolan, T. Wevers, M. Dillane, D. Cotter, and O. Tully. 2003. An
ecophysiological comparison of wild and hatchery-raised Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
smolts from the Burrishoole system, western Ireland. Aquaculture, 222, 301–314.
Quigley, T. M., and S. J. Arbelbide (technical editors). 1997. An Assessment of Ecosystem
Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great
Basins. Volume III. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405. U.S. Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
Raedeke, K. J., ed. 1989. Streamside Management: Riparian Wildlife And Forestry
Interactions. Seattle, WA, Institute of Forest Resources, University of Washington.
Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC). 1995. Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed
Scale: Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis. Version 2.2, August 1995. Regional
Ecosystem Office, Portland, OR.
Reeves, G.H., L.E. Benda, K.M. Burnett, P.A. Bisson, and J.R. Sedell. 1995. A DisturbanceBased Ecosystem Approach to Maintaining and Restoring Freshwater Habitats of
Evolutionarily Significant Units of Anadromous Salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. In:
Evolution and the Aquatic Ecosystem: Defining Unique Units in Population
Conservation, J.L. Nielsen (Editor). American Fisheries Society Symposium 17:334-349.
Reeves, G.H. 2006. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan: An
Assessment after Ten Years. General technical report PNW-GTR-577. U.S. Department
of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.
Rieman, B.E., J.T. Peterson, and D.L. Myers. 2006. Have brook trout displaced bull trout along
longitudinal gradients in central Idaho streams?: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, 63, 63-78.
Rosgen, David L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa
Springs, CO.
Samson, F. B. 2002. Population viability analysis, management and conservation planning at
large scales. In: Population Viability Analysis. S. Beissinger and D. McCullough, eds.
Chicago, IL. University of Chicago Press.
Shakesby, R. A. and S. H. Doerr. 2006. Wildfire as a hydrological and geomorphological agent.
Earth-Science Reviews 74(3-4): 269-307.
Sidle R.C., Y. Tsuboyama, S. Noguchi, I. Hosoda, M. Fujieda, and T. Shimizu. 2000.
Streamflow generation in steep headwaters: A linked hydro-geomorphic paradigm.
Hydrological Processes 14: 369385.
Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An Ecosystem Approach
to Salmonid Conservation. Funded jointly by the U.S. EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. TR-4501-96-6057. Man Tech
Environmental Research Services Corp., Corvallis, OR.
Stanford, J.A., and J.V. Ward. 1992. Management of aquatic resources in large catchments:
Recognizing interactions between ecosystem connectivity and environmental disturbance.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 63
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Pages 91-124 in R.J. Naiman, editor. Watershed Management. Springer-Verlag, New
York, New York,
Thomas, J. W., ed. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests: The Blue Mountains of
Washington And Oregon, Agriculture Handbook No. 553. Washington, D.C., U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 1995. Decision Notice, Finding of No
Significant Impact, and Environmental Assessment for the Inland Native Fish Strategy
(INFISH). Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions. July. Coeur
d’Alene, ID.
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 2010. Blue Mountains Forests Revised Land
and Resource Management Plan Proposed Action. Malheur, Umatilla, and WallowaWhitman National Forests. Pacific Northwest Region. March. Portland, OR.
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management, Department of
the Interior. 1994a. Final Supplemental ACS Environmental Impact Statement On
Management Of Habitat For Late-Successional and Old Growth Forest Related Species
Within The Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan) and Proposal to
Amend Wording about the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Portland, Oregon.
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management, Department of
the Interior. 1994b. Record of Decision On Management of Habitat for LateSuccessional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern
Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan) and Proposal to Amend Wording about the Aquatic
Conservation Strategy. Portland, Oregon.
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management, Department of
the Interior. 1995. Decision Notice/Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact,
Environmental Assessment for the Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous FishProducing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of
California (PACFISH). February. Washington, DC.
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management, Department of
the Interior. 2003. The Interior Columbia Basin Strategy. January.
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management, Department of
the Interior. 2004. A Framework for Incorporating the Aquatic and Riparian Habitat
Component of the Interior Columbia Basin Strategy into BLM and Forest Service Plan
Revisions. July.
U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture. 2006. Plants
Database. http://plants.usda.gov/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior 1998. A Framework to Assist in
Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped
Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed Scale. February.
Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects and Control. American
Fisheries Society Monograph 7, Bethseda, Maryland.
Whitesel, T.A., and Seven Others. 2004. Bull Trout Recovery Planning: A Review of the
Science Associated with Population Structure and Size. Science Team Report #2004-1,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Office, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 64
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.2: ARMS
Williams, J.E., J.E. Johnson, D.A. Hendrickson, S. Contreras-Balderas, J.D. Williams, M.
Navarro-Mendoza, D.E. McAllister, and J.E. Deacon. 1989. Fishes of North America—
Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern: 1989. Fisheries, 14(6), 2–20.
Wipfli, M.S., J.S. Richardson, and R.J.Naiman. 2007. Ecological linkages between headwaters
and downstream ecosystems: Transport of organic matter, invertebrates, and wood down
headwater channels. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 43, 72–85.
Wissmar, R. C., J. E. Smith, B. A. McIntosh, H. W. Li, G. H. Reeves and J. R. Sedell. 1994a. A
history of resource use and disturbance in riverine basins of eastern Oregon and
Washington (early 1800s-1990s). Northwest Science 68(Special Issue): 1-35.
Wissmar, R. C., J. E. Smith, B. A. McIntosh, H. W. Li, G. H. Reeves and J. R. Sedell, eds. 1994b.
Ecological Health of River Basins in Forested Regions Of Eastern Washington and
Oregon. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-326. Portland, OR, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Wissmar, R. C. 2004. Riparian corridors of eastern Oregon and Washington: Functions and
sustainability along lowland-arid to mountain gradients. Aquatic Sciences - Research
Across Boundaries 66(4): 373-387.
Wolman, M. G. and J. P. Miller. 1960. Magnitude and frequency of forces in geomorphic
processes. Journal of Geology 68: 54-74.
Appendix 2.2 – p. 65
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.3: Livestock Grazing Systems
APPENDIX 2.3: LIVESTOCK GRAZING SYSTEMS
A. GRAZING SYSTEMS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA
The following descriptions outline the typical periods of grazing use in the planning area;
however, there is a wide range of variability in the planning area in plant phenology, elevation,
and climate, so dates will vary from those given. Maximum allowable utilization levels for
allotments where rangeland health standards and livestock management guidelines have not yet
been achieved can be more restrictive than for allotments where all standards are met.
1. DISCUSSION OF UTILIZATION LEVELS IDENTIFIED BELOW FOR VARIOUS
GRAZING SYSTEMS
The degree of allowable use identified for a key plant species, measured over several years,
serves as a guideline or reference point to evaluate the impacts grazing may be having on the
overall welfare of the plant community. In monitoring degrees of utilization, the primary concern
is the trend in the community resulting from various levels of use. If the trend is down,
utilization records can identify whether the decline in the plant community was due to excessive
utilization levels.
The regulation behind the establishment of the below utilization levels is 43 CFR 4110.3-2(b),
which states that, "When monitoring shows that active use is causing an unacceptable level or
pattern of utilization [emphasis added] or exceeds the livestock carrying capacity as determined
through monitoring, the authorized officer shall reduce active use if necessary to maintain or
improve rangeland productivity...”
The utilization levels suggested below would be used primarily in adjusting stocking rates to
meet the desired utilization. This occurs whenever the process of monitoring and evaluating
rangeland use results in a decision to adjust active use. To most permittees, moving cattle to the
next pasture in the sequence, or off the allotment, before exceeding the utilization level is
preferred over establishing a pattern of exceeding their target utilization level which eventually
results in a permanent reduction in their active use. In the short term, exceeding the target
utilization level during critical growth periods justifies scheduling rest or deferment the next year
or two to allow plants to recover. Brewer et al. (2007) suggests bluebunch wheatgrass should
never be grazed two successive years at heavy or severe levels during its critical growth period
and should not be grazed more than two successive years during the critical growth period even
if the use is light to moderate. Anderson (1991) found that bluebunch wheatgrass takes years to
fully recover its vigor and reproductive capability following a onetime utilization of over 50
percent during the critical growth period.
Allotment management plans could include utilization levels which are either lower or higher
than those outlined below. Utilization levels could also be adjusted downward where one or both
of the following occur, and a lower utilization target is deemed necessary:
Appendix 2.3– p. 1
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.3: Livestock Grazing Systems
Intact biological soil crusts are present and are key to providing soil stability. Late spring
grazing may have the potential for moderate impact to biological crusts, and summer
grazing may have the potential for high impact to biological crusts (according to the 2000
Interior Columbia Basin Supplemental Draft EIS), especially when that use exceeds
slight to light in intensity. Grazing at other seasons has lower potential for impact to
biological crusts, but still could adversely affect them when use is moderate to heavy.
Wildlife habitat objectives, such as nesting cover, are not being met with the utilization
rates given.
Early Spring Grazing System
Under this system, grazing occurs basically during the month of April, with late March or early
May use sometimes also included. Spring grazing provides plants an opportunity to recover after
utilization of early plant growth. By removing livestock before most spring and summer
precipitation occurs, the plants will be able to store carbohydrates, set seed, and maintain their
vigor.
This spring treatment can be used every year with little effect on the plant. Early use must take
place before deep-rooted perennial grass plants are in the boot stage. There must also be enough
soil moisture in the ground to provide for regrowth after grazing. Therefore, flexibility in the
early treatment will allow for use prior to April 1 but generally not after May 15, except at higher
elevations with higher precipitation. Used with caution to prevent streambank shearing and soil
compaction during the wettest parts of spring, especially where there are fine-textured soils, this
system is very compatible with improving riparian zone vegetation. There is time for nearly
complete recovery of riparian vegetation, so there is no need to monitor riparian utilization.
Alternatives 1 and 3: Stocking rates on the areas with early spring grazing would be based on 50
percent utilization of a combination of the previous season’s growth and the current
season’s early growth of herbaceous key species. Livestock are removed while plants are still
growing; therefore, only a small percentage of the annual production of the key species is
removed. The spring grazing period has to be short, and plant regrowth continues about 30 to 45
days after livestock removal. Where standards are met, up to 55 percent utilization could be
appropriate for early spring grazing. The need to maintain sufficient nesting cover to achieve
sage grouse objectives is one factor which, if present, would justify lowering the utilization
level to 40 percent utilization.
Spring/Summer Grazing System
Spring/summer systems consist of grazing during the spring or spring/early summer every year.
Although in most cases grazing occurs primarily between May 1 and June 30, in some allotments
grazing would extend into mid-July. Under this system, grazing occurs during the critical growth
period of most plants. Carbohydrate reserves are continually being utilized because the green
Appendix 2.3– p. 2
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.3: Livestock Grazing Systems
parts of the plant are constantly being removed by livestock. Such systems usually need to be
modified to conform with Livestock Management Guideline #6, which requires periodic rest
from grazing during critical growth periods. Depending on how early in the season livestock are
removed, this system can allow nearly complete recovery of riparian vegetation post-grazing,
and spring grazing can be very compatible with allowing riparian improvement. When riparian
conditions are an issue, management would be based first on meeting riparian objectives,
and upland range utilization would be secondary in importance.
Alternatives 1 and 3: In the absence of riparian issues, stocking rates on the allotments with
spring/summer grazing would generally be based on 40 percent relative utilization of the key
species (measured at the end of the grazing period). Where standards are met, 45 percent
utilization could be appropriate.
In studies concerning the grazing response of cool season perennial bunchgrasses, Cook (1971)
showed that 50 percent utilization was too severe for continuous late spring and summer use. The
two species of grass in the study correspond in stages of vegetative growth to the key
bunchgrasses in the decision area. Anderson (1991), studying the effects of defoliation and vigor
recovery of bluebunch wheatgrass, revealed a high sensitivity to utilization during the active
growing season, especially when that use occurred when the plant was at the boot stage, a period
early in its seed producing stage of growth. Utilization levels during the growing season of
greater than 50 percent were shown to cause significant reductions in vigor and productivity.
Deferred Grazing System/Fall Grazing
Under this system, grazing occurs after seed ripe of the key grass species, usually mid-July or
later, and most commonly in the fall. Grazing during this treatment will not begin until after
most plants have reached seed ripe and have stored adequate carbohydrate reserves. This
treatment will assist in meeting the objectives by providing all plants an opportunity to complete
their life cycles and produce the maximum amount of cover and forage. Upland ranges are
particularly benefitted by this system. Although such a system can be compatible with riparian
improvement, there are risks to riparian zones from potentially higher utilization on woody
browse species, limited regrowth time for streambank vegetation, and lower palatability of
upland forage. When riparian conditions are an issue, management would be based first on
meeting riparian objectives, and upland range utilization would be secondary in
importance.
Alternatives 1 and 3: In the absence of riparian issues, stocking rates where deferred grazing
occurs would be based upon 60 percent utilization of the annual production of key species, or
65 percent utilization in nonnative seedings. Where standards are met, an additional five
percent utilization could be added to the above.
Appendix 2.3– p. 3
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.3: Livestock Grazing Systems
Spring/Fall Grazing System
Spring/fall grazing involves use for one to two months between April 1 and June 30, followed by
a non-grazed period during the summer every year. In some years, another grazing period of one
to two months would occur in the fall. Spring/fall grazing would result in grazing of primarily
herbaceous species during the early grazing period. Very little use of the woody key species is
expected during this time. Fall use occurs after most herbaceous species have completed their
growth cycle and are dormant. However, moderate utilization of woody key species would be
expected. This schedule is often used in seedings of nonnative perennial bunchgrasses to
maintain productivity and availability of species adapted to grazing use, but it is not usually used
where there are riparian zones or where bluebunch wheatgrass is a key species. When riparian
conditions are an issue, management would be based first on meeting riparian objectives,
and upland range utilization would be secondary in importance.
Alternatives 1 and 3: In the absence of riparian issues, stocking rates where spring/fall grazing
occurs would be based upon 50 percent utilization of the annual production of key species.
When riparian conditions are an issue, stocking rates would be based on meeting riparian
objectives instead of upland range utilization. Where standards are met, 55 percent utilization
would be appropriate.
Rotation Grazing System with Spring/Summer Use
This version of rotation grazing results in the key species being grazed during part of the
growing season every year. This system alternates grazing between early spring use one year and
during the critical growing period the next year. The early spring grazing would end in time for
the key species to replenish food reserves (see Early Spring Grazing System). As a result, the
decline in vigor caused by use during the critical period of the growing season is somewhat
offset by early grazing in alternate years. This rotation grazing system is expected to only
slightly enhance the reproduction of the herbaceous key species on native range because every
pasture is grazed each year. Many new seedlings would be grazed or pulled up before becoming
established. Woody key species would improve in vigor and reproduction because they are
normally not grazed by livestock during the spring and early summer (Vavra and Sneva, 1978).
When riparian conditions are an issue, management would be based first on meeting
riparian objectives, and upland range utilization would be secondary in importance.
Alternatives 1and 3: In the absence of riparian issues, stocking rates where this version of
rotation grazing occurs would be based upon a multiyear average of 50 percent utilization of the
annual production of key species. Where standards are met, 55 percent utilization would be
appropriate.
Winter Grazing System
Under this system, grazing would occur between November 15 and March 1, although winters in
the area are severe enough that livestock are not on the range during this whole period. Grazing
Appendix 2.3– p. 4
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.3: Livestock Grazing Systems
during this treatment occurs when most plant species are dormant. Most plants will have
completed their life cycles and stored maximum carbohydrates for the next growing season.
Livestock would be removed prior to plants initiating growth in the early spring. Monitoring of
the winter grazing systems would not focus on utilization of the previous season’s herbaceous
vegetation except to monitor for residual cover for nesting habitat if that is an issue.
Alternative 1: Stocking rates would be based on woody browse utilization of 30 percent if
woody riparian species are key to the system.
Season-long Grazing
Season-long grazing of a pasture generally begins during the growing season and extends to the
end of the period of authorized use, typically into the fall period. Season-long grazing is only
authorized for one or both of the following reasons:
The limited amount of public land in most of these allotments does not justify the cost of
the additional fences and water developments needed to initiate a rotation system.
The system meets the permittee's management needs for flexibility in integrating the
public land parcels with private land grazing, and utilization levels are light enough that
the public land is not being overgrazed. Season-long grazing would not be acceptable
when riparian zones are present.
Alternatives 1 and 3: Stocking rates on the areas with season-long grazing would generally be
based on 40 percent utilization of the annual production of key species.
Where standards are met, 45 percent utilization would be appropriate.
Multiyear Grazing Schedules
Often the mix of management objectives associated with a given pasture can better be met by
varying the season of use over a repeating cycle of two or more years. Multiyear grazing
schedules are primarily developed with varied seasons of use through an established rotation to
allow desirable vegetation species the opportunity to regain vigor and health for future growth,
productivity, and sustainability of resource values. Similarly, opportunities for recovery from
grazing impacts to other resources, specific to a season of use, may be provided by varying the
season in which livestock graze a pasture. Most multiyear grazing schedules can be defined as
either a deferred-rotation or rest-rotation schedule. Both types of grazing schedules were
designed primarily to promote plant vigor, seed production, seedling establishment, root
production, and litter accumulation for herbaceous plants in upland ecosystems.
Deferred Rotation Grazing
Deferred rotation is discontinuous grazing which includes grazing various parts of an allotment
at different times in succeeding years. This allows each part or pasture to rest successively during
Appendix 2.3– p. 5
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.3: Livestock Grazing Systems
the growing season to permit seed production, seedling establishment, and restoration of plant
vigor. Deferred rotation grazing differs from rest rotation grazing in that there is no year-long
rest provided for any part of the allotment. In its simplest form, a deferred rotation grazing
schedule within a pasture provides for a 2-year rotation cycle with one year of use during the
critical period of plant growth followed by one year where use is deferred until after the growing
season. More conservative schedules provide for a higher proportion of deferment than years of
use during the period of active growth. When riparian conditions are an issue, management
would be based first on meeting riparian objectives, and upland range utilization would be
secondary in importance.
Alternatives 1 and 3: In the absence of riparian issues, stocking rates on the allotments with
deferred rotation grazing would be based on a multiyear average of 50 percent utilization of the
annual production of key species, or 60 percent utilization on nonnative seedings.
Where standards are met, an additional five percent utilization could be added to the above.
Rest Rotation Grazing System
Rest rotation grazing is a form of deferred rotation in which at least one pasture within an
allotment is rested from grazing for a minimum of a full year. A pasture or unit of range is rested
from use after a season of grazing to allow plants an opportunity to make and store food to
recover vigor, allow seed to be produced, allow seedlings to become established, and allow litter
to accumulate between plants. The amount of rest needed for these purposes depends on
management objectives that are determined for each individual allotment, the plants involved,
and character of the range. Caution should be implemented to ensure that higher levels of
utilization during use periods of a pasture do not preclude meeting management objectives while
providing for rest in other pastures. When riparian conditions are an issue, management
would be based first on meeting riparian objectives, and upland range utilization would be
secondary in importance.
Alternatives 1 and 3: In the absence of riparian issues, stocking rates on the allotments with rest
rotation grazing would be based on a multiyear average of 50 percent utilization of the annual
production of key species, or 60 percent utilization on nonnative seedings. Where standards are
met, an additional five percent utilization could be added to the above.
Appendix 2.3– p. 6
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.4: Sagebrush Structure
APPENDIX 2.4: SAGEBRUSH STRUCTURE AND CANOPY
CLOSURE
A. SAGEBRUSH CANOPY CLOSURE CLASSES
The following descriptions of sagebrush canopy cover classes and management implications for
wildlife species are excerpted from BLM Technical Note 417, “Assessing big sagebrush at
multiple spatial scales: An example in southeast Oregon.” (Karl and Sadowski 2005).
Class 1: No Sagebrush Canopy Cover (Grassland)
Rangelands that exhibit a grassland aspect are characteristic of this class. Species that tend to
occupy habitats with low vegetative structure, such as pronghorn and horned lark, use these
rangelands. Forage and invertebrate food sources can be abundant, even for species that rely
primarily on sagebrush cover for nesting and hiding. Several different vegetation types can
comprise class 1 rangelands (Figures 2-4), and these various vegetation types can actually meet a
portion of the habitat requirements of wildlife species that rely primarily on sagebrush. Native or
nonnative class 1 rangelands can be a wildlife issue of concern if they occupy extensive tracts of
land within a GMA [geographic management area]. Depending on ecological site potential and
past and present use, grass and forb cover can be highly variable. Locations where fire and, in
some cases, other disturbances have occurred recently are indicative of class 1 rangelands in
eastern Oregon. It is common to observe class 1 rangelands that support a heterogeneous mix of
annual and perennial species.
Class 2: Trace to 5 Percent Sagebrush Canopy Cover (Grassland)
Rangelands that exhibit a predominantly grassland aspect are characteristic of this class (Figure
5) [figure not included here]. Relatively recent fire or other treatments, with ongoing sagebrush
recolonization, are normally indicative of class 2 rangelands. Wildlife species often associated
with low vegetative structure, such as pronghorn and horned lark, use these rangelands. Class 2
rangelands do not meet most of the complex shrub cover needs of sage-grouse and other wildlife
species that rely primarily on sagebrush. Klebenow (1970) reported that sage-grouse nesting was
nearly nonexistent where sagebrush canopy cover on chemically treated areas was 5 percent or
less. However, the vegetation of class 2 rangelands can still meet a portion of the habitat needs of
these wildlife species. Native or nonnative class 2 rangelands can be a wildlife issue of concern
if they dominate extensive tracts of land within a GMA. Depending on ecological site potential
and past and present use, grass and forb cover and composition can be highly variable.
Class 3: Greater than 5 Percent to 15 Percent Sagebrush Canopy Cover (Shrubland)
Rangelands that exhibit a predominantly shrubland aspect are characteristic of this class (Figure
6) [figure not included here]. The 10 to 15 percent sagebrush canopy cover range is capable of
supporting many of the habitat needs of wildlife species that rely primarily on sagebrush and
associated understory herbaceous species. Connelly et al. (2000) reported that sage-grouse in
Oregon and Idaho select winter habitat with sagebrush canopy cover as low as 12 to 15 percent,
generally measured above snow level. Hanf et al. (1994) reported that winter habitat selected by
Appendix 2.4 – p. 1
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.4: Sagebrush Structure
female sage-grouse in central Oregon was dominated by mountain big sagebrush and low
sagebrush, with canopy cover ranging from 12 to 16 percent. In addition, unpublished surveys
from BLM’s Vale District suggested that sagebrush obligate songbirds began to reoccupy crested
wheatgrass seedings when the sagebrush canopy cover exceeded 5 percent. In Nevada, crested
wheatgrass seedings with sagebrush canopy cover of about 10 percent provided structural
complexity sufficient to sustain a greater diversity of grassland-nesting and shrubland-nesting
nongame birds than unconverted sagebrush, monocultural crested wheatgrass, or crested
wheatgrass in poor condition (McAdoo et al. 1989). Depending on ecological site potential and
past and present use, grass and forb cover can be highly variable.
Class 4: Greater than 15 Percent to 25 Percent Sagebrush Canopy Cover (Shrubland)
Rangelands that exhibit a shrubland aspect are characteristic of this class (Figure 7) [figure not
included here]. This class is capable of supporting the habitat needs of a variety of wildlife
species that rely primarily on sagebrush and associated understory herbaceous species. Hanf et
al. (1994) and Connelly et al. (2000) reported that sage-grouse nesting habitat needs and winter
habitat needs can be served by sagebrush canopy cover within the 15 to 25 percent range.
Depending on ecological site potential and past and present use, grass and forb cover can be
highly variable.
Class 5: Greater than 25 Percent Sagebrush Canopy Cover (Shrubland)
Rangelands that exhibit a shrubland aspect are characteristic of this class (Figure 8) [figure not
included here]. Sagebrush canopy cover greater than 25 percent can provide security, cover, and
food for wildlife species. Research conducted on Steens Mountain in eastern Oregon by Sheehy
(1978) demonstrated the value of this class of cover for fawning mule deer. Pygmy rabbits are
often associated with canopy cover of 25 percent or more. This level of canopy cover hides the
rabbits and provides them with their primary source of food (Weiss and Verts 1984). Connelly et
al. (2000) reported nesting use by sage-grouse in class 5 habitats. Depending on ecological site
potential and past and present use, grass and forb cover can be highly variable.
Use of these canopy cover classes is integral to the sagebrush assessment process and will be
discussed frequently in this example. The geographic extent of these canopy cover classes at the
pasture level forms the basis for: 1) characterizing habitat conditions at the pasture level and at
the GMA level, and 2) ascertaining achievement or non-achievement of Oregon’s Standard 5 for
Rangeland Health, when combined with understory herbaceous species composition data from
range surveys.
Appendix 2.4 – p. 2
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.5: Grazing Carrying Capacity
APPENDIX 2.5: DETERMINING STOCKING CARRYING
CAPACITY
Procedures for Determining Proper Stocking Level or Carrying Capacity: Any of These
Methods May Be Used in the Planning Area
1. The following formula can be used when calculating a desired stocking level using
utilization and actual use data:
ACTUAL USE
ADJUSTED UTILIZATION*
=
POTENTIAL ACTUAL USE
DESIRED UTILIZATION
*Adjusted utilization is the measured average utilization adjusted to a “normal” production year. The
Precipitation Index and Yield Index as described in Sneva and Hyder (1962) would typically be used to adjust
to a “normal” year. Measured utilization is multiplied by the Yield Index to get the adjusted utilization.
5-10 years of data would be needed in order to have enough data to calculate a
meaningful average and be able to use this method. Years that appear to be an
aberration (significant difference from the long-term mean) may need to be
disregarded.
Actual use in the above formula would include livestock use and estimated big game
wildlife use where appropriate. The amount of big game AUMs would either be the
number carried forward from the 1989 RMP or would be recalculated on a case by
case basis within periodic rangeland health evaluations (see Number 4 below).
2. Areas with slopes greater than 45% (60% in the case of sheep) and areas greater than 2
miles from water may be deducted from the current livestock forage allocation (or initial
stocking rate as in Option 3 below) in order to calculate an adjustment.
3. Stocking rates may be calculated using NRCS Initial Stocking Rates by General Seral
Condition, tying ecological sites and their current condition (as estimated by Similarity
Index) to estimated AUMs.
4. If periodic rangeland health evaluations identify a need for livestock reductions, big
game forage demand may be deducted from the current livestock forage allocation (or
initial stocking rate as in Option 3 above) using the three mathematical calculations
described below. These calculations are consistent with the Southeast Oregon Resource
Management Plan (2001) in Vale District, and they use locally adapted studies on dietary
overlap cited in Vavra and Sneva (1978).
Appendix 2.5 – p. 1
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.5: Grazing Carrying Capacity
Mathematical Calculations Used for Determining Wildlife Forage Demand:
a) Land ownership differences: The percentage of the grazing allotment administered by the
BLM would be multiplied by the MO/benchmark number to determine the number of big
game supported on public land versus other ownerships such as state or private.
b) Body mass differences: The number of big game at Management Objective/benchmark
levels supported on BLM lands would be divided by a factor of 5.3 (for deer), 7.0 (for
pronghorn), and 2.4 (for elk) to determine the number of each species that would
potentially consume forage equal to one AUM, which is defined as 800 pounds of air dry
forage. (The figure derived from this calculation is referred to as the unadjusted forage
demand because it does not factor the dietary differences between livestock and big
game.)
c) Dietary preference differences: The unadjusted forage demand would be multiplied by
factors of 0.18 for deer, 0.10 for antelope, and 0.70 for elk to reflect the differences in
forage preferences between livestock and big game (this figure is referred to as the
adjusted forage demand). For example: The adjusted big game forage demand
(sometimes referred to as the competitive AUM’s) needed to support 50 mule deer on an
allotment with 80 percent public land over a period of 12 months would be 86.4 AUM’s
[50 deer x 12 months x 18 percent dietary overlap x 80 percent public land].
Appendix 2.5 – p. 2
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.6: Relinquishment of Preference
APPENDIX 2.6: PROCESS FOR RELINQUISHMENT OF
PREFERENCE
The process for relinquishing grazing preference is as follows:
1. The BLM is contacted about possible relinquishment of all or a portion of the grazing
preference to an existing permit/lease.
a. The BLM discusses consequences and options with the permit holder.
b. The BLM will not recognize as valid, or be bound by, any provisions that purport to make
a relinquishment conditional upon specific action(s) by the Bureau. If such provisions
accompany a proposal of relinquishment, the proponent will be informed that the
relinquishment will not be processed and that the BLM will continue to administer their
grazing preference and permit or lease on public lands accordingly.
2. The permit holder continues to pursue preference relinquishment.
a. The BLM helps permit holder prepare a Letter of Relinquishment that details the portion
of the permitted use and interest in associated range improvements to be relinquished.
b. The BLM verifies concurrence of any base property lien holder(s) by receiving written
consent of the relinquishment.
c. If preference for a portion of the grazing use authorized by the permit is relinquished, the
BLM will modify the relevant permit to authorize livestock use commensurate to the
retained grazing use with appropriate NEPA analysis and proposed decision. If preference
for all of the grazing use authorized by the permit is relinquished, the permit is
automatically terminated.
d. If range improvement projects have been identified for removal as a result of the
relinquishment process, the BLM will conduct appropriate NEPA analysis and issue a
proposed decision relevant to the range improvements.
3. The BLM will examine and document whether continued livestock use of all or part of the
relinquished permit meets Rangeland Health Standards.
a. Conduct land health evaluation if none has been previously completed.
b. Review any management changes made to allow the allotment to move toward meeting
Rangeland Health Standards and any monitoring completed following the land health
evaluation.
c. If rangeland health standards are being met, proceed to #4.
d. If rangeland health standards are not being met and current livestock management is the
cause…
i. Determine what portions of the allotment are not suitable for livestock grazing. Allow
forage from those areas to be allocated to other uses.
ii. Determine what portions of the allotment are capable of making significant progress
towards meeting rangeland health standards through administrative actions (changes in
livestock numbers and/or season of use, combining allotment with an adjacent
Appendix 2.6 – p. 1
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.6: Relinquishment of Preference
allotment…) or construction of range improvements, conduct appropriate NEPA, issue a
proposed decision, and proceed to #4.
4. The BLM will consider re-allocating all or a part of the relinquished AUMs to livestock
grazing, choosing from the following options, and modifying the relevant permit following
appropriate NEPA analysis and proposed decision:
a. If a community allotment, re-allocate acquired grazing capacity to remaining permittees.
b. Issue a grazing permit to a qualitifed applicant, and if one of the following two
conditions apply, these would determine who has priority over other applicants:
1) Combine with another adjacent allotment that has unmet resource objectives
2) A permittee with a nearby allotment that has unmet resource objectives.
c. Continue livestock grazing on the allotment but not recognize an individual with the
preference to the forage (maintain as a reserve forage allotment).
d. Allocate acquired grazing capacity to other resource uses.
If the permit or lease has been completely relinquished, the BLM would terminate the
permit or lease for the duration of the plan.
If the permit or lease has been partially relinquished, the BLM would appropriately
modify the permit or lease and ensure that livestock grazing is appropriately reduced
on the public lands covered by the permit and subject to the partial relinquishment for
the duration of the plan.
5. In the event an application is received for all or part of an allotment that has all its forage
allocated to other uses, the BLM will review the decision process which led to the allotment
being closed to livestock use, consider re-allocating all or a part of the relinquished AUMs to
livestock grazing, conduct appropriate NEPA analysis and issue a proposed decision.
Appendix 2.6 – p. 2
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
APPENDIX 2.7 – RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS
Table of Contents
A. Overview ................................................................................................................................ 1
B. Managing Recreation Resources for Beneficial Outcomes ................................................... 1
C. Recreational Opportunity Spectrum ....................................................................................... 6
1. Primitive ............................................................................................................................. 6
2. Semi-primitive Non-motorized .......................................................................................... 6
3. Semi-primitive Motorized.................................................................................................. 6
4. Roaded Natural .................................................................................................................. 6
5. Rural ................................................................................................................................... 7
6. Urban.................................................................................................................................. 7
List of Tables
Table 2.7-1.
Table 2.7-2.
Table 2.7-3.
Table 2.7-4.
Table 2.7-5.
Table 2.7-6.
Table 2.7-7.
Table 2.7-8.
Table 2.7-9.
Table 2.7-10.
Table 2.7-11.
Table 2.7-12.
Table 2.7-13.
SRMA: Burnt River ................................................................................................ 8
SRMA: Grande Ronde River Segment 3 (From Or/Wa State Line To Highway
129) ....................................................................................................................... 10
SRMA: Grande Ronde River Segment 4 (From Highway 129 To Snake River
Confluence) ........................................................................................................... 12
SRMA: Lookout Mountain ................................................................................... 14
SRMA: National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center (Nhotic) .................. 16
SRMA: Wild And Scenic Rivers - Powder Wild And Scenic River (Thief Valley
Dam To Highway 203) .......................................................................................... 18
SRMA: Snake River Breaks (Brownlee, Oxbow, Hells Canyon Reservoirs)....... 20
SRMA: Snake River/Mormon Basin Back Country Byway................................. 22
SRMA: South Fork Of The Walla Walla River..................................................... 24
SRMA: Virtue Flat Ohv Play Area ...................................................................... 26
SRMA: Wild And Scenic Rivers........................................................................... 28
SRMA: Wild And Scenic Rivers........................................................................... 30
SRMA: Sheep Mountain, Homestead, Mcgraw WSAs and Lands With Wilderness
Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 32
Appendices 2.7 – p. i
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
APPENDIX 2.7: RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS
A. OVERVIEW
Two types of Recreation Management Areas are identified in the land use plan for BLM lands:
Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and Extensive Recreation Management Areas
(ERMAs). This appendix only discusses SRMAs. Appendix 2-7 identifies management actions
specific to ERMAs.
B. MANAGING RECREATION RESOURCES FOR BENEFICIAL
OUTCOMES
This appendix briefly describes the foundation for Benefits Based Recreation (BBR) and its
application to recreation management. It then summarizes proposed implementation direction for
Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA) in the Baker RMP Planning area. General plan
direction for each SRMA is detailed in the tables at the end of this appendix.
The purpose of BBR management is to provide opportunities for visitors to participate in a
variety of quality non-motorized and motorized recreation opportunities within specific areas of
public lands referred to as Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA). SRMAs are areas
where BLM will focus management, facilities developments, and emphasize recreational
opportunities, if necessary for public health and safety. BLM guidance in the BLM planning
Handbook H-1610-1 requires the application of a BBR protocol to SRMAs, involving the
identification of the Recreation Niche Objectives, Setting, and Actions to help visitors experience
quality recreation activities and experiences. Identifying the Appropriate Marketing Strategy is
also required for each SRMA, ranging from “Undeveloped” (no marketing at all), or
“Community” (working with local communities), or “Designation” (working with state or
national markets to bring in visitors outside the area or region).
Within each SRMA, one or more Recreation Management Zones (RMZs) may also be identified.
RMZs are “nested” in SRMAs and are usually smaller areas in SRMAs where specific recreation
activities occur. RMZs are identified when different opportunities and management exist within
the same SRMA boundary. The Grande Ronde River (Washington), Wild and Scenic Rivers,
WSAs/ lands with wilderness characteristics, Snake River Breaks, and Burnt River and South
Fork Walla Walla River are SRMAs having more than one RMZ within a SRMA boundary.
Within each SRMA, BLM has also identified related land use allocations that interact with the
recreation setting of an area, such as a proposed Off-Highway Vehicle designation, or Visual
Resource Management Class. These actions, along with proposed recreation setting combine to
influence the type and quality of recreation opportunities and experiences.
The recreation setting can be defined along a continuum ranging from primitive to urban. The
planning area contains settings ranging from primitive to rural. Setting character is directly
influenced and determined by the management, marketing, and administrative actions of BLM
Appendices 2.7 – p. 1
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
and other recreation-tourism providers. Those actions and the resulting setting character also
affect and actually determine the kinds of recreation opportunities being produced.
There are three broad recreation settings categories. The settings include:
• Physical – considers the resources and facilities
• Social – looks at visitor use
• Administrative – management controls and services
The classifications further define the settings within a range of “Primitive” to “Urban”. A brief
description of the classification is as follows:
• Primitive (P) – The landscape is relatively undisturbed with few signs of human presence.
Very few encounters with other visitors occur. Regulations and information will normally be
posted prior to entering this zone and agency presence is very rare.
• Back Country (BC) – The landscape is more natural and the limited improvements tend to
blend with the environment. Access does not include motorized vehicles and signing and
agency presence is scarce.
• Middle Country (MC) – The landscape is natural in appearance with some modifications
not highly noticeable. Visitors will encounter other groups utilizing the area, but agency
presence is random. Information and signing are present.
• Front Country (FC) – The landscape is partially modified with visitors prevalent and
agency personnel periodically available. Rules and information are clearly posted.
• Rural (R) – Includes a substantially modified landscape with visitors dispersed throughout
and a prominent level of agency presence and regulation.
• Urban – Not found within the decision area.
Benefits based recreation management objectives focus on specific experiences and beneficial
outcomes from recreation activities. In the following pages, these benefits-based management
objectives have been written in a two page summary for each SRMA: the Wild and Scenic
Rivers, WSA/Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, Snake River Breaks, Lookout Mountain,
Virtue Flat OHV, National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center (NHOTIC) South Fork
Walla Walla River, Snake River/Mormon Basin Back country Byway, Grande Ronde River
(Washington), and Burnt River Canyon.
Public lands along the Wallowa, Grande Ronde, and Powder Rivers will continue to be managed
under the 1993 BLM Wallowa/Grande Ronde Wild & Scenic River Management Plan, and the
1994 Powder Wild & Scenic River Management Plan. Prescribed Setting descriptions for rivers
or river segments coincide with the direction and objectives identified in the Wild& Scenic River
Plans. Each summary identifies proposed marketing, recreation niche, outcome objectives,
targeted recreation opportunities, character settings and land use allocations from other resource
programs. SRMA specific implementing actions for each SRMA will be contained in the
implementation plan for this RMP.
Appendices 2.7 – p. 2
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
Recreation Management Zone __________________________ NATURAL RESOURCE RECREATION SETTINGS MATRIX
EXISTING SETTING
Illustrated in Matrix
Mapped
PHYSICAL – Qualities of the Landscape
Pristine
More than 10
Remoteness miles from
any
(generally
from TLDs) motorized /
mechanized
BLM *TLD.
Primitive
Transition
More than 3 miles from
any motorized /
mechanized BLM TLD.
Natural landscape with any
Naturalness
Undisturbed modifications in harmony
(landscape
with surroundings and not
texture form, natural
landscape.
visually obvious or evident
line, color)
(e.g. stock ponds, trails).
Developed trails made
mostly of native materials
such as log bridges.
Structures are rare and
isolated.
*TLD - transportation linear disturbances
Visitor
Facilities
No
structures.
Foot/horse
trails only.
PRESCRIBED SETTING
Back Country
Middle Country
On or near BLM
defined Primitive
Roads, but at least ½
mile from all
maintained roads (inc.
BLM Roads).
Character of the natural
Character of the natural
landscape retained. A few landscape partially
modifications contrast with modified but none
character of the landscape overpower natural
(e.g. fences, primitive
landscape (e.g. roads,
roads).
structures, utilities).
More than ½ mile from any
physically existing BLM
defined motorized
transportation linear
disturbances but > 3 miles.
Maintained and marked
trails, simple trailhead
developments and basic
toilets.
Rustic facilities such as
campsites, restrooms,
trailheads, and
interpretive displays.
Appendices 2.7 – p. 3
Front Country
Rural
Urban
On or near roads
maintained for
regular or continuous
use (inc. BLM
Roads), but at least ½
mile from highways.
On or near
primary
roads and
highways.
Municipal
street and
roads
within
towns or
cities.
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
SOCIAL – Qualities Associated with Use
Illustrated in Matrix
Mapped
Primitive
Back Country
3-6 encounters/day off
< 3 encounters/day
Contacts
travel routes (e.g.,
(average with at camp sites and <
campsites) and 7-15
6 encounters/day on
any other
encounters/day on travel
travel routes.
group)
routes.
Average
Fewer than or equal
Group Size
to 3 people per
4-6 people per group.
(other than
group.
your own)
Evidence of
Use
No alteration of the
natural terrain.
Footprints only
observed. Sounds
of people rare.
Areas of alteration
uncommon. Little surface
vegetation wear observed.
Sounds of people
infrequent.
Middle Country
Front Country
Rural
15-29 encounters/day off
7-14 encounters/day off
travel routes (e.g.,
travel routes (e.g.,
People seem to be
campgrounds) and 30 or
staging areas) and 15-29
generally everywhere.
more encounters/day en
encounters/ day en route
route.
Urban
Busy place with
other people
constantly in
view.
7-12 people per group
13-25 people per group.
26-50 people per
group.
Greater than 50
people per
group.
Small areas of alteration.
Surface vegetation
shows wear with some
bare soils. Sounds of
people occasionally
heard.
Small areas of alteration
prevalent. Surface
vegetation gone with
compacted soils
observed. Sounds of
people regularly heard.
A few large areas of
alteration. Surface
vegetation absent with
hardened soils.
Sounds of people
frequently heard.
Large areas of
alteration
prevalent. Some
erosion.
Constantly hear
people.
Appendices 2.7 – p. 4
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
OPERATIONAL – Conditions Created by Management and Controls over Recreation Use
Illustrated in Matrix
Mapped
Primitive
Back Country
Mountain bikes and
perhaps other
mechanized use,
but all is nonmotorized.
Middle Country
Four-wheel drives, allterrain vehicles, dirt bikes,
or snowmobiles in addition
to non-motorized,
mechanized use.
Front Country
Two-wheel drive vehicles
predominant, but also four
wheel drives and nonmotorized, mechanized
use.
Visitor
None is
Services (and
available.
information)
Basic maps, but
area personnel
seldom available to
provide on-site
assistance.
Area brochures and maps,
plus area personnel
occasionally present to
provide on-site assistance.
Information materials
describe recreation areas
and activities. Area
personnel are periodically
available.
No visitor
Management regulations or
ethics signing
Controls
on-site. No use
restrictions.
Basic user
regulations at key
access points. Few
use restrictions.
Some regulatory and ethics
signing. Moderate use
restrictions. (e.g. camping,
human waste).
Rules, regulations, and
ethics clearly posted. Use
restrictions, limitations
and/or closures.
Means of
Travel
Foot and horse
travel.
Appendices 2.7 – p. 5
Rural
Urban
Ordinary highway
auto and truck traffic
is characteristic.
Wide variety of street
vehicles and highway
traffic is ever-present.
Information described
to the left, plus
experience and benefit
descriptions. Area
personnel do on-site
education.
Information described
to the left, plus
regularly scheduled
on-site outdoor
demonstrations and
clinics.
Enforcement in
Regulations and ethics
addition to rules to
prominent. Use may
reduce conflicts,
be limited by permit,
hazards, and resource
reservation, etc.
damage.
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
C. Recreational Opportunity Spectrum
The Recreation Opportunity spectrum (ROS) provides the conceptual framework for inventory,
planning, and management of the recreation resource. The ROS recognizes that people differ in
their needs and in the experience they desire. Also, the resource base is not uniform; it varies in
its potential for providing recreation experiences. The ROS provides a way to characterize either
the capability of a resource to provide an experience or the demand for an experience in terms of
the activity opportunity and setting opportunity provided or demanded. Therefore, recreation
opportunities can be expressed in terms of three components: the activities, the setting, and the
experience. The possible combinations of these three components are arranged along a
continuum, or spectrum.
The ROS is divided into six classes, with each class defined in terms of its combination of
activity, setting, and experience opportunities. The six classes are primitive, semi-primitive
non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, rural, and urban. As conceived,
the spectrum has application to all land, regardless of ownership or jurisdiction, however, for the
Baker RMP, only those acres of the Decision Area are represented with emphasis on RMA area.
The classes are described below with the inventoried acreage. (See Map 2.8 ROS.)
1. Primitive
This is essentially an unmodified natural environment of fairly large size. Use of motorized
vehicles is prohibited. There is an extremely high probability of experiencing isolation, closeness
to nature, and self-reliance on outdoor skills. Activities may include hiking, nature study, fishing,
cross-country skiing, and float boating.
2. Semi-primitive Non-motorized
This is a predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size.
Minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present. Use of motorized vehicles is
prohibited. There is a high probability of experiencing isolation, closeness to nature, and selfreliance in outdoor skills. Activities may include camping, hunting, snowshoeing, and float
boating.
3. Semi-primitive Motorized
This is a predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. User
interaction is low, but there is evidence of other users. Minimum on-site controls and restrictions
may be present. Use of motorized vehicles is permitted. There is a moderate probability of
experiencing isolation, closeness to nature, and self-reliance in outdoor skills. Activities may
include boating, motor biking, specialized land craft use, mountain climbing, driving for
pleasure, camping, and picnicking.
4. Roaded Natural
This is a predominantly natural-appearing environment with moderate evidence of humans.
Evidence usually harmonizes with the natural environment. Management provides for the use of
conventional motorized vehicles. There is an equal probability to experience affiliation with
Appendices 2.7 – p. 6
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
other user groups and for isolation and interaction with the natural environment. Challenge and
risk opportunities are not very important, although testing of outdoor skills may be.
Opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized recreation are available. Activities may
include bus touring, water skiing, walking, canoeing, sledding, and driving for pleasure.
5. Rural
This is a substantially modified environment. Resource modifications and utilization practices
are to enhance specific recreation activities. Facilities are designed for use by a large number of
people. Motorized use and parking opportunities are available. The probability of user interaction
is moderate to high, as is the convenience of sites and opportunities. These factors are generally
more important than the physical setting. Wild land challenges and testing of outdoor skills are
generally unimportant. Activities may include interpretive services, swimming, bicycling,
recreation cabin use, and skiing.
6. Urban
This is a substantially urbanized environment, although the background may have natural
appearing elements. Renewable resource modernization and urbanization practices are to
enhance specific recreation opportunities. Vegetative cover is often exotic and manicured. Large
numbers of users can be expected on-site and in nearby areas. Facilities for highly intensified
motor-vehicle use and parking are available. The probability of user interaction is high, as is the
convenience of sites and opportunities. Experiencing natural environments and uses of outdoor
skills are relatively unimportant. Opportunities for competitive and spectator sports and for
passive uses are common. Activities may include: resort lodging, ice skating, team sports
participation, tour boat use, and picnicking.
Appendices 2.7 – p. 7
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-1. SRMA: BURNT RIVER
SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY
SRMA MARKET
Local communities and Baker County
Undeveloped
River and Upland Recreation Management Zone
Burnt River
MARKET NICHE
In the River Zone, visitors engage in day or overnight land based recreation opportunities such as fishing, upland bird/big game hunting, camping, driving for
pleasure and hiking in a scenic river canyon environment.
In the Upland Zone, visitors engage in day and overnight use, upland bird/big game hunting, horseback riding, camping, rock climbing, driving for pleasure,
photography, hiking, wildlife and landscape viewing, and exploration and sightseeing.
OUTCOME OBJECTIVE
Within the River Zone, visitors engage in land based day use and overnight activities year-round with activities such as camping, fishing, hunting, hiking,
sightseeing, photography, driving for pleasure, and wildlife observation experiences.
Within the Upland Zone, visitors engage in diverse activities such as upland bird/big game hunting, horseback riding, camping, rock climbing, driving for
pleasure, photography, hiking, wildlife and landscape viewing, and exploration and sightseeing.
Both zones provide opportunities for friends and family to participate in scenic land based activities in a predominately undeveloped setting, realizing a
moderate level of satisfaction for two or more recreation activities (i.e., 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total
satisfaction.)
TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES
Activity
Experience Opportunities
Benefit Opportunities
Opportunities
& Outcomes
& Outcomes
• trout fishing
• Fishing for pleasure
Personal: Greater appreciation for family and friends and
• Upland bird & big game
• Being close to nature
natural landscapes. Greater environmental awareness with
hunting
• Pursue upland birds and
family & friends.
• Hiking
challenging big game hunting
Community/Social: Increased awareness of need for
• Camping
during seasons
community involvement in public land stewardship.
• Driving for pleasure (class I, • Being with family and friends in a river canyon &
Environmental: Increased awareness and compliance for
II, III, and OSV)
upland landscape
protection of natural landscapes. Economic: Increased
• Horseback riding
• Enjoying solitude and/or river canyon scenery while
desirability as a place to visit. Increased contributions to local
• Viewing landscapes and
participating in a favorite recreation activity.
and regional economy.
wildlife
• Enjoying physical exercise
PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Roaded Natural River
Burnt River
Physical
Social
Administrative
River Remoteness: On or near improved gravel roads but at least River Contacts: 7-14 encounters/day off
Mechanized Use: Four-wheel drives, all½ mile from Highways (FC).
travel routes(e.g., staging areas) and 15-29
terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, or snowmobiles
Appendices 2.7 – p. 8
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-1. SRMA: BURNT RIVER
Upland Remoteness: On or near motorized routes, but at least ½
encounters/ day en route (MC)
in addition to non-motorized, mechanized
mile from all improved roads, though they may be in sight. (MC)
Upland Contacts: 3-6 encounters/day off
use (MC).
River Naturalness: Landscape partially modified by roads/trails, travel routes (e.g., campsites) and 7-15
Visitor Services: Basic maps, but area
utility lines, etc., but none overpower natural landscape features
encounters/day on travel routes.(BC)
personnel seldom available to provide on(FC).
Group Size: 4-6 people per group. (BC).
site assistance (BC)
Upland Naturalness: Naturally-appearing landscape except for
Evidence of Use: Small areas of alteration
Management Controls: Occasional
obvious motorized routes (MC).
prevalent. Surface vegetation gone with
regulatory signing. Motorized and
Facilities: Maintained and marked trails, simple trailhead
compacted soils observed. Sounds of people mechanized use restrictions. Random
developments; improved signs and very basic toilets (MC).
regularly heard.(FC)
enforcement presence. (MC).
RELATED MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS: RIVER AND UPLAND RMZ
Recreation and Travel Management: Provide public access to river and uplands for fishing, hunting (big game/upland bird),
camping, driving for pleasure, horseback riding, hiking, landscape viewing. Seek viable partnership opportunities with user groups,
County and State agencies to provide stated recreation opportunities and help maintain existing public access along the Burnt River as
appropriate to meet recreation management objectives.
Recreation, Travel,
OHV: Limited to identified roads and trails for motorized use under all Alternatives, except that under Alternative 1 & 5, the French
and Visual Resource Gulch area (5,891 acres) is closed to motorized uses.
Management
VRM Management: Class vary by alternative
Alternative 1 as VRM II with the eastern and western most portions as VRM III
Alternative 2 as VRM III
Alternative 3 as VRM II for the River Zone and VRM III for the Upland Zone
Alternative 4 & 5 VRM II
Appendices 2.7 – p. 9
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-2. SRMA: GRANDE RONDE RIVER SEGMENT 3 (From OR/WA State Line to Highway 129)
SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY
SRMA MARKET
Regional visitors, local communities, Wallowa, and Asotin counties
Undeveloped
River and Upland Recreation Management Zone
Grande Ronde River Segment 3 (from OR/WA state line to Highway 129)
MARKET NICHE
In the River Zone, visitors engage in day or overnight river and land based recreation opportunities such as steelhead and trout fishing, rafting, horseback riding,
canoeing and kayaking, and big game, upland/migratory bird hunting, camping, driving for pleasure and hiking in a scenic river canyon environment.
In the Upland Zone, visitors engage in day use, upland bird and big game hunting, horseback riding, photography, hiking, exploration and sightseeing.
OUTCOME OBJECTIVE
Within the River Zone, visitors engage in land and water-based day use and overnight activities year-round with activities such as camping, fishing, hunting
(seasonal), hiking, sightseeing, photography, driving for pleasure, and wildlife observation experiences.
Within the Upland Zone, visitors engage in diverse activities such as hiking, horseback riding, upland bird and big game hunting experiences and landscape
viewing.
Both zones provide opportunities for friends and family to participate in scenic land and water based activities as well as upland recreation experiences in a
predominately undeveloped setting, realizing a moderate level of satisfaction for two or more recreation activities (i.e., 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not
at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total satisfaction.)
TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES
(See final BLM Wallowa/Grande Ronde WSR Plan)
Activity
Experience Opportunities
Benefit Opportunities
Opportunities
& Outcomes
& Outcomes
• Steelhead, bass and trout fishing
• Fishing for pleasure
Personal: Greater appreciation for family and friends and
• non-motorized boating
• Being close to nature
natural landscapes. Greater environmental awareness with
• Motorized boating
• Pursue upland birds and
family & friends.
• Upland bird & big game hunting
challenging big game hunting
Community/Social: Increased awareness of need for
• Hiking
during seasons
community involvement in public land stewardship.
• Camping
• Being with family and friends in a river canyon & upland Environmental: Increased awareness and compliance for
• Driving for pleasure
landscape
protection of natural landscapes. Economic: Increased
• Primary put-in and take-out points • Enjoying solitude and/or river canyon scenery while
desirability as a place to visit. Increased contributions to
for river floaters/boaters
participating in a favorite recreation activity.
local and regional economy.
• Enjoying physical exercise
PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: ROADED NATURAL RIVER
Grande Ronde River segment 3(from OR/WA state line to Highway 129)
Physical
Social
Administrative
Remoteness: On or near improved gravel roads, but at least ½ Contacts: People seem to be generally
Mechanized Uses: Ordinary highway auto and
mile from highways (FC). Moderate evidence of the sights and everywhere (R). Moderate use occurs and
truck traffic is characteristic.(R)
Appendices 2.7 – p. 10
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-2. SRMA: GRANDE RONDE RIVER SEGMENT 3 (From OR/WA State Line to Highway 129)
sounds of humans. Opportunities for challenge in a natural
contact with others is expected and
Visitor Services: Area brochures and maps,
environment but less expectation of risk.
occasionally continual, with some chance for plus area personnel occasional present to
Naturalness: Landscape partially modified by roads/trails,
isolation.
provide onsite assistance (MC).
utility lines, etc., but none overpower natural
Group Size: 4-6 people per group (BC)
Management Controls: Occasional regulatory
landscape features.(FC)
Evidence of Use: Small areas of alteration
signing. Motorized and mechanized use
Facilities: Improved yet modest, rustic facilities such as
prevalent. Surface vegetation gone with
restrictions. Random enforcement presence
campsites, restrooms, trails, and interpretive signs (FC). Rustic compacted soils observed. Sounds of people
(MC). A few on-site visitor management
facilities developed for resource protection and to accommodate regularly heard (FC). Natural ecosystems may controls or regulations may be expected. Onvisitor use. Rustic facilities providing some comfort for the user be modified by human use. Human impacts
site regimentation and controls are noticeable
as well as site protection. Use native materials but with more
obvious but subordinate. Sites may be subtly but harmonize with the natural environment.
refinement in design. Synthetic materials should not be evident. hardened to accommodate motorized use.
Simple information facilities.
RELATED MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS: RIVER AND UPLAND RMZS
Wallowa/Grande Ronde WSR Plan:
Provide public access to river for fishing, hunting (big game/upland bird), camping, driving for pleasure, rafting, kayaking, boating,
emphasizing river-related activities consistent with the Wallowa/Grande Ronde WSR Plans. Provide motorized boating opportunities on
Recreation, Travel,
and Visual Resource the Grande Ronde River in Washington. Seek viable partnership opportunities with user groups, and County federal and State agencies
to provide stated recreation opportunities and help maintain existing public access along the Grande Ronde rivers as appropriate to meet
Management
river management objectives.
OHV: Limited to identified roads and trails for motorized use under all Alternatives
VRI & VRM: Class II under all alternatives.
Appendices 2.7 – p. 11
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-3. SRMA: Grande Ronde River Segment 4 (from Highway 129 to Snake River Confluence)
SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY
SRMA MARKET
Local communities in Wallowa and Asotin counties
Undeveloped
River and Upland Recreation Management Zone
Grande Ronde River segment 4 (from Highway 129 to Snake River confluence)
MARKET NICHE
In the River Zone, visitors engage in day or overnight river based recreation opportunities, primarily rafting/drift boats, canoeing, kayaking, bass, trout and
steelhead fishing, big game/upland bird hunting, and camping in a rugged, scenic river canyon environment. In the Upland Zone, visitors engage in hiking, big
game/upland bird hunting, photography and sightseeing. Visitors value these primitive landscapes and enjoy challenging recreation activities with friends and
family.
OUTCOME OBJECTIVE
Within the River Zone, visitors engage in year round water-based day use and overnight activities, rafting, canoeing, kayaking, camping, fishing for smallmouth
bass and steelhead, wildlife watching, photography, hiking, sightseeing, and swimming experiences. Within the Upland Zone, visitors engage in activities such
as upland bird/big game hunting and hiking experiences. Visitors enjoy and value primitive, unconfined recreation activities with family and friends in a
predominately undeveloped and rugged setting, realizing a moderate level of satisfaction for two or more recreation activities (i.e. 3.0 on a probability scale
where 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total satisfaction.)
TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES
(See final BLM Wallowa/Grande Ronde WSR Plan)
Activity Opportunities
Experience Opportunities & Outcomes
Benefit Opportunities & Outcomes
• Rafting, canoeing,
• River floating through a highly
Personal: Improved physical fitness; stronger ties with family and
kayaking
scenic and rugged primitive basalt
friends, improved mental well-being, greater environmental
• Bass fishing
river canyon
awareness for river canyon environment.
• Steelhead fishing
• Being close to nature
Community/Social: Greater family bonding, improved image of
• Chukar, deer, elk, bear • Challenging big game hunting
land management agencies, enlarged sense of community
and big horn sheep
• Bass/steelhead fishing for pleasure
dependency and value of public lands.
hunting,
• Being with family and friends in a river canyon and upland
Environmental: Increased awareness and compliance for protection
• Wildlife watching
landscape
of natural landscapes.
• Photography
• Enjoying solitude while participating in a favorite recreation
Economic: Increased desirability as a place to visit. Increased
• Swimming
activity.
contributions to local and regional economy.
• Camping
• Enjoying physical exercise
PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Semi-Primitive Motorized
Grande Ronde River segment 4 (from Highway 129 to Snake River confluence)
Physical
Social
Administrative
Remoteness: Few road/trailed access sites along the river. Fairly high
Contacts: Few contacts with other users,
Mechanized Use: Four-wheel drives,
expectation of experiencing isolation from the sights and sounds of
primarily at access points. Very few
all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, or
humans. Fairly high sense of remoteness. Self-reliance through application contacts while on the river (no more than 5- snowmobiles in addition to non-
Appendices 2.7 – p. 12
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-3. SRMA: Grande Ronde River Segment 4 (from Highway 129 to Snake River Confluence)
of outdoor skills in an environment that offers a moderate degree of
7). No more than one other party within
motorized, mechanized use. (MC)
challenge and risk. More than ½ mile from any kind of motorized route/use sight or sound of a campsite. 3-6
Visitor Services: No on-site controls
area, but not as distant as 3 miles (BC)
encounters/day off travel routes (e.g.
or information facilities except at
Naturalness: Largely undisturbed natural environment. Little evidence of campsites) and 7-15 encounters/day on travel access points. Basic maps, but area
development. No impoundments, diversions or channel modifications.
routes. (BC)
personnel seldom available to provide
Naturally-appearing landscape except for obvious motorized routes. (MC) Group Size: Small party size between 4-6 on-site assistance (BC)
Facilities: Minimal facility development primarily for resource protection. people (BC).
Management Controls: Signs at key
Parties on river responsible for human waste disposal and leave no trace
Visitor Impacts: Human impacts are
access points on basic user ethics.
camping practices. No facilities for user comfort. Rustic and rudimentary generally limited to campsites of small to
May have back country use
facilities for site protection only. Native material only. Maintained and
moderate size. Areas of alteration
restrictions. Enforcement presence
marked trails, simple trailhead developments, improved signs, and very
uncommon. Little surface vegetation wear
rare.(BC)
basic toilets. (MC)
observed. Sounds of people infrequent. (BC)
Related Management Prescriptions: River and Upland RMZs
Wallowa/Grande Ronde WSR Plan:
Provide primitive, non-motorized and motorized public access to river for hunting, fishing, rafting, kayaking, boating, and camping in river
Recreation, Travel, area, emphasizing water based river-related activities consistent with Wallowa/Grande Ronde River Plan and LAC inventories. Seek viable
partnership opportunities with user groups, private landowners, county, federal and State agencies to provide stated recreation
and Visual
opportunities. Monitor river and upland visitor satisfaction based on stated Wallowa/Grande Ronde River Plan and LAC indicators for this
Resource
river segment.
Management
OHV: Closed or Limited to designated roads/trails for OHV use under all alternatives.
Visual Resource Management:
VRM Class II under all alternatives.
Appendices 2.7 – p. 13
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-4. SRMA: LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN
SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY
Regional visitors and Baker County
SRMA MARKET
Undeveloped
Recreation Management Zone
Lookout Mountain
MARKET NICHE
In the Upland/forested Zone, visitors engage in day use and overnight camping, upland bird and big game hunting, hiking, mechanized biking, horseback riding,
motorized and non-motorized use activities in a forested and upland setting.
OUTCOME OBJECTIVE
Within the Upland/forested Zone, visitors engage in diverse motorized (class I, II, III, and OSV) road, primitive road, trail and route riding experiences and nonmotorized activities such as hiking, mountain bike riding, horseback riding, camping, and upland bird/big game hunting.
Provide opportunities for friends and family to participate in land based activities in a predominately undeveloped setting, realizing a moderate level of
satisfaction for two or more recreation activities (i.e. 3.0 on a probability scale; 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total satisfaction.)
TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES
Activity
Benefit Opportunities & Outcomes
Opportunities
Experience Opportunities & Outcomes
•
•
•
•
•
•
Day-use
Hunting
Landscape viewing
Camping
Hiking
Driving for pleasure (class I – ATV
riding, class II – 4X4 driving, class
III-motorcycle riding, and over snow
vehicle riding (OSV))
• Biking (mechanized)
• Horseback riding
• Explore the landscape
• Viewing scenic landscapes
• Pursue upland bird and big game during hunting
seasons
• Being with family and friends in a forested
mountain and upland landscape
• Finding solitude while participating in a favorite
recreation activity
• Opportunities for different types of physical
exercise
Personal: Greater awareness of natural landscapes and
environmental awareness.
Community/Social: Increased awareness of need for
community involvement in public land stewardship.
Increased involvement in recreation and land use decisions.
Environmental: Increased awareness of ”Leave No Trace”
and “Tread Lightly” practices on public lands
Economic: Increased desirability as a place to visit, live or
retire. Positive contributions to local and regional economy.
PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Front Country
Lookout Mountain
Physical
Social
Administrative
Remoteness: On or near improved gravel roads but Contacts: 3-6 encounters/day off travel
Mechanized Use: Four-wheel drives, all-terrain vehicles, dirt
at least ½ mile from Highways (FC).
routes
bikes, or snowmobiles in addition to non-motorized,
Naturalness: Landscape partially modified by
(e.g., campsites) and 7-15 encounters/day on mechanized use (MC).
roads/trails, utility lines, etc., but none
travel routes. (BC)
Visitor Services: Area brochures and maps, plus area
overpower natural landscape features
Group Size: 4-6 people per group. (BC).
personnel occasional present to provide on-site assistance
Appendices 2.7 – p. 14
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
(FC).
Facilities: Maintained and marked trails, simple
trailhead developments; improved signs and very
basic toilets (MC).
Recreation, Travel,
and Visual Resource
Management
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-4. SRMA: LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN
Evidence of Use: Small areas of alteration. (MC).
Surface vegetation showing wear with some Management Controls: Occasional regulatory signing.
bare soils. Sounds of people occasionally
Motorized and mechanized use restrictions. Random
heard. (MC).
enforcement presence. (MC).
Related Management Prescriptions: Upland RMZs
Recreation and Travel Management: OHV use is limited to designated roads/trails/routes for all alternatives
Visual Resource Management: VRI & VRM Management Class II for all alternatives except alternative 2 where it is VRM Class III.
Appendices 2.7 – p. 15
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-5. SRMA: NATIONAL HISTORIC OREGON TRAIL INTERPRETIVE CENTER (NHOTIC)
SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY
Regional visitors, local communities and Baker county
SRMA MARKET
Community
Recreation Management Zone
National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center (NHOTIC)
MARKET NICHE
Visitors engage in day use activities for interpretive viewing, historical education, and historical re-enactments in a modern facility with some developed hiking
opportunities. Visitors value this facility and enjoy participating in these interpretive activities with friends and family.
OUTCOME OBJECTIVE
Visitors engage in day use activities for interpretive viewing, historical education, and historical re-enactments in a modern facility with some developed hiking
opportunities. Visitors value this facility and enjoy participating in these interpretive activities with friends and family in a predominately developed setting,
realizing a moderate level of satisfaction for two or more recreation activities (i.e., 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4
= total satisfaction.)
TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES
Activity Opportunities
Benefit Opportunities & Outcomes
Experience Opportunities & Outcomes
Personal: Greater appreciation for family and friends and local/national history.
Greater community and regional awareness with family & friends.
• Interpretation/Education
Community/Social: Increased awareness of need for community involvement in public
• Learning about local and national history
• Historical re-enactments
land stewardship. Improved image of land management agencies, enlarged sense of
• Being with family and friends
• Hiking
community dependency and value of public lands and resources.
• Enjoying a favorite recreation activity.
• Viewing landscapes
Environmental: Increased awareness and compliance for protection of historical
• Enjoying physical exercise
and wildlife
resources and natural landscapes.
Economic: Increased desirability as a place to visit. Increased contributions to local
and regional economy.
PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Rural
National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center (NHOTIC)
Physical
Social
Administrative
Remoteness: On or near paved primary highways, Contacts: People seem to be generally
Mechanized Use: Ordinary highway auto, truck,
but still within a rural area. (R)
everywhere (R)
motorcycle and bike traffic is characteristic. (R)
Naturalness: Landscape partially modified by
Group Size: 7-12 people per group in
Visitor Services: Information materials describe recreation
roads/trails, utility lines, etc, but none overpower
summer months; less people per group in
areas and activities plus experience and benefit descriptions.
natural landscape features.(FC)
offseason (MC)
Area personnel are available and do on-site education. (R)
Facilities: Modern facilities such as campgrounds, Evidence of Use:
Management Controls: Regulations prominent. Total use
Appendices 2.7 – p. 16
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-5. SRMA: NATIONAL HISTORIC OREGON TRAIL INTERPRETIVE CENTER (NHOTIC)
group
A few large areas of alteration. Surface
limited by permit, reservation, etc. Routine enforcement
shelters, boat launches, and occasional exhibits. (R) vegetation absent with hardened soils. Sounds presence. (R)
of people frequently heard. (R)
Related Management Prescriptions:
Recreation and Travel Management: As directed by the National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center Management Plan to
provide public access to interpretive facilities for historical interpretation and education. Seek viable partnership opportunities with
Recreation, Travel,
user groups, county, federal and State agencies to provide stated recreation opportunities and help maintain existing facility and
and Visual Resource
public access to the NHOTIC as appropriate to meet facility and recreation management objectives.
Management
OHV: Closed to OHV use.
VRM Management: VRM II for all alternatives
Appendices 2.7 – p. 17
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-6. SRMA: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS - POWDER WILD AND SCENIC RIVER (Thief Valley Dam to Highway 203)
SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY
SRMA MARKET
Local communities in Baker, Union counties
Undeveloped
River and Upland Recreation Management Zone
Powder Wild and Scenic River (from Thief Valley Dam to Highway 203)
MARKET NICHE
In the River Zone, visitors engage in primarily day or overnight land and water based recreation opportunities such as trout fishing, general water play,
horseback riding, canoeing and kayaking, and big game/upland/migratory bird hunting, camping, and hiking in a scenic river canyon environment.
In the Upland Zone, visitors engage in day use, upland bird and big game hunting, horseback riding, photography, hiking, driving for pleasure, exploration and
sightseeing.
OUTCOME OBJECTIVE
Within the River Zone, visitors engage in land and water-based day use and overnight activities year-round with activities such as camping, fishing, hunting,
hiking, sightseeing, photography, and wildlife observation experiences.
Within the Upland Zone, visitors engage in diverse activities such as hiking, horseback riding, upland bird and big game hunting, wildlife viewing experiences,
driving for pleasure and landscape viewing.
Both zones provide opportunities for friends and family to participate in scenic land and water based activities as well as upland recreation experiences in a
predominately undeveloped setting, realizing a moderate level of satisfaction for two or more recreation activities (i.e., 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not
at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total satisfaction.)
TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES
(See final BLM Powder WSR Plan)
Activity Opportunities
Experience Opportunities & Outcomes
Benefit Opportunities & Outcomes
• Fishing for pleasure
• Trout fishing
Personal: Greater appreciation for family and friends and natural
• Being close to nature
• Non-motorized
landscapes. Greater environmental awareness with family &
• Pursue upland birds and
boating
friends.
• challenging big game hunting
• Upland bird & big
Community/Social: Increased awareness of need for community
• during seasons
game hunting
involvement in public land stewardship.
• Being with family and friends in a river canyon & upland
• Hiking
Environmental: Increased awareness and compliance for
landscape
• Camping
protection of natural landscapes. Economic: Increased desirability
• Enjoying solitude and/or river canyon scenery while
• Driving for pleasure
as a place to visit. Increased contributions to local and regional
participating in a favorite recreation activity.
economy.
• • Enjoying physical exercise
PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Roaded Natural River
Powder Wild and Scenic River (from Thief Valley Dam to Highway 203)
Physical
Social
Administrative
Remoteness: Moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of
Contacts: 3-6 encounters/day off travel routes Mechanized Use: Four-wheel drives, allhumans. Opportunities for challenge in a natural environment but (e.g. campsites) and 7-15 encounters/day on
terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, or snowmobiles
Appendices 2.7 – p. 18
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-6. SRMA: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS - POWDER WILD AND SCENIC RIVER (Thief Valley Dam to Highway 203)
less expectation of risk. On or near motorized routes, but at least
½ mile from all improved roads, though they may be in
sight.(MC)
Naturalness: Landscape partially modified by roads/trails,
utility lines, etc., but none overpower natural landscape features.
(FC) Alterations to the landscape are subtle. Natural
characteristics remain dominant. Moderate evidence of human
development. Impoundments, diversions or channel
modifications may be evident.
Facilities: Rustic facilities developed for resource protection
and to accommodate visitor use. Use native materials but with
more refinement in design. Synthetic materials should not be
evident. Maintained and marked trails, simple trailhead
developments, improved signs, and very basic toilets.(MC)
travel routes.(BC)
in addition to non-motorized, mechanized
Group Size: 4-6 people per group (BC). Low to use.(MC)
moderate use occurs and contact with others is Visitor Services: Basic maps, but area
expected and occasional, with some chance for personnel seldom available to provide onisolation. Some evidence of other users.
site assistance(BC)
Moderate to high contact with other users,
Management Controls: A few on-site
particularly at access roads. Moderate to low
visitor management controls or regulations
contact on trails.
may be expected. Controls are noticeable but
Evidence of use: Natural ecosystems may be
harmonize with the natural environment.
modified by human use. Human impacts
Simple information facilities. Signs at key
obvious but subordinate. Sites may be subtly
access points on basic user ethics. May have
hardened to accommodate motorized use. Small back country use restrictions. Enforcement
areas of alteration. Surface vegetation showing presence rare (BC)
wear with some bare soils. Sounds of people
occasionally heard.(MC)
RELATED MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS: RIVER AND UPLAND RMZS
Powder WSR Plan: Provide public access to river for fishing, hunting (big game/upland bird), camping, driving for pleasure, boating,
Recreation, Travel,
emphasizing river-related activities consistent with the Powder WSR Plans. Provide non-motorized boating opportunities on the Powder
and Visual
River. Seek viable partnership opportunities with user groups and county, and State agencies to provide stated recreation opportunities and
Resource
help maintain existing public access along the Powder rivers as appropriate to meet river management objectives.
Management
OHV: Limited to identified roads and trails for motorized use under all Alternatives
VRI & VRM: Class II under all alternatives.
Appendices 2.7 – p. 19
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-7. SRMA: SNAKE RIVER BREAKS (BROWNLEE, OXBOW, HELLS CANYON RESERVOIRS)
SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY
SRMA MARKET
Regional visitors and Baker County
Undeveloped
River and Upland Recreation Management Zone
Snake River Breaks (Brownlee, Oxbow, Hells canyon Reservoirs)
MARKET NICHE
In the River Zone, visitors engage in day or overnight river/reservoir based recreation opportunities such as fishing, boating, day-use, camping, hiking and
driving for pleasure in a scenic river canyon environment. In the Upland Zone, visitors engage in day use and overnight camping, upland bird and big game
hunting, hiking, mechanized biking, horseback riding, and seasonal Class I, II and III motorized use activities.
OUTCOME OBJECTIVE
Within the River Zone, visitors engage in water-based day use and overnight activities, year-round land based day and overnight uses, boating, camping, fishing,
hunting, general water play, and driving for pleasure experiences.
Within the Upland Zone, visitors engage in diverse motorized and non-motorized activities such as hiking, mountain bike riding, horseback riding, camping,
upland bird/big game hunting and seasonal motorized trail Class I, II and III road, primitive road, trail and route riding experiences.
Provide opportunities for friends and family to participate in land and water based activities in the River Zone, as well as non-motorized and motorized
experiences in the Upland Zone in a predominately undeveloped setting, realizing a moderate level of satisfaction for two or more recreation activities (i.e. 3.0
on a probability scale; 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total satisfaction.)
TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES
Activity Opportunities
Experience Opportunities & Outcomes
Benefit Opportunities & Outcomes
Day-use
• Explore the landscape
Fishing
• Viewing scenic landscapes
Personal: Greater awareness of natural landscapes
Hunting
•
Pursue
upland
bird
and
big
game
and environmental awareness.
River
Landscape viewing
•
during
hunting
seasons
Community/Social: Increased awareness of need
RMZ:
Boating (motorized)
• Fishing for pleasure
for community involvement in public land
Camping
• Being with family and friends
stewardship. Increased involvement in recreation
• in a river canyon and upland
and land use decisions.
Hiking
• landscape
Environmental: Increased awareness of ”Leave
Driving for pleasure
No Trace” and “Tread Lightly” practices on public
• Finding solitude while
Hiking
lands
• participating in a favorite
Biking (motorized /mechanized)
Economic: Increased desirability as a place to
• recreation activity
Upland
horseback riding
visit, live or retire. Positive contributions to local
•
Opportunities
for
different
types
of
physical
RMZ:
Upland bird/ big game hunting
and regional economy.
exercise
• motorized Class I, II, III and OSV primitive
•
General
water
play
road, trail and route riding
PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Front Country
Snake River Breaks (Brownlee, Oxbow, Hells canyon Reservoirs)
Appendices 2.7 – p. 20
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-7. SRMA: SNAKE RIVER BREAKS (BROWNLEE, OXBOW, HELLS CANYON RESERVOIRS)
Physical
Social
Administrative
River Mechanized Use: Two-wheel drive
River Remoteness:
River Contacts:
vehicles predominant, but also four wheel
On or near improved gravel roads, but at least
15-29 encounters/day off travel routes(e.g.campgrounds) and 30
drives and non-motorized, mechanized use
½ mile from highways (FC).
or more encounters/day in route.
(FC).
Upland Remoteness:
Upland Contacts:
Upland Mechanized Use: Four wheel
On or near improved gravel roads, but at least
3-6 encounters/day off travel routes
drives, all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, or
½ mile from highways (FC)
(e.g.campsites) and 7-15 encounters/day on travel routes. (BC)
snowmobiles in addition to non-motorized,
River and Upland Naturalness:
River and Upland Group Size:
mechanized use (MC).
Landscape partially modified by roads/trails,
7 -12 people group (MC)
River Visitor Services: Area brochures and
utility lines, etc., but none overpower natural
Upland Group Size:
maps, plus area personnel occasional present
landscape features.(FC)
4-6 people per group (BC).
to provide on-site assistance (MC).
River Facilities:
River Evidence of Use:
Upland Visitor Services: Basic Maps, but
Modern facilities such as campgrounds, group
Small areas of alteration prevalent.
area personnel seldom available for on-site
shelters, boat launches, and occasional exhibit(R) Surface vegetation gone with compacted soils observed. Sounds
assistance (BC).
of people regularly heard (FC).
Upland Facilities:
River and Upland Management
Some Maintained and marked trails, simple
Upland Evidence of Use:
Controls: Occasional regulatory signing.
trailhead developments, improved signs, and very Small areas of alteration. Surface vegetation showing wear with
Motorized and mechanized use restrictions.
basic toilets (MC).
some bare soils. Sounds of people occasionally heard (BC).
Random enforcement presence (MC).
RELATED MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS: RIVER AND UPLAND RMZS
Recreation:
One developed and 7 semi-developed campgrounds existing and common to all alternatives.
Recreation, Travel,
Travel Management: All OHV use is limited to designated routes under all alternatives.
and Visual Resource
Management
Visual Resource Management:
VRM Class II in all alternatives.
Appendices 2.7 – p. 21
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-8. SRMA: SNAKE RIVER/MORMON BASIN BACK COUNTRY BYWAY
SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY
SRMA MARKET
Local communities in Baker county
Community
Snake River / Mormon Basin Back Country Byway Recreation Management Zone
MARKET NICHE
By driving or biking around the Snake River/Mormon Basin Back Country Byway on State and County roads, visitors and residents enjoy seasonal scenic
viewing. By visiting roadside information kiosks at selected locations, visitors learn about its natural history, geology and early settlement history of Baker
County. Visitors and local residents see and value the varied landscapes of the Snake River, Mormon Basin, Dooley Mountain and the Baker valley areas.
Visitors enjoy driving for pleasure, hunting/fishing opportunities, dispersed hiking on public lands, and learning about local history and natural features.
OUTCOME OBJECTIVE
The Snake River/Mormon Basin Back Country Byway provides visitors and residents opportunities to enjoy the scenic beauty of the Snake River, Mormon
Basin, Dooley Mountain and the Baker valley areas, while also increasing knowledge and appreciation of their natural and early settlement history. Visitors
drive or bike on State and County roads and view open scenic landscapes, mountain ranges, rivers, streams, reservoirs, canyons and open valleys, stopping to
view information at roadside and community interpretative kiosks along the byway. Visitors enjoy driving for pleasure, hunting/fishing opportunities, dispersed
hiking on public lands, and learning about local history and natural features. Visitors realize a moderate level of satisfaction for two or more recreation
activities,( i.e., 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total satisfaction.)
TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES
Activity Opportunities
Experience Opportunities & Outcomes
Benefit Opportunities & Outcomes
Personal: Increased awareness and appreciation for natural landscapes
• Opportunities for learning
• Driving for pleasure
and formation of geologic features and early history of the Baker
early history of Baker County, the Oregon Trail
• Photography
County area.
and natural history
• Motorcycle and bike touring
Community/Social: Increased community connection to natural
• Enjoying a variety of landscapes from open
• Dispersed Public land hiking
processes and historic community “roots”.
spaces to mountain ranges and general scenery
• Natural and rural landscape views
Environmental: Increased awareness for protecting and interpreting of
• Being close to nature
• Education and Interpretation of
natural landscapes and historic locations.
• Sharing experiences with all
Geologic, and historic values
Economic: Economic development with local communities and other
ages of family and friends
entities resulting from more visitors to the Byway.
RATIONALE FOR PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Front Country/Rural
Snake River / Mormon Basin Back Country Byway Recreation Management Zone
Physical
Social
Administrative
Contacts: 30 or more encounters/day on byway Mechanized Use:
Remoteness: Byway section range
Municipal street and roads within towns or cities. (U) On or during summer months. Less encounters in off- Byway section range: Wide variety of street
vehicles and highway traffic is ever-present. (U)
near both paved primary highways and primitive roads in
season. (FC)
back country and rural areas. (R) On or near improved
Group Size: 7-12 people per group in summer Ordinary highway auto, truck, motorcycle and
bike traffic is characteristic. (R) Two-wheel drive
gravel roads, but at least ½ mile from highways. (FC)
months; less people per group in offseason
vehicles predominant, but also four wheel drives
(MC)
Naturalness: Byway section range
Appendices 2.7 – p. 22
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-8. SRMA: SNAKE RIVER/MORMON BASIN BACK COUNTRY BYWAY
Naturally-appearing landscape except for obvious motorized
routes. (MC) Landscape partially modified by roads/trails,
utility lines, etc, but none overpower natural landscape
features. (FC) Modern facilities such as campgrounds, group
shelters, boat launches, and occasional exhibits. (R)
Elaborate full-service facilities such as laundry, restraints,
and groceries. (U)
Facilities: Adjacent or within the vicinity of improved yet
modest, rustic facilities such as primitive campsites, basic,
restrooms, trails and interpretative sign. (FC)(R)(U)
Evidence of Use:
Byway section range: Small areas of alteration
prevalent. Surface vegetation gone with
impacted soils observed. Sounds of people
regularly heard. (FC) A few large areas of
alteration. Surface vegetation absent with
hardened soils. Sounds of people frequently
heard. (R) Large areas of alteration prevalent.
Some erosion. Constantly hear people. (U)
and non-motorized, mechanized use. (FC)
Visitor Services: Basic maps, but area personnel
seldom available to provide onsite assistance.
(BC)
Management Controls: Occasional regulatory
signing. Motorized and mechanized use
restrictions. Random enforcement presence.
(MC)
Related Management Prescriptions
Coordinate management with State and County road departments for sustained year a-round and seasonal use on the Byway depending on
Recreation, Travel,
segment, and identify safe roadside pull-outs for education and interpretative kiosks. Manage recreation use to ensure no cross-country use
and Visual
occurs off Byway. Pursue partnerships with local, state, federal agencies and organizations, if consistent with RMZ outcome objectives
Resource
and management for on and off site education and interpretation of geologic resources, historic resources and the explorers and early
Management
settlers of the Baker County area.
Appendices 2.7 – p. 23
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-9. SRMA: SOUTH FORK OF THE WALLA WALLA RIVER
SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY
SRMA MARKET
Local communities in Umatilla county
Undeveloped
River and Upland Recreation Management Zone
South Fork of the Walla Walla River
MARKET NICHE
In the River Zone, visitors engage in day use land based recreation opportunities such as fishing, horseback riding, hiking, motorized biking (Class III), and
mechanized biking in a scenic river canyon environment.
In the Upland Zone, visitors engage in day use horseback riding, photography, hiking, exploration and sightseeing.
OUTCOME OBJECTIVE
Within the River Zone, visitors engage in land based day use activities year-round such as fishing (seasonal), hiking, horseback riding, motorized (class III) and
mechanized biking, sightseeing, photography, and wildlife observation experiences.
Within the Upland Zone, visitors engage in activities such as hiking, horseback riding, wildlife and landscape viewing experiences.
Both zones provide opportunities for friends and family to participate in scenic land based activities as well as upland recreation experiences in a predominately
undeveloped setting, realizing a moderate level of satisfaction for two or more recreation activities (i.e., 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not at all; 2 =
somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total satisfaction.)
TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES
(See final South Fork Walla Walla ACEC Management Plan)
Activity Opportunities
Experience Opportunities& Outcomes
Benefit Opportunities& Outcomes
• Fishing for pleasure
• Trout fishing
Personal: Greater appreciation for family and friends and natural
• Being close to nature
• Non-motorized biking
landscapes. Greater environmental awareness with family & friends.
• Being with family and friends in a river canyon
• Motorized biking
Community/Social: Increased awareness of need for community
& upland landscape
• Hiking
involvement in public land stewardship.
• Enjoying solitude and/or river canyon scenery
• Horseback riding
Environmental: Increased awareness and compliance for protection of
while participating in a favorite recreation
• General day use recreation
natural landscapes. Economic: Increased desirability as a place to visit.
activity.
(picnicking, walking)
Increased contributions to local and regional economy.
• Enjoying physical exercise
PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Roaded Natural River
South Fork of the Walla Walla River
Physical
Social
Administrative
Remoteness: Moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of
Social Encounters: Moderate use occurs –
Visitor Management: A few on-site visitor
humans. Opportunities for challenge in a natural environment but contact with others is expected and occasional, management controls or regulations may be
less expectation of risk.
with some chance for isolation. Some evidence expected. Contact with management
Naturalness: Alterations to the landscape are subtle. Natural
of other users. Moderate to high contact with
personnel is occasional. Visitors perceive a
Appendices 2.7 – p. 24
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-9. SRMA: SOUTH FORK OF THE WALLA WALLA RIVER
characteristics remain dominant. Moderate evidence of human
other users, particularly at trailhead and access moderate to low degree of challenge and
development. Roads, primitive roads, trails may be evident.
roads. Moderate to low contact on trails.
risk. On-site regimentation and controls are
Facilities: Rustic facilities developed for resource protection and Visitor Impacts: Natural ecosystems may be
noticeable but harmonize with the natural
to accommodate visitor use. Rustic facilities providing some
modified by human use. Human impacts obvious environment. Simple information facilities.
comfort for the user as well as site protection. Use native
but subordinate. Sites may be subtly hardened to
materials but with more refinement in design. Synthetic materials accommodate motorized use.
should not be evident.
RELATED MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS: RIVER AND UPLAND RMZS
South Fork Walla Walla River ACEC Management Plan: Provide public access to river for land based activities such as fishing,
hiking, biking (motorized/mechanized) and horseback riding emphasizing activities consistent with the ACEC Management Plan. Seek
Recreation, Travel,
and Visual Resource viable partnership opportunities with user groups, county, and State agencies to provide stated recreation opportunities and help
maintain existing public access along the South Fork of the Walla Walla River as appropriate to meet ACEC management objectives.
Management
OHV: Limited to identified roads and trails for motorized use under all Alternatives
VRI & VRM: Class II under all alternatives.
Appendices 2.7 – p. 25
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-10. SRMA: VIRTUE FLAT OHV PLAY AREA
SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY
local communities and Baker county
SRMA MARKET
Community
Recreation Management Zone
Virtue Flat OHV Play Area
MARKET NICHE
Visitors engage in day use or overnight activities for casual or concentrated mechanized and motorized (Class I, II, III & OSV) primitive road/trail/route use
opportunities, and camping in a sage-brush setting. Visitors value this opportunity and facility and enjoy participating in these activities with friends and family.
OUTCOME OBJECTIVE
Visitors engage in either motorized, shared-use, or non-motorized trail and route experiences within a open sage-brush setting to realize a moderate level of
satisfaction for one or more recreation activities (i.e. 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total
satisfaction.)
TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES
Activity
Benefit Opportunities
Experience Opportunities
Opportunities
& Outcomes
& Outcomes
• Class I – ATV riding
• Class II – 4x4/UTV
driving
• Class III- Motorcycle
riding
• Mountain bike riding
• Over Snow Vehicles
(OSV)
• Camping
• Enjoy Scenery
Personal: Greater environmental awareness with family and friends.
• Experience casual trail riding or
Community/Social: Increased awareness of need for community involvement in public land
route driving with family and
stewardship. Increased involvement in recreation and land use decisions.
friends
Environmental: Increased awareness of ”Leave No Trace” and “Treading Lightly” practices
• Experience challenging motorized
on public lands
or non-motorized trail riding.
Economic: Increased desirability as a place to visit, live or retire. Positive contributions to
• Opportunities for different types
local and regional economy.
of physical exercise
Physical
Remoteness:
On or near paved primary highways, but still
within a rural area (R).
Naturalness: Landscape partially modified by
roads/trails, utility lines, etc; but none over
power natural landscape features (FC).
Facilities: Maintained & marked trails, simple
trailhead developments, improved signs and
PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Rural
Virtue Flat OHV Play Area
Social
Administrative
Contacts: 7-14 encounters day off
travel routes and 15-29 encounters/day Mechanized Use: Four-wheel drives, all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, or
on routes (MC).
snowmobiles in addition to non-motorized, mechanized use (MC).
Group Size: 4-6 people per group
Visitor Services: Area brochures and maps, plus area personnel
(BC).
occasional present to provide onsite assistance.(MC).
Evidence of Use: A few large areas of Management Controls: Occasional regulatory signing. Motorized
alteration. Surface vegetation absent
and mechanized use restrictions. Random enforcement presence (MC).
with hardened soils. Sounds of people
Appendices 2.7 – p. 26
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
very basic toilets (MC).
Recreation, Travel,
and Visual Resource
Management
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-10. SRMA: VIRTUE FLAT OHV PLAY AREA
frequently heard. (R).
RELATED MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS:
Recreation:
Implementation of the Virtue Flat Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP)
Travel Management:
OHV use is not restricted (Open) for all alternatives
Visual Resource Management:
VRM Class II/III for all alternatives
Appendices 2.7 – p. 27
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-11. SRMA: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
Wallowa (from Minam, OR to Grande Ronde confluence),
Grande Ronde (from Wallowa confluence to Sheep Creek & from Wildcat Creek to OR/WA state line)
SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY
SRMA MARKET
Local communities in Union, Wallowa, and Asotin counties
Undeveloped
Grande Ronde (Segment 1), Wallowa Wild and Scenic Rivers River, and Upland Recreation Management Zone
Wallowa (from Minam, OR to Grande Ronde confluence,
Grande Ronde (from Wallowa confluence to Sheep Creek & from Wildcat Creek to OR/WA state line)
MARKET NICHE
In the River Zone, visitors engage in day or overnight river and land based recreation opportunities such as steelhead and trout fishing, rafting, horseback riding,
canoeing and kayaking, and big game, upland/migratory bird hunting, camping, driving for pleasure and hiking in a scenic river canyon environment. In the
Upland Zone, visitors engage in day use, upland bird and big game hunting, horseback riding, photography, hiking, exploration and sightseeing.
OUTCOME OBJECTIVE
Within the River Zone, visitors engage in land and water-based day use and overnight activities year-round with activities such as camping, fishing, hunting
(seasonal), hiking, sightseeing, photography, driving for pleasure, and wildlife observation experiences. Within the Upland Zone, visitors engage in diverse nonmotorized activities such as hiking, horseback riding, upland bird and big game hunting experiences and landscape viewing. Both zones provide opportunities
for friends and family to participate in scenic land and water based activities as well as upland recreation experiences in a predominately undeveloped setting,
realizing a moderate level of satisfaction for two or more recreation activities (i.e., 3.0 on a probability scale where 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4
= total satisfaction.)
TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES
(See final BLM Wallowa/Grande Ronde and Powder WSR Plans)
Activity Opportunities
Experience Opportunities & Outcomes
Benefit Opportunities & Outcomes
• Fishing for pleasure
• Steelhead, bass and trout fishing
Personal: Greater appreciation for family and friends and
• Non-motorized boating
• Being close to nature
natural landscapes. Greater environmental awareness with
• Motorized boating
• Pursue upland birds and
family & friends.
• Upland bird & big game hunting
• Challenging big game hunting during seasons
Community/Social: Increased awareness of need for
• Hiking
• Being with family and friends in a river canyon & upland community involvement in public land stewardship.
• Camping
landscape
Environmental: Increased awareness and compliance for
• Driving for pleasure
• Enjoying solitude and/or river canyon scenery while
protection of natural landscapes. Economic: Increased
• Primary put-in and take-out points
participating in a favorite recreation activity.
desirability as a place to visit. Increased contributions to
for river floaters/boaters
• • Enjoying physical exercise
local and regional economy.
PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Roaded Natural River
Wallowa (from Minam, OR to Grande Ronde confluence,
Grande Ronde (from Wallowa confluence to Sheep Creek & from Wildcat Creek to OR/WA state line)
Physical
Social
Administrative
Appendices 2.7 – p. 28
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-11. SRMA: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
Wallowa (from Minam, OR to Grande Ronde confluence),
Grande Ronde (from Wallowa confluence to Sheep Creek & from Wildcat Creek to OR/WA state line)
Remoteness: Moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of
Social Encounters: Moderate use occurs – contact
humans. Opportunities for challenge in a natural environment
Visitor Management: A few on-site
with others is expected and occasionally continual,
but less expectation of risk.
visitor management controls or
with some chance for isolation. Some evidence of
Naturalness: Alterations to the landscape are subtle. Natural
regulations may be expected. Contact
other users. Moderate to high contact with other users,
characteristics remain dominant. Moderate evidence of human
with management personnel is frequent.
particularly at rapids and access points. Moderate to
development. Impoundments, diversions, or channel
On guided and non-guided trips, visitors
high contact on access roads. Moderate to low contact
modifications may be evident.
perceive a moderate to low degree of
on trails and at developed sites.
Facilities: Rustic facilities developed for resource protection
challenge and risk. On-site regimentation
Visitor Impacts: Natural ecosystems may be
and to accommodate visitor use. Rustic facilities providing some
and controls are noticeable but
modified by human use. Human impacts obvious but
comfort for the user as well as site protection. Use native
harmonize with the natural environment.
subordinate. Sites may be subtly hardened to
materials but with more refinement in design. Synthetic
Simple information facilities.
accommodate motorized use.
materials should not be evident.
RELATED MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS: RIVER AND UPLAND RMZS
Wallowa/Grande Ronde WSR Plan: Provide public access to river for fishing, hunting(big game/upland bird), camping, driving for
pleasure, rafting, kayaking, boating, emphasizing river-related activities consistent with the Wallowa/Grande Ronde River and Powder
Recreation, Travel,
River WSR Plans. Provide motorized boating opportunities above the Wild section boundary on the Grande Ronde and Wallowa rivers.
and Visual Resource
Seek viable partnership opportunities with user groups, and County federal and State agencies to provide stated recreation opportunities
Management
and help maintain existing public access along the Wallowa/Grande Ronde rivers as appropriate to meet river management objectives.
OHV: Limited to identified roads and trails for motorized use under all Alternatives
VRI & VRM: Class II under all alternatives.
Appendices 2.7 – p. 29
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-12. SRMA: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
Grande Ronde River (from Sheep Creek to Wildcat Creek) and the Joseph Creek Suitable River
SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY
SRMA MARKET
Regional visitors and Union, Wallowa, and Asotin counties
Undeveloped
Grande Ronde River segment 2, Wild and Scenic River and Joseph Creek Suitable River
River and Upland Recreation Management Zone
(Grande Ronde River (from Sheep Creek to Wildcat Creek) and the Joseph Creek Suitable River
MARKET NICHE
In the River Zone, visitors engage in day or overnight river based recreation opportunities such as steelhead and trout fishing, rafting, horseback riding, canoeing
and kayaking, and big game, upland/migratory bird hunting in a scenic river canyon environment.
In the Upland Zone, visitors engage in day use, upland bird and big game hunting, horseback riding, photography, hiking, and sightseeing.
OUTCOME OBJECTIVE
Within the River Zone, visitors engage in water-based day use and overnight activities, year-round land-based day uses, boat-in camping, fishing, hunting
(seasonal), hiking, sightseeing, photography, and wildlife observation experiences.
Within the Upland Zone, visitors engage in diverse non-motorized activities such as hiking, horseback riding, upland bird and big game hunting experiences and
landscape viewing. Both zones provide opportunities for friends and family to participate in scenic water based activities as well as upland recreation
experiences in a predominately undeveloped setting, realizing a moderate level of satisfaction for two or more recreation activities (i.e., 3.0 on a probability
scale where 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total satisfaction.)
TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES
(See final BLM Wallowa/Grande Ronde WSR Plan and Joseph Creek Suitable River Interim Guidance)
Activity Opportunities
Experience Opportunities & Outcomes
Benefit Opportunities & Outcomes
• Fishing for pleasure
Personal: Greater appreciation for family and friends and natural
• Steelhead and trout
• Being close to nature
landscapes. Greater environmental awareness with family &
fishing
• Pursue upland birds and
friends.
• Non-motorized boating • challenging big game hunting during seasons
Community/Social: Increased awareness of need for community
• Upland bird & big
• Being with family and friends in a river canyon & upland
involvement in public land stewardship.
• game hunting
landscape
Environmental: Increased awareness and compliance for
• Hiking
• Enjoying solitude and/or river canyon scenery while
protection of natural landscapes. Economic: Increased desirability
• Camping
participating in a favorite recreation activity.
as a place to visit. Increased contributions to local and regional
• Enjoying physical exercise
economy.
PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER: Primitive River
Grande Ronde River Segment 2(from Sheep Creek to Wildcat Creek) and the Joseph Creek Suitable River
Physical
Social
Administrative
Remoteness: Primitive (P) – Grande Social Encounters: Few contacts with other users, little, but some
Visitor Management:
Ronde River
evidence of other users. Small party size. Very few contacts while on Few on-site visitor management controls or
Appendices 2.7 – p. 30
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-12. SRMA: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
Grande Ronde River (from Sheep Creek to Wildcat Creek) and the Joseph Creek Suitable River
Back-Country(BC) – Joseph Creek
Naturalness: Primitive (P) – Grande
Ronde River
Back-Country (BC) – Joseph Creek
Facilities: Primitive (P)
the river (no more than 5) No more than one other party within sight or regulations may be expected. Contact with
sound of a campsite.
management personnel is in-frequent. On nonVisitor Impacts: Natural ecosystems operate freely. Human impacts guided or guided trips, visitors perceive a low to
are generally limited to campsites of small to moderate size.
moderate degree of challenge and risk. On-site
Unnoticeable impacts, no site hardening or modification of camp
regimentation and controls are not noticeable.
areas.
RELATED MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS: RIVER AND UPLAND RMZS
Wallowa/Grande Ronde WSR Plan: Provide primitive, non-motorized public access to river for fishing and rafting, kayaking, boating,
camping in river area, emphasizing non-motorized river-related activities consistent with Wallowa/Grande Ronde River Plan and Joseph
Recreation, Travel,
Creek Suitable rive segment interim guidance. Seek viable partnership opportunities with user groups, private landowners, county, federal
and Visual
and State agencies to provide stated recreation opportunities. Monitor river and upland visitor satisfaction based on stated plan monitoring
Resource
indicators and objectives for physical, social and managerial LAC for this river segment.
Management
OHV: Closed to motorized use under all Alternatives
VRI & VRM: Class I under all alternatives for the Grande Ronde. VRM class I for the Joseph Creek Suitable segment under alternative
1,3,4,5 and VRM class II under Alternative 2.
Appendices 2.7 – p. 31
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-13. SRMA: SHEEP MOUNTAIN, HOMESTEAD, MCGRAW WSAs AND LANDS WITH WILDERNESS
CHARACTERISTICS
SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY
SRMA MARKET
Local communities in Baker, Union, Wallowa, and Asotin counties
Undeveloped
Sheep Mountain, Homestead, McGraw WSAs and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
River and Upland Recreation Management Zone
MARKET NICHE
Visitors engage in cross-country hiking and primitive overnight camping, big game and upland hunting, hiking, horseback riding, water activities,
boating, photography and educational studies in challenging terrain. Recreation activities within the Sheep Mountain, Homestead, and McGraw
Creek WSAs and lands with wilderness characteristics are managed to protect character values and provide primitive, unconfined recreation
opportunities listed above. Visitors value these primitive landscapes and enjoy participating in these challenging recreation activities with friends
and family
OUTCOME OBJECTIVE
Visitors engage in cross-country hiking and primitive overnight camping, big game and upland hunting, hiking, horseback riding, water activities,
boating, photography and educational studies within WSAs and lands with wilderness characteristics. Visitors enjoy and value challenging
primitive, unconfined recreation activities with family and friends in a predominately undeveloped and rugged setting, realizing a moderate level
of satisfaction for two or more recreation activities (i.e. 3.0 on a scale where 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = moderate; 4 = total satisfaction..
TARGETED OPPORTUNITIES & OUTCOMES
Activity
Experience Opportunities
Benefit Opportunities
Opportunities
& Outcomes
& Outcomes
Personal: Improved physical fitness; stronger ties with
• Enjoying physical exercise
• Hiking
family & friends, improved mental well-being, greater
• Being with family and friends
• Horseback riding
environmental awareness.
• Big game and upland hunting • Enjoying solitude
Community/Social: Greater family and friend bonding,
• Enjoying challenging hunting and fishing
• Fishing
improved image of land management agencies, enlarged
opportunities
• Back-country exploration
sense of community dependency and value of public
• Learning more about natural resources
• Photography of natural
lands.
• Increasing back-country skills in challenging
landscapes
Environmental: Increased awareness and need to
environments
• Camping
protect natural landscapes and greater environmental
• Increased self-confidence
• Boating/water activities
stewardship.
• Escaping daily responsibilities
• Educational studies
Economic: Positive contribution to local economy.
Appendices 2.7 – p. 32
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.7: Recreation Management Areas
TABLE 2.7-13. SRMA: SHEEP MOUNTAIN, HOMESTEAD, MCGRAW WSAs AND LANDS WITH WILDERNESS
CHARACTERISTICS
RATIONALE FOR PRESCRIBED SETTING CHARACTER:
Back Country/Primitive
Physical
Social
Administrative
Mechanized Use: WSA/Lands with Wilderness
Remoteness: Middle Country (MC)
Contacts: Back -Country (BC)
Characteristics Use Range:
Naturalness: Back-Country (BC)
Group size: Back-Country (BC)
Back-Country (BC), Primitive (P), Middle Country (MC)
Facilities: None (P)
Evidence of Use: Back-Country (BC)
Visitor Services: Back-Country (BC)
Management Controls: Back-Country (BC)
RELATED MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS: RIVER AND UPLAND RMZS
Recreation and Travel Management:
Sheep Mountain, Homestead and McGraw WSAs: Closed to OHV use in all alternatives.
Recreation, Travel,
Lands with wilderness characteristics: Closed or Limited to roads and trails in all alternatives
and Visual Resource
Visual Resource Management:
Management
WSAs: VRM I for all Alternatives.
Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: At VRI and VRM levels I or II for all alternatives.
Appendices 2.7 – p. 33
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.8: ERMAs
APPENDIX 2.8: EXTENSIVE RECREATION MANAGEMENT
AREA (ERMA) DIRECTION
Under all alternatives, areas not identified as a Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA)
would subsequently be considered as a specific Extensive Recreation Management Area
(ERMA) due to amounts of use, conflicts or other resource concerns (see Chapter 2 – Goals and
Management Objectives for designations by alternative). The remaining public lands would be
referred to as the Baker Field Office ERMA. Recreation use is dispersed in these locations and
would generally require limited, or no BLM management. The only exception may be during big
game hunting seasons, the time of year when public trespass and regulation violations are most
numerous. The BLM would continue to provide basic public information through maps of
public lands available at the BLM Baker Field Office and Vale District Office, and provide
information regarding recreation opportunities.
Recreation management direction on the lands designated as ERMAs will continue to be to
“provide opportunities for land and water based activities” if only at a basic level. Under this
direction, specific objectives for the management of ERMAs is to help protect resource values,
reduce conflicts with public land users and adjacent private landowners, and provide for public
health and safety. If these management actions do not mitigate public safety issues, resource
damage concerns, or visitor use conflicts, BLM will develop and tailor specific actions to resolve
these concerns.
Table 2.8-1. Recreation Management Areas by Alternative
Alternative
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SRMAs
Snake River Breaks
Lookout Mountain
Virtue Flat OHV Area
Wild and Scenic Rivers
NHOTIC
South Fork Walla Walla River
Grande Ronde River (Washington)
Snake River Breaks
Virtue Flat OHV Area
Wild and Scenic Rivers
NHOTIC
South Fork Walla Walla River
Snake River/Mormon Basin Backcountry Byway
Snake River Breaks
Lookout Mountain
Virtue Flat OHV Area
Wild and Scenic Rivers
NHOTIC
South Fork Walla Walla River
Grande Ronde River (Washington)
WSA/Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
Snake River/Mormon Basin Backcountry Byway
Burnt River
Appendices 2.8 – p. 1
ERMAs
• WSA/Lands with Wilderness
Characteristics
• Snake River/Mormon Basin
Backcountry Byway
• Burnt River
• Baker Field Office ERMA
• WSAs/Lands with Wilderness
Characteristics
• Burnt River
• Lookout Mountain
• Grande Ronde River (Washington)
• Baker Field Office ERMA
• Baker Field Office ERMA
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.8: ERMAs
Table 2.8-1. Recreation Management Areas by Alternative
Alternative
•
•
Alternative 4, 5,
•
& 5a
•
•
SRMAs
Snake River Breaks
Virtue Flat OHV Area
Wild and Scenic Rivers
NHOTIC
Snake River/Mormon Basin Backcountry Byway
Appendices 2.8 – p. 2
ERMAs
• WSAs/Lands with Wilderness
Characteristics
• Burnt River
• Lookout Mountain
• Grande Ronde River (Washington)
• South Fork Walla Walla River
• Baker Field Office ERMA
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 2.9: ACEC Monitoring Form
APPENDIX 2.9: AREA OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCERN MONITORING FORM
OBSERVATION RECORD - AREA OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
This form to be completed annually for each ACEC/RNA
ACEC (ACEC/RNA) Name:
Acres of public land:
Relevant and Important Values:
Date:
Observer(s):
1. Nature of inspection (e.g. drove, walked):
Time:
2. Signs of disturbance/new projects (e.g. vehicle, foot traffic, camps, cattle, sheep, fire) and
estimates on when disturbance took place:
3. Physical condition (e.g. weeds, wildlife noted, vegetation health, weather conditions):
4. Overall condition and general observations (Fences maintained, gates closed) :
5. Are relevant and important values being protected? If not, what is happening?
6. Are management actions being implemented? If not, list what is non-compliant:
7. If values are affected and/or management actions are not implemented provide
recommendations for becoming compliant:
8. Establish permanent photo monitoring point(s) to document relevant and important values
conditions and issues identified in the RMP issues matrix.
Appendices 2.9 – p. 1
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
APPENDIX 3.1: 303(D) LISTED STREAMS WITHIN THE DECISION AREA
Table 3.1-1. 303(d) Listed Streams within the Decision Area
Season
Parameter
LLID
Stream Name
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
1169095450086
1170117450568
1170207448719
1170244450629
Summer
Temperature
1170647449871
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
1170828449534
1171019449931
1171430449898
1169095450086
1170244450629
1171430449898
1169416450198
1170207448719
1170207448719
1169416450198
1170299448659
1170508447455
Elk Creek
Aspen Creek
East Pine Creek
Big Elk Creek
Okanogan
Creek
Beecher Creek
Trail Creek
Meadow Creek
Elk Creek
Big Elk Creek
Meadow Creek
Lake Fork
East Pine Creek
East Pine Creek
Lake Fork
Clear Creek
Powder River
Year
Around
Mercury
1190296461886
Snake River
Year
Around
Mercury
1190296461886
Snake River
Year
Around
Mercury
1190296461886
Snake River
Criteria
Subbasin
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
Brownlee Reservoir
Brownlee Reservoir
Brownlee Reservoir
Brownlee Reservoir
Bull Trout: 10.0 C
Bull Trout: 10.0 C
Bull Trout: 10.0 C
Bull Trout: 10.0 C
17050201
17050201
17050201
17050201
Rearing: 17.8 C
17050201 Brownlee Reservoir
Rearing: 17.8 C
Bull Trout: 10.0 C
Bull Trout: 10.0 C
Bull Trout: 10.0 C
Bull Trout: 10.0 C
Bull Trout: 10.0 C
Rearing: 17.8 C
Rearing: 17.8 C
Bull Trout: 10.0 C
Rearing: 17.8 C
Bull Trout: 10.0 C
Rearing: 17.8 C
. . . Where no published EPA criteria exist for a toxic
substance, public health advisories and other published
scientific literature may be considered and used, if
appropriate, to set guidance values.
. . . Where no published EPA criteria exist for a toxic
substance, public health advisories and other published
scientific literature may be considered and used, if
appropriate, to set guidance values.
. . . Where no published EPA criteria exist for a toxic
substance, public health advisories and other published
scientific literature may be considered and used, if
17050201
17050201
17050201
17050201
17050201
17050201
17050201
17050201
17050201
17050201
17050201
17050201
Appendices 3.1 – p. 1
Brownlee Reservoir
Brownlee Reservoir
Brownlee Reservoir
Brownlee Reservoir
Brownlee Reservoir
Brownlee Reservoir
Brownlee Reservoir
Brownlee Reservoir
Brownlee Reservoir
Brownlee Reservoir
Brownlee Reservoir
Brownlee Reservoir
17050201 Brownlee Reservoir
17050201 Brownlee Reservoir
17050201 Brownlee Reservoir
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-1. 303(d) Listed Streams within the Decision Area
Season
Parameter
LLID
Summer
Summer
Temperature
Temperature
1170207448719
1170299448659
Year
Around
Mercury
1190296461886
Undefined Sedimentation 1181103444227
Summer
Temperature
1181103444228
Summer
Summer
Temperature
Temperature
1182170445700
1182793446403
Undefined Sedimentation 1182793446403
Undefined Sedimentation 1183905446706
Summer
Temperature
1183291446668
Undefined Sedimentation 1183291446668
Summer
Temperature
1181903445028
Summer
Chlorophyll a
1172299443641
Stream Name
Criteria
appropriate, to set guidance values.
East Pine Creek Rearing: 17.8 C
Clear Creek
Bull Trout: 10.0 C
. . . Where no published EPA criteria exist for a toxic
substance, public health advisories and other published
Snake River
scientific literature may be considered and used, if
appropriate, to set guidance values.
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
Camp Creek
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
East Camp
Rearing: 17.8 C
Creek
China Creek
Rearing: 17.8 C
Trout Creek
Rearing: 17.8 C
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
Trout Creek
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
Geiser Creek
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
Patrick Creek Rearing: 17.8 C
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
Patrick Creek
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
North Fork
Rearing: 17.8 C
Burnt River
Reservoir, river, estuary, non-thermally stratified lake:
Burnt River
0.015 mg/l
Appendices 3.1 – p. 2
Subbasin
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
17050201 Brownlee Reservoir
17050201 Brownlee Reservoir
17050201 Brownlee Reservoir
17050202 Burnt River
17050202 Burnt River
17050202 Burnt River
17050202 Burnt River
17050202 Burnt River
17050202 Burnt River
17050202 Burnt River
17050202 Burnt River
17050202 Burnt River
17050202 Burnt River
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-1. 303(d) Listed Streams within the Decision Area
Season
Parameter
LLID
Stream Name
Summer
Chlorophyll a
1172299443641
Burnt River
Year
Around
Mercury
1190296461886
Snake River
Year
Around
Mercury
1190296461886
Snake River
Summer
Temperature
1167558457535
Summer
Summer
Summer
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
1170649457215
1170858457203
1171526457055
Undefined Sedimentation 1171526457055
Undefined Sedimentation 1171565457145
Undefined Sedimentation 1169845460718
Undefined Sedimentation 1169845460718
Summer
Fecal Coliform 1177853457255
Lightning
Creek
Salmon Creek
Peavine Creek
Elk Creek
Criteria
Reservoir, river, estuary, non-thermally stratified lake:
0.015 mg/l
. . . Where no published EPA criteria exist for a toxic
substance, public health advisories and other published
scientific literature may be considered and used, if
appropriate, to set guidance values.
. . . Where no published EPA criteria exist for a toxic
substance, public health advisories and other published
scientific literature may be considered and used, if
appropriate, to set guidance values.
Rearing: 17.8 C
Rearing: 17.8 C
Rearing: 17.8 C
Rearing: 17.8 C
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
Elk Creek
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
Chesnimnus
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
Creek
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
Grande Ronde the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
River
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
Grande Ronde the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
River
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
Wallowa River Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no
Appendices 3.1 – p. 3
Subbasin
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
17050202 Burnt River
17060101 Hells Canyon
17060101 Hells Canyon
17060102 Imnaha River
17060106 Lower Grande Ronde
17060106 Lower Grande Ronde
17060106 Lower Grande Ronde
17060106 Lower Grande Ronde
17060106 Lower Grande Ronde
17060106 Lower Grande Ronde
17060106 Lower Grande Ronde
17060106 Lower Grande Ronde
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-1. 303(d) Listed Streams within the Decision Area
Season
Parameter
LLID
Undefined Sedimentation 1177853457255
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
1197507448999
1199127450306
1204849449499
1201704445718
Summer
Temperature
1204243455973
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
1202100445837
1202784446777
1203065447366
1203065447366
Undefined
Biological
Criteria
1204472449061
Undefined
Biological
Criteria
1204472449061
Year
Around
Mercury
1190296461886
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
1189691450566
1193071450426
1184504447748
1186439451634
1186964451690
1187654451886
1187925451660
Stream Name
Criteria
more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
Wallowa River
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
Henry Creek
Rearing: 17.8 C
Stahl Canyon Rearing: 17.8 C
Sorefoot Creek Rearing: 17.8 C
Nelson Creek Rearing: 17.8 C
Grass Valley
Rearing: 17.8 C
Canyon
Gable Creek
Rearing: 17.8 C
Bear Creek
Rearing: 17.8 C
Bridge Creek Rearing: 17.8 C
Bridge Creek Rearing: 17.8 C
Biocriteria: Waters of the state must be of sufficient
Pine Creek
quality to support aquatic species without detrimental
changes in the resident biological communities.
Biocriteria: Waters of the state must be of sufficient
Pine Creek
quality to support aquatic species without detrimental
changes in the resident biological communities.
. . . Where no published EPA criteria exist for a toxic
substance, public health advisories and other published
Snake River
scientific literature may be considered and used, if
appropriate, to set guidance values.
Bridge Creek Rearing: 17.8 C
Stalder Creek Rearing: 17.8 C
Beaver Creek Rearing: 17.8 C
Frazier Creek Rearing: 17.8 C
Bowman Creek Rearing: 17.8 C
Lane Creek
Rearing: 17.8 C
Hidaway Creek Rearing: 17.8 C
Appendices 3.1 – p. 4
Subbasin
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
17060106 Lower Grande Ronde
17070204
17070204
17070204
17070204
Lower John Day
Lower John Day
Lower John Day
Lower John Day
17070204 Lower John Day
17070204
17070204
17070204
17070204
Lower John Day
Lower John Day
Lower John Day
Lower John Day
17070204 Lower John Day
17070204 Lower John Day
17060103 Lower Snake-Asotin
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
North Fork John Day
North Fork John Day
North Fork John Day
North Fork John Day
North Fork John Day
North Fork John Day
North Fork John Day
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-1. 303(d) Listed Streams within the Decision Area
Season
Summer
Summer
Summer
Parameter
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
LLID
1188422451575
1192839449723
1194313449697
Undefined Sedimentation 1183176449098
Summer
Temperature
1184252448079
Undefined Sedimentation 1184252448079
Summer
Temperature
1184777448936
Undefined Sedimentation 1185615448659
Undefined Sedimentation 1194087449980
Summer
Temperature
1194087449980
Undefined Sedimentation 1194607450375
Undefined Sedimentation 1196351449967
Summer
Summer
Temperature
Temperature
1184500448213
1189608451319
Stream Name
Criteria
Cable Creek
Rearing: 17.8 C
Mallory Creek Rearing: 17.8 C
Skookum Creek Rearing: 17.8 C
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
Baldy Creek
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
Bull Run Creek Rearing: 17.8 C
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
Bull Run Creek
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
Crane Creek
Bull Trout: 10.0 C
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
Granite Creek
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
Swale Creek
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
Swale Creek
Rearing: 17.8 C
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
Hog Creek
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
Porter Creek
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
Clear Creek
Rearing: 17.8 C
Owens Creek Rearing: 17.8 C
Appendices 3.1 – p. 5
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
17070202 North Fork John Day
17070202 North Fork John Day
17070202 North Fork John Day
Subbasin
17070202 North Fork John Day
17070202 North Fork John Day
17070202 North Fork John Day
17070202 North Fork John Day
17070202 North Fork John Day
17070202 North Fork John Day
17070202 North Fork John Day
17070202 North Fork John Day
17070202 North Fork John Day
17070202 North Fork John Day
17070202 North Fork John Day
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-1. 303(d) Listed Streams within the Decision Area
Season
Summer
Summer
Parameter
Temperature
Temperature
LLID
1189855450726
1192754449735
Undefined Sedimentation 1194539450514
Summer
Temperature
1186261451759
Summer
Temperature
1187541451837
Undefined Sedimentation 1195699449241
Summer
Summer
Summer
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
1195699449241
1186830449604
1192943449516
Undefined
Biological
Criteria
1194050447763
Undefined
Biological
Criteria
1194194448139
Undefined Sedimentation 1194101448830
Spring/
Summer
Summer
Turbidity
1174338449687
Temperature
1181554450189
Summer
Temperature
1179697446686
Stream Name
Criteria
Fivemile Creek Rearing: 17.8 C
Potamus Creek Rearing: 17.8 C
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
Alder Creek
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
Rancheria
Rearing: 17.8 C
Creek
Bear Wallow
Rearing: 17.8 C
Creek
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
Wilson Creek
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
Wilson Creek Rearing: 17.8 C
Big Creek
Rearing: 17.8 C
Ditch Creek
Rearing: 17.8 C
East Fork
Biocriteria: Waters of the state must be of sufficient
Cottonwood
quality to support aquatic species without detrimental
Creek
changes in the resident biological communities.
Biocriteria: Waters of the state must be of sufficient
Cottonwood
quality to support aquatic species without detrimental
Creek
changes in the resident biological communities.
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
Big Wall Creek
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
East Fork
10% increase Nephelometric Turbidity Units
Goose Creek
Indian Creek
Bull Trout: 10.0 C
California
Rearing: 17.8 C
Gulch
Appendices 3.1 – p. 6
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
17070202 North Fork John Day
17070202 North Fork John Day
Subbasin
17070202 North Fork John Day
17070202 North Fork John Day
17070202 North Fork John Day
17070202 North Fork John Day
17070202 North Fork John Day
17070202 North Fork John Day
17070202 North Fork John Day
17070202 North Fork John Day
17070202 North Fork John Day
17070202 North Fork John Day
17050203 Powder River
17050203 Powder River
17050203 Powder River
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-1. 303(d) Listed Streams within the Decision Area
Season
Parameter
LLID
Stream Name
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
1180600450132
1178407447242
1180547446808
1180600450132
1170508447455
Anthony Creek
Elk Creek
Dean Creek
Anthony Creek
Powder River
North Powder
River
Silver Creek
Summer
Temperature
1178956450385
Summer
Temperature
1182078448087
Summer
Fecal Coliform 1170508447455
Powder River
Criteria
Subbasin
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
Powder River
Powder River
Powder River
Powder River
Powder River
Bull Trout: 10.0 C
Rearing: 17.8 C
Rearing: 17.8 C
Bull Trout: 10.0 C
Rearing: 17.8 C
17050203
17050203
17050203
17050203
17050203
Rearing: 17.8 C
17050203 Powder River
17050203 Powder River
17050203
17050203
17050203
17050203
17050203
17050203
Fall/Winter
/ Spring
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Year
Around
Fecal Coliform 1170508447455
Powder River
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
1170508447455
1170508447455
1170508447455
1170508447455
1170508447455
1170508447455
Powder River
Powder River
Powder River
Powder River
Powder River
Powder River
Bull Trout: 10.0 C
Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no
more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml
Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no
more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml
Rearing: 17.8 C
Rearing: 17.8 C
Rearing: 17.8 C
Rearing: 17.8 C
Rearing: 17.8 C
Rearing: 17.8 C
Nitrates
1184788457997
Athena Spring
Table 20 Toxic Substances
17070103 Umatilla
Summer
Temperature
1175553454853
Bull Trout: 10.0 C
17060105 Wallowa River
Summer
Temperature
1176996456197
Bull Trout: 10.0 C
Formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
formation of any organic or inorganic deposits deleterious
to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health,
recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
17060105 Wallowa River
Little Bear
Creek
Deer Creek
Undefined Sedimentation 1174900455521
Lostine River
Undefined Sedimentation 1175411455843
Bear Creek
Undefined Sedimentation 1175411455843
Bear Creek
Appendices 3.1 – p. 7
17050203 Powder River
17050203 Powder River
Powder River
Powder River
Powder River
Powder River
Powder River
Powder River
17060105 Wallowa River
17060105 Wallowa River
17060105 Wallowa River
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-1. 303(d) Listed Streams within the Decision Area
Season
Parameter
LLID
Undefined Sedimentation 1173021454196
Fall/Winter
/ Spring
Spring/
Summer
Fall/Winter
/ Spring
Spring/
Summer
Fall/Winter
/ Spring
Spring/
Summer
Stream Name
Hurricane
Creek
Criteria
Subbasin
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
17060105 Wallowa River
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no
17060105 Wallowa River
more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml
Fecal Coliform 1173098454242
Spring Creek
Dissolved
Oxygen
1173098454242
Spring Creek
Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of saturation
17060105 Wallowa River
Fecal Coliform 1173098454242
Spring Creek
17060105 Wallowa River
Dissolved
Oxygen
Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no
more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml
1173098454242
Spring Creek
Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of saturation
17060105 Wallowa River
Fecal Coliform 1172966454199
Prairie Creek
17060105 Wallowa River
Dissolved
Oxygen
Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no
more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml
Prairie Creek
Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of saturation
17060105 Wallowa River
1172966454199
Undefined Sedimentation 1172966454199
Fall/Winter
Fecal Coliform 1172966454199
/ Spring
Spring/
Dissolved
1172966454199
Summer
Oxygen
Prairie Creek
Prairie Creek
Prairie Creek
Undefined Sedimentation 1172966454199
Prairie Creek
Fall/Winter Fecal Coliform 1172966454199
Prairie Creek
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
17060105 Wallowa River
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no
17060105 Wallowa River
more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml
Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of saturation
17060105 Wallowa River
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
17060105 Wallowa River
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no 17060105 Wallowa River
Appendices 3.1 – p. 8
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-1. 303(d) Listed Streams within the Decision Area
Season
/ Spring
Spring/
Summer
Parameter
Dissolved
Oxygen
LLID
Stream Name
Criteria
more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml
1172966454199
Prairie Creek
Undefined Sedimentation 1172966454199
Prairie Creek
Undefined Sedimentation 1177211456214
Minam River
Summer
Fecal Coliform 1177853457255
Wallowa River
Undefined Sedimentation 1177853457255
Wallowa River
Summer
Fecal Coliform 1177853457255
Wallowa River
Undefined Sedimentation 1177853457255
Wallowa River
Summer
Fecal Coliform 1177853457255
Wallowa River
Undefined Sedimentation 1177853457255
Wallowa River
Summer
Fecal Coliform 1177853457255
Wallowa River
Undefined Sedimentation 1177853457255
Wallowa River
Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of saturation
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no
more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no
more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no
more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no
more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
Appendices 3.1 – p. 9
Subbasin
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
17060105 Wallowa River
17060105 Wallowa River
17060105 Wallowa River
17060105 Wallowa River
17060105 Wallowa River
17060105 Wallowa River
17060105 Wallowa River
17060105 Wallowa River
17060105 Wallowa River
17060105 Wallowa River
17060105 Wallowa River
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-1. 303(d) Listed Streams within the Decision Area
Season
Parameter
LLID
Fall/Winter
Fecal Coliform 1173098454242
/ Spring
Spring/
Dissolved
1173098454242
Summer
Oxygen
Summer
Fecal Coliform 1177853457255
Undefined Sedimentation 1177853457255
Summer
Fecal Coliform 1195436453461
Stream Name
Spring Creek
Spring Creek
Criteria
Subbasin
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no
17060105 Wallowa River
more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml
Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of saturation
17060105 Wallowa River
Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no
17060105 Wallowa River
more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml
The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or
the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits
Wallowa River
17060105 Wallowa River
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public
health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.
Fecal coliform log mean of 200 organisms per 100 ml; no
Balm Fork
17070104 Willow (Morrow Co)
more than 10% > 400 per 100 ml
Wallowa River
Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed
Season
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
Parameter
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
LLID
Stream Name
Temperature
1171006446374
Quicksand Creek
Temperature
1172197444852
Morgan Creek
Temperature
1168539449735
Pine Creek
Temperature
1168539449735
Pine Creek
Temperature
1168539449735
Pine Creek
Temperature
1168539449735
Pine Creek
Temperature
1168539449735
Pine Creek
Criteria
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
Appendices 3.1 – p. 10
Subbasin
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
17050201
Brownlee Reservoir
17050201
Brownlee Reservoir
17050201
Brownlee Reservoir
17050201
Brownlee Reservoir
17050201
Brownlee Reservoir
17050201
Brownlee Reservoir
17050201
Brownlee Reservoir
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed
Season
Parameter
(Non-spawning)
January 1 - May Dissolved
15
Oxygen
Year Around
Temperature
(Non-spawning)
Summer
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
January 1 - May
15
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
January 1 - May
15
Year Around
LLID
Stream Name
1172299443641
Burnt River
1172299443641
Burnt River
E Coli
1172299443641
Burnt River
Temperature
1174704445795
Lawrence Creek
Temperature
1173304444463
Dixie Creek
Temperature
1176633444892
Cottonwood Creek
Temperature
1177428444890
Auburn Creek
Temperature
1174704445795
Lawrence Creek
Temperature
1176920445381
Dark Canyon
Temperature
1174506444498
Temperature
1174506444499
Temperature
1177276445037
Clarks Creek
Dissolved
Oxygen
1172299443641
Burnt River
Temperature
1172299443641
Burnt River
1172299443641
Burnt River
1172299443641
Burnt River
Dissolved
Oxygen
Temperature
North Fork Dixie
Creek
South Fork Dixie
Creek
Criteria
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of
saturation
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100
ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of
saturation
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of
saturation
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
Appendices 3.1 – p. 11
Subbasin
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
17050201
Brownlee Reservoir
17050201
Brownlee Reservoir
17050201
Brownlee Reservoir
17050202
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed
Season
Parameter
LLID
Stream Name
(Non-spawning)
Summer
E Coli
January 1 - May Dissolved
15
Oxygen
Year Around
Temperature
(Non-spawning)
1172299443641
Burnt River
1172299443641
Burnt River
1172299443641
Burnt River
Summer
E Coli
1172299443641
Burnt River
January 1 - May
15
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
January 1 - June
15
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
Dissolved
Oxygen
1172299443641
Burnt River
Temperature
1172299443641
Burnt River
Temperature
1167649458167
Imnaha River
Temperature
1167917454022
Freezeout Creek
Temperature
1168454452317
Crazyman Creek
Temperature
1168602455202
Little Sheep Creek
Temperature
1168724451806
Gumboot Creek
Temperature
1168775451506
Dry Creek
Temperature
1168058453281
Grouse Creek
Temperature
1168058453281
Grouse Creek
Temperature
1168347455572
Big Sheep Creek
Temperature
1167649458167
Imnaha River
Criteria
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100
ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml
Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of
saturation
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100
ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml
Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of
saturation
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees
Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0
Appendices 3.1 – p. 12
Subbasin
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
17050202
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
17060101
Hells Canyon
17060102
Imnaha River
17060102
Imnaha River
17060102
Imnaha River
17060102
Imnaha River
17060102
Imnaha River
17060102
Imnaha River
17060102
Imnaha River
17060102
Imnaha River
17060102
Imnaha River
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed
Season
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
August 1 - June
15
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
August 1 - June
15
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
Parameter
LLID
Stream Name
Temperature
1167649458167
Imnaha River
Temperature
1167649458167
Imnaha River
Temperature
1167649458167
Imnaha River
Temperature
1167649458167
Imnaha River
Temperature
1167649458167
Imnaha River
Temperature
1167649458167
Imnaha River
Temperature
1170059460526
Joseph Creek
Temperature
1173955459872
Grouse Creek
Temperature
1174728458987
Mud Creek
Temperature
1174992458487
Wallupa Creek
Temperature
1175800458802
Sickfoot Creek
Temperature
1174943458963
Wildcat Creek
Temperature
1170059460526
Joseph Creek
Temperature
1171565457144
Crow Creek
Temperature
1174422459325
Courtney Creek
Temperature
1171565457145
Chesnimnus Creek
Criteria
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees
Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees
Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
Appendices 3.1 – p. 13
Subbasin
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
17060102
Imnaha River
17060102
Imnaha River
17060102
Imnaha River
17060102
Imnaha River
17060102
Imnaha River
17060102
Imnaha River
17060106
17060106
17060106
17060106
17060106
17060106
17060106
17060106
17060106
17060106
Lower Grande
Ronde
Lower Grande
Ronde
Lower Grande
Ronde
Lower Grande
Ronde
Lower Grande
Ronde
Lower Grande
Ronde
Lower Grande
Ronde
Lower Grande
Ronde
Lower Grande
Ronde
Lower Grande
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed
Season
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
August 15 June 15
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
January 1 - May
15
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Parameter
LLID
Stream Name
Temperature
1174512459454
Wenaha River
Temperature
1174512459454
Wenaha River
Temperature
1174512459454
Wenaha River
Temperature
1169845460718
Grande Ronde River
Temperature
1169845460718
Grande Ronde River
Dissolved
Oxygen
1169845460718
Grande Ronde River
Temperature
1169845460718
Grande Ronde River
Temperature
1177853457255
Wallowa River
Summer
E Coli
1177853457255
Wallowa River
Summer
pH
1177853457255
Wallowa River
January 1 - May
15
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
Dissolved
Oxygen
1169845460718
Temperature
1169845460718
Temperature
1198759450734
Temperature
1201398449604
Temperature
1203607455057
Temperature
1200023447970
Criteria
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees
Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of
saturation
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100
ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml
pH 6.5 to 9.0
Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of
saturation
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
Grande Ronde River
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
Brown Creek
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
Straw Fork
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
Hay Creek
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Service Creek
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
Grande Ronde River
Appendices 3.1 – p. 14
Subbasin
17060106
17060106
17060106
17060106
17060106
17060106
17060106
17060106
17060106
17060106
17060106
17060106
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
Ronde
Lower Grande
Ronde
Lower Grande
Ronde
Lower Grande
Ronde
Lower Grande
Ronde
Lower Grande
Ronde
Lower Grande
Ronde
Lower Grande
Ronde
Lower Grande
Ronde
Lower Grande
Ronde
Lower Grande
Ronde
Lower Grande
Ronde
Lower Grande
Ronde
17070204
Lower John Day
17070204
Lower John Day
17070204
Lower John Day
17070204
Lower John Day
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed
Season
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Fall/Winter/Spri
ng
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Fall/Winter/
Spring
Year Around
Parameter
LLID
Stream Name
Criteria
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and steelhead migration corridors: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and steelhead migration corridors: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and steelhead migration corridors: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and steelhead migration corridors: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Subbasin
Temperature
1203607455057
Hay Creek
Temperature
1204052455767
Rock Creek
Temperature
1204692451626
Thirtymile Creek
Temperature
1204052455767
Rock Creek
Temperature
1204052455767
Rock Creek
Temperature
1200023447970
Service Creek
Temperature
1204472449061
Pine Creek
Temperature
1206499457318
John Day River
Temperature
1204472449061
Pine Creek
Temperature
1206499457318
John Day River
Temperature
1206499457318
John Day River
Temperature
1240483462464
Columbia River
pH
1240483462464
Columbia River
pH 7.0 to 8.5
17070101
Temperature
1240483462464
Columbia River
Salmon and steelhead migration corridors: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
17070101
pH
1240483462464
Columbia River
pH 7.0 to 8.5
17070101
Temperature
1240483462464
Columbia River
Salmon and steelhead migration corridors: 20.0
17070101
Appendices 3.1 – p. 15
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
17070204
Lower John Day
17070204
Lower John Day
17070204
Lower John Day
17070204
Lower John Day
17070204
Lower John Day
17070204
Lower John Day
17070204
Lower John Day
17070204
Lower John Day
17070204
Lower John Day
17070204
Lower John Day
17070204
Lower John Day
17070101
Middle ColumbiaLake Wallula
Middle ColumbiaLake Wallula
Middle ColumbiaLake Wallula
Middle ColumbiaLake Wallula
Middle Columbia-
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed
Season
(Non-spawning)
Fall/Winter/
Spring
Fall/Winter/
Spring
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Fall/Winter/Spri
ng
Parameter
LLID
Stream Name
Criteria
Subbasin
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
pH
1240483462464
Columbia River
pH 7.0 to 8.5
17070101
pH
1240483462464
Columbia River
pH 7.0 to 8.5
17070101
Temperature
1240483462464
Columbia River
Salmon and steelhead migration corridors: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
17070101
pH
1240483462464
Columbia River
pH 7.0 to 8.5
17070101
Year Around
Iron
1193384459144
Umatilla River
Table 20 Toxic Substances
17070101
Year Around
Manganese
1193384459144
Umatilla River
Table 20 Toxic Substances
17070101
Temperature
1184946448414
Buck Creek
Temperature
1186888448197
North Fork
Desolation Creek
Temperature
1187361448455
Sponge Creek
Temperature
1187587450824
South Fork Cable
Creek
Temperature
1187808448786
Junkens Creek
Temperature
1195823447863
Rudio Creek
Temperature
1182983449150
Crawfish Creek
Temperature
1183896449368
South Trail Creek
Temperature
1183896449369
North Trail Creek
Temperature
1184006449127
Onion Creek
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0
Appendices 3.1 – p. 16
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
Lake Wallula
Middle ColumbiaLake Wallula
Middle ColumbiaLake Wallula
Middle ColumbiaLake Wallula
Middle ColumbiaLake Wallula
Middle ColumbiaLake Wallula
Middle ColumbiaLake Wallula
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed
Season
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
January 1 - June
15
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
January 1 - June
15
Year Around
Parameter
LLID
Stream Name
South Fork Cable
Creek
South Fork Cable
Creek
North Fork Cable
Creek
Temperature
1187587450824
Temperature
1187587450824
Temperature
1187587450825
Temperature
1183176449098
Baldy Creek
Temperature
1184063449155
Trail Creek
Temperature
1185615448659
Granite Creek
Temperature
1187587450825
North Fork Cable
Creek
Temperature
1185615448659
Granite Creek
Temperature
1189363449976
Desolation Creek
Temperature
1189961450100
Camas Creek
Temperature
1189961450100
Camas Creek
Temperature
1194981449297
Indian Creek
Temperature
1195823447863
Rudio Creek
Temperature
1189363449976
Desolation Creek
Temperature
1189363449976
Desolation Creek
Temperature
1189961450100
Camas Creek
Criteria
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees
Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees
Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7-
Appendices 3.1 – p. 17
Subbasin
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed
Season
(Non-spawning)
September 1 June 15
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
January 1 - June
15
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
September 1 June 15
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
September 1 June 15
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
Parameter
LLID
Stream Name
Temperature
1189961450100
Camas Creek
Temperature
1193015449167
Middle Fork John
Day River
Temperature
1186403449794
Meadow Creek
Temperature
1196393447553
North Fork John Day
River
Temperature
1194194448139
Cottonwood Creek
Temperature
1196393447553
Temperature
1196393447553
Temperature
1196393447553
Temperature
1196393447553
Temperature
1196393447553
Temperature
1196393447553
Temperature
1196393447553
Temperature
1196393447553
Temperature
1196393447553
Temperature
1194101448830
Big Wall Creek
Temperature
1196393447553
North Fork John Day
North Fork John Day
River
North Fork John Day
River
North Fork John Day
River
North Fork John Day
River
North Fork John Day
River
North Fork John Day
River
North Fork John Day
River
North Fork John Day
River
North Fork John Day
River
Criteria
day-average maximum
Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees
Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing: 12.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees
Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees
Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees
Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
Appendices 3.1 – p. 18
Subbasin
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
17070202
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed
Season
(Non-spawning)
January 1 - May
15
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
Year Around
Year Around
Year Around
Year Around
Year Around
Year Around
Year Around
Year Around
Year Around
Year Around
Year Around
Year Around
Year Around
Year Around
Year Around
Year Around
Year Around
Year Around
Year Around
Year Around
Year Around
Parameter
LLID
Stream Name
River
North Fork John Day
River
North Fork John Day
River
Dissolved
Oxygen
1196393447553
Temperature
1196393447553
Temperature
1174261448973
Sawmill Creek
Temperature
1178285447625
Sutton Creek
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Manganese
Iron
Manganese
Iron
Manganese
Iron
Manganese
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Manganese
1188411456684
1193296457950
1193384459144
1193384459144
1193384459144
1188411456684
1188411456684
1188815456558
1188815456558
1187658456785
1187658456785
1187658456785
1187658456785
1187658456785
1187658456785
1187658456785
1187658456785
1188411456684
1193384459144
1193384459144
1193384459144
1193384459144
McKay Creek
Butter Creek
Umatilla River
Umatilla River
Umatilla River
McKay Creek
McKay Creek
Birch Creek
Birch Creek
Wildhorse Creek
Wildhorse Creek
Wildhorse Creek
Wildhorse Creek
Wildhorse Creek
Wildhorse Creek
Wildhorse Creek
Wildhorse Creek
McKay Creek
Umatilla River
Umatilla River
Umatilla River
Umatilla River
Criteria
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of
saturation
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Appendices 3.1 – p. 19
Subbasin
17070202
17070202
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
Day
North Fork John
Day
North Fork John
Day
17050203
Powder River
17050203
Powder River
17070103
17070103
17070103
17070103
17070103
17070103
17070103
17070103
17070103
17070103
17070103
17070103
17070103
17070103
17070103
17070103
17070103
17070103
17070103
17070103
17070103
17070103
Umatilla
Umatilla
Umatilla
Umatilla
Umatilla
Umatilla
Umatilla
Umatilla
Umatilla
Umatilla
Umatilla
Umatilla
Umatilla
Umatilla
Umatilla
Umatilla
Umatilla
Umatilla
Umatilla
Umatilla
Umatilla
Umatilla
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed
Season
Year Around
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
January 1 - May
15
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
January 1 - May
15
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
Year Around
August 15 June 15
Year Around
Parameter
LLID
Stream Name
Iron
1193384459144
Umatilla River
Temperature
1169845460718
Grande Ronde River
Dissolved
Oxygen
1169845460718
Grande Ronde River
Temperature
1169845460718
Grande Ronde River
Dissolved
Oxygen
1169845460718
Grande Ronde River
Temperature
1169845460718
Grande Ronde River
Temperature
1169845460718
Grande Ronde River
Temperature
1169845460718
Grande Ronde River
Temperature
1169845460718
Grande Ronde River
Temperature
1169845460718
Grande Ronde River
Temperature
1169845460718
Grande Ronde River
Temperature
1169845460718
Grande Ronde River
Temperature
1169845460718
Grande Ronde River
Temperature
1169845460718
Grande Ronde River
Iron
Iron
1186528460280
1186528460280
Pine Creek
Pine Creek
Temperature
1175411455843
Bear Creek
Temperature
1177592456645
Fisher Creek
Criteria
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of
saturation
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Spawning: Not less than 11.0 mg/L or 95% of
saturation
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 18.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Table 20 Toxic Substances
Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees
Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7-
Appendices 3.1 – p. 20
17070102
17070102
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
Umatilla
Upper Grande
Ronde River
Upper Grande
Ronde River
Upper Grande
Ronde River
Upper Grande
Ronde River
Upper Grande
Ronde River
Upper Grande
Ronde River
Upper Grande
Ronde River
Upper Grande
Ronde River
Upper Grande
Ronde River
Upper Grande
Ronde River
Upper Grande
Ronde River
Upper Grande
Ronde River
Upper Grande
Ronde River
Walla Walla
Walla Walla
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
Subbasin
17070103
17060104
17060104
17060104
17060104
17060104
17060104
17060104
17060104
17060104
17060104
17060104
17060104
17060104
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed
Season
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
January 1 - June
15
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
January 1 - June
15
Year Around
(Non-spawning)
Summer
Parameter
LLID
Stream Name
Temperature
1177782456881
Howard Creek
Temperature
1177592456645
Fisher Creek
Temperature
1177592456645
Fisher Creek
Temperature
1177782456881
Howard Creek
Temperature
1177782456881
Howard Creek
Temperature
1175411455843
Bear Creek
E Coli
1172198454178
Prairie Creek
1175411455843
Bear Creek
1175411455843
Bear Creek
1177211456214
Minam River
Year Around
Temperature
(Non-spawning)
August 15 Temperature
June 15
Year Around
Temperature
(Non-spawning)
Summer
E Coli
1172966454199
Prairie Creek
Summer
E Coli
1172966454199
Prairie Creek
Summer
E Coli
1172966454199
Prairie Creek
1177211456214
Minam River
1177853457255
Wallowa River
1177853457255
Wallowa River
Year Around
Temperature
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
Temperature
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
Temperature
Criteria
day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees
Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees
Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100
ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
Salmon and steelhead spawning: 13.0 degrees
Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100
ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml
30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100
ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml
30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100
ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7-
Appendices 3.1 – p. 21
Subbasin
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed
Season
Parameter
LLID
Stream Name
(Non-spawning)
Summer
E Coli
Summer
pH
Year Around
Temperature
(Non-spawning)
Summer
E Coli
Summer
pH
Year Around
Temperature
(Non-spawning)
Summer
E Coli
Summer
pH
Year Around
Temperature
(Non-spawning)
Summer
E Coli
Summer
pH
Year Around
Temperature
(Non-spawning)
Summer
E Coli
Summer
pH
Year Around
Temperature
(Non-spawning)
Fall/Winter/
E Coli
Spring
Summer
E Coli
Year Around
Temperature
(Non-spawning)
1177853457255
Wallowa River
1177853457255
Wallowa River
1177853457255
Wallowa River
1177853457255
Wallowa River
1177853457255
Wallowa River
1177853457255
Wallowa River
1177853457255
Wallowa River
1177853457255
Wallowa River
1177853457255
Wallowa River
1177853457255
Wallowa River
1177853457255
Wallowa River
1177853457255
Wallowa River
1177853457255
Wallowa River
1177853457255
Wallowa River
1176055443389
Basin Creek
1172295439862
Willow Creek
1172295439862
Willow Creek
1200159457949
Willow Creek
Criteria
day-average maximum
30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100
ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml
pH 6.5 to 9.0
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100
ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml
pH 6.5 to 9.0
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100
ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml
pH 6.5 to 9.0
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100
ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml
pH 6.5 to 9.0
Core cold water habitat: 16.0 degrees Celsius 7day-average maximum
30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100
ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml
pH 6.5 to 9.0
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100
ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml
30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100
ml; no single sample > 406 organisms per 100 ml
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Appendices 3.1 – p. 22
Subbasin
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17060105
Wallowa River
17050119
Willow
17050119
Willow
17050119
Willow
17070104
Willow (Morrow
Co)
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-2. Cat 5: Water Quality Limited, 303(d) List, TMDL Needed
Season
Parameter
Year Around
Temperature
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
Temperature
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
Temperature
(Non-spawning)
Summer
pH
Year Around
Temperature
(Non-spawning)
Year Around
Temperature
(Non-spawning)
Summer
pH
LLID
Stream Name
1200159457949
Willow Creek
1200159457949
Willow Creek
1200159457949
Willow Creek
1200159457949
Willow Creek
1200159457949
Willow Creek
1200159457949
Willow Creek
1200159457949
Willow Creek
Criteria
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
pH 6.5 to 9.0
Subbasin
17070104
17070104
17070104
17070104
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout: 20.0
degrees Celsius 7-day-average maximum
pH 6.5 to 9.0
17070104
17070104
17070104
Table 3.1-3. Criteria Change or Use Clarification
Season
March 1 - June 30
March 1 - June 30
March 1 - June 30
March 1 - June 30
March 1 - June 30
Summer
March 1 - June 30
Parameter
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
LLID
1176633444892
1174704445795
1176920445381
1174506444498
1174506444499
1176196444807
1176196444807
Stream Name
Cottonwood Creek
Lawrence Creek
Dark Canyon
North Fork Dixie Creek
South Fork Dixie Creek
Pine Creek
Pine Creek
Criteria
Spawning: 12.8 C
Spawning: 12.8 C
Spawning: 12.8 C
Spawning: 12.8 C
Spawning: 12.8 C
Rearing: 17.8 C
Spawning: 12.8 C
Appendices 3.1 – p. 23
Subbasin
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
Willow (Morrow
Co)
Willow (Morrow
Co)
Willow (Morrow
Co)
Willow (Morrow
Co)
Willow (Morrow
Co)
Willow (Morrow
Co)
Willow (Morrow
Co)
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-4. Water Quality Limited not Needing a TMDL
Season
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Parameter
Flow Modification
Habitat Modification
Habitat Modification
Habitat Modification
Habitat Modification
Habitat Modification
Habitat Modification
Habitat Modification
Flow Modification
Habitat Modification
Habitat Modification
Habitat Modification
Habitat Modification
Habitat Modification
Habitat Modification
Flow Modification
Habitat Modification
Habitat Modification
Habitat Modification
Habitat Modification
Habitat Modification
Flow Modification
Habitat Modification
Habitat Modification
Habitat Modification
Habitat Modification
Habitat Modification
Habitat Modification
Habitat Modification
Flow Modification
LLID
Stream Name
1172299443641
1181386443244
1182878446504
1183174446879
1172795443628
1173702444979
1174105445327
1174710446846
1174784446009
1174929446509
1176020445670
1176137445597
1176162445537
1176704445464
1179840445200
1180954445016
1181103444226
1181103444227
1181103444228
1181636443732
1181903445029
1181903445029
1182170445700
1182793446403
1182935446721
1183905446706
1174704445795
1176920445381
1180404444936
1180404444936
Burnt River
King Creek
Camp Creek
Pinus Creek
Durbin Creek
Sisley Creek
Shirttail Creek
Sardine Creek
Alder Creek
Pritchard Creek
Hooker Gulch
Deer Creek
Cave Creek
French Gulch
Cow Creek
Beaverdam Creek
West Camp Creek
Camp Creek
East Camp Creek
Whiskey Creek
South Fork Burnt River
South Fork Burnt River
China Creek
Trout Creek
Gimlet Creek
Geiser Creek
Lawrence Creek
Dark Canyon
Water Gulch
Water Gulch
Appendices 3.1 – p. 24
Criteria
See below
Subbasin
17050201
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
17050202
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
Brownlee Reservoir
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Burnt River
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.1: 303(d) Listed Streams
Table 3.1-4. Water Quality Limited not Needing a TMDL
Subbasin Within
Decision Area
Undefined
Habitat Modification
1182878446504
Camp Creek
17050202
Burnt River
Undefined
Habitat Modification
1183174446879
Pinus Creek
17050202
Burnt River
Undefined
Habitat Modification
1183291446668
Patrick Creek
17050202
Burnt River
Undefined
Flow Modification
1183291446668
Patrick Creek
17050202
Burnt River
Undefined
Habitat Modification
1174506444498
North Fork Dixie Creek
17050202
Burnt River
Undefined
Habitat Modification
1174506444499
South Fork Dixie Creek
17050202
Burnt River
Undefined
Habitat Modification
1176196444807
Pine Creek
17050202
Burnt River
Undefined
Habitat Modification
1177276445037
Clarks Creek
17050202
Burnt River
Undefined
Flow Modification
1177276445037
Clarks Creek
17050202
Burnt River
Undefined
Habitat Modification
1179966444891
Big Creek
17050202
Burnt River
Undefined
Habitat Modification
1181903445028
North Fork Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
Undefined
Flow Modification
1181903445028
North Fork Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
Undefined
Habitat Modification
1182082445197
West Fork Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
Undefined
Habitat Modification
1181965445059
Middle Fork Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
Undefined
Flow Modification
1181965445059
Middle Fork Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
Undefined
Habitat Modification
1172299443641
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
Undefined
Flow Modification
1172299443641
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
Undefined
Habitat Modification
1172299443641
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
Undefined
Flow Modification
1172299443641
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
Undefined
Habitat Modification
1172299443641
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
Undefined
Flow Modification
1172299443641
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
Undefined
Habitat Modification
1172299443641
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
Undefined
Flow Modification
1172299443641
Burnt River
17050202
Burnt River
Criteria is the same for all Streams in this Criteria, which is as follows: The creation of tastes or odors or toxic or other conditions that are deleterious to fish or
other aquatic life or affect the potability of drinking water or the palatability of fish or shellfish may not be allowed.
Season
Parameter
LLID
Stream Name
Appendices 3.1 – p. 25
Criteria
Subbasin
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.2: Ironside Ecosite Comparison
APPENDIX 3.2: COMPARISON BETWEEN RANGELAND
HEALTH ASSESSMENT AND THE IRONSIDE ECOSITE
INVENTORY
A. INTRODUCTION
Currently, the Baker Field Office is using Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4 to determine
rangeland health. However, at this time not all of the Baker Resource Area has been assessed.
Therefore, the intent of this white paper is to determine if the 1977 Iron Side Assessment could
be used in areas that have not yet been assessed. The rational for using the 1977 Iron Side
Assessment is that the methods used to determine vegetation condition are similar to Standard 3
in Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4. In order to use the Iron Side Assessment, Standards 1,
3 and 5 must be correlated and Standard 3 needs to have a statistically significant relationship
with the Iron Side Assessment.
B. METHODS
The 1977 Iron Side Assessment used the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
floristic composition by weight method for determining vegetation condition. This method is a
similarity index comparing the current vegetation composition to the composition of the potential
natural community (PNC). Vegetation patches were categorized as being at climax or at a late,
middle or early successional stage. Apparent trend was also recorded at each site. Apparent trend
was categorized as being upward, downward or static. Pastures that were converted to a nonnative grass-dominated vegetation were automatically categorized as an early succession stage.
In 2001, the Baker Resource Area evaluated rangeland health using the protocol outlined in
Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 4. This method uses five standards to determine rangeland
health. Three of the standards assess upland health and two standards address riparian health.
Only the upland standards are applicable to determine vegetation condition. The upland
standards from the Rangeland Health Assessment were entered into the statistical program
“Systat” and Chi square tests performed to determine if rangeland health standards were
correlated to each other.
The data remaining from the 1977 Iron Side Assessment consists of the number of acres in early,
mid, late and climax seral stages and apparent trend acres per allotment. To determine the
overall vegetation condition of the allotment climax, late and mid succession stages were added
together and divided by the total area of the allotment. Everything above 60 percent was
considered meeting desired condition and everything below 40 percent was considered not
meeting desired condition. Apparent trend was used to determine the status of the allotments that
had values between 40 and 60 percent. If the apparent trend was upward for more than 60
percent of the allotment it was considered meeting desired condition and if it was below 60
percent it was considered not meeting desired condition.
Appendices 3.2 – p. 1
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.2: Ironside Ecosite Comparison
The 1977 Iron Side Assessment was scaled down to the pasture level. Each pasture in the
allotment was tentatively assigned the overall condition assessment rating. Then historic files,
prior to 1977, were used to determine which pastures were converted to non-native
grassland/shrubland. Since the 1977 assessment treated all the non-native vegetation sites as
early succession, all pastures with more than 50 percent of the total area converted to non-native
grasses were considered not meeting desired condition.
C. RESULTS
Statistical analysis shows that all the upland standards in the rangeland heath assessment were
correlated to each other. When ecological process was compared to upland watershed function
89 percent of the sampling sites were in agreement, 5 percent of the sites were meeting
ecological process and not meeting upland watershed function and 6 percent of the sampling
sites were meeting upland watershed function and not meeting ecological process. When
ecological process was compared to native, threatened and endangered or locally important
species 83 percent of the sampling sites were in agreement, 2 percent of the sites were meeting
ecological process and not meeting native, threatened and endangered or locally important
species and 15 percent of the sampling sites were meeting native, threatened and endangered or
locally important species and not meeting ecological process.
When rangeland health assessment ecological process was compared to the 1977 Iron Side
Assessment, a weak statistical relationship existed. However, if the non-native grass seeded
pastures were removed from the analysis a strong relationship existed. When ecological process
was compared to the Iron Side Assessment 81 percent of the sampling sites were in agreement,
14 percent of the sites were meeting the Iron Side Assessment and not meeting ecological
process, and 5 percent of the sites were not meeting the Iron Side Assessment and meeting
ecological process.
D. DISCUSSION
Since all of the upland rangeland health standards are correlated to each other, it is appropriate to
pick one standard to assess rangeland health. Ecological process standard was used to assess
landscape rangeland health as this standard has the highest relationship to the Iron Side
Assessment.
The Iron Side Assessment can only be used to fill in the data gap in native and introduced annual
grass dominated pastures. The Iron Side Assessment cannot be used in pastures that were seeded
to non-native perennial grass.
Appendices 3.2 – p. 2
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.3: Sensitive Plant Species
APPENDIX 3.3: SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES
Table 3.3-1. Sensitive Plant Species Suspected to Occur in the Decision Area
Common Name
Scientific Name
ISSSSP Status1
Decision
Area OR2
S
S
Wallowa Ricegrass
Geyer's Onion
Davis' Milkweed
Green Spleenwort
Laurence's Milk-Vetch
Upward-Lobed Moonwort
Prairie Moonwort
Crenulate Moonwort
Western Moonwort
Slender Moonwort
Moonwort
Mountain Grape-Fern
Twin-Spiked Moonwort
Stalked Moonwort
Broad-Fruit Mariposa-Lily
Rosy Pussypaws
Abrupt-Beaked Sedge
Blackened Sedge
Hairlike Sedge
Cordilleran Sedge
Yellow Bog Sedge
Idaho Sedge
Slender Sedge
Intermediate Sedge
Spikenard Sedge
New Sedge
Achnatherum wallowaensis
Allium geyeri var. geyeri
Asclepias cryptoceras ssp. davisii
Asplenium trichomanes-ramosum
Astragalus collinus var. laurentii
Botrychium ascendens
Botrychium campestre
Botrychium crenulatum
Botrychium hesperium
Botrychium lineare
Botrychium lunaria
Botrychium montanum
Botrychium paradoxum
Botrychium pedunculosum
Calochortus nitidus
Calyptridium roseum
Carex abrupta
Carex atrosquama
Carex capillaris
Carex cordillerana
Carex dioica var. gynocrates
Carex idahoa
Carex lasiocarpa var. americana
Carex media
Carex nardina
Carex pelocarpa
OR-SEN
OR-SEN
no status
OR-SEN
OR-SEN
SEN
OR-SEN
SEN
WA-SEN OR-STR
SEN
OR-SEN
OR-SEN
SEN
SEN
SEN
SEN
OR-SEN
OR-SEN WA-STR
SEN
OR-SEN
SEN
OR-SEN
OR-SEN
SEN
OR-SEN
OR-SEN
Pyrenaean Sedge
Carex pyrenaica ssp. micropoda
OR-SEN
S
Retrorse Sedge
Carex retrorsa
OR-SEN
S
Appendices 3.3 – p. 1
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Decision
Area
WA
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
G
Rank 3
OR S
Rank4
G2G3
S2S3
G4G5T4
S1
G4TNR no status
G4
S1
G5T1
S1
G2G3
S2
G3G4
S1
G3
S2
G3G4
SNR
G1
S1
G5
S2
G3
S2
G2
S1
G2G3
S1
G3
S1
G5
S1
G5
S1
G4?
S1
G5
S2
GNR
S2
G5
S1
G2
S1
G5T5
S2
G5
S1
G4G5
S2?
G4G5
S1
G4G5T4T
S1
5
G5
S1
WA S Rank
no status
no status
S1
no status
no status
S2
no status
S3
S1
S1
no status
no status
S2
S2
S1
S1
no status
S1
S1
no status
S1
no status
no status
S2
no status
no status
no status
no status
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.3: Sensitive Plant Species
Table 3.3-1. Sensitive Plant Species Suspected to Occur in the Decision Area
Common Name
Dark Alpine Sedge
Native Sedge
Fraternal Paintbrush
Purple Alpine Paintbrush
Fee's Lip-Fern
Beaked Cryptantha
Steller's Rockbrake
Cyperus
Clustered Lady's-Slipper
Bolander's Spikerush
White Cushion Erigeron
Engelmann's Daisy
Slender-Stemmed Avens
Salt Heliotrope
Three-Flowered Rush
Bellard's Kobresia
Simple Kobresia
Hazel's Prickly Phlox
Aristulate Lipocarpha
Northern Twayblade
Red-Fruited Lomatium
Ground Cedar
Membrane-Leaved Monkeyflower
Adder's-Tongue
Bridges' Cliff-Brake
Variable Hot-Rock Penstemon
Henderson's Phlox
Many-Flowered Phlox
Chambers' Twinpod
Common Twinpod
Scientific Name
Carex subnigricans
Carex vernacula
Castilleja fraterna
Castilleja rubida
Cheilanthes feei
Cryptantha rostellata
Cryptogramma stelleri
Cyperus lupulinus ssp. Lupulinus
Cypripedium fasciculatum
Eleocharis bolanderi
Erigeron disparipilus
Erigeron engelmannii var. Davisii
Geum rossii var. turbinatum
Heliotropium curassavicum
Juncus triglumis var. albescens
Kobresia bellardii
Kobresia simpliciuscula
Leptodactylon pungens ssp. hazeliae
Lipocarpha aristulata
Listera borealis
Lomatium erythrocarpum
Lycopodium complanatum
Mimulus hymenophyllus
Ophioglossum pusillum
Pellaea bridgesii
Penstemon deustus var. variabilis
Phlox hendersonii
Phlox multiflora
Physaria chambersii
Physaria didymocarpa var.
didymocarpa
ISSSSP Status1
Decision
Area OR2
OR-SEN
OR-SEN
OR-SEN
OR-SEN
SEN
WA-SEN
SEN
OR-SEN
SEN
OR-SEN
OR-SEN
OR-SEN WA-STR
OR-SEN
OR-SEN
OR-SEN
OR-SEN
OR-SEN
no status
SEN
OR-SEN
OR-SEN
OR-SEN
OR-SEN
SEN
OR-SEN
WA-SEN OR-STR
OR-SEN
OR-SEN
OR-SEN
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
D
S
S
S
WA-SEN
S
Appendices 3.3 – p. 2
Decision
Area
WA
D
S
S
D
S
S
G
Rank 3
OR S
Rank4
G5
S1
G5
S2
G2
S2
G2
S2
G5
S2
G4
no status
G5
S1
G5T5?
S1
G4
S3
G4
S2
G5
S2
G5T3
S1
G5T4
S2
G5
S2
G5
S1
G5
S1
G5
S1
G5T2Q
S1
G5?
S1
G4
S1
G1
S1
G5
S2
G1
S1
G5
S1
G4
S2
G5T1T2
S2
G4
S1
G4
S1
G4
S2
G5T4
no status
WA S Rank
no status
no status
no status
no status
S1
S2
S1S2
no status
S3
no status
no status
S1
no status
no status
no status
no status
no status
no status
S1
no status
no status
no status
no status
S1S2
no status
S1S2
no status
no status
no status
S1
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.3: Sensitive Plant Species
Table 3.3-1. Sensitive Plant Species Suspected to Occur in the Decision Area
Common Name
Scientific Name
ISSSSP Status1
Decision
Area OR2
Decision
Area
WA
G
Rank 3
OR S
Rank4
WA S Rank
Small Northern Bog-Orchid
Platanthera obtusata
SEN
S
G5
S1
S2
Oregon Semaphoregrass
Pleuropogon oregonus
OR-SEN
S
G1
S1
no status
Idaho Gooseberry
Ribes oxyacanthoides ssp. irriguum
WA-SEN
S
G5T3T4 no status
S2
Columbia Cress
Rorippa columbiae
SEN
S
S
G3
S3
S1S2
Farr's Willow
Salix farriae
OR-SEN
S
G4
S2
no status
Wolf's Willow
Salix wolfii
OR-SEN
S
S
G5?
S2
no status
Wedge-Leaf Saxifrage
Saxifraga adscendens ssp. oregonensis
OR-SEN
S
S
G5T4T5
S1
no status
Violet Suksdorfia
Suksdorfia violacea
OR-SEN
S
G4
S1
no status
Alpine Meadowrue
Thalictrum alpinum
OR-SEN
S
G5
S2
no status
Arrow-Leaf Thelypody
Thelypodium eucosmum
OR-SEN
S
G2
S2
no status
Mountain Townsendia
Townsendia montana
OR-SEN
S
G4
S1
no status
Parry's Townsendia
Townsendia parryi
OR-SEN
S
G4?
S1
no status
Douglas' Clover
Trifolium douglasii
SEN
S
G2
S1
no status
American Globeflower
Trollius laxus var. albiflorus
OR-SEN
S
G4T4
S1
no status
Lesser Bladderwort
Utricularia minor
OR-SEN WA-STR
S
G5
S2
S2?
1. ISSSSP = Interagency Special Status – Sensitive Species Program:
SEN = Sensitive in OR and WA
OR-SEN = Sensitive in OR only
WA-SEN = Sensitive in WA only
STR = Strategic in OR and WA
OR-STR = Strategic in OR only
WA-STR = Strategic in WA only
2. D = Documented occurrence – A species located on land administered by the BLM or the Forest Service based on historic or current known sites of a species
reported by a credible source for which BLM and the Forest Service has knowledge of written, mapped or specimen documentation of the occurrence.
S = Suspected occurrence = Species is not documented on land administered by the BLM or the Forest Service, but may occur on the unit because:
1) BLM District or National Forest is considered to be within the species' range and
2) appropriate habitat is present or
3) known occurrence of the species (historic or current) in vicinity such that the species could occur on BLM or FS land.
3. GLOBAL RANK Global Rank characterizes the relative rarity or endangerment of the element world-wide. Two codes (e.g. G1G2) represent an intermediate
rank.
G1 = Critically imperiled globally (5 or fewer occurrences)
Appendices 3.3 – p. 3
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.3: Sensitive Plant Species
Table 3.3-1. Sensitive Plant Species Suspected to Occur in the Decision Area
Common Name
Scientific Name
ISSSSP Status1
Decision
Area OR2
Decision
Area
WA
G
Rank 3
OR S
Rank4
WA S Rank
G2 = Imperiled globally (6 to 20 occurrences)
G3 = Either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range (21 to 100 occurrences)
G4 = Apparently secure globally
G5 = Demonstrably secure globally
GH = Of historical occurrence throughout its range
GU = Possibly in peril range-wide but status uncertain
GX = Believed to be extinct throughout former range
GNR = Not yet ranked
Tn = Rarity of an infraspecific taxon. Numbers and codes similar to those for Gn ranks above.
Q = Questionable
4. State Rank characterizes the relative rarity or endangerment within the state of Oregon and Washington. Two codes (e.g. S1S2) represents an intermediate
rank.
S1 = Critically imperiled (5 or fewer occurrences)
S2 = Imperiled (6 to 20 occurrences), very vulnerable to extirpation
S3 = Rare or uncommon (21 to 100 occurrences)
S4 = Apparently secure, with many occurrences
S5 = Demonstrably secure in state
SA = Accidental in state
SE = An exotic established in state
SH = Historical occurrences only but still expected to occur
SN = Regularly occurring, usually migratory, nonbreeding animals
SU = Unrankable; need more information
SX = Apparently extirpated from the state
Appendices 3.3 – p. 4
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.4: FRAGSTATS
APPENDIX 3.4 - FRAGSTATS ANALYSIS OF THE BAKER
SUBPOPULATION OF GREATER SAGE-GROUSE
Broad-scale (First order)
On a broad-scale, sage-grouse historically lived in the sagebrush-steppe regions of southern
British Columbia, Canada, and throughout eastern Washington and Oregon (Schroeder et al
2004). However, because of habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation available habitat for
sage-grouse has declined to nearly half of what was historically documented (Aldridge et al
2008). Habitat loss has affected broad-scale population distribution with some areas
experiencing a decline of 45-85 percent and site-specific declines of 17-92 percent (Connelly and
Braun 1997, Braun 1998, Connelly et al. 2000, Aldridge and Brigham 2003, Connelly et al.
2004).
Mid-scale (Second order)
Stiver et al. (2006) identified seven sage-grouse management zones (MZ) which are considered
mid-scale and conform to seven clusters of habitat and populations described in Connelly et al.
2004 from Kuchler (1970) West (1983) and Miller and Eddleman (2001) publications. On a midscale analysis level, the Decision Area has two sage-grouse subpopulations (i.e. Baker and East
Central). The Baker subpopulation is a part of the Snake River Plain MZ and is separated
geographically from other sage-grouse subpopulations by Lookout Mountain topography
(Stiever et al 2010). The southern portion of the Decision Area contains the East Central sagegrouse subpopulation. The East Central subpopulation is a part of the Northern Basin MZ
(Sriever et al 2010). Lek counts indicate that that the Baker subpopulation is stable to decreasing
and the East Central subpopulation is stable to increasing (Nick Myatt ODFW pers. com. 2010).
Radio telemetry data was collected in 1993 and in 2009-2010 show no movement between the
subpopulations. However, a small sample of wings analyzed by ODFW suggests that there is no
significant genetic difference between the Baker and East Central subpopulations; indicating
some degree of historic or current gene flow. Although there is speculation of gene flow
between the Baker and East Central subpopulations the degree of flow is unknown.
Fine-scale (Third order)
Using a fine-scale takes into account seasonal use areas and/or home ranges of sage-grouse
associated with a lek or group of leks (Stiver et al 2010). Seasonal habitat availability,
connectivity, and anthropogenic disturbances are also described at this scale. The main areas that
have been fragmented within Decision Area have occurred on low-elevation private lands; where
lands have been converted into non-native annual grasses. The extent of habitat
951fragmentation within the Planning Area has been quantified and reflected in Table XX.
Site-specific (Fourth order)
Habitat suitability at the site-scale describes the more detailed vegetation of seasonal habitat
characteristics such as canopy cover and height of sagebrush (nesting and wintering) and the
associated understory vegetation (nesting, early-brooding), and vegetation associated with
riparian areas, wet meadows, and other mesic habitats adjacent to sagebrush (lateAppendices 3.4 – p. 1
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.4: FRAGSTATS
brooding/summering) (Stiver et al 2010). No formal data has been quantified to determine the
extent of occupied nesting, brooding, and wintering habitat within the Decision Area. However,
due to the steepness and vegetation mapping indices demonstrate that are 172,779 acres of key
habitat that are capable of supporting the structural needs for optimal to suboptimal life history
requirements (BLM 2010).
Sage-grouse habitats and populations in the Planning Area are at the most northern periphery of
this species and thought to be spatially isolated from other adjoining Oregon sage-grouse subpopulations (Hagen 2005). Greater sage-grouse breed, nest, rear young, and winter in suitable
sagebrush steppe habitats within the Decision Area, specifically within the Keating, Virtue Flat,
Richland, Durkee/Pleasant Valley, Huntington, and Denny Flat areas. These populations occur at
the northern extent of the species range in northeastern Oregon (ODFW 2005). See Map 3.10 for
the location of sage-grouse habitat in both the Decision and Planning areas.
Adult sage-grouse are closely tied to a sagebrush steppe ecosystem and are the only birds that
primarily feed on sagebrush leaves throughout the year, with their winter diet being nearly 100
percent sagebrush (Hagen 2005, Bruan et al. 1977; Wallestad and Eng 1975). In the
spring/summer months, their diet consists of 60-80 percent sagebrush, with the rest being made
up of forbs such as sweet clover (Melilotus spp.), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale),
phlox (phlox spp.), and salsify (Tragopgon dubius) (Wallestad and Eng 1975; Braun et al.1977).
In addition to being a food source, sagebrush is also an important source of thermal and hiding
cover for sage-grouse (Braun et al. 1977).
Perennial grass is another important component for greater sage-grouse nests (Drut et al. 1994).
Perennial grass provides additional hiding cover and a niche for insects to propagate, providing a
food source for growing chicks (Popham and Gutierrez 2003; DeLong et al. 1995; Gregg et al.
1994).
Leks are traditional strutting/breeding grounds where males gather to mate and attract females,
and are generally open areas adjacent to dense sagebrush stands (Braun et al 2005). Male sagegrouse display on leks for several hours in the early morning and evening between February and
May and are routinely occupied from year to year. Lek sites are imprinted on sage-grouse at
birth and may be used by grouse for decades, thus becoming traditional breeding area of
congregation (Drut et al 1994). Lek sites that are lost through development/harassment may
never be reestablished which may lead to low recruitment numbers (Hagen 2005).
Once the female has mated with a male at the lek site, she will then select a nesting area.
Although an appropriate nesting site is typically found within 4 miles of the lek, the female sagegrouse may travel as far as 20 miles for her selected nesting area (ODFW 2005). Ideal nesting
and brood rearing habitats for sage-grouse include good complement of deep-rooted perennial
grasses plus a variety of annual and perennial forbs (i.e., wildflowers) that provide structure,
food, cover, and scent barriers to potential predators (Klebenow 1969). Insects provide
important protein sources for early brood rearing. The greatest nesting success occurs in
Appendices 3.4 – p. 2
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.4: FRAGSTATS
sagebrush stands with 15-25 percent canopy densities, and seven or more inches of grass and
forb understory (Popham and Gutierrez 2003; DeLong et al. 1995; Gregg et al. 1994). Winter use
areas and late brood-rearing habitats may successfully support sage-grouse use at lower
sagebrush canopy cover values of approximately 10 percent (Hagen 2005). Refer to Connelly et
al. (2000) and Hagen (2005) for detailed information on sage-grouse life history requirements
and risk factors.
Mid-scale (second order) habitat descriptions are linked to sag-grouse dispersal capabilities in
population and subpopulation areas. These population areas have been geographically described
in a general manner for the Greater (Connelly et al. 2004; Figure 12) and for Gunnison Sagegrouse (GSRSC 2005; Figure 1). A detailed description of the distribution of Greater Sagegrouse populations and subpopulations is described in the Conservation Assessment (Connelly et
al. 2004). Second order descriptions are generally appropriate for subpopulations.
The mix of sagebrush or grassland/sagebrush patches on the landscape at the second order also
provides the life requisite of space for sage-grouse dispersal needs. The configuration of
sagebrush or grassland/sagebrush habitat patches and the land cover or land use between the
habitat patches within a subpopulation defines suitability. Landscape suitability at the mid-scale
for subpopulations can generally be described by the following scenarios:
Suitable habitats within landscapes have connected mosaics of sagebrush or
grassland/sagebrush that allow for dispersal movements across subpopulations.
Anthropogenic disturbances that can disrupt dispersal or cause mortality are generally not
wide-spread or are absent.
Marginal habitats within landscapes have patchy, fragmented or low quality sagebrush
shrublands (cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) or medusahead (Taeniatherum caputmedusae) in the understory) or grasslands/sagebrush that are not well connected for
dispersal between portions of subpopulations. Anthropogenic disturbances that disrupt
dispersal or cause mortality are common throughout all or portions of the landscape.
Unsuitable habitat within landscapes are formerly shrubland habitat dominated by shrubs
and converted to primarily grass dominated shrubland or shrubland dominated by trees,
or perennial grassland dominated with sagebrush converted to other uses. Resulting
habitats are predominantly or nearly unoccupied. The area has potential to become
occupied in the foreseeable future through succession or restoration.
There are three significant second order habitat indicators that influence habitat use, dispersal
and movement across subpopulation areas:
Availability of sagebrush habitat (size and number of habitat patches).
Connectivity of habitat patches (vegetation structure characteristics of linkage areas between
patches).
Appendices 3.4 – p. 3
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.4: FRAGSTATS
Landscape matrix in which patches are imbedded and resulting fragmentation (habitat
fragmentation - scope of unsuitable and non-habitats and intensity of anthropogenic features
between habitat patches).
The threshold metrics for these indicators are not completely known and it is likely that the
relationships among indicators confound thresholds. Consistently describing subpopulation areas
using these indicators across the range of the species may provide insights important in
conservation planning. Comparing changes in mid-scale over time (e.g., between existing
conditions and those of an earlier reference period) provides information on habitat trends. These
indicators include: A) reference period, B) habitat availability, patch size and connectivity, C)
landscape matrix, linkage areas and patch edges, and D) anthropogenic disturbances.
Habitat suitability thresholds are poorly understood (Connelly et al. 2004) at the mid-scale of
habitat selection (Connelly et al. 2004). Quantifying existing habitat conditions using the four
sets of indicators and population monitoring will help reveal habitat and population relationships
and comparing existing conditions over time, or reference period, and could be helpful for
describing habitat trends associated with second order indicators.
Habitat availability, patch size and connectivity are primary components of suitability in midscale analysis. Generally, the larger and more contiguous the sagebrush patches of a
subpopulation, the greater the suitability for this indicator. The amount of occupied habitat
within the landscape matrix of non-habitat and unsuitable habitat is important to describe. In
some areas, the ratio of suitable to marginal to unsuitable habitat would be an important
conservation statistic for measuring habitat restoration progress. Whether the available habitat is
contained in one large habitat patch or several patches could influence sage-grouse use and
dispersal between subpopulations.
Dispersal could be uninterrupted in large habitat patches, whereas movement between patches
may be disrupted, depending on the configuration of the patches and landscape matrix in which
they are imbedded. The closer the suitable habitat patches are to each other, the more likely sagegrouse can freely move between them.
Habitat linkage and patch edges forming a matrix on the landscape can greatly influence habitat
use and dispersal within and between occupied areas. The landscape context in which also on the
likelihood that the habitat patches will persist into the future (Morrison et al. 1998). Barriers that
compromise sage-grouse movements between habitat patches are not completely understood and
are variable (Connelly et al. 1988, Beck et al. 2006, Leonard et al. 2000).
The cover type or land use immediately adjacent to a habitat patch can affect the quality of that
patch suitable as sage-grouse habitat. As previously stated, when shrub cover increases and tree
cover decreases in adjacent cover types, the likelihood that birds will disperse through those
areas increases (Morrison et al. 1998). Adjacent land cover types also differ in: (1) mortality risks
posed to birds occupying the habitat patch, (2) influence on existing patch quality and (3)
Appendices 3.4 – p. 4
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.4: FRAGSTATS
influence on patch and habitat persistence. As the proportion of suitable habitat in contact with
adjacent land cover types increases, habitat patch suitability also increases. This is termed
positive edge. Edge effects associated with roads and other linear anthropogenic features within
habitat patches are discussed later as a component of fragmentation within the habitat patch.
Anthropogenic disturbances influence sage-grouse habitat, numbers and distribution at each
order of habitat selection. Anthropogenic features can affect sage-grouse productivity in two
significant ways:
Anthropogenic features may directly and indirectly cause mortality, which can then affect the
long-term sustainability of the subpopulation. The mortality significance of the features
depends on their scope and intensity. However, an increase in anthropogenic features in
otherwise suitable habitat increases the probability that the habitat will become a sink rather
than a source habitat (Aldridge 2005). Effects of the human footprint may not be readily
apparent in the immediate population response, but over time, and if the scope and intensity of
these features increase, there will likely be a negative impact on population trend (Connelly et
al 2004, Aldridge 2005, Holloran 2005, Wisdom et al. 2005).
Sage-grouse eventually avoid areas with a high density of anthropogenic features even if sitescale conditions are suitable (Connelly et al. 2004). While there is still much to learn about
dispersal and home range selection process, there is mounting evidence that sage-grouse are
sensitive to human disturbances and will avoid areas they once used if those areas have been
altered by anthropogenic features that exceed some threshold (Connelly et al. 2004, Aldridge
2005, Holloran 2005). The anthropogenic feature thresholds that affect these selection
processes likely vary depending on type of use, seasons of use, intensity of use, topography,
and other factors. However, if these changes occur quickly on the landscape, sage-grouse may
not recognize the risks associated with these features and may not show an immediate
avoidance response (Aldridge 2005, Aldridge and Boyce 2007). A summary of metric
descriptions can be seen on Table 3.14
Table 3.14. Mid-scale habitat indicators and relationship to habitat suitability for sage-grouse
habitats according to Stiver et al. (2010)
Habitat Indicators
Metric Description
Relationship to Habitat Suitability
The more sagebrush relative to potential habitat
1. Habitat Availability The amount of sagebrush in a habitat area.
the greater the area suitability.
Generally, the larger and more contiguous the
2. Patch Size and
The average size of habitat patches and the
habitat patches relative to the area the greater
Number
number of patches within the area.
suitability of the area.
As linkage areas between habitat patches
The average distance from one habitat
increase in shrub cover rather than tree or
3. Patch Connectivity patch to the nearest similar patch within
grass/forb cover, habitat suitability increases.
the area.
Presence of anthropogenic features between
patches also decease linkage area suitability.
4. Landscape Matrix The amount of edge in contact with plant As the amount of sagebrush edge in contact with
and Edge Effect
communities or land uses with positive or plant communities or land uses that positively
Appendices 3.4 – p. 5
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.4: FRAGSTATS
Table 3.14. Mid-scale habitat indicators and relationship to habitat suitability for sage-grouse
habitats according to Stiver et al. (2010)
Habitat Indicators
5. Anthropogenic
Disturbances
Metric Description
negative influence on the habitat patch.
Relationship to Habitat Suitability
influence shrub land patch habitat increases, the
landscape matrix and edge suitability increases.
The fragmentation of contiguous
sagebrush patches in the area through land
As the number and intensity of anthropogenic
use changes in infrastructure development.
features within the habitat patches in the area
Measured as the number, length, or area
decreases, suitability increases.
(or area of influence) of embedded
anthropogenic features per unit patch area.
For this analysis, the BLM looked at a mid-scale habitat indicators and the relationship to habitat
suitability for sage-grouse using FRAGSTATS 3.3, which is a computer software program
designed to compute a wide variety of landscape metrics for categorical map patterns. One way
the BLM ran FRAGSTATS was by utilizing a 50 foot buffer and showing the results without
differentiation between habitat and non-habitat for sage-grouse, and showing fragmentation as a
whole. The results for all habitat types shows that the Planning Area had a lower number of
patches per area (10.53) than the Baker and East Central Oregon subpopulations as a whole,
which had 13.71 patches per area. This means that within the Planning Area, there is less
fragmentation than there is for both subpopulations in their entirety. FRAGSTATS also showed
that between the two subpopulations for all habitat types, the Baker subpopulation has less
fragmentation (9.73 patches per area) than the East Central Oregon subpopulation (13.81 patches
per area).
The second way BLM ran FRAGSTATS was by utilizing a 50 foot buffer and showing the
results with differentiation between habitat and non-habitat areas for sage-grouse, and showing
fragmentation as a whole. The results for habitat versus non-habitat types showed that the
Planning Area had a greater number of patches per area (62,766) than the Baker and East Central
Oregon subpopulations as a whole, which had 13,569 patches per area. This means that within
the Planning Area, there is greater fragmentation than there is for both subpopulations in their
entirety. FRAGSTATS also showed that between the two subpopulations for habitat versus nonhabitat the Baker subpopulation had greater fragmentation (9,348 patches per area) than the East
Central Oregon subpopulation (5,355 patches per area)
For example, FRAGSTATS computes several simple statistics representing the number or
density of patches, the average size of patches, and the variation in patch size at the class and
landscape levels. These metrics usually represent landscape configuration, even though the
metrics are not spatially explicit measures. Number of patches or patch density of a particular
habitat type may affect a variety of ecological processes, depending on the landscape context.
For example, the number or density of patches may determine the number of subpopulations in a
spatially-dispersed population for species exclusively associated with that habitat type. This
program will help show habitat availability and fragmentation by showing patch connectivity,
number of patches, and edge effects while considering anthropogenic disturbances.
Appendices 3.4 – p. 6
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.4: FRAGSTATS
FRAGSTATS can be computed using a number of landscape metric indices. For this analysis the
BLM has used the Shannon index, Simpsons evenness or diversity index, and contagion to figure
patch connectivity, edge effects, and number of patches. The Shannon indextypically has a value
index that ranges from 0 (low species richness and evenness) to 1 (high species evenness and
richness)(FRAGSTATS 3.3). Because the Shannon Index gives a measure of both species
numbers and the evenness of their abundance, the resulting figure does not give an absolute
description of a sites biodiversity.
The Simpsons Evenness or diversity index is a statistic which is intended to measure the local
members of a set consisting of various types of objects. This index can be used to assess the
diversity of any population in which each member belongs to a unique group, type or species.
The last metric that is taken into consideration is contagion. Like the Shannon index a typical
value index range for Simpsons Evenness ranges from 0 (uniform in habitat or contiguous) to 1
(diverse habitat or fragmented).
Contagion refers to the tendency of patch types to be spatially aggregated; that is, to occur in
large, aggregated or “contiguous” distributions. Contagion ignores patches and measures the
extent to which cells of similar class are aggregated. Interspersion, on the other hand, refers to
the intermixing of patches of different types and is based entirely on patch (as opposed to cell)
adjacencies. There are several different approaches for measuring contagion and interspersion.
This index increases in value as a landscape is dominated by a few large (i.e., contiguous)
patches and decreases in value with increasing subdivision and interspersion of patch types. This
index summarizes the aggregation of all classes and thereby provides a measure of overall
connectivity of the landscape.
Appendices 3.4 – p. 7
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.5: Grazing Allotments
APPENDIX 3.5: CURRENT LIVESTOCK GRAZING
ALLOTMENTS
Three selective management categories for allotments are shown: Custodial (C), Maintain (M),
and Improve (I). All allotments were grouped into these categories according to management
needs, resource conflicts, potential for improvement, and BLM funding and staffing constraints.
The criteria below were used, starting in 1982, to classify the allotments.
Custodial (C) category allotments:
In the Planning Area, these allotments consist of small parcels of public land
intermingled with larger tracts of private and/or state land. Due to the small amounts of
public land involved in these allotments, often with limited public access, custodial
management is followed as long as resource conditions and values are protected. Other
criteria for “C” Category allotments are:
Limited resource-use conflicts/controversy exist.
Opportunities for positive economic return on public investment do not exist or are
constrained by technological or economic factors.
Present management appears satisfactory or is the only logical practice under existing
resource conditions.
Present range condition is not a factor.
Allotments have low forage production potential and are producing near their potential
Maintain (M) category allotments: The BLM actively manages “M” category allotments to
maintain current satisfactory resource conditions and to ensure that resource values do not
decline. In these allotments, current conditions are termed satisfactory or the allotment contains
few if any sensitive resources. Although some investment in time or money would be justified in
these allotments, they are not as high a priority as “I” category allotments. Criteria for “M”
category allotments include:
No serious resource-use conflicts/controversies exist.
Opportunities may exist for positive economic return from public investments.
Present management appears satisfactory.
Present range condition is satisfactory.
Allotments have moderate or high forage production potential and are producing near
their potential (or trend is moving in that direction).
Improve (I) category allotments: The BLM manages allotments in the “I” category to resolve
a high level of resource conflicts and concerns and grant them the highest priority for funding
and management actions. These allotments are either in unsatisfactory condition or contain
significant sensitive resources, making them the BLM’s highest priority for monitoring and
range improvements. Criteria for “I” category allotments include:
Serious resource-use conflicts/controversy exist.
Opportunities exist for positive economic return from public investments.
Appendices 3.5 – p. 1
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.5: Grazing Allotments
Present management appears unsatisfactory.
Present range condition is unsatisfactory.
Allotments have moderate to high resource production potential and are producing at low
to moderate levels.
In 2009, Washington Office Instruction Memo No. 2009-018 provided new guidance by
specifying that the criteria for selective management categories must now be modified to be
consistent with rangeland health standards (see Rangeland Health Standards in Appendix 3.6).
The new criteria, to be applied along with the criteria listed above, are:
Category C: Allotments where public lands produce less than 10 percent of the forage in the
allotment or are less than 10 percent of the land area. An allotment should generally not be
designated Category C if the public land in the allotment contains: 1) critical habitat for a
threatened or endangered species, 2) wetlands negatively affected by livestock grazing.
Category M: Allotments where land health standards are met or where livestock grazing on
public land is not a significant causal factor for not meeting the standards and current livestock
management is in conformance with guidelines. Allotments where an evaluation of land health
standards has not been completed, but existing monitoring data indicates that resource conditions
are satisfactory.
Category I: Allotments where current livestock grazing management or level of use on public
land is, or is expected to be, a significant causal factor in the non-achievement of land health
standards, or where a change in mandatory terms and conditions in the grazing authorization is or
may be necessary. When identifying Category I allotments, review condition of critical habitat,
conflicts with sage-grouse, and whether projects have been proposed specifically for
implementing the Healthy Lands Initiative.
Table 3.5-1. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments
Allotment
Number
00057
01003
01004
01005
01006
01007
01008
01009
01010
01011
01012
01013
01014
01015
Allotment Name
Lobo (Usfs)
Cave Creek
Durkee
Woods Gulch
Huntington
School Section
Lime Plant
Slaughterhouse Mountain
West Highway
South Durbin Creek
Cavanaugh Creek
Benson Creek
Freeway
East Table Mountain
Mgmt.
Category
C
I
I
M
I
I
C
M
C
I
C
I
M
M
Permitted
AUMs
10
789
1031
28
1980
63
48
110
30
168
16
858
122
168
Appendices 3.5 – p. 2
Suspended
AUMs
0
314
1244
42
90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
BLM Acres
160
4837
9597
291
9942
587
287
779
174
794
125
3255
518
1266
Other
Acres
15,611
1048
1657
304
2223
0
1546
23
1909
3
4101
105
253
655
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.5: Grazing Allotments
Table 3.5-1. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments
Allotment
Number
01016
01017
01018
01019
01020
01021
01022
01023
01024
01025
01026
01027
01028
01029
01030
01031
01032
01033
01034
01035
01036
01037
01038
01039
01040
01041
01043
01044
01045
01046
01048
01049
01050
01051
01052
01053
01054
01055
01056
01057
01058
01059
01062
01063
01064
01065
01066
Allotment Name
Table Mountain
Burned
Upper Durbin Creek
Marshall Creek
Dixie Creek
Pedro Mountain
Bowman Flat
Rattlesnake Gulch
Upper Shirttail Creek
Baldy Mountain
North Dixie Creek
Lost Basin
Upper Cave Creek
True Blue Gulch
Hollowfield Canyon
Shirttail Creek
French Creek
Fur Mountain
Clough Gulch
Upper Clough Gulch
Weatherby Mountain
Rye Valley
Beaver Creek
Turner Gulch
Little Valley
Cinder Butte
Whiskey Gulch
Juniper Mountain
Jordan Creek
Durkee Timber
Nodine Creek
Lower Manning Creek
North Swayze Creek
Alder Creek
Vandecar
Spring Gulch
Pipeline
North Manning Creek
Horseshoe
Hibbard Creek
Plano School
Iron Gulch
Powell Creek
Bayhorse
Gold Creek
Pearce Gulch
Farewell Bend
Mgmt.
Category
I
I
I
I
I
M
I
I
M
C
I
C
C
C
M
M
I
C
C
C
C
I
M
I
I
M
C
I
C
M
I
C
M
C
C
C
C
M
M
C
C
C
C
C
I
C
M
Permitted
AUMs
2197
343
197
23
404
552
65
92
111
10
193
282
27
14
42
152
143
48
2
35
28
263
47
485
695
243
27
316
91
122
684
40
24
13
107
7
12
50
7
24
6
16
39
36
41
6
162
Appendices 3.5 – p. 3
Suspended
AUMs
0
0
0
31
236
272
0
0
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
190
0
0
27
0
0
0
373
0
46
0
0
0
0
58
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BLM Acres
6992
1292
938
194
2748
2655
292
405
488
89
1140
1564
64
46
271
803
969
323
20
92
221
1850
366
3526
3181
1503
75
2085
695
861
2882
525
323
164
683
41
117
528
167
100
38
167
439
289
329
65
679
Other
Acres
280
58
464
1877
1331
8801
94
298
247
495
2106
6348
885
2072
364
848
1113
1317
412
506
1777
140
644
469
1607
1358
420
505
818
1290
6171
3186
77
395
3684
198
110
503
19
232
107
1631
3282
1134
3832
583
304
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.5: Grazing Allotments
Table 3.5-1. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments
Allotment
Number
01067
01068
01069
01070
01071
01072
01318
01320
01326
01327
01329
01330
01333
02001
02002
02003
02004
02005
02006
02007
02008
02010
02011
02012
02013
02015
02016
02017
02019
02020
02021
02023
02024
02025
02026
02027
02028
02030
02031
02032
02033
02034
02035
02036
02037
02038
02040
Allotment Name
Tunnel
Morgan Mountain
Sisley Creek
Wells Basin
Homestead Meadows
Summit Spring
Mormon Basin
Mill Gulch
Brinker Creek
Meyer Gulch
Devil's Canyon
Juniper Hill
Marble Creek
Miller Creek
Sunnyslope
Powder River
Five Mile
Second Creek
Crystal Palace
Sardine Creek
River Individual
Bone Gulch
Beagle Creek
Big Creek
Highway #203
Magpie Peak
East Tucker Creek
West Magpie Peak
Salt Creek
Crews Creek
Seeding
Upper Pittsburg
Table Rock
Upper Spring Creek
East Spring Creek
West Balm Creek
Sawmill Creek
Lower Powder
Bulldozer
Goose Creek
Lower Salt Creek
Love Creek
Waterspout
Table Mountain
Balm Creek
West Goose Creek
Spring Creek
Mgmt.
Category
C
I
I
I
C
I
M
M
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
M
M
C
C
C
C
C
M
C
M
C
C
I
M
M
I
I
I
C
M
I
M
M
I
C
M
I
I
I
C
I
Permitted
AUMs
4
846
832
331
11
358
857
70
2
17
60
22
8
12
51
35
150
450
19
104
66
5
7
282
4
448
2
123
343
420
150
36
286
80
12
25
35
78
1332
268
26
180
374
52
262
4
94
Appendices 3.5 – p. 4
Suspended
AUMs
0
927
920
448
0
232
1003
130
0
13
20
0
0
0
54
0
135
0
0
20
11
0
10
264
8
308
0
57
26
169
0
0
237
55
0
17
5
0
0
84
0
212
232
47
334
0
99
BLM Acres
19
4897
5372
1387
142
975
9874
1046
52
284
498
234
65
125
472
210
1210
2918
151
554
287
201
120
3133
119
2178
45
758
1964
2867
397
334
1791
520
98
186
183
569
3965
2204
260
1805
1842
602
3926
131
1470
Other
Acres
55
56
413
0
797
0
2605
640
513
2889
1501
2195
1132
248
2159
0
67
44
790
2305
1867
900
739
16
743
896
487
1297
2366
958
0
6
150
0
240
6
0
39
342
348
475
87
0
0
25
14
0
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.5: Grazing Allotments
Table 3.5-1. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments
Allotment
Number
02041
02042
02043
02044
02048
02049
02050
02051
02055
02060
02062
02063
02064
02065
02067
02068
02069
02070
02071
02073
02074
02075
02076
02077
02078
02079
02080
02081
02083
02084
02085
02086
02087
02092
02094
02095
02096
02097
02099
02100
02101
02102
02103
02105
02106
02108
02109
Allotment Name
Lower Sawmill
Lower Houghton Creek
Upper Big Creek
North Table Mountain
Upper Clover Creek
Lower Spring Creek
Upper Ritter Creek
Gale Place
Clover Creek
Farley Hills
Magpie Creek
Upper Crews Creek
North Sparta
Town Gulch
Ranch Creek
Rosebud Mine
Lone Pine Mountain
Summit Pasture
Mccann Springs
Oregon Trail
Pritchard Creek
Unity Creek
Pritchard Flat
Ritter Creek
North Flagstaff
South Flagstaff
Flagstaff
Upper Houghton Creek
Big Rattlesnake
Powder River Canyon
West Clover Creek
White Swan Mine
First Creek
Canyon Creek
North Bacher
Homesite
Virtue Flat
Dry Gulch
Virtue Hills
Encina
Quartz Creek
North Sardine Creek
Lawrence Creek
Love Pasture
Christy Springs
Keating Highway
Ruckles Creek
Mgmt.
Category
I
M
C
C
I
I
M
C
I
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
M
I
C
I
C
C
M
M
C
C
M
C
I
M
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
M
C
C
C
C
M
C
M
M
Permitted
AUMs
41
117
2
2
116
78
525
11
105
45
9
16
2
2
36
6
30
110
450
40
1665
89
47
154
175
8
6
87
16
102
95
65
66
8
33
11
40
6
450
2
4
19
9
400
31
600
900
Appendices 3.5 – p. 5
Suspended
AUMs
0
0
25
26
22
0
0
0
37
75
31
24
0
0
19
0
27
92
0
25
1304
4
20
12
0
0
0
0
5
95
61
40
17
34
0
0
37
0
200
0
0
18
1
0
0
0
0
BLM Acres
262
315
118
120
934
1139
2901
45
965
483
157
201
19
27
225
124
293
1336
1771
403
13539
565
433
781
1370
164
75
332
176
1132
534
467
681
198
139
80
229
41
4106
42
42
178
55
1251
199
4348
5885
Other
Acres
292
0
485
1512
272
127
4
717
202
3030
3209
2595
1
443
872
509
3064
419
0
1720
922
1474
6459
382
0
631
802
35
1303
152
0
161
4007
1514
0
304
2310
1080
3913
554
1027
322
730
28
508
0
397
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.5: Grazing Allotments
Table 3.5-1. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments
Allotment
Number
02111
02112
02114
02115
02116
02118
02120
02121
02127
02128
02129
02130
02132
02139
02142
02347
03001
03002
03003
03004
03005
03006
03007
03008
03009
03010
03011
03012
03014
03015
03016
03017
03018
03019
03021
03022
03024
03025
03026
03027
03028
03029
03030
03031
03033
03037
03040
Allotment Name
Bacher Creek
Maiden Gulch
Little Lookout
Tucker Creek
East Balm Creek
Fruit Springs
Pleasant Valley
East Pleasant Valley
Kelly Creek
Risley Butte
Chalk Bluff
Lyle Creek
Kuykendahl Creek
West Crews
North Ridley Creek
Indian Country
Pine Valley
Immigrant Gulch
Ruth Gulch
Doyle Gulch
Hunsaker Creek
Homestead
Copperfield
Bear Wallow
Hooker Flat
Sunset
Park
Squaw Creek
Timber Canyon
Daly Creek
Burnside
Sheep Mountain
Road Gulch
Deer Gulch
Crow Reservior
Foster Gulch
Horseshoe
Maiden Gulch
Soda Creek
Canyon Creek
Keystone Mine
Dry Gulch
Lower Timber Canyon
Upper Dry Gulch
Lookout Mountain
Daly Creek Individual
Bear Wallow Ridge
Mgmt.
Category
I
C
C
I
I
C
C
M
M
M
M
C
C
C
C
C
I
M
M
I
I
M
I
C
C
C
C
I
M
I
C
C
M
C
C
I
C
C
I
C
C
I
C
C
C
C
C
Permitted
AUMs
116
99
77
260
100
30
28
88
220
380
90
24
4
13
4
43
1969
472
662
136
136
310
52
64
56
4
33
302
500
160
36
10
168
3
112
150
10
22
930
4
30
184
18
35
12
70
2
Appendices 3.5 – p. 6
Suspended
AUMs
0
0
17
0
158
0
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
2196
154
840
136
44
260
103
37
0
0
0
100
230
145
0
0
82
0
0
150
9
11
420
0
12
171
0
0
0
60
0
BLM Acres
735
1088
929
1452
1100
480
189
380
1714
2540
665
290
40
83
40
117
25143
6968
9416
1920
3106
5691
2625
680
547
39
316
4092
5622
1610
358
99
1652
40
1136
1656
93
354
10211
39
150
2015
179
447
195
842
20
Other
Acres
1062
2197
10727
571
4
1316
1423
81
16
572
334
5168
294
563
474
0
7268
48
387
236
520
1817
875
71
47
198
652
184
191
1956
4695
7724
68
0
4063
2827
206
949
8700
752
83
556
774
2135
4419
5905
130
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.5: Grazing Allotments
Table 3.5-1. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments
Allotment
Number
03041
03042
03043
03045
03047
03048
03049
05080
05133
05138
05210
05220
05222
05225
05226
05227
05228
05230
05233
05234
05235
05236
05238
05304
05311
05312
05313
05315
05319
05321
05332
05334
05335
05336
05337
05339
05340
05342
06501
06502
06503
06504
06505
06506
06508
06509
06514
Allotment Name
West Fork
Greener
Longbranch
Mclean Gulch
New Bridge
Sag Creek
Barnard Creek
Thief Valley
Riverdale Hill
Bulger Flat
Beaverdam Creek
Whitted Ditch
Meadow Creek
Job Creek
Cow Creek
Copper Creek
Sunflower Flat
Middle Fork
Bullrun
Reed Creek
North Fork
Cottonwood Creek
Short Creek
Titus
Elk Creek
Juniper Gulch
Poker Gulch
Willow Creek
Trail Creek
Auburn
Hill Creek
Old Auburn
Blue Canyon
Upper Hill Creek
Koontz Creek
South Fork Burnt River
Little Field
Log Creek
Potters Creek
Imnaha River
Grande Ronde Rm39
Joseph Creek
Sickfoot Creek
Grande Ronde Rm27
Battle Mountain
Grande Ronde Rm50
Grande Ronde Rm23
Mgmt.
Category
C
C
C
C
C
C
M
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
M
C
C
C
M
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
M
C
M
C
C
C
M
Permitted
AUMs
4
4
5
14
14
8
100
18
13
4
3
8
4
7
12
28
16
12
4
34
40
32
8
29
225
40
130
4
72
136
15
7
32
2
3
20
4
16
20
2
3
28
3
40
5
35
9
Appendices 3.5 – p. 7
Suspended
AUMs
0
0
0
11
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
4
6
0
0
22
9
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
20
7
0
0
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
2
BLM Acres
40
40
54
132
125
63
1811
125
137
41
34
78
39
77
180
317
160
121
26
325
388
193
38
123
1764
354
1308
40
565
2801
147
60
159
62
31
119
41
65
38
38
181
609
83
113
40
361
198
Other
Acres
40
285
737
1594
686
0
121
2215
7122
1602
354
737
0
194
604
2048
0
0
223
0
456
1864
836
196
4370
991
1252
152
1332
3985
0
593
160
1273
860
0
0
389
1186
8424
1052
2351
320
2652
768
8672
3283
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.5: Grazing Allotments
Table 3.5-1. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments
Allotment
Number
06515
06516
06517
06518
06521
06522
06523
06524
06528
06530
06531
06534
06536
06537
06538
06540
06542
06543
06544
06546
06548
06550
06551
06554
06556
06557
06558
06559
06561
06564
06568
06569
06572
06574
06575
06578
06579
06582
06583
06587
06588
06589
06593
06594
06597
06598
06599
Allotment Name
Wenaha East
Grande Ronde Rm28
Grande Ronde Rm30
Grande Ronde Rm58
Cold Springs
Gurdane
Telocaset Road
Grande Ronde Rm183
Starkey
Johnson Creek
Butter & Snipe Creek
Five Points (Usfs)
Grande Ronde Rm34
Catherine Creek (Usfs)
Rock Creek Road
High Valley
Grande Ronde Rm53
Grande Ronde Rm61
Grande Ronde Rm25
Shaw Mountain
Courtney Creek
Fisk Reservoir
Wallupa Creek East
Fisher Gulch
Downey Lake
Wallupa Creek West
Light Ridge
Joseph Canyon
Box Canyon
Precious Lands
Carney Butte
Cable Creek
Grande Ronde Rm35
Courtney Butte
Little Catherine Creek
Grande Ronde Rm59
Ward Butte
Wenaha West
Grande Ronde Rm42
Rattlesnake Hill
Ukiah Dale Wayside
Seven Diamond
Grande Ronde R41mr
Grande Ronde Rm411
Medical Springs
Tamarack Mountain
Charlestown
Mgmt.
Category
C
M
I
M
C
C
C
M
C
C
C
C
M
C
C
C
M
C
I
C
C
C
M
M
C
M
C
C
C
C
C
I
M
I
M
M
C
C
M
C
C
C
C
M
C
M
C
Permitted
AUMs
5
39
10
72
6
2
6
24
8
10
24
18
9
7
22
12
43
72
345
16
19
7
48
45
42
19
67
30
27
389
16
283
26
83
28
42
12
9
9
20
13
40
7
9
8
34
5
Appendices 3.5 – p. 8
Suspended
AUMs
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BLM Acres
37
270
1085
434
40
15
80
247
40
92
236
206
54
81
163
109
381
626
4722
331
526
120
466
525
165
282
713
361
250
978
80
1444
1593
524
276
446
281
79
81
173
119
210
47
478
80
700
81
Other
Acres
149
1427
42
701
0
5079
854
3378
2160
1952
25209
21017
7657
22381
2445
749
6827
1418
20312
4661
1483
3363
1291
3050
2084
845
523
4270
0
11404
560
8173
2612
1462
11220
586
10983
597
417
4673
4369
21727
1819
422
325
10397
0
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.5: Grazing Allotments
Table 3.5-1. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments
Allotment
Number
06600
06602
06607
06608
06611
06613
06614
06616
06617
06618
06619
06620
06629
06631
11001
11002
11061
11301
11302
15001
15201
15202
15203
15204
15205
15206
15207
15208
15209
15211
15212
15213
15214
15215
15217
15218
15219
15223
15224
15303
15305
15306
15307
15310
15317
15322
15323
Allotment Name
Albee
Grande Ronde Rm20
Juniper Canyon
Vansycle Canyon
Elkanah
Tucker Flat
Wallowa River Rm6
Horse Creek
Flora
Ladd Canyon
Barlow Butte
Orion
Pondosa
Upper Courtney Creek
Snake River
Iron Mountain
Weatherby Station
South Bridgeport
North Bridgeport
Coyote Point
Brannon Gulch
Brown Rocks
Big Creek
Hawry Flat
North Hereford
Whipple Gulch
Hereford Valley
Camp Ditch
Camp Creek
King Mountain
Rock Creek
Tiger
Cornet Creek
Denny Flat
Elms Reservior
Junction
Ripley Gulch
Upper Meadow Creek
China Creek
Lindsay Mountain
Hooker Gulch
Dogtown Creek
Ebell Creek
South Baker
Rancheria Creek
Stack Creek
Wendt Butte
Mgmt.
Category
C
C
C
C
C
C
M
C
I
C
C
C
C
M
I
I
C
I
I
C
I
C
C
I
C
M
C
C
M
C
C
C
C
I
C
C
C
C
C
M
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Permitted
AUMs
5
16
287
8
6
3
21
100
118
12
6
6
22
27
661
867
17
938
626
45
195
72
8
54
35
121
8
8
140
28
10
7
24
376
12
112
32
14
8
100
7
10
20
28
8
5
84
Appendices 3.5 – p. 9
Suspended
AUMs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
956
192
0
1472
320
0
135
10
0
67
15
0
0
0
92
37
0
0
0
660
0
0
18
0
0
56
0
10
0
12
0
0
88
BLM Acres
40
234
3653
41
40
39
195
802
865
80
40
40
149
164
10954
4746
55
16291
11150
359
3240
1333
78
1008
345
1228
80
78
2723
578
110
68
227
7244
117
157
336
194
64
975
42
95
120
280
70
58
833
Other
Acres
643
2696
14192
205
1473
777
837
8483
2131
4480
8220
2105
1000
1064
2376
273
1549
1405
12263
2827
3283
4030
411
1674
0
9203
709
163
32
2509
188
0
0
302
1632
483
1521
5171
0
468
663
2239
1633
611
423
724
0
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.5: Grazing Allotments
Table 3.5-1. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments
Allotment
Number
15324
15325
15326
15327
15328
15329
15330
15331
15332
Allotment Name
West Fork Burnt River
Towne Gulch
First Road
Mahogany
French Gulch
North Fork Burnt River
King Ranch
Jingles Canyon
Denny Creek
TOTALS
Mgmt.
Category
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Permitted
AUMs
8
32
20
8
4
4
4
4
4
47,000
Appendices 3.5 – p. 10
Suspended
AUMs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21,160
BLM Acres
68
160
199
135
40
30
40
40
20
392,801
Other
Acres
0
1213
0
0
238
0
0
0
0
667,541
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides
APPENDIX 3.6: STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH
AND GUIDELINES FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING
MANAGEMENT FOR PUBLIC LANDS IN OREGON AND
WASHINGTON
Table of Contents
A. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
B. Fundamentals of Rangeland Health ....................................................................................... 1
C. Standards for Rangeland Health............................................................................................. 2
D. Standards and Guidelines in Relation to the Planning Process.............................................. 3
1. Indicators of Rangeland Health ......................................................................................... 3
2. Assessments and Monitoring ............................................................................................. 4
3. Measurability ..................................................................................................................... 5
4. Implementation .................................................................................................................. 5
E. Standards for Rangeland Health ............................................................................................. 6
Standard 1: Watershed Function – Uplands ........................................................................... 6
Standard 2: Watershed Function – Riparian/Wetland Areas .................................................. 7
Standard 3: Ecological Processes........................................................................................... 8
Standard 4: Water Quality .................................................................................................... 10
Standard 5: Native, Threatened and Endangered, and Locally Important Species .............. 10
F. Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management ................................................................... 11
1. General Guidelines........................................................................................................... 11
2. Livestock Grazing Management ...................................................................................... 11
3. Facilitating the Management of Livestock Grazing......................................................... 12
4. Accelerating Rangeland Recovery ................................................................................... 13
G. Rangelands Glossary ............................................................................................................ 13
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides
APPENDIX 3.6: STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH
AND GUIDELINES FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING
MANAGEMENT FOR PUBLIC LANDS IN OREGON AND
WASHINGTON
A. INTRODUCTION
These Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for
Public Lands in Oregon and Washington were developed in consultation with resource advisory
councils and provincial advisory committees, tribes, and others. These standards and guidelines
meet the requirements and intent of 43 CFR, Subpart 4180, Rangeland Health, and are to be used
as presented, in their entirety. These standards and guidelines are intended to provide a clear
statement of agency policy and direction for those who use public land for livestock grazing, and
for those who are responsible for their management and accountable for their condition. Nothing
in this document should be interpreted as an abrogation of Federal trust responsibilities in
protection of treaty rights of Indian tribes or any other statutory responsibilities including, but
not limited to, the Taylor Grazing Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act.
B. FUNDAMENTALS OF RANGELAND HEALTH
The objectives of the rangeland health regulations referred to above are: “…to promote healthy
sustainable rangeland ecosystems; to accelerate restoration and improvement of public
rangelands to properly functioning conditions . . . and to provide for the sustainability of the
western livestock industry and communities that are dependent upon productive, healthy public
rangelands.”
To help meet these objectives, the regulations on rangeland health identify fundamental
principles providing direction to the states, districts, and on-the-ground public land managers and
users in the management and use of rangeland ecosystems.
A hierarchy, or order, of ecological function and process exists within each ecosystem. The
rangeland ecosystem consists of four primary, interactive components: a physical component, a
biological component, a social component, and an economic component. This perspective
implies that the physical function of an ecosystem supports the biological health, diversity and
productivity of that system. In turn, the interaction of the physical and biological components of
the ecosystem provides the basic needs of society and supports economic use and potential.
The fundamentals of rangeland health stated in 43 CFR 4180 are:
1. Watersheds are in, or are making significant progress toward, properly functioning physical
condition, including their upland, riparian-wetland, and aquatic components; soil and plant
conditions support infiltration, soil moisture storage and the release of water that are in
Appendices 3.6 – p. 1
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides
balance with climate and landform and maintain or improve water quality, water quantity
and the timing and duration of flow.
2. Ecological processes, including the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle and energy flow, are
maintained, or there is significant progress toward their attainment, in order to support
healthy biotic populations and communities.
3. Water quality complies with state water quality standards and achieves, or is making
significant progress toward achieving, established BLM objectives such as meeting wildlife
needs.
4. Habitats are, or are making significant progress toward being, restored or maintained for
Federal threatened and endangered species, Federal proposed, Category 1 and 2 Federal
candidates, and other special status species.
The fundamentals of rangeland health combine the basic precepts of physical function and
biological health with elements of law relating to water quality, and plant and animal populations
and communities. They provide direction in the development and implementation of the
standards for rangeland health.
C. STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH
The standards for rangeland health (standards), based on the above fundamentals, are expressions
of the physical and biological condition or degree of function necessary to sustain healthy
rangeland ecosystems. Although the focus of these standards is on domestic livestock grazing on
BLM-administered land, on-the-ground decisions must consider the effects and impacts of all
uses.
Standards that address the physical components of rangeland ecosystems focus on the roles and
interactions of geology and landform, soil, climate, and water as they govern watershed function
and soil stability. The biological components addressed in the standards focus on the roles and
interactions of plants, animals, and microbes (producers, consumers, and decomposers), and their
habitats in the ecosystem. The biological component of rangeland ecosystems is supported by
physical function of the system, and it is recognized that biological activity also influences and
supports many of the ecosystem’s physical functions. Guidance contained in 43 CFR 4180 of the
regulations directs management toward the maintenance or restoration of the physical function
and biological health of rangeland ecosystems. Focusing on the basic ecological health and
function of rangelands is expected to provide for the maintenance, enhancement, or creation of
future social and economic options.
The standards are based on the ecological potential and capability of each site. In assessing a
site’s condition or degree of function, it must be understood that the evaluation compares each
site to its own potential or capability. Potential and capability are defined as follows:
Potential ~ the highest level of condition or degree of function a site can attain given no
political, social or economic constraints.
Appendices 3.6 – p. 2
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides
Capability ~ the highest level of condition or degree of function a site can attain given
certain political, social or economic constraints. For example, these constraints might
include riparian areas permanently occupied by a highway or railroad bed that prevent the
stream’s full access to its original floodplain. If such constraints are removed, the site
may be able to move toward its potential.
In designing and implementing management strategies to meet the standards of rangeland health,
the potential of the site must be identified, and any constraints recognized, in order that plan
goals and objectives are realistic and physically and economically achievable.
D. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES IN RELATION TO THE PLANNING
PROCESS
The standards apply to the goals of land use plans, activity plans, and project plans (AMP’s),
annual operating plans, habitat management plans, etc. They establish the physical and biological
conditions or degree of function toward which management of publicly-owned rangeland is to be
directed. In the development of a plan, direction provided by the standards and the social and
economic needs expressed by local communities and individuals are brought together in
formulating the goal(s) of that plan.
When the standards and the social and economic goals of the planning participants are woven
together in the plan goal(s), the quantifiable, time-specific objective(s) of the plan are then
developed. Objectives describe and quantify the desired future conditions to be achieved within a
specified timeframe. Each plan objective should address the physical, biological, social, and
economic elements identified in the plan goal.
Standards apply to all ecological sites and landforms on public rangelands throughout Oregon
and Washington. The standards require site-specific information for full on-the-ground usability.
For each standard, a set of indicators is identified for use in tailoring the standards to site-specific
situations. These indicators are used for rangeland ecosystem assessments and monitoring and
for developing terms and conditions for permits and leases that achieve the plan goal. Guidelines
for livestock grazing management offer guidance in achieving the plan goal and objectives. The
guidelines outline practices, methods, techniques and considerations used to ensure that progress
is achieved in a way, and at a rate, that meets the plan goal and objectives.
1. INDICATORS OF RANGELAND HEALTH
The condition or degree of function of a site, in relation to the standards and its trend toward or
away from any standard, is determined through the use of reliable and scientifically sound
indicators. The consistent application of such indicators can provide an objective view of the
condition and trend of a site when used by trained observers.
Appendices 3.6 – p. 3
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides
For example, the amount and distribution of ground cover can be used to indicate that infiltration
at the soil surface can take place as described in the standard relating to upland watershed
function. In applying this indicator, the specific levels of plant cover necessary to support
infiltration in a particular soil should be identified using currently available information from
reference areas, if they exist; from technical sources like soil survey reports, ecological site
inventories, and ecological site descriptions, or from other existing reference materials.
Reference areas are land that best represent the potential of a specific ecological site in both
physical function and biological health. In many instances potential reference areas are identified
in ecological site descriptions and are referred to as “type locations.” In the absence of suitable
reference areas, the selection of indicators to be used in measuring or judging condition or
function should be made by an interdisciplinary team of experienced professionals and other
trained individuals.
Not all indicators identified for each standard are expected to be employed in every situation.
Criteria for selecting appropriate indicators and methods of measurement and observation
include, but are not limited to (1) the relationship between the attribute(s) being measured or
observed and the desired outcome; (2) the relationship between the activity (such as livestock
grazing) and the attribute(s) being measured or observed; and (3) funds and workforce available
to conduct the measurements or observations.
2. ASSESSMENTS AND MONITORING
The standards are the basis for assessing and monitoring rangeland condition and trend. Carrying
out well-designed assessment and monitoring is critical to restoring or maintaining healthy
rangelands and determining trends and conditions.
Assessments are a cursory form of evaluation based on the standards that can be used at different
landscape scales. Assessments, conducted by qualified interdisciplinary teams (which may
include but are not limited to physical, biological and social specialists, and interagency
personnel) with participation from permittees and other interested parties, are appropriate at the
watershed and subwatershed levels, at the allotment and pasture levels and on individual
ecological sites or groups of sites. Assessments identify the condition or degree of function
within the rangeland ecosystem and indicate resource problems and issues that should be
monitored or studied in more detail. The results of assessments are a valuable tool for managers
in assigning priorities within an administrative area and the subsequent allocation of personnel,
money, and time in resource monitoring and treatment. The results of assessments may also be
used in making management decisions where an obvious problem exists.
Monitoring, which is the well-documented and orderly collection, analysis, and interpretation of
resource data, serves as the basis for determining trends in the condition or degree of function of
rangeland resources and for making management decisions.
Appendices 3.6 – p. 4
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides
Monitoring should be designed and carried out to identify trends in resource conditions, to point
out resource problems, to help indicate the cause of such problems, to point out solutions, and/or
to contribute to adaptive management decisions. In cases where monitoring data do not exist,
professional judgment, supported by interdisciplinary team recommendation, may be relied upon
by the authorized officer in order to take necessary action. Review and evaluation of new
information must be an ongoing activity.
To be effective, monitoring must be consistent over time, throughout administrative areas, and in
the methods of measurement and observation of selected indicators. Those doing the monitoring
must have the knowledge and skill required by the level or intensity of the monitoring being
done, as well as the experience to properly interpret the results. Technical support for training
must be made available.
3. MEASURABILITY
It is recognized that not every area will immediately meet the standards and that it will
sometimes be a long-term process to restore some rangelands to properly functioning condition.
It is intended that in cases where standards are not being met, measurable progress should be
made toward achieving those standards, and significant progress should be made toward
fulfilling the fundamentals of rangeland health. Measurability is defined on a case-specific basis
based upon the stated planning objectives (such as quantifiable, timespecific), taking into
account economic and social goals along with the biological and ecological capability of the
area. To the extent that a rate of recovery conforms with the planning objectives, the area is
allowed the time to meet the standard under the selected management regime.
4. IMPLEMENTATION
The material contained in this document will be incorporated into existing land use plans and
used in the development of new land use plans. According to 43 CFR 4130.3-1, permits and
leases shall incorporate terms and conditions that ensure conformance with 43 CFR 4180. Terms
and conditions of existing permits and leases will be modified to reflect standards and guidelines
at the earliest possible date, with priority for modification being at the discretion of the
authorized officer. Terms and conditions of new permits and leases will reflect standards and
guidelines in their development.
Indicators identified in this document will serve as a focus of interpretation of existing
monitoring data and will provide the basis of design for monitoring and assessment techniques,
and in the development of monitoring and assessment plans.
The authorized officer shall take appropriate action as soon as practicable but not later than the
start of the next grazing year upon determining, through assessment or monitoring by
experienced professionals and interdisciplinary teams, that a standard is not being achieved and
Appendices 3.6 – p. 5
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides
that livestock are a significant contributing factor to the failure to achieve the standards and
conform with the guidelines.
E. STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH
STANDARD 1: WATERSHED FUNCTION – UPLANDS
Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates, moisture storage and stability that are
appropriate to soil, climate, and landform.
Rationale and intent: This standard focuses on the basic physical functions of upland soils that
support plant growth, the maintenance or development of plant populations and communities,
and promote dependable flows of quality water from the watershed.
To achieve and sustain rangeland health, watersheds must function properly. Watersheds consist
of three principle components: the uplands, riparian/wetland areas, and the aquatic zone. This
standard addresses the upland component of the watershed. When functioning properly, within
its potential, a watershed captures, stores, and safely releases the moisture associated with
normal precipitation events (equal to or less than the 25-year, 5-hour event) that falls within its
boundaries. Uplands make up the largest part of the watershed and are where most of the
moisture received during precipitation events is captured and stored. While all watersheds consist
of similar components and processes, each is unique in its individual makeup. Each watershed
displays its own pattern of landform and soil, its unique climate and weather patterns, and its
own history of use and current condition. In directing management toward achieving this
standard, it is essential to treat each unit of the landscape (soil, ecological site, and watershed)
according to its own capability and how it fits with both smaller and larger units of the
landscape.
A set of potential indicators has been identified for which site-specific criteria will be used to
determine if this standard is being met. The appropriate indicators to be used in determining
attainment of the standard should be drawn from the following list.
Potential indicators: Protection of the soil surface from raindrop impact; detention of overland
flow; maintenance of infiltration and permeability, and protection of the soil surface from
erosion, consistent with the potential/capability of the site, as evidenced by the:
amount and distribution of plant cover (including forest canopy cover);
amount and distribution of plant litter;
accumulation/incorporation of organic matter;
amount and distribution of bare ground;
amount and distribution of rock, stone, and gravel;
plant composition and community structure;
thickness and continuity of the “A” horizon;
Appendices 3.6 – p. 6
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides
character of microrelief;
presence and integrity of biotic crusts;
root occupancy of the soil profile;
biological activity (plant, animal, and insect); and
absence of accelerated erosion and overland flow.
Soil and plant conditions promote moisture storage as evidenced by:
amount and distribution of plant cover (including forest canopy cover);
amount and distribution of plant litter;
plant composition and community structure; and
accumulation/incorporation of organic matter.
STANDARD 2: WATERSHED FUNCTION – RIPARIAN/WETLAND AREAS
Riparian/wetland areas are in properly functioning physical condition appropriate to soil,
climate, and landform.
Rationale and intent: Riparian/wetland areas are grouped into two major categories (1) lentic,
or standing water systems such as lakes, ponds, seeps, bogs, and meadows; and (2) lotic, or
moving water systems such as rivers, streams, and springs. Wetlands are areas that are inundated
or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration to support, and which under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated
soil conditions. Riparian areas commonly occupy the transition zone between the uplands and
surface water bodies (the aquatic zone) or permanently saturated wetlands.
Properly functioning condition of riparian and wetland areas describes the degree of physical
function of these components of the watershed. Their functionality is important to water quality
in the capture and retention of sediment and debris, the detention and detoxification of pollutants,
and in moderating seasonal extremes of water temperature. Properly functioning riparian areas
and wetlands enhance the timing and duration of streamflow through dissipation of flood energy,
improved bank storage, and ground water recharge. Properly functioning condition should not be
confused with the desired plant community or the desired future condition since, in most cases, it
is the precursor to these levels of resource condition and is required for their attainment.
A set of indicators has been identified for which site-specific criteria will be used to determine if
this standard is being met. The criteria are based upon the potential (or upon the capability where
potential cannot be achieved) of individual sites or landforms.
Potential indicators: Hydrologic, vegetation, and erosional/depositional processes interact in
supporting physical function, consistent with the potential or capability of the site, as evidenced
by:
frequency of floodplain/wetland inundation;
Appendices 3.6 – p. 7
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides
plant composition, age class distribution, and community structure;
root mass;
point bars revegetating;
streambank/shoreline stability;
riparian area width;
sediment deposition;
active/stable beaver dams;
coarse/large woody debris;
upland watershed conditions;
frequency/duration of soil saturation; and
water table fluctuation.
Stream channel characteristics are appropriate for landscape position as evidenced by:
channel width/depth ratio;
channel sinuosity;
gradient;
rocks and coarse and/or large woody debris;
overhanging banks;
pool/riffle ratio;
pool size and frequency; and
stream embeddedness.
STANDARD 3: ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES
Healthy, productive, and diverse plant and animal populations and communities appropriate to
soil, climate, and landform are supported by ecological processes of nutrient cycling, energy
flow, and the hydrologic cycle.
Rationale and intent: This standard addresses the ecological processes of energy flow and
nutrient cycling as influenced by existing and desired plant and animal communities without
establishing the kinds, amounts or proportions of plant and animal community compositions.
While emphasis may be on native species, an ecological site may be capable of supporting a
number of different native and introduced plant and animal populations and communities while
meeting this standard. This standard also addresses the hydrologic cycle which is essential for
plant growth and appropriate levels of energy flow and nutrient cycling. Standards 1 and 2
address the watershed aspects of the hydrologic cycle.
With few exceptions, all life on earth is supported by the energy supplied by the sun and captured
by plants in the process of photosynthesis. This energy enters the food chain when plants are
consumed by insects and herbivores and passes upward through the food chain to the carnivores.
Eventually, the energy reaches the decomposers and is released as the thermal output of
decomposition or through oxidation.
Appendices 3.6 – p. 8
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides
The ability of plants to capture sunlight energy, to grow and develop, to play a role in soil
development and watershed function, to provide habitat for wildlife, and to support economic
uses depends on the availability of nutrients and moisture. Nutrients necessary for plant growth
are made available to plants through the decomposition and metabolization of organic matter by
insects, bacteria and fungi, the weathering of rocks, and extraction from the atmosphere.
Nutrients are transported through the soil by plant uptake, leaching, and by rodent, insect, and
microbial activity. They follow cyclical patterns as they are used and reused by living organisms.
The ability of rangelands to supply resources and satisfy social and economic needs depends on
the buildup and cycling of nutrients over time. Interrupting or slowing nutrient cycling can lead
to site degradation, as this land becomes increasingly deficient in the nutrients plants require.
Some plant communities, because of past use, frequent fire or other histories of extreme or
continued disturbance, are incapable of meeting this standard. For example, shallow-rooted
winter-annual grasses that completely dominate some sites do not fully occupy the potential
rooting depth of some soils, thereby reducing nutrient cycling well below optimum levels. In
addition, these plants have a relatively short growth period and thus capture less sunlight than
more diverse plant communities. Plant communities like those cited in this example are
considered to have crossed the threshold of recovery and often require great expense to be
recovered. The cost of recovery must be weighed against the site’s potential ecological/
economic value in establishing treatment priorities.
The role of fire in natural ecosystems should be considered, whether or not it acts as a primary
driver or only as one of many factors. It may play a significant role in both nutrient cycling and
energy flows.
A set of indicators has been identified for which site-specific criteria will be used to determine if
this standard is being met.
Potential indicators: Photosynthesis is effectively occurring throughout the potential growing
season, consistent with the potential/capability of the site, as evidenced by plant composition and
community structure.
Nutrient cycling is occurring effectively, consistent with the potential/capability of the site, as
evidenced by:
plant composition and community structure;
accumulation, distribution, incorporation of plant litter and organic matter into the soil;
animal community structure and composition;
root occupancy in the soil profile; and
biological activity including plant growth, herbivory, and rodent, insect and microbial
activity.
Appendices 3.6 – p. 9
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides
STANDARD 4: WATER QUALITY
Surface water and ground water quality, influenced by agency actions, complies with state water
quality standards.
Rationale and intent: The quality of the water yielded by a watershed is determined by the
physical and chemical properties of the geology and soils unique to the watershed, the prevailing
climate and weather patterns, current resource conditions, the uses to which the land is put and
the quality of the management of those uses. Standards 1, 2, and 3 contribute to attaining this
standard.
States are legally required to establish water quality standards and Federal land management
agencies are to comply with those standards. In mixed ownership watersheds, agencies, like any
other landowners, have limited influence on the quality of the water yielded by the watershed.
The actions taken by the agency will contribute to meeting state water quality standards during
the period that water crosses agency administered holdings.
Potential indicators: Water quality meets applicable water quality standards as evidenced by:
water temperature;
dissolved oxygen;
fecal coliform;
turbidity;
pH;
populations of aquatic organisms; and
effects on beneficial uses (such as effects of management activities on beneficial uses as
defined under the CWA and state implementing regulations).
STANDARD 5: NATIVE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED, AND LOCALLY
IMPORTANT SPECIES
Habitats support healthy, productive, and diverse populations and communities of native plants
and animals (including special status species and species of local importance) appropriate to soil,
climate, and landform.
Rationale and intent: Federal agencies are mandated to protect threatened and endangered
species and will take appropriate action to avoid the listing of any species. This standard focuses
on retaining and restoring native plant and animal (including fish) species, populations, and
communities (including threatened, endangered and other special status species and species of
local importance). In meeting the standard, native plant communities and animal habitats would
be spatially distributed across the landscape with a density and frequency of species suitable to
ensure reproductive capability and sustainability. Plant populations and communities would
exhibit a range of age classes necessary to sustain recruitment and mortality fluctuations.
Appendices 3.6 – p. 10
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides
Potential indicators: Essential habitat elements for species, populations, and communities are
present and available, consistent with the potential/capability of the landscape, as evidenced by:
plant community composition, age class distribution, productivity;
animal community composition, productivity;
habitat elements;
spatial distribution of habitat;
habitat connectivity; and
population stability/resilience.
F. GUIDELINES FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT
Guidelines for livestock grazing management offer guidance in achieving plan goals, meeting
standards for rangeland health, and fulfilling the fundamentals of rangeland health. Guidelines
are applied in accordance with the capabilities of the resource in consultation, cooperation, and
coordination with permittees/lessees and the interested public. Guidelines enable managers to
adjust grazing management on public land to meet current and anticipated climatic and
biological conditions.
1. GENERAL GUIDELINES
1. Involve diverse interests in rangeland assessment, planning, and monitoring.
2. Assessment and monitoring are essential to the management of rangelands, especially in
areas where resource problems exist or issues arise. Monitoring should proceed using a
qualitative method of assessment to identify critical, site-specific problems or issues
using interdisciplinary teams of specialists, managers, and knowledgeable land users.
Once identified, critical, site-specific problems or issues should be targeted for more
intensive, quantitative monitoring or investigation. Priority for monitoring and treatment
should be given to those areas that are ecologically at-risk where benefits can be
maximized given existing budgets and other resources.
2. LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT
1. The season, timing, frequency, duration, and intensity of livestock grazing use should be
based on the physical and biological characteristics of the site and the management unit
in order to:
a. provide adequate cover (live plants, plant litter, and residue) to promote infiltration,
conserve soil moisture, and to maintain soil stability in upland areas;
b. provide adequate cover and plant community structure to promote streambank
stability, debris and sediment capture, and floodwater energy dissipation in riparian
areas;
c. promote soil surface conditions that support infiltration;
d. avoid subsurface soil compaction that retards the movement of water in the soil
profile;
Appendices 3.6 – p. 11
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides
e. help prevent the increase and spread of noxious weeds;
f. maintain or restore diverse plant populations and communities that fully occupy the
potential rooting volume of the soil;
g. maintain or restore plant communities to promote photosynthesis throughout the
potential growing season;
h. promote soil and site conditions that provide the opportunity for the establishment of
desirable plants;
i. protect or restore water quality; and
j. provide for the life cycle requirements, and maintain or restore the habitat elements
of native (including threatened and endangered, special status, and locally important
species) and desired plants and animals.
Grazing management plans should be tailored to site-specific conditions and plan
objectives. Livestock grazing should be coordinated with the timing of precipitation,
plant growth, and plant form. Soil moisture, plant growth stage, and the timing of peak
streamflows are key factors in determining when to graze. Response to different grazing
strategies varies with differing ecological sites.
Grazing management systems should consider nutritional and herd health requirements of
the livestock.
Integrate grazing management systems into the year-round management strategy and
resources of the permittee(s) or lessee(s). Consider the use of collaborative approaches
(such as coordinated resource management, work groups) in this integration.
Consider competition for forage and browse among livestock, big game animals, and
wild horses in designing and implementing a grazing plan.
Provide periodic rest from grazing for rangeland vegetation during critical growth periods
to promote plant vigor, reproduction, and productivity.
Range improvement practices should be prioritized to promote rehabilitation and resolve
grazing concerns on transitory grazing land.
Consider the potential for conflict between grazing use on public land and adjoining land
uses in the design and implementation of a grazing management plan.
3. FACILITATING THE MANAGEMENT OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING
1. The use of practices to facilitate the implementation of grazing systems should consider
the kind and class of animals managed, indigenous wildlife, wild horses, the terrain and
the availability of water. Practices such as fencing, herding, water development, and the
placement of salt and supplements (where authorized) are used where appropriate to:
a. promote livestock distribution;
b. encourage a uniform level of proper grazing use throughout the grazing unit;
c. avoid unwanted or damaging concentrations of livestock on streambanks, in
riparian areas and other sensitive areas such as highly erodible soils, unique
wildlife habitats, and plant communities; and
d. protect water quality.
Appendices 3.6 – p. 12
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides
2. Roads and trails used to facilitate livestock grazing are constructed and maintained in a
manner that minimizes the effects on landscape hydrology; concentration of overland
flow, erosion and sediment transport are prevented; and subsurface flows are retained.
4. ACCELERATING RANGELAND RECOVERY
1. Upland treatments that alter the vegetation composition of a site, such as prescribed
burning, western juniper management, and seedings or plantings must be based on the
potential of the site and should:
a. retain or promote infiltration, permeability, and soil moisture storage;
b. contribute to nutrient cycling and energy flow;
c. protect water quality;
d. help prevent the increase and spread of noxious weeds;
e. contribute to the diversity of plant communities, and plant community
composition and structure;
f. support the conservation of threatened and endangered, other special status
species and species of local importance; and
g. be followed up with grazing management and other treatments that extend the life
of the treatment and address the cause of the original treatment need.
2. Seedings and plantings of nonnative vegetation should only be used in those cases where
native species are not available in sufficient quantities; where native species are incapable
of maintaining or achieving the standards; or where nonnative species are essential to the
functional integrity of the site.
3. Structural and vegetation treatments and animal introductions in riparian and wetland
areas must be compatible with the capability of the site, including the system’s
hydrologic regime, and contribute to the maintenance or restoration of properly
functioning condition.
G. RANGELANDS GLOSSARY
Appropriate action ~ implementing actions pursuant to subparts 4110, 4120, 4130 and 4160 of
the regulations that will result in significant progress toward fulfillment of the standards and
significant progress toward conformance with the guidelines (see Significant progress).
Assessment ~ a form of evaluation based on the standards of rangeland health, conducted by an
interdisciplinary team at the appropriate landscape scale (pasture, allotment, subwatershed,
watershed, etc.) to determine conditions relative to standards.
Compaction layer ~ a layer within the soil profile in which the soil particles have been
rearranged to decrease void space, thereby increasing soil bulk density and often reducing
permeability.
Crust, abiotic ~ (physical crust) a surface layer on soils, ranging in thickness from a few
millimeters to a few centimeters, that is much more compact, hard and brittle, when dry, than the
material immediately beneath it.
Appendices 3.6 – p. 13
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides
Crust, biotic ~ (microbiotic or cryptogamic crust) a layer of living organisms (mosses, lichens,
liverworts, algae, fungi, bacteria, and/or cyanobacteria) occurring on, or near the soil surface.
Degree of function ~ a level of physical function relative to properly functioning condition
commonly expressed as: properly functioning, functioning-at-risk, or nonfunctional.
Diversity ~ the aggregate of species assemblages (communities), individual species, and the
genetic variation within species and the processes by which these components interact within and
among themselves. The elements of diversity are: (1) community diversity (habitat, ecosystem);
(2) species diversity; and (3) genetic diversity within a species; all three of which change over
time.
Energy flow ~ the processes in which solar energy is converted to chemical energy through
photosynthesis and passed through the food chain until it is eventually dispersed through
respiration and decomposition.
Ground water ~ water in the ground that is in the zone of saturation; water in the ground that
exists at, or below the water table.
Guideline ~ practices, methods, techniques, and considerations used to ensure that progress is
made in a way and at a rate that achieves the standard(s).
Gully ~ a channel resulting from erosion and caused by the concentrated but intermittent flow of
water usually during and immediately following heavy rains.
Hydrologic cycle ~ the process in which water enters the atmosphere through evaporation,
transpiration, or sublimation from the oceans, other surface water bodies, or from the land and
vegetation, and through condensation and precipitation returns to the earth’s surface. The
precipitation then occurring as overland flow, streamflow, or percolating underground flow to the
oceans or other surface water bodies or to other sites of evapotranspiration and recirculation to
the atmosphere.
Indicators ~ parameters of ecosystem function that are observed, assessed, measured, or
monitored to directly or indirectly determine attainment of a standard(s).
Infiltration ~ the downward entry of water into the soil.
Infiltration rate ~ the rate at which water enters the soil.
Nutrient cycling ~ the movement of essential elements and inorganic compounds between the
reservoir pool (soil, for example) and the cycling pool (organisms) in the rapid exchange (such as
moving back and forth) between organisms and their immediate environment.
Organic matter ~ plant and animal residues accumulated or deposited at the soil surface; the
organic fraction of the soil that includes plant and animal residues at various stages of
decomposition; cells and tissues of soil organisms, and the substances synthesized by the soil
population.
Permeability ~ the ease with which gases, liquids or plant roots penetrate or pass through a bulk
mass of soil or a layer of soil.
Properly functioning condition ~ Riparian/wetland: adequate vegetation, landform, or large
(coarse) woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflows,
thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid
in floodplain development; improve floodwater retention and ground water recharge; develop
root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action; develop diverse channel and
ponding characteristics to provide the habitat and water depth, duration and temperature
Appendices 3.6 – p. 14
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides
necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and support greater
biodiversity. The result of interaction among geology, soil, water, and vegetation. Uplands: soil
and plant conditions support the physical processes of infiltration and moisture storage and
promote soil stability (as appropriate to site potential); includes the production of plant cover and
the accumulation of plant residue that protect the soil surface from raindrop impact, moderate
soil temperature in minimizing frozen soil conditions (frequency, depth, and duration), and the
loss of soil moisture to evaporation; root growth and development in the support of permeability
and soil aeration. The result of interaction among geology, climate, landform, soil, and
organisms.
Proper grazing use ~ grazing that, through the control of timing, frequency, intensity, and
duration of use, meets the physiological needs of the desirable vegetation, provides for the
establishment of desirable plants and is in accord with the physical function and stability of soil
and landform (properly functioning condition).
Reference area ~ sites that, because of their condition and degree of function, represent the
ecological potential or capability of similar sites in an area or region (ecological province); serve
as a benchmark in determining the ecological potential of sites with similar soil, climatic, and
landscape characteristics.
Rill ~ a small, intermittent water course with steep sides; usually only a few inches deep.
Riparian area ~ a form of wetland transition between permanently saturated wetlands and
upland areas. These areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent
surface or subsurface water influence. Land along, adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially
and intermittently flowing rivers and stream, glacial potholes, and shores of lakes and reservoirs
with stable water levels are typical riparian areas. Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams
or washes that do not exhibit the presence of vegetation dependent upon free water in the soil.
Includes, but is not limited to, jurisdictional wetlands.
Significant progress ~ when used in reference to achieving a standard: (actions), the necessary
land treatments, practices and/or changes to management have been applied or are in effect;
(rate), a rate of progress that is consistent with the anticipated recovery rate described in plan
objectives, with due recognition of the effects of climatic extremes (drought, flooding, etc.), fire,
and other unforeseen naturally occurring events or disturbances. Monitoring reference areas that
are ungrazed and properly grazed may provide evidence of appropriate recovery rates (see
Proper grazing use).
Soil density (bulk density) ~ -the mass of dry soil per unit bulk volume.
Soil moisture ~ water contained in the soil; commonly used to describe water in the soil above
the water table.
Special Status species ~ species proposed for listing, officially listed (threatened/endangered),
or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the Secretary of the Interior under the
provisions of the ESA; those listed or proposed for listing by the State in a category implying
potential endangerment or extinction; those designated by each BLM State Director as sensitive.
Species of local importance ~ species of significant importance to American Indian populations
(such as medicinal and food plants).
Standard ~ an expression of the physical and biological condition or degree of function
necessary to sustain healthy rangeland ecosystems.
Appendices 3.6 – p. 15
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.6: Standards and Guides
Uplands ~ land that exists above the riparian/wetland area, or active floodplains of rivers and
streams; those lands not influenced by the water table or by free or unbound water; commonly
represented by toe slopes, alluvial fans, and side slopes, shoulders, and ridges of mountains and
hills.
Watershed ~ an area of land that contributes to the surface flow of water past a given point. The
watershed dimensions are determined by the point past, or through which, runoff flows.
Watershed function ~ the principal functions of a watershed include the capture of moisture
contributed by precipitation; the storage of moisture within the soil profile, and the release of
moisture through subsurface flow, deep percolation to ground water, evaporation from the soil,
and transpiration by live vegetation.
Wetland ~ areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and which under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Appendices 3.6 – p. 16
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.7: Rangeland Health Evaluations
APPENDIX 3.7: 2010 PROGRESS REPORT ON EVALUATIONS
AND DETERMINATIONS OF RANGELAND HEALTH BY
ALLOTMENT AND MANAGEMENT CATEGORY
Table 3.7-1: Allotments Where All Standards Are Met
Allotment #
BLM Acres
00057
01008
01010
01012
01025
01028
01029
01033
01034
01035
01036
01043
01049
01051
01053
01054
01057
01058
01063
01065
01067
01071
01326
01327
01329
01330
01333
02001
02002
02003
02006
02007
02008
02011
02017
02026
02033
02038
02043
02044
02051
02060
02062
02063
02064
160
287
174
125
89
64
46
323
20
92
221
75
525
164
41
117
100
38
289
65
19
142
52
284
498
234
65
125
472
210
151
554
287
120
758
98
260
131
118
120
45
483
157
201
19
Allotment #
BLM Acres
C - Category Allotments
02067
02068
02073
02075
02076
02079
02080
02083
02086
02087
02092
02095
02096
02097
02100
02101
02102
02103
02106
02112
02118
02130
02142
03008
03009
03010
03011
03016
03017
03019
03021
03024
03025
03027
03028
03030
03031
03033
03037
03040
03041
03042
03043
03045
03047
225
124
403
565
433
164
75
176
467
681
198
80
229
41
42
42
178
55
199
1,088
480
290
40
680
547
39
316
358
99
40
1136
93
354
39
150
179
447
195
842
20
40
40
54
132
125
Appendices 3.7 – p. 1
Allotment #
BLM Acres
05080
05133
05138
05210
05220
05222
05225
05226
05227
05228
05230
05233
05234
05235
05236
05238
05304
05312
05313
05315
05321
05332
05334
05335
05336
05337
05339
05340
05342
06501
06504
06508
06515
06522
06523
06530
06540
06543
06546
06548
06556
06558
06564
06568
06579
125
137
41
34
78
39
77
180
317
160
121
26
325
388
193
38
123
354
1,308
40
2,801
147
60
159
62
31
119
41
65
38
609
40
37
15
80
92
109
626
331
526
165
713
978
80
281
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.7: Rangeland Health Evaluations
Table 3.7-1: Allotments Where All Standards Are Met - cont.
Allotment
Number
Public Land
Acres
Allotment
Public Land
Number
Acres
C - Category Allotments
02065
06587
06588
06589
06593
06597
06599
06600
06613
06618
06619
11061
15001
15202
15203
15205
27
173
119
210
47
81
81
40
39
80
40
55
359
1,333
78
345
03022
1656
06617
865
01318
03014
03018
03049
15206
15209
15303
01005
01021
9,874
5,622
1,652
1,811
1,228
2,723
975
291
2,655
01041
01050
01055
01056
01066
01320
02070
02077
03002
1,503
323
528
167
679
1,046
1,336
781
6,968
03048
15207
15208
15211
15212
15213
15214
15217
15218
15219
15223
15224
15305
15306
15307
63
80
78
578
110
68
227
117
157
336
194
64
42
95
120
Allotment
Number
Public Land
Acres
06582
15310
15317
15322
15323
15324
15325
15326
15327
15328
15329
15330
15331
15332
06559
79
280
70
58
833
68
160
199
135
40
30
40
40
20
361
03003
03006
05311
05319
06574
06575
06598
06631
9,416
5,691
1,764
565
524
276
700
164
Total number of C-Category allotments where standards are met:181
Total acres of public lands: 40,976
I - Category Allotments
Total number of I-Category allotments where standards are met: 2
Total acres of public lands: 2,521
M - Category Allotments
Total number of M-Category allotments where standards are met: 26
Total acres of public lands: 59,262
Total number of allotments where standards are met: 209
Total acres of public lands: 102,759
Appendices 3.7 – p. 2
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.7: Rangeland Health Evaluations
Table 3.7-2: Allotments Where Standards Were Not Fully Met Resulting in Livestock Management
Changes Being Implemented
Allotment
Number
Public Land
Acres
Allotment
Public Land
Number
Acres
C - Category Allotments
01027
1,564
01003
01004
01020
01022
01023
01026
01032
01037
4,837
9,597
2,748
292
405
1,140
969
1,850
01064
01070
01072
02074
03001
03004
03005
03007
329
1387
975
13539
25143
1920
3106
2625
01024
488
01030
271
Allotment
Number
Public Land
Acres
Total number of C-Category allotments where standards are not fully met resulting in livestock management
changes being implemented:1
Total acres of public lands: 1,564
I - Category Allotments
03015
03026
06517
06544
11001
11301
11302
15204
1610
1,0211
1,085
4,722
10,954
16,291
11,150
1,008
Total number of I-Category allotments where standards are not fully met resulting in livestock management
changes being implemented:24
Total acres of public lands: 127,893
M - Category Allotments
Total number of M-Category allotments where standards are not fully met resulting in livestock management
changes being implemented:2
Total acres of public lands: 759
Total number of allotments where standards are not fully met resulting in livestock management changes
being implemented: 27
Total acres of public lands: 130,216
Table 3.7-3: Allotments Where Standards Were Not Fully Met, Causes Other Than Existing
Livestock Management
Allotment
Number
Public Land
Acres
01045
06506
695
113
01031
01038
06514
06516
06518
803
366
198
270
434
Allotment
Public Land
Number
Acres
C - Category Allotments
06509
361
Allotment
Number
Public Land
Acres
06602
234
Total number of C-Category allotments where standards were not fully met, causes other than existing livestock
management:4
Total acres of public lands: 1,403
I - Category Allotments
Total number of I-Category allotments where standards were not fully met, causes other than existing livestock
management: 0
Total acres of public lands: 0
M - Category Allotments
06536
06542
06551
06554
54
381
466
525
06557
06578
06594
06572
282
446
478
1,593
Total number of M-Category allotments where standards not fully met, causes other than existing livestock
management:13
Appendices 3.7 – p. 3
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.7: Rangeland Health Evaluations
Table 3.7-3: Allotments Where Standards Were Not Fully Met, Causes Other Than Existing
Livestock Management
Allotment
Public Land
Allotment
Public Land
Allotment
Public Land
Number
Acres
Number
Acres
Number
Acres
Total acres of public lands: 6,296
Total number of allotments where standards were not fully met, causes other than existing livestock
management: 17
Total acres of public lands: 7,699
Appendices 3.7 – p. 4
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.7: Rangeland Health Evaluations
Table 3.7-4: Allotments Where Evaluations and Determinations Not Completed
Allotment
Public Land
Allotment
Public Land
Allotment
Number
Acres
Number
Acres
Number
C - Category Allotments
01052
01059
01062
02010
02013
02016
02069
02094
02114
02120
683
167
439
201
119
45
293
139
929
189
02132
02139
02347
06502
06521
06528
06531
06534
06537
01006
01007
01011
01013
01016
01017
01018
01019
01039
01040
01044
01048
01068
01069
9,942
587
794
3,255
6,992
1,292
938
194
3,526
3,181
2,085
2,882
4,897
5,372
02019
02023
02024
02025
02028
02032
02035
02036
02037
02040
02041
02048
02049
01009
01014
01015
01046
02004
02005
02012
02015
02020
02021
02027
779
518
1,266
861
1,210
2,918
3,133
2,178
2,867
397
186
02030
02031
02034
02042
02050
02078
02081
02085
02099
02105
40
83
117
38
40
40
236
206
81
06538
06550
06561
06607
06608
06611
06616
06620
06629
Total number of C-Category allotments where evaluations and determinations not completed:28
Total acres of public lands: 9,343
I - Category Allotments
1,964
334
1,791
520
183
2,204
1,842
602
3,926
1,470
262
934
1,139
02055
02071
02084
02111
02115
02116
03012
03029
06569
06583
11002
15201
15215
Total number of I-category allotments where evaluations and determinations not completed: 40
Total acres of public lands: 93,125
M - Category Allotments
569
3,965
1,805
315
2,901
1,370
332
534
4,106
1,251
02108
02109
02121
02127
02128
02129
06503
06505
06524
06614
Total number of M-category allotments where evaluations and determinations not completed: 31
Total acres of public lands: 49,699
Total number of allotments where evaluations and determinations not completed: 99
Total acres of public lands: 152,167
Appendices 3.7 – p. 5
Public Land
Acres
163
120
250
3,653
41
40
802
40
149
965
1,771
1,132
735
1,452
1,100
4,092
2,015
1,444
81
4,746
3,240
7,244
4,348
5,885
380
1,714
2,540
665
181
83
247
195
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.8: Communication Sites
APPENDIX 3.8: DETAILS ON THE COMMUNICATION SITES
CURRENTLY LOCATED IN THE DECISION AREA
Table of Contents
A. Indicator ................................................................................................................................. 1
B. Authority ................................................................................................................................ 2
C. Trends ..................................................................................................................................... 3
D. Current Conditions ................................................................................................................. 4
1. Lime Hill Communication Site .......................................................................................... 4
2. Gold Hill Communication Site .......................................................................................... 5
3. Big Lookout Mountain - Fire lookout and communications site ....................................... 6
4. Halfway/Richland Hill Communication Site ..................................................................... 7
5. Sheep Mountain Radio Site ............................................................................................... 8
6. Hermiston Butte Communication Site ............................................................................... 8
E. Forecast .................................................................................................................................. 9
F. Key Features ......................................................................................................................... 10
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.8: Communication Sites
APPENDIX 3.8: DETAILS ON THE COMMUNICATION SITES
CURRENTLY LOCATED IN THE DECISION AREA
A. INDICATOR
Overall management direction for the administration of communications sites is outlined in the
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Handbook
and applicable BLM Instructional Memoranda. Specific direction for site management planning
on designated communications sites is contained in BLM Handbook 2860-1. Primary
regulations and policy pertaining to issuance of right-of-way (ROW) authorizations by the BLM
are found in Title 43 CFR Sections 2801- 2808 and BLM Handbook 2860-1.
The terms used in communications site management plans conform to the definitions listed in the
April 22, 2005, Federal Register notice “Rights-of-Way, Principles and Procedures: Rights-ofWay under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Mineral Leasing
Act.” Further clarification is provided in BLM Handbook 2860-1 and 43 CFR 2800. In the
event of a conflict, between the plan and these sources, the Federal Register notice and the BLM
Handbook will govern. The words “lease” and “lessee” as used in communication site plans
refer to the relationship between the BLM and the communications use lease lessee, or ROW
holder. The words “customer” and “tenant” refer to the relationship between the lessee or holder
and the occupants in the lessee’s facilities.
LEASE OR ROW – A use authorization issued to a communication Facility Owner or
Facility Manager allowing for the use of public land to construct and or operate a
communications facility and, unless specifically prohibited, to sublease to occupants in
that facility.
LESSEE, LEASE HOLDER, OR ROW HOLDER – A Facility Owner or Facility
Manager
CUSTOMER – A facility occupant who is paying a facility manager, facility owner, or
tenant for using all or any part of the space in the facility, or for communication services,
and is not selling communication services or broadcasting to others.
TENANT – A facility occupant who is paying a facility manager, facility owner, or other
entity for occupying and using all or part of a facility. A tenant operates communication
equipment in the facility for profit by broadcasting to others or selling communication
services.
COMMUNICATIONS SITE – An area of BLM-managed public land designated
through the land and resource management planning process as being used or is suitable
for communications uses. A communications site may be limited to a single
communications facility, but most often encompasses more than one. Each site is
identified by name; usually a local prominent landmark, such as Lime Hill
Communications Site.
Appendices 3.8 – p. 1
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.8: Communication Sites
FACILITY – The building, tower, and related incidental structures or improvements
authorized under the terms of the grant or lease.
FACILITY MANAGER – The holder of a BLM communications use authorization who
leases space for other communication users. A facility manager does not own or operate
communications equipment in the facility for personal or commercial purposes.
FACILITY OWNER – Individuals, commercial entities, organizations, or agencies, that
own a communications facility on Federal land; own and operate their own
communications equipment; and hold a communications use authorization. Facility
owners may or may not lease space in the facility to other communications users.
NON-BROADCAST – This category includes Commercial Mobile Radio Service
(CMRS), Facility Managers, Cellular Telephone, Private Mobile Radio Service (PMRS),
Microwave, Local Exchange Network, and Passive Reflector.
BROADCAST – This category includes Television Broadcast, AM and FM Radio
Broadcast, Cable Television, Broadcast Translator, Low Power Television, and Low
Power FM Radio.
RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) – The public land authorized to be used or occupied pursuant
to a ROW grant.
RIGHT-OF-WAY GRANT – A use authorization issued pursuant to Title V of FLPMA
of October 21, 1976 (43 USC. 1701 et seq.) or issued on or before October 21, 1976,
pursuant to then existing statutory authority, authorizing the use of a ROW over, upon,
under or through public land for construction, operation, maintenance and termination of
a project.
HOLDER – Any applicant who has received a ROW grant, lease or temporary use
permit.
USERS – All ROW and lease holders, lessees, customers, and tenants that own or
operate a facility or communication equipment at the communication site.
SENIOR USE – Any use whose implementation date is prior to the implementation date
of the use in question.
RANALLY METRO AREA (RMA) – A series of nine population zone areas, the
highest of which is greater than 5 million and the lowest being 25,000 or less. These
zones are determined annually and published in the Ranally Metro Area Population
Ranking, an independent publication from Rand McNally, and are used in rent
determination.
B. AUTHORITY
The BLM has authority to authorize communications uses on public land (administered by the
BLM) is granted by FLPMA of 1976, 90 Stat. 2776 (43 U.S. C. 1761-1771) and is reflected in
Title 43, CFR, Sections 2801- 2808 and various BLM Washington Office Information Bulletins
and Instruction Memoranda.
Bureau of Land Management authority for communications site management planning is
Appendices 3.8 – p. 2
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.8: Communication Sites
contained in BLM Handbook 2801-1, Plan of Development. Direction on and policy for
communication use authorizations is contained in BLM Manual Section 2860.
Authority for the issuance of authorizations and/or licenses for the transmission and reception of
electronic radiation for communication purposes is granted by Congress and administered by the
Federal Communication Commission and/or the National Telecommunication and Information
Administration – Interagency Radio Advisory Committee.
The Baker Resource Management Plan, dated July 12, 1989, states that “Public Lands are
available for local ROWs, including multiple use and single use utility/ transportation corridors
following existing routes, communication sites and roads, unless within the exclusion/avoidance.
The ROW avoidance areas include wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental
concern, scenic and recreation river segments, while ROW exclusion areas include wilderness
areas and wild river segments. All ROW applications should follow existing corridors wherever
practical and will avoid proliferation of separate ROWs.”
C. TRENDS
Planning for communication sites is ongoing. Rights-of-ways for land access for
communications sites are conducted on an as-needed basis. With the increasing public demand
for communications coverage throughout the country, the probability of communications
companies applying for communication use leases on public lands within the Planning Area is
high. Telecommunication companies are looking to expand communications coverage along the
I-84 Corridor along with other areas in the resource area. Expansion will require siting new
facilities on mountaintops and other structures to attain maximum coverage to meet the need for
reliable telecommunications service for federal, state, and local government as well as the
general public.
Telecommunications is the transmission, emission, or reception of radio signals, digital images,
sound bytes, or other information via wires and cables; or space, through radio frequencies,
satellites, microwaves, or other electromagnetic systems. Telecommunications includes the
transmission of voice, video, data, broadband, wireless, and satellite technologies.
One-way communication for radio and television utilizes a combination of antennas and
receivers to transmit signals from the broadcast station to an antenna or group of antennas
located on a broadcast tower, which then transmits the radio signal to the receiving devices found
in a radio or television. Traditional landline telephone service utilizes an extensive network of
copper interconnecting lines to transmit and receive a phone call between parties. Fiber optic
cable increases the capabilities by delivering not only traditional telephone, but high speed
internet and cable television.
Wireless telephony, also known as wireless communications, included mobile phones, pagers,
and two-way enhanced radio systems and relies on the combination of landlines, cable, and an
Appendices 3.8 – p. 3
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.8: Communication Sites
extensive network of elevated antennas, typically found on communication towers, to transmit
voice and data information. This technology is known as the first and second generation of
wireless deployment. Future generation of wireless communications will include the ability to
provide instant access to e-mail, the internet, radio, video, mobile commerce, and Global
Positioning Satellites, in one hand-held, palm pilot type wireless telephone unit. Successful use
of this technology will require the deployment of a significant amount of infrastructure such as
elevated antennas on above ground structures such as towers, rooftops, and light poles. Antenna
support structures can be camouflaged in some circumstances to visually blend in with the
surrounding landscape.
Base stations are the wireless service provider’s specific electronic equipment used to transmit
and receive radio signals, and is usually mounted within a facility including, but not limited to
cabinets, shelters, pedestals, or other similar enclosures generally used to contain electronic
equipment.
D. CURRENT CONDITIONS
1. LIME HILL COMMUNICATION SITE
A Communications Site Management Plan was prepared for Lime Hill in 2001. This Site
Management Plan updates the original plan, provides applicable guidance, and adds current
policy and updated technical standards for better management of the Lime Hill Communications
Site. The Lime Hill Site Management Plan governs development and management of Lime Hill.
Any future such uses must be designed, installed, operated, and maintained to be compatible and
not interfere with the senior uses. This site-specific plan is administrative in nature and is
Categorically Excluded from further review under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) in accordance with 516.DM 2, Appendix 1, item 1.10, which states “Policies, directives,
regulations, and guidelines that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural
nature and whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend
themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either
collectively or case-by-case.” Any additional development of the site will be addressed in a sitespecific NEPA document.
Site Description
The site is located approximately 37 miles southeast of Baker City and 3.8 miles northeast of
Lime, Oregon, on a mountain ridge overlooking Brownlee Reservoir. Baker Field Office
manages the area. The site is specifically located in the SE¼SE¼ of section 18 and the
NE¼NE¼ of section 19, T.13S., R.45E., Willamette Meridian, Baker County, Oregon at
approximately 44º 25’15” North Latitude and 117º 15’1.3” West Longitude. One holder (IPA’s
facility) is located in section 13. The elevation at the Lime Hill Communications Site is
approximately 9,188 feet above mean sea level.
Appendices 3.8 – p. 4
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.8: Communication Sites
Site History and Development
The first development of the Lime Hill site was initiated by Idaho Power Company in July, 1957.
Idaho Power constructed their communication site, built the access road, and provided power to
the site (BLM serial number ORORE 5473). They remained the only user until 1965, when
Union Pacific RR (ORORE 16256) constructed their site. Oregon Public Broadcasting (OROR
18551) constructed their microwave relay facility in 1978. The Oregon State Police (OROR
20021) established their communications equipment on the site in Idaho Power’s building in
1979, then moved to Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) facility (OROR 35536)
when it was constructed in 1983. The MCI Worldcom facility (OROR 34929) was authorized in
November 1982 and constructed the following year. Chambers Cable Co. (OROR 35953) built
their facility in 1983, assigned their interest to Cable 1 Corp. in 2001, and Cable 1 assigned their
interest to RCC Holdings (Rural Cellular Corp.) in 2001. Boise State University (OROR 52085)
constructed a seismograph telemetry and repeater station on the site in 1995; located just off the
northeast top of the hill. US Cellular (OROR 53860) built their facility in 1998. Triton
Communications (OROR 55217) built their cellular facility in 1999, assigned it to RCC
Holdings, and it is now held by RCC Atlantic; a division of RCC Holdings. Eagle Telephone
Systems (OROR 56643) constructed their cellular facility in 2001. The BLM constructed their
radio site in 2007; the site includes a tower, building, and fenced area under authorization
(OROR 55766). In 2008, the BLM authorized T-Mobile to co-locate within US Cellular’s
compound under communications use lease OR65250.
Goals and Objectives of Site Management Plan
Manage the Lime Hill Site for two-way radio, microwave, cellular, cable television receive, and
other low power broadcast uses. All uses must be designed, operated, and maintained so as not
to materially or electronically interfere with the senior uses. This site is to be used for low power
communications uses only. Systematically develop the site to maximize the number of
compatible uses while ensuring safety and protection of resources. Help fulfill the public need
for adequate communications sites.
2. GOLD HILL COMMUNICATION SITE
Site Description
A Communication Site Management Plan was developed in 2001 for the Gold Hill
Communication Site. The site is located about 26 miles southeast of Baker City, Oregon in
mountainous country overlooking Interstate Highway 84. The site is used exclusively to provide
cellular phone service to Interstate 84 and the immediate vicinity. Baker Field Office manages
the area. It is specifically located in the NE¼NW¼ of section 12, T.20S., R.43E., Willamette
Meridian, in Baker County, Oregon at approximately 44º 32’ 40.7” North Latitude and 117º 23’
58” West Longitude. The elevation at the Gold Hill Communications Site is approximately
4,070 feet above mean sea level.
Appendices 3.8 – p. 5
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.8: Communication Sites
Site History and Development
The first communications use lease at Gold Hill was issued to Oregon RSA#3, LLC (BLM serial
number OROR 52580) on December 5, 1996, for a cellular phone site. In January of 2004,
RSA#3 assigned their interest to Oregon RSA#2, LLC (US Cellular), who today holds the
interest in the facility. In September 2004, the BLM issued a second communications use lease
to RRC Atlantic, Inc., for a second building on the site. RRC Atlantic uses the US Cellular tower
on the site. In 2008, the BLM authorized T-Mobile to co-locate within US Cellular’s compound
under communication use lease OR65251.
Goals and Objectives of Site Management Plan
Manage the Gold Hill Site for two-way radio, microwave, cellular, cable television receive and
other low power broadcast uses with emphasis on the protection of the two existing cellular uses.
This site has been systematically developed to maximize the number of compatible uses and is
about at capacity; while ensuring safety and protection of resources. Help fulfill the public need
for adequate communications sites.
3. BIG LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN - FIRE LOOKOUT AND COMMUNICATIONS SITE
Site Description
The site is located approximately 12 miles South Southwest of Richland, Oregon in mountainous
country. The site is a natural peak and is used as a fire lookout and a radio communication’s site.
Baker Field Office manages the area. It is specifically located in the S½SE¼NW¼,
N½NE¼SW¼, Section 13, T. 11S., R. 44E., Willamette Meridian, in Baker County, Oregon at
approximately 44 36′ 33” North Latitude and 117 16′ 43” West Longitude. The elevation of the
fire lookout is approximately 7100 feet above mean sea level.
Site History and Development
Recordation and appropriation of the BLM Lookout was done under the authority of 44 L.D. 513
and approved by the Oregon BLM State Director on November 30, 1962. The lookout is a
permanent installation used for fire detection over a major portion of the planning area.
In November of 1962, the BLM authorized a ROW for the lookout under 44 LD 513 (OR013018). BLM’s communication site is also authorized under (OR-013018). In April of 1965,
the BLM authorized a road ROW under 44 LD 513 (OR-016072) for ingress and egress to the
lookout. In September of 1989, a tri-party Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
BLM, Baker County Sheriff’s Office, and the State of Oregon acting by and through the Oregon
Commission on Public Broadcasting, was authorized to provide for the establishment of a
communications site under the authorities of BLM- Section 307 (b) of FLPMA of 1976, P.L. 94579, (90 State. 2766; 43 U.S.C. 1731), OCPB-Oregon Revised Statutes 354.105 through
354.215, and Baker County Sheriff-Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 190. In June of 1994,
Appendices 3.8 – p. 6
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.8: Communication Sites
communication use lease (OR-49832) was issued to Boise State University, Department of
Geology for a Seismograph Telemetry Station for earthquake monitoring in Oregon.
In October of 2001, OCPB FM and TV translator facilities were removed from the Lookout
Mountain communications site and relocated to a site on Summit Ridge. The MOU for OCPB
was terminated at that time.
Goals and Objectives of Site Management Plan
Manage the Lookout Mountain fire lookout and communication’s site for two-way radio
communications, future cellular use and as a seismograph telemetry site. Development of the
site may be limited due to the peak area; however, co-locators with compatible uses may be
accommodated on existing towers. Help fulfill the public and the governments need for
adequate communications sites.
4. HALFWAY/RICHLAND HILL COMMUNICATION SITE
Site Description
The site is located a short distance off Oregon State Highway 86 at the summit between the
towns of Richland and Halfway, Oregon. State Highway 86 goes through the area connecting the
towns or communities of Oxbow, Halfway, Richland, and Baker City. Baker Field Office
manages the site. It is specifically located in the SW¼NW¼in Section 32, T. 8S., R.46 E., of the
Willamette Meridian in Baker County, Oregon at approximately 44 53’ 27” North Latitude
and117 06′ 49” West Longitude at an elevation of 3760 feet above mean sea level.
Site History and Development
The site was developed and operated by the Forest Service in the early 1960’s, under grant from
the BLM by 44LD513. The Forest Service relinquished this facility to the Idaho Power
Company who was issued a ROW grant (OR-14735) on March 13, 1975, for a two-way radio
site and a powerline to the site. Eagle Telephone System Incorporated (ETSI) applied for a
communications use lease to build a new cellular facility at the Richland/Halfway site in 2001.
A ROW/communications use lease was issued to ETSI on 6 July 2001, under serial number OR56644, for a cellular site.
Goals and Objectives of Site Management Plan
Manage the Richland/Halfway communication’s site for two-way radio communications,
microwave, and cellular use. Systematically develop the site to maximize the number of
compatible uses while ensuring safety and protection of resources. Help fulfill the public and
the governments need for adequate communications sites.
Appendices 3.8 – p. 7
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.8: Communication Sites
5. SHEEP MOUNTAIN RADIO SITE
Site Description
The site is located approximately 47 air miles from Baker City, Oregon, and is specifically
located in T.7S., R.47E., Section 36; in the SE¼SE¼SE¼, of the Willamette Meridian in Baker
County, Oregon, at approximately 44 54.23’ North Latitude and 116 54.09 West Latitude at an
elevation of 4841 feet above mean sea level. Baker Field Office manages the site.
Site History and Development
The site was developed in the early 1970’s by the United States Forest Service -WallowaWhitman National Forest. The BLM granted a perpetual ROW to the United States Forest
Service under 44LD513, and assigned serial number OR-006539. The site is known as the
Sheep Mountain Radio site. The ROW authorized a 6’x8’ steel building and a 30’ steel antenna
tower for radio communication. Solar panels power the site. The Foster Gulch Fire burned over
the area in 2006 and destroyed the building that the equipment was housed. The Whitman
District of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest replaced the building and equipment in 2007,
using a helicopter, as there are no access roads to the site. This site is important to the Forest
Service for communications coverage in the Oxbow Canyon and Halfway, Oregon area.
Goals and Objectives of Site Management Plan
Manage the Sheep Mountain communication’s site for two-way radio communications. Help
fulfill the United States government’s need for adequate communication sites.
6. HERMISTON BUTTE COMMUNICATION SITE
Site Description
The site is located on Hermiston Butte, off of Butte Drive, within the city limits of Hermiston,
Oregon, and is specifically located in T. 4N., R.28E., Section 10 of the NE¼NW¼, of the
Willamette Meridian in Umatilla County, Oregon, at approximately 45 50’ 50” North Latitude
and 119 18’ 11” West Longitude at an elevation of 640 feet above mean sea level. Baker Field
Office manages the site.
Site History and Development
Prior to 1924-1926, a reservoir was built on top of Hermiston Butte to store water for the City of
Hermiston. In the 1960’s, the City of Hermiston proposed that the BLM transfer these public
lands to the city under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP), for “historic and public
park purposes.” This land was patented to the city in 1969 with several limitations. One of the
limitations stated that pre-existing rights on the parcel were protected, and the patent was issued
“subject to” those rights, which included a communications site and tower. At the time of the
Appendices 3.8 – p. 8
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.8: Communication Sites
patent, the communications site then came under the control and management of the City of
Hermiston and thus was no longer managed by the BLM. In the early 1990s, the City of
Hermiston requested relinquishment of the old reservoir ROW (LG-09708). The City of
Hermiston applied for a ROW to build a new storage tank in the 1990’s. Because the project did
not comply with the R&PP, which the land was under at the time for a community park, the BLM
lacked the authority to grant a ROW on the patented land. Therefore, the City Quit-Claimed 3.44
acres back to the United States in May of 1998, because the reservoir was outside the scope of
the regulations that govern the R&PP Act, the communications site, being within the 3.44 acres,
also came back under the jurisdiction of the BLM. A new ROW was to be established for the
communications site. In June of 1998, ROW OR-54156 was granted to the City of Hermiston to
build a new water storage tank on the butte. Currently, the City of Hermiston’s Water Department
has a water storage tank on the top of Hermiston Butte. The Water Department monitors and
controls the water storage facility located at the butte. The old communications site was
demolished in 2005 and a new communications facility was installed. The site today is a ground
level vault that contains equipment utilized by EZ Wireless, a City of Hermiston Franchise. EZ
Wireless currently provides broadband services to the Chemical Emergency Stockpile
Preparedness Program (CSEPP) first providers in case on an emergency at the Umatilla Army
Chemical Depot.
Goals and Objectives
Manage the Hermiston Butte communication site for two-way radio use for the City of
Hermiston under Communications Use Lease OR-58540. The City of Hermiston and the
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) requested the BLM limit the
number of users and uses on the butte. The site will be managed accordingly.
E. FORECAST
The need to locate more radio, cellular, and microwave facilities on mountaintops, hills, ridges,
and structures to meet the public’s demand for telecommunications coverage is increasing. As
we see population growth from the cities to urban growth areas, there will be an increase in the
usage of telecommunications devices that will require more applications for ROWs on public
lands to accommodate the ever-increasing demand for reliable network coverage. High speed
data connection’s technology that will change the way we live will be a standard in everyone’s
life in the future. The Baker Field Office must identify areas where telecommunications
companies can locate new communication sites within the Planning Area, as the existing sites fill
to capacity.
Each year, we will see commercial launchings of new broadband technology that will be easy to
install with relatively low cost to consumers. Public lands play an important role in providing
this technology to all consumers. We can expect to see more applications for communications
sites in the Planning Area.
Appendices 3.8 – p. 9
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.8: Communication Sites
F. KEY FEATURES
The location of communications sites is critical to attaining an optimum functioning
telecommunications network. The communications wireless market is very competitive with
speed to market and location being important to all generation providers. Telecommunication
companies locate their facilities on mountaintops, buildings, etc., at elevations that attain the
most coverage for the consumers of digital products. The BLM plays an important role in
meeting consumer demands for broadband coverage by permitting telecommunication
companies to locate their communication sites on mountaintops, ridges, and in and on other
locations on public lands.
BLM encourages and prefers collocation at existing sites when possible and many sites have
multiple users who are compatible with other users at the sites. However, there will be an
increase in applications for new sites on public lands as these existing sites fill to capacity; and
as more consumers utilize new and existing technology. As new mandates from the State of
Oregon and Homeland Security for emergency telecommunications coverage to rural areas come
out; and as the communication’s ring slowly expands out to rural areas, new sites will be
necessary.
New equipment to support data services over the wireless interface is being deployed and in
certain cases where signals only cover about half the distance of the existing system, more
wireless facility locations will be required to meet coverage and network capacity objectives.
Appendices 3.8 – p. 10
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
FINAL REPORT
VALE DISTRICT OFFICE INVENTORY
OF POTENTIAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS IN THE
BAKER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PLANNING AREA
Prepared for:
Bureau of Land Management
Vale District Office
100 Oregon Street
Vale, Oregon 97918
Prepared by:
Jonas Consulting
PO Box 2153/1020 Greenview Drive
Cave Junction, Oregon 97523
March 1, 2010
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
B. Public Involvement And Coordination ...................................................................................... 1
C. Process........................................................................................................................................ 1
D. Steps 1 And 2: Wild And Scenic Rivers Eligibility Criteria Review And Tentative
Classification................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Eligibility Criteria ............................................................................................................... 2
2. Tentative Classification ...................................................................................................... 4
3. Results of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility Inventory for the Baker Resource
Management Plan Planning Area............................................................................................ 5
D. Step 3: Wild and Scenic River Suitability Review ................................................................... 9
1. Suitability Factors ............................................................................................................... 9
2. Results of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Suitability Review for the Baker RMP Planning
Area ....................................................................................................................................... 10
E. Step 4: Management of Rivers Determined Suitable .............................................................. 11
Attachment A: Initial Eligibility Determination For The South Fork Walla Walla River Made In
This Study ..................................................................................................................................... 13
1. Jonas Consulting Initial Eligibility Determination ........................................................... 13
2. U.S. Forest Service Eligibility Determination .................................................................. 16
3. Classification..................................................................................................................... 22
Attachment B: Outstandingly Remarkable Values Summary Table ............................................ 23
Attachment C: River Segment Narrative Table ............................................................................ 30
Attachment D: Wild And Scenic Rivers Suitability Review: Baker Resource Management Plan
Planning Area................................................................................................................................ 38
A. Public Involvement During the Wild and Scenic Rivers Suitability Review ....................... 38
B. Results of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Suitability Review of Public Lands Along Waterways
in the Baker Resource Management Plan Planning Area .......................................................... 38
1. Grande Ronde River, Lower Section ................................................................................ 38
Attachment E: Management of Waterways Within the Baker Resource Management Plan
Planning Area That Meet the Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility Criteria ................................... 42
A. Wild And Scenic Rivers Review Process ............................................................................. 42
B. Management Objective ......................................................................................................... 42
1. Joseph Creek ..................................................................................................................... 43
Attachment F: Literature Cited ..................................................................................................... 45
Appendices 3.9 – p. i
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
APPENDIX 3.9: VALE DISTRICT OFFICE INVENTORY OF
POTENTIAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS IN THE BAKER
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN PLANNING AREA
A. INTRODUCTION
The Baker Field Office (FO) of the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) Vale District is in
the process of writing the Baker Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), a revision of the current Baker RMP (BLM 1989). As part of the planning
effort, the BLM interdisciplinary (ID) team initiated a wild and scenic river (WSR) inventory of
all rivers and streams (perennial, annual, or ephemeral) within the Baker RMP planning area.
Initially, this inventory was to determine if any of these waterways that flow through BLMadministered public lands (public lands) meet the WSR eligibility criteria identified in the WSR
Act of 1968, as amended. After eligibility determination, a second study was initiated to
determine if any of the waterways determined eligible also meet the WSR suitability criteria.
B. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COORDINATION
While public participation in the WSR review process often occurs at the suitability phase of the
process, the Baker FO determined that it would be more efficient to conduct the suitability
review and allow the public to comment on both the eligibility and suitability determinations
made in this report during public review of the draft RMP. Following stipulation, the results of
this WSR eligibility inventory and suitability determination will be included in the Baker RMP
planning effort. The public will thus be given the opportunity to comment on the WSR review
results throughout the environmental analysis and planning process for the RMP planning effort.
Reports and recommendations to Congress for inclusion of public lands in the National WSR
System will be based on waterways meeting established eligibility criteria and suitability factors;
professional judgment; and broad participation via public education, sentiment, and involvement.
Public involvement is required by law, regulations, and as deemed necessary by the BLM.
C. PROCESS
The following definitions apply to key terms used in the WSR review process:
River (or waterway): A flowing body of water or estuary or a section, portion, or tributary
thereof, including rivers, streams, creeks, runs, kills, rills, and small lakes. For purposes of this
review, a river is not required to have water in it year-round as long as flows are regular and
predictable, even though intermittent, seasonal, or interrupted (BLM 2004).
Public lands: The BLM-administered public land surface along waterways within a planning
area. Those "split estate lands," where the land surface is state or privately owned and the
federal mineral estate is administered by the BLM, are not involved with these reviews. This
Appendices 3.9 – p. 1
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
study involves the review of public lands: data on segments, parcels, corridors, rivers, and
waterways were collected on public lands only and are the basis for this review.
This WSR inventory of waterways in the Baker RMP planning area entails a four-step process:
1. Evaluate each waterway segment in the study area to determine if it is eligible for
inclusion into the National WSR System.
2. Tentatively classify each segment determined eligible as wild, scenic, or recreational.
3. Identify and make recommendations for interim protection for those waterways
determined suitable.
4. Determine if any of those waterway segment that meet the eligibility criteria also meet
the WSR suitability factors.
D. STEPS 1 AND 2: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ELIGIBILITY
CRITERIA REVIEW AND TENTATIVE CLASSIFICATION
1. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
To meet the eligibility criteria, a waterway must be "free-flowing" and, along with its adjacent
land area, must possess one or more "outstandingly remarkable" values. Only those portions of
waterways flowing through public lands are to be considered. The following are the guidelines
used in applying the eligibility criteria:
Free-flowing: As applied to any river or section of a river, free-flowing means existing or
flowing in natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other
modification of the waterway. The existence, however, of low dams, diversion works, and other
minor structures at the time any river is proposed for inclusion in the National WSR System shall
not automatically bar its consideration for such inclusion; provided, that this shall not be
construed to authorize, intend, or encourage future construction of such structures within
components of the National WSR System (WSR Act Sec. 16(b)).
A river need not be “boatable or floatable” in order to be eligible as long as the volume of flow is
sufficient enough to maintain the outstandingly remarkable values identified within the segment
(BLM 1993). In addition, flows need not to be permanent but can be intermittent, seasonal, or
interrupted, as long as they are regular and predictable and derived from naturally occurring
circumstances (BLM 2004).
Outstandingly Remarkable Values: The public lands along waterways must also possess one
or more outstandingly remarkable values to be eligible for further consideration. Outstandingly
remarkable values relate to scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or
other similar resource values.
In order to be assessed as outstandingly remarkable, a river related value must be “a unique, rare
or exemplary feature that is significant at a comparative regional or national scale,” that is, such
Appendices 3.9 – p. 2
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
a value “would be one that is a conspicuous example from among a number of similar values that
are themselves uncommon or extraordinary” (USFS and NPS 1999, p. 13). In addition, all such
values should be directly river related. That is, they should be located in the river or on its
immediate shorelands (generally within one-quarter mile on either side of the river); contribute
substantially to the functioning of the river ecosystem; and/or owe their location or existence to
the presence of the river. The following criteria for outstandingly remarkable values were used
in assessing waterways in the Baker RMP planning area:
Scenic: The landscape elements of landform, vegetation, water, color and related factors result in
notable or exemplary visual features and/or attractions within the geographic region. When
analyzing scenic values, additional factors such as seasonal variations in vegetation, scale of
cultural modifications, and the length of time negative intrusions are viewed may be considered.
Scenery and visual attractions may be highly diverse over the majority of the river or river
segment and not common to other rivers in the geographic region.
Recreational: Recreational opportunities are or have the potential to be unusual enough to
attract visitors to the geographic region. Visitors are willing to travel long distances to use the
river resources for recreational purposes. River related opportunities could include, but are not
limited to, sightseeing, wildlife observation, camping, photography, hiking, fishing, hunting, and
boating. Interpretive opportunities may be exceptional and attract or have the potential to attract
visitors from outside the geographic region. The river may provide or have the potential to
provide settings for national or regional commercial usage or competitive events. In addition,
the river may be eligible if it is determined to provide a critically important regional recreation
opportunity, or be a significant component of a regional recreation opportunity spectrum setting.
Geologic: The river or the area within the river corridor contains one or more example(s) of a
geologic feature, process, or phenomenon that is unique or rare within the region of comparison.
The feature(s) may be in an unusually active stage of development, represent a “textbook”
example, and/or represent a unique or rare combination of geologic features (erosional, volcanic,
glacial, or other geologic structures).
Fish: Fish values may be judged on the relative merits of either fish populations or habitat, or a
combination of these river related conditions:
Populations: The river is nationally or regionally one of the top producers of resident,
indigenous, and/or anadromous fish species. Of particular significance may be the presence
of wild stocks or unique stocks, or populations of state, federally listed, or candidate
threatened and endangered species.
Habitat: The river provides exceptionally high quality habitat for fish species indigenous to
the region. Of particular significance is habitat for state, federally listed, or candidate
threatened and endangered species.
Wildlife: Wildlife values may be judged on the relative merits of either wildlife populations or
habitat, or a combination of these conditions:
Appendices 3.9 – p. 3
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
Populations: The river or area within the river corridor contains nationally or regionally
important populations of resident or indigenous wildlife species dependent on the river
environment. Of particular significance may be species considered to be unique or
populations of state, federally listed, or candidate threatened or endangered species.
Habitat: The river, or area within the river corridor, provides exceptionally high quality
habitat for wildlife of national or regional significance, and/or may provide unique habitat or
a critical link in habitat conditions for state, federally listed, or candidate threatened or
endangered species. Contiguous habitat conditions are such that the biological needs of the
species are met.
Cultural: The river, or area within the river corridor, contains a site(s) where there is evidence
of occupation or use by Native Americans. Sites must be rare, have unusual characteristics, or
exceptional human interest value(s). Sites may have national or regional importance for
interpreting prehistory; may be rare; may represent an area where a culture or cultural period was
first identified and described; may have been used concurrently by two or more cultural groups;
or may have been used by cultural groups for rare sacred purposes.
Historic: The river or area within the river corridor contains a site(s) or feature(s) associated
with a significant event, an important person, or a cultural activity of the past that was rare or
unusual in the region. A historic site(s) and/or features(s) in most cases is 50 years old or older.
Sites or features listed in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places,
may be of particular significance.
Other Similar Values: While no specific national evaluation guidelines have been developed
for the “other similar values” category, additional values deemed relevant to the eligibility of the
river segment should be considered in a manner consistent with the foregoing guidance -including, but not limited to, hydrology, ecologic/biologic diversity, paleontology, botanic, and
scientific study opportunities.
2. TENTATIVE CLASSIFICATION
At the same time that eligibility determinations are made, rivers that meet the eligibility criteria
are also given a tentative classification (either wild, scenic, or recreational), as required by the
WSR Act. Tentative classification is based on the type and degree of human developments
associated with waterway and adjacent lands as they exist at the time of the review. This
classification, however, is a planning recommendation and is tentative to Congressional
legislative determination. The tentative classifications are further defined as follows:
Wild River Area: Wild river areas are those where the rivers or sections of rivers that are free of
impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines
essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America.
Wild means undeveloped; roads, dams, or diversion works are generally absent from a onequarter mile corridor on both sides of the river.
Appendices 3.9 – p. 4
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
Scenic River Area: Scenic river areas are those where the rivers or sections of rivers that are
generally free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and
shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. Scenic does not necessarily
mean the river corridor has to have scenery as an outstandingly remarkable value; however, it
means the waterway or waterway segment may contain more development (except for major
dams or diversion works) than a wild segment and less development than a recreational segment.
For example, roads may cross the river in places but generally do not run parallel to it. In certain
cases, if a parallel road is unpaved and well-screened from the river by vegetation, a hill, etc., it
could qualify for scenic river area classification.
Recreational River Area: Recreational river areas are those rivers or sections of rivers that are
readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines,
and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. Parallel roads or
railroads or the existence of small dams or diversions can be allowed in this classification. A
recreational river area classification does not imply that the river or section of river will be
managed or have priority for recreational use or development.
3. RESULTS OF THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ELIGIBILITY INVENTORY FOR
THE BAKER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN PLANNING AREA
Members of the BLM ID Team, consisting of resource specialists from the Baker Resource Area,
met on June 22, 2005 to review Resource-wide maps of all of perennial, ephemeral, and
intermittent waterways within the Baker RMP planning area. Existing designated WSRs were
not re-evaluated. The ID Team were given the opportunity to review the maps for several weeks
in late June through mid July of 2005 and to identify any streams that their
experience/knowledge indicated possessed “unique, rare, or exemplary” values. The ID Team
met again on July 21, 2005 to review their findings and to finalize the list of waterways that
potentially possessed outstandingly remarkable values. Out of waterways reviewed, the ID
Team identified eight waterways totaling approximately 43.7 miles had potential to possess
outstandingly remarkable values and thus required further review. These waterways include two
sections of the Grande Ronde River (upper and lower), Burnt River, Snake River, South Fork
Walla Walla River, Conner Creek, Fox Creek, and Joseph Creek. The remaining waterways
were dropped from further consideration due to lacking the potential to possess outstandingly
remarkable values.
The eight waterways (five rivers and three creeks) suspected to possess outstandingly remarkable
values were contracted out for further review. The locations of these waterways are presented in
Figure 1. Each of these waterways was visited to document their free-flowing nature and to
identify existing outstandingly remarkable values, where possible. Data were only gathered on
the waterway segments that cross public lands: no private, state, or other federal lands were
reviewed. Fieldwork was conducted between April 30 and June 4, 2006. Digital photos were
taken and GPS referenced as part of the documentation process. Existing pertinent data from
Appendices 3.9 – p. 5
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
state, federal, and local sources were also reviewed to substantiate or refute the existence of
outstandingly remarkable values. Finally, BLM staff at the Baker FO was further consulted for
their expertise on specific river-related values along the eight studied waterways.
Four of the eight waterways with potential to possess outstandingly remarkable values (Burnt
River, Connor Creek, Fox Creek, and upper Grande Ronde) were found not to meet the WSR
eligibility criteria and dropped from further consideration. The South Fork Walla Walla River
was initially determined to possess outstandingly remarkable values by this study, but was later
dropped due to the reasons described below. Three remaining waterways (Joseph Creek, lower
Grande Ronde River, and Snake River) were identified as possessing outstandingly remarkable
values and were thus determined eligible. Table 1 below summarizes these findings.
Table 1. Summary of the Baker RMP Planning Area WSR Eligibility Review
River/Stream
FreeOutstandingly Remarkable Public Lands
(Waterway) Reviewed
flowing
Values on Public Lands
Eligible?
South Fork Walla Walla River
Yes
None
No
Grande Ronde River (Upper Section)
Yes
None
No
Scenic
Recreational
Grande Ronde River (Lower Section)
Yes
Fish
Yes
Geologic
Cultural
Snake River
Yes
Cultural
Yes
Scenic
Joseph Creek
Yes
Yes
Geologic
Fox Creek
Yes
None
No
Connor Creek (Segment 1)
No
None
No
Connor Creek (Segments 2 & 3)
Yes
None
No
Burnt River
Yes
None
No
The South Fork Walla Walla River was initially identified as possessing outstandingly
remarkable scenic, recreational, fish, and ecological values during the inventory process;
however, subsequent consultation with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) led to dropping the
eligibility determination. The USFS (Umatilla National Forest) manages a 15.7-mile segment of
the South Fork Walla Walla River directly above the 3.6-mile segment evaluated in this report.
The USFS segment includes the headwaters, near Deduct Spring, to the Umatilla National Forest
and BLM boundary. The USFS had conducted an earlier WSR eligibility review of the South
Fork Walla Walla River and determined that it did not possess outstandingly remarkable values.
Because the USFS manages a much longer stretch of the South Fork of the Walla Walla River,
the BLM has made a decision to defer the final resource assessment of the entire river to the
USFS. The initial WSR eligibility determination made in this study for the South Fork Walla
Walla River and the USFS determination that is being accepted for this study are presented in
Attachment A.
Appendices 3.9 – p. 6
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
The specific values identified as outstandingly remarkable for the three waterways determined
eligible are discussed in depth below. Attachment B (WSR Outstandingly Remarkable Value
Summary Table) provides details on scenic, fisheries, recreation, wildlife, historical, geologic,
cultural, and similar values for all eight waterways, and identifies why such values were or were
not considered outstandingly remarkable. Attachment C (River Segment Narrative Table)
provides details for each segment of the eight waterways reviewed and shows the tentative
classification (either scenic or recreational) suggested for each of the segments that meet the
eligibility criteria. Attachment C also includes maps illustrating all segments of the Grande
Ronde River (lower section), Snake River, and Joseph Creek determined eligible for inclusion
into the National WSR system.
Outstandingly Remarkable Values along the Grande Ronde River, Lower Section
The lower section of the Grande Ronde River reviewed is 38.5 miles long. It begins near the
confluence with the Snake River in the SE¼ of Section 13, T. 7 N., R. 46 E, in Asotin County,
Washington and ends in the SE¼ of Section 14, T. 6 N., R. 43 E, in Asotin County, Washington.
Within this section, the river flows through 15 parcels of public land for a total of 17 miles,
which is 44 percent of the river section reviewed. These 15 segments of the lower Grande Ronde
River possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreation, geologic, fish, and cultural values.
These values have already been recognized as significant and warranting special protection
through the designation of the Grande Ronde River ACEC (BLM 1989) and inclusion in the
Wallowa & Grande Ronde Rivers Final Management Plan (BLM et al. 1993).
Scenic Values: The scenic values of the river corridor is of high quality and includes views of
steep rock terraces, sheer basalt cliffs, and overhanging bluffs along portions of the river, as well
as grassy slopes, isolated strands of ponderosa pine, and views of forested mountaintops. This
section of the river flows through the Grande Ronde Goosenecks National Natural Landmark,
which provide viewers an excellent example of lateral entrenched meanders and exposed layers
of Columbia River Basalt. The scenery changes at every meander in the river, revealing a
variety of shapes and colors in the canyon walls and a wide variety of vegetation types. This mix
of landform, vegetation, water, and color results in notable visual features within the geographic
region, making the scenic values outstandingly remarkable.
Recreational Values: Public lands on the lower Grande Ronde River offer a variety of
recreational activities, including boating and steelhead fishing. Visitors are willing to travel long
distances to boat this section of river, which allows for a 2- to 4-day, primitive to semi-primitive
float experiences for individuals of beginning and moderate skill levels. Recreationists float
through spectacular scenery, including the Grande Ronde Goosenecks National Natural
Landmark, and are offered a sense of solitude. Many recreationists float the river specifically for
the steelhead angling opportunities, which is considered to be among the best in the Pacific
Northwest. As such, recreational values along the lower segment of the Grande Ronde River can
be considered outstandingly remarkable.
Appendices 3.9 – p. 7
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
Geologic Values: Portions of the Goosenecks National Natural Landmark falls within public
lands along the lower section of the Grande Ronde River. This landmark was designated in 1980
and illustrates regional uplift and forced entrenchment of a stream. By definition, a national
natural landmark is a nationally significant natural area that has been designated by the Secretary
of the Interior. Significance is defined as one of the “best” examples of a type of geological
feature in its physiographic province. “Best” is gauged primarily on illustrativeness and
condition of the resource. Following this, geologic values along the lower Grande Ronde River
can be considered outstandingly remarkable.
Fish Values: The lower Grande Ronde River supports bull trout, Snake River Basin steelhead,
Snake River fall-run Chinook, and Snake River spring-run Chinook. All four species are listed
as threatened. It is the only section of the river currently used by fall-run Chinook and comprises
a significant percentage of the species available habitat. This section of river is also an important
migration corridor and provides rearing habitat for Snake River Steelhead and Spring Run
Chinook. Approximately 44 miles of the Grande Ronde River upstream from the currently
reviewed sections lands are part of the National WSR System, partially due to the possession of
outstandingly remarkable fisheries values. This upstream protection adds to the integrity of the
fisheries in the review section. Due to the existing population of four threatened fish species, the
specific importance of the river section to Snake River fall-run Chinook, and connectivity to
upstream populations of the other three fish species currently provided protection under the
National WSR System, the lower Grande Ronde River contains outstandingly remarkable fishery
values.
Cultural Values: Native American occupation sites of regional importance are located on
public lands within the study section of the lower Grande Ronde River. Some sites are rare and
most would be considered eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
As such, the cultural values along the lower Grande Ronde River are outstandingly remarkable.
Outstandingly Remarkable Values along the Snake River:
The section of the Snake River reviewed is 6.87 miles long. It begins in Section 19, T. 7 N., R.
47 E., in Asotin County, Washington and ends the SE¼ of Section 9, T. 6 N., R. 47 E., in Asotin
County, Washington. Within this section, the river flows through one parcel of public land for a
total of 6.87 miles, which is the entire length of the river section reviewed. This segment of the
Snake River possesses outstandingly cultural values.
Cultural Values: The review segment of the Snake River is located within the Snake River
National Register District. Native American occupation sites of regional importance are located
on public lands within the study section of the lower Snake River. As such, the cultural values
along the Snake River are outstandingly remarkable.
Appendices 3.9 – p. 8
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
Outstandingly Remarkable Values along Joseph Creek:
The section of the Joseph Creek reviewed is 26.8 miles long. It begins in the NE¼ of Section 8,
T. 6 N., 46 E. in Asotin County, Washington and ends in SW¼ of Section 31, T. 5 N., 45 E. in
Wallowa County, Oregon. Within this section, the creek flows through seven parcels of public
land for a total of 5.7miles, which is 21.3 percent the river section reviewed. The shortest
segment is 0.06 mile and the longest is 2.59 miles. All seven segments of Joseph Creek possess
outstandingly scenic and geologic values. These values have already been recognized as
significant and warranting special protection through the designation of the Joseph Creek
Outstanding Natural Area (ONA)/ACEC (BLM 1989). As to date, a management plan has not
yet been prepared for the ONA/ACEC.
Scenic Values: Joseph Creek lies within a deeply incised and rimrock-exposed canyon with
gooseneck meanders, grassy open slopes, and benches. While primarily comprised of arid,
steppe vegetation, stringers of trees can be found in side drainages and the narrow riparian zone
along the Creek is a greenbelt of vegetation, even in the driest months, offering great contrast to
the arid slopes. In the spring, the slopes are colored by lush green grass. From the rim of the
canyon, visitors are offered views into the rugged, meandering canyon with the creek roughly
2,000 feet below, contrasted by the forested rim and tall mountains in the background.
Geologic Values: Joseph Creek is an excellent example of northeastern Oregon geology
typified by Columbia River basalt canyons, exposed by the down cutting of the creek. Because
of erosion and down cutting of the creek, the depth and layers of basalt are evident, revealing
stacked layers of basalt lava flows and columnar basalt 10-200 feet thick. The basalt canyon also
includes textbook examples of gooseneck meanders. Overall, the canyon is virtually unmodified
and all its geologic details can be easily viewed from the canyon rim.
D. STEP 3: WILD AND SCENIC RIVER SUITABILITY REVIEW
1. SUITABILITY FACTORS
All of the public lands in the Baker RMP planning area found to meet the eligibility criteria and
tentatively classified (i.e., wild, scenic, or recreational) were further reviewed to determine if
they meet the WSR suitability factors. Some factors considered in the suitability determinations
included, but were not limited to:
Factor 1: Characteristics which do or do not make the public lands involved a worthy addition
to the National WSR System.
Factor 2: Current status of landownership (including mineral ownership) and land and resource
uses in the area, including the amount of private land involved, and any associated or
incompatible land uses.
Appendices 3.9 – p. 9
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
Factor 3: Reasonable foreseeable potential uses of the public lands involved and related waters
that would be enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the
National WSR System, and the values that may be foreclosed or diminished if the
public lands are not protected as part of the National WSR System.
Factor 4: Public, state, local, tribal, or federal interests in designation or non-designation of any
part or all of the waterway involved, including the extent to which the administration
of any or all of the waterway, including the costs thereof, may be shared by state,
local, or other agencies and individuals.
Factor 5: Estimated cost of acquiring necessary lands, interests in lands, and administering the
area if it is added to the National WSR System. Section 6 of the National WSR
System outlines policies and limitations for acquiring lands or interests in land by
donation, exchange, consent of owners, easement, transfer, assignment of rights, or
condemnation within and outside established river boundaries.
Factor 6: Ability of the BLM to manage and/or protect the public lands involved as part of the
National WSR System, or by other mechanism (existing and potential) to protect
identified values other than WSR designation.
Factor 7: Historical or existing rights, which could be adversely affected. In the suitability
review, adequate consideration will be given to rights held by other landowners and
applicants, lessees, claimants, or authorized users of the public lands involved.
Factor 8: Other issues and concerns if any.
2. RESULTS OF THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SUITABILITY REVIEW FOR
THE BAKER RMP PLANNING AREA
The WSR suitability determinations for the Baker RMP planning area were derived by screening
the public lands determined to meet the WSR eligibility criteria against the above eight
suitability factors. This screening was first conducted by Jonas Consulting and then presented to
BLM planning team members for the Baker RMP on October 26, 2009. The BLM planning
team made modifications to the suitability review and came up with the following determination:
The public lands along the upstream-most reviewed segment (Segment 5.7) of Joseph
Creek previously determined to meet the eligibility criteria were also determined to meet
the suitability factors.
All other public land parcels determined to meet the eligibility criteria did not meet the
suitability factors and were dropped from further consideration. The primary suitability factors
involved in the non-suitability determination are Factors 2, and 6, which indicated (1) the public
lands involved are land-locked by private lands and are inaccessible to the public, and obtaining
Appendices 3.9 – p. 10
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
public access to the public lands via private property would not be likely; (2) the public lands
cannot be managed as part of the National WSR System if designation were to occur because of
potential management conflicts with the interspersed (up and downstream) and adjacent private
lands; and/or (3) a WSR designation is deemed unnecessary or inappropriate as existing
mechanisms sufficiently protect identified scenic and historical values (i.e., a WSR designation
would provide no foreseeable additional protection).
Attachment D (Wild and Scenic Suitability Review) is a detailed summary of the suitability
review of the waterway segments containing public lands determined to meet the eligibility
criteria and the suitability determinations made for the public lands involved.
E. STEP 4: MANAGEMENT OF RIVERS DETERMINED SUITABLE
Eligible waterways determined suitable and given a tentative classification as wild, scenic,
and/or recreational require protective measures necessary to preserve their free-flowing nature,
protect their identified outstandingly remarkable values, and maintain their tentative
classification. Waterways determined eligible but not suitable do not require such management
because they would not be considered for inclusion in the National WSR System. Following
this, specific management prescriptions for suitable river segments provide protection in the
following ways (BLM 1993):
Free-Flowing Values: The free-flowing characteristics of suitable river segments cannot be
modified to allow stream impoundments, diversions, channelization, and/or riprapping to the
extent the BLM is authorized under law.
River-Related Values: Each segment shall be managed to protect identified outstandingly
remarkable values (subject to valid existing rights) and, to the extent practicable, such values
shall be enhanced.
Classification Impact: Management and development of the suitable river and its corridor
cannot be modified, subject to valid existing rights, to the degree that its eligibility or tentative
classification would be affected (i.e., its tentative river area classification cannot be changed
from wild to scenic, or from scenic to recreational). Should a suitable determination be rejected
in the RMP process, the river shall then be managed in accordance with management objectives
as outlined in the RMP document.
This report includes interim protection measures for each of the outstandingly remarkable values
identified for the suitable segment of Joseph Creek. These recommendations are presented in
Attachment E (Management of Waterways in the Baker RMP Planning Area that Meet the WSR
Suitability Factors). Comprehensive protective management as identified in BLM Manual 8351
include management objectives, management actions, and appropriate allocations of land and
resource uses that would maintain or enhance the outstandingly remarkable values and tentative
WSR classification identified on the public lands involved. If the Baker FO decides to apply
Appendices 3.9 – p. 11
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
interim protective measures to suitable waterways, such protective measures would be subject to
valid existing rights and would remain in effect until determinations are superseded.
Appendices 3.9 – p. 12
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
ATTACHMENT A: INITIAL ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION FOR THE
SOUTH FORK WALLA WALLA RIVER MADE IN THIS STUDY
1. JONAS CONSULTING INITIAL ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION
Outstandingly Remarkable Values along the South Fork Walla Walla River
The section of the South Fork Walla Walla River reviewed is approximately 3.6 miles long. It
begins upstream of Harris Park in the W½ of Section 7, T. 4 N., R 38 E., in Umatilla County,
Oregon and ends in the SE¼ of Section 10, T. 4 N., R 37 E., in Umatilla County, Oregon.
Within this section, the river flows through one parcel of public land for a total of 3.6 miles. The
determination documented here is exclusively for this 3.6-mile portion of the South Fork Walla
Walla that flows through BLM-administered lands. These conclusions for the section of the river
flowing through BLM administered lands are preliminary. The overall determination for the
entire South Fork of the Walla Walla is deferred to the Forest Service as described at the end of
this report.
The preliminary conclusion of this study for the BLM portion of the river is that this segment of
South Fork Walla Walla River possesses outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreation, fish, and
ecological values. The values recognized in the present study have also already been recognized
as significant and warranting special protection through the designation of the South Fork Walla
Walla River Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and the development of a
management plan (BLM 1992).
Scenic Values: The scenery along the river includes lush riparian areas intermingled with thick
conifer forest enclosed in a steep canyon with thick forested slopes, grassy hillsides, and rock
outcroppings. Such features are a sharp contrast to the semiarid desert grasslands outside the
canyon. The rating of the visual resource factors resulted in “A” scenic quality, the highest
rating category containing outstanding visual resource characteristics based on the high vertical
relief in the prominent cliffs, the variety of vegetative types, the clean cascading water, and rich
color combinations (BLM 1992). The preliminary conclusion is that scenic values are
outstandingly remarkable due a variety of landforms, vegetation, water, and color.
Recreation Values: The river provides a number of recreational opportunities, including hiking,
motorcycle riding, fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, sightseeing, and horseback riding, in a near
pristine river environment. While the trail is mainly used by people from within the geographic
region (e.g., Pendleton and Milton-Freewater, Oregon, and Walla Walla Washington), it provides
a “critically important regional recreation opportunity” as it is one of the few accesses into a
heavily forested mountain area otherwise surrounded by high desert. The preliminary conclusion
is that recreation values are outstandingly remarkable.
Fish Values: The South Fork Walla Walla above Harris Park can be defined as an unspoiled
habitat capable of supporting stronghold salmonid populations (Saul et. al. 2001). This
Appendices 3.9 – p. 13
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
assessment is based on ten habitat features, including stream flow, temperature, water quality,
passage condition, channel conditions, instream habitat diversity, substrate quality, and riparian
condition. The South Fork Walla Walla above Harris Park ranked "excellent" in all ten features,
which denotes that these habitat features are pristine or nearly pristine, the section of river is a
stronghold area that is key to the survival and recovery of salmonids, and that the river should be
protected from further impacts. The salmonid species of particular importance in the South Fork
Walla Walla River are the threatened bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and the Middle
Columbia summer steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
The South Fork Walla Walla River is a top producer of bull trout in the Walla Walla River
Basin. The river is located in the Umatilla-Walla Walla Recovery Unit of the Columbia River
population, which encompasses the entire drainages of the Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers. In
the Walla Walla Basin, the South Fork Walla Walla River accounts for 30 percent of the runoff
but only 4 percent of the drainage area. While the main channel consists mainly of swift water
over a gravel-boulder substrate, the river also contains a diversity of habitats for bull trout,
including extensive side channeling, backwaters, abundant vegetation cover, and deep pools.
One of the most important features of the South Fork for bull trout is that water temperatures do
not exceed 59 degrees, even during the warm summer months. This is a unique characteristic for
streams in the Umatilla-Walla Walla Recovery Unit of the Columbia River population, and is an
important factor in the viability of the species. As such, the bull trout population status in the
South Fork is described as “low risk.” In comparison, the bull trout population in the North Fork
Walla Walla River is at “high risk” of extinction and the population in Mill Creek is “of special
concern.” The status of the Umatilla bull trout populations was also categorized as “of special
concern” in the North Fork Umatilla River, and as at “high risk” of extirpation in the South Fork
Umatilla River and North Fork Meacham Creek (Buchanan et al. 1997). Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife considers the status of Mill Creek bull trout as “healthy” and
Touchet River bull trout as “unknown” (WDFW 1997).
The South Fork Walla Walla River is also a top producer of threatened Middle Columbia
summer steelhead trout and provides high quality habitat for the species. The Walla Walla River
population of the Mid Columbia Summer Steelhead Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) is
classified as an “intermediate” sized population. Such a population has a mean minimum
abundance threshold of 1,000 natural spawners with a sufficient intrinsic productivity (greater
than 1.4 recruits per spawner at the threshold abundance level) to achieve a 5 percent or less risk
of extinction over a 100-year timeframe (Carmichael 2006). Current production in the Walla
Walla River population is concentrated in the North and South Fork Walla Walla rivers and
Couse and Mill creeks.
In addition to bull trout and Middle Columbia summer steelhead trout, the South Fork Walla
Walla also contains populations of native redband trout, which are resident (i.e., nonanadromous) Oncorhynchus mykiss. As of April 20, 2000, redband trout were listed as a
sensitive species in Oregon and managed similarly as steelhead when occurring in anadromous
Appendices 3.9 – p. 14
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
waters (Saul et. al. 2001). Unfortunately, very little is known about redband in the Walla Walla
River Basin due to the difficulty in distinguishing them from juvenile or residual steelhead.
Finally, at least 20 miles (RM 0-20) of the South Fork Walla Walla contains suitable spawning
and rearing habitat for spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Although
historically abundant, there are no native populations of this species in the Walla Walla River
Basin as it was extirpated in the mid 1900s. Spring chinook, however, are in initial stages of
reintroduction. Much of the reintroduction efforts are being placed on the South Fork Walla
Walla River (above Harris Park), which appears to possess water temperatures, flows, and
habitat of equal or higher quality than the best chinook habitat in the Umatilla River where
spring chinook are successfully reproducing naturally (Saul et. al. 2001). Beginning in 2000,
adult spring chinook salmon were out-planted into the Oregon portions of the South Fork Walla
Walla River and were successful to spawn naturally. Continued monitoring will determine the
success of the out-planting project at the parr, smolt, and returning adult life-history stages
As mentioned earlier, this assessment of outstandingly remarkable fish values pertains only to
the 3.6-mile portion of the South Fork Walla Walla River that flows through public lands. This
segment of river contains pristine habitat features that are key to the survival and recovery of
indigenous salmonids, with much of the review segment being designated as critical habitat for
bull trout (50 CFR 17). Of special note, the review segment contains exceptionally high quality
habitat for bull trout, especially in terms of low temperatures, compared to that found along other
waterways in the region. While this habitat condition pertains to the entire length of the river
upstream from Harris Park (of which the BLM-managed portion makes up less than 20 percent),
the review section is vital in sustaining the river as a top producer in the Umatilla-Walla Walla
Recovery Unit of the Columbia River population of bull trout. The review segment of the South
Fork Walla Walla River also contains high quality habitat for Middle Columbia summer
steelhead and redband trout and "excellent" habitat for the survival and growth of reintroduced
spring Chinook salmon (Saul et. al. 2001). Based on the exceptionally high quality habitat along
the review segment of river for fish species indigenous to the region (including two threatened
salmonid species) and its importance to bull trout populations, the preliminary conclusion is that
the fishery values of the South Fork Walla Walla River are outstandingly remarkable.
Ecological Values: The ecology of the river is unique as the riparian habitat consists of three
separate, but interrelated, plant communities. The sheer rock faces and outcroppings, along with
their seeps and springs, create a moist microclimate for mosses and ferns. The springs create
bogs and marshy areas along the toe of the slopes providing habitat for sedges, rushes, and
grasses. Along the edges of the river, a highly diverse and well-developed shrub and tree
community exists. Species found along the river are ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, grand fir,
white fir, alder, willow, paper birch, water birch, pacific yew, black cottonwood, mock orange,
ninebark, serviceberry, western mugwort, red osier dogwood, elderberry, and snowberry.
Western paper birch has not been previously reported in Oregon, although it is found in
southeastern Washington. Therefore, the birch is of regional importance due to its uniqueness.
Consequently, the preliminary conclusion is that ecological values are outstandingly remarkable.
Appendices 3.9 – p. 15
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
2. U.S. FOREST SERVICE ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION
WSR Summary Information Documentation
Name of River: SOUTH FORK OF THE WALLA WALLA RIVER
BLM and US Forest Service Coordination
Both Federal agencies agree that a coordinated inventory is appropriate for this river as it flows
across our joint jurisdictional boundary and has no physical characteristic that would make
segmentation practical. Because the USFS manages a much longer stretch of the South Fork of
the Walla Walla River, the BLM and USFS have mutually agreed to use the USFS, Region 6
Wild and Scenic River eligibility inventory protocols to make the final interpretation of
eligibility for the entire 19.3 miles of river flowing through federal lands. The results of the joint,
interagency eligibility inventory and evaluation will be used in the BLM's subsequent planning
process and in the USFS land management plan revision process.
Study Area Summary
Location: The South Fork of the Walla Walla River is located in the Blue Mountains of northeast
Oregon, near Walla Walla, Washington. The headwaters of this river are near Deduct Spring,
approximately two miles south of the Oregon-Washington boundary. This tributary stream
generally flows southwest toward the main stem of the Walla Walla River.
The study area ranges from the headwaters, near Deduct Spring and ends in the SE% of Section
10, T. 4 N., R 37 E., in Umatilla County, Oregon. The general focus for inventory extended 1/4mile from either side of the ordinary high water mark. Attributes common to the general area
were noted. The Umatilla National Forest manages 15.7-miles of the South Fork Walla Walla
River from the headwaters, near Deduct Spring, downstream to the Umatilla National
Forest/BLM boundary. From that point, downstream 3.6 miles is administered by the BLM.
As part of their ongoing Land and Resource Management Plan revision process, the Umatilla
National Forest conducted an inventory and assessment of potentially eligible wild and scenic
rivers; including the entire South Fork Walla Walla River. The Umatilla National Forest Land
and Resources Management Plan (LRMP) places most of the study corridor under the Walla
Walla River Watershed Management allocation. This allocation (F4) emphasizes providing a
high quantity and quality of water in the National Forest portion of the Walla Walla River
watershed, and elk habitat. Four areas have been dedicated to old-growth management within, or
adjacent to the study corridor. Road 65 parallels the uppermost mile of the South Fork Walla
Walla to Deduct Spring. This road is located on a ridgetop, dividing the Walla Walla watershed
from the Mill Creek watershed, a municipal water source for the city of Walla Walla. The narrow
visual corridor of the road separates the two management areas.
The BLM is currently undergoing a review of all potentially eligible Wild and Scenic rivers.
During this process they reviewed the 3.6 mile section of river administered by them. The
Appendices 3.9 – p. 16
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
section of river is partially accessed by a Umatilla County administered road (County Road 600).
This road serves as one of the few access points for the federally owned portion of the South
Fork Walla Walla River. This road also access Harris Park, a popular Umatilla County
administered recreation area.
River Mileage:
Studied: 19.3
Eligible: 0
Eligibility
Determination of Free-flow: Two trail bridges are suspended above the channel in the South
Fork Walla Walla River study corridor. One is located at the intersection of trails #3225 and
#3226, and the other is near the mouth of Reser Creek. Neither bridge inhibits free-flow within
the channel. Near the forest boundary and close to cabin sites, rock gabions have been placed in
the stream in an attempt to secure a primitive road directly adjacent to the stream. High water
events have moved several of these structures away from the bank and into the channel. These
simple structures are collapsing, spilling cobble into the streambed. Evidence of numerous low
water fords can be seen along the lower three miles of the stream. They appear to receive fairly
consistent use by off-road-vehicles.
Finding: The South Fork of the Walla Walla River meets the free-flowing criteria described in
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Any modifications in the natural flow of the stream have been
very slight and have not impacted the riverine qualities of the river.
Scenery
Determination of Outstandingly Remarkable Values: The scenery of the South Fork Walla Walla
River is representative of areas where only ecological change has taken place, with the exception
of trails needed for access. On the lower portion of the river, braided trails and old jeep routes
have impacted the immediate area above the west side of the stream. One of the more interesting
features of this study corridor is the presence of a trail paralleling the river along the entire
length. This provides direct access to the river. Trail users almost always have opportunities to
see flowing water.
Visual diversity is moderate. Visitors are provided a mixture of foreground, middle ground and
background views. Near Table Creek, several interesting pinnacle rock formations rise above
ground level in narrow, pointed columns; the tallest approximately 60-70 feet. The valley is
slightly U-shaped on the lower end, becoming more V-shaped toward the headwaters.
Occasional open rock bluffs arc directly down to the stream course, but the riparian corridor is
mostly shaded by large overstory trees and a healthy assortment of common riparian vegetation.
Small, intermittent grassy openings peek through the canopy to provide some visual texture and
relief from the constraints of the closed forest and rock canyon walls.
Appendices 3.9 – p. 17
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
Finding: The scenic qualities of the South Fork Walla Walla study corridor are interesting to
many as they are easily accessible and frequently viewed. However they are not unique or
regionally outstanding. More exemplary scenery of similar conditions is available on the Wenaha
River and lower Lookingglass Creek. These other rivers provide a broader spectrum of visual
diversity, more illustrative examples, and provide better opportunities to get a visual impression
of how the watershed fits into the total landscape. Scenery is not an outstandingly remarkable
value.
Recreation
Determination of Outstandingly Remarkable Values: The South Walla Walla River study
corridor is located almost completely within an unroaded area. However, good road access is
available to trailheads on both the north and south ends. The area is minutes away from MiltonFreewater, Oregon, and Walla Walla, Washington. This makes the area appealing and popular to
the residents of these communities for day and overnight use. Harris Park, a county camping and
picnicking facility, is located on the threshold of a Bureau of Land Management trailhead that
provides access to the South Fork corridor.
Limited vehicle access is available on the extreme lower end of the corridor via a primitive 4wheel-drive road. The road terminates about one mile above several resident cabins, located near
the Forest boundary. Public travel is restricted to trail use by a locked gate near the BLM
trailhead.
Recreation within the corridor is directly related to the available trail network along the river.
The most popular trail closely parallels the stream along the entire length of the corridor,
beginning at the South Fork Walla Walla trailhead and terminating near Deduct Spring at the
headwaters. The southern portion of this trail is accessible to visitors about nine months of the
year, making it one of the first available in the spring, and the last to be limited by winter
weather. This trail is commonly used by foot, motorbike, horse, and mountain bike traffic. Day
use fishing is very popular near Deduct Spring trailhead, though use diminishes substantially
above Table Creek (approximately five miles above the trailhead). Numerous dispersed sites are
located along the trail. These sites and the areas of braided or short user-made tributary trails
indicate extensive recreation use. Overnight camping is allowed in the general forest area but not
permitted at the South Fork trailhead or on BLM land along the trail.
Maximum trail capacity is often achieved during the peak use season. Concern for user conflicts
and trail degradation is increasing. System trails that extend from the primary trail paralleling the
river (Le., Bear Creek, Mottet Spring, and Target Meadows trails) are more difficult and rugged,
and receive much less use. The entire area is frequented by hunters during big game seasons,
most of whom use the river trail as their primary access. Both day use and camping occur during
hunting season on Forest Service lands.
Deduct Spring Trailhead on the northern end of the corridor is accessed by Forest Road 65.
Though this road does not cross the headwaters, it parallels the stream for about one mile,
Appendices 3.9 – p. 18
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
causing the configuration of the corridor boundary to cross to the north of the road. The trailhead
is lightly used by local residents and serves as a jumping off point for entry into the roaded fringe
around the Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness area as well as access to the South Fork Walla Walla
trail. Road standards decline about one mile east of the trailhead.
South Fork Walla Walla Trailhead is accessed by Umatilla County Road 600. It is mainly used
by individuals from within the geographic area.
The north end of the study corridor reflects the same traditional use patterns as found on the
south. Outside of the trailheads, recreation use is driven by the trail along the river. Along most
of the upper reaches, the floodplain is narrower and so the impact of trail braiding and user-made
side trails is reduced. No public right-of-way exists through the private land outside the Forest
boundary.
Finding: The recreation values within the South Fork Walla Walla River corridor are not
identified as an outstandingly remarkable value. Similar recreational opportunities are found
throughout much of the Blue Mountain area. There is a current diversity in mode of travel along
a single trail. The area is popular, accessible, and often used to capacity by a local public. Very
few opportunities to absorb additional use are available within the corridor because of the
limitations of topography.
Wildlife
Determination of Outstandingly Remarkable Values: No threatened, endangered or sensitive
animal species have been identified as residing in the South Fork Walla Walla study corridor.
Stands identified as Dedicated Old Growth are located within the riparian corridor of the stream
and up small draws in the southern and central portions of the corridor. Directly adjacent to the
stream, a healthy riparian ecosystem with lush, shrubby vegetation lines a large portion of the
stream bank (i.e., alder, willow, mock orange, current, and dogwood). These two wildlife habitat
types are important due to their limited supply or availability. Riparian habitats are particularly
valuable because of their disparate proportion of use. Comprising about 4% of the forest, riparian
areas are heavily used by nearly 75 percent of the wildlife species. Canada lynx habitat is
available in the upper reaches but not known to be occupied.
In the case of this stream, the riparian area is also attractive to wildlife because of the reduced
levels of disturbance caused by roaded conditions. Some amount of disturbance is recognized as
a result of frequent and/or motorized trail use in the vicinity of the South Fork trail. In general,
the area exhibits a healthy and diverse population of wildlife, neither particularly unique in
species present or, abundant in population. Intensity of use by individual species such as elk,
mule deer, and a variety of birds could be influenced by seasonal variations. However, there are
no identified migratory routes within the corridor.
Finding: The wildlife resource within the South Fork Walla Walla River study corridor is not an
outstandingly remarkable value. The corridor does not contain nationally or regionally
Appendices 3.9 – p. 19
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
important populations of wildlife species. No threatened, endangered, or sensitive species have
been identified as residing or foraging within the study area. The diversity of species is not
unique to the region, nor is habitat exceptional, unique, or unusually diverse.
Fisheries
Determination of Outstandingly Remarkable Values: The South Fork of the Walla Walla River
supports healthy populations of redband/rainbow trout, bull trout, and anadromous steelhead and
Chinook salmon (re-introduced). This is a strong flowing stream with an excellent aquatic habitat
and cold, clear water, which remains very cool year-round. It is widely recognized as an
important bull trout stream as evidence by intensive studies of the species presently underway by
several research groups.
It contains wild stocks of ESA-listed and threatened mid-Columbia steelhead, "threatened"
Columbia River bull trout, as well as redband trout, which are listed as "sensitive" in USFS
Region Six. It also provides excellent aquatic habitat for native fish species with good amount of
woody debris, pools, spawning gravel, cover, and good quantities of cool, clean water. The study
area is designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as critical bull trout habitat.
Previous withdrawals of water for irrigation had reduced downstream flows to the point of
making many reaches uninhabitable to native salmonids, but recent agreements with irrigators
have partially restored downstream summer flows. The last two years, flows have persisted
through the summer.
Access to privately owned cabins at the Forest boundary allows for fording of the river by
passenger vehicle (4-wheel-drive) several times. These fords have moderately impacted the
aquatic habitat in the South Fork Walla Walla.
A recreational trail parallels the river for almost its full length, but does not ford the stream, and
is not closely adjacent to the water for most of its length. Two bridges cross the river at
connecting trails. The trail has insignificant impact on the aquatic habitat in the South Fork
Walla Walla.
Finding: Although it contains two stocks of federally listed (ESA) species and provides quality
habitat for indigenous fish species, and is designated critical habitat for bull trout, the fisheries
resource is not an outstandingly remarkable value. Better examples of fisheries habitat can be
found on the Wenaha River and Bear Creek.
Heritage
Determination of Outstandingly Remarkable Values: Cultural resource surveys have been
conducted in high probability areas within the corridor. Several sites have been recorded and are
considered potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
Ethnographic and historic sources indicate that the corridor has been used for hunting, fishing,
and camping by both historic and prehistoric people,
Appendices 3.9 – p. 20
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
Finding: Some of the cultural resources identified within the SF Walla Walla River corridor are
considered potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP),
however, these sites are similar to others found in the region and are not considered rare or
unusual. Based upon existing knowledge and data, the corridor does not exhibit outstandingly
remarkable cultural resource values.
Geology
Determination of Outstandingly Remarkable Values: The geologic materials that form the South
Fork Walla Walla canyon are not diverse. They are typically dark-gray or black flows of Grande
Ronde basalt. These flows covered a large portion of the northern Blue Mountains during the
middle and lower Miocene. Wanapum basalt is evident in several small, isolated pockets. These
basalt deposits generally exhibit platy jointing and are lighter in color.
Tall rock pillars near Table Creek were determined to be visually interesting, but not
geologically interesting. They are made of the same parent materials as the surrounding area, but
were surrounded by softer materials that have eroded away, leaving isolated columnar structures.
No unusual hydrologic features were noted. Small springs and seeps periodically drain from the
corridor toward the stream course providing for an interesting microclimate of mosses and ferns.
No outstanding falls or exceptionally large springs were identified.
Finding: Geologic values of the South Fork of the Walla Walla are not identified as an
outstandingly remarkable value.
Botany
Determination of Outstandingly Remarkable Values: The north end of the South Fork Walla
Walla corridor reaches over 5,000 feet in elevation. Beyond the riparian influence zone,
subalpine plant communities dominate the study area in this portion of the corridor. Subalpine fir
with Douglas fir, larch, and Engelmann spruce as contributors are found in the timbered
overstory. Forest canopy is generally closed, although small grassy openings periodically peek
through and ridge tops are generally bare or lightly covered with grasses.
In the central and southern portions of the corridor, above the riparian zone, alternate fingers of
mixed conifers (white fir-dominant) extend toward the stream between rocky slopes covered in
light grasses. A few stands of Douglas fir settle in isolated pockets along the stream course. As
the stream turns east/west, south-facing slopes below Skiphorton Creek exhibit drier conditions
and contrast more sharply with the north-slope plant communities. Ponderosa pine becomes
more prevalent on the south side of the canyon.
Riparian vegetation is thick where rock slopes do not crowd the stream course and recreation use
has not disturbed growth. Alder, Pacific yew, dogwood, ocean spray, thimbleberry and other
shrubs are common. Small, wet, grassy meadows occasionally occur within the floodplain. Near
Appendices 3.9 – p. 21
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
the forest boundary a small stand of large, mature paper birch trees shadow riparian shrubs and
grasses, providing an interesting contrast in botanic features. Western paper birch is considered
unique to the area.
Headwater regions include a few populations of regionally sensitive moonworts (Botrychium
lanceolatum, B. minganense, and B. pinnaturm). The formerly listed male fern (Dyopteris filixmas) is present on the upper reaches of the South Fork. The sheer rock faces and outcroppings,
along with their seeps and springs, create a moist microclimate for ferns and mosses.
Finding: A variety of vegetation and ecologic land units typical of the Blue Mountains is present.
The riparian vegetation complex is noteworthy, but not rare or unique, and does not exhibit
outstandingly remarkable botanical values.
Water Quality
Determination of Outstandingly Remarkable Values: The water quality within the South Fork
Walla Walla study corridor is good to excellent. Recreation activities might have increased
stream sediment very slightly; however, the general condition of the water is clear and cold. The
South Fork Walla Walla River is one of the two biggest water producers within the Umatilla
Forest, producing more than 3 acre-feet per acre per year. This is affected by characteristics of
the watershed such as; steep slopes, shallow soils, and high amounts of yearly precipitation.
Finding: Water quality values of are not identified as an outstandingly remarkable value.
3. CLASSIFICATION
Eligibility Determination: The South Fork Walla Walla River does not meet the minimum
eligibility requirements as specified by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. It is found to be freeflowing, but current information supports the findings that outstandingly remarkable values are
not present in the river corridor.
This section of river has the following attributes and eligibility:
Water Resources Development: Free of Impoundment.
Water Quality: Water unpolluted.
WSR Eligibility: Does not meet requirements.
Appendices 3.9 – p. 22
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
ATTACHMENT B: OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES SUMMARY TABLE
TABLE B.1: OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES SUMMARY TABLE
01 South Fork Walla Walla River
Scenic: While the river corridor contains exceptional scenery in a variety of landforms, vegetation, water, and color that offer a sharp contrast to the arid
landscape above, they are not considered outstandingly remarkable.
Recreation: While the river provides important regional recreation opportunities in the form of hiking, motorcycle riding, fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing,
sightseeing, and horseback riding, they are not considered outstandingly remarkable.
Geologic: No rare, unusual, or unique geologic features, processes, or phenomena are located along the river.
Fish: While the river is a top producer of threatened bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and Middle Columbia summer steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss), and contains exceptionally high quality due to extensive side channeling, backwaters, abundant vegetation cover, deep pools, and, most importantly,
cool water temperatures that do not exceed 59 F (unique for the area and important for bull trout), fishery values can are not considered outstandingly remarkable.
Wildlife. In general, wildlife diversity along the river is relatively high due to riparian vegetation and perennial source of water. Wildlife include mule deer,
white-tailed deer, black bear, coyote, bobcat, mountain lion, beaver, otter, raccoons, dozens of species of waterfowl, shorebirds, songbirds, raptors, and upland
game birds. However, this characteristic is not unique to the South Fork Walla Walla River as it is common along rivers and creeks in the area and is thus not
outstandingly remarkable.
Cultural: The river is culturally important to the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation as a treaty and traditional subsistence fishing and
hunting area. Cultural sites are present but cultural values are currently not considered rare or unusual in the area.
Historical: Two historic structures (a chimney from a circa 1930s cabin and a collapsed building) occur within the review segment on public lands. These
structures lack integrity and are not known to be associated with a significant event, person, or cultural activity of the past that was rare or unusual in the area.
Similar Values (Ecological Values): The ecology of the river is unique as the riparian habitat consists of three separate, but interrelated, plant communities. One
of the species present is western paper birch, which has not been previously reported in Oregon, and is thus of regional importance due to its uniqueness.
However, ecological values are not considered outstandingly remarkable.
02 Grande Ronde River (Upper Section)
Scenic: While the upper section of the Grande Ronde offers visitors views of a swift-water river flowing through heavily forested hillsides, the scenic qualities are
not unique and similar to a number of other rivers in the area (e.g., Wallowa River, Minam River, and upper reaches of the Grande Ronde). The scenic qualities
are also not exemplary or pristine, with the existing railroad grade partially degrading the scenic values.
Appendices 3.9 – p. 23
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
TABLE B.1: OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES SUMMARY TABLE
Recreation: While a number of recreation opportunities are provided along this stretch of river, including rafting and fishing, use is limited compared to the
Wallowa River and downstream-segments of the Grande Ronde River (all part of the National WSR system). The recreation opportunities on the review segment
of the upper Grande Ronde River are not important at a regional level due to the proximity of designated WSRs that offer higher quality recreation experiences.
As such, the recreation values along the review section of the upper Grande Ronde River as not outstandingly remarkable
Geologic: No rare, unusual, or unique geologic features, processes, or phenomena are located along the river.
Fish: While the upper segment of the Grande Ronde River supports bull trout, Snake River Basin steelhead, and Snake River spring-run Chinook (all threatened
species), it is not a major contributor or top producer of these species. The steelhead populations are currently experiencing low productivity and are influenced by
hatchery fish, while the Snake River spring-run Chinook is currently experiencing low abundance and productivity (ODFW 2005).
Wildlife. In general, wildlife diversity is relatively high due to the riverine environment. However, this characteristic is not unique to the upper Grande Ronde
River as it is common along other portions of the river as well as other rivers in the area, such as the Wallowa and Minam rivers.
Cultural. No formal cultural inventories have been conducted and early railroad construction and historic disturbance of former private lands may have
obliterated potential cultural site locations, reducing the likelihood that intact significant or unusual sites would be identified.
Historical: Although no inventories have been conducted, the public lands are not known to contain any sites or features associated with a significant event,
important person, or cultural activity of the past that was rare or unusual in the area.
Similar Values: The upper section of the Grande Ronde River contains no other significant hydrological, paleontological, botanical, scientific, or ecological
resources that are waterway related.
03 Grande Ronde River (Lower Section)
Scenic: The river corridor is of high scenic quality, including cliffs, terraces, grassy knolls, and the Grande Ronde Goosenecks National Natural Landmark.
This mix of landform, vegetation, water, and color results in notable visual features within the geographic region, making the scenic values outstandingly
remarkable.
Recreational: Public lands on the lower Grande Ronde River offer a variety of recreational activities, most notable of which are boating and steelhead fishing.
Visitors are willing to travel long distances to recreate along this section of river, making recreational values outstandingly remarkable.
Geologic: Portions of the gooseneck meanders within the review segment are part of the Goosenecks National Natural Landmark: these entrenched meanders
represent one of the “best” examples of a type of geological feature in its physiographic province. As such, geologic values along the lower Grande Ronde River
can be considered outstandingly remarkable.
Fish: The review section of river supports bull trout, Snake River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run Chinook and Snake River spring-run Chinook, all of
which are threatened species. It is the only section of the river currently used by fall-run Chinook and comprises a significant percentage of the species available
habitat. The importance of the river to all four threatened fish species qualifies fish values as outstandingly remarkable.
Wildlife. In general, wildlife diversity is relatively high due to the riverine environment. However, this characteristic is not unique to the lower Grande Ronde
River as it is common along other portions of the river as well as other rivers in the area, such as the Wallowa and Minam rivers.
Appendices 3.9 – p. 24
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
TABLE B.1: OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES SUMMARY TABLE
Cultural: Native American occupation sites of regional importance are located on public lands within the study section of the lower Grande Ronde River, many
of which could be considered eligible for listing on the NRHP. As such, the cultural values along the lower Grande Ronde River are outstandingly remarkable.
Historical: While a number of historic (i.e., 50 years older or older) structures occur within the ½-mile boundary of the river on public lands, these are not
known to be tied to a significant event, important person, or cultural activity of the past that was rare or unusual in the area.
Similar Values: The lower Grande Ronde River contains no other significant hydrological, paleontological, botanical, scientific, or ecological resources that are
waterway related.
04 Snake River
Scenic: While the river corridor includes a variety of scenic views, including canyon walls and steep hillsides with rock outcroppings, the scenic values are
typical for many portions of the Snake River and not as a high quality compared to that found upstream in Hell’s Canyon National Recreation Area.
Recreational: While heavy recreation use occurs within the review segment of the Snake River, the section of river through public lands under review is not
the primary destination as most visitors are either on their way to or from Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. The destination for the majority of
recreationists on Jet Boats is Hells Canyon. The rafters are generally returning from a trip through Hells Canyon. These people are thus not drawn to the section
of river through public lands to recreate but are merely using it as a corridor to recreate in Hells Canyon. Consequently, recreation values within the review
segment of the Snake River are not outstandingly remarkable.
Geologic: No rare, unusual, or unique geologic features, processes, or phenomena are located within a ½-mile corridor along the creek.
Fish: While the review section of the Snake River is part of the central travel corridor used by several threatened fish species, including Snake River summer
steelhead trout and Snake River spring- and fall-run Chinook salmon, the roughly 6.5 miles through public lands are not unique to these populations of fish when
compared to the remainder of the river.
Wildlife: While the river corridor provides habitat for a number of animal species, including deer, bighorn sheep, bears, otters, ospreys, eagles, chukar, and
partridge, the public lands do not contain nationally or regionally important populations of resident or indigenous wildlife species important to the area.
Cultural: The review segment of the Snake River is located within the Snake River National Register District. This makes the cultural values along the Snake
River outstandingly remarkable.
Historical: While a number of historic (i.e., 50 years older or older) structures occur within the ½-mile boundary of the river on public lands, these are not
known to be tied to a significant event, important person, or cultural activity of the past that was rare or unusual in the area.
Similar Values: The review segment of the Snake River contains no other significant hydrological, paleontological, botanical, scientific, or ecological resources
Appendices 3.9 – p. 25
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
TABLE B.1: OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES SUMMARY TABLE
that are waterway related.
05 Joseph Creek
Scenic: Joseph Creek lies within a deeply incised and rimrock-exposed canyon with gooseneck meanders, grassy slopes, and benches, contrasted by the lush
riparian area along the creek at the bottom of the canyon. This mix of landform, vegetation, water, and color results in notable visual features within the
geographic region, making the scenic values outstandingly remarkable
Recreation: While there is potential for hiking, fishing, dispersed camping, sightseeing, and wildlife viewing along Joseph Creek, the heavy brush at the
bottom of the canyon makes access difficult. In addition, other similar opportunities are available in the region, including upstream portions of Joseph Creek and
the Grande Ronde River.
Geologic: Joseph Canyon is a “textbook” example of northeastern Oregon geology typified by Columbia River basalt canyon, exposed by the down cutting of the
creek and including gooseneck meanders. These features qualify geologic values along Joseph Creek as outstandingly remarkable.
Fish: While Joseph Creek supports Snake River Basin steelhead, it is not a top producer/contributor of the species.
Wildlife. In general, wildlife diversity along the creek is relatively high due to the varied habitat, including dry, upland slopes and contrasting riparian
vegetation and perennial source of water. Animals include Rocky Mountain elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, river otter, black bear, cougar, peregrine falcons,
and bald eagles. However, the public lands do not contain nationally or regionally important populations of resident or indigenous wildlife species important to the
area.
Cultural/Historic: Joseph Creek is included within the ceded boundaries of the Nez Perce Tribe and is important as a treaty and traditional subsistence fishing
and hunting area for the Tribe. It is a vital part of Nez Perce Tribal history and includes the winter homeland of Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce, and possibly his
birthplace. However, the exact location is uncertain and needs to be determined through historic research and consultation with the Nez Perce. In fact, due to a
lack of extensive cultural resource inventory or tribal consultation, no known sites or features associated with Chief Joseph have been identified. In addition,
although TCPs associated with the Nez Perce Tribe or Joseph Band of the Nez Perce are likely to occur on public lands along Joseph Creek, these have not been
identified due to a lack of in-depth Tribal Consultation. The lack of such information and no known site or feature associated with an important aspect of Tribal
history, the cultural/historic values of Joseph Creek cannot be considered outstandingly remarkable at this time.
Historical: While some historic (i.e., 50 years older or older) structures occur within the ½-mile boundary of the creek on public lands, these are not known to
be tied to a significant event, important person, or cultural activity of the past that was rare or unusual in the area.
Similar Values: Joseph Creek contains no other significant hydrological, paleontological, botanical, scientific, or ecological resources that are waterway related.
06 Conner Creek (Segments 2 & 3 only, Segment 1 is not Free Flowing due to extensive dredging)
Scenic: The scenery along the creek is common to that found along other creeks in the geographic region, and it does not appear to be of a quality that would
Appendices 3.9 – p. 26
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
attract visitors from outside the area.
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
TABLE B.1: OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES SUMMARY TABLE
Recreational: Recreational opportunities are limited (driving for pleasure, nature viewing, hiking) and not unique enough to attract visitors from outside the
region.
Geologic: Part of the BLM segment of Connor Creek flows underground during dryer months due to a geologic event; however, this “sunken” stream
phenomenon is not rare.
Fish: The creek is not a top producer of resident, indigenous, and/or anadromous fish species, nor does it provide exceptionally high quality habitat for fish
species indigenous to the region.
Wildlife. In general, wildlife diversity along the creek is relatively high due to the riparian vegetation and perennial source of water. However, this
characteristic is not unique to Conner Creek as it is common along waterways within the geographic area.
Cultural: Comprehensive inventories of the upper creek corridor have not been conducted. One previously recorded archaeological site had been impacted by a
road probably built during the early mining era and by unauthorized excavation in the 1950s. Its current integrity and eligibility to the NRHP has not been
determined. At present, the site is not considered rare or unusual in the area.
Historical: Historic placer mining was carried out continuously along the creek from the 1870s into the 1940s. A mining community was established near the
historic Connor Creek patented mine. On lower Connor Creek, historic structures consist of old road remnants and deteriorated miner’s dwellings that appear to
date from the 1930s to 1940s. These features are not rare or unusual in the area.
Similar Values: Connor Creek contains no other significant hydrological, paleontological, botanical, scientific, or ecological resources that are waterway related.
07 Burnt River
Scenic: The scenery along the river is common to that found along other waterways in the geographic region, and it does not appear to be of a quality that would
attract visitors from outside the area.
Recreational: Recreational opportunities are limited (driving for pleasure, nature viewing, hiking) and not unique enough to attract visitors from outside the
region.
Geologic: No rare, unusual, or unique geologic features, processes, or phenomena are located along the creek.
Fisheries: The river is not a top producer of resident, indigenous, and/or anadromous fish species, nor does it provide exceptionally high quality habitat for fish
Appendices 3.9 – p. 27
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
species indigenous to the region.
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
TABLE B.1: OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES SUMMARY TABLE
Wildlife. In general, wildlife diversity along the creek is relatively high due to the riparian vegetation and perennial source of water. However, this
characteristic is not unique to Burnt River as it is common along waterways within the geographic area.
Cultural: Archaeological sites occur in inventoried portions of the river corridor. Although there have been no formal determinations of eligibility, the recorded
sites are not rare or unusual in the area.
Historical: Historic area resources in the river corridor include remnants of historic irrigation and road features, and the remains of placer mining sites. No
formal determinations of eligibility have been made for the features, which are common in the area.
Similar Values: Burnt River contains no other significant hydrological, paleontological, botanical, scientific, or ecological resources that are waterway related.
08 Fox Creek
Scenic: The scenery along the creek is common to that found along other creeks in the geographic region, and it does not appear to be of a quality that would
attract visitors from outside the area.
Recreational: Recreational opportunities are limited (driving for pleasure, nature viewing, hiking) and not unique enough to attract visitors from outside the
region.
Geologic: No rare, unusual, or unique geologic features, processes, or phenomena are located along the creek.
Fish: The creek is not a top producer of resident, indigenous, and/or anadromous fish species, nor does it provide exceptionally high quality habitat for fish
species indigenous to the region.
Wildlife. In general, wildlife diversity along the creek is relatively high due to the riparian vegetation and perennial source of water. However, this
characteristic is not unique to Fox Creek as it is common along waterways within the geographic area.
Cultural: Archaeological sites are present along inventoried portions of the creek corridor. Also present are the remnants of a former cabin location. Although
there have been no formal determinations of eligibility, the recorded sites are not rare or unusual in the area.
Historical: Historic era resources in the corridor include one late historic mine dwelling site, which lacks structural integrity. Aspen trees in the river corridor
have carved names, initials, and dates from about the 1920s to present time. These historic resources are not rare or unusual in the area.
Appendices 3.9 – p. 28
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
TABLE B.1: OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES SUMMARY TABLE
Similar Values: While Fox Creek is located within the only Rocky Mountain aspen ecosystem within the state of Oregon - being unique within a 300-400 mile
radius - this ecosystem is not waterway dependent or entirely located within the ¼-mile boundary on both sides of the creek as it expands outside the creek corridor
and along other side drainages and north-facing slopes in the Lookout Mountain area.
Appendices 3.9 – p. 29
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
ATTACHMENT C: RIVER SEGMENT NARRATIVE TABLE
Table C1. River Segment Narrative Table
River
Township Range Start
Segment
River Name
and Sect. and River
Unique
Quad Name
Mile
ID
T4N, R37E, Sects.
10, 12, 13, 14, 15;
S. Fork Walla T4N, R38E, Sect.
1.01
171.1
Walla River
7; Blalock
Mountain,
Tollgate
Grand Ronde T3N, R40E, Sect.
2.01
81.5
River (Upper) 23; Rondowa
T3N, R40E, Sects.
Grand Ronde
2.02
20, 21, 22, 28; 82.2
River (Upper)
Rondowa
Grand Ronde T3N, R40E, Sect.
2.03
84.5
River (Upper) 29; Rondowa
Grand Ronde T3N, R40E, Sects.
2.04
85.4
River (Upper) 31, 32; Rondowa
3.01
Grand Ronde
River (Lower)
T7N, R46E, Sect.
13; Limekiln
Rapids
0.1
End
Length Free
BLM
River
(Miles) Flowing Eligible
Mile
List of
ORVs
Tentative Classification/
ORV Description
174.5
3.58
YES
NO
N/A
N/A
81.6
0.07
YES
NO
N/A
N/A
84.2
2.06
YES
NO
N/A
N/A
85.0
0.57
YES
NO
N/A
N/A
86.5
1.02
YES
NO
N/A
N/A
0.7
0.6
YES
YES
Recreational River Area due to a highly visible and welltraveled road parallel to river. Diverse scenic values
include a wide variety of vegetation, color, and interesting
Scenic
land forms. High quality boating and fishing
Recreation
opportunities. One of the best examples of meandering
Geologic
goosenecks. Important contributor to bull trout, Snake
Fishery
River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run Chinook, and
Cultural
Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species.
Includes Native American occupation sites of regional
importance.
Appendices 3.9 – p. 30
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
Table C1. River Segment Narrative Table
River
Township Range Start End
Segment
Length Free
BLM
River Name
and Sect. and River River
Unique
(Miles) Flowing Eligible
Quad Name
Mile Mile
ID
3.02
3.03
3.04
T7N, R46E, Sects.
Grand Ronde
27, 28, 34; Black 7.5
River (Lower)
Butte
Grand Ronde T7N, R46E, Sect.
10.3
River (Lower) 29; Black Butte
Grand Ronde T7N, R46E, Sect.
10.9
River (Lower) 32; Black Butte
8.8
10.5
11.2
1.3
0.2
0.3
YES
YES
YES
List of
ORVs
YES
Scenic
Recreation
Geologic
Fishery
Cultural
YES
Scenic
Recreation
Geologic
Fishery
Cultural
YES
Scenic
Recreation
Geologic
Fishery
Cultural
Appendices 3.9 – p. 31
Tentative Classification/
ORV Description
Scenic River Area due to largely undeveloped shorelines
and parallel road receives little use and is generally well
screened from river. Diverse scenic values include a wide
variety of vegetation, color, and interesting land forms.
High quality boating and fishing opportunities. One of the
best examples of meandering goosenecks. Important
contributor to bull trout, Snake River Basin steelhead,
Snake River fall-run Chinook, and Snake River spring-run
Chinook, all threatened species. Includes Native
American occupation sites of regional importance.
Scenic River Area due to largely undeveloped shorelines
and parallel road receives little use and is generally well
screened from river. Diverse scenic values include a wide
variety of vegetation, color, and interesting land forms.
High quality boating and fishing opportunities. One of the
best examples of meandering goosenecks. Important
contributor to bull trout, Snake River Basin steelhead,
Snake River fall-run Chinook, and Snake River spring-run
Chinook, all threatened species. Includes Native
American occupation sites of regional importance.
Scenic River Area due to largely undeveloped shorelines
with limited access via jeep trail. Diverse scenic values
include a wide variety of vegetation, color, and interesting
land forms. High quality boating and fishing
opportunities. One of the best examples of meandering
goosenecks. Important contributor to bull trout, Snake
River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run Chinook, and
Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species.
Includes Native American occupation sites of regional
importance.
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
Table C1. River Segment Narrative Table
River
Township Range Start End
Segment
Length Free
BLM
River Name
and Sect. and River River
Unique
(Miles) Flowing Eligible
Quad Name
Mile Mile
ID
3.05
Grand Ronde T7N, R45E, Sect.
16.3
River (Lower) 35; Fields Spring
3.06
T7N, R45E, Sect.
Grand Ronde 35; T6N, R45E,
16.8
River (Lower) Sect. 2; Fields
Spring
3.07
Grand Ronde T6N, R45E, Sect.
17.6
River (Lower) 3; Fields Spring
16.5
17.3
18.2
0.2
0.5
0.6
YES
YES
YES
List of
ORVs
YES
Scenic
Recreation
Geologic
Fishery
Cultural
YES
Scenic
Recreation
Geologic
Fishery
Cultural
YES
Scenic
Recreation
Geologic
Fishery
Cultural
Appendices 3.9 – p. 32
Tentative Classification/
ORV Description
Scenic River Area due to largely undeveloped shorelines
with limited access via jeep trail. Diverse scenic values
include a wide variety of vegetation, color, and interesting
land forms. High quality boating and fishing
opportunities. One of the best examples of meandering
goosenecks. Important contributor to bull trout, Snake
River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run Chinook, and
Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species.
Includes Native American occupation sites of regional
importance.
Scenic River Area due to largely undeveloped shorelines
with limited access via jeep trail. Diverse scenic values
include a wide variety of vegetation, color, and interesting
land forms. High quality boating and fishing
opportunities. One of the best examples of meandering
goosenecks. Important contributor to bull trout, Snake
River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run Chinook, and
Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species.
Includes Native American occupation sites of regional
importance.
Scenic River Area due to largely undeveloped shorelines
and parallel road receives little use and is generally well
screened from river. Diverse scenic values include a wide
variety of vegetation, color, and interesting land forms.
High quality boating and fishing opportunities. One of the
best examples of meandering goosenecks. Important
contributor to bull trout, Snake River Basin steelhead,
Snake River fall-run Chinook, and Snake River spring-run
Chinook, all threatened species. Includes Native
American occupation sites of regional importance.
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
Table C1. River Segment Narrative Table
River
Township Range Start End
Segment
Length Free
BLM
River Name
and Sect. and River River
Unique
(Miles) Flowing Eligible
Quad Name
Mile Mile
ID
3.08
Grand Ronde T6N, R45E, Sects.
18.6
River (Lower) 3, 4; Fields Spring
3.09
T7N, R45E, Sects.
Grand Ronde
31, 32; T6N,
21.2
River (Lower) R45E, Sect. 5;
Fields Spring
3.10
Grand Ronde T7N, R45E, Sect.
23.1
River (Lower) 31; Fields Spring
20.2
23.0
24.1
1.6
1.8
1.0
YES
YES
YES
List of
ORVs
YES
Scenic
Recreation
Geologic
Fishery
Cultural
YES
Scenic
Recreation
Geologic
Fishery
Cultural
YES
Scenic
Recreation
Geologic
Fishery
Cultural
Appendices 3.9 – p. 33
Tentative Classification/
ORV Description
Scenic River Area due to largely undeveloped shorelines
and parallel road receives little use and is generally well
screened from river. Diverse scenic values include a wide
variety of vegetation, color, and interesting land forms.
High quality boating and fishing opportunities. One of the
best examples of meandering goosenecks. Important
contributor to bull trout, Snake River Basin steelhead,
Snake River fall-run Chinook, and Snake River spring-run
Chinook, all threatened species. Includes Native
American occupation sites of regional importance.
Wild River Area due to essentially primitive shorelines
with no roads within ¼ mile of either shoreline. Diverse
scenic values include a wide variety of vegetation, color,
and interesting land forms. High quality boating and
fishing opportunities. One of the best examples of
meandering goosenecks. Important contributor to bull
trout, Snake River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run
Chinook, and Snake River spring-run Chinook, all
threatened species. Includes Native American occupation
sites of regional importance.
Wild River Area due to essentially primitive shorelines
with no roads within ¼ mile of either shoreline. Diverse
scenic values include a wide variety of vegetation, color,
and interesting land forms. High quality boating and
fishing opportunities. One of the best examples of
meandering goosenecks. Important contributor to bull
trout, Snake River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run
Chinook, and Snake River spring-run Chinook, all
threatened species. Includes Native American occupation
sites of regional importance.
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
Table C1. River Segment Narrative Table
River
Township Range Start End
Segment
Length Free
BLM
River Name
and Sect. and River River
Unique
(Miles) Flowing Eligible
Quad Name
Mile Mile
ID
3.11
3.12
3.13
T7N, R44E, Sects.
Grand Ronde
33, 34, 35;
27.1
River (Lower)
Mountain View
Grand Ronde T6N, R44E, Sect.
29.7
River (Lower) 4; Mountain View
Grand Ronde T6N, R44E, Sect.
31.2
River (Lower) 5; Mountain View
29.4
30.3
31.7
2.3
0.6
0.5
YES
YES
YES
List of
ORVs
YES
Scenic
Recreation
Geologic
Fishery
Cultural
YES
Scenic
Recreation
Geologic
Fishery
Cultural
YES
Scenic
Recreation
Geologic
Fishery
Cultural
Appendices 3.9 – p. 34
Tentative Classification/
ORV Description
Wild River Area due to essentially primitive shorelines
with no roads within ¼ mile of either shoreline. Diverse
scenic values include a wide variety of vegetation, color,
and interesting land forms. High quality boating and
fishing opportunities. One of the best examples of
meandering goosenecks. Important contributor to bull
trout, Snake River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run
Chinook, and Snake River spring-run Chinook, all
threatened species. Includes Native American occupation
sites of regional importance.
Recreational River Area due to a highly visible and welltraveled road parallel to river. Diverse scenic values
include a wide variety of vegetation, color, and interesting
land forms. High quality boating and fishing
opportunities. One of the best examples of meandering
goosenecks. Important contributor to bull trout, Snake
River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run Chinook, and
Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species.
Includes Native American occupation sites of regional
importance.
Recreational River Area due to a highly visible and welltraveled road parallel to river. Diverse scenic values
include a wide variety of vegetation, color, and interesting
land forms. High quality boating and fishing
opportunities. One of the best examples of meandering
goosenecks. Important contributor to bull trout, Snake
River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run Chinook, and
Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species.
Includes Native American occupation sites of regional
importance.
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
Table C1. River Segment Narrative Table
River
Township Range Start End
Segment
Length Free
BLM
River Name
and Sect. and River River
Unique
(Miles) Flowing Eligible
Quad Name
Mile Mile
ID
3.14
T6N, R44E, Sects.
6, 7; T6N, R43E,
Grand Ronde
Sects. 1,12, 13, 32.4
River (Lower)
18; Mountain
View, Flora
3.15
T6N, R43E, Sects.
Grand Ronde 11, 12, 14; Troy,
38.1
River (Lower) Mountain View,
Saddle Butte
37.4
5.0
YES
List of
ORVs
YES
Scenic
Recreation
Geologic
Fishery
Cultural
38.6
0.5
YES
YES
Scenic
Recreation
Geologic
Fishery
Cultural
4.01
T7N, R47E, Sects.
18, 19, 20, 29, 32
Snake River 33; T6N, R47E, 168.8 175.7
Sects. 4, 5, 9;
Limekiln Rapids
6.87
YES
YES
Cultural
5.01
Joseph Creek
1.89
YES
YES
Scenic
Cultural
T6N, R46E, Sects.
5.8
7, 8; Black Butte
7.7
Appendices 3.9 – p. 35
Tentative Classification/
ORV Description
Recreational River Area due to a highly visible and welltraveled road parallel to river. Diverse scenic values
include a wide variety of vegetation, color, and interesting
land forms. High quality boating and fishing
opportunities. One of the best examples of meandering
goosenecks. Important contributor to bull trout, Snake
River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run Chinook, and
Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species.
Includes Native American occupation sites of regional
importance.
Recreational River Area due to a highly visible and welltraveled road parallel to river. Diverse scenic values
include a wide variety of vegetation, color, and interesting
land forms. High quality boating and fishing
opportunities. One of the best examples of meandering
goosenecks. Important contributor to bull trout, Snake
River Basin steelhead, Snake River fall-run Chinook, and
Snake River spring-run Chinook, all threatened species.
Includes Native American occupation sites of regional
importance.
Scenic River Area due to largely undeveloped shorelines
and parallel road receives little use and is generally well
screened from river. Located within the Snake River
National Register District, containing Native American
occupation sites of regional importance.
Wild River Area due to primitive shorelines with no
roads within ¼ mile of either shoreline. Deeply incised
and rimrock-exposed canyon with gooseneck meanders,
grassy open slopes, and benches.
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
Table C1. River Segment Narrative Table
River
Township Range Start End
Segment
Length Free
BLM
River Name
and Sect. and River River
Unique
(Miles) Flowing Eligible
Quad Name
Mile Mile
ID
5.02
T6N, R46E, Sect.
Joseph Creek
17; Teepee Butte
5.03
List of
ORVs
Tentative Classification/
ORV Description
Wild River Area due to primitive shorelines with no
Scenic roads within ¼ mile of either shoreline. Deeply incised
Cultural and rimrock-exposed canyon with gooseneck meanders,
grassy open slopes, and benches.
Wild River Area due to primitive shorelines with no
Scenic roads within ¼ mile of either shoreline. Deeply incised
Cultural and rimrock-exposed canyon with gooseneck meanders,
grassy open slopes, and benches.
Wild River Area due to primitive shorelines with no
Scenic roads within ¼ mile of either shoreline. Deeply incised
Cultural and rimrock-exposed canyon with gooseneck meanders,
grassy open slopes, and benches.
Wild River Area due to primitive shorelines with no
roads within ¼ mile of either shoreline. Deeply incised
Scenic
and rimrock-exposed canyon with gooseneck meanders,
Cultural
grassy open slopes, and benches. Vital part of Nez Perce
Tribal history
Wild River Area due to primitive shorelines with no
Scenic roads within ¼ mile of either shoreline. Deeply incised
Cultural and rimrock-exposed canyon with gooseneck meanders,
grassy open slopes, and benches.
Scenic River Area due to primitive road accessing creek
Scenic
bottom. Deeply incised and rimrock-exposed canyon with
Cultural
gooseneck meanders, grassy open slopes, and benches.
8.2
8.8
0.61
YES
YES
Joseph Creek
T5N, R45E, Sect.
19.7
10; Paradise
19.8
0.08
YES
YES
5.04
Joseph Creek
T5N, R45E, Sect.
19.8
10; Paradise
20.2
0.35
YES
YES
5.05
Joseph Creek
T5N, R45E, Sect.
24.0
21; Paradise
24.1
0.12
YES
YES
5.06
Joseph Creek
T5N, R45E, Sect.
26.6
29; Paradise
26.7
0.06
YES
YES
32.6
2.59
YES
YES
2.4
2.41
YES
NO
N/A
N/A
4.9
2.20
YES
NO
N/A
N/A
5.07
6.01
6.02
T5N, R45E, Sects.
Joseph Creek 30, 31; Paradise, 30.0
Table Mountain
T12S, R45E,
Conner Creek Sects. 3, 10, 11,
0
14; Connor Creek
T11S, R45E,
Conner Creek Sects. 28, 33, 34; 2.7
Connor Creek
Appendices 3.9 – p. 36
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Table C1. River Segment Narrative Table
River
Township Range Start
Segment
River Name
and Sect. and River
Unique
Quad Name
Mile
ID
T11S, R45E, Sect.
6.03
Conner Creek
5.2
29; Connor Creek
T11S, R42E,
7.01
Burnt River Sects. 26, 27, 28; 30.0
Lost Basin
T11S, R42E, Sect.
7.02
Burnt River
33.9
32; Lost Basin
T12S, R42E, Sect.
6; T12S, R41E,
7.03
Burnt River Sects. 1, 2, 3, 4, 41.2
10; Lost Basin,
French Gulf
T12S, R41E,
7.04
Burnt River
Sects. 9, 16;
47.3
French Gulf
T12S, R41E,
7.05
Burnt River
Sects. 20, 21;
49.1
French Gulf
T12S, R45E,
Sects. 4, 5; T11S,
8.01
Fox Creek
3.2
R45E, Sect. 32;
Connor Creek
T11S, R45E,
Sects. 30, 31, 32;
8.02
Fox Creek
4.3
Connor Creek, Big
Lookout Mountain
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
End
Length Free
BLM
River
(Miles) Flowing Eligible
Mile
List of
ORVs
Tentative Classification/
ORV Description
5.5
0.26
YES
NO
N/A
N/A
33.0
3.01
YES
NO
N/A
N/A
40.2
0.30
YES
NO
N/A
N/A
46.3
5.06
YES
NO
N/A
N/A
48.4
1.06
YES
NO
N/A
N/A
49.7
0.59
YES
NO
N/A
N/A
4.2
0.96
YES
NO
N/A
N/A
6.0
1.68
YES
NO
N/A
N/A
Appendices 3.9 – p. 37
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
ATTACHMENT D: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SUITABILITY
REVIEW: BAKER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN PLANNING
AREA
Of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered public land surfaces (public lands)
along the three waterways in the Baker Resource Management Plan (RMP) planning area
determined to meet the Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) eligibility criteria (see Table C1), public
lands along the Grande Ronde and Snake rivers were found not to meet the suitability factors and
were dropped from further consideration. Public lands along the downstream-most segments of
Joseph Creek were also not considered suitable, while public lands along the upstream-most
segment of Joseph Creek was found to meet the suitability factors. Summaries of the suitability
determinations of all three waterways are presented below in Section II.
A. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT DURING THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
SUITABILITY REVIEW
A preliminary suitability report on waterways determined eligible in the Baker RMP planning
area was prepared for the Baker RMP planning team. On October 26, 2009, the planning team
reviewed and modified the report. That modified version is presented in this document. At this
time, these determinations have not been submitted to the public for review. The public will
have the opportunity to comment on the suitability review results during the normal scoping
process and throughout the environmental analysis and planning process for the Baker RMP
planning effort. Any comments made by the public concerning the determinations made in this
review will be taken into consideration and documented in the RMP planning process. This
WSR suitability review may be modified if deemed necessary as a result of public comment.
B. RESULTS OF THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SUITABILITY
REVIEW OF PUBLIC LANDS ALONG WATERWAYS IN THE BAKER
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN PLANNING AREA
1. GRANDE RONDE RIVER, LOWER SECTION
It was determined that the 15 public land parcels along the lower Grande Ronde review segment
do not meet the WSR suitability factors and will be given no further consideration for inclusion
in the National WSR System. The non-suitable determination is based on the following:
The public land parcels involved are isolated and oftentimes encompass only one side of the
river. In addition, of the entire length of the Grande Ronde River within the study area
(from near the confluence with the Snake River to the Washington/Oregon Stateline), only
44 percent occurs on public lands. Due to these factors, management of public lands along
the lower Grande Ronde River as part of the National WSR System would be nearly
impossible.
Appendices 3.9 – p. 38
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
A WSR designation is deemed unnecessary or inappropriate as the waterway segments are
currently managed as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and Special
Recreation Management Area under the Baker RMP (BLM 1989). The entire length of the
Grande Ronde River in the study area is also protected under the Washington State (Asotin
County) Shoreline Program and managed under the Wallowa & Grande Ronde Rivers RMP
(BLM et al. 1993). The management prescriptions afforded by these special designations
and plans sufficiently protect identified scenic, recreation, geologic, fish, and cultural values
found on public lands along the lower Grande Ronde River that were identified in this study.
A WSR designation would thus provide no foreseeable additional protection.
The land and resource values on public lands involved can and will continue to be appropriately
managed under all other applicable BLM mandates and regulations for multiple use, sustained
yield, and environmental integrity and should suffer no adverse effects for lack of a WSR
designation.
Snake River
It was determined that the single public land parcel along the Snake River does not meet the
WSR suitability factors and will be given no further consideration for inclusion in the National
WSR System. The non-suitable determination is based on the following:
The public land parcels involved encompass only one side of the river, which would make
management of public lands along the Snake River as part of the National WSR System
nearly impossible.
Uses incompatible with the National WSR System occur on both public lands and private
land adjacent to the public lands, including sand and gravel mining, levee
construction/modification, and streambed stabilization.
It is expected that there would be opposition from private land owners caused by potential
restrictions on both private and public land use practices that may occur under WSR
designation. The activities that would be restricted are those that would have a direct and
adverse effect on the free-flowing nature of the waterway and the related outstandingly
remarkable values. Examples of projects that would likely be subject to this standard
include, but are not limited to: dams; water diversion projects; fishery habitat and watershed
restoration/enhancement projects; bridge and other roadway construction/reconstruction
projects; bank stabilization projects; channelization projects; levee construction; recreation
facilities such as boat ramps and fishing piers; and, activities that require a Section 404
permit from the Army Core of Engineers (e.g., sand and gravel mining).
The land and resource values on the public lands involved can and will continue to be
appropriately managed under all other applicable BLM mandates and regulations for multiple
Appendices 3.9 – p. 39
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
use, sustained yield, and environmental integrity and should suffer no adverse effects for lack of
a WSR designation.
Joseph Creek
It was determined that the one upstream-most public land parcel along the Joseph Creek review
segment (Segment 5.7) meets the WSR suitability factors and should be managed to maintain or
enhance its outstandingly remarkable values for any possible future consideration for inclusion in
the National WSR System. The suitable determination is based on the uniqueness of the diverse
public land resources and their regional and national significance, making them worthy of future
consideration for addition to the National WSR System.
The outstanding scenic and geologic values associated with the public lands involved make this a
uniquely diverse waterway segment in the region. Within this portion of the review segment, the
scenic values are of particular high value and include a deeply incised and rimrock-exposed
canyon with gooseneck meanders, grassy open slopes, and benches, with a brilliant green
riparian area that contrasts the often-dry grassy slopes. The geologic values are also notable as
they provide an excellent example of northeastern Oregon geology typified by Columbia River
basalt canyons, exposed by the down cutting of the creek.
Making up 100 percent of the lands along this portion of the review segment, the 2.6 miles of
public land along Joseph Creek are manageable by the BLM as a WSR under the provisions of
the WSR Act. In addition, 8.6 miles of Joseph Creek directly upstream from the BLM review
segment is already within the National WSR System, which makes upstream uses and
management extremely compatible with the suitability determination. The BLM planning team
did not identify any significant factors that would prevent them from managing the reviewed
waterway segment as part of the National WSR System.
It was determined that the remaining six downstream public land parcels along the Joseph Creek
review segment (Segments 5.1 - 5.6) do not meet the WSR suitability factors and will be given
no further consideration for inclusion in the National WSR System. The non-suitable
determination is based on the following:
The BLM would be unable to manage the small, isolated parcels of public lands in the
context of a WSR. The six public land parcels, ranging from 0.06 to 1.89 miles in length,
are interspersed among larger parcels of private and state land and only make up 11 percent
of the total length of Joseph Creek in the study area (excluding the suitable segment). Due
to these factors, management of public lands along Joseph Creek as part of the National
WSR System would be nearly impossible.
A WSR designation is deemed unnecessary for the two downstream-most segments of
Joseph Creek (Segments 5.01 and 5.02) as they are currently managed as an ACEC and
assigned to Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class II. The management prescriptions
Appendices 3.9 – p. 40
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
afforded by these designations sufficiently protect identified scenic and geologic values
found on public lands along the downstream-most two segments of Joseph Creek that were
identified in this study. A WSR designation would thus provide no foreseeable additional
protection.
The land and resource values on public lands involved can and will continue to be appropriately
managed under all other applicable BLM mandates and regulations for multiple use, sustained
yield, and environmental integrity and should suffer no adverse effects for lack of a WSR
designation.
Appendices 3.9 – p. 41
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
ATTACHMENT E: MANAGEMENT OF WATERWAYS WITHIN THE
BAKER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN PLANNING AREA THAT
MEET THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
The recommendations for interim protection measures described in this document are meant to
provide temporary or interim protection of the wild and scenic river (WSR) values on all suitable
waterway areas, which would be integrated into the Baker Resource Management Plan (RMP).
Included are management objectives, management actions, and appropriate allocations of land
and resource uses that would maintain the outstandingly remarkable values and tentative
classifications identified for one segment of Joseph Creek. Pursuant to the WSR Act of 1968, as
amended, until the public reviews are completed and final decisions are made on WSR eligibility
and suitability determinations, no uses of the reviewed Bureau of Land Management (BLM)administered public land surfaces (public lands) will be authorized that could impair any
outstandingly remarkable value they may contain, or would otherwise reduce or destroy their
potential eligibility classification or suitability for consideration for inclusion in the National
WSR System. In general, management requirements for river or river segments that are found
suitable for consideration as components of the National WSR System are the same that apply to
designated and study rivers (BLM 1993).
A. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS REVIEW PROCESS
In conducting the WSR review process, applying the WSR eligibility criteria and suitability
factors and determining the tentative WSR classifications focused on the public lands within a
one-half mile wide corridor along the reviewed river segment (i.e., approximately one-quarter
mile wide along each bank of the waterway along the length of the review segments). The public
lands within and adjacent to this corridor will be considered in future site-specific activity or
management implementation planning to fulfill the stated management objective.
The public lands along the one upstream-most review segment of Joseph Creek (Segment 5.7)
were found to meet the WSR suitability factors to be given further consideration for inclusion in
the National WSR System and thus require interim protection. The public lands along the
reviewed segments of Burnt River, Conner Creek, Fox Creek, the Grande Ronde River (upper
section), and the South Fork Walla Walla River were determined not to meet the WSR eligibility
criteria and are dropped from further consideration. Public lands along the reviewed segments of
the Grande Ronde River (lower section), Snake River, and Joseph Creek (Segments 5.1 - 5.6)
were found to meet the WSR eligibility criteria, but were not considered suitable for inclusion in
the National WSR System and thus, by definition, do not require interim protection.
B. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE
The management objective for the waterways that meet the WSR suitability factors is to maintain
or enhance their outstandingly remarkable values and WSR classification until Congress
considers them for possible designation. The interim protection measures for suitable waterways
Appendices 3.9 – p. 42
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
in the Baker RMP planning area apply only to the waterway corridor which extends the length of
the identified waterway segments and includes the waterway area, its immediate environment,
and an average of no more than one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) from the ordinary high water mark
on both sides of the waterway. This boundary is preliminary and, by Section 3(b) of the WSR
Act, may vary on either side of the waterway and be narrower or wider as long as the total
corridor width averages no more than 320 acres (half of a mile or 2,640 feet wide) per river mile,
and can be delineated by legally identifiable lines (e.g., survey or property lines) or some form of
on-the-ground physical feature (e.g., canyon rims, roads, etc.) which provide the basis for
protecting the waterway’s outstandingly remarkable values. Final boundary delineation will be
made if and when Congress decides to designate the waterway segments under review.
1. JOSEPH CREEK
One upstream-most public land parcel along the Joseph Creek review segment (involving 2.9
miles of the creek) was found to meet the WSR suitability factors to be given further
consideration for inclusion in the National WSR System. This segment of Joseph Creek is
tentatively classified as scenic.
Management of public lands along Joseph Creek in the review section is currently covered under
the Baker Resource Management Plan (BLM 1989), which is consistent with the protection of
outstandingly remarkable scenic and geologic values identified along the creek.
Interim protective measures aimed at protecting outstandingly remarkable scenic values:
While the downstream-most segments of Joseph Creek (Segments 5.1 and 5.2) determined
eligible but not suitable are located within Joseph Creek ONA/ACEC and assigned to Visual
Resource Management (VRM) II, thus receiving adequate protection for its scenic values, the
suitable upstream segment of Joseph Creek (Segment 5.7) currently receives no such protection.
Areas of high scenic quality are often designated as VRM Class II. Any project work within a
Class II area cannot be visual to a casual visitor from any travel route. Any activities that would
result in significant, long-term adverse effects are not permitted Class II areas. Such protective
measures are consistent with the protection of outstandingly scenic values along the suitable of
Joseph Creek. It is recommended that the upstream suitable segment of Joseph Canyon be
inventoried and classified appropriately for the protection of high scenic values (i.e., VRM Class
II)
The outstandingly remarkable scenic values found in the downstream eligible but not suitable
sections of Joseph Creek are currently protected by management actions covering the Joseph
Creek ONA/ACEC. This is partially accomplished through the maintenance of natural riparian
and upland plant vegetation in the canyon, closing off land immediately adjacent to Joseph Creek
to vehicle use, applying a “no surface occupancy” restriction for all gas exploration and
development, excluding timber harvesting, and restricting livestock grazing (BLM 1989). It is
recommended that similar protective measures outlined in the BLM RMP (1989) covering
Appendices 3.9 – p. 43
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.9: Wild and Scenic River Review
management of Joseph Creek ONA/ACEC that protect the area’s scenic qualities should also be
applied to the upstream segment of Joseph Creek determined suitable for inclusion into the
National WSR system.
Interim protective measures aimed at protecting outstandingly remarkable geologic values:
Outstandingly remarkable geologic values on public lands along the two downstream-most
eligible but not suitable segments of Joseph Creek (Segments 5.01 and 5.02) are adequately
protected by the Joseph Creek ONA/ACEC designation due to restrictions placed on motorized
vehicle travel, recreation, and grazing, and from “no surface occupancy” restrictions. It is
recommended that similar protective measures be applied to the upstream suitable segment of
Joseph Creek (Segments 5. 7) to sustain outstandingly remarkable geologic values.
Appendices 3.9 – p. 44
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.8: Wild and Scenic River Review
ATTACHMENT F: LITERATURE CITED
Buchanan, D. V., M. L. Hanson, and R. M. Hooton. 1997. Status of Oregon’s Bull Trout:
Distribution, Life History, Limiting Factors, Management Considerations, and Status.
Portland: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Bureau of Land Management. 1989. Baker Resource Management Plan Record of Decision.
Vale, Oregon.
Bureau of Land Management. 1992. South Fork of the Walla Walla River Area Plan
Amendment. Vale, Oregon.
Bureau of Land Management. 1993. Manual 8351 – Wild and Scenic Rivers – Policy and
Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation, and Management. Washington, D.C.
Bureau of Land Management. 2004. “Clarification of Policy in the BLM Manual Section 8351,
Wild and Scenic Rivers, with Respect to Eligibility Criteria and Protective Management,”
Instruction Memorandum No. 2004-196, Washington, D.C.
Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, Washington State Shoreline Program, Oregon
State Parks and Recreation Department. 1993. Wallowa and Grande Ronde Rivers Final
Management Plan/Environmental Assessment. Vale, Oregon.
Carmichael, R. W. 2006. Draft Recovery Plan for Oregon’s Middle Columbia River Steelhead.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, La Grande, OR.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004 Initial Assessment of NMFS’ Critical Habitat Analytical
Review Teams (CHARTs) for 13 Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon and O.
mykiss (November 2004), including Appendix K: Initial CHART Assessment for the
Middle Columbia River Steelhead. NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005a. Oregon’s Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy. Salem, Oregon.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005b. Oregon Native Fish Status Report 2005 Public
Draft: Volume I – Species Management Unit Summaries. Salem, Oregon.
Saul, D., C. Rabe, A. Davidson, and D. Rollins. 2001. Draft Walla Walla Subbasin Summary.
Report prepared for the Northwest Power Planning Council.
Snake River Salmon Recovery Board. 2005. Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for South
Eastern Washington. Report prepared for Washington Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office.
Appendices 3.9 – p. 45
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Appendix 3.8: Wild and Scenic River Review
U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service. 1999. “The Wild and Scenic Rivers Study
Process,” Technical Report Prepared for the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers
Coordinating Council. Portland, Oregon and Anchorage, Alaska.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 9, Umatilla-Walla Walla Recovery Unit, Oregon
and Washington. 153 p., In U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus
confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 11, Grande Ronde River Recovery Unit, Oregon
and Washington. 95 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus
confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon.
Appendices 3.9 – p. 46
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
LITERATURE CITED
Abele, S. C., V. A. Saab, and E. O. Garton. 2004. Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis): A Technical
Conservation Assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/lewisswoodpecker.pdfp
Adams, Michael J., Christopher A. Pearl, Brome McCreary, Stephanie K. Galvan, Stephanie J. Wessell,
Wendy H. Wente, Chauncey W. Anderson, and Allison B. Kuehl. 2009. Short-Term Effect of
Cattle Exclosures on Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) Populations and Habitat in
Northeastern Oregon. Journal of Herpetology. 43(1): 132–138.
Aikens, C.M., 1986 Second Edition. Archaeology of Oregon. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management, Oregon State Office.
Alder, P., D. Raff, and W. Lauenroth. 2001. The Effect of Grazing on the Spatial Heterogeneity of
Vegetation. Oecologia. 128: 465-479.
Aldridge, L. Cameron, and R. Mark Brigham. 2001. Nesting and Reproductive Activities of Greater SageGrouse in a Declining Northern Fringe Population. The Condor. 103(3): 537-543.
Aldridge, Cameron L., Scott E. Nielsen, Hawthorne L. Beyer, Mark S. Boyce, John W. Connelly, Steven
T. Knick, and Michael A. Schroeder. 2008. Range-wide patterns of greater sage-grouse
persistence. Diversity and Distributions, (Diversity Distrib.) (2008) 14, 983–994
Allen, Edith B. 1995. Restoration ecology: limits and possibilities in arid and semiarid lands. In:
Proceedings of the Wildland Shrub and Arid Land Restoration Symposium. USDA Forest Service
INT GTR-315, pp. 7-15.
American Wind Energy Association, 2009. Accessed on June 9, 2009.
http://www.awea.org/projects/Projects.aspx?s=Oregon
Amman, Gene D., and Richard F. Schmitz. 1988. Mountain Pine Beetle: Lodgepole Pine Interactions and
Strategies for Reducing Tree Losses. Ambio. 17(1): 62-68.
Anderson, Jay E. and Richards S. Inouye. 2001. Landscape-scale changes in plant species abundance and
biodiversity of a sagebrush steppe over 45 years. Ecological Monographs. 71: 531–556.
Anderson, William E. and Richard J. Scherzinger. 1975. Source Improving Quality of Winter Forage for
Elk by Cattle Grazing. Journal of Range Management. 28(2): 120-125.
Angell, R. 1997. Crested Wheatgrass and Shrub Response to Continuous or Rotational Grazing. Journal
of Range Management. 50: 160-164.
Ashe, B., K. Concannon, D.B. Johnson, R.L. Zollman, D. Bryson, G. Alley. 2000. Northeast Oregon
hatchery spring Chinook master plan. Bonneville Power Administration. Project No. 198805305,
April 2000. DOE/BP-3267.
LC-1
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Bacon, M., P. Brouha, M. Rode, and C. Staley. 1980. Redband Trout (Salmo sp.): USFS Shasta-Trinity
National Forest, California, comprehensive habitat management plan. U.S. Forest Service,
Redding, California.
Bailey, Vernon. 1936. The Mammals and Life Zones of Oregon. Washington [U.S. Govt. Print. Off.]
Series: North American fauna, no. 55.
Baker, William L. 2006. Fire and Restoration of Sagebrush Ecosystems. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 34(1):
177-185.
Barrett, S.C., and J.R. Kohn,. 1991. Genetic and evolutionary consequences of small population size in
plants: implications for conservation. Genetics and Conservation of Rare Plants (eds D.A. Falk &
K.E. Holsinger).-, Oxford University Press, New York. pp. 3–30.
Bates, Jonathan D., Edward C. Rhodes, Kirk W. Davies, and Robert Sharp. 2009. Postfire Succession in
Big Sagebrush Steppe with Livestock Grazing. Rangeland Ecology & Management. 62(1): 98110.
Battin, J., M.W. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelshaus, R.N. Palmer, E. Korb, K.K. Battz, and H. Imaki. 2006.
Projected impact of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. 104: 6720-6727.
Bautista, Shawna L. April 2005. Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact
Statement. DRAFT Summary of Herbicide Effects to Wildlife. DRAFT Invasive Plant EIS US
Forest Service, Region 6 Regional Office, Portland, OR.
Beck, Jeffrey L. and Dean L. Mitchell. 2000. Influences of Livestock Grazing on Sage Grouse Habitat.
Wildlife Society Bulletin. 28(4): 993-1002.
Becker, J.M., C.A. Duberstien, J.D. Tagestade, and J.L. Downs. 2009. Sage-grouse and Wind Energy:
Biology, habitats, and Potential Effects from development. Department of Energy. US
Department of Commerce. Springfield VA
Bedell, T., L. Eddleman, T. Deboodt, and C. Jacks. 1993. Western Juniper its Impact and Management in
Oregon Rangelands. Oregon State University: Corvallis, OR.
Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6.
Beier, P. and J.E. Drennan. 1997. Forest structure and prey abundance in foraging areas of northern
goshawks. Ecological Applications. 7: 564-571.
Belnap, J., J. Kaltenecker, R. Rosentreter, J. Williams, S. Leonard, and D. Eldridge. 2001. Biological
Crusts: Ecology and Management. Technical Reference 1730-2, BLM National Science and
Technology Center. Denver CO.
Benda, L., N.L. Poff, D. Miller, T. Dunne, G. Reeves, G. Pess, and M. Pollock. 2004. The network
dynamics hypothesis: how channel networks structure riverine habitats. Bioscience. 54: 413–
427.
LC-2
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Bengston, S.A. 1972. Breeding Ecology of the Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus (L.) in Iceland.
Ornis Scandinavica. 3(1): 1-19.
Betts, B.J. 1990. Geographic Distribution and Habitat Preferences of Washington Ground Squirrels
(Spermophilus washingtoni). Northwestern Naturalist. 71(2): 27-37.
Betts, B.J. 1999. Current status of Washington ground squirrels in Oregon and Washington. Northwestern
Naturalist. 80: 35-38.
Billings, W.D. 1994. Ecological Impacts of Cheatgrass and Resultant Fire on Ecosystems in the Western
Great Basin. In S. B. Monsen and S. G. Kitchen [COMPILERS]. Proceedings—ecology and
management of annual rangelands. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INTGTR
313. Pages 22-30.
Birdsey, R., K.Pregitzer, and A. Lucier. 2006. Forest carbon management in the United States: 16002100. Journal of Environmental Quality. 35: 1461-1469.
Bishop, E. 2003. In Search of Ancient Oregon: A Geological and Natural History. Timber Press:
Portland, OR.
Björk, Curtis R. 2010. Personal communication. January 20, 2010. E-mail to Roger Ferriel regarding
presence of special status plants and Hells Canyon Mountain snail at Lime Hill.
Björk, Curtis R. 2010a. Additions to the Lichen Flora of Washington State, United States. I. Evansia,
27(1): 18–20.
Björk, Curtis R. 2010b. Personal communication via email on June 20, to Roger Ferriel.
Bjornn, T. C. and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In: Influences of
forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. W. R. Meehan, ed.
Bethesda, MD. American Fisheries Society. Special Publication 19: 83-138.
Bock, C. E. 1970. The ecology and behavior of the Lewis' woodpecker (Asyndesmus lewis). Univ.
California Pub. Zool. No. 92.
Boeker, L. Erwin, and Paul R. Nickerson. 1975. Raptor Electrocutions. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 3(2): 7981.
Boyer, Robin and Christian E. Grue. 1995. The Need for Water Quality Criteria for Frogs. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington, Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, School of
Fisheries .
Brandt, J.P., T.A. Morgan, T. Dillion, G.J. Lettman, C.E. Keegan, and D.L. Azuma. 2006. Oregon’s
Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2003. PNW-GTR 681. United States Department
of Agriculture Forest Service.
LC-3
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Braun, C. E., T. Britt, and R. Wallestad. 1977. Guidelines for Maintenance of Sage Grouse Habitats.
Wildlife Society Bulletin. 5(3): 99-106.
Braun, C. E., J. W. Connelly, and M. A. Schroeder. 2005. Seasonal Habitat Requirements for SageGrouse: Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter. In: Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration Symposium
Proceedings. N. L. Shaw, M. Pellant and S. B. Monsen. RMRS-P-38. Boise, ID: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 130pp.
Brennan, L. A., W. M. Block, and R. J. Gutierrez. 1987. Habitat Use by Mountain Quail in Northern
California. The Condor. 89(1): 66-74.
Brewer, Tracy K., Jeffrey C. Mosley, Daniel E. Lucas, Lisa R. Schmidt. 2007. Bluebunch Wheatgrass
Response to Spring Defoliation on Foothill Rangeland. Rangeland Ecology and Management.
60(5): 498-507.
Broich, S.L. and L.A. Morrison. 1995. The taxonomic Status of Lupinus cusickii (Fabaceae). Madrono.
42(4): 490-500.
Brittell, J. D., R. J. Poelker, S. J. Sweeney, and G. M. Koehler. 1989. Native cats of Washington. Section
III: Lynx. Unpublished Report, Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia. 169 pp.
Brooks, H. 1979. Plate Tectonics and the Geologic History of the Blue Mountains. Oregon Geology.
41(5): 71-79.
Brown, J. S. and P. Duguid. 1991. Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a
Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation. Organization Science. 2(1): 40-57.
Brown, T.J., B.H. Hall, and A.L. Westerling. 2004. The Impact of Twenty-First Century Climate Change
on Wildland Fire Danger in the Western United States: An Application Perspective. Climate
Change. 62: 364-388.
Buchanan, D. V., M. L. Hanson, and R. M. Hooten. 1997. Status of Oregon’s bull trout. Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland.
Bull, Evelyn L. and Marc P. Hayes. 2000. Livestock Effects on Reproduction of the Columbia Spotted
Frog. Journal of Range Management. 53(3): 291-294.
Bull, Evelyn. 2005. Ecology of the Columbia Spotted Frog in Northeastern Oregon. USFS General
Technical Report PNW-GTR-640.
Bunting, S.C., B.M. Kilgore, and C.L. Bushey. 1987. Guidelines for Prescribed Burning in SagebrushGrass Rangelands in the Northern Great Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-23 1. Ogden, Utah: USDA
Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station,..
Bunting, S. C., J. L. Kingery, M. A. Hemstrom, M. A. Schroeder, R. A. Gravenmier, and W. J. Hann.
2002. Altered Rangeland Ecosystems in the interior Columbia Basin. General Technical Report
PNW-GTR-553. USDA Forest Service.
LC-4
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. 2000. Regional Economic Information
System. http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/
Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. 2005a. Regional Economic Information
System. http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/
Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. 2005b. Regional Economic Information
System, Table CA30, http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Commerce. 2005. Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly
Census of Employment and Wages.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1980. Ironside Draft Grazing
Management Environmental Impact Statement. Portland, OR: Oregon State Office.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1980. Ecosite Inventory cited in Bureau of
Land Management. 1981. Ironside Grazing Management Environmental Impact Statement.
Oregon State Office.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1981. Rangeland Program Summary
(RPS) Record of Decision Ironside EIS Area. Baker Resource Area.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1985. Northwest Area Noxious Weed
Control Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. Oregon State Office: Portland, Oregon.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1986. Baker Resource Area Proposed
Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Vale District Office: Vale, OR.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1987. Supplement to the Northwest Area
Noxious Weed Control Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. Oregon State Office:
Portland, Oregon.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1989. Baker Resource Management Plan,
Record of Decision. BLM-OR-PT-89-10-1792. Vale District Office: Vale, OR.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1989a. Vale District Weed Control Plan
EA OR-030-89-19. (and as extended 1994, 1999, 2006, 2009).
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1991. Vegetation Treatment on BLM lands
in Thirteen Western States Final Environmental Impact Statement. BLM-WY-ES-91-022-4320.
Wyoming State Office: Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1992. South Fork of the Walla Walla River
Area Plan Amendment. BLM Vale District Office: Vale, OR.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1994. Powder River Final Management
Plan/Environmental Assessment. BLM Vale District Office: Vale, Oregon.
LC-5
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1995. Interim Bull Trout Habitat
Conservation Strategy. Instruction Memorandum No. OR-96-010. Oregon/Washington State
Office. Portland, OR.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1997. Standards for Rangeland Health
and Guidelines or Livestock Grazing Management of Public Lands Administered by the Bureau
of Land Management in the States of Oregon and Washington. BLM Oregon State Office:
Portland, OR.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1998. A User Guide to Assessing Proper
Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. Technical Reference 173715. National Applied Resource Sciences Center, Denver, CO.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2000. Recreation: A Strategic Plan.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2001. Biological Soil Crust: Ecology and
Management, Interagency Technical Reference. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Denver,
CO. pp65-69.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Interior, 2001a. Manual 6840 - Special Status Species
Management. 39 p.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2002. Lookout Mountain Forest and
Rangeland Health Project and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. BLM Vale District, Baker
Field Office: Baker City, OR.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2003. Oregon/Washington (OR/WA)
Special Status Species (SSS) policy. Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2003-054.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2004. National Sage-Grouse Habitat
Conservation Strategy. 1.4.1 Guidance for the Management of Sagebrush Plant Communities for
Sage-Grouse Conservation. November 2004. 33 pgs.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2005. Final Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western
United States. Volumes 1-4.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2005a. BLM Land Use Planning
Handbook (H 1601-1). 477 pages plus appendices.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2006. Grazing Management Processes and
Strategies for Riparian-Wetlands Areas, Interagency Technical Reference 1737-20. USDI Bureau
of Land Management, Denver, CO.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2006a. Chemical Pest Control Handbook
9011. Washington D.C.
LC-6
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2006b. Use of Biological Control Agents
of Pests on Public Lands. Handbook 9014. Washington D.C.
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. 2006c. Integrated Weed Management.
Handbook 9015. Washington D.C.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2007. “Healthy Lands Initiative –
National” (factsheet). Bureau of Land Management. 2pp.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2007a. BLM Monitoring Report for the
Columbia River and Snake River Basins. BLM Vale District Office: Vale, OR.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2007b. Instructional Memorandum OR2007-072. Update to State Director’s Special Status Species List. BLM Washington and Oregon.4
pages plus attachments.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2007c. Vegetation Treatments Using
Herbicides on BLM lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.
BLM Nevada State Office: Reno, NV.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Interior. 2007d. Draft Butte Resource Management
Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Butte Field Office, Butte, MT.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2008. Instructional Memorandum OR2008-038. Final State Director’s Special Status Species List. BLM Washington and Oregon. 4 pp.
plus attachments.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2008a. BLM Special Status Species
Manual (6840). 48 pages.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2008b. BLM’s National Environmental
Policy Act Handbook (H1790-1). 128 pages plus appendices.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2008c. Integrated Vegetation Management
Manual. Manual Section 1740-2. Washington D.C.
Bureau of Land Management, US Department of the Interior. 2008d. Range Administration System.
http://www.blm.gov/ras/authorized.htm
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2009. Baker Resource Management Plan
Revision Analysis of the Management Situation. Vale District Office, Baker Resource Area.
Baker City, OR. March 2009.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2009a. Approved Resource Management
Plan Amendment/Record of Decision (ROD) for Designation of Energy Corridors on Bureau of
Land Management-Administered Lands in the 11 Western States. USDI Bureau of Land
Management.
LC-7
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2010. Vegetation Treatments Using
Herbicides on BLM lands in Oregon Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. BLM
Oregon State Office: Portland, OR.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2010a. Water Quality Law Summary Oregon 2. BLM National Science and Technology Center Website.
http://www.blm.gov/nstc/WaterLaws/oregon2.html (last accessed March 30, 2010).
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture. 2007. Departmental Manual 517 DM 1. Integrated Pest Management.
http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/IPM/DOI517DM1.pdf website accessed on 2/19/2010.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture; Washington State Shoreline Program; and Oregon State Parks and Recreation
Department. 1993. Wallowa and Grande Ronde Rivers Final Management Plan/Environmental
Assessment. Vale, Oregon.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife, and Oregon Department of State Lands. 2000. Greater Sage-Grouse and
Sagebrush-Steppe Ecosystems Management Guidelines. Interagency Sage-grouse Planning Team:
Portland, OR, 21p.
Burns, Russell M., and Barbara H. Honkala, tech. coords. 1990. Silvics of North America: 1. Conifers.
Agriculture Handbook 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
vol. 1, 675 p.
Burton, T.A., E.R. Cowley, and S.J. Smith. 2008. Monitoring stream channels and riparian vegetation –
multiple indicators. Interagency Technical Bulletin. Version 5.0/April 2008. Boise, ID: Bureau
of Land Management Idaho State Office and US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research
Station. BLM/ID/GI-08/001+1150.
Bush L. Krista, Christopher K. Dyte, Brendan J. Moynahan, Cameron L. Aldridge, Heather S. Sauls,
Angela M. Battazzo, Brett L. Walker, Kevin E. Doherty, Jason Tack, John Carlson, Dale
Eslinger, Joel Nicholson, Mark S. Boyce, David E. Naugle, Cynthia A. Paszkowski, David W.
Coltman, Conserv Genet. 2010. Population structure and genetic diversity of greater sage-grouse
(Centrocercus urophasianus) in fragmented landscapes at the northern edge of their range. DOI
10.1007/s10592-010-0159-8
Campbell, M.H. and F.G. Swain. 1973. Factors Causing Losses during the Establishment of SurfaceSown Pastures. Journal of Range Management. 26(5): 355-359.
Carmichael, R.W., G.C. Grant, and T.L. Hoffnagle. 2006. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan:
Oregon evaluation studies. Work Statement submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Contract Number 1411-07-J009. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Office,
Boise, ID.
LC-8
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Chamberlain, D.E., M.M. Rehfisch, A.D. Fox, M. Desholm, and S.J. Anthony. 2006. The effect of
avoidance rates on bird mortality predictions made by wind turbine collision risk models. Ibis.
148: 198-202.
Chambers, Jeanne C. and Mike Pellant. 2008. Climate Change Impacts on Northwestern and
Intermountain United States Rangelands. Rangelands. 30(3): 29-33.
Chapin, T. G., D. J. Harrison, and P. D. M. 1997. Seasonal Habitat Selection by Marten in an Untrapped
Forest Preserve. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 61(3): 707-717.
Christiansen T. 2009. Fence Marking to Reduce Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)
Collisions and Mortality near Farson, Wyoming – Summary of Interim Results. Wyoming Game
& Fish Dept.
Clark, D. and W. Hunter. 1992. The Impact of Economic Opportunity, Amenities and Fiscal Factors on
Age-Specific Migration Rates. Journal of Regional Science. 32(3): 349-365.
Clark, Patrick E., William C. Krueger, Larry D. Bryant and David R. Thomas. 2000. Livestock Grazing
Effects on Forage Quality of Elk Winter Range. Journal of Range Management. 53(1): 97-105.
Clark, Larry, Jeffrey Hall, Robert McLean, Michael Dunbar, Kaci Klenk, Richard Bowen, and Cynthia A.
Smeraski. 2006. Susceptibility of Greater Sage-Grouse to Experimental Infection with West Nile
Virus. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 42(1): 14–22
Clary, W. P. 1999. Stream Channel and Vegetation Responses to Late Spring Cattle Grazing. Journal of
Range Management. 52(3): 218-227.
Clary, W. P. and B.F. Webster. 1990. Riparian Grazing Guidelines for the Intermountain Region.
Rangelands. 12(4), August1990.
Clary, Warren P. and Wayne C. Leininger. 2000. Stubble Height as a Tool for Management of Riparian
Areas. Journal of Range Management. 53: 562-573.
Climate Change Impacts Group, University of Washington. 2010. About Pacific Northwest Climate:
Climate Change.
Cochran, P.H. and James W. Barrett, 1999. Growth of Ponderosa Pine thinned to different stocking levels
in central Oregon: 30 year results. PNW-RP-508. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station.
Coddington, K.E., 2008. An Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Livestock Trampling on an
Obsidian Lithic Scatter. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. Thesis.
Collins, William B. and Philip J. Urness. 1983. Feeding Behavior and Habitat Selection of Mule Deer and
Elk on Northern Utah Summer Range. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 47(3): 646-663.
Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission. 2008. Tribal Pacific Lamprey Restoration Plan for the
Columbia River Basin. Nez Perce, Umatilla, Yakima and Warm Springs Tribes.
LC-9
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Connelly, J. W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage-grouse
populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 28: 967-985.
Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, C.L. Aldridge, A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, C.E. Braun, S. D. Bunnell, , P.A.
Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M. A. Hilliard, G.D. Kobriger, S.M. McAdam, C.W. McCarthy, J.J.
McCarthy, L. Mitchell, E. V. Rickerson, S.J. Stiver. 2004. Distribution of Sage-Grouse in North
America. The Condor. 106(2): 363-376.
Connor F. Edward, Aaron C. Courtney, and James M. Yoder. 2000. Individuals – Area Relationships:
The Relationship Between Animal Population Density and Area. Ecology. 81(3): 734–748.
Amundson, Courtney L. and Steven T. Knick. No Date. Influences of Environmental and Anthropogenic
Features on Greater Sage-Grouse Populations, 1997-2007. USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife
Research Center 204 Hodson Hall 1980 Folwell Ave.
Cook, John G., Terry J. Hershey, and Larry L. Irwin. 1994. Vegetative Response to Burning on Wyoming
Mountain-Shrub Big Game Ranges. Journal of Range Management. 47(4): 296-302.
Cook, John G., Thomas W. Stutzman, Clinton W. Bowers, Kathryn A. Brenner, and Larry L. Irwin. 1995.
Spherical Densiometers Produce Biased Estimates of Forest Canopy Cover. Wildlife Society
Bulletin. 23(4) 711-717.
Cook, John G., Bruce K. Johnson, Rachel C. Cook, Robert A. Riggs, Tim Delcurto, Larry D. Bryant, and
Larry L. Irwin. 2004. Effects Of Summer-Autumn Nutrition And Parturition Date On
Reproduction And Survival Of Elk. Wildlife Monographs. January 2004, Number 155.
Copeland, Jeffrey P. 1996. Biology of the Wolverine in Central Idaho Moscow ID: University of Idaho.
Thesis.
Copeland, Jeffrey P., James M. Peek, Craig R. Groves, Wayne E. Melquist, Kevin S. Mckelvey, Gregory
W. McDaniel, Clinton D. Long, and Charles E. Harris. 2007. Seasonal Habitat Associations of
the Wolverine in Central Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(7).
Cordell, H. 2005. Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United States, Regions and States: A National
Report from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). Asheville, NC:
U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station.
Courtois, Danielle R., Barry L. Perryman and Hussein S. Hussein. 2004. Vegetation Change after 65
Years of Grazing and Grazing Exclusion. Journal of Range Management. 57(6): 574-582.
Cox G.W. and J. Hunt. 1990. Nature and Origin of Stone Stripes on the Columbia Plateau. Landscape
Ecology. 5: 53-64.
Cox, Robert D. and Val Jo Anderson. 2004. Increasing Native Diversity of Cheatgrass-Dominated
Rangeland through Assisted Succession. Journal of Range Management. 57(2): 203-210.
LC-10
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Crawford, J. A. and R. S. Lutz. 1985. Sage Grouse Population Trends in Oregon, 1941-1983. The
Murrelet. 66(3): 69-74
Crawford, John A., Rich A. Olson, Neil E. West, Jeffrey C. Mosley, Michael A. Schroeder, Tom D.
Whitson, Richard F. Miller, Michael A. Gregg, and Chad S. Boyd. 2004. Ecology and
management of sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. Journal of Range Management. 57: 2-19.
Cronquist, A., A. Holmgren, N.H. Holmgren, J.L. Reveal, and P.K. Holmgren. 1984. Intermountain Flora.
Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol 4. The New York Botanical Garden,
Bronx, N.Y. pages 484-485.
Crozier, L.G. and R.W. Zabel. 2006. Climate impacts at multiple scales: evidence for differential
population responses in juvenile Chinook salmon. Journal of Animal Ecology. 75: 1100-1109.
Crozier, L.G., R.W. Zabel, and A.F. Hamlet. 2008. Predicting differential effects of climate
change at the population level with life-cycle models of spring Chinook salmon. Global Change
Biology. 14: 236-249.
Currens, K. P. 1991. Allozyme and morphological characteristics of rainbow trout in the Burnt and
Powder Rivers and McGraw Creek, Oregon. Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
D’Antonio, C.M and P.M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological Invasions by Exotic Grasses, the Grass/Fire Cycle
and Global Change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 23: 63-87.
Danvir, R. E. 2002. Sage Grouse ecology and management in a northern Utah sagebrush-steppe.
Woodroff, UT: Deseret Land and Livestock, Inc.; Wildlife Research Report.
Daszak, P., A. Strieby, A. Cunningham, and others. 2004. Experimental Evidence That the Bullfrog
(Rana catesbeiana) Is a Potential Carrier of Chytridiomycosis, an Emerging Fungal Disease of
Amphibians. Herpetological Journal. 14: 201-207.
Dauble, D.D., R.L. Johnson, and A.P. Garcia. 1999. Fall Chinook spawning in the tailraces of lower
Snake River hydroelectric projects. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 128(4): 672–
679.
Davies, Kirk W., Johnathon D. Bates, and Richard F. Miller. 2007. Short-Term Effects of Burning
Wyoming Big Sagebrush Steppe in Southeast Oregon. Rangeland Ecology and Management.
60(5): 512-522.
Davies, K.W., A.J. Svejcar, J.D. Bates. 2009. Grazing History Influences the Response of Sagebrush
Plant communities to Fire. p. 44-49. In: Range Field Day 2009: Progress Report. Oregon State
University Special Report 1092. Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center.
DeBano, L.F.1999. The role of fire and soil heating on water repellency in wildland environments: a
review. Journal of Hydrology. 231–232 (2000) 195–206.
LC-11
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Dechant, J.A., M.L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, and others. 1999. Effects of Management Practices on
Grassland Birds: Ferruginous Hawk. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center: Jamestown, ND,
23pp.
DeLong, A.K., J.A. Crawford and D. C. DeLong, Jr. 1995. Relationships between Vegetational Structure
and Predation of Artificial Sage Grouse Nests. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 59(1): 8892.
Demarchi, A. Raymond. 1968. Chemical Composition of Bighorn Winter Forages. Journal of Range
Management. 21(6): 385-388.
Denman et al, 2007. Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biochemistry, In Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Fourth Assessment Report IPCC, p 512.
Department of Energy (DOE). 2003. Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands. U.S.
Department of the Interior, BLM and US Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy. DOE/GO-102003-1704. February 2003.
Department of Energy (DOE). 2007. Technical Guidelines: Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases
(1605[b]) Program.Office of Policy and International Affairs.
http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregistry/documents/January2007_1605bTechnicalGuid
elines.pdf (accessed March 2008).
Department of Energy (DOE). 2009. National Renewable Energy Lab, Job and Economic Development
Impact Model for Wind. Release Number: W1.09.03e. http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/jedi/
Accessed on October 8th, 2009.
Derner, J.D. and G.E. Schuman. 2007. Carbon sequestration and rangelands: A synthesis of land
management and precipitation effects. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 62(2).
Desimone, S.M. and D.W. Hays. 2004. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). Vol. IV. Birds.
Washington Dep. Fish and Wildlife. 17 pp
DiTomaso, Joseph M. 2000. Invasive Weeds in Rangelands: Species, Impacts, and Management. Weed
Science. 2000, 48(2): 255-265. Weed Science Society of America.
Dixon R.D. 1995a. Ecology of white-headed woodpeckers in the central Oregon Cascades. Moscow, ID:
University of Idaho. Thesis. 148 p.
Dixon, R. D. 1995b. Density, nest-site and roost-site characteristics, home-range, habitat-use, and
behavior of white-headed woodpeckers: Deschutes and Winema National Forests: Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife; Nongame Project Number 93-3-01. 71 + p.
Dobkin, D.S. and J.D. Sauder. 2004. Shrubsteppe Landscapes in Jeopardy. Distributions, Abundances,
and the Uncertain Future of Birds and Small Mammals in the Intermountain West. Bend, OR:
High Desert Ecological Research Instititue. 194pp.
LC-12
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Dobler, Freddrick and Kenneth Dixon. 1990. Rabbits hares and pikas: status survey and conservation
plan. Google book [website] access:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Q994k86i0zYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA111&dq=Dobler
+and+Dixon+Pygmy+rabbit&ots=RotsRoWvOZ&sig=tVJrmKpqTX3R7JoqPqMBRUSjNrQ#v=
onepage&q=Dobler%20and%20Dixon%20Pygmy%20rabbit&f=false
Doherty M.K. 2007. Mosquito Populations in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming: A Comparison of
Natural, Agriculture and Effluent Coal Bed Natural Gas Aquatic Habitats. Bozeman, Montana:
Montana State University. Thesis.
Dohm, Arlene. 2005. Farming in the 21st Century, A Modern Business in a Modern World. Occupational
Outlook Quarterly, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Drewitt, A.L. and R.H.W. Langston. 2006. Assessing the Impacts of Wind Farms on Birds. Ibis. 148: 2942.
Drut, M.S., W.H. Pyle, and J.A. Crawford. 1994. Diets and Food Selection of Sage Grouse Chicks in
Oregon. Journal of Range Management. 47(1): 90-93.
Duffus, A.L., B.D. Pauli, K. Wozney, C.R. Brunetti, and M. Berrill. 2008. Frog virus 3-like infections in
aquatic amphibian communities. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 44: 109-120.
Dunn O. Peter and Clait E. Braun. 1986. Summer Habitat Use by Adult Female and Juvenile Sage
Grouse. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 50(2): 228-235
Dyksterhuis, E.J. 1949. Condition and Management of Rangeland Based on Quantitative Ecology.
Journal of Range Management. 2: 104-115.
Economic Profile System. 2007. Headwaters Economics, BLM, and the Sonoran Institute, 2007 Version.
Version date 1/29/2008. http://www.headwaterseconomics.org
Elliot, William J., Ina Sue Miller, and Lisa Audin. Eds. 2010. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel
management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Ellis, James E. and Michael Travis. 1975. Comparative Aspects of Foraging Behaviour of Pronghorn
Antelope and Cattle. Journal of Applied Ecology. 12(2): 411-420.
Elmore, W. and R.L. Beschta. 1987. Riparian Areas: Perceptions in Management. Rangelands. 9(6): 260265. (Dec., 1987). Published by: Allen Press and Society for Range Management Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4000413
Ellstrand N.C., and D.R, Elam... 1993. Population genetic consequences of small population size:
implications for plant conservation. Annual Review Ecological Sytematics. 2(4): 217- 242.
Emmerich, F.L., F.H. Tipton, and J.A. Young. 1993. Cheatgrass: Changing Perspectives and Management
Strategies. Rangelands. 15(1): 37-40.
LC-13
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Engle, Janice C. and James C. Munger. 2003. Population Fragmentation of Spotted Frogs in the Owyhee
Mountains. Department of Biology, Boise State University, Technical Bulletin No. 03 8, Idaho
Bureau of Land Management.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2005.U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
: 1990-2007.
Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson and D.P. Young, Jr. 2005. A Summary and Comparison of Bird Mortality
from Anthropogenic Causes with an Emphasis on Collisions. In: Bird conservation
implementation and integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the third International Partners in
Flight conference. C. J. Ralph and T. Rich. General Technical Report, GTR-PSW-191. Albany,
CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 10291042pp.
Ersch A. Erica. 2009. Effects of Plant Community Characteristics on Insect Abundance: Implications
for Sage-grouse Brood-rearing Habitat. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. Thesis.
Estes-Zumpf, Wendy A., Janet L. Rachlow, Lisette P. Waits, and Kenneth I. Warheit. 2010. Dispersal,
gene flow, and population genetic structure in the pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis).
Journal of Mammalogy. 91(1): 208–219.
Fausch, K.D., C.E. Torgersen, C.V. Baxter, and H.W. Li. 2002. Landscapes to riverscapes: bridging the
gap between research and conservation of stream fishes. BioScience. 52: 483-498.
FEAST 2009. Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool (Database Version 4.0 6/10/2009).
http://fsweb.ftcol.wo.fs.fed.us/imi/economic_center/FEAST_EconomicAnalysisTool.html
Feist, Laura J. and David R. Parker. 2001. Ecotypic variation in selenium accumulation in populations of
Stanleya pinnata. New Phytologist. 149(1): 61-69.
Ferguson, Sue A. 1999. Climatology of the interior Columbia River basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR445. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station. 31 p. (Quigley, Thomas M., ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management
Project: scientific assessment).
Fettig, Christopher J., Kier D. Klepzig, Ronald F. Billings, A. Steven Munson, T. Evan Nebeker, Jose F.
Negro´n, John T. Nowak. 2007. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for
prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and
southern United States. Forest Ecology and Management. 238: 24–53.
Fike, M. 2011. Shrub-Stepp Series: What about Cyptogamic Crust. Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory. http://science-ed.pnl.gov/pals/resource/cards/cryptogamic_crust.stm
LC-14
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Finch, D.M. 1991. Population Ecology, Habitat Requirements, and Conservation of Neotropical
Migratory Birds. General Technical Report, GTR-RM-205. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26p.
Fink, T., Michael and Paul S. Zietz. 1996. Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome and Field Archaeology:
Guidelines for Risk Reduction. Journal of Field archaeology. 23(4): 471-476.
Finney, M.A., C.W. McHugh, and I.C. Grenfell. 2005. Stand- and landscape-level effects of prescribed
burning on two Arizona wildfires. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 35: 1714–1722.
Fischer, Richard A., Kerry P. Reese, and John W. Connelly. 1996. Influence of Vegetal Moisture Content
and Nest Fate on Timing of Female Sage Grouse Migration. The Condor. 98(4): 868-872.
Fischer, Richard A., Kerry P. Reese, and John W. Connelly. 1996a. An Investigation on Fire Effects
within Xeric Sage Grouse Brood Habitat. Journal of Range Management. 49(3): 194-198.
Fischer, Richard A., Wayne L. Wakkinen, Kerry P. Reese, and John W. Connelly. 1997. Effects of
Prescribed Fire on Movements of Female Sage Grouse from Breeding to Summer Ranges. The
Wilson Bulletin. 109(1): 82-91.
Fischer, G. 2001. Communities of Interest: Learning through the Interaction of Multiple Knowledge
Systems. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Center for Life Long Learning and Design. 13 pp.
Fisher, S.G. 1997. Creativity, idea generation, and the functional morphology of streams.Journal of the
North American Benthological Society. 16: 305-318.
Flather, Curtis H., and Michael Bevers. 2002. Patchy Reaction-Diffusion and Population Abundance: The
Relative Importance of Habitat Amount and Arrangement. The American Naturalist. 159(1): 4056.
Fleischner, Thomas L. 1994. Ecological Cost of Livestock Grazing in Western North America.
Conservation Biology. 8(3).
Flinders, Jerran T. and Richard M. Hansen. 1975. Spring Population Responses of Cottontails and
Jackrabbits to Cattle Grazing Shortgrass Prairie. Journal of Range Management. 28(4): 290-293.
Foden, W.B., G.M. Mace, J.-C. Vié, A. Angulo, S.H.M. Butchart, L. De Vantier, H.T. Dublin, A.
Gutsche,S.N. Stuart, and E. Turak. 2008. Species susceptibility to climate change impacts. In: J.C. Vié, C. Hilton-Taylor and S.N. Stuart (eds), The 2008 Review of The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. IUCN Gland, Switzerland.
Follett, R.F., J.M. Kimble, and R. Lal. 2001. The Potential of U.S. Grazing Lands to Sequester Carbon
and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect.
France, Kevin A., Dave C. Ganskopp, and Chad S. Boyd. 2008. Interspace/Undercanopy Foraging
Patterns of Beef Cattle in Sagebrush Habitats. Rangeland Ecology & Management. 61(4): 389393.
LC-15
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Frankham, R. 1999. Quantitative genetics in conservation biology. Genetic Research. 74: 237244.
Frederick, G.P. and T.L. Moore. 1991. Distribution and habitat of white-headed woodpeckers (Picoides
albolarvatus) in west-central Idaho. Boise, ID: Idaho Dept. Fish & Game. 32pp.
Frenzel, R.W. 2002. Nest-sites, nesting success, and turnover-rates of white-headed woodpeckers on the
Deschutes and Winema National Forests, Oregon in 2002. Unpublished report prepared for
Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center.
Frest, Terrence J. and Edward J. Johannes. 1995. Interior Columbia Basin Mollusk Species of Special
Concern - Final Report. Prepared for Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project,
112 East Poplar Street, Walla Walla, WA, 99362. January 15, 1995.
Frid, A. and L. M. Dill. 2002. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk.
Conservation Ecology 6(1): 11.
Frischnecht, N. 1963. Effects of Big Sagebrush and Rubber Rabbitbrush on Production of Crested
Wheatgrass. Journal of Range Management. 16: 70-74.
Frissell, C.A., W.J. Liss, C.E. Warren, and M.D. Hurley. 1986. A hierarchical framework for
stream classification: Viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental Management. 10:
199-214.
Frost, R. and K. Launchbaugh. 2003. Prescription Grazing for Rangeland Weed Management: A New
Look at an Old Tool. Rangelands. 25: 43-47.
Frost, W., L. Smith, and P. Ogden. 1994. Utilization Guidelines. Rangelands. 16: 256-259.
Fulton, L. A. 1968. Spawning areas and abundance of Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, in
the Columbia River basin—past and present. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Spec. Sci. Rep.,
Fish. 571.
Funk, W. Chris, Michael S. Blouin, Paul Stephen Corn, Bryce A. Maxell, David S. Pilliod, Stephen
Amish, and Fred W. Allendorf. 2005. Population structure of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana
luteiventris) is strongly affected by the landscape. Molecular Ecology. 14(2): 483 – 496.
Furniss M.J., S.A. Flanagan, and B. McFadden, 1991. Hydrologically Connected Roads: An Indicator of
the Influence of Roads on Chronic Sedimentation, Surface Water Hydrology and Exposure to
Toxic Chemicals. Streams System Technology Center.
Furniss, M.J. and C.J. Colby. 2005. Draft Annotated bibliography of small and intermittent
streams and related topics. Corvallis, OR: USFS-PNW Research Station Aquatic and Land Interactions
Program. 218 p.
Gabler, Kate I., John W. Laundré, and Laura T. Heady. 2000. Predicting the Suitability of Habitat in
Southeast Idaho for Pygmy Rabbits. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 64(3): 759-764.
LC-16
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Ganskopp, David. 1998. Thurber Needlegrass: Seasonal Defoliation Effects on Forage Quantity and
Quality. Journal of Range Management. 51(3): 276-281.
Ganskopp, David and Martin Vavra. 1987. Slope Use by Cattle, Feral Horses, Deer, and Bighorn Sheep.
Northwest Science. 61(2).
Gast, William R., Donald W. Scott, Craig Schmitt, and Charles G. Johnson Jr. 1991. Blue Mountain
forest health report-new perspectives in forest health. Baker City, OR: Pacific Northwest Region;
Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, USDA Forest Service.
Gates, J. E. and N. R. Giffen. 1991. Neotropical Migrant Birds and Edge Effects at a Forest-Stream
Ecotone. The Wilson Bulletin. 103(2): 204-217.
Gelbard, J.L. and Jayne Belnap. 2003. Roads as Conduits for Exotic Plant Invasions in a Semiarid
Landscape. Conservation Biology. 17(2): 420-432.
Giesen, K.M. and J.W. Connelly. 1993. Guidelines for Management of Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse
Habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 21(3): 325-333.
Gitzendanner, M.A. and P.S. Soltis. 2000. Patterns of genetic variation in rare and widespread plant
congeners. American Journal of Botany. 87: 783–792..
Goldman, E.A. 1937. The wolves of North America. Journal of Mammalogy. 18: 37-45.
Gomi, T., R.C. Sidle, and J.S. Richardson. 2002. Understanding processes and downstream
linkages of headwater streams. BioScience. 52: 905-916.
Gomi, T., R.D. Moore, and M.A. Hassan. 2005. Journal of American Water Resource Association.
August 2005.
Good, T.P., R.S. Waples, and P. Adams (editors). 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs of West
Coast salmon and steelhead. NMFS-NWFSC-66. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA
Techical Memorandum. 598 pp.
Gray, Karen, Janice Hill, and Michael Mancuso. 2005. Updated Palouse Goldenweed (Pyrrocoma
liatriformis) Occurrences on BLM Land, Craig Mountain, Idaho. Report prepared for Bureau of
Land Management Coeur d’Alene District Cottonwood Field Office. 15 pp.
Greene, Eric, Robert G. Anthony, Vern Marr, and Russ Morgan. 2009. Abundance and Habitat
Associations of Washington Ground Squirrels in the Columbian Basin, Oregon. American
Midland Naturalist. 162(1): 29-42.
Greenwald, Noah D., Coleman Crocker-Bedford, Len Broberg, Kieran F. Suckling, and Timothy Tibbitts.
2005. A review of northern goshawk habitat selection in the home range and implications for
forest management in the western United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 33(1): 120-129.
LC-17
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Gregg, Michael A., John A. Crawford, Martin S. Drut, and Anita K. DeLong. 1994. Vegetational Cover
and Predation of Sage Grouse Nests in Oregon. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 58(1): 162166.
Griffith, Brad and James M. Peek. 1989. Mule Deer Use of Seral Stage and Habitat Type in Bitterbrush
Communities. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 53(3): 636-642.
Groves, C.R., B. Butterfield, G. Lippincott, B. Csuti, and J.M. Scott. 1997. Atlas of Idaho’s wildlife.
Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 372 pp.
Haferkamp, M.R., D.C. Ganskopp, R.F. Miller and F.A. Sneva. 1987. Drilling Versus Imprinting for
Establishing Crested Wheatgrass in the Sagebrush-Bunchgrass Steppe. Journal of Range
Management. 40:524-530.
Hagen, C.A. 2005. Greater sage-grouse conservation assessment and strategy for Oregon: a plan to
maintain and enhance populations and habitat. Salem, Oregon: Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
Hagen, personal communication, 2009.
Halfa, J.A., A.R. Gongloff, R.D. Blew, J.P. Shive, and A.D. Forman. 2008. Ecological Evaluation of Fire
Fighting Efforts Associated with the Twin Butte/Moonshiner and Highway 20 Wildland fires.
Stoller-ESER-115.
Hamilton, W.J., III. 1998. Tricolored Blackbird Itinerant Breeding in California. The Condor. 100(2):
218-226.
Hamlet, A.F., P.W. Mote, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Effects of Temperature and
Precipitation Variability on Snowpack Trends in the Western United States. American
Meteorological Society. 18: 4545-4561.
Hann, W., A. Shlisky, D. Havlina, K. Schon, S. Barrett, T. DeMeo, K. Pohl, J. Menakis, D. Hamilton, J.
Jones, M. Levesque, and C. Frame. 2008. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook.
Version 1.3.0. U.S. Forest Service, US Department of the Interior, The Nature Conservancy, and
Systems for Environmental Management.
Hanselmann, R., A. Rodríguez, M. Lampo, and others. 2004. Presence of an Emerging Pathogen of
Amphibians in Introduced Bullfrogs Rana catesbeiana in Venezuela. Biological Conservation.
120(1): 115-119.
Hanson, Neilson, Dale, Flather, Iverson, Currie, Shafer, Cook, and Bartllein. 2001. Global Change in
Forests: Responses of Species, Communities, and Biomes. BioScience. 51(9): 765-779.
Harmon, M.E. 2001. Carbon sequestration in forests: addressing the scale question. Journal of Forestry.
99(4): 24-29.
Hawkins, B., S. Sharrock, and K. Havens. 2008. Plants and climate change: which future? Botanic
Gardens Conservation International, Richmond, UK. 96 pages.
LC-18
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Hayes, M.P. 1997. Status of the Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa sensu stricto) in the Deschutes Basin
and selected other systems in Oregon and northeastern California with a rangewide synopsis of
the species' status. Final report prepared for The Nature Conservancy under contract to U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 57p.
Hegerl, G.C., F. W. Zwiers, P. Braconnot, N.P. Gillett, Y. Luo, J.A. Marengo Orsini, N. Nicholls, J.E.
Penner and P.A. Stott. 2007. Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. In: Climate Change
2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z.
Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Hendricks, P. 2000. Preliminary bat inventory of caves and abandoned mines on BLM lands, Judith
Mountains, Montana. Helena, Montana: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 21 pp.
Hendricks, P., D. L. Genter, and S. Martinez. 2000. Bats of Azure Cave and the Little Rocky Mountains,
Montana. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 114: 89-97.
Hendricks, P., and D. Kampwerth. 2001. Roost environments for bats using abandoned mines in
southwestern Montana: a preliminary assessment. Report to the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management. Helena, Montana: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 19 pp.
Herkert, J. R., D. W. Sample and R. E. Warner. 1996. Management of Midwestern Grassland Landscapes
for the Conservation of Migratory Birds. In: Management of midwestern landscapes for the
conservation of neotropical migratory birds. F. R. Thompson, III. General Technical Report,
GTR-NC-187. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central
Forest Experiment Station. 89-116p.
Hitchcock, C. L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press,
Seattle, WA. pages 49, 152, 186, 215, 224, 321, 392, 518, and 526.
Hoffmann, R. S., P. L. Wright and F. E. Newby. 1969. Distribution of some mammals in Montana. I.
Mammals other than bats. Journal of Mammalogy. 50(3): 579-604.
Hoffman, R.W. and A.E. Thomas. 2007. Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus
columbianus): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Region.
Holechek, J.L. 1988. An Approach for Setting the Stocking Rate. Rangelands. 10:10-14.
Holechek, Jerry L., Hilton Gomez, Francisco Molinar, and Dee Galt. 1999. Grazing Studies: What We've
Learned. Rangelands. 21(2): 12-16.
Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics. 4: 1-23.
LC-19
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Holloran, Matthew J. 2005. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Population Response to
Natural Gas Field Development in Western Wyoming. PhD, Department of Zoology and
Physiology
Holloran, M. J., B. J. Heath, A. G. Lyon, and others. 2005. Greater Sage-Grouse Nesting Habitat
Selection and Success in Wyoming. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 69(2): 638-649.
Holmes, A. L., G. A. Green, R. L. Morgan, and others. 2003. Burrowing Owl Nest Success and Burrow
Longevity in North Central Oregon. Western North Naturalist. 63(2): 244-250.
Holmgren, Noel H., P. K. Holmgren, and A. Cronquist. 2005. Intermountain Flora. Vascular Plants of the
Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol 2 Part B. Subclass Dillenidae. The New York Botanical Garden,
Bronx, N.Y. page 196.
Howard, R. P. and M. L. Wolfe. 1976. Range improvement practices and ferruginous hawks. Journal of
Range Management. 29: 33-37.
Howard, Amy and James C. Munger. 2000. Effects of Livestock Grazing on the Invertebrate Prey Base
and on the Survival and Growth of Larvae of the Columbia Spotted Frog, Rana luteiventris. Final
Report on research funded by Challenge Cost-share Agreements between U.S. Bureau of Land
Management and Boise State University, Department of Biology.
Howe, R. W., W. Evans and A. T. Wolf. 2002. Effects of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats in
Northeastern Wisconsin. Wisconsin Public Service Corporation and Madison Gas and Electric
Company, 83p.
Hudson A. Edward and Dale W. Jorgenson. 1974. U. S. Energy Policy and Economic Growth, 19752000. The Bell. Journal of Economics and Management Science. 5(2): 461-514.
Huntsinger, Lynn and Peter Hopkinson. 1996. Viewpoint: Sustaining Rangeland Landscapes: A Social
and Ecological Process. Journal of Range Management. 49: 167-173.
Huppop, O., J. Dierschke, K.-M. Exo, and others. 2006. Bird Migration Studies and Potential Collision
Risk with Offshore Wind Turbines. Ibis. 148: 90-109.
Hutto, R.L. 1985. Habitat selection by nonbreeding migratory land birds. In: Habitat Selection in Birds,
ed. M.L. Cody, pp. 455-76. Orlando, FL. Academic. 558 pp.
Hyder, D.H. and Sneva F.A. 1956. Herbage Response to Sagebrush Spraying. Journal of Range
Management. 9(1): 34-38.
Hydric Soils - NASIS Database Selection Criteria [Online]. (1999). U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available:
http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/criteria.html [2010, November 12].
Idaho Conservation Data Center (IDCDC). 2008. Idaho’s Special Status Plant List.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/tech/CDC/plants/ Accessed on 3/25/2008.
LC-20
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Idaho Fish and Game. 2005. Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Boise, ID: Idaho
Department of Fish and Game,Idaho Conservation Data Center.
IMPLAN. 2006. Minnesota Impact Analysis For Planning Group 2006.
INFISH. 1995. U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. Decision Notice, Finding of No
Significant Impact, and Environmental Assessment for the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH).
Coeur d’Alene, ID:
Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions.
Independent Science Advisory Board (ISAB). 2007. Climate change impacts on Columbia River Basin
fish and wildlife. ISAB 2007-2. Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon.
146 pp.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M.
Manning,Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. Working Group I - Technical Summary
Irving J. S., and T. Bjornn. 1981. A forecast of abundance of Snake River fall Chinook salmon.
Prepared for National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Contract No. 82-ABC-00042. (Available
from Idaho Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843.)
Isaacs, F.B. and B. Anthony. 2006. Results of peregrine falcon breeding area monitoring in Oregon,
2003-2006: Final Report. 5 Feb 2007. Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
James, Kent and Associates, Global Cultural Analysts (JKA). 2006. Community Reports in Support of
the Planning Effort in BLM’s Baker Resource Area. Prepared for Nancy Lull, Field Manager,
Bureau of Land Management Baker Resource Area Office, Baker City, Oregon. November 24,
2006.
Johnson, Douglas H., Matthew J. Holloran, John W. Connelly, Steven E. Hanser, and Lenore Fahrig.
2002. Effect of Habitat Fragmentation on the Extinction Threshold: A Synthesis. Ecological
Applications. 12(2): 346-353.
Johnson, Gregory D., Wallace P. Erickson, M. Dale Strickland, Maria F. Shepherd and Douglas A.
Shepherd. 1999. Mortality of Bats at a Large-scale Wind Power Development at Buffalo Ridge,
Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist. 150: 332–342.
Johnson, G. D., W. P. Erickson, M. D. Strickland, and others. 2002. Collision Mortality of Local and
Migrant Birds at a Large-Scale Wind-Power Development on Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota. Wildlife
Society Bulletin. 30(3): 879-887.
LC-21
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Johnson, D.D. and R.F. Miller. 2006. Structure and Development of Expanding Western Juniper
Woodlands as Influenced by two Topographic Variables. Forest Ecology and Management. 229:
7-15.
Jones, Tom A. 1998. Viewpoint: The Present Status and Future Prospects of Squirreltail Research.
Journal of Range Management. 28(1): 326-331.
Kagan, J. S., J. C. Hak, B. Csuti, C. W. Kiilsgaard, and E. P. Gaines. 1999. Oregon Gap Analysis Final
Report: A geographic approach to planning for biological diversity. Oregon Natural Heritage
Program, Portland, OR.
Karron, J.D. 1987. A comparison of levels of genetic polymorphism and self-compatibility in
geographically restricted and widespread plant congeners. Evolutionary Ecology. 1: 47–58.
Kauffman, J. B., and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock Impacts on Riparian Ecosystems and Streamside
Management Implications. A Review. Journal of Range Management. 37(5).
Kauffman, J.B., M. Mahrt, L.A. Mahrt, and W.D. Edge. 2001. Wildlife of riparian habitats. In:
Johnson, D.H., O'Neil, T.A. (Eds.), Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington.
Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. pp. 361-388.
Kaye, Thomas N. 1998. Demography and Effects of Fencing on Lupinus cusickii. Institute for Applied
Ecology. Corvallis, OR. Unpublished report prepared for BLM Vale District. 32 pp.
Kaye, Thomas, N. 2002. Effects of Cattle Grazing, Insect Interactions and Population Ecology of Snake
River Goldenweed (Haplopappus radiatus). Institute for Applied Ecology. Corvallis, OR.
Unpublished report prepared for BLM Vale District. 32 pp.
Kaye, Thomas, N. and Steve Gisler. 2003. Population Monitoring of Cusick’s Lupine (Lupinus cusickii)
on the Vale District, BLM. Institute for Applied Ecology. Corvallis, OR. Unpublished report
prepared for BLM Vale District. 9 pp.
Keinath, D. A. 2004. Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes): a technical conservation assessment. USDA
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.
Keinath, Douglas A. and Matthew McGee. 2004. Species Assessment for Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus
idahoensis) In Wyoming. Prepared for United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land
Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming. March 2004.
Kennedy, P.L. 2003. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentiles atricapillus): a technical conservation
assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.
Klebenow, D. A. 1969. Sage Grouse Nesting and Brood Habitat in Idaho. The Journal of Wildlife
Management. 33(3): 649-662.
Klebenow, D.A. 1985. Habitat management for sage grouse in Nevada. World Pheasant Association
Journal. 10: 34-46.
LC-22
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Klemmedson, James O. and Justin G. Smith. 1964. Cheatgrass (Bromus Tectorum L.). Botanical Review.
30(2): 226-262.
Knapp, P. A. 1996. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L) dominance in the Great Basin Desert. Global
Environmental Change. 6: 37–52.
Knapp, T.A., and P.E. Graves. 1989. On the Role of Amenities in Models of Migration and Regional
Development. Journal of Regional Science. 29(1): 71-87.
Knick, S. T. 1999. Requiem for a sagebrush ecosystem? Northwest Science. 73: 53–57.
Knick, S. T., D. S. Dobkin, J. T. Rotenberry, and others. 2003. Teetering on the Edge or Too Late?
Conservation and Research Issues for Avifauna of Sagebrush Habitats. The Condor. 105(4): 611634.
Knight, L. and K. Skagen. 1988. Effects of recreational disturbance on birds of prey: a review. In:
Proceedings of Southwest raptor management symposium and workshop. Sci. Tech. Ser. No. 11.
National Wildlife Federation, Institute of Wildlife Research. p. 355-359.
Koehler, Gary M. and Maurice G. Hornocker. 1991. Seasonal Resource Use among Mountain Lions,
Bobcats, and Coyotes. Journal of Mammalogy. 72(2): 391-396.
Koehler, G. M., B.T. Maletzke, J.A. Von Kienast, and others. 2008. Habitat Fragmentation and the
Persistence of Lynx Populations in Washington State. The Journal of Wildlife Management.
72(7): 1518-1524.
Kolbe, J. A., J. R. Squires, D.H. Pletscher, and others. 2007. The Effect of Snowmobile Trails on Coyote
Movements within Lynx Home Ranges. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(5): 1409-1418.
Kostow, K. 2003. The biological implications of nonanadromous Oncorhynchus mykiss in Columbia
Basin steelhead ESUs. Report to NOAA Fisheries and ODFW, 13 January 2003. (Available from
Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112).
Kovalchik, Bernard L. and Wayne Elmore. 1992. Effects of cattle grazing systems on willow-dominated
plant associations in central Oregon. In: Proceedings Symposium on ecology and management of
riparian shrub communities; 1991 May 29-31; Sun Valley, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: pp.111119.
Kunz, T.H., E.B. Arnett, B.A. Cooper, W.I.P. Erickson, R.P. Larkin, T. Mabee, M.L. Morrison, J.D.
Strickland, and J.M. Szewczak. 2007. Assessing impacts of wind energy development on
nocturnally active birds and bats. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71: 2449–2486.
Kuvlesky, W.P., Jr., L.A. Brennan, M.L. Morrison, K.K. Boydston, B.M. Ballard, and F.C. Bryant. 2007.
Wind energy development and wildlife conservation: challenges and opportunities. Journal of
Wildlife Management. 71: 2487–2498.
LC-23
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Laca, Emilio A., Lisa A. Shipley, and Edward D. Reid. 2001. Structural anti-quality characteristics of
range and pasture plants. Journal of Range Management. 54(4): 413-419.
Lacey, J., C. Marlow, and J. Lane. 1989. Influence of Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) on
Surface Water Runoff and Sediment Yield. Weed Technology. 3: 627-631.
Laird, W. 1997. Soil Survey of Baker County Area, Oregon. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Larson, L., M. McInnis, and G. Kiemnec. 1997. Rangeland Weed Invasion. Rangelands. 19(3).
Larsen, J.K. & P. Clausen. 2002. Potential wind park impacts on Whooper Swans in winter: the risk of
collision. Waterbirds. 25: 327–330.
Larson, Diane L. 2003. Native Weeds and Exotic Plants: Relationships to Disturbance in Mixed-Grass
Prairie. Plant Ecology. 169(2): 317-333.
Larsson, S., R. Oren, R. H. Waring, and J. W. Barrett. 1983. Attacks of Mountain Pine Beetle as Related
to Tree Vigor of Ponderosa Pine. Forest Science. 29 (2): 395-402.
Leary, A. W., R. Mazaika, and M. J. Bechard. 1998. Factors affecting the size of Ferruginous Hawk home
ranges. Wilson Bulletin. 110: 198-205.
Lehtonen, A., R.Makipaa, J.Heikkinen, R.Sievanen, and J.Liski. 2004. Biomass expansion factors (BEFs)
for Scots pine, Norway spruce, and birch according to stand age for boreal forests. Forest
Ecology and Management. 188: 211-224.
Leonard, S., G. Kinch, V. Elsbernd, M. Borman, and S.Swanson. 1997. Riparian area management:
Grazing
management for riparian areas. Technical Report 1737-14. Denver, CO: U.S.Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management, Service Center. 63 pp.
Lewis, D., G.L. Hunt, and A.J. Plantinga. 2002. Public Conservation Land and Employment Growth in
the Northern Forest Region. Land Economics. 78(2): 245-259.
Lile, David F., Kenneth W. Tate, Donald L. Lancaster, and Betsy M. Karle. 2003. Stubble height
standards for Sierra Nevada meadows can be difficult to meet. California Agriculture. 57(2).
Lima S. L. and L. M. Dill. 1990. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation. Canadian
Journal of Zoology. 68: 619-640.
Lima, Steven L. 1998. Nonlethal Effects in the Ecology of Predator-Prey Interactions. BioScience. 48(1):
25-34.
Lindenmayer, B. David and Henry A. Nix. 1993. Ecological Principles for the Design of Wildlife
Corridors. Conservation Biology. 7(3): 627-630.
Lindstrom, T. 1989. Finch flock size and risk of hawk predation at a migratory stopover site. Auk. 106:
225-232.
LC-24
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Lippke, Bruce, J. Perez-Garcia, I. Eastin, A. Erickson, 2006. University of Washington press. The Future
of Washington’s Forests and Forestry Industries. Third Progress Report: October 2006. Prepared
for the Washington Department of Natural Resources by the College of Forest Resources,
University of Washington.
Litton, C.M., J.W. Raich, and M.G. Ryan. 2007. Carbon allocation in forest ecosystems. Global Change
Biology. 13: 2089–2109.
Loft, Eric R., John W. Menke, and John G. Kie. 1991. Habitat Shifts by Mule Deer: The Influence of
Cattle. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 55(1): 16-26.
Lucas, M. de, G.F.E Janss, and M. Ferrer. 2004. The effects of a wind farm on birds in a migration point:
the Strait of Gibraltar. Biodiversity and Conservation, 13: 395-407.
Luce, C. H. and T.A. Black. 2001. Effects of traffic and ditch maintenance on forest road sediment
production. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference,
March 25 to 29, 2001, Reno, Nevada. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Inter-agency Committee on Water
Resources, Subcommittee on Sedimentation: V-67 - V-74.
Lyneis, M., D.L. Weide, E. von Till Warren, 1980. Impacts: Damage to Cultural Resources in the
California Desert. United States Bureau of Land Management, Riverside, California.
Lyon, G. Alison and Stanley H. Anderson. 2003. Potential Gas Development Impacts on Sage Grouse
Nest Initiation and Movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 31(2): 486-491.
Mack, R. N. 1981. Invasion of Bromus tectorum L. into Western North America: an ecological chronicle.
Agro-Ecosystems. 7: 145–165.
Mack, R. N. and J. N. Thompson. 1982. Evolution in steppe with few large, hooved mammals. American
Naturalist. 119: 757-773.
Magis, Kristen. 2007. Indicator 38 – Community Resilience, Literature and Practice Review. Submitted
to the US Roundtable on Sustainable Forests. Pp 46.
Maletzke, B. T., G. M. Koehler, R. B. Wielgus, and others. 2008. Habitat Conditions Associated with
Lynx Hunting Behavior During Winter in Northern Washington. The Journal of Wildlife
Management. 72(7): 1473-1478.
Mancuso, Michael and Beth Colket. 2006. Monitoring Malheur Prince’s plume (Stanleya confertiflora)
on Bureau of Land Management Lands in Southwestern Idaho: Baseline results, 2005. Prepared
for Boise District BLM. 32 pp.
Marra, Peter P., Sean Griffing, Carolee Caffrey, A. Marm Kilpatrick, Robert McLean, Christopher Brand,
Emi Saito, Alan P. Dupuis, Laura Kramer, and Robert Novak. 2004. West Nile Virus and
Wildlife. BioScience. 54(5): 393-402.
LC-25
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Marshall, D B. 1996. American marten. In: Marshall DB, Chilcote MW, Weeks H. Species at risk:
sensitive, threatened, and endangered vertebrates of Oregon. 2nd ed. Portland, OR: Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Irregular pagination.
Martell, Mark and Ted Dick. 1996. Nesting habitat characteristics of the northern goshawk (Accipiter
gentilis) in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resource Nongame Wildlife Program
Project No. 9407382 The Raptor Center at the University of Minnesota 1920 Fitch Avenue, St.
Paul, MN 55108.
Martin J. and P. Glick. 2008. Great Wave Rising: Solutions for Columbia and Snake River Salmon in
the Age of Global Warming. Seattle, WA: Save Our Wild Salmon – Light in the River Project.
Maser, C., B.R. Mate, J.F. Franklin, and C.T. Dryrness. 1981. Natural History of Oregon Coast
Mammals. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-133. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 496 p.
Maser, C., J. Thomas, and R. Anderson. 1984. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangelands-The Great
Basins of Southeastern Oregon: The Relationship of Terrestrial Vertebrates to Plant Communities
and Structural Conditions. General Technical Report PNW-172. U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Massatti, R.T., A.S. Thorpe, and T.N. Kaye. 2009. Lupinus lepidus var. cusickii population monitoring in
Denny Flat, Baker County, Oregon. Institute for Applied Ecology, Corvallis, Oregon and USDI
Bureau of Land Management, Vale District. iv + 16 pp.
Mathisen, J. E. 1968. Effects of Human Disturbance on Nesting of Bald Eagles. The Journal of Wildlife
Management. 32(1): 1-6.
McAdoo, Kent and James A. Young. 1980. Jackrabbits. Rangelands. 2(4): 135-138.
McAdoo, J., W. Longland, and R. Evans. 1989. Nongame Bird Community Responses to Sagebrush
Invasion of Crested Wheatgrass Seedings. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53: 494-502.
McGarigal, K., SA Cushman, MC Neel, and E Ene. 2002. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis
Program for Categorical Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the
University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available at the following web site:
http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html
McGranahan, D. 1999. Natural Amenities Drive Population Change. USDA Economic Research Service.
Agricultural Economics, Report #781.
McKinney L. Michael. 2005. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological
Conservation. 12.72 7 –2 6 0
Mech, L. David. 1989. Wolf population survival in an area of high road density. American Midland
Naturalist. 12(1): 387-389.
LC-26
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Meeuwig, Richard O. 1970. Infiltration and Soil Erosion as Influenced by Vegetation and Soil in
Northern Utah. Journal of Range Management. 23(3): 185-188.
Meinke, Robert J. 2009. Conservation ecology and life history observations for the Malheur prince’s
plume (Stanleya confertiflora: Brassicaceae) 2008 demographic field work summary (Final
report). Prepared for the Burns and Vale BLM Districts, OR. 27 pp.
Meinke, Robert J., Steven L Broich, and Keli Kuykendall. 1992. Lupinus cusickii on the Vale District:
inventory and natural history observations. Prepared for the BLM Vale District, OR. 12 pp.
Mendel, G., V. Naef, and D. Karl. 1999. Assessment of Salmonid Fishes and their Habitat Conditions in
the Walla Walla River Basin – 1998 Annual Report. Report to BPA. Project 98-20. Report #
FPA 99-01. 94 pp.
Metcalfe, N.B. and R.W. Furness. 1984. Changing priorities: the effect of pre-migratory fattening on the
trade-off between foraging and vigilance. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 15: 203-206.
Meyer, J.L. and J.B. Wallace. 2001. Lost linkages and lotic ecology: rediscovering small
streams. In: Press, M.C.; Huntley, N.J.; Levins, S., eds. Ecology: achievement and challenge.
Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Scientific: 295-317.
Meyer, J.L., L.A. Kaplan, D. Newbold, D.L. Srayer, D.J. Woltemade, J.B. Zedler, R. Beilfuss, Q.
Carpenter, R. Semlitsch, M.C. Watzin, and P.H. Zedler. 2003. Where rivers are born: The
scientific imperative for defending small streams and wetlands. Sierra Club and American
Rivers. 24 pp.
Miller, R. and P. E. Wigand. 1994. Holocene Changes in Semiarid Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands.
Bioscience. 44(7): 465-474.
Miller, Richard F., Tony J. Svejcar, and Jeffrey A. Rose. 2000. Impacts of Western Juniper on Plant
Community Composition and Structure. Journal of Range Management. 53 (6): 574-585.
Miller, R. and R Tausch. 2001. The Role of Fire in Juniper and Pinyon Woodlands: A Descriptive
Analysis. Pages 15-30 in K.E.M. Galley and T.P. Wilson (eds), Proceedings of the Invasive
Species Workshop: the Role of Fire in the Control and Spread of Invasive Species. Fire
Conference 2000: the First National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Management.
Miscellaneous Publication No. 11, Tall Timbers Research Station: Tallahassee, FL.
Miller, J.R., J.A. Wiens, N.T. Hobbs, and D.M. Theobald. 2003. Effects of human settlement on bird
communities in lowland riparian areas of Colorado (USA). Ecological Applications. 13: 1041–
1059.
Miller, R., J. Bates, T. Svejcar, F. Pierson, and L. Eddleman. 2005. Biology, Ecology, and Management
of Western Juniper. Technical Bulletin 152. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Oregon
State University Agricultural Experiment Station. 77p.
LC-27
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Miller, R.F., R.J. Tausch, E.D. McArthur, D.D. Johnson, and S.C. Sanderson. 2008. Age Structure and
Expansion of Piñon-Juniper Woodlands: A Regional Perspective in the Intermountain West.
Research Paper Report RMRS-RP-69. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Milne, K. A. and S. J. Hejl. 1989. Nest-site characteristics of white-headed woodpeckers. Journal of
Wildlife Management. 53:50-55.
Monsen, S.B. and S.G. Kitchen. 1994. Proceedings Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands.
Tausch R.J., R.S. Nowak, A.D. Bruner and J.Smithson. Effects of Simulated Fall and Early
Spring Grazing on Cheatgrass and Perennial Grass in Western Nevada. INT-GTR-313. United
States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Intermountatin Research Station. Pp113-119.
Montgomery, D.R. and J.M. Buffington. 1998. Channel processes, classification, and response,
in River Ecology and Management, edited by R. Naiman and R. Bilby, Springer-Verlag, New
York, NY, pp. 13-42.
Moore, F. R. 1990. Evidence for redetermination of migratory direction following wind displacement.
Auk. 107: 425- 428.
Moore, F. R. and P. H. Kerlinger. 1987. Stopover and fat deposition by North American Wood-warblers
(Parulinae) following spring migration over the Gulf of Mexico. Oecologia. 74: 47-54.
Morgan, T.A., C. Keegan, and J.P. Brandt, 2006. Employment and Labor Income Direct Response
Coefficients for the U.S. Forest Products Industry. Bureau of Business and Economic Research,
The University of Montana-Missoula
Moreau, Joe. 2009. Personal communication (email). October 5. OR/WA State Office Fisheries
Biologist [retired]. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Mosley, J.C. 1996. Prescribed Sheep Grazing to Suppress cheatgrass; A review. Sheep and Goat Research
Journal. In: Sheley, R.L and Petroff J.K. 1999. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland
Weeds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. Pp182-183
Mote, P. W. 2003a. Trends in temperature and precipitation in the Pacific Northwest during the twentieth
century. Northwest Science. 77(4): 271-282.
Mote, P. W. 2003b. Trends in snow water equivalent in the Pacific Northwest and their climatic
causes. Geophysical Research Letters. 30(12), 1601. doi:10.1029/2003GL017258, 2003.
Mote, Phillip, E. Salathe, V. Duliere, and E. Jump. 2008. Scenarios of future climate for the Pacific
Northwest. 14pp.
Moynahan, Brendan J., Mark S. Lindberg, Jay J. Rotella, and Jack Ward Thomas. 2007. Factors Affecting
Nest Survival of Greater Sage-Grouse in Northcentral Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management.
71(6): 1773-1783.
Mueser, P.R., and P.E. Graves. 1995. Examining the Role of Economic Opportunity and Amenities in
Explaining Population Redistribution. Journal of Urban Economics. 37(2): 176-200.
LC-28
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Murray, R. B., and J. O. Klemmedson. 1968. Cheatgrass range in southern Idaho: seasonal cattle gains
and grazing capacities. Journal of Range Management. 21: 308-313.
Myatt, personal communication. 2008.
Myers, J. M., R. G. Kope, B. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grant,
F. W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook
salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS-NWFSC-35. U.S.
Dept. of Commerce.
Naugle, David E, Cameron L. Aldridge, Brett L. Walker, Kevin E. Doherty, Marc R. Matchett, Jock
McIntosh, Todd E. Cornish, Mark S. Boyce. 2005. West Nile Virus and Sage-Grouse: What More
Have We Learned? Wildlife Society Bulletin. 33(2): 616-623.
Naiman, R. J., T. J. Beechie, L. E. Benda, D. R. Derg, P. A. Bisson, L. H. MacDonald, M. D. O’Connor,
P. L. Olson, and E. A. Steel. 1992a. Fundamental elements of ecologically healthy watersheds in
the Pacific Northwest coastal ecoregion. In: R. J. Naiman, editor. Watershed Management.
Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA. Pages 127–188.
Naiman, R.J., T.J. Beechie, L.B. Benda, D.R. Berg, P.A. Bisson, L.H. MacDonald, M.D. O’Connor, P.L.
Olson, and E.A. Steel. 1992b. Fundamental elements of ecologically healthy watersheds in the
Pacific Northwest coastal ecoregion. In: R.J. Naiman, ed., Watershed Management: Balancing
Sustainability and Environmental Change. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York.
Naiman, R.J., J.J. Magnuson, D.M. McKnight, J.A. Stanford and J.R. Karr. 1995. Freshwater ecosystems
and management: A national initiative. Science. 270, 584-585.
Naiman, R.J. 1998. Biotic stream classification. In: R.J. Naiman and R.E. Bilby
(Editors). River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion.
Springer-Verlag, New York, New York. Pages 97-119.
National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996a. Endangered and threatened species: Proposed
endangered status for five ESUs of steelhead and proposed threatened status for five ESUs of
steelhead in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Federal Register [Docket No.
960730210-6210-01, 9 August 1996] 61(155):41558.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996b. Status review of west coast steelhead from
Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA technical memo. NMFS–NWFSC–27. 260
pp.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2006a. NRCS Powder
River-17050203 profile
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2008. Historic Climax
Community Descriptions.
LC-29
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2009NatureServe. 2010. Rubus nigerrimus files. NatureServe Explorer Website.
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?init=Species. Website accessed on
9/2/2010
Naugle, D. 2010. Personal Communication. Bozeman, Montana: Montana State University, Wildlife
Professor.
Nawa, R.K., J.E. Vaile, P. Lind, Nadananda, T. McKay, C. Elkins, B.Bakke, J. Miller, W. Wood, K.
Beardslee, and D. Wales. 2003. A petition for rules to list: Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata);
River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi); Western brook lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni); and Kern
brook lamprey (Lampetra hubbsi) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species
Act. January 23, 2003.
Ngugi, R. Kinuthia, Jeff Powell, Frank C. Hinds, and Richard A. Olson. 1992. Range Animal Diet
Composition in Southcentral Wyoming. Journal of Range Management. 45(6): 542-545.
Nielsen, R. 1950. Survey of the Columbia River and its Tributaries. Part V. Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. No. 38.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ii + 41 pp.
Norton, J.B., T.A. Monaco, J.M. Norton, D.A. Johnson, and T.A. Jones. 2004. Soil morphology and
organic matter dynamics under cheatgrass and sagebrush-steppe plant communities. Journal of
Arid Environments. 57: 445–466.
Norton, J.B., U. Norton, and T.A. Monaco. 2007. Mediterranean annual grasses in western North
America: kids in a candy store. Plant and Soil. 298: 1–5.
Nowak, M. C. 2004a. The Burnt River Subbasin Plan. Northwest Power and Conservation Council.
Nowak, M. C. 2004b. The Powder River Subbasin Plan. Northwest Power and Conservation Council.
Oakleaf, R.J. 1971. The relationship of sage grouse to upland meadows in Nevada. Reno, NV: Nevada
Dept. Fish and Game; Final Report, Project W-48-2, Jobs 7.1, 7.2, 7.3.
Opdam, Paul, Ruud Foppen and Claire Vos. 2002. Bridging the gap between ecology and spatial planning
in landscape Ecology. Landscape Ecology. 16: 767–779.
Ouborg, N.J., P. Vergeer, C. Mix. 2006. The rough edges of the conservation genetics paradigm for
plants. Journal of Ecology. 94: 1233–1248.
Olson, B.E. 1999. Impacts of noxious weeds on ecologic and economic systems. In: Sheley, R., J. Petroff
eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon State University Press. Pgs
4-18.
Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). 2010. Oregon Noxious Weed Policy and Classification
System. Salem, Oregon.
LC-30
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE). 2008. Revision and Update to Oregon Greenhouse Gas
Inventory, 2008.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2009. Industrial Annual Emissions (MTCO2e),
2009.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 1987. Grande Ronde River Basin fish habitat
improvement plan. Portland, OR. 29 pp.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2003. Oregon's Bighorn Sheep and Rocky Mountain Goat
Management Plan. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 56pp.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2003b. Oregon's Mule Deer Management Plan. Portland, OR:
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2005. Wolf Conservation and Management Plan.
Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 116pp.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Recommendations for greater sage-grouse habitat
classification under Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's fish and wildlife habitat mitigation
policy. OAR 635-415-0000. Wildlife Division.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010. Getting started upland game bird hunting. Portland, OR:
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 2005. Oregon Department of Forestry Annual Timber Harvest
Report, by County and ownership.
Oregon Employment Department. 2007. Employment Projections by Industry and Occupation: 2006 –
2016, Oregon and Regional Summary. Oregon Employment Department - Workforce and
Economic Research.
Oregon Forest Industry Directory, 2011. Copyright 2011 Oregon State University. The Oregon Forest
Industry Directory is a joint effort of the Forestry Extension team at Oregon State University, the
Oregon Small Woodlands Association, and the Northwest Wood Products Association. Directory
available at http://www.orforestdirectory.com/ Accessed on March 25, 2011.
Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC). 2007. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of
Oregon. Portland, OR: Oregon State University, Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. 100 pp.
Oregon Water Resources Department. 2008. Other Water Rights.
http://www.wrd.state.or.us/OWRD/PUBS/aquabook_other.shtml (last visited October 26, 2008).
Oregonian. 2009. Oregon's cattle country is on the ropes. Published July 11, 2009.
Orr, E. and W. Orr 1999. Geology of Oregon. Kendall/Hunt Publishing: Dubuque, IA.
LC-31
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Osborn, Alan, S. Vetter, R. Hartley, L. Walsh and J. Brown. 1987. Impacts of Domestic Livestock
Grazing on the Archaeological Resources of Capitol Reef National Park, Utah. Midwest
Archaeological Center Occasional Studies in Anthropology, No. 20.
Osborn, R. G. and K. F. Higgins. 2000. Bird Mortality Associated with Wind Turbines at the Buffalo
Ridge Wind Resource Area, Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist. 143: 41-52.
Page-Dumroese, D.S. and M.F. Jurgensen. 2006. Soil carbon and nitrogen pools in mid- to latesuccessional forest stands of the northwestern United States: potential impact of fire. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research. 36: 2270-2284.
Paige, C. and S. A. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a Sagebrush Sea: Managing Sagebrush Habitats for Bird
Communities. Partners in Flight Western Working Group: Boise, ID, 32pp.
Papouchis, Christopher M., Francis J. Singer and William B. Sloan. 2001. Responses of Desert Bighorn
Sheep to Increased Human Recreation. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 65(3): 573-582.
Parker, K. L., C. S. Robbins and T. A. Hanley. 1984. Energy Expenditures for Locomotion by Mule Deer
and Elk. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 48(2): 474-488.
Parker L.P. and T.F. King, 1990; REVISED 1992; 1998. National Register Bulletin 38, Guidelines for
Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior.
Parks, C.G., M. Wisdom, and J.G. Kie. 2005. The Influence of Ungulates on Non-Native Plant Invasions
in Forests and Rangelands: A Review. La Grande, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Parsons, Cory T., Patrick A. Momont, Timothy Delcurto, Michael McInnis, Marni L. Porath. 2003. Cattle
Distribution Patterns and Vegetation Use in Mountain Riparian Areas. Journal of Range
Management. 56(4): 334-341.
Passey H. and V. Hugie. 1962. Sagebrush on Relict Ranges in the Snake River and Plains and Northern
Great Basin. Journal of Range Management. 15: 273-278.
Patla, Debra A. and Douglas A. Keinath (with support from Mathew McGee and David S. Pilliod). 2005.
Species Assessment for Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) in Wyoming. Cheyenne,
Wyoming: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming
State Office.
Patten, Michael A., Donald H. Wolfe, Eyal Shochat, and Steve K. Sherrod. 2005. Habitat fragmentation,
rapid evolution and population persistence. Evolutionary Ecology Research. 7: 235–249
Payer, D. and B. E. Coblentz. 1997. Seasonal Variation in California Bighorn Ram (Ovis canadensis
californiana) Habitat Use and Group Size. Northwest Science. 71(4): 281-288.
Pearcy, W. G. 1997. Salmon production in changing ocean domains. In: D. J. Stouder,
P. A. Bisson, and R. J. Naiman, editors. Pacific salmon and their ecosystems: status and future
LC-32
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
options. Chapman and Hall, New York, New York. Pages 331-352.
Peek, Robert A., James M. Riggs, and Jerry L. Lauer. 1979. Evaluation of Fall Burning on Bighorn Sheep
Winter Range. Journal of Range Management. 32(6): 430-432.
Petersen, S. L., and T. K. Stringham. 2008. Infiltration, runoff, and sediment yield in response to western
juniper encroachment in southeast Oregon. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 61: 74-81.
Peterson, R. O. and R. E. Page. 1988. The rise and fall of Isle Royale wolves, 1975-1986. Journal of
Mammalogy. 69: 89-99.
Petit, L. J., D. R. Petit and T. E. Martin. 1995. Landscape-Level Management of Migratory Birds:
Looking Past the Trees to See the Forest. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 23(3): 420-429.
Pierson, F.B., W.H. Blackburn, S.S.V. Vactor, and J.C. Wood. 1994. Partitioning small scale spatial
variability of runoff and erosion on sagebrush rangeland. Water Resources Bulletin. 30: 1081–
1089.
Pierson, F., J. Bates, T. Svejcar, and S. Hardegee. 2007. Runoff and Erosion after Cutting Western
Juniper. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 60: 285-292.
Pilliod, D. S., R. B. Bury, E. J. Hyde, C. A. Pearl, and P. S. Corn. 2003. Fire and amphibians in North
America. Forest Ecology and Management. 178: 163–181.
Ponce, V. M. and D. Lindquest. 1990. Management of Baseflow Augmentation: A Review. Water
Resources Bulletin. 26(2): 259-268.
Ponzetti, Jeanne M. and Bruce P. McCune. 2001. Biotic Soil Crusts of Oregon's Shrub Steppe:
Community Composition in Relation to Soil Chemistry, Climate, and Livestock Activity. The
Bryologist. 104(2): 212-225.
Popham, G.P. and R.J. Gutiérrez. 2003. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) nesting success
and habitat use in northeastern California. Journal of Wildlife Biology. 9: 327-334.
Porter, M. personal communication, October 2008.
Portland State University. 2004. Forecasts of Oregon’s County Populations. Portland, OR: Portland State
University, Population Research Center. Available from State of Oregon, Office of Economic
Analysis.
Powell, R.A. 1993. The Fisher: Life History, Ecology, and Behavior. University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis. 237 pp.
Powell, Roger A. and William J. Zielinski. 1994. Chapter 3 Fisher. Arcata, California: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.
Pritchard, Vernon. BLM engineer, personal communication October 2009.
Pyke, D.A., Jeffrey E. Herrick, Patrick Shaver, and Mike Pellant. 2002. Rangeland Health Attributes and
Indicators for Qualitative Assessment. Journal of Range Management. 55(6): 584-597.
LC-33
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Quintela, John. 2010. Unpublished data. Vale District/Baker Field Office Fisheries Biologist. Baker City,
OR: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Baker Field Office.
Raish, Carol and Alice M. McSweeney. 2003. Economic, social, and cultural aspects of livestock
ranching on the Española and Canjilon Ranger Districts of the Santa Fe and Carson National
Forests: a pilot study. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-113. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 89 pp.
Ramakka, J. M., and R. T. Woyewodzic. 1993. Nesting ecology of ferruginous hawk in northwestern
New Mexico. Journal of Raptor Research. 27: 97-101.
Raphael, M. G. and M. White. 1984. Use of snags by cavity using birds in the Sierra Nevada. Wildlife
Monographs. 86: 1-66.
Rashin, E.B., C.J. Clishe, A.T. Loch, and J.M. Bell. 2006. Effectiveness of timber harvest practices for
controlling sediment related water quality impacts. Journal of American Water Resource
Association. 42: 1307–1327.
Reaser, Jamie K. 2000. Demographic analysis of the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris): case
study in spatiotemporal variation. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 78(7): 1158–1167. Canadian
access to full text made available through the Depository Services Program.
Reeves, G.H. 2006. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan: an assessment after
ten years. General technical report PNW-GTR-577. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Reeves, G.H., F.H. Everest and J.D. Hall. 1987. Interactions between redside shiners (Richardsonius
balteatus) and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) in western Oregon: the
influence of water temperature. Canadian Journal of Fishiries and Aquatics Science. 43: 1521-1533.
Reeves, G.H., L.E. Benda, K.M. Burnett, P.A. Bisson, and J.R. Sedell. 1995. A Disturbance-Based
Ecosystem Approach to Maintaining and Restoring Freshwater Habitats of Evolutionarily
Significant Units of Anadromous Salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. In: Evolution and the
Aquatic Ecosystem: Defining Unique Units in Population Conservation, J.L. Nielsen (Editor).
American Fisheries Society Symposium. 17: 334-349.
Relyea, A. Rick. 2005. The impact of insecticides and herbicides on the biodiversity and productivity of
aquatic communities. Ecological Applications. 15(2): 618–627.
REMIS. 2008. Recreation Management Information System. Report number 23b for the Baker Field
Office.
Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce, Jr., G.
Goodwin, R. Smith and E. L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the Northern
Goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 90 pp.
LC-34
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Reynolds, R. T. and S. M. Joy. 1998. Distribution, Territory Occupancy, Dispersal, and Demography of
Northern Goshawks on the Kaibab Plateau, Arizona. Final Report, Arizona Game and Fish
Heritage Project 194045. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station.: 76pp.
Rich, T. 1986. Habitat and Nest-Site Selection by Burrowing Owls in the Sagebrush Steppe of Idaho. The
Journal of Wildlife Management. 50(4): 548-555.
Rich, Adam C., David S. Dobkin and Lawrence J. Niles. 1994. Defining Forest Fragmentation by
Corridor Width: The Influence of Narrow Forest-Dividing Corridors on Forest-Nesting Birds in
Southern New Jersey. Conservation Biology. 8(4): 1109-1121.
Richards, J., and M. Caldwell. 1984. Soluble Carbohydrates, Concurrent Photosynthesis and Efficiency in
Regrowth Following Defoliation: A Field Study with Agropyron Species. Journal of Applied
Ecology. 22: 907-920.
Rieman, B.E., J.T. Peterson, and D.L. Myers. 2006. Have brook trout displaced bull trout along
longitudinal gradients in central Idaho streams? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences. 63: 63-78.
Rinks, Tim, personal communication, 2010.
Robbins, C. S., J. R. Sauer, R. S. Greenberg, and others. 1989. Population Declines in North American
Birds That Migrate to the Neotropics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America. 86(19): 7658-7662.
Rosentreter R. 1994. Displacement of rare plants by exotic grasses. Pages 170-175 in Monsen SB,
Kitchen SG, eds. Proceedings-Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands. Washington
(DC): US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildlife Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO.
Rost, G. R. and J. A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of Mule Deer and Elk in Relation to Roads. The Journal
of Wildlife Management. 43(3): 634-641.
Rowan, R. C., and J. Richard Conner, 1995. Small-acreage Livestock Operators and Resource
Management, Society for Rangeland Management. 17(5): 167-171.
Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, B. K. Johnson, and others. 2000. Elk Distribution and Modeling in
Relation to Roads. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 64(3): 672-684.
Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, L. H. Suring, and others. 2006. Greater Sage-Grouse as an Umbrella
Species for Sagebrush-Associated Vertebrates. Biological Conservation. 129: 323-335.
Ruddell, S., R.Sampson, M.Smith, R.Giffen, J.Cathcart, J.Hagan, D.Sosland, J.Godbee, J.Heissenbuttel,
S.Lovett, J.Helms, W.Price and R.Simpson. 2007. The role for sustainability managed forests in
climate change mitigation. Journal of Forestry. 105(6): 314-319.
LC-35
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Rudzitis G. and R. Johnson. 2000. The Impact of Wilderness and Other Wildlands on Local Economies
and Regional Development Trends. RMRS-P-15-VOL-2. USDA Forest Service Proceedings.
Ruediger, B., et al. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy, 2nd edition. Forest Service
Publication #R1-00-53. Missoula, Montana: USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife
Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. 142 pp.
Ruggiero, L. F. 2000. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. General technical report
RMRS, GTR-30WWW. Niwot, Colorado. University Press of Colorado.
Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski (eds). 1994. The Scientific
basis for conserving forest carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the
Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service. 184
pp.
Ruggiero, Leonard F., Michael K. Schwartz, Keith B. Aubry, Charles J. Krebs, Amanda Stanley, and
Steven W. Buskirk. 1999. Species Conservation and Natural Variation Among Populations. In:
L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R.
Squires (eds.) Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. RMRS-GTR-30WWW.
Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station. Pp. 101-116.
Ruggiero, L. F., K. S. McKelvery, K. B. Aubry, and others. 2007. Wolverine Conservation and
Management. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(7): 2145-2146.
Ryan, M.G. and S.R. Archer with contributing authors: R.A. Birdsey, C.N. Dahm, L.S. Heath, J.A. Hicke,
D.Y. Hollinger, T.E. Huxman, G.S. Okin, R. Oren, J.T. Randerson, and W.H. Schlesinger. 2008.
Land Resources: Forests and Arid lands. The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land
Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States. U.S. Climate Change Science
Program.
Saab, V.A., C.E. Bock, T.D. Rich, and D.S. Dobkin. 1995. Livestock grazing effects in western North
America. In: Ecology and management of neotropical migratory birds (T. E. Martin and D. M.
Finch, eds.). Oxford Univ. Press, New York. pp. 311–353.
Saab, V. A. and T. Rich. 1997. Large-Scale Conservation Assessment for Neotropical Migratory Land
Birds in the Interior Columbia Basin. In: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management
Project: Scientific Assessment. T. M. Quigley. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-399:
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station.56p.
Saab, V. A. and J. G. Dudley. 1998. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to stand-replacement fore and
salvage logging in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests of southwestern Idaho. Research Paper
RMRS-RP-11. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Samson, Fred. 1998. Habitat Estimates For Maintaining Viable Populations of the Northern Goshawk,
Black-backed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, American Marten, and
Fisher. USFS Nez Perce National Forest.
LC-36
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2001. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and
analysis 1966–2000. Version 2001. 2. Laurel, MD: U.S. Geologic Survey, Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center.
Savage, D. E. 1969. The relationship of sagegrouse to upland meadows in Nevada. Trans. Annu. Meet.
California-Nevada Sect., TWS. 16:8-17.
Schloegel, L. M., A. M. Picco, A. M. Kilpatrick, and others. 2009. Magnitude of the US Trade in
Amphibians and Presence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and Ranavirus Infection in
Imported North American Bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana). Biological Conservation. 142(7): 14201426.
Schmitt, Craig L., and Donald W. Scott, 1993. Catastrophic stand conditions in the Blue Mountains:
discussion, guidelines and rating system. BMZ-93-05. La Grande, OR: USDA Forest Service,
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Blue Mountains Pest Management Zone. . p 1.
Schmidt, K., J. Menakis, C. Hardy, W. Hann, and D. Bunnell. 2002. Development of Coarse-Scale Spatial
Data for Wildland Fire and Fuel Management. General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-87. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Schmutz, J. K. 1987. The effect of agriculture on ferruginous and Swainson's hawks. Journal of Range
Management. 40(5): 438-440.
Schmutz, J. K. 1999. Status of the Ferriginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental
Protection, Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division, and Alberta Conservation Association.
Wildlife Status Report No. 18, Edmonton, AB. 18 pp.
Schroeder A. Michael, Cameron L. Aldridge, Anthony D. Apa, Joseph R. Bohne,Clait E. Braun, S.
Dwight Bunnell, John W. Connelly, Pat A. Deibert, Scott C. Gardner, Mark A. Hilliard, Gerald
D. Kobriger, Susan M. McAdam, Clinton W. McCarthy, John J. McCarthy,L. Mitchell, Eric V.
Rickerson, San J. Stiver. 2004. Distribution of Sage-Grouse in North America. The Condor.
106(2): 363-376.
Schroeder, Mike, Mike Atamian, Howard Ferguson, Mike Finch, and Derek Stinson. 2009. ReIntroduction of Greater Sage-Grouse to Lincoln County, Washington: Progress Report.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Sharp, L., K. Sanders, and N. Rimbey. 1994. Management Decisions Based on Utilization - Is it Really
Management? Rangelands. 16: 38-40.
Sheehy, D. P. and M. Vavra. 1996. Ungulate Foraging Areas on Seasonal Rangeland in Northeastern
Oregon. Journal of Range Management. 49(1): 16-23.
Sheley R., B. Svejcar, B., Maxwell, and J. Jacobs. 1996. Successional Rangeland Weed Management.
Rangelands. 18:155-159.
LC-37
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Sheley, R. and J. Petroff. 1999. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon State
University Press: Corvallis, OR. Pp 69-72.Sheley, Roger L., Jane M. Mangold, and Jennifer L.
Anderson. 2006. Potential for Successional Theory to Guide Restoration of Invasive-PlantDominated Rangeland. Ecological Monographs. 76(3): 365-379.
Short, L. L. 1982. Woodpeckers of the world. Monograph Series Number 4, Delaware Museum of
Natural History, Greenville, DE.
Sibold, Jason S., Thomas T. Veblen, Kathryn Chipko, Lauren Lawson, Emily Mathis, Jared Scott. 2007.
Influences of Secondary Disturbances on Lodgepole Pine Stand Development in Rocky Mountain
National Park. Ecological Applications. 17(6): 1638-1655.
Sidle R.C., Y. Tsuboyama, S. Noguchi, I. Hosoda, M. Fujieda, and T. Shimizu. 2000.
Streamflow generation in steep headwaters: A linked hydro-geomorphic paradigm. Hydrological
Processes, 14: 369-385.
Silver, Gregory S., Christina W. Luzier, and Timothy A. Whitesel, 2009. Detection and Longevity of
Uncured and Cured Visible Implant Elastomer Tags in Larval Pacific Lampreys. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management. 29(5): 1496-1501.
Simberloff Daniel, James A. Farr, James Cox, David W. Mehlman. 1992. Movement Corridors:
Conservation Bargains or Poor Investments? Conservation Biology. 6(4): 493-504.
Sisler, J., W. Malm, and K. Gebhart. 1996. Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Long Term Variability of
the Composition of the Haze in the United States: An Analysis of Data from the IMPROVE
Network. Colorado State University, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere.
Skog, K.E.and G.A.Nicholson. 2000. Carbon sequestration in wood and paper products. In: L.A.Joyce
and R.Birdsey, tech.eds. The impact of climate change on America’s forests: a technical
document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-59. Fort Collins, Colorado: USDA Forest Service. pp.79-88.
Smallwood, S. K., C. G. Thelander, M. L. Morrison, and others. 2007. Burrowing Owl Mortality in the
Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(5): 1513-1524.
Smith, J. E., L.S. Heath, K.E. Skog, and R.A. Birdsey. 2006. Methods for calculating forest ecosystem
and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States. Gen. Tech.
Rep. NE-343. Newtown Square, PA: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Northeastern Research Station. 216 pp.
Smithwick, E.A.H., M.E. Harmon, S.M. Remillard, S.A. Acker and J.F. Franklin. 2002. Potential upper
bounds of carbon stores in forests of the Pacific Northwest. Ecological Application. 12(5): 13031317.
Solley, W. B., R. R. Pierce and H. A. Perlman. 1998. Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995.
U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200. Washington, D.C., U.S. Geological Survey: 71 pp.
LC-38
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Songer, Melissa A., Mark V. Lomolino, and David R. Perault. 1997. Niche Dynamics of Deer Mice in a
Fragmented, Old-Growth-Forest Landscape. Journal of Mammalogy. 78(4): 1027-1039.
Spiegel, Lia H. 2008. Correspondence with Baker Field Office Manager: results of recent forest health
assessment on select BLM forested lands, October. La Grande, OR: USDA Forest Service,
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Blue Mountains Pest Management Zone. p 3.
Stalmaster, Mark V. and James R. Newman. 1979. Behavioral Responses of Wintering Bald Eagles to
Human Activity. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 42(3): 506-513.
Stalmaster. Mark V. and James L. Kaiser. 1998. Effects of Recreational Activity on Wintering Bald on
Wintering Bald Eagles. Wildlife Monographs. 137: 3-46.
Stanford, J.A., and J.V. Ward. 1992. Management of aquatic resources in large catchments: Recognizing
interactions between ecosystem connectivity and environmental disturbance. In: R.J. Naiman,
editor. Watershed management. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York. Pages 91-124.
State of Oregon, 2007. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality - 2006 Oregon Air Quality
Summaries.
State of Oregon, 2008. Oregon Department of State Lands’ website
http://www.oregon.gov/DSL/LW/rangeland.shtml accessed July 7, 2008
State of Washington 2007. State of Washington Office of Financial Management. Historical and projected
population for growth and other purposes. Can be accessed at
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/gma/gmamedproj.xls
Stevens, R. 2004. Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects. In
Restoring Western Ranges and Wildlands. S. B. Monsen, R. Stevens and N. L. Shaw. General
Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-136. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 155-174p.
Stewart, Iris T., Daniel R Cayan, and Michael D. Dettinger. 2005. Changes toward earlier streamflow
timing across western North America. Journal of Climate. 18(8): 1136-1155.
Stiver, S. J., A. D. Apa, J. Bohne, and others. 2006. Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive Conservation
Strategy. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies: Cheyenne, WY, 88pp.
Stoddart L.A., Smith A.D., 1955. Range Management. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. New York.
pp180.
Stokowski, Patricia A., Ph.D. and Christopher B. LaPointe. 2000. Environmental and Social Effects of
ATVs and ORVs: An Annotated Bibliography and Research Assessment. Burlington Vermont,
University of Vermont, School of Natural Resources.
Storch, Ilse. 2007. Conservation Status of Grouse Worldwide: An Update. Wildlife Biology. 13(sp1): 512.
LC-39
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Stynes, D.J. and E. White 2005. Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors, NVUM Four Year Report.
Report to USDA Forest Service. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Department of
Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources.
Sveum, Colin M., W. Daniel Edge, and John A. Crawford. 1998. Nesting Habitat Selection by Sage
Grouse in South-Central Washington. Journal of Range Management. 51(3): 265-269.
Swanson, David K., Craig L. Schmitt, Diane M. Shirley, Vicky Erickson, Kenneth J. Schuetz, Michael L.
Tatum and David C. Powell. 2010. Aspen Biology, Community Classification, and Management
in the Blue Mountains. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-806. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 117 p.
Swenson, J. E. and G. F. Shanks, Jr. 1979. Noteworthy records of bats from northeastern Montana.
Journal of Mammalogy. 60: 650-652.
Switalski, T. A., J. A. Bissonette, T. H. DeLuca, C. H. Luce, and M. A. Madej. 2004. Benefits and
Impacts of Road Removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2(1): 21-28.
Tanaka, John A., Neil R. Rimbey, L. Allen Torell, David “Tex” Taylor, Derek Bailey, Timothy DelCurto,
Kenric Walburger, and Bob Welling. 2007. Grazing Distribution: The Quest for the Silver Bullet.
Society of Range Management. pp. 38-44.
Tashiro-Vierling, Yoshiko. 1994. Population trends and ecology of the Lewis woodpecker (Melanerpes
lewis) in southeastern Colorado. University of Colorado, 1994. Thesis. Includes bibliographical
references (leaves [69]-73).
Tate, J., Jr. 1986. The Blue List for 1986. American Birds. 40: 227-236.
Tate, J. Jr. and D.J. Tate. 1982. The blue list for 1982. American Birds. 36: 3-10.
Taylor, Audrey R. and Richard L. Knight. 2003. Behavioral Responses of Wildlife to Human Activity:
Terminology and Methods. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 31(4): 1263-1271.
TCWMA. 2009. Personal communication with Greg Wissenand. Tri-County Cooperative Weed
Management Area. Tri-County CWMA, Baker City, Oregon.
Temple, A. Stanley and John R. Cary. 1988. Modeling Dynamics of Habitat-Interior Bird Populations in
Fragmented Landscapes. Conservation Biology. 2(4): 340-347.
Thatcher A. 1959. Distribution of Sagebrush as Related to Site Differences in Albany County, Wyoming.
Journal of Range Management. 12: 55-61.
Thiel, R. P. 1985. Relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in Wisconsin.
American Midland Naturalist. 113: 404-407.
Thines, Nicole, J. Siegel, Lisa A. Shipley, and Rodney D. Sayler. 2004. Effects of cattle grazing on
ecology and habitat of Columbia Basin pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis). Biological
Conservation. 119: 525–534.
LC-40
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Thomas, J. and C. Maser, C. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests: The Blue Mountains of Oregon
and Washington. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook No. 553. 512 pp. Wildlife
Management Institute: Washington D.C.
Thompson, R.N., and Haas, J.B. 1960. Environmental survey report pertaining to salmon and steelhead in
certain rivers of eastern Oregon and the Willamette River and its tributaries. Part I.Survey reports
of Eastern Oregon rivers. Fish Commission of Oregon, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.
Contract Number Project Appraisal 14-17-001-178. Portland, OR: Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission, Stream Net Library.
Tobalske, B. W. 1997. Lewis' Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis). In: The Birds of North America, No. 284
(A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.) The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The
American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 28 pp.
Tomasi, T. E. and R. S. Hoffman. 1984. Sorex preblei in Utah and Wyoming. Journal of Mammalogy. 65:
708.
Treyz, G.I., D.S. Rickman, G.L. Hunt, and M.J. Greenwood. 1993. The Dynamics of U.S. Internal
Migration. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 75(2): 209-214.
Trombulak, S. C. and C. A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic
communities. Conservation Biology. 14: 18-30.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Census 2000. SF3 Table P5.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2007a. National Agricultural Statistical Service, Census of Agriculture
2007. Table 8. Farms, Land in Farms, Value of Land and Buildings, and Land Use: 2007.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2007b. National Agricultural Statistical Service, Census of Agriculture
2007. Quick Stats 1.0 U.S. & States Data - Prices.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 2008. Payments in Lieu of Taxes and acres of entitlement acreage per
agency data base.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. Portland, Oregon: U.S.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 160pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Northern Wolf Recovery Plan. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Department
of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Division. 119pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Notice of finding on
petition to list the Ferruginous Hawk. Federal Register 57 (161): 37507-37513.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000a. Determination of threatened status for the contiguous
U.S. distinct population segment of the Canada lynx and related rule. Federal Register 65 (58):
16052-16086.
LC-41
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000b. Revised Recovery Plan for MacFarlane's Four-O’Clock (Mirabilis
macfarlanei). Portland, Oregon: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 46 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002a. Birds of conservation concern 2002. Arlington, Virginia: Division
of Migratory Bird Management. 99 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002b. Recovery Plan for Howell’s Spectacular Thelypody (Thelypodium
howellii ssp. spectabilis). Portland, Oregon: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 47 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western
Burrowing Owl in the United States. Biological Technical Publication BTP-R6001-2003.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Chapter 10, Umatilla-Walla Walla Recovery Unit, Oregon and
Washington. In: Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon: U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. 148p.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004a. Briefing Paper Prairie Grouse Leks and Wind Turbines: U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Justification for a 5-Mile Buffer from Leks; Additional Grassland Songbird
Recommendations. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Protection of Eagles and Authorizations Under the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act for Take of Eagles; Final Rule and Proposed Rule Protection of
Eagles and National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines; Notices. Department of the Interior.
June 5, 50 CFR Parts 13 and 22
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. Recovery Plan for Silene spaldingii (Spalding’s Catchfly).
Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Xiii + 187
pages
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Bull Trout Recovery: Monitoring and Evaluation Guidance.
Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Bull Trout Recovery and
Monitoring Technical Group (RMEG). Portland, Oregon. 74 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. 12 month finding for petitions to list the greater sage-grouse as
threatened or endangered.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised
Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States. Proposed Rules.
Federal Register, Vol. 75 (9): 2270-2431.
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests the Blue
Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Agriculture Handbook No. 553. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 512 pp.
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 1985. Bald Eagle Management Plan. Wallowa-Whitman
National Forest, Unity Ranger District: Unity, OR.
LC-42
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan. WallowaWhitman National Forest. P. 4-1.
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 1993. Region 6, Interim Old Growth Definition, USDA
Forest Service, Portland, Oregon, (June, 1993).
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 1996. Status of the Interior Columbia Basin: Summary of
Scientific Findings. Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-385. November. Pacific Northwest Research
Station. Portland, OR. (online) http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/sum1.pdf
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 1998. Economic and Social Conditions of Communities:
Economic and Social Characteristics of Interior Columbia Basin Communities and an Estimation
of Effects on Communities from the Alternatives of the Eastside and Upper Columbia River basin
DEIS.
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 2000. Harris, C., W. Mclaughlin, G. Brown, D.R.
Becker. 2000. Rural Communities in the Inland Northwest: An Assessment of Small Rural
Communities in the Interior and Upper Columbia River Basins. Interior Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific AssessmentPNW-GTR-477. October 2000. United
States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 2009a. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Schedule of
Proposed Action for 07/01/2009 to 09/30/2009.
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 2009b. Umatilla National Forest, Schedule of Proposed
Activities, Summer 2009.
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior. 1995. Decision Notice/Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact,
Environmental Assessment for the Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing
Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH).
February. Washington, DC.
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior. 1997. Eastside Draft EIS. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project
(ICBEMP). May 1(2): 663. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; Portland,
OR.
U.S. Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Environmental Protection Agency, 1999. Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management Protocol for Addressing Clean Water Act Section 303
(d) Listed Waters. May 1999. Version 2.0. Portland Oregon.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/water/reports.html last accessed August 6, 2010.
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior. 2000. Scientific Findings. Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Interior
Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). March. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station; Portland, OR.
LC-43
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior. 2001. Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the
Environment 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. August 2001. 21 pp.
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior. 2003. Interior Columbia Basin Strategy. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
Management Project (ICBEMP). U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station;
Portland, OR.
U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, pgs.
27-52
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. 2009. Endangered and
Threatened Species; Recovery Plans. Notices. Federal Register, Vol. 74 (188): 50165-50172.
University of Idaho. 2004. University of Idaho Stubble Height Study Report. University of Idaho Forest,
Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. Contribution No. 986, pp. 3-35.
Unsworth, J. W., L. Kuck, E. O. Garton, and others. 1998. Elk Habitat Selection on the Clearwater
National Forest, Idaho. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 62(4): 1255-1263.
Vale, Thomas R.1975. Presettlement Vegetation in the Sagebrush-Grass Area of the Intermountain West.
Journal of Range Management. 51(3): 32-36.
Valentine, K. 1947. Distance from Water as a Factor in Grazing Capacity of Rangelands. Journal of
Forestry. 45: 749-754.
Van Cleve, R. and R. Ting. 1960. The condition of salmon stocks in the John Day, Umatilla, Walla
Walla, Grande Ronde, and Imnaha Rivers as reported by various fisheries agencies.
Vander Haegen, Matthew, Nancy A. Mahony, Brett L. Walker, and Pamela G. Krannitz. 2001a. Male
Incubation and Multiple Brooding in Sagebrush Brewer's Sparrows. The Wilson Bulletin. 113(4):
441-444.
Vander Haegen, W.M., S.M. Mccorquodale, C.R. Peterson, G.A. Green, and E. Yensen. 2001b. Wildlife
communities of eastside shrubland and grassland habitats. In: D.H. Johnson and T. A. O’Neil
[Managing Directors], Wildlife habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. University of
Oregon Press, Corvallis, OR. p. 292–316.
Verts, B. J. 1975. New Records for Three Uncommon Mammals in Oregon. The Murrelet. 56(3): 22-23.
Verts, B.J. and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press. 668 pp.
Wagner, W.H., Jr. and F.S. Wagner. 1993. Ophioglossaceae. In: Flora of North America Editorial
Committee [eds.], Flora of North America, vol. 2, 84–106. Oxford University Press, New York,
New York, USA.
LC-44
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Wakeley, J. S. 1978. Factors affecting the use of hunting sites by ferruginous hawks. Condor. 80: 316326.
Wakkinen, W.L., K.P. Reese and J.W. Connelly. 1992. Sage Grouse Nest Locations in Relation to Leks.
The Journal of Wildlife Management. 56(2): 381-383.
Walker, B.L., D.E. Naugle and K.E. Doherty. 2007. Greater Sage-Grouse Population Response to Energy
Development and Habitat Loss. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(8): 2644-2654.
Walker B. and Naugle, D. 2009. West Nile Virus Ecology in Sagebrush Habitat and Implication on
Greater Sage-Grouse Populations. The Cooper Ornithological Society, and the University of
California Press.
Walker, B. 2010. Personal Communication. Grand Junction, CO: Colorado Division of Wildlife, Avian
Research Program.
Walker, D, M McGrady, A McCluskie, M Madders and D. R. A. McLeod. 2005. Resident Golden Eagle
ranging behaviour before and after construction of a windfarm, Argyll Scottish Birds. 25: 24–40.
Wallestad, Richard and Robert L. Eng. 1975. Foods of Adult Sage Grouse in Central Montana. The
Journal of Wildlife Management. 39(3): 628-630.
Walter, W. D., D. M. Leslie, Jr. and J. Jenks. 2006. Response of Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus) to
Wind-Power Development. American Midland Naturalist. 156(2): 363-375.
Wambolt, C. L. 1996. Mule Deer and Elk Foraging Preference for 4 Sagebrush Taxa. Journal of Range
Management. 49(6): 499-503.
Waples, R. S., J. Robert, P. Jones, B. R. Beckman, and G. A. Swan. 1991b. Status review for Snake River
fall Chinook salmon. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWC-201. U.S. Department of Commerce.
Ward, S.A. 1987. Optimal Habitat Selection in Time-Limited Dispersers. The American Naturalist.
129(4): 568-579.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2003. Washington Pygmy Rabbit 2003 Recovery Plan
Update Addendum to Washington State Recovery Plan for the Pygmy Rabbit (1995). Olympia,
WA: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Program.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources 2002. Washington State Timber Harvest Summary
from 1965 to 2002.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WNHP). 2007. Natural Heritage Plan. Olympia,
WA: Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 97pp.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WNHP). 2009. Natural Heritage Plan Update.
Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 97pp.
LC-45
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Washington State Natural Heritage Program (WANHP), 2008a. Washington Natural Heritage Program
Field Guide to Selected Rare Plants.
Washington State Natural Heritage Program (WANHP), 2008b. List of Plants Tracked by Washington
Natural Heritage Program.
Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects and Control. American Fisheries
Society Monograph 7. Bethseda, Maryland.
Watson, J.W. 2003. Migration and Winter Ranges of Ferruginous Hawks from Washington. Final Report.
: Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 63pp.
Weaver, J. 1993. Lynx, wolverine, and fisher in the western United States. Research assessment and
agenda for the Interagency Lynx-Wolverine-Fisher Working Group. Intermountain Research
Station Contract No. 43-0353-2-0598. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative.
Webb R.H., H.C. Ragland, W.H. Godwin, and Dennis Jenkins. 1978. Environmental Effects of Soil
Property Changes With Off-Road Vehicle Use. Environmental Management. 2(3): 219-233.
Springer-Verlag. New York.
Weir, R.D. and A.S. Harestad. 2003. Scale-Dependent Habitat Selectivity by Fishers in South-Central
British Columbia. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 67(1): 73-82.
Wemple, B.C., F.J. Swanson, and J.A. Jones, 2001. Forest Roads and Geomorphic Process Interactions
Cascade Range, Oregon. Earth System Processes and Landforms. 26: 191-204 (2001). John
Wiley and Sons Ltd.
West, Neil E., Frederick D. Provenza, Patricia S. Johnson, and Keith M. Owens. 1984. Vegetation
Change after 13 years of Livestock grazing Exclusion on Sagebrush Semidesert in West Central
Utah. Journal of Range Management. 37(3): 262-264.
Western Forestry Leadership Coalition. 2007. Western Bark Beetle Assessment: A Framework for
Cooperative Forest Stewardship. Lakewood, CO: Western Forestry Leadership Coalition. 13pp.
Wiens, J.A., J.T. Rotenberry, and B. Van Horne. 1987. Habitat Occupancy Patterns of North American
Shrubsteppe Birds: The Effects of Spatial Scale. Oikos. 48(2): 132-147.
Wiggins, D. A. 2005. Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus): A Technical Conservation Assessment.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.
Wikeem, Brian M. and Michael D. Pitt. 1979. Interpreting Diet Preference of California Bighorn Sheep
on Native Rangeland in South- Central British Columbia. Rangelands. 1(5): 200-202.
Wilcox, A. Bruce and Dennis D. Murphy. 1985. Conservation Strategy: The Effects of Fragmentation on
Extinction. The American Naturalist. 125(6): 879-887.
LC-46
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Wipfli, M.S., J.S. Richardson, and R.J.Naiman. 2007. Ecological linkages between headwaters and
downstream ecosystems: Transport of organic matter, invertebrates, and wood down headwater
channels. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 43: 72–85.
Wisdom, M., R. Holthausen, B. Wales, C. Hargis, V. Saab, D. Lee, W. Hann, TT. Rich, M. Rowland, W.
Murphy, and M. Eames. 2000. Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior
Columbia Basin: Broadscale Trends and Management Implications. Volume 1—Overview. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. 3 vols. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific
Northwest Research Station.
Wisdom, M.J., M.M. Rowland, B.K. Johnson, and B. Dick. 2004. Overview of the Starkey Project: Mule
deer and elk research for management benefits. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resource Conference, 69 pp. In press.
Wolman, M. G. and J. P. Miller. 1960. Magnitude and frequency of forces in geomorphic processes.
Journal of Geology. 68: 54-74.
Wolverine Foundation. 2001. Species Assessment for Wolverine (Gulo gulo) in Wyoming. Prepared for
the Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office by: Dr. Gary P. Beauvais and Lain
Johnson. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database.
Woodbridge, B. and C. D. Hargis. 2006. Northern Goshawk Inventory and Monitoring Technical Guide.
General Technical Report, WO-71. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service. 80p.
Woodbury, P.B., J.E. Smith, and L.S. Heath. 2006. Carbon sequestration in the U.S. forest sector from
1990 to 2010. Forest Ecology and Management. 241:14-27.
Wright, Henry A. and Arthur W. Bailey. 1982. Fire Ecology: United States and Southern Canada. John
Willey & Sons. New York. In: Welch, B.L., and C. Criddle. 2003. Counting Misinformation
Concerning Big Sagebrush. RMSC-RP-40. USDA Forest Service. p. 1-28.
Wyman, S., D. Bailey, M. Borman, S. Cote, J. Eisner, W. Elmore, B. Leinard, S. Leonard, F. Reed, S.
Swanson, L. Van Riper, T. Westfall, R. Wiley, and A. Winward. 2006. Riparian area
management: Grazing management processes and strategies for riparian-wetland areas. Technical
Reference 1737-20. BLM/ST/ST-06/002+1737. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center. 105 pp.
Yeo, J. J., J. M. Peek, W. T. Wittinger, and others. 1993. Influence of Rest-Rotation Cattle Grazing on
Mule Deer and Elk Habitat Use in East-Central Idaho. Journal of Range Management. 46(3):
245-250.
Yocom, C. F. 1974. Recent Wolverine Records in Washington and Oregon. The Murrelet. 55(2): 15-18.
Young, James A. and Raymond A. Evans. 1970. Invasion of Medusahead into the Great Basin. Weed
Science. 18(1): 89-97.
LC-47
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Literature Cited
Youtz, James A., Russell T. Graham, Richard T. Reynolds, and Jerry Simon. 2008. Implementing
Northern Goshawk Habitat Management in Southwestern Forests: A Template for Restoring FireAdapted Forest Ecosystems. This paper was published in: Deal, R.L., tech. ed. 2008. Integrated
restoration of forested ecosystems to achieve multiresource benefits: proceedings of the 2007
national silviculture workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-733. Portland, OR: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 306 pp.
Ypsilantis, W.G. 2003. Risk of Cheatgrass invasion After Fire in Selected Sagebrush Community Types.
BLM Resource Notes Issue 63:1-4.
LC-48
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Glossary
GLOSSARY
-A-
Abatement – Suppression or termination.
Access – The ability of public land visitors to reach the areas they wish to visit.
Acquired lands – Lands acquired for BLM administration in various ways, such as but not
limited to: (1) any lands purchased by congressionally appropriated funds, (2) land donations, (3)
land exchanges, (4) Land and Water Conservation Fund acquisitions, (5) land withdrawals
returned to public land status through withdrawal revocations and/or relinquishments, etc., (6)
split estate acquisitions, (7) Federal agency jurisdictional transfers, (8) easement acquisitions,
and/or (9) lands acquired by any other means.
Acre – A unit of area used in land measurement, equal to 43,560 square feet. There are 640
acres in one square mile.
Active preference – That portion of the total grazing preference for which grazing use may be
authorized.
Activity planning – Site-specific planning which precedes actual development. This is the most
detailed level of BLM planning (for example Habitat Management Plan, Allotment Management
Plan).
Actual use – The amount of animal unit months (AUMs) consumed by livestock based on
numbers of livestock and grazing dates submitted by the livestock operator, confirmed by
periodic field checks by the BLM.
Adjustments – Changes in animal numbers, periods of use, kinds or classes of animals, or
management practices as warranted by specific conditions.
Allotment – An area of land where one or more livestock operators graze their livestock.
Allotments generally consist of BLM lands but may also include other federal managed, state
owned, and private lands. An allotment may include one or more separate pastures. Livestock
numbers and periods of use are specified for each allotment.
Allotment categorization – Grazing allotments and rangeland areas used for livestock grazing
are assigned to an allotment category during resource management planning. Allotment
categorization is used to establish priorities for distributing available funds and personnel during
plan implementation to achieve cost-effective improvement of rangeland resources.
Categorization is also used to organize allotments into similar groups for purposes of developing
multiple use prescriptions, analyzing site-specific and cumulative impacts, and determining
trade-offs. (See Selective management categories).
Allotment Management Plan (AMP) – A written program of livestock grazing management,
including supportive measures if required, designed to attain specific management goals on a
specific unit of rangeland (usually a grazing allotment). The AMP considers livestock grazing in
relation to the renewable resources such as watershed, vegetation, and wildlife. An AMP
establishes the season of use, the number of livestock to be permitted on the range, and the range
improvements needed.
Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) – The quantity of timber that may be sold from suitable land
and that has been included in the yield projections for the timber period specified by the land use
plan. Usually expressed on an annual basis as the average annual allowable sale quantity.
G-1
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Glossary
Alluvium – Well sorted soil and rock debris deposited by water.
Amendment (plan amendment) – The process for considering or making changes in the terms,
conditions, and decisions of approved RMP’s or management framework plans using the
prescribed provisions for resource management planning appropriate to the proposed action or
circumstances. Usually only one or two issues are considered that involve only a portion of the
planning area.
Anadromous fish – Fish that migrate from the ocean to breed in fresh water. Their offspring
return to the ocean.
Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) – Step 4 of the BLM’s land use planning
process; it is a comprehensive documentation of the present conditions of the resources, current
management guidance, and opportunities for change.
Animal unit – One cow, one mature cow and calf under six months, or one equivalent (one bull
or steer, one horse, five domestic sheep, or six bighorn sheep).
Animal Unit Month (AUM) – A standardized measurement of the amount of forage necessary
for the sustenance of one cow or cow/calf pair (or equivalent – see Animal Unit above) for 1
month (approximately 800 pounds of forage). Also a unit of measurement of grazing privilege
that represents the privilege of grazing one animal for one month
Appropriate action – Implementing actions pursuant to subparts 4110, 4120, 4130, and 4160 of
the regulations that will result in significant progress toward fulfillment of the standards and
significant progress toward conformance with the guidelines. (See Significant progress.)
Appropriate Management Response (AMR) – Specific actions taken in response to a wildland
fire to implement protection and fire use objectives.
Aquatic – Living or growing in or on the water.
Area Of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) – Area where special management
attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or
scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect
humans from natural hazards.
Aspect – The direction a slope faces.
Assessment – A form of evaluation based on the standards of rangeland health, conducted by an
interdisciplinary team at the appropriate landscape scale (pasture, allotment, sub-watershed,
watershed, etc.) to determine conditions relative to standards.
Avoidance areas – Areas with sensitive resource values where rights-of-way and Section 302
permits, leases, and easements would be strongly discouraged. Authorizations made in
avoidance areas would have to be compatible with the purpose for which the area was designated
and not be otherwise feasible on lands outside the avoidance area.
-B-
Back country byways – Vehicle routes that traverse scenic corridors utilizing secondary or back
country road systems. National back country byways are designated by the type of road and
vehicle needed to travel the byway. (From Lakeview Glossary… if not applicable to Baker,
delete this definition.)
Badlands – Steep or very steep, commonly non-stony, barren land dissected by many
intermittent drainage channels, most common in semiarid and arid regions where streams are
G-2
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Glossary
entrenched in soft geologic material. Local relief generally ranges from 25 to 500 feet. Runoff
potential is very high, and geologic erosion is active.
Basalt – A dark, heavy, fine-grained silica poor igneous rock composed largely of iron and
magnesium minerals and calcium rich plagioclase feldspars.
Beneficial use – Any of various uses of a water source in an area. The primary beneficial uses
of surface water are domestic water supply, salmonid and resident fish habitat, irrigation,
livestock watering, wildlife and hunting, fishing, water contact recreation, and aesthetic quality.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) – A set of practices which, when applied during
implementation of management actions, ensures that negative impacts to natural resources are
minimized. BMP’s are applied based on site-specific evaluation and represent the most effective
and practical means to achieve management goals for a given site.
Big game animals – Limited to elk, mule deer, bear, mountain goats, and bighorn sheep in
Baker Resource Area in this document.
Biomass – Vegetative material resulting from or leftover from stand treatments. This term
usually refers to such material that can be gathered and transported to cogeneration plants, and
there utilized for production of electricity.
Board foot – A unit of solid wood, one foot square and one inch thick.
Browse – To browse (verb) is to graze a plant; also, browse (noun) is the tender shoots, twigs,
and leaves of shrubs often used as food by cattle, deer, elk, and other animals.
Buffer strip – A protective area adjacent to an area of concern that requires special attention or
protection. In contrast to riparian zones, which are ecological units, buffer strips can be designed
to meet varying management concerns.
Bunchgrass – Individual grasses that have the characteristic growth habit of forming a “bunch”
as opposed to having stolens or rhizomes or single annual habit.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) – Government agency with the mandate to manage
Federal lands under its jurisdiction for multiple uses.
Bureau sensitive species – Species eligible as federally listed or candidate, state listed, or state
candidate (plant) status, or on List 1 in the Oregon Natural Heritage Database, or otherwise
approved for this category by the State Director.
-C-
C Category – As in C category allotment, see Custodial management.
Cairn – A heap of stones set up as a landmark, monument, tombstone, and so forth.
Candidate species – Species designated as candidates (categories 1 and 2) in the Federal
Register notice of review that are being considered for listing as threatened or endangered under
the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Carbon sequestration – The processes that remove carbon dioxide from the air.
Carrying capacity – In livestock grazing, it is the maximum stocking rate possible without
damaging vegetation or related resources. Carrying capacity may vary from year to year on the
same area due to fluctuating forage production.
Catchment – A structure built to collect and retain water.
Climax plant community – The vegetative community that emerges after a series of successive
vegetational stages and perpetuates itself indefinitely unless disturbed by outside forces. The
G-3
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Glossary
culminating stage in plant succession for a given site where vegetation has reached a highly
stable condition.
Closed area designation – See Off-Road Vehicle Designation.
Commercial forestlands – Forestland capable of producing merchantable timber at rates of at
least 20 cubic feet per acre per year and is currently or prospectively accessible and not
withdrawn from such use.
Commercial thinning – A cutting made in a forest stand to remove excess merchantable timber
in order to accelerate growth or improve the health of the remaining trees.
Commercial tree species – Tree species whose yields are reflected in the allowable cut: pines,
firs, spruce, Douglas fir, cedar, and larch.
Compaction – The process of packing firmly and closely together: the state of being so packed
(e.g., mechanical compaction 01 soil by livestock or vehicular activity). Soil compaction results
from particles being pressed together so that the volume of soil is reduced. It is influenced by
the physical properties of the soil, moisture content and the type and amount of compactive
effort.
Compaction layer – A layer within the soil profile in which the soil particles have been
rearranged to decrease void space, thereby increasing soil bulk density and often reducing
permeability.
Conformance – Means that 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.
Conservation agreement – A formal signed agreement between the USFWS or National Marine
Fisheries
Service and other parties that implements specific actions, activities, or programs designed to
conserve the species by reducing threats to the species, stabilizing the species’ populations, and
maintaining its ecosystem. The primary purpose of the agreement is to conserve this species
through interim conservation measures under the 1973 “Endangered Species Act,” as amended.
These agreements can be developed at a State, regional, or national level and generally include
multiple agencies, as well as Tribes.
Conservation strategy – A strategy outlining current activities or threats that are contributing to
the decline of a species, along with the actions or strategies needed to reverse or eliminate such a
decline or threats. Conservation strategies are generally developed for species of plants and
animals that are designated as BLM sensitive species or that have been determined by the
USFWS or National Marine Fisheries Service to be Federal candidates under the “Endangered
Species Act.”
Consistency – Means that the proposed land use plan does not conflict with officially approved
plans, programs, and policies of Tribes, other Federal agencies, and state, and local governments
to the extent practical within Federal law, regulation, and policy.
Critical habitat – Any habitat that, if lost, would appreciably decrease the likelihood of the
survival and recovery of a threatened or endangered species or a distinct segment of its
population. Critical habitat may represent any portion of the present habitat of a listed species
and may include additional areas for reasonable population expansion. Critical habitat must be
G-4
Baker FO Draft RMP/EIS
Glossary
officially designated as such by the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries
Service.
Crust, abiotic (physical crust) – A surface layer on soils, ranging in thickness from a few
millimeters to a few centimeters, that is much more compact, hard and brittle, when dry, than the
material immediately beneath it
Crust, biotic (microbiotic or cryptogamic crust) – A layer of living organisms (mosses, lichens,
liverworts, algae, fungi, bacteria, and/or cyanobacteria) occurring on, or near the soil surface.
Cultural resources – Fragile and nonrenewable elements of the environment including
archaeological remains (evidence of prehistoric or historic human activities) and sociocultural
values traditionally held by ethnic groups (sacred places, traditionally utilized raw materials,
etc.).
Cultural site – Any location that includes prehistoric and/or historic evidence of human use or
that has important sociocultural value.
Custodial management – Management of a group of similar allotments with minimal
expenditure of appropriated funds to continue protecting existing resource values. (See Selective
management categories.)
-D-
Decision area – Covers only those land