Eugene District RECORD OF DECISION & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN West Eugene Wetlands April 2015 The BLM manages more
than 245 million acres of
public land, the most of
any Federal agency. This
land,
known
as
the
National System of Public
Lands, is primarily located
in
1 2 western states,
including Alaska.
The
BLM also administers 700
million acres of sub-surface
mineral estate throughout
the nation.
The BLM's m1ss1on 1s to
manage and conserve the
public lands for the use
and enjoyment of present
and future generations
under our mandate of
multiple-use and sustained
yield. In fiscal year 2013,
the BLM generated $4.7
billion in receipts from
public lands.
blm.gov/or
Record of Decisionn and Resourcce Managem
ment Plan
Table
eofCon
ntents
Record off Decision ................................................................................................................................... 1
Decisio
on............................................................
...........................................
.................................................. 2
Management Consid
derations ‐ Raationale for th
he Decision...
.....................
.................................................. 6
Alternaatives Conside
ered...................................
...........................................
................................................ 12
Mitigattion.........................................................
...........................................
................................................ 16
Plan Monitoring and
d Evaluations.....................
...........................................
................................................ 16
Public Involvement .....................................................................................
................................................ 17
Recommendation.............................................
...........................................
................................................ 20
...........................................
................................................ 20
Approvval...........................................................
Resource Managemen
nt Plan .....................................................................
........................................
.... 21 uction ................................................................................................
................................................ 22
Introdu
Land Use Allocations/Manageme
ent Decisions ..........................................
................................................ 24
...........................................
................................................ 24
Prairrie Restoration Area...............................
Natu
ural Maintenaance Area...........................
...........................................
................................................ 24
Resource Programs//Managemen
nt Actions .................................................
................................................ 27
ppression ...........................
................................................ 27
Air Quality/Prescrribed Burningg/Wildfire Sup
Plantts............................................................
...........................................
................................................ 28
Wildlife ....................................................................................................
................................................ 32
Soils and Water .......................................................................................
................................................ 35
Cultu
ural Resource
es ..................................................................................
................................................ 36
Recreation....................................................
...........................................
................................................ 37
Visuaal Resources .....................................................................................
................................................ 41
Speccial Products ......................................................................................
................................................ 41
Trave
el and Transp
portation ......................................................................
................................................ 42
Mine
erals and Energy ...............................................................................
................................................ 42
Land
ds and Realty .....................................................................................
................................................ 42
Hazaardous Materials ...............................................................................
................................................ 44
Rese
earch.......................................................
...........................................
................................................ 44
Administrative Actio
ons.....................................
...........................................
................................................ 44
Glossary..
..........................................................................................................
................................................ 46
Appendix
A ‐ Guidance
e for Use of th
he Resource Managementt Plan ............
.............................................. A‐1
ng .................................................................................
...............................................B‐1
Appendix
B ‐ Monitorin
Appendix
C ‐ Recreatio
on Manageme
ent ...........................................................
...............................................C‐1
nagement Praactices ......................................................
.............................................. D‐1
Appendix
D ‐ Best Man
Appendix
E ‐ Standard Operating Prrocedures forr Herbicide Appplication .....
...............................................E‐1
Appendix
F ‐ Valid Existing Rights an
nd Continuingg Uses ................................
............................................... F‐1
Appendix
G ‐ Travel Management Plan ..........................................................
.............................................. G‐1
..........................................................................................................
.......................................In
Index.......
dex‐1
i West Eugenee Wetlands ListofTable
es Table 1. Population reccovery objecttives for plantts. ...................................................................................... 28
Table E‐1.. Potential efffects of herbicide use and standard opeerating proceedures to minimize or avoid
effectts. .....................................................................................................................................................E‐7
Table F‐1.. Valid existing rights and continuing usses in the plannning area byy site. ...................................... F‐1
Table G‐1. Evaluation of travel routes against designation critteria. .......................................................... G‐3
Table G‐2. Designated routes and permitted uses. ..................................................................................... G‐5
ListofFigure
e s
Figure 1. BLM and Wesst Eugene We
etland partne
ership adminisstered lands. ................................................ 23
Figure 2. West Eugene Wetlands RM
MP Land Use Allocations. ....................................................................... 26
Figure 3. Botanical critical habitats within the West Eugene W etlands RMPP. ............................................. 31
Figure 4. Wildlife critical habitats within the Wesst Eugene Weetlands RMP. ................................................ 34
Figure 5. Special Recre
eation Management Areas within the W est Eugene Wetlands RMP........................ 40
Figure B‐1
1. Land Use Planning, Mon
nitoring, and Adaptive Mannagement. ..................................................B‐3
Figure F‐1
1. Parcel identtifiers for valiid existing rigghts within th e West Eugen
ne Wetlands RMP. ................ F‐4
Figure G‐1
1. Existing traavel routes wiithin the Wesst Eugene Weetlands Travell Managemen
nt Area..........
... G‐4
Figure G‐2
2. Designated
d travel routes within the West Eugene Wetlands Traavel Management Area. ...... G‐6
ii Record of Decisio
on
RecordofDe
ecision
1
West Eugene Wetla
ands De
ecision
The decision
n is hereby made to approve the RMP for the West E ugene Wetlaands. This plaan was develo
oped under the re
egulations implementing the Federal Laand Policy andd Managemeent Act of 197
76 (43 CFR 1600). An environm
mental impactt statement was prepared for this plan in compliancce with regulaations ng the Nation
nal Environme
ental Policy Act of 1969 (4 0 CFR 1500). This plan is id
dentical to th
he implementin
one set forth
h in the Nove
ember 2014 Proposed RMP
P/Final EIS fo r the West Eu
ugene Wetlan
nds. Specific man
nagement deccisions and gu
uidance for West Eugene W etlands pub
blic lands adm
ministered byy the BLM’s Eugen
ne District are
e presented in the RMP atttached to thi s Record of Decision. All decisions coveered n are either laand use plann
ning decisionss that were p
protestable du
uring the by the Record of Decision
November 21, 2014, to December 22, 2014, protesst period in acccordance wiith the land use planning plementation decisions thaat may be app
pealed in acccordance with
h regulations (43 CFR Part 1610), or imp
mplementatio
on Decisions and Departmentt of the Interior regulations at 43 CFR Part 4. The “Im
Administrative Review” section in thiss Record of De
ecision identiifies the implementation decisions thatt are ppeal at this time and the appeal proce
edures. subject to ap
What the Plan Will Proviide The major provisions of the RMP will include the fo
ollowing land use plan deccisions: 


obje
ectives for the
e managemen
nt of BLM‐administered laands and reso
ources; land
d use allocatio
ons relative to
o future uses for the purpooses of achieeving the vario
ous objectivees; and nagement direction that id
dentifies where future actiions may or m
may not be allowed and what man
restrictions or requirements may
m be placed
d on those fu ture actions tto achieve the objectives sset for the
t BLM‐adm
ministered lands and resources. What the Plan Will Not Provide The plan doe
es not authorrize the imple
ementation of on‐the‐grouund projects. Implementattion actions in
n the managemen
nt direction, such as habitaat restoration
n and maintennance actionss (including herbicide use) or recreationall resource acttions, would be implementted only afterr additional NEPA compliaance and decision‐
making subssequent to the approval off the RMP. Th
he BLM’s imp lementation of this managgement direcction would occurr only after ad
dditional deciision‐making subsequent t o the approvval of the RMP. Additionally, projected haabitat restoraation and maiintenance, inccluding herbi cide use, wou
uld typically be described in a ould be made available to the public. Foor this prograam of work, B
BLM would program of work that wo
conduct a Determination
n of NEPA Ade
equacy (DNA)) to determin e whether ad
dditional NEPA analysis beeyond the analysis in the RMP/EEIS is necessaary and to evaaluate conform
mance with the RMP. Wheere site‐speciific umstances change from those describedd in the RMP//EIS, or if a D
DNA is conditions differ, or circu
inappropriatte for other reasons, the BLM may need to conduct additional NEEPA analysis prior to reach
hing a n action. decision to implement an
2 Record of Decisio
on
Appliccation of the Plan to Existting Projects
Devellopment of a RMP necessaarily involves a transition ffrom the appllication of preeviously coordinated he application
n of the new RMP. The pla nning and an
nalysis of future projects su
uch as management to th
habitaat restoration
n projects typ
pically require
es at least onee year of prep
paration befo
ore a site‐speccific project can be designed an
nd a decision reached. Allo
owing for a trransition from
m previous maanagement to
o the new ption of the management of the BLM‐addministered lands and allo
ows the BLM to utilize RMP avoids disrup
work already begu
un on the plan
nning and anaalysis of projeects. This secttion addressees the application of the ure projects:
RMP to three categories of futu



projects fo
or which site‐specific decissions have be en signed prior to the effeective date off this Record of Decision
n (ROD), but which have not yet been im
mplemented; or which site‐specific decissions have no t yet been siggned, but for which preparation of projects fo
NEPA docu
uments has begun prior to
o the effectivee date of this ROD; and or which site‐specific proje
ect planning a nd preparation of NEPA documents haave not projects fo
begun prio
or to the effecctive date of this ROD. his discussion, “projects” are considered
d to be on‐thhe‐ground imp
plementation
n actions inclu
uding, but For th
not lim
mited to, prescribed burniing, mowing, haying, thinnning, hand weeeding, shadee cloth, solarizzation, therm
mal treatmentts, tilling/diskking, fill removval, raking, grrazing, herbiccide applicatio
on, and plantt augmentation. Imple
ementation off projects for which a decission has beenn signed priorr to the effecttive date of this ROD is not afffected by thiis ROD. The effects of impllementation o f these projeects were facctored into th
he analysis e Final EIS eith
her as an analytical assumption about c urrent land treatment typ
pes and levelss of activity, in the
or we
ere generally considered ass part of the current condiition of the afffected enviro
onment. Site‐specific projeccts for which a decision haas not been si gned prior to
o the effectivee date of this ROD, for which
h preparation of NEPA doccumentation began prior too the effectivve date of thiss ROD, and fo
or which a oject is signed
d within one year of the efffective date of this ROD may be impleemented decisiion on the pro
consisstent with the
e management direction of either the p reviously coordinated maanagement (i.e., the plan developed by the City of Eugene) or the App
proved RMP a ttached to th
his ROD, at th
he discretion of the un upon: decisiion maker. In context, the preparation of NEPA docuumentation iss considered to have begu




public notiification that the BLM will be preparingg a NEPA docu
ument;
initiation of external scoping;
completion of documen
ntation of a DNA; or
ntation of a Categorical Exxclusion review.
completion of documen
he If the decision makker elects to implement prrojects for whhich NEPA hass begun consistent with th
previo
ously coordin
nated manage
ement, they may include feeatures not consistent witth the managgement pproved RMP attached to this ROD. How
wever, any diifference in th
he specific efffects directtion in the Ap
resultting from imp
plementation of such proje
ects would noot alter the an
nalysis of effeects in the Fin
nal EIS 3
West Eugene Wetla
ands because of their limited geographic exxtent. Additio
onally, any incconsistenciess with the management direction in the Approved
d RMP attach
hed to this RO
OD, in almost all cases, are anticipated to result in less he current condition of the
e affected envvironment thhan if projectss were implem
mented consiistent change to th
with the App
proved RMP. The primary inconsistencyy with the Appproved RMP that has poteential to occu
ur would be haabitat restoration and man
nagement pro
ojects, and woould result fro
om the fact that herbicidee application was analyzed
d through the process to de
esign this RM
MP and had no
ot previously been availab
ble as a manageme
ent tool for re
estoration an
nd enhanceme
ent or for conntrol of invasive plants and
d noxious weeed nt. managemen
Projects for which preparration of NEP
PA documentaation begins a fter the effective date of this ROD or for which a decision is signed
d more than one year afte
er the effectivve date of thiss ROD must be consistent with the management directio
on in the Approved RMP.
ng Rights Valid Existin
This decision
n does not altter or extingu
uish valid exissting rights onn BLM‐administered lands. Valid existin
ng rights may be held by oth
her Federal, State, or local governmentt agencies; or by private in
ndividuals or companies. Valid existingg rights may pertain to ene
ergy leases, leeases, easements, permitss, and rights‐o
of‐
way (Appendix F). Approved Changes to the RMP betwe
een the Final EIS and the R ecord of Deecision The followin
ng changes an
nd correctionss were made to the West Eugene Wetlands RMP. Th
hese changess were made to correct errrors and provvide clarifications of existinng managemeent direction and objectivees. In addition to the items notted here, othe
er minor typo
ographical, taable, and map
pping errors were correcteed. The acres involved in the
ese correction
ns are small and mostly refflect slivers and overlaps in data. The d corrections noted below are relativelyy inconseque ntial and wou
uld not substantially changge changes and
the analyticaal conclusions described in
n the Final EISS.  Manage
ement Direction for Plants originally reaad: “On sites w ith listed plants where spring mowingg is needed to control ovverwhelming weed infestattions, maintaain a buffer off 6 feet from the nearest listed et the manage
ement objecttive. Howeverr, if needed to
o control seriious infestatio
ons plants iff this will mee
of weed
ds that reprod
duce mainly by seed, up to
o one‐half of t he listed plan
nt population
n at a site may be mowed in an effort to reduce seed set by non‐‐native weedss. Set tractor mower deckss at a level higgh enough to avoid killin
ng listed plants but low en
nough to remoove weed flow
wers.” The last two senten
nces have been deleted ass unnecessaryy.  Manage
ement Direction for Plants originally reaad: “Do not seeed or plant plugs within 6 feet of natu
urally occurrin
ng federally‐listed plants.” “Seed or” has been deleteed because reecent researcch (Stanley ett al. 2011b; Kaye, T., execc. dir., Institutte for Applied
d Ecology, Corrvallis, OR, peers. comm. to
o S. Villegas‐M
Moore via e‐maail, Decemberr 18, 2013) sh
hows the benefit of seedinng annual plan
nt species aftter herbicide application.  Manage
ement Direction for Wildliffe originally re
ead: “Implem
ment prescribeed burning on
n sites with Fender’ss blue butterffly. The burn unit must be within 100 m eters of unb
burned occupied habitat to
o facilitate
e recolonizatiion.” The seco
ond sentence
e has been deeleted in favor of the two succeeding Manage
ement Directions. 4 Record of Decisio
on
 Management Direction for Wildlife originally read: “O
On sites with Fender’s bluee butterflies, do not mow with tracctor mowers in the spring. Mowing withh hand‐held mowers may be implemen
nted during he butterfly fllight season (generally Maay 1 to June 3 0) as long as a buffer of att least 25 feett is th
maintained be
etween the mower and a Kincaid’s lupinne plant. Afteer the butterfly flight seaso
on, but before Kincaid’s lupine sene
escence (generally June 300 through August 15), tracctor mowing may occur no closer than 6 feet from the nearest Kincaid’s lupinne plants. Tra ctor mowing may be cond
ducted th
hroughout sittes with Fender’s blue buttterflies after Kincaid’s lupiine senescencce and beforee lupine re‐
emergence (ge
enerally Augu
ust 15‐March 1). Set tractoor mower deccks at least 6 inches above the ground to
o reduce impaacts to butterrfly larvae.” The last senteence is revised
d to read “Mo
ow to a heigh
ht of at least 6 inches or gre
eater to reducce impacts to
o butterfly larvvae,” becausee the microto
opography in the West Eu
ugene Wetlan
nds would maake the manaagement objeective difficultt to achieve as it had been
n originally sttated.  Management Direction for Wildlife originally read: “R
Retain large snags and create 2 snags per acre >14” diameterr breast heigh
ht where available in fores ted plant com
mmunities (oaak woodland,, ash sw
wale/riparian
n, plantation, and Douglas‐‐fir forest).” A clarification preceding th
his managemeent hat states “In
n forested pla nt communitties where preescribed burn
ning would direction has been added th
not be used fo
or maintenancce, retain largge snags…”. SSnag creation in areas wheere prescribed
d burning would be used
d as a mainten
nance tool wo
ould present risk to firefighter safety and the abilityy for co
ontainment. Imple
ementation Decisions and Administrative Review In add
dition to land use plan deccisions, this Re
ecord of Deciision includess some implementation deecisions. While
e preparing th
he EIS for this RMP, the BLM consideredd various imp
plementation actions that would be appro
oved either att the same tim
me or after th
he RMP decisiions are made. The West Eugene Wetlaands RMP des implemen
ntation decisions of: includ
 Designation off travel managgement netw
works, includinng identifyingg the specific roads and traails that are avvailable for public use and
d the limitatio
ons on use of roads and traails.  Continued app
plication of th
he Final Supplementary Ruules for Publicc Land within the West Euggene Wetlands, Euggene District, OR, published
d in the Fede ral Register o n July 28, 2005, and adop
ption of the pplication of these rules th
hroughout the planning arrea on BLM‐m
managed land
ds. ap
Any party adversely affected byy an implementation decission may appeeal within 30 days of publiication of the Notice of Availability of the RMP/ROD in
n the Federal Register in acccordance with the provisions of 43 CFR Part 4.4. The appeal must include a statement of reaasons or file a separate statement of reasons within
n 30 days of filing the appe
eal. The appe
eal must statee if a stay of the decision iss being requeested in accordance with 43 CFR 4.21 an
nd must be filled with the D istrict Manaager at the folllowing addreess: Eu
ugene District Office
d Management
Bureau of Land
3106 Pierce Paarkway, Suite E
Sp
pringfield, Orregon 97477
5
West Eugene Wetla
ands A copy of the appeal, stattement of reaasons, and all other suppoorting documeents should also be sent to
o the Office of the
e Regional Solicitor, Pacificc Northwest Region; U.S. D epartment of the Interiorr; 805 SW on 97205. If th
he statement of reasons iss filed separattely, it must be Broadway, Suite 600; Porrtland, Orego
sent to the Interior Board
d of Land App
peals, Office of Hearings annd Appeals, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203. It is suggestted that any appeal be sennt certified maail, return recceipt requested. Should you wish to file a motion for sttay pending the outcome o f an appeal of these impllementation ou must show
w sufficient ju
ustification baased on the foollowing standards under 43 CFR 4.21:
decisions, yo
• The re
elative harm to the paritiess if the stay iss granted or d enied. • The likkelihood of th
he appellant’ss success on the merits. • The likkelihood of im
mmediate and
d irreparable harm if the sttay is not granted. • Wheth
her or not the
e public intere
est favors graanting the staay. As noted above, the motion for stay must be filed in the office o f the authorrized officer. Ma
anagemen
ntConsid
derations‐Rationa
aleforthe
eDecision
n
The decision
n to select the
e Proposed RMP as the Ap
pproved RMP is based on the conclusion that it best meets the purpose and need and wou
uld have favorrable outcom
mes for variou
us resources and programss and relatively low
w adverse environmental impacts in co
omparison to the other altternatives. The decision
n regarding th
he Approved RMP is based
d on consideraation and evaaluation of: 

how
w well the purrpose and nee
ed is met; and
d asso
ociated enviro
onmental con
nsequences and the cost o f implementaation. The facts fou
und through analysis in the Final EIS provide the bassis for determ
mining how well the purpo
ose nvironmental consequencces and costs of implementing the plan. The and need is met for considering the en
decision is also based on the conclusio
on that the Prroposed RMPP has associatted with it relatively low adverse envvironmental im
mpacts and re
elatively favo
orable outcom
mes for variou
us resources and programss in comparison to the other alternatives. Purpose and
d Need The Federal Land Policy and Managem
ment Act requ
uires the BLM
M to develop RMPs to provvide for the usse of er requiremen
nts, the Federal Land Policcy and Managgement Act directs the BLM
M to public lands. Among othe
use and observe the principles of multtiple use in th
he developmeent of RMPs. There are specific consideratio
ons in the planning area th
hat lead the BLM to focus m anagementt on threateneed and he listed speciies and their habitat; the importance of the planning endangered species: the scarcity of th
area to the recovery of th
he listed speccies; and the purposes for which the BLLM acquired the lands in th
he planning are
ea. Therefore, the purpose
e and need fo
or this RMP is more specific than the brroad mandatee of e alone. multiple use
6 Record of Decisio
on
The purpose of the
e action is to manage the planning areaa to contributte to the reco
overy of species listed underr the Endange
ered Species Act, while pro
oviding otherr benefits, particularly maiintaining the ecological or other plantt and animal c ommunities; and recreation and envirronmental functiion of wetlands; habitat fo
educaation opportu
unities, to the
e extent comp
patible with t hreatened an
nd endangereed species maanagement. The need for the action is estab
blished by the
e U.S. Fish andd Wildlife Serrvice Recoverry Plan for thee Prairie Specie
es of Western
n Oregon and
d Southwestern Washingtoon (Recovery Plan), which describes thee imporrtance of the planning area to the recovvery of Fendeer’s blue buttterfly, Willamette daisy, Brradshaw’s lomattium, and Kincaid’s lupine,, and provides recovery strrategies and objectives relevant to BLM
M management (USFFWS 2010). Se
ection 7(a)(1) of the Endanngered Speciees Act requirees the BLM to
o use its autho
orities to furth
her the purpo
oses of the En
ndangered Sppecies Act by implementing programs fo
or the conse
ervation of threatened and
d endangered
d species and the ecosysteems upon whiich they depeend. The nagement Maanual explain s, “ways in which the BLM
M can carry ou
ut these BLM Special Statuss Species Man
respo
onsibilities incclude … developing and im
mplementing a gency land use plans, imp
plementation
n plans, and action
ns in a manne
er consistent with conservation and/or recovery of listed species,” (BLM 2008
8b). The BLM ment Manual further explaains that the “BLM will inccorporate objectives and Speciaal Status Speccies Managem
action
ns identified in recovery pllans into BLM
M documents,, as appropriaate. Exampless of such docu
uments de land use pllans, impleme
entation level plans, and s pecies conseervation planss or agreemen
nts,” (BLM includ
2008b
b). The planning area embraces some of the last rem
maining rare Willamette Vaalley prairie habitat, of which
h less than 1%
% remains in comparison to
o historical exxtent. With so
o little habitaat left, and wiith more than one‐third of the planning area designatted as critical habitat for the listed speccies, it is not likely that recovvery of these species can be achieved in
n this recoverry zone without the BLM‐aadministered lands in the West Eugene Wetllands. The need for the action is also established in
n the Federal Land Policy and Managem
ment Act, whiich directs MPs to provid
de for the use
e of public lannds. Neither the 1995 nor 2008 Eugene District BLM to develop RM
RMPss developed specific goals, objectives, or managemeent direction for the planning area, otheer than to state that the BLM
M–administere
ed lands would be manageed consistentt with the Weest Eugene Wetlands plan developed by the City of Eugene. Most of the lands within the plaanning area are acquired l ands that weere attained with funds fro
om the Land and Water Conservvation Fund. The justificattion for the Laand and Wateer Conservation Fund acqu
uisitions ed the importtance of the laands for thre atened and endangered species and, fo
or example, typicaally highlighte
speciffied that that the acquired
d lands will: (1
1) Provide a m ore natural system for water quality enhan
ncement, storm water, and flood control; (2) Provid e habitat for sensitive plant and animaal munities, inclu
uding rare spe
ecies; and (3) Provide new
w opportunitiees for the reccreational and
d comm
enviro
onmental edu
ucation needss of the comm
munity. Almo st all of the reemaining lands in the plan
nning area were also acquired
d to provide, in part, habitat for threateened and end
dangered species. 7
West Eugene Wetla
ands Meeting the
e Purpose and
d Need, Envirronmental Co
onsequencess, and Costs of Implementtation The conclusions that the Proposed RM
MP best meetts the purposee and need, has relatively low adverse ntal impacts, and has relatiively favorablle outcomes f or resourcess and program
ms in compariison environmen
to the otherr alternatives are supporte
ed by the analysis and concclusions in the Final EIS. The Propose
ed RMP provides direction
n that, if imple
emented in fuuture actions, would be exxpected to meeet the purpose
e of managingg the BLM‐adm
ministered lands to contri bute to the reecovery of sp
pecies listed under ered Species Act: the Endange





Prop
posed RMP would restore high quality prairie and oaak savanna in
n all of the deesignated critiical habitat, and wou
uld create the
e most well‐co
onnected nettwork of high quality prairiie and savann
na habitat of all alte
ernatives Prop
posed RMP would meet all recovery tarrgets for all li sted plants Prop
posed RMP would provide
e for short‐terrm abundanc e of all listed plants would
d greatly exceeed reco
overy targets for abundancce Prop
posed RMP would meet Fe
ender’s blue butterfly recoovery targets for habitat quality and man
nagement Prop
posed RMP would create 65 acres of go
olden paintbrrush and resto
ore habitat to
o high qualityy for Tayllor’s checkersspot butterflyy In accordancce with Sectio
on 7(a)(2) of the Endangerred Species A
Act, the BLM has conducted
d consultation with the U.SS. Fish and Wiildlife Service
e on the adoption of the Prroposed RMPP. For the purposes of anallysis osed RMP and
d its effects to
o threatened and endangeered species and their critical of the impaccts, the Propo
habitats und
der analysis are most easily described by the individ ual componeents within the Proposed RMP. Additionallyy, rationales fo
or making detterminations‐of‐effects difffer by component. However, the appaarent mponents doe
es not overrid
de the fact thhat each is parrt of the singlle action under individualityy of those com
review: adoption of the Proposed RMP. In determiniing what the effects of a proposed actio
on are likely t o be, agenciees are subject to the defin
nition of “effects of the action” found in the regulations implementingg the Endangeered Species Act. The on” to refer to “The directt and indirect effects of an
n action on the regulations define “effects of the actio
species or crritical habitatt, together with the effectss of other acttivities that arre interrelateed or dent with thatt action that will be added
d to the enviroonmental basseline. The en
nvironmentall interdepend
baseline includes the passt and present impacts of all Federal, Sttate, or privatte actions and
d other humaan activities in the action are
ea, the anticipated impactts of all propoosed Federal projects in th
he action areaa that have alreadyy undergone formal or earrly section 7 consultation, and the impaact of State or private actions which are co
ontemporane
eous with the consultation
n in process. I ndirect effectts are those that are causeed by the propose
ed action and are later in tiime, but still are reasonabbly certain to occur,” (50 CFR § 402.2).
While “direcct effects” are
e not defined in the regulaations, they a re commonlyy understood to be the bitat that will result from the carrying out by the Fed
deral immediate effects on a listed species or critical hab
agency of th
he proposed action itself or from the caarrying out byy third partiess of the activities authorizeed or he Federal aggency. If the agency does what it is propposing to do, the “direct effects” are th
h e funded by th
8 Record of Decisio
on
effectts that are the
e immediate and natural consequencess of taking the proposed action. In otheer words, “direcct effects” are
e effects that will inevitablly occur if thee action is takken and are not dependent upon the occurrrence of any additional inttervening acttions for the i mpact to listeed species orr critical habittat to occur.
must be
Like “direct effectss”, indirect effects
f
e “caused by”” the proposeed action. Indirect effects are distinguished from
m direct effectts, however, in that they tyypically occurr after the takking of action
ns other than the proposed
d Federal actio
on, and as such, they are n ot necessarily inevitable. The Biological Asse
essment of th
he Proposed Resource Mannagement Plaan for the Weest Eugene Wetlands in Lane County, Oreggon (2014) determined thaat, in its entireety, the proposed action may affect, an
nd is likely to advversely affectt, Bradshaw’s lomatium, Willamette da isy, Kincaid’s lupine, Fender’s blue buttterfly, pot butterfly, and streaked horned lark; would harm Fender’s blue butterfly an
nd streaked Taylor’s checkersp
horne
ed lark; and may affect, bu
ut is not likelyy to adversely affect golden
n paintbrush or the critical habitats addre
essed. The BLM received a Biological Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluding that th
he proposed n, in its entire
ety, is not like
ely to jeopardize the continnued existencce of the Willamette daisyy, action
Bradsshaw’s lomatium, Kincaid’ss lupine, golden paintbrus h, Fender’s blue butterfly,, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, or the streaked horne
ed lark; and are not likely t o adversely modify the crritical habitats for mette daisy, Kincaid’s lupine, and Fender’s blue buttterfly. This co
onclusion wass reached beccause the Willam
propo
osed action was determine
ed likely to ap
ppreciably inccrease the efffectiveness off the conservvation ed under the Recovery Plaan and critica l habitat designations to protect these Willamette program establishe
valleyy species and their habitat on federal lands within thheir range inccluding design
nated critical habitats. Additionally, no kn
nown cumulattive impacts changed the d eterminatio
ons made und
der the effects of the osed action, as the vast maajority of adjaacent non‐fedderal lands arre managed by wetland co
onservation propo
partners who workk in unison with the BLM and U.S. Fish a nd Wildlife Service. The Biological Opin
nion from the
e U.S. Fish and
d Wildlife Serrvice included
d an Incidentaal Take Statem
ment for Fende
er’s blue butterfly. Detection of inciden
ntal take on inndividuals of this species iss recognized to be ult to determine within the
e project areaa. As such, evven though in
ncidental takee is expected to occur difficu
from managementt actions unde
er the Propossed RMP, dat a are not suffficiently available to enable the U.S. on, the amoun
nt or extent Fish and Wildlife Service to estimate an exacct number of individuals. For this reaso
of incidental take was issued ussing the maximum acres o f habitat areaa that could be treated on an annual basis as a surrogatte. These acre
es are identified by managgement activitty and are listted in detail in the ological Opinion Biologgical Opinion (pp. 109‐10),, which is herreby incorporrated by referrence. The Bio
deferred issuance of an Inciden
ntal Take State
ement on thee streaked ho
orned lark. Occcupancy with
hin the planning area by th
his species waas only verifie
ed a short tim
me ago (durin
ng 2013), and little data is available on bitat use. Bassed on the efffects analysis of managem
ment actions under the Pro
oposed the paatterns of hab
RMP, there is curre
ently insufficiient informattion available to determinee if take of th
he streaked ho
orned lark is likely to occur. The
e BLM shall su
ubmit all need
ded informattion to the U.SS. Fish and Wildlife Servicee to for orned lark if t hey are enco
ountered. Provided that the reported assesssment of incidental take of streaked ho
action
n is consistent with the analysis describ
bed in the Bioological Opinio
on, a project((s) specific Inccidental 9
West Eugene Wetla
ands Take Statem
ment/take exe
emption (as appropriate) will be provid ed to the BLM
M as an amen
ndment to thee Biological Opinion. The Propose
ed RMP provides direction
n that, if imple
emented in fuuture actions, meets the purpose of ment; providing otther benefits to the extentt compatible with threatenned and endaangered speciies managem
particularly, maintaining the ecologicaal function of wetlands, m aintaining haabitat for otheer plant and animal comm
munities, and
d providing re
ecreation and environmen tal education
n opportunitiees:  In th
he short‐term
m, populationss of all vascular sensitive p lants would meet restoraation targets under MP the Proposed RM
der the Proposed RMP longg‐term increaases in populaations of BLM
M sensitive vascular plant
 Und
ontribute to achieving the habitat qualitty recovery taarget for listeed plants
speccies would co
bitat for animaal species thaat are associatted with highh quality prairrie and savanna, such as
 Hab
Oreggon vesper sp
parrow and Western pond
d turtle, wouldd increase un
nder the Prop
posed RMP bicide use under the Propo
osed RMP in the Natural M aintenance Area would be coordinateed to  Herb
d populationss for tradition
nal use plant gathering not impede and enhance opportunities and
wart Pond under the Propo
osed RMP wo
ould have subbstantially inccreased recreation  Stew
opportunities The Propose
ed RMP respo
onds to the ne
eed for action
n, because it provides a fraamework thaat is consisten
nt with the Reccovery Plan fo
or the Prairie Species of Western Oregoon and Southwestern Wasshington; critiical ne, Willamettte daisy, and Fender’s bluee butterfly; an
nd other speccies listed as habitat for Kincaid’s lupin
threatened or endangere
ed under the Endangered Species Act.
The Final EISS identified elleven issues for analysis, some of whichh provided th
he analysis to how well thee alternatives meet the purpose and ne
eed for action: 










w would BLM management actions affe
ect the restoraation of nativve plant comm
munities? How
w would BLM management actions conttribute to meeeting the reccovery objectives describeed in How
the recovery plan
n for ESA‐liste
ed species? How
w would BLM management actions affe
ect BLM sensittive and strattegic plant an
nd animal speecies? w would herbicide use affe
ect soil, waterr, plants, and animals? How
How
w would presccribed burnin
ng affect air quality? w would changing climate conditions altter the effectt of BLM man
nagement actions on resou
urces? How
w would BLM management actions affe
ect greenhousse gas emissio
ons and carbo
on storage?
How
How
w would BLM management actions affe
ect archaeologgical, historiccal, and tradittional use reso
ources? How
w would BLM management actions affe
ect access to t he planning area, authorizations over the plan
nning area, an
nd authorizations for extraactive uses in the planningg area?
w would BLM management actions affe
ect recreationn opportunitiees?
How
w much would
d it cost to im
mplement the alternatives??
How
The environmental impacct with regard
d to the identtified issues o f future actio
ons implemen
nted in posed RMP are summarize
ed below. accordance with the Prop
10 Record of Decisio
on
Future actions imp
plemented in accordance with the Propposed RMP arre anticipated
d to contributte to the recovvery of threate
ened and end
dangered spe
ecies: 


All recoverry targets for all listed plan
nts are anticippated to be met. uality and man
nagement reccovery targetts for Fender’’s blue butterrfly are anticip
pated to be Habitat qu
met. An estimatted 22 acres of high qualitty habitat for Taylor’s checckerspot butterfly would be restored. plemented in accordance with the goalss of the Propo
osed RMP aree expected to
o provide a Future actions imp
mix of recreational opportunitie
es and experiiences are ex pected to be substantiallyy increased th
hrough the design
nation of Stew
wart Pond as a Special Reccreation Mannagement Areea. The Proposed RMP
P provides dirrection that, if implementeed in future actions, addreesses the off‐highway ent by establishing plans th
hat will limit o ff‐highway vehicle activitty to designatted roads vehiclle manageme
and iss expected to improve protection of oth
her resourcess compared to
o the No Actiion Alternativve. The Final EIS analyyzed other potential enviro
onmental imppacts and outtcomes for resources and programs beyon
nd those desccribed above.. Future actions taken in acccordance wiith the Propo
osed RMP are expected ources and proograms and relatively low
w adverse environmental to havve favorable outcomes forr various reso
impaccts in comparrison to the otther alternatiives. Under thhe management direction of the Propo
osed RMP: 
Without herbicide use, prairie and savanna habittats would no
ot be restored
d to meet high
h quality habitat conditions. Con
ncentration off herbicides inn the soil wou
uld be extrem
mely low becaause of the limited application metthods, low rattes of applicaation, and thee typical application timingg. Off‐site edimentation,, leaching, or drift would be extremely unlikely. transport of herbicides by runoff, se
Herbicide application would result in
n some mortaality of non‐taarget plants, but mortalityy would be highly locaalized. Herbicide applicatio
on would resuult in very lim
mited exposure and low risk to most animals.  Particulate
e emissions under the Prop
posed RMP w ould constitu
ute 1% or lesss of emissions from BLM‐administered land
ds in western Oregon.  Listed plan
nt species would not experrience changees in abundan
nce or range as a result of changing er a moderate climate chaange scenario
o. Fender’s blu
ue butterfly would be climate conditions unde
moderatelly vulnerable to changing climate condiitions under a moderate climate changge scenario. The Proposed RMP wou
uld reduce the vulnerabilitty of Fender’ss blue butterffly to climate change more than
n the other altternatives by creating greaater connectiivity of high quality habitat and greater po
opulations of Kincaid’s lupine.  Greenhousse gas emissio
ons would vaary annually u nder the Pro
oposed RMP as a result of the amount of prescrib
bed burning and the conve
ersion of fore sted plant co
ommunities to
o prairie and savanna plant comm
munities, ranging from 1,0
000 to 2,000 t onnes per yeear.  Nearly all effects to archaeological and historic siites would bee reduced or eliminated byy conducting bance invento
ories to identtify sites and avoiding or protecting ideentified sites. Habitat pre‐disturb
restoration
n would gene
erally benefit traditional usse plants, butt the use of herbicides cou
uld affect traditionall use plant gathering. 11
West Eugene Wetla
ands 

There would be no reasonablyy foreseeable
e effects of fuuture rights‐off‐way. There would be no reassonably foreseeable effectts of locatable
e or leaseablee mineral devvelopment. Th
here would be no eral developm
ment. effects of future saleable mine
mentation wou
uld be approxximately $4966,000 for the Proposed RM
MP, Totaal annual costts for implem
the third highest of the alternatives. The cost of implementatiion will be low
wer under the
e Proposed R MP than the No Action Allternative and
d will be lower thaan current maanagement co
osts. The use of herbicidess and the con
ncomitant deccrease in the acres of other treaatments (mow
wing and other manual tre
eatments) woould reduce the costs for habitat managemen
nt. New Inform
mation The analysiss in the Final EIS was based
d on the best available infoormation at tthe time the analysis was conducted. Some data, such as Geographic Information System (GIS) data is continually being refined and adjusted, an
nd it is expectted that refine
ements and adjustments iin GIS data will occur durin
ng Plan implementaation. Plan evaaluations review the land use plan to d etermine if plan decisionss are implemeented er the associated NEPA anaalysis are still valid. Changes that do no
ot expand thee as expected, and whethe
he Approved RMP scope of ressource uses or restrictions or change the terms, condditions, and decisions of th
e. Changes thaat would expand the scope of resourcee uses would be acccomplished through Plan maintenance
or restrictions or change the terms, co
onditions, and
d decisions inn the Approveed RMP would
d be accompllished through Plan
n amendment or revision. Since the release of the Final EIS, new
w information has arisen reelevant to soils analysis conducted in he RMP. Recent (2014) soill chemistry re
esearch resultts have confirrmed that graay clay within
n the designing th
West Eugene Wetlands iss smectitic montmorillinite
e clay. When conducting GLEAMS modeling analysiss for the EIS, the specific type of gray clay was unknown
n. Smectitic m ontmorillinitte clay was ussed in the ecause it posssesses high sh
hrink/swell ch
haracteristics,, which had been observed characteristics modeling be
of the gray clay in the We
est Eugene Wetlands. As this new inforrmation confirms the accuracy of the n using the GLLEAMS modell, it does not result in effeccts outside th
he range analyzed assumptionss made when
in the Final EIS and, there
efore, does no
ot require supplementatioon of the Finaal EIS. Altternative
esConside
ered
Seven altern
natives for the
e BLM‐admin
nistered landss and resourcees were analyyzed in the Fiinal EIS: the No native 1, the Proposed RM
MP, Alternativ e 2B, and Alteernatives 3A,, 3B, and 3C. The Action Alternative, Altern
Final EIS (Ch
hapter 2) provvides a detaile
ed description of the land use allocatio
ons, Area of Critical ntal Concern designation, and managem
ment objectiv es and directtion of each alternative. Environmen
All alternativves considere
ed two land use allocations, the Prairie Restoration Area and the Natural Maintenancce Area. Variation in the de
esign of the alternatives reesulted from variations in the extent an
nd location of the land use allocations an
nd manageme
ent direction t o resolve thee planning isssues. In addition CEC. The to the two laand use allocaations, some alternatives included alloccation of the Long Tom AC
managemen
nt needed to protect the re
elevant and important val ues of the Lo
ong Tom ACEC
C would be consistent with the manaagement obje
ectives and management d irection iden
ntified in the Prairie 12 Record of Decisio
on
Resto
oration Area. In alternative
es that would include the L ong Tom sitee in the Prairie Restoration
n Area, such as the
e Proposed RM
MP, there wo
ould be no ne
eed for any sppecial manageement other than the man
nagement ed throughou
ut the Prairie Restoration Area land usee allocation. Therefore, thee Proposed RM
MP and applie
altern
natives that in
ncluded the Long Tom site
e in the Prairiee Restoration
n Area would not designatee the Long Tom site as an ACEEC. The key fe
eatures (allocations, designnations, and managementt direction) off the natives are summarized an
nd compared in Table 1 in the Final EIS. The key impacts of the alternatives altern
are su
ummarized an
nd compared in Table 3 in the Final EIS.. The Final EISS is hereby incorporated by ence. refere
As a result of the in
nformation gained in the analysis in thee Draft EIS, th
he Proposed RMP was dessigned so that the Proposed RMP would better meet the purpose a nd need, and
d that future actions taken
n in accordance with th
he Proposed RMP would be anticipatedd to avoid or reduce adverrse environmental impaccts and have favorable outtcomes for vaarious resourcces and progrrams, compared to other alternatives.
Becau
use all the acttion alternativves were designed to addrress the purp
pose and need
d for the actio
on, they share a relative commonality in
n their objectiives. Howeveer, the land usse allocationss and manageement directtion by which the objective
es would be achieved throough future actions varies among the alternatives. dress threate
ened and endaangered speccies habitat reestoration and provision of other All altternatives add
beneffits. Objecctives for habitat restoratio
on and management weree addressed in
n the No Action Alternativve, native 1, and Alternatives 3B and 3C thrrough a mix o f managemeent direction that excluded
d the use of Altern
herbiccides. Alternaative 2B, Alternative 3A, an
nd the Propo sed RMP add
dressed habitaat restoration
n and management through the same
e mix of manaagement direection but also
o included the use of herb
bicides. na habitats would not be Analyysis in the Finaal EIS determined that, witthout herbici de use, prairiie and savann
restorred to meet high quality habitat conditions. As a ressult, the No Action alternative and Alternatives 3B and 3C would resto
ore no high quality prairie or oak savannna. Alternatiive 1 would reestore high quality ning area. Thee Proposed RMP and Alterrnative 2B wo
ould restore prairie and oak savvanna in mostt of the plann
high quality prairie
e and oak savanna in mostt of the designnated critical habitat. Alteernative 2B an
nd the Propo
osed RMP would create the most well‐cconnected neetwork of high
h quality prairie and savan
nna habitat urrently occup
pied by of all alternatives. Alternative 3A would resttore high qua lity prairie in most sites cu
listed species. The planning area currently pro
ovides recreattion opportunnities for bicyycling, hiking, bird watchin
ng, and educaational activitties. The Fern Ridge Path through the p lanning area receives conssistently heavvy bicycle and pedestrian use
e. The quantitty of recreation opportuniities would reemain unchan
nged under all altern
natives for all sites in the planning area except Stewaart Pond under Alternativee 3C and the Proposed d have substantially increased recreatioon opportunitties. Under th
he Proposed RMP and RMP, which would
Altern
native 3C, Ste
ewart Pond would be desiggnated as a Sppecial Recreaation Manageement Area fo
or the development of a disc golf courrse. Overwhelming public support for a disc golf cou
urse was received during 0‐day comme
ent period on the Draft EISS.
the 30
13
West Eugene Wetla
ands Alternativess 1, 2B, 3A, an
nd 3B would fail to coordin
nate managem
ment for opportunities of traditional usse plant collecttion througho
out the Naturral Maintenan
nce Area if im
mplemented in
n future actio
ons. The ed Tribes of Grand Ronde have expressed interest inn collecting trraditional usee plant materiials in Confederate
the planningg area, including but not limited to; cam
mas, tarweed,, rushes, willo
ows, and hazeel. Habitat restoration would generaally benefit trraditional use
e plants, but t he use of herrbicides could
d adversely afffect hering. Herbiccide use woulld not be allo wed under A
Alternatives 2B
B and 3A on the traditional use plant gath
Stewart Pon
nd and Eastern Gateway sittes, which Th
he Confederatted Tribes of Grand Rondee tribe identiffied ditional use pllant gatheringg. Herbicide m anagement in the Naturaal Maintenan
nce as potential sites for trad
Area under the Proposed
d RMP would be coordinatted with The C onfederated
d Tribes of Grrand Ronde to
o identify application locations, timings,, rotations, an
nd target speecies to meet weeds and in
nvasive plantss managemen
nt needs and enhancing op
pportunities for traditiona l use plants where possiblle. Additionally, an agreement with the tribe
e the option for excluding herbicide usee in some Nattural Mainten
nance Area paarcels can be determined at a laater date und
der a signed Memorandum
m of Understaanding. As described
d in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS, the No Action Alternaative would not meet the purpose and need on. The analyssis in the Finaal EIS indicate
es that the maanagement direction provided in Altern
native for the actio
1, Alternativve 2B, and Altternatives 3A,, 3B, and 3C would fail to m eet some aspect of the purpose and need emented in fu
uture actions,, would have resulted in suubstantive ad
dverse impactts or relatively low and, if imple
favorable ou
utcomes for various resources and proggrams. For exxample, Altern
natives 1, 3B,, and 3C would each fail to restore high quality savanna habitats iff implemente d in future acctions. Alternatives 3B and
d 3C o increase populations of BLM sensitive
e vascular pla nt species to contribute to
o recovery targets would fail to
if implemented in future actions; wou
uld fail to mee
et all recoveryy targets for all listed plants if implemeented in future acttions; would fail to meet re
ecovery targe
ets for Fenderr’s blue butteerfly habitat quality and nt if implemented in future
e actions; and
d would lead to eventual declines in po
opulations of all managemen
listed plantss if implementted in future actions. Of all the altternatives con
nsidered, the Proposed RM
MP best meetts the purposse and need while anticipaated to have relatively low advverse environ
nmental impaacts and favorrable outcom
mes for resourrces and proggrams ons taken consistent with the Plan. as a result of future actio
Environmen
ntally Prefera
able Alternatiive Environmen
ntal preferencce is judged based on the criteria expre ssed in the reegulations im
mplementing the ntally National Envvironmental Policy Act. The Council of Environmentaal Quality hass stated, “Thee environmen
preferable alternative is the alternativve that will prromote the naational enviro
onmental pollicy as expresssed in NEPA’s Se
ection 101. Orrdinarily, this means the alternative thaat causes the least damage to the biolo
ogical nt; it also meaans the altern
native that beest protects, preserves, and
d enhances and physical environmen
historic, culttural, and nattural resource
es,” (Question
n 6s. Council on Environmental Qualityy, Forty Most Asked Questtions Concern
ning CEQ’s NEEPA Regulatio
ons, March 233, 1981). Title I, Sectio
on 101(b) of the National Environmentaal Policy Act e stablishes th
he following goals: 14 Record of Decisio
on






fulfill the responsibilitie
es of each gen
neration as trrustee of the environmentt for succeediing generation
ns; assure for all Americanss safe, health
hful, productivve, and estheetically and cu
ulturally pleassing ngs; surroundin
attain the widest range
e of beneficiall uses of the e nvironment without degrradation, riskk to health or safety, or other unde
esirable and unintended c onsequencess; mportant histtoric, culturall, and naturall aspects of our national heritage; and maintain, preserve im
whenever possible, an environment which suppoorts diversity and variety of individual choice; achieve a balance betw
ween population and resouurce use whicch will permit high standarrds of living and wide sharing of life
e’s amenities; and enhance th
he quality of renewable re
esources and approach thee maximum attainable reccycling of e resources. depletable
The effects of future actions consistent with each of the a lternatives at the scale off the planningg area of the timeframes analyzed in the Final EIS are complex andd difficult to ssummarize intto a single staatement of onmental pre
eference. For many resources, implemeentation of th
he managemeent direction of the No enviro
n Alternative would cause the least dam
mage to the b iological and
d physical envvironment of all Action
altern
natives. Howe
ever, the No Action Alternaative would n ot meet the purpose and need for thee action and therefore is not a reasonable allternative. Of all the action altternatives, th
he Proposed RMP is the ennvironmentally preferable alternative. The wing rationale
e is not intend
ded to provid
de a completee list of favoraable outcomees anticipated
d under the follow
Propo
osed RMP butt to highlight those areas in which favo rable outcom
mes are anticipated to be substantially er than those
e under the otther alternatiives. greate
Most acres are antticipated to be allocated to
o the Prairie R estoration Area land use allocation un
nder the Propo
osed RMP thaan the other alternatives except Alternaative 1. Altho
ough the Prop
posed RMP wo
ould allocaate less land to this restoraation land use
e allocation thhan Alternative 1, the Praiirie Restoratio
on Area coinciides with critical habitats and high‐quality habitats f or threateneed and endanggered speciess and is speciffically designe
ed to meet th
he recovery needs identifieed in the Reco
overy Plan. The Proposed RMP
P is the only alternative the implement ation of whicch would inco
orporate herb
bicide appliccation in man
nagement of noxious weed
ds and invasivve (native and
d non‐native) plants in thee Natural Mainttenance Areaa. The Proposed RMP
P is the only alternative the implement ation of whicch would inco
orporate collaaborative management of traditional use plants througghout the Naatural Maintenance Area. The Proposed RMP
P is one of only two alternatives (the seecond being Alternative 2B
B) the implem
mentation of h would resto
ore high qualitty prairie and
d oak habitat in all designaated critical haabitat, and would create which
the most well‐conn
nected netwo
ork of high qu
uality prairie a nd savanna habitat. 15
West Eugene Wetla
ands The Propose
ed RMP is one
e of only two alternatives (the second b eing Alternaative 3C) the implementatiion of which would
d increase reccreational opportunities by establishingg a Special Reecreation Man
nagement Area at nd. Stewart Pon
Miitigation
The regulations impleme
enting the Nattional Environ
nmental Policcy Act state th
hat mitigation
n includes avoiding, miinimizing, recctifying, reduccing, eliminating, or compeensating for adverse envirronmental impacts. The
e analysis of the Proposed RMP in the Final EIS indiccated that levvels of impactts from implementaation of future
e actions for the various re
esources wouuld be anticipated to be low
marily w. This is prim
most all measu
ures to avoid,, rectify, or re
educe environnmental impaacts were inco
orporated intto the because alm
design of the Proposed RMP where prracticable and
d consistent w ith meeting the purpose and need of the onal site‐speccific project‐le
evel mitigatio
on measures t hat are conssistent with ap
pproved RMP
P Plan. Additio
objectives and direction may be imple
emented as determined neecessary thro
ough site‐speccific analysis at the listed in
time of the project, but are not specifically
f
n the Approveed RMP. Pla
anMonito
oringand
dEvaluatiions
The effectiveness of future actions implemented in
n accordance with the App
proved RMP will be monito
ored in accordancce with the monitoring plaan attached to
o this docum ent. The apprroved monito
oring plan dettails orting intervals, the monitorring strategy to be used, monitoring questions, proggram reporting items, repo
and an adap
ptive management processs. The monitorring plan is de
esigned to foccus specifically on monitorring the resou
urce management plan itsself and is not in
ntended as an
n overarching plan that add
dresses all onngoing monito
oring and ressearch effortss. The ence question
ns or issues off a regional or interagencyy scale. Theree are monitoring plan does nott address scie
many ongoing local, regio
onal, interage
ency, and rese
earch (sciencce‐based) effo
orts in which the BLM participates. For lands in the West Euggene Wetland
ds, this includdes interagen
ncy monitoring efforts such
h as ue butterfly population mo
onitoring and continuing reesearch efforrts for habitatt restoration such Fender’s blu
as the Fern Ridge projectt. Soil and watter chemistryy research andd monitoringg continues in relation to th
he und in the plaanning area. These other efforts also haave unique characteristics of the smectiticc gray clay fou
important im
mplications fo
or BLM‐admin
nistered landss and resourcces in the Weest Eugene Wetlands. Adaptive maanagement will be applied
d by acting on
n information found througgh monitoring. Adaptive managemen
nt associated with monitorring will include correctivee actions preccipitated by fiindings of non
n‐
compliance. Corrective action precipittated by mon
nitoring can raange from sim
mple changess in administraative procedures, refinements of the plan through plan maintenancee, or more sub
bstantive changes through
h plan amendmentts. In addition to monitoringg results, new
w information or changed c ircumstances will be evaluated to e and if changges in resourcce managemeent plan decissions or chan
nges in supporting determine itts significance
NEPA analysses would be warranted. Adaptive management toools and proced
dures that will be used to make onitoring information, new
w information
n, or changed circumstancees changes in the plan in ressponse to mo
include: plan
n maintenancce, plan evalu
uations, plan amendmentss, and plan revvisions. 16 on
Record of Decisio
The Approved RMP will be form
mally evaluate
ed at five‐year intervals. In
n addition to the monitorin
ng results, underrlying assump
ptions regarding levels of activities and anticipated environmentaal consequen
nces will be e‐year plan evaluation to d etermine if plan objectivves are being met or are examined at the time of the five
likely to be met. Th
he evaluation
n will also asse
ess whether c hanged circu
umstances orr new informaation have create
ed a situation
n in which exp
pected impaccts or environ mental conseequences of the Plan are significantly d in the Final EIS. The plann evaluation will make a fin
nding of whetther or not different than thosse anticipated
a plan
n amendmentt or plan revission is warran
nted. In addittion to formal evaluations at five year in
ntervals, a plan evaluation maay be conducted to addresss changed ci rcumstances or new inforrmation that would substantially call in
nto question the underlyin
ng assumptionns, anticipateed environmeental consequ
uences, or decisiions of the Plaan. PublicInvolvem
ment
The fo
ormal scopingg period startted with printting of the Nootice of Intentt in the Federral Register o
on June 8, 2011, and concluded on July 8, 2011. In addiition, the BLM
M sent a scop
ping letter to 49 individualss, nizations, and agencies thaat have an interest in BLM management within this planning areaa. On June organ
22, 20
011, the Euge
ene Register‐G
Guard newspaper publisheed a news sto
ory on the Weest Eugene Wetlands RMP scoping proce
ess and provided contact information f or scoping co
omments. The BLM received thirteen com
mments duringg the formal s coping perio
od and one co
omment afterr the close e formal scoping period. Aggencies and organizationss providing co
omments inclu
uded: the Envvironmental of the
Protection Agency, the City of Eugene Parks and Open Sppace Division, the Long Tom
m Watershed
d Council, the North Americaan Butterfly Association, In
nstitute for Appplied Ecologgy, The Naturee Conservanccy, Oregon nts were from
m individuals. One commen
nt was submitted on a Wild, and Friends of Eugene. Otther commen
comp
pact disc maile
ed to the BLM
M; one comment was provvided as a teleephone conveersation; all other ments were su
ubmitted as email. The BLM
M received a comment lettter after the close of the formal comm
scopin
ng period from the U.S. Arrmy Corps of Engineers. The BLM prepared
d a scoping report, which summarizes thhe results of scoping including a summary of the issuess raised. The scoping report and scoping comments are available at: mp.php. http:///www.blm.gov/or/districtts/eugene/plans/eugenerm
The BLM received more than 80
0 comments on the Draft E IS during a 3‐month comment period.. Agencies and organizations providing com
mments inclu
uded: the Envvironmental Protection Ageency, the Cityy of Eugene Parks and Open Sp
pace Division, the Long Tom
m Watershedd Council, the North Ameriican Butterflyy Assocciation, Institu
ute for Applie
ed Ecology, Th
he Nature Connservancy, Oregon Wild, and Friends of Eugene. Otherr comments were from ind
dividuals. Most commentss were submittted as emailss, or attachments to nse to comme
ents on comm
ments receiveed on the Draft RMP/Draftt EIS are included as emails. The respon
Appen
ndix G in the Proposed RM
MP/Final EIS.
The Final EIS for th
he Proposed RMP was provvided to the G overnor of Oregon on Seeptember 30, 2014, to begin the 60‐day Governor’s co
onsistency revview. This revview ended November 30, 2014, with no ments received from the Governor’s offfice. comm
17
West Eugene Wetla
ands The Final EISS for the Prop
posed RMP was released in
n November 2 014. On Novvember 21, 2014, a Federaal Register nottice was publiished announ
ncing the begiinning of a 300‐day protestt period for th
he Proposed RMP. d December 22, 2014, with no protestss received. This protest period ended
Formal Coop
perators The Council on Environm
mental Qualityy NEPA regulaations specify that a Federal agency, staate agency, lo
ocal governmentt, or tribal govvernment maay qualify as a cooperatingg agency becaause of “... jurrisdiction by law or special exxpertise.” 1) Jurissdiction by law means “... agency autho
ority to approove, veto, or finance all or part of the prop
posal.” (40 CFFR 1508.15). e means “... sttatutory respo
onsibility, ageency mission,, or related program 2) Speccial expertise
expe
erience.” (40 CFR 1508.26). Cooperatorss provide expertise in mucch of the subje
ect matter beeing analyzed
d, and some cooperators can provide advice based on experiences with similar planning efforrts. The BLM invited the U.S. Fish and my Corps of En
ngineers, Cityy of Eugene P arks and Opeen Space Divission, and the Wildlife Servvice, U.S. Arm
Confederate
ed Tribes of Grand Ronde to be cooperaators in the p reparation off this RMP. Th
he U.S. Army Corps of Enggineers, City of Eugene Parrks and Open Space Divisioon, and the Confederated Tribes of Graand ed to be coop
perators. The U.S. Fish and
d Wildlife Servvice declined the BLM invitation to be a Ronde agree
cooperator. Governmen
nt‐to‐Governm
ment Relation
nships The BLM invvited potentiaally affected tribes ‐ The Co
onfederated T ribes of Grand Ronde, Co
onfederated Tribes of the
e Coos, Lower Umpqua, an
nd Siuslaw Ind
dians, the Connfederated TTribes of Siletzz Indians, and
d the Confederate
ed Tribes of Warm Springs ‐ to participaate in governm
ment‐to‐goveernment coorrdination in the nt of this RMP
P. The BLM mailed scopingg letters to th e tribes provviding informaation about th
he developmen
planning pro
ocess and the
e planning are
ea and inviting their involvvement. Nonee of the tribess provided an
ny comments during the forrmal scoping period. In add
dition, the BLLM telephoneed cultural ressources direcctors quire whetheer they needeed additional information or and natural resources maanagers of the tribes to inq
would like to
o receive a brriefing on the
e RMP. The Co
onfederated T ribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and
d Siuslaw Indians responde
ed that they do not wish to
o be involved in the planning process, because the planning are
ea is outside of their ancesstral territory. Members off the RMP teaam have met several times with staff off The Confede
erated Tribes of Grande Ro
onde to proviide more info
ormation on the RMP and the ocess; discusss developmen
nt of the RMP
P; and receivee input from the tribal stafff. planning pro
Consultation
n The BLM has completed in March 201
13 a conservattion review o f the West Eu
ugene Wetlan
nds RMP with
h the d Wildlife Serrvice under se
ection 7(a)(1) of the Endanngered Speciees Act, in addition to U.S. Fish and
w under sectio
on 7(a)(1), tho
ough conducting formal consultation underr section 7(a)((2). A conservvation review
not required
d for land management plaanning, allow
wed the BLM t o gain the ad
dvice of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servvice earlier in the planningg process than
n the formal c onsultation process undeer section 7(aa)(2). 18 Record of Decisio
on
This conservation review is app
propriate for this planning process becaause of the un
nique conditio
ons of this planning area, including the abu
undance of designated crittical habitat in the plannin
ng area, the relationship e Recovery Plaan to the plan
nning effort, and the centrral role of maanagement off threatened and of the
endan
ngered specie
es in the RMP
P. As part of formal consultation under section
n 7(a)(2) of th e Endangered
d Species Actt, the BLM preepared a Biologgical Assessm
ment (BA) on the effect of the RMP on FFender’s blue butterfly, strreaked horned lark, pot butterfly, Willamette daisy, Bradshaaw’s lomatium
m, Kincaid’s lu
upine, golden
n Taylor’s checkersp
brush, and de
esignated crittical habitat fo
or Fender’s bblue butterfly,, Willamette daisy, and Kin
ncaid’s paintb
e. This BA was submitted to the U.S. Fissh and Wildliffe Service for use in develo
oping a Biologgical lupine
Opinion on these species. The Biological Opinion was rec eived Augustt 11, 2014, an
nd concluded that the adopttion of the Proposed RMP would not jeopardize the continued exxistence of an
ny listed speccies dered, nor wo
ould it adverssely modify th
heir critical haabitat. Consu
ultation on other threateneed or consid
endan
ngered specie
es found in th
he region, succh as northernn spotted ow
wl, marbled murrelet, bull trout, or Orego
on chub, will not be necesssary, because
e there are noo populationss or existing or potential habitat for these species in the planning arrea. The Biological Opin
nion from the
e U.S. Fish and
d Wildlife Serrvice included
d an Incidentaal Take Statem
ment for Fende
er’s blue butterfly. Detection of inciden
ntal take on inndividuals of this species iss recognized to be ult to determine within the
e project areaa. As such, evven though in
ncidental takee is expected to occur difficu
from managementt actions unde
er the Propossed RMP, dat a are not suffficiently available to enable the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to estimate an exacct number of individuals. For this reaso
on, the amoun
nt or extent of incidental take was issued ussing the maximum acres o f habitat areaa that could be treated on an annual basis as a surrogatte. These acre
es are identified by managgement activitty and are listted in detail in the Biologgical Opinion (pp. 109‐10),, which is herreby incorporrated by referrence. The Bio
ological Opinion ntal Take State
ement on thee streaked ho
orned lark. Occcupancy with
hin the deferred issuance of an Inciden
planning area by th
his species waas only verifie
ed a short tim
me ago (durin
ng 2013), and little data is available on the paatterns of hab
bitat use. Bassed on the efffects analysis of managem
ment actions under the Pro
oposed ently insufficiient informattion available to determinee if take of th
he streaked ho
orned lark is RMP, there is curre
likely to occur. The
e BLM shall su
ubmit all need
ded informattion to the U.SS. Fish and Wildlife Servicee to for orned lark if t hey are enco
ountered. Provided that the reported assesssment of incidental take of streaked ho
action
n is consistent with the analysis describ
bed in the Bioological Opinio
on, a project((s) specific Inccidental Take Statement/taake exemption (as approprriate) will be provided to the BLM as an
n amendmentt to the Biologgical Opinion.. Consu
ultation with the National Marine Fishe
eries Service u nder the End
dangered Speecies Act was not necesssary, because
e the planning area contaiins no threateened or endaangered anadromous fish or design
nated critical habitat for listed anadrom
mous fish.
19
West Eugene Wetla
ands Re
ecommen
ndation
I have consid
dered how th
he alternative
es analyzed in
n the Final EISS meet the pu
urpose and neeed, the associated environmentaal impacts, an
nd public inpu
ut. Based on t hese consideerations, I recommend app
proval of the attach
hed RMP for the West Euggene Wetland
ds on the Siusslaw Resourcee Area of the Eugene Distrrict. __________
______________________
_
____________ _ Kathryn Stan
ngl District Man
nager,
Eugene District BLM
_______________________ Da te Ap
pproval
I approve th
he attached RMP for the West Eugene Wetlands as r ecommended. This Recorrd of Decision
n is effective immediately. ______________________
_
____________ _ __________
Jerome E. Pe
erez State Director, o
Oregon/Washington BLM
M 20 _______________________ Date Resource Man
nagement Pla
an
Resou
urceMa
anagem
mentPla
an
21
West Eugene Wetla
ands Inttroductio
on
This docume
ent describes the RMP of the Bureau off Land Managgement Eugen
ne District’s West Eugene Wetlands. The Eugene District of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) h as developed this RMP fo
or the West Eugene Wettlands plannin
ng area, which is comprise
ed of BLM‐adm
ministered land within and
d near the citty of egon. The planning area includes the ap
pproximately 1,340 acres of BLM‐admin
nistered land and Eugene, Ore
96 acres of lands on whicch BLM has an
n ownership interest (consservation eassement) withiin and near th
h e city of Eugen
ne, Oregon, described as the West Eugene Wetland s (see Figure 1). The plann
ning area is made es, and most lands were accquired with funds approp
priated from the up of acquirred lands or survey hiatuse
Land and Water Conservaation Fund. This RMP onlyy addresses m anagement of BLM‐admin
nistered lands in ugene Wetlands. the West Eu
This RMP co
onsists of land
d use allocatio
ons, managem
ment objectivves, and manaagement direection. 


Land
d use allocatiions are areas where speccific activities are allowed, restricted, orr excluded in all or partt of the planning area. nagement ob
bjectives desccribe the desired outcome s from managgement of a particular Man
reso
ource. Man
nagement dirrections provvide measuress that will be applied to planning activitties to achievve the man
nagement objjectives for re
esources. Managemen
nt direction will be used where and when necessaryy and practicaal to achieve management objectives. However, the BLM may no
ot apply a man
nagement dirrection when: 


Site‐specific circu
umstances wo
ould make ap
pplication of t he managem
ment direction
n unnecessaryy to achiieve RMP objectives. Site‐specific circu
umstances wo
ould make ap
pplication of t he managem
ment direction
n impractical. plication of the manageme
ent direction would be incoonsistent with
h other RMP decisions. App
See Appendiix A ‐ Guidancce for the Usee of the Resou
urce Managem
ment Plan an
nd Appendix B ‐ Monitoring
g for the monitorring that will be conducted
d and reported. 22 Resource Man
nagement Pla
an
West Eugene Wetlands
Resource Management Plan
Partner Landowners
~ City of Eugene
~ Army Corps of Engineers
k::::J The Nature Concervancy
. . BLM
(©~==-,---=-=
- - - v n P L-
J__ -·~
- --=u--~
. ..
- - =--~
I
r
I
-~/1
l
Figure 1. BLM and West Eugene Wetland partnership adm
ministered lan
nds.
23
West Eugene Wetla
ands La
andUseAlllocationss/Manage
ementDe
ecisions
The BLM‐administered laands within th
he West Euge
ene Wetlands planning areea are allocateed to the following tw
wo land use alllocations (see Figure 2):  Prairie Restoratio
on Area (556 acres) ural Maintenaance Area (78
84 acres)  Natu
Prairie Re
estoration Area Manage
ement Objecttive  Resttore, enhance
e, and maintaain habitat for prairie‐relatted species.
Man
nagement Dirrection  Apply vegetaation management treatments, includinng prescribed
d burning, nattive plant seeding, mowing, and
d manual conttrol, as neede
ed to restore and maintain
n high qualityy habitat for ed species. prairie‐relate
 Apply herbicides for vegettation contro
ol where presccribed burnin
ng, manual, mechanical, an
n d other non‐ch
hemical vegettation treatments do not p rovide sufficcient vegetatio
on control for restoration and maintenance of high quality habitatt for prairie‐rrelated speciees. Herbicidess may be used for control of noxxious weeds, invasive non‐‐native plantss, and invasive native plants. Use standard
d operating procedures forr herbicide appplication (seee Appendix E).  Allow collecttion of traditio
onal use plants where connsistent with other resourcce objectives and subject to restrictions as needed to avo
oid conflict w ith restoratio
on and mainttenance of higgh quality habitat for prairie‐‐related species. Collectionn of traditional use plants would also be oid resource damage and to provide fo
or the continu
ued subject to restrictions as needed to avo
availability off traditional use plants.  Exclude new rights‐of‐wayy, subject to valid existing rights and with the excep
ption of buried
d lines in the riights‐of‐way of existing roads.  Close to saleable mineral exploration, developmentt, and disposaal. Natural Maintenance Area Manage
ement Objecttive  Maintain and enh
hance existing plant and animal habitatt and providee opportunitiees for a varietty of goods and services. Man
nagement Dirrection  Apply vegetaation management treatments, includinng prescribed
d burning, mo
owing, and maanual control, as ne
eeded to control noxious weeds and in vasive nativee and non‐nattive plant speecies. 24 Resource Man
nagement Pla
an
 Maintaain and enhance remnant higher‐qualitty prairie hab
bitat patches, Bureau sensitive species/species of concern habittat sites, seedd collection sites, and trad
ditional use pllant sites, using vegetation management treatments, inncluding prescribed burnin
ng, mowing, and manual ol. contro
 Apply herbicides fo
or vegetation control wherre prescribed burning, man
nual, mechan
nical, and other non‐chemical vegetation treatments doo not providee sufficient veegetation con
ntrol for enance and enhancement of existing p lant and anim
mal habitats. Herbicides may be used mainte
for con
ntrol of noxio
ous weeds, invvasive non‐naative plants, and invasive native plants to achieve habitat goals identiified as part of recovery orr delisting or for conservattion managem
ment of dard operatinng proceduress for herbicidee application (see special status species. Use stand
Appen
ndix E).  Managge sites for th
he availability and accessibbility of traditional use to the extent feaasible and subjecct to demand for traditionaal use plant c ollection.  Allow collection of traditional usse plants wheere consistentt with other resource objeectives and subjecct to restrictio
ons as needed
d to avoid ressource damagge and to provide for the continued bility of tradittional use plants. availab
 Application of herb
bicides in areaas identified f or collection of traditional use plants would be timed and located so that herbiccide applicati on would nott impede opp
portunities for plant collecttion. Where herbicide use would impedde collection of traditionall use plants, and ote or preservve the occurrence or herbicide use has not been identified as needded to promo
persisttence of desirred plant or animal habita ts, herbicide application would be proh
hibited.  Close to saleable mineral explorration, develoopment, and disposal. 25
ands West Eugene Wetla
West Eugene Wetlands
Resource Management Plan
Land Use Allocations
[0i?J Natural Maintenance
~ Prairie Restoration Area
I
0.55
u
Figure 2. We
est Eugene Wetlands RMP
P Land Use Alllocations.
26 Resource Man
nagement Pla
an
ResourrcePrograms/Man
nagementtActions
The management direction liste
ed in this secttion by individdual resourcee program will be applied in any land use alllocation, unless otherwise
e specified. Air Quality/Pre
escribed Burning/W
Wildfire Sup
ppression
Management Objectives  Avoid impaacts to air quality in non‐aattainment arreas.
 Reduce haazards to the public, fire‐figghters, and reesources from
m prescribed burning.
on of wildfiree.
 Reduce rissk to public, fiire‐fighters, and resourcess through actiive suppressio
Management Direction
n  Implem
ment prescrib
bed burns in compliance w ith Lane Reggional Air Prottection Agenccy and unit‐
specifiic Prescribed Fire Burn Plans.  Implem
ment prescrib
bed burning in
n late summeer and early faall, when soils have low moisture pport fire‐figh
hting vehicles without dam
mage to the so
oils. valuess, and can sup
 Ignite prescribed bu
urns by hand,, using propa ne torches, fu
usees, hand‐llaunched flares, drip torche
es, and/or sim
milar devices.
 Suppre
ess unplanned ignitions (w
wildfire) to miinimize risk to
o values whilee minimizing resource damagge caused by suppression operations.  Accom
mplish fire con
ntrol/suppresssion with thee use of existing barriers, wet‐lining, firee‐retardant foam, fire‐retardan
nt gel, and/or mowing an a rea approxim
mately 10‐20 feet wide aro
ound the outside boundary of the burn un
nit. Where neecessary to minimize risk tto values due to woody plished by con
nstructing a fuels, topography, or critical holding points, f ire control will be accomp
fireline
e composed of bare‐minerral soil: reseeeding would be required. Avoid fire retaardant chemicals or use sp
paringly near listed plant s pecies and fo
ollow labeled restrictions and state elines for use
e near water.
regulations or guide
 Restricct vehicle travvel necessaryy to accomplissh fire contro
ol/suppression
n primarily to
o the perime
eter of the bu
urn unit. Vehiicle travel witthin the interior of the burrn unit is limitted to onsolidate ve
ehicle travel w ithin units to
o minimize nu
umber of traiils. tacticaal missions. Co
 Implem
ment mop‐up
p and line con
nstruction opeerations in a manner to minimize mixin
ng or displaccement of soils and to avo
oid damaging of anthills. Ground‐disturbing operatio
ons would ndangered require reseeding. Mop‐up and line construc tion would avvoid all threatened and en
and bu
ureau sensitivve sites, as feasible. 27
West Eugene Wetla
ands Plants Manage
ement Objecttives  Maintain and enh
hance habitatt for Willame
ette daisy andd Bradshaw’s lomatium to support three 1
populations of each species of at least 5,0
000 individualls each.  Maintain and enh
hance habitatt for Kincaid’ss lupine to suupport a total of 7,500 square meters of plan
nt cover in thrree populatio
ons that are sttable or increeasing for 10 years.  Maintain and enh
hance habitatt for golden paintbrush to support one population of at least 1,0
000 flow
wering individuals that is sttable or increasing over 5 y ears.  Maintain and enh
hance habitatt for the BLM
M sensitive plaants shaggy horkelia, Hitch
hcock’s blue‐eeyed grasss, cluster goldweed, and Oregon timwo
ort to supporrt three populations of eacch species of at hat are stable
e or increasingg over 10 yeaars. least 5,000 indiviiduals each th
 Maintain and enh
hance habitatt for the BLM
M sensitive plaant thin‐leaveed peavine to support one population of at least 1,000 in
ndividuals thaat is stable or increasing ovver 10 years.  Maintain and enh
hance habitatt for the BLM
M sensitive plaant white‐top
pped aster to support a 500 square meters that is stable or incrreasing over 10 years. population of 7,5
 Maintain and enh
hance high qu
uality wet praairie for the B LM sensitive mosses Brucchia flexuosa, Ephemerum crasssinervium, an
nd Ephemerum
m serratum.
opulation reco
overy objectivves for plantss. Table 1. Po
Species # of Population
ns
Willamettte daisy 3 Bradshaw
w’s lomatium 3 Kincaid’s lupine 3 golden paintbrush 1 shaggy ho
orkelia 3 Hitchcockk’s blue‐eyed grass 3 cluster goldenweed 3 Oregon tim
mwort 3 thin‐leave
ed peavine 1 white‐top
pped aster 1 Minimu
um Populatio
on Size 5,0000 individuals 5,0000 individuals 7,5000 square metters 1,0000 individuals 5,0000 individuals 5,0000 individuals 5,0000 individuals 5,0000 individuals 1,0000 individuals 7,5000 square metters Population Treend n/a n/a = or ^ for 10 yeears = or ^ for 5 yeears = or ^ for 10 yeears = or ^ for 10 yeears = or ^ for 10 yeears = or ^ for 10 yeears = or ^ for 10 yeears = or ^ for 10 yeears 1
In these manage
ement objectivves and throughout the analyysis conducted in the Final EISS, “population” is used in thee neral sense to refer to any disscrete group off individuals off a species. Froom a technical standpoint, “p
population” wo
ould gen
p of freely inte
erbreeding indiividuals sufficieently separated
d from other groups that theere is more accurately refer to a group
e use of a more
e general definition of populaation here maintains consisteency with the infrrequent or no gene flow. The
Reccovery Plan usaage (see, e.g., USFWS 2010, p. IV‐25). 28 Resource Man
nagement Pla
an
Management Direction
n  Apply the followingg managemen
nt tools as ne eded to resto
ore, enhance,, and maintain habitat: prescribed burning,, mowing, haying, thinningg, hand weed
ding, shade cloth, solarizattion, thermal treatmentss, tilling/disking, fill removval, raking, graazing, and plaant augmentaation.  Implem
ment prescrib
bed burning in
n late summeer or early fall after listed plant species have gone dormaant. See Air Quality for add
ditional manaagement direcction for implementing prescribed burns.  Mow using tractor mowers or haand‐held mow
wers to contrrol invasive plants and enh
hance prairie
e habitats.  On site
es with listed and Bureau sensitive plannts, generallyy mow in the late summer,, fall, and winterr, after listed plants have senesced for t he season (ggenerally afteer August 15 through Februaary). Mowing height will be sufficiently high to avoid
d soil gougingg or displacem
ment (generrally 6 inches on deck‐set mowers).  On site
es with listed plants where
e spring mow
wing is needed
d to control overwhelmingg weed infestaations, maintaain a buffer of 6 feet (radi us) from the nearest listed
d plants if thiss will meet the maanagement objective.  Apply thinning to co
ontrol and remove invasivve woody plan
nts and reducce tree densitty. Pile or chip alll cut material and spread away from poopulations off listed plantss or haul off‐ssite for dispossal or burningg.  Implem
ment hand weeding at anyy time of yearr. Generally reemove non‐n
native plant material off‐
site.  Do nott apply shade
e cloth, solarizzation, tilling//disking, or fiill removal clo
oser than 6 feeet (radius) to liste
ed plant species.  Rake as needed to reduce thatch
h build‐up. Raakes may be mounted on rubber trackeed tractors nd‐held. Rake after listed plants have goone dormant for the seaso
on. or han
 Apply grazing as ap
ppropriate under contract f or the purpo
ose of habitatt restoration or invasive plant control. If nee
eded for habitat restoratioon or invasivee plant contro
ol, graze at low
w or moderrate levels du
uring the dry season (typicaally after Auggust 1). Issue no leases for grazing.  Augme
ent populatio
ons of Bradshaw’s lomatiu m, Kincaid’s lupine, golden paintbrush,, and shaggy horkelia through planting of pluggs and seedinng.  Augme
ent populatio
ons of Willamette daisy, w hite‐topped aster, Hitchco
ock’s blue‐eyeed grass, thin‐le
eaved peavine
e, and clusterr goldweed thhrough planting of plugs.  Augme
ent populatio
ons of Oregon
n timwort by s eeding.  For augmentation of Willamette
e daisy, Bradsshaw’s lomatiium, and Kinccaid’s lupine, use genetic material derived fro
om within the
e population in the Eugenee West Recovvery Zone.  Do nott plant plugs within 6 feet (radius) of naaturally occurrring federallyy‐listed plantts.  Implem
ment plant au
ugmentation consistent w ith the guidelines in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
e Programmaatic Formal Co
onsultation o n Western Oregon Prairie Restoration Activities, Biological Opinion (USFWS 2008
8, pp. 16‐18).
29
West Eugene Wetla
ands 




Seed with naative upland and wet prairiie species to meet prairie diversity reco
overy targets,, especially aftter ground‐disturbing activvities. Do not operaate heavy machinery within 6 feet (radiius) of federaally‐listed plan
nts during thee growing seasson of the fed
derally‐listed plants (generrally Februaryy to August). Avoid using heavy machinery in
n areas wet en
nough that th
he machineryy causes perm
manent ruttingg/changes to hydrology at the site. Minimize use
e of heavy equipment, do not apply shaade cloth or solarization, and avoid creating thatch within
n 300 feet of large populattions (>100 sqquare meterss) of BLM sensitive mossess Bruchia flexu
uosa, Ephemeerum crassinervium, and Epphemerum seerratum. nt to remove m ud, debris, and vegetatio
on prior to Clean all vehicles and heavy equipmen
entering the project area to reduce the
e spread of nooxious weedss and non‐nattive plants. Implement protection me
easures such as stabilizatioon, fencing an
nd signing, or withdrawal for sites when th
hreatened by natural processes or hum
man activity. Brradshaw’s lom
matium 30 Resource Man
nagement Pla
an
West Eugene Wetlands
Resource Management Plan
Critical Habitat - Plants
~ Kincaid's lupine
~ Willamette daisy
I
0. 55
1.1
Figure
e 3. Botanicall critical habittats within the West Eugenne Wetlands RMP. 31
West Eugene Wetla
ands Wildlife Manage
ement Objecttives  Maintain and enh
hance habitatt for Fender’ss blue butterffly to supportt functioning populations that are stable or incrreasing to me
eet targets forr downlisting and delistingg of the speciees.  Maintain and enh
hance habitatt for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly to support functtioning
populations that are stable orr increasing.
hance habitatt for streaked
d horned lark to support fu
unctioning po
opulations thaat are  Maintain and enh
stab
ble or increasiing.  Maintain and enh
hance habitatt conditions for western ppond turtles to
o support pop
pulations that are stab
ble or increasiing.  Maintain and enh
hance up to four patches of at least 50 acres or morre of contiguo
ous high quality wet prairie or upland prairie ffor grassland birds, such ass Oregon vesp
per sparrow and grasshop
pper sparrrow.  Enhance forest habitats by inccreasing abun
ndance of snaags in forested plant comm
munities. hance 100 acres of oak wo
oodland habittats in patchees of at least 1
15 acres in size for  Maintain and enh
speccies associate
ed with oak woodlands, such as Lewis’ w oodpecker. Man
nagement Dirrection  Apply the following management toolss as needed t o restore, enhance, and maintain habittat: prescribed burning, mowiing, haying, th
hinning, handd weeding, sh
hade cloth, so
olarization, uring, raking, grazing, and plant thermal treattments, tillingg/disking, fill removal and soil recontou
augmentatio
on, as describe
ed above und
der Plants.  On sites with
h Fender’s blu
ue butterflies,, do not mow
w with tractorr mowers in th
he spring. Mo
owing with hand‐he
eld mowers may be implem
mented durinng the butterffly flight season (generallyy May east 25 feet iss maintained between thee mower and a 1 to June 30)) as long as a buffer of at le
Kincaid’s lupine plant. After the butterrfly flight seasson, but before Kincaid’s lu
upine senesceence (generally June 30 through August 15),, tractor mow
wing may occu
ur no closer than 6 feet fro
om ne plants. Traactor mowingg may be cond
ducted throughout sites with the nearest Kincaid’s lupin
Fender’s blue
e butterflies after Kincaid’s lupine seneescence and before lupine re‐emergencce ugust 15‐March 1). Mow to
o a height of at least 6 inches or greateer to reduce (generally Au
impacts to bu
utterfly larvae
e. nd‐nesting and
d other key b ird breeding areas during the nesting  Do not mow within groun
season (gene
erally April 15
5‐July 15). If sttreaked horn ed larks are found to be nesting, a bufffer ed around bre
eeding pair(s) or until Auggust 10. will be create
 Implement prescribed burning on sitess with Fenderr’s blue butterfly.  Raking may be used if burrning is not fe
easible to impplement on sites with Fend
der’s blue butterflies. Remove thatch and leaf littter off site. e butterflies, burn and/or rake no more than one‐th
hird  At sites with 100 or more Fender’s blue
of the occupied habitat acctively used by butterflies annually. At sites with less than 100 32 Resource Man
nagement Pla
an










Fender’s blue butte
erflies, burn and/or rake n o more than one‐quarter of the occupiied habitat ually. activelly used by butterflies annu
Create
e patches of bare ground, seed with a d iverse seed mix in order to create heteerogeneous structu
ure and varying vegetation
n heights (4 too 36 inches), and density for grassland bird habitat requirements. e nest sites foound during p
project implem
mentation and during Protecct any western pond turtle
surveyys. Install silt/drift fencces where needed to direcct western po
ond turtles aw
way from projject activities. Remove fences after project comp letion. or western po
ond turtle nessting Protecct and enhancce areas with suitable charracteristics fo
(typicaally sunny site
es on hard, co
ompacted cla y soils with so
outh to south
hwest facing slopes; short, sparse vegetation; and wiithin 500 feett of water bod
dies). Maintain short vegeetation and create
e bare soil are
eas for nest exxcavation. Coontrol woody species to prrevent encroaachment on ng of nest sitees. Recontourr soil or augm
ment with other soils if nesting areas and reduce shadin
needed to enhance
e nesting suitaability for we stern pond tu
urtle turtles. e nesting areaas for western
n pond turtle by building upland mound
Create
ds (typically at least 10 feet wide and 2 to 3 feet high) th
hat have a soouth or southw
west‐facing slope. Create mounds from soils excavate
ed on site or from other sittes within thee planning areea after comp
posting or sterilizzation to remove viable we
eed seeds. Removve barriers to
o western pon
nd turtle movvement. Main
ntain clear visual and traveel paths betwe
een water bod
dies and occupied or potenntial nesting sites and rem
move obstructtions to movem
ment in aquattic corridors/stream channnels, including removal vegetation thatt could uct turtle movvement. obstru
Place logs, large roo
otwads, or bo
oulders in ponnds to createe basking sitess for western pond turtle. Create
e 2 permanen
nt ponds to en
nhance westeern pond turttle habitat. In fore
ested plant co
ommunities where prescri bed burning would not bee used for maintenance, retain large snags and create 2 snags per acree >14” diameeter breast heeight where available in foreste
ed plant communities (oakk woodland, a sh swale/rip
parian, plantaation, and Dou
uglas‐fir forest)). Implem
ment protection measuress such as stabbilization, fenccing or withd
drawal for sitees when threatened by natu
ural processess or human acctivity. 33
ands West Eugene Wetla
West Eugene Wetlands
Resource Management Plan
Critical Habitat -Wildlife
Fender's blue butterfly
I
J O
Figure 4. Wild
dlife critical habitats within the West Eugene Wetlannds RMP. 34 Resource Man
nagement Pla
an
Soilss and Wate
er Management Objectives  Maintain and restore water quality.
 Maintain and restore wetland soil prroductivity.
 Maintain wet prairie micro‐topograp
phy on treatm
ment areas.
 Limit soil compaction, displacement, and erosionn during foresst and woodlaand treatmen
nts.
 Maximize wetland wate
er storage to enhance ecoological function.
oil loss along actively erodiing side slopees of streams.
 Prevent so
Management Direction
n  Apply best management practices as neededd to restore orr maintain waater quality (ssee Appen
ndix D).  When using tractorr mowers, lim
mit soil compaaction by usin
ng low ground
d‐pressure eq
quipment, rubberr‐tired or rubber tracked equipment (reecommended
d <6.5 psi). mit tractor mowing to tim
 To the
e extent possible while ach
hieving other objectives, lim
mes of low soil mo
oisture conditions (generaally <25% moiisture and fro
om July 1 to October 15).
 Mowin
ng equipmentt shall not expose bare soiil or leave visible ruts or in
ndentations under normaal operating conditions.  To the
e extent possible while ach
hieving other objectives, avvoid mowing over ant mounds.  For thiinning implem
mented with vehicle‐suppoorted machin
nery, use low ground‐presssure skid‐
steer tractors with implements to reduce soi l disturbancee. Conduct thinning activitiies during times of low soil mo
oisture (<25%
%). Design treeatment to lim
mit equipmen
nt passes acro
oss soil surface (such as by using single passes; desig ning predetermined skid trails; and waalking on slash).  Design
n ground‐disturbing activitties to retain o rganic mateerials.
 Design
n excavation of native soilss to minimizee disturbance to the historic native soil profile.
 Condu
uct soil‐disturbing work during the dry s eason to min
nimize compaaction. Use lo
ow ground‐
pressu
ure equipmen
nt to minimize
e compactionn. Use tilling for decompacction where needed ons. duringg low moisture soil conditio
 Retain
n topsoil on site, if possible
e. Where feassible, salvage disturbed soil, segregate during storagge, compost, and reuse in a similar locattion and deptth. Where feaasible, salvage and reuse nd soils in wetland areas.
wetlan
 Minim
mize the disturrbance and lo
oss of native s oil during sod rolling or fill removal. 35
West Eugene Wetla
ands Cultural Resources Manage
ement Objecttive  Conserve scientiffic, traditionaal use, educational, public and recreatio
onal values off cultural reso
ource sitess. Man
nagement Dirrection  Avoid ground
d‐disturbing actions on site
es that are lissted (or eligib
ble for listing) on the Natio
onal Register of Historic Placess. Recover scientific value o f sites prior to disturbancce through umentation iff practices succh as data reccovery, which include exca vation, relocaation, or docu
avoidance is not practical. ural propertie
es to the follow
wing use cateegories:  Classify cultu
- Classify cultural prope
erties that are
e determinedd to be availab
ble for consid
deration as th
he udy as scientiific use sites or experimen
ntal use sites.
subject of scientific orr historical stu
- Classify unusual cultural propertiess that are nott currently avvailable for scientific or use of scarcity, a research potential thaat surpasses the current sttate‐
historical study, becau
of‐the‐arrt, singular hisstoric importance, cultura l importance, tribal imporrtance, architecttural interest,, or comparab
ble reasons a s conservatio
on for future use sites. Seleect sites for the purpose of retaining a representatiive sample off site types from those available
e in areas whe
ere conflicts with other ressource managgement activvities are not anticipatted. Preserve these sites.
- Classify cultural prope
erties known to be import ant in maintaaining the cultural identityy, heritage,, or well‐being of a specifie
ed and recog nized tribe ass traditional use sites. Man
nage these site
es to accomm
modate their continuing traaditional use. - Classify cultural prope
erties found to be approprriate for use as interpretivve exhibits at their original location (i.e., in place), or found to be a ppropriate fo
or related educational and
d recreatio
onal uses as public use site
es. Priority loccations for these interprettive exhibits will include developed reccreation sitess, recreation c orridors, and
d locations where recreation is being pro
omoted. Presserve these sites. - Provide no special maanagement fo
or cultural prooperties that are only impo
ortant for theeir scientificc values and whose researcch potential i s effectively exhausted (ones where th
he salient in
nformation haas been colleccted and presserved, or hass been destro
oyed by naturral or human activity). These are discharged use sites .  The use categories for existing sites an
nd new sites m ay be assign
ned or changeed by comparring the site’s chaaracteristics to these use category desccriptions. easures such as stabilizatioon, fencing orr withdrawal for sites classsified  Implement protection me
as traditional use, public use or future use when thrreatened by natural proceesses or humaan activity. d recover the
e data where warranted byy the scientifiic importancee of the cultural  Excavate, and
sites threatened by naturaal processes or human acttivity. 36 Resource Man
nagement Pla
an
 Implem
ment public in
nterpretation
n and educati on around th
he types of archaeological resources and/or traditional uses found within the plannning area. Recrreation Management Objective  Provide op
pportunities for pedestrian
n and other n on‐motorized
d recreationaal use in the Fern Ridge Path Special Recreation
n Managemen
nt Area. Management Direction
n ecial Recreatiion Managem
ment Area for a communityy  Managge the Fern Ridge Path Spe
recreaation‐tourism market.  Consisstent with the
e Final Supple
ementary Rulees for Public Land within the West Eugeene Wetlan
nds, continue
e to prohibit motorized ve hicle use on the Fern Ridgge Path, as deescribed ndix F. below and in Appen
Management Objective  Provide op
pportunities for pedestrian
n recreationa l use in the Exxtensive Recrreation Manaagement Area. Management Direction
n  Maintaain existing Tsanchiifin Waalk at Balboa and existing trails at Daneebo, Stewart Pond, and Easterrn Gateway.  Maintaain existing in
nterpretive sittes.  Improvve parking acccess and facilities at Stew art Pond parkking lot.  Consisstent with the
e Final Supple
ementary Rulees for Public Land within the West Eugeene Wetlan
nds, continue
e to prohibit motorized an d non‐motorrized vehicle in the Extensiive ement Area off of the roadds designated
d for vehicle use, as describ
bed below Recreaation Manage
and in Appendix G. Management Objective  Provide op
pportunities for commercial, competitivve, education
nal, and organ
nized group aactivities in the planning area. Management Direction
n  Requirre Special Reccreation Perm
mits for organnized groups of 20 or moree persons perr day within the plaanning area. Consider applications for S pecial Recreeation Permitss for organizeed group o not issue activities only wherre not in confflict with the m anagementt objectives of the site. Do
Speciaal Recreation Permits for visits to areas occupied by listed or senssitive species if use would adversely afffect listed or sensitive speecies. 37
West Eugene Wetla
ands  Continue to apply the Finaal Supplemen
ntary Rules foor Public Land
d within the West Eugene Wetlands, Eu
ugene Districtt, OR, published in the Fedderal Registerr on July 28, 2005. Applicattion of these rules shall be ado
opted through
hout the plannning area on
n BLM‐managed lands. In owing activiti es by the pub
blic in the planning area: summary, these rules prohibit the follo
- littering; - entering areas that arre posted or otherwise dellineated, fencced, or barriccaded to closee them to public; - using or occupying an
ny area one ho
our after sun set through one hour befo
ore sunrise, except travelingg on the Fern Ridge Path;
- discharge
e of fireworkss, firearms, aiir guns, slingsshots or use any other pro
ojectile launch
hing device; perty unattended; - leaving personal prop
- using or operating mo
otorized vehiccles on the Feern Ridge Path, or operatin
ng motorized
d or non‐mottorized vehicle
es off those roads or path s or parking areas specificcally designateed for vehiccle use; - building or using campfires or othe
er open flamee fires; ng, disturbingg, or collecting any naturall resource unless specificaally permitted
d by - possessin
the authorized officerr; - allowing entry of dom
mesticated animals (pets o r livestock) in
nto areas clossed to pet or livestockk use;
- possessin
ng or consum
ming alcoholic beverages; a nd
- possessin
ng glass beverage containe
ers.
Additional information on
n these restricctions is prov ided in the su
upplemental rules (Federaal uly 28, 2005 4 3713 – 437115). Register, Vol. 70, No. 144,, Thursday, Ju
ement Objecttive Manage
 Increase levels an
nd types of re
ecreation use
es at the Stew
wart Pond Speecial Recreatio
on Managem
ment Areaa that contrib
bute to meeting recreation
nal demand a nd quality vissitor experien
nces. Managemen
nt Direction  Extend existing trails and constructt new trails inn the future depending on
n recreational demand and feasibilitty.  Pave the parking areaa at Stewart Pond.  Install a concrete vault restroom at the Stewartt Pond parkin
ng area.  Construcct additional loop trails at Stewart Pondd to create routes of variou
us lengths.  Improve facilities at Stewart Pond,, including kioosks, picnic taables, benchees, interpretivve signs. ourse at Stewaart Pond (Figuure 5) that incorporates th
he following  Develop a disc golf co
managem
ment direction: 38 Resource Man
nagement Pla
an
-
-
-
-
Develop co
ourse to reducce conflict witth other recreational oppo
ortunities (e.gg., trail running, waalking) available in the Steewart Pond arrea. Develop the course routtes and tee/bbasket locatio
ons to providee for year‐rou
und play. Course routes and tee/b
basket locatioons installed iin seasonally wet areas wo
ould be subject to seasonal closu
ure. e a variety of challenge forr player skill and interest through Design course to include
varying fairrways or deve
elopment of s kill shots. mpaction at baskets by plaacing woodch
hip or other appropriate materials on Reduce com
the ground around the basket and prroviding for multiple baskeet location op
ptions where available. dchip or othe
er appropriatee materials allong trails, faiirways, aroun
nd tees and Apply wood
baskets, or otherwise ass needed to aameliorate soil impacts, reduce trampin
ng of vegetation,, and clearly define designned route of travel. Route courrse in a manner to avoid haazards to playyers, such as roads or poissonous plants. Trail rehabiilitation workk to amelioratte compaction using mech
hanized equip
pment ur when soil moistures aree low (approxximately 25%). should occu
Tees shall be clearly locaatable and prroperly design
ned to reducee compaction
n. Install trunk/limb protecction as need ed. Incorporate
e environmen
ntal educationn opportunitiies throughou
ut the course to include information
n about local features of t he wetlands.
39
ands West Eugene Wetla
West Eugene Wetlands
Resource Management Plan
Special Recreation Management Areas
- ------ Fern Ridge Bike Path
• ,,... ,..
p
I
!Willow Comer Annex f
Figure 5. Special Recreatio
on Manageme
ent Areas witthin the Westt Eugene Wettlands RMP. 40 Resource Man
nagement Pla
an
Visual Resourcces Management Objective  Partially re
etain the existting character of the landsscape in Classs III visual resource managgement areas. Management Direction
n  Design
nate Long Tom
m, North Taylor, South Tayylor, Hansen, Oak Hill, and
d Fir Butte sitees to visual resourrce managem
ment Class III.
 Managge sites to allo
ow for moderate levels off change to th
he characterisstic landscapee. Managgement activiities may attrract attentionn, but would not dominatee the view of the casual observver. Changes would repeatt the basic eleements of forrm, line, color, texture, and scale found in the predom
minant naturral features off the characteeristic landscaape. Management Objective  Allow for major modificcation of the existing charaacter of the laandscape in Class IV visual resource manageme
ent areas. Management Direction
n  Design
nate all sites not designate
ed to visual reesource manaagement Class III to visual resource managgement Class IV.  Managge sites to allo
ow for high le
evels of changge to the characteristic lan
ndscape. Man
nagement activities may domiinate the view
w and may bee the major fo
ocus of vieweer attention.
Speccial Produccts Management Objective  Provide op
pportunities where consisttent with otheer resource objectives for the harvest and collection of special pro
oducts, such as boughs andd branches, edible and meedicinal plantts, wood products, and firewood
d. Management Direction
n  Restricct collection amounts and collection acctivities of speecial productss in a mannerr that limits adversse impacts to other resourrces.  Rotate
e or restrict areas for the collection of inndividual pro
oducts as needed to maintain the availab
bility and susttainability of products, andd limit adversse impacts to
o other resourrces.  Restricct the collectiion of plant species and pl ant materialss whose sustaainability wou
uld be in question due to low
w reproductivve rates or othher life historry factors. 41
West Eugene Wetla
ands Travel and Transpo
ortation Manage
ement Objecttive  Provvide public an
nd administraative access in
n a manner thhat attains resource objecttives and sup
pports the agency’s misssion. This may include the agency use o f motorized vehicles in orrder to transp
port perssonnel, supplies, and equip
pment. Man
nagement Dirrection  The entire planning area is “limited to designated rooads” for off‐‐road vehicle (ORV) use. The n criteria used
d to determin
ne ORV area d esignations is in Appendixx G. minimization
- The desiggnated roads available forr use include:
- the parking area at the Stewarrt Pond site offf of Stewart Road, and - the paved entrancce road and gravel parkingg lot at the Daanebo site offf of South Daanebo Aven
nue (see Map G‐1 and App
pendix G for m ore detail).
Minerals and Energgy Manage
ement Objecttive  Man
nage mineral and energy resources to provide oppo rtunities for exploration and developm
ment whe
ere consistentt with other management objectives. Managemen
nt Direction  Public do
omain lands (i.e., survey hiiatuses) in thee planning arrea would con
ntinue to be available
e for locatable
e mineral entry under the Mining Act of 1872.  Include a no surface occupancy stipulation in anny leases for leasable mineerals. Lands and
d Realty Manage
ement Objecttives  Makke land tenure adjustmentts to facilitate
e the manageement of reso
ources.
nage acquired
d lands for the purposes fo
or which theyy were acquirred.
 Man
Managemen
nt Direction  Retain lands in Zone 1 under BLM administratioon. Lands in Zone 1 would include all paarcels in the plaanning area except the Danebo parcel.
 Retain lands in Zone 2 for exchange. No lands inn the plannin g area would
d be in Zone 2.  Retain lands in Zone 3 for disposal. The only pa rcel in Zone 3 is the Daneb
bo parcel, beccause 7 (120 Stat. 3 392) wherebyy ownership of this parcel it is included in Publicc Law 109‐457
would traansfer to the City of Eugen
ne if certain c onditions aree met. If the conditions aree not o met, the Danebo parccel will revert back to the U nited Statess of America. If the Danebo
42 Resource Man
nagement Pla
an




paarcel reverts back to the United States o f America, itt will be manaaged under th
h e jurrisdiction of BLM, and subsequently thee parcel would be transferrred to Land Tenure one 1 withoutt RMP amendment or revission. Zo
An
ny additional BLM‐adminisstered lands iddentified within the plann
ning area boundary shown in Figure
e 1 through th
he future ide ntification off survey hiatuses would bee assigned e Zone 3 and would be ava ilable for disp
posal using ap
ppropriate disposal to Land Tenure
me
echanisms. An
ny future unin
ntentional occcupancy tresppassed lands (including an
ny unintention
nal realty‐
related use, occcupancy, or developed lannds) in the plaanning area would be assiggned to one 3 and would be availabble for dispossal using apprropriate dispo
osal Land Tenure Zo
me
echanisms. Land tenure zones may be changed withoout RMP ameendment or revision due to co
ongressional action, such as mandated l and exchangges. An
ny future land
d acquisitionss within the p lanning area boundary, if acquired by the BLM un
nder Section 205 or 206 off the Federal L and Policy and Managem
ment Act, wou
uld take on d for the purp
pose for whicch they the status of “aacquired lands,” and wouldd be managed
we
ere acquired or consistentt with the ma nagement ob
bjectives for adjacent BLM
M‐
ad
dministered laands. Management Objectives  Continue to make BLM‐‐administered
d lands availaable for needeed rights‐of‐w
way, permits, leases, and easementss where consistent with fe
ederal, state a nd local plan
nning goals an
nd rules and the exclusion areas identified in this RMP. o support ressource  Provide leggal administrative access to BLM‐adminnistered lands adequate to
ent programss. manageme
Managgement Direcction  Re
ecognize existting rights‐of‐‐way, permitss, leases, and easements as valid existin
ng rights (se
ee Appendix F).  Isssue no new rights‐of‐way in right‐of‐waay exclusion areas identifieed in this RMP, except for buried liness in the rights‐of‐way of exxisting roads, which will bee evaluated on a case‐by‐
case basis. utside of rightt‐of‐way exclusion areas, e valuate right‐of‐way and lease requessts on a  Ou
case‐by‐case baasis.  Isssue temporarry‐use permits, as identifieed under the Federal Land Policy and Management Acct (Section 302), for a varie
ety of uses, suuch as, but no
ot limited to, stockpile and
d storage sittes and as too
ols to authorizze unintentioonal trespass situations pending final reesolution.  Isssue no new le
eases or perm
mits for landfillls or solid waaste disposal sites.  Uttilize land‐use
e authorizatio
ons to resolvee agricultural or occupancyy trespasses, where ap
ppropriate. 43
West Eugene Wetla
ands Hazardou
us Materials Manage
ement Objecttives  Limiit the use of hazardous maaterials.
minate hazardous wastes.
 Elim
Man
nagement Dirrection  Respond to hazardous maaterial inciden
nts through a ctions such as cleanup, prroper notifications, criminal inve
estigations, an
nd site assessments.  Store, treat, and dispose of hazardous materials in a ccordance with applicablle laws and regulations. he public from
m known hazaardous materrials on BLM‐aadministered  Protect emplloyees and th
lands.  Apply best management practices as needed for sp ill prevention
n and abatem
ment (see App
pendix D). Research Manage
ement Objecttive  Provvide for reseaarch to suppo
ort the managgement of lannds and resou
urces within the planning area. Man
nagement Dirrection  Allow ongoin
ng research projects to con
ntinue accordding to curren
nt or updated
d study plans. If managementt direction on
n existing stud
dy sites confliicts with reseearch objectivves, defer implementattion of managgement directtion until the research is complete. earch projectss, require stud
dy plans or p roject propossals that are consistent witth  For new rese
the RMP. Ad
dministra
ativeActio
ons
Adm
ministrative actions are ro
outine transacctions and acttivities that a re required to
o serve the public and to pro
ovide optimum
m manageme
ent of resourcces. Administrative actionss occur in all land use alloccations. Imp
plement administrative actions includin
ng, but not lim
mited to the f ollowing: -
44 Facility maintenance
ements to existing facilitiess
Improve
Road maaintenance
Recreatiion site mainttenance
ovement
Recreatiion site impro
Fence an
nd gate repaiirs on existingg sites
Resource Man
nagement Pla
an
-
Laands and reallty actions (in
ncluding the isssuance and a dministratio
on of grants, leases, and peermits isssued under the Federal Laand Policy and
d Managemeent Act) Resolution of trespasses d solid waste materials rem
moval Hazardous and
Laaw enforcement urveys to determine legal land or mineral estate ow
wnership Su
En
ngineering su
upport to assist in mappingg Design of proje
ects includingg any needed surveys Saampling and monitoring, including both
h non‐destrucctive and des tructive data collection In
ncidental rem
moval of trees,, snags, or loggs for safety o r operationaal reasons Roads, maaintenance yaards, buildinggs, and other facilities do n ot have speccific managem
ment objectivves or managem
ment direction
n, but will be managed for the purpose for which thee facilities weere constructeed or acquired. 45
West Eugene Wetla
ands Gllossary
y
This section provides deffinitions of terms used in this documentt that may no
ot be found in
n a standard dictionary or have a speccific or specialized meaningg in this docuument. mous fish. Fissh that maturre in the sea and swim up f reshwater rivers and streeams to spawn, anadrom
such as salmon, steelhead, and se
ea‐run cutthro
oat trout. archaeo
ological sites. Locations on
n the landscap
pe that conta in the physical remains off past human activities. augmen
ntation. Planting of plugs or seeding to increase plannt populations. Best Ma
anagement Practices (BMP
Ps). Methods, measures, o r practices seelected on th
he basis of sitee‐
specific conditions to
o ensure that water qualityy will be mainntained at its highest practticable level. BMPs include, but are not limited to, strructural and nonstructural controls, opeerations, and
d maintenancee procedu
ures. BMPs caan be applied before, durin
ng, and after pollution‐pro
oducing activiities to reduce or uction of pollu
utants into re
eceiving wateers (40 CFR 1330.2, EPA Watter Quality eliminatte the introdu
Standards Regulation
n). mance. A prop
posed action shall be specifically providded for in the land use plan
n or, if not conform
specificaally mentione
ed, shall be cle
early consiste
ent with the g oals, objectives, or standards of the approve
ed land use pllan. critical habitat. An En
ndangered Sp
pecies Act terrm denoting a specified geeographic areea occupied by a federallyy listed specie
es, and on wh
hich the physical and bioloogical featurees are found that are essen
ntial to the co
onservation and recovery of that specie
es and that m ay require sp
pecial managgement or protection. cultural resources. The locations and materialss contained w ithin archaeo
ological, histo
orical, or nal use sites. tradition
delist. To remove a plant or animaal species from the list of e ndangered or threatened
d species. Determination of NEEPA Adequacyy (DNA). An in
nterim step inn the BLM’s internal analyysis process th
hat posed action is adequatelyy analyzed in an existing NEPA documeent (an EIS or EA). concludes that a prop
Where applicable, the determinattion also addrresses conforrmance with an approved land use plan
n. downlisst. To change the status of an endangerred species too threatened. endange
ered species. An animal orr plant specie
es, listed by thhe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Seervice or National Marine Fisheries Servvice, as beingg in danger of extinction thhroughout all or a significaant portion off its range. eous vegetation created b y mowing. haying. Gathering the cut herbace
historic sites. Artifactts, features, or structures that are oldeer than 50 yeaars. 46 Glossa
ary
in
nvasive plants. Plants that 1) are not paart of (if non‐native), or arre a minor com
mponent of (if native), th
he original plaant community or communities; 2) hav e the potentiial to becomee a dominant or co‐
dominant speccies on the sitte if their futu
ure establishm
ment and gro
owth is not acctively controlled by management interventionss; or 3) are claassified as exootic or noxiou
us plants under state or federal law. Th
his West Eugeene Wetlandss EIS definitio
on differs from
m the Oregon Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in
n Oregon FEIS by including species nativve to the ecossystem under co
onsideration. This definitio
on is consisten
nt with the BLLM's Vegetattion Treatmen
nts Using Herb
bicides on mmatic EIS. BLM Lands in 17 Western States Program
la
arva. A distincct wingless juvenile form of many inseccts before meetamorphosis. lissted species. An animal orr plant specie
es, listed by thhe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Seervice or Natiional Marine Fisheries Service, ass threatened or endangereed. littter. The uppermost layer of organic de
ebris on the s oil surface, which is essen
ntially the fresshly fallen or slightly deco
omposed veggetation mate
erial, such as s tems, leavess, twigs, and fruits. manual treatm
ments. The ph
hysical removval of herbaceeous or wood
dy plants using hand‐held tools, such ass shovels, han
nd‐held mowers, or chainssaws. mastication. Mechanical crrushing and ch
hopping of veegetation, esp
pecially wood
dy vegetation
n. mechanical tre
eatments. Th
he physical removal of herbbaceous or woody plants using mechan
nized tools, su
uch as mowers and tractorrs. minerals, leasa
able. Mineralls generally fo
ound in bedd ed deposits and include oil, gas, coal, chlorides, su
ulfates, carbo
onates, borate
es, silicates, and nitrates o f potassium (potash), or sodium and reelated products; sulfu
ur; phosphate
e and its associated and reelated mineraals; asphalt; and gilsonite.
minerals, locatable. Metallic minerals (ggold, silver, leead, copper, zinc, nickel, ettc.) and nonm
metallic minerals (fluorrspar, mica, certain limesto
one and gypssum, tantalum
m, heavy mineerals in placeer form and ge
emstones) in land belonging to the United States th at are open to citizens of the United Sttates for ble minerals exxploration, diiscovery, and location which conveys thhe exclusive right to extracct the locatab
upon receivingg all required authorization
ns in accorda nce with regu
ulations at 43
3 CFR 3802 fo
or lands in wilderness revview and 3809
9 for other pu
ublic lands. minerals, salea
able. Mineralls including but not limitedd to: petrified
d wood and common varieeties of saand, stone, grravel, pumice
e, pumicite, ciinder, clay, annd rock. mowing. Cutting herbaceou
us vegetation
n by either meechanical or manual mean
ns. non‐attainmen
nt area. A geo
ographic areaa that has nott consistentlyy met the cleaan air levels set by the ental Protection Agency in
n the Nationaal Ambient Airr Quality Stan
ndards. U.S. Environme
noxious weed. A subset of invasive plants that are coounty, state, o r federally listed as injurious to public health, agriculture, recreation, wiildlife, or any public or privvate propertyy. 47
West Eugene Wetla
ands O&C lan
nds. Public lan
nds granted to the Oregon
n and Californnia Railroad C
Company and subsequentlyy revested
d to the Unite
ed States. O&
&C lands are only in Oregonn, and most are managed by the BLM.
off‐high
hway vehicle (OHV). OHV is synonymou
us with Off‐Rooad Vehicles (ORV). ORV iss defined in 43 CFR 834
40.0‐5(a): Off‐‐road vehicle means any motorized vehhicle capable of, or designeed for, travel on or immediaately over lan
nd, water, or other naturall terrain, excl uding: (1) Any nonamphib
bious registered oat; (2) Any military, fire, emergency, or law enforceement vehiclee while beingg used for motorbo
emergen
ncy purposess; (3) Any vehicle whose usse is expresslyy authorized by the authorized officer, or mbat or comb
bat support otherwise officially approved; (4) Vehicles in offficial use; annd (5) Any com
vehicle when used in
n times of national defense
e emergenciees. OHV are
ea designatio
on. RMP allocations that pe
ermit, establiish conditionss, or prohibit OHV activitiees on specific areas of publlic lands. Designations in this RMP incluude: -
-
-
open: Motorrized vehicle travel is perm
mitted year‐long, with no special restrictions, and theere are no compelling resourcce protection needs, user conflicts, or public safety issues that untry travel.
warrant limitting cross‐cou
limited: Motorized vehicle
e travel within specified arreas and/or on designated
d routes, road
ds, vehicle ways, or trails is su
ubject to resttrictions, suchh as number or type of veh
hicles or timee or e. season of use
orized vehicle
e travel is prohibited in thee area to prottect resources, promote viisitor closed: Moto
duce conflictss. safety, or red
ea within whiich the BLM w ill make deccisions througgh this RMP.
planningg area. The geographic are
planningg area bound
dary. The broaader geograp
phic area surr ounding the planning areaa, including all land ownerships. plugs. Se
eedlings, cutttings, or vege
etative plant materials use d for plantingg. populattion. A discrette group of in
ndividuals of a species occuupying a defined area. prescrib
bed burning. An intentionaal ignition of grass, shrub, or forest fuells for specific purposes accordin
ng to predete
ermined conditions. public domain lands. Original hold
dings of the United States that were neever granted or conveyed to uired by exch
hange for otheer public dom
main lands. other jurisdictions orr never reacqu
recoveryy plan. A plan
n for the consservation and
d survival of a n endangered species or a threatened species listed under the Endangerred Species Act for the purrpose of imprroving the staatus of the species to the point where lissting is no lon
nger required
d. e manageme
ent plan (RMP
P). A BLM plan
nning docum ent, prepared
d in accordan
nce with Sectiion resource
d Management Act that prresents systematic guidelines for makin
ng 202 of the Federal Laand Policy and
resource
e management decisions for a specific geographic arrea. risk. The
e likelihood th
hat a given exxposure to an
n item or subsstance that presents a certtain hazard will e illness or injury. produce
48 Glossa
ary
risk assessmen
nt. The process of gatherin
ng data and m aking assum
mptions to esttimate short‐ and long‐
erm harmful effects on human health or the environnment from particular products or activvities. te
se
ensitive species. A special status specie
es category esstablished byy the BLM thaat includes tho
ose plant an
nd animal spe
ecies eligible for status as federally listeed, federal caandidate, statte listed, or sttate caandidate (plant) species; on
o List 1 of the Oregon Nattural Heritagee Database orr approved fo
or this ncluded undeer agency species conservaation policies.. caategory by the BLM state director; or in
sh
hade cloth. A vegetation control techniique in whichh the target plants are coveered with a dark cloth, which typicallyy remains in place for two years, killing the target plants. sn
nag. A standin
ng dead tree,, usually large
er than 5 feett tall and 6 incches in diameeter at breastt height. so
oil productiviity. The capaccity or suitabiility of a soil f or establishm
ment and grow
wth of a plant species, ugh nutrient availability. For wetlands, these are thee physical, chemical, and biological primarily throu
in
ndicators of wetland soil health leading to values rel ated to wetlaand function. so
olarization. A vegetation control technique in whichh the target plants are covered with plaastic heeting, whicch typically remains in placce for the subbsequent grow
wing season, killing the tarrget plants. sh
sp
pecial recreattion managem
ment area (SRMA). SRMA
As are lands alllocated to include managgement for unique recreattion resource
es. urfactant. A material that improves the
e emulsifying,, dispersing, spreading, weetting, or other surface‐
su
modifying prop
perties of liqu
uids. Surfactaants are oftenn added to heerbicides to in
ncrease coverrage on taarget vegetation. su
urvey hiatus. A gap betwe
een survey lines that resultts in the identtification of public domain
n land where none was previouslyy known to exxist. th
hatch. The de
ense coveringg of cut vegetaation that rem
mains after mowing, which
h can inhibit the growth off new plants. th
hermal treatm
ments. A vege
etation control technique in which the target plantss are burned in a spot uch as with a hand‐held prropane torch. trreatment of heat or fire, su
th
hinning. Cuttiing some but not all of the
e trees in an a rea. th
hreatened species. An animal or plant species, listedd by the U.S. Fish and Wild
dlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service, ass likely to beccome endang ered within tthe foreseeab
ble future thro
oughout all or a significantt portion of itts range. e sites. Areas identified byy local Native American tribes as being important to those living trraditional use
co
ommunities’ historically ro
ooted practice
es, customs a nd beliefs. trrespass. Any use, occupancy, or development of thee public lands, other than casual use, w
without uthorization. au
49
West Eugene Wetla
ands Travel Management Area. A delin
neated area where travel m anagementt (either moto
orized or non‐‐
motorized) requires particular foccus. These are
eas may be deesignated as open, closed,, or limited to
o motorized use and will typically haave an identiffied or designnated networrk of roads, trrails, ways, an
nd other ro
outes that pro
ovide for publlic access and
d travel acrosss the planning area. wetland
ds. Those areaas that are inundated or saaturated by ssurface waterr or groundwaater at a o support, a frequency and duratiion sufficient to support, and that undeer normal circcumstance do
prevalen
nce of vegetaation typicallyy adapted for life in saturatted soil conditions. 50 Apppendix A ‐ Guidance for Use of the RM
MP
Appe
endixA‐Guida
anceforrUseoffthe
Reso
ourceManagem
mentPla
a n
This section provid
des guidance on how the RMP will be im
mplemented, evaluated, and changed by the Districct. Requirrementfo
orFurtherrEnvironmentalAnalysis
The BLM makes many types of decisions. It is important t o distinguish
h between lan
nd use plan deecisions and imple
ementation de
ecisions because: (1) the administrativee remedies an
nd the timingg of those rem
medies differ; (2) the NEPA
A analysis neccessary to sup
pport implem
mentation deccisions is geneerally more site specific o make these types of than the analysis necessary to support land use plan deciisions; (3) thee authority to
decisiions varies; an
nd (4) the sco
ope and effecct of each typ e of decisionss would be co
onsidered during the comp
pliance and co
onsultation prroceedings re
equired underr various enviironmental laaws. Land use plan decisions consist of desired ou
utcomes (goaals, standardss, objectives), allowable usses (land use allocaations, levels of use, restricctions on uses), and mana gement direcction necessaary to achievee outcomes.
Imple
ementation de
ecisions are actions to imp
plement land use plans. Th
hese types of decisions aree based on site‐specific planniing and NEPA
A analyses. Im
mplementationn decisions in
n this RMP aree: on of travel management networks, inc luding identiffying the speccific roads an
nd trails that  Designatio
will be avaailable for pub
blic use and the limitationss on use of ro
oads and trails. upplementaryy Rules for Pu
ublic Land witthin the Westt Eugene  Continued application of the Final Su
Wetlands, Eugene Distrrict, OR, publiished in the F ederal Registter on July 28
8, 2005, and adoption of the applicaation of these
e rules througghout the pla nning area on
n BLM‐managged lands. A‐1
West Eugene Wetla
ands This RMP on
nly provides direction for the managem
ment of naturaal resources on BLM‐administered land
ds. This plan do
oes not authorize the imple
ementation of any specificc project‐leveel actions. Hab
bitat restorattion nance actionss in the management direcction, includinng prescribed
d burning, mo
owing, hayingg, and mainten
thinning, hand weeding, shade cloth, solarization, thermal treattments, tillingg/disking, fill removal, rakiing, grazing, and
d plant augme
entation, wou
uld be implem
mented only a fter addition
nal NEPA compliance and uent to the ap
pproval of the
e RMP. Herbiccide use would occur onlyy after additio
onal decision‐maaking subsequ
decision‐maaking subsequ
uent to the ap
pproval of the
e RMP. Additiionally, projected herbicid
de use would ogram of worrk that wouldd be made avaailable to the public. For th
his typically be described in an annual pro
annual program of work, BLM would conduct a Dettermination o f NEPA Adeq
quacy (DNA) to determinee whether add
ditional NEPA
A analysis beyyond the analyysis in the RM
MP/EIS is neceessary and to
o evaluate MP. Where sitte‐specific co
onditions diffeer, or circumsstances changge from thosee conformancce with the RM
described in
n the RMP/EISS, or if a DNA is inappropriate for otherr reasons, thee BLM may neeed to conducct additional NEPA analysis prior to reaching a decisio
on to implem ent an action
n. Pla
anEvalua
ation
Evaluation iss the process of reviewing the land use plan to dete rmine whether plan decisions are being implemente
ed as expected, and wheth
her the associated NEPA annalyses are sttill valid. Baseed on this evaluation, a determination is made as to whetherr a plan amenndment or revvision is warraanted. Land use plans are evvaluated to de
etermine if: 




deciisions remain relevant to current issuess deciisions are effe
ective in achie
eving (or makking progresss toward achieeving) desired
d objectives
any decisions nee
ed to be revissed any decisions nee
ed to be drop
pped from furrther consideeration any areas require
e new decisio
ons The plan will be formally evaluated evvery 5 years, or as necessittated by chan
nged circumsttances or oring or new significant new informatiion. These evaluations willl focus on issuues resulting from monito
information. The evaluatiion will also review major assumptions regarding th e level of management acctivities used in the e Final EIS for the West Euggene Wetlandds RMP. Mucch of the dataa needed for analysis of effects for the
evaluating these assumptions related to anticipate
ed levels of acctivity will be collected thrrough program
m h the RMP mo
onitoring plan
n. reporting asssociated with
Unscheduled plan evaluaations could be conducted to address ceertain unanticipated events or new he underlying analysis and decisions of the plan. Theese unschedu
uled information that calls into question th
plan evaluattions may exaamine a single
e or relativelyy narrow aspeect of the RM
MP. Pla
anMainte
enance
Land use plaan decisions can be maintaained to reflect minor channges in data. Maintenancee is limited to
o further refin
ning, documenting, or clariifying a previo
ously approveed decision. Plan maintenance will not A‐2
2
MP
Apppendix A ‐ Guidance for Use of the RM
expan
nd the scope of resource uses or restricctions or channge the termss, conditions, and decision
ns of the appro
oved plan. PlanAm
mendmen
nts
New information, updated anallysis, or new resource use or protection
n proposals may require amending or revisitting land use plans and up
pdating implementation deecisions. Re‐eexamining exiisting plan deecisions, or nalysis in the Final EIS for the Revision of the West E ugene Wetlaands RMP will be appropriate if new the an
inform
mation or circcumstance haas come to ligght that couldd significantly alter the und
derlying conclusions of the Final EIS regard
ding environm
mental consequences or thhe ability to achieve manaagement objeectives. Plan amendments change one or more of th
he terms, condditions, or deecisions of an approved lan
nd use plan. en prompted by the need to: Plan amendments are most ofte




Consider a proposal or action that does not confoorm to the plan. Implementt new or revissed policy thaat changes lannd use plan decisions, succh as an appro
oved conservation agreemen
nt between th
he BLM and U SFWS.
Respond to
o new, intenssified, or chan
nged uses on public land.
w information
n from resou rce assessmeents, plan evaluations, mon
nitoring, or Consider significant new
scientific studies. Plan amendments will follow BLLM planning regulations a nd can be acccompanied by either an
enviro
onmental assessment or environmentaal impact stateement.
PlanRe
evisions
RMP revisions invo
olve preparation of a new plan to repla ce an existingg one. RMP reevisions will be necesssary if monitoring and evaaluation findings, new dataa, new or revvised policy, or changes in circum
mstances indiicate that deccisions for an entire plan o r a major porrtion of the plan would no
o longer ource manage
ement. Plan r evisions are accomplished
d through thee BLM serves as a useful guide for reso
planning regulations and are acccompanied by an environ mental impact statement. ValidExistingRights
Considering the se
egmented natture of the plaanning area, a n immense number of rigghts‐of‐way, leases, corrid
dors, and othe
er established
d legal rights have been grranted over th
he years in esstablishing an
n effective erative managgement framework amongg a variety of owners. Valid existing rights may pertaain to coope
energgy leases, leasses, easements, permits, and rights‐of‐w
way (Append
dix F). When implementingg this RMP, it is re
ecognized thaat there are so
ome instance
es when actioons that may occur on pub
blic lands are subject to n may be subjject to these valid existingg rights. In those cases, authorization foor implementting an action
appro
oval by the ho
olders of valid
d existing righ
hts and may n ot be discrettionary to thee BLM. Manag
gementoffNewlyAccquiredLands
Landss may come under BLM administration through exchhange, donatiion, purchasee, revocation of withd
drawals to oth
her federal aggencies, or relinquishmentt of Recreatio
on and Public Purpose leasses. A‐3
West Eugene Wetla
ands Discretionarry acquisitions (such as excchanges, donations, or purrchases) will be based on the ability to manage the lands in acco
ordance with the purpose and need esttablished RMP objectives. Newly acquirred or ds will be managed for theeir highest po
otential or forr the purposes for administered lands or intterests in land
which they are acquired. For example, lands acquirred within sp ecially design
nated areas with Congresssional or resource managementt plan allocations/direction will be mannaged in conformance with
h management uired outside of designated
d specially deesignated areaas objectives and guideliness for that areaa. Lands acqu
will be manaaged in the saame manner as comparable or adjacen t BLM‐admin
nistered landss. In the Westt Eugene Wettlands, this im
mplies habitatt maintenance
e or restoratiion activities would be thee predominate purposes for land managgement. A‐4
4
ng
Appendix B ‐ Monitorin
Appe
endixB‐Monittoring
Monito
oringPlan
nfortheWestEuge
eneWetla
andsReso
ourceMa
anagemen
ntPlan
The monitoring plaan for the We
est Eugene Wetlands RMP is carefully designed to avvoid prohibitiive costs and effectively ansswer monitorring questionss and reportinng levels of activities. It is not necessarry or desiraable to monitor every activvity and manaagement acti on or objective of a RMP. Monittoring for the
e RMP will exaamine if activvities are in acccordance with managemeent directions (imple
ementation monitoring), iff managemen
nt objectives are being meet or are likelyy to be met (effecctiveness mon
nitoring), and if manageme
ent objectivees and management action
ns are based on correct mptions (valid
dation monito
oring). Most monitoring w ill be designeed to provide information as to assum
wheth
her activities are in accord
dance with maanagement ddirection. Some
e managemen
nt objectives and managem
ment directio ns in the Wesst Eugene Weetlands RMP are not measurable or quaantifiable, or do not have a standard th reshold for acceptability, and thereforee will not o being addre
essed through
h monitoring questions wh
hich are almo
ost always dep
pendent on lend themselves to
a quantifiable basis of measurement. The levvel of activityy for certain management directions that do not ogram reportting item. have standards or thresholds off acceptabilityy will be monnitored in thee form of a pro
In som
me cases, whe
ere monitorin
ng indicates very high com
mpliance with the plan, thee frequency or interval of monittoring will sub
bsequently be
e adjusted for cost and tim
me efficiency.. Sampling or evaluaation of a sub
bset of actionss will be empployed to avoiid unnecessary detail and unaccceptable costss. Projects to be monitored will be seleected on a bassis of those th
hat will yield a greater unt of informaation or be more beneficiaal. For examp le, a random sample may result in mon
nitoring of a amou
B‐1
West Eugene Wetla
ands relatively sm
mall straightfo
orward projecct that will yie
eld limited infformation; w
where as a mo
ore complex project migh
ht be available for monitorring that will yield more innformation orr be more effeective. Samplling e at the level of the entire administrativve unit, the BLLM‐administeered lands wiithin the Wesst will be done
Eugene Wettlands The monitorring questions will be evaluated at each
h monitoring interval to asscertain if thee questions, reporting, methods, sample size, or in
ntervals need to be changeed. Such chan
nges to the monitoring plan will h plan mainte
enance. be accomplished through
Monitoring results will be
e reported an
nnually in a Monitoring Re port and pub
blished as parrt of the Annu
ual Program Sum
mmary for the Eugene District. The Mo
onitoring Repoort will reporrt, track, and assess the entation; statte the findings and conclussions made th
hrough monittoring; and seerve progress of plan impleme
as a report to managers and the public. Monitoringg reports will also include any discussio
ons and analyysis of non‐compliaance and reco
ommendation
ns for correcttive action. Other Monitoring The monitorring plan for the West Euggene Wetlands RMP is desiigned to focu
us specifically on monitorin
ng the RMP itself and is not inte
ended as an overarching pllan that addreesses all ongo
oing monitoring and reseaarch efforts. This monitoring plan does nott attempt to address scien ce questions or issues of a regional or based) effortss in interagency scale. There are many onggoing regionaal, interagenccy, and researrch (science‐b
which the BLM participattes that addre
ess these broader issues. A lthough thesse other efforts in which the pates often have importan
nt implications for BLM‐administered laands and reso
ources in the West BLM particip
Eugene Wettlands, they will be addressed externally from this m onitoring plaan. Plan Evaluattions Plan evaluattions will occu
ur at 5‐year in
ntervals. In ad
ddition to thee monitoring results, manyy of the underlying evels of activitties and anticcipated enviroonmental con
nsequences will be examin
ned at assumptionss regarding le
the time of the 5‐year plaan evaluation
n to determine if the plan o bjectives aree being met or are likely to
o be met. The evaluation will also assess whether changged circumstaances or new information have created
d a pected impaccts or environ
nmental conseequences of the plan are significantly situation in which the exp
different thaan those anticcipated in the
e Final EIS forr the West Eu gene Wetlands RMP (Novvember 2014)). The e a finding of whether or not a plan am
mendment or plan revision is warranted
d. plan evaluattion will make
Ad
daptiveManageme
ent
Adaptive maanagement iss not a stand‐alone program or process . Adaptive maanagement fo
or the West Eugene Wettlands Managgement Plan will be integraated into NEPPA and land use planning processes. See Figure B‐1 (LLand use plan
nning, monito
oring, and ada
aptive managgement). Iden
ntified outcom
mes for the RMP are describe
ed in the Plan’s manageme
ent objectivess. RMP monittoring will dettermine if thee objectives are o be met. being met or are likely to
B‐2
2
Appendix B ‐ Monitorin
ng
Reevise/Amend Plaan
Define
e RMP Managgement Goalss Revise
e/Amend Plan
Reevise/Amend Plaan
Deve
elop RMP LUA
As/Direction
Supplem
ment Analysis
Sup
pplement Analyssis
Develop
D
Assuumptions Describe
D
Relattionships Predict Environmenta
E
al Consequen
nces New
Make De
ecision (Select an Alternative) Continue or Adapt*
Conntinue or Adaapt*
Imp
plement Actio
ons
Test Areas off Uncertaintyy (Effecttiveness/Validation Monittoring) Monitor Actions (Im
mplementatio
on/Effectiveness) * Wh
hen monitoring shows the Plan is being implemented as writtenn, continue to im
mplement. Wherre management direction speccifically describess the conditions where adaptation is allowable w ithout supplem
menting, revisingg, or amending the Plan, then
n adapt to the acctions. Additionaally, the monitorring plan should consider the areeas of uncertain
nty and the sensiitivity of assumptions and relationships. Figurre B‐1. Land Use Planning,, Monitoring, and Adaptivee Managemeent. In add
dition to mon
nitoring resultts, new inform
mation or chaanged circumstances will be evaluated as to wheth
her changes in RMP decisions or changes in supportting NEPA anaalyses are warranted. Adaptive ures that will be used to m ake changess in the Plan in
n response to
o management toolss and procedu
monittoring information, new in
nformation, or changed cirrcumstances include: plan maintenancee, plan B‐3
West Eugene Wetla
ands evaluations,, plan amendm
ments and plan revisions. In addition too these plann
ning instrumeents, NEPA documentattion may be necessary. The
e NEPA proce
edures relevaant to adaptivve managemeent will includ
de the PA adequacy reviews, envvironmental assessments, and use of categgorical exclusions, determination of NEP
environmen
ntal impact staatements. Un
nscheduled pllan evaluationns can be con
nducted to ad
ddress certain
n unanticipate
ed events or new informattion that could call into quuestion the un
nderlying anaalysis and deccisions of the Plan. In some insttances, managgement direcction providess for a range o f activities or resource usses. In these cases, levelss of activities or resource uses will vary within the raange prescribed by the maanagement acction d within the range without the use of planning steps or NEPA analyses. The level oof activities wiill be adapted
given by management acction, depend
ding on variatiion in resourcce needs or organizational capability. In addition to the constraaints or latitude provided by managemeent direction, the ability to
o adapt or ch
hange managemen
nt without the
e use of plann
ning steps or NEPA analysees will be resttricted by how
w much of a here would be from analyttical assumptions in the Pl anning Criterria. This is beccause the departure th
conclusions regarding environmental consequence
es are derivedd from analytical assumptiions. Analyticcal assumptionss include such
h things as levvels or metho
ods of activiti es, number of acres treateed, and miless of roads maintained. If, as a result of the need for adaptive managemen
nt changes, im
mplementatio
on of the RMP
P would so altter the methods or levels of activities to the degree that the enviroonmental consequences might be han those antticipated in th
he Final EIS, thhen formal pllanning stepss and NEPA substantivelly different th
procedures will be requirred. The determination as to when form
mal planning steps and NEEPA procedurees will be required will be made through the plan evaluation proceess. Plan evaluations could
d include an P evaluation such as occurss at five‐year intervals or a narrowly foccused evaluattion of a speccific overall RMP
aspect of the RMP. Plan evaluations will be schedu
uled at five‐yeear intervals. Unscheduled
d plan evaluattions can be conducted to address certain unanticipated
d events, suchh as a very larrge wildfire, or new w species listin
ngs or critical habitat desiggnations by th
he U.S. Fish and Wildlife information, such as new
Service. Adaptive maanagement will also be applied by actin
ng on informaation found th
hrough the monitoring ociated with monitoring w ill include co
orrective actio
ons precipitatted questions. Adaptive management asso
by findings of non‐compliance. Correcctive action precipitated byy monitoring can range fro
om simple changes in administrative
e procedures,, refinementss of the plan t hrough plan maintenancee, or more ough plan ame
endments. substantive changes thro
Mo
onitoring
gQuestion
n s
Monitoring of certain que
estions will not take place in the early y ears of impleementation, because project e, would not be ready for monitoring. Although would not yet have been completed and, therefore
incomplete projects may be informallyy examined by managers t o assess proggress towards implementiing managemen
nt actions and
d achieving ob
bjectives, the
e evaluation o f incompletee projects will not be part of formal plan monitoring. B‐4
4
Appendix B ‐ Monitorin
ng
Prairie Restoratio
on Area M1.
Monitoring Questio
on: Are vegetation manageement treatm
ments in accordance with the RMP? Monitoring Require
ement: 20% of completed treatments.
Monitoring Interval: Annual. M2.
Monitoring Questio
on: Were app
plicable standaard operatingg procedures for herbicidee application applied during project implemen
ntation? Monitoring Require
ement: 20% of completed treatments.
Monitoring Interval: Annual. M3.
Monitoring Questio
on: Were app
plicable best m anagement practices app
plied during project implem
mentation? Monitoring Require
ement: 20% of completed treatments.
Monitoring Interval: Annual. Natural Mainten
nance Area M4.
Monitoring Questio
on: Are vegetation manageement treatm
ments in accordance with the RMP? Monitoring Require
ement: 20% of completed treatments.
Monitoring Interval: Annual. M5.
Monitoring Questio
on: Were app
plicable standaard operatingg procedures for herbicidee application ntation? applied during project implemen
Monitoring Require
ement: 20% of completed treatments.
Monitoring Interval: Annual. M6.
Monitoring Questio
on: Were app
plicable best m anagement practices ideentified and applied duringg project implementation? Monitoring Require
ement: 20% of completed treatments.
Monitoring Interval: Annual. M7.
Monitoring Questio
on: Were man
nagement acttions for the collection and
d management of traditional use plan
nts implemented in accorddance with the RMP? Monitoring Require
ement: 100% of completedd treatments. Monitoring Interval: Annual. B‐5
West Eugene Wetla
ands Air Qualityy, Prescribed
d Burning, an
nd Wildfire Suppression
n M8.
Monitoring Question: Havve smoke intrrusions occurrred to cause air quality to exceed Natio
onal
Ambient Air Quality Stand
dards?
Monitoring Requirement: Report throu
ugh Lane Reggional Air Prottection Agenccy.
Monitoring In
nterval: Annu
ual.
M9.
Monitoring Question: Havve unplanned
d ignitions occcurred for wh
hich suppression did not minimize acrres burned? Monitoring Requirement: All unplanne
ed ignitions thhat burn five or more acrees will be evaluated. Monitoring In
nterval: Annu
ual. Plants M10.
d and endanggered plants
Monitoring Question: Were management actions foor threatened
d in accordance with RMP direction?
implemented
Monitoring Requirement: 100% of com
mpleted treat ments.
Monitoring In
nterval: Annu
ual.
M11.
Monitoring Question: Were management actions foor vascular an
nd non‐vascular sensitive and
nts implemen
nted in accord
dance with RM
MP direction??
strategic plan
Monitoring Requirement: 20% of comp
pleted treatm
ments.
Monitoring In
nterval: Annu
ual.
M12.
Monitoring Question: Were management actions im
mplementing the control of noxious weeeds, d non‐native invasive plannts conducted
d in accordancce with RMP native invasivve plants, and
direction? pleted treatm
ments. Monitoring Requirement: 20% of comp
Monitoring In
nterval: Annu
ual. B‐6
6
Appendix B ‐ Monitorin
ng
Wildllife M13.
Monitoring Questio
on: Were man
nagement acttions for Fend
der’s blue buttterfly implem
mented in accord
dance with RM
MP direction?? Monitoring Require
ement: 20% of actions com
mpleted. Monitoring Interval: Annual. M14. Monitoring Questio
on: Were man
nagement acttions for westtern pond turrtle implemen
nted in accord
dance with RM
MP direction?? Monitoring Require
ement: 20% of actions com
mpleted. Monitoring Interval: Annual. M15. Monitoring Questio
on: Were man
nagement acttions for grou
und‐nesting grassland bird
ds mented in acccordance with
h RMP direction? implem
Monitoring Require
ement: 20% of actions com
mpleted. Monitoring Interval: Annual. M16. Monitoring Questio
on: Were snaggs created fo r bureau senssitive birds an
nd bats impleemented in dance with RM
MP direction?? accord
Monitoring Require
ement: 20% of actions com
mpleted. Monitoring Interval: Annual. M17. Monitoring Questio
on: Were man
nagement acttions to main
ntain or enhan
nce habitat fo
or woodland associaated bird spe
ecies impleme
ented in acco rdance with RMP direction
n? Monitoring Require
ement: 20% of actions com
mpleted. Monitoring Interval: Annual. Cultu
ural Resources M18.
Monitoring Questio
on: Are cultural resourcess that are listeed or eligible for the National Register identiffied and avoid
ded or mitigated prior to p roject activitties disturbing or destroyin
ng them? Monitoring Require
ement: Condu
uct post‐projeect inventoryy of 20% of higgh and mediu
um bility areas to
o identify new
w sites inadveertently discovvered during project activvities. probab
Monitor 100% of kn
nown and reccorded sites b efore and affter project acctivities to no
ote possible change
es in site condition. Monitoring Interval: Annually.
B‐7
West Eugene Wetla
ands M19. Monitoring Question: Are
e all cultural resources reccorded within
n the planningg area assigneed to a use category and managged accordinggly? ed, review 1000% of sites aassigned to a use category and Monitoring Requirement: Once assigne
evaluate if it remains accu
urate. Monitoring In
nterval: Everry 5 years, or as needed baased on changges in site condition. Recreation
n, Public Outtreach, and Volunteers
M20.
Monitoring Question: Are
e special recre
eation managgement areas managed in accordance with their planning frameworkks? Monitoring Requirement: 100% of the special recreeation management areas.. Monitoring In
nterval: Annu
ual. M21. Monitoring Question: Are
e extensive recreation mannagement areeas managed to maintain recreational use opportun
nities? Monitoring Requirement: 20% of manaaged featuress (trails, interrpretive sites,, etc.) in exten
nsive recreation management areas. Monitoring In
nterval: Annu
ual. M22. Monitoring Question: Are
e recreational demand andd quality visito
or experiencees being
maintained?
Monitoring Requirement: Report 100%
% of new recr eational features. Monitoring In
nterval: Annu
ual. Visual Reso
ources M23.
Monitoring Question: Is th
he level of change in charaacter for the areas designaated to be MP requiremeents? managed as VRM III consistent with RM
Monitoring Requirement: 20% of activities that havve the potential to affect the existing character in VRM III. Monitoring In
nterval: Annu
ual. Every thre
ee years if thrree consecutive years of monitoring sh
how 100% compliance. B‐8
8
Appendix B ‐ Monitorin
ng
Mine
erals and Ene
ergy M24. Monitoring Questio
on: Has the le
evel of opporttunities for th
he exploration
n and development of locatable, leasable, and salable energy and m ineral resources, and for casual mineral prospe
ecting been maintained?
Monitoring Require
ement: Reporrt new withdrrawals. Monitoring Interval: Annual. Lands and Realtyy, Access, an
nd Transporttation M25.
Monitoring Questio
on: Have usess on acquired lands been consistent witth the purposses for which they were accquired? ement: 20% of all activitiess. Monitoring Require
Monitoring Interval: Annual. M26. Monitoring Questio
on: Has the avvailability of B LM‐lands for needed righ
hts‐of‐way, peermits, ents where co
onsistent withh federal, statte and local planning goalss and rules leases, and easeme
and th
he exclusion areas identifie
ed in this RMPP, been maintained? Monitoring Require
ement: Reporrt new requireements that would limit access. Monitoring Interval: Annual. Hazardous Materials M27.
Monitoring Questio
on: Has the re
esponse to haazardous matterial incidentts included cleanup, properr notificationss, criminal invvestigations, and site asseessments as applicable? Monitoring Require
ement: 100% of hazardouss material inccidents. Monitoring Interval: Annual. M28. Monitoring Questio
on: Are hazardous materiaals stored, treeated, and dissposed of in accordance with applicable law
ws and regulattions? Monitoring Require
ement: 100% of District‐stoored, treated
d, and disposeed hazardouss materials. Monitoring Interval: Annual. B‐9
West Eugene Wetla
ands PrrogramRe
eportingItems
Program rep
porting items involve activvities that are either relateed to: (1) certaain analytical assumptionss that are pertinen
nt to non‐speccific managem
ment actions;; or (2) analyttical assumpttions pertinen
nt to the analyysis of environm
mental conseq
quences. Not all programs or resources have reporting items. Prairie Restoration Are
e a P1.
Program Rep
porting Item: Report the accres of vegetaation manageement for hab
bitat restorattion, maintenance
e, or enhancement. Reportting will be doone annually by treatment type. P2.
porting Item: Report on tottal acres meeeting high‐quaality habitat cconditions forr Program Rep
plant prairie species meetting recovery targets. Repoorting will bee every five yeears. P3.
porting Item: Report the accres treated w ith herbicidees. Reportingg will be annu
ual. Program Rep
Natural Ma
aintenance Area P4.
Program Rep
porting Item: Report the accres of vegetaation manageement for maaintenance an
nd enhancemen
nt of existing habitats. Rep
porting will bee done annuaally by treatment type. P5.
Program Rep
porting Item: Report the am
mount of tradditional use plant collectio
ons. Reportingg will be done annually. P6.
Program Rep
porting Item: Report the accres treated w ith herbicidees. Reportingg will be annu
ual. Plants P7.
porting Item: Report the to
otal number o f plants of esstablished threatened and
d Program Rep
endangered and Bureau sensitive plant populationss. Reporting will be every 5 years. P8.
Program Rep
porting Item: Report the nu
umber of plannts meeting population reecovery targetts. Reporting will be annual. P9.
Program Rep
porting Item: Report the accres of noxiouus weed, natiive invasive, and non‐nativve nt management actions. Re
eporting will be annual. invasive plan
B‐1
10
Appendix B ‐ Monitorin
ng
Wildllife P10.
Prograam Reporting Item: Reportt on total acrees meeting hiigh‐quality haabitat conditions for wildlife prairie speccies. Reportin
ng will be eve ry five years.
P11.
Prograam Reporting Item: Reportt the numberr of wildlife meeting population recoverry targets. Reportting will be evvery 5 years.
P12.
Prograam Reporting Item: Reportt the total acrres of habitatt connectivityy for wildlife. Reporting will be
e every 3 yearrs. Recre
eation, Public Outreach, and Voluntteers P13.
Prograam Reporting Item: Reportt the numberr of commerciial, competitiive, education
nal, and organiized group activities. Repo
orting will be a nnual. P14.
Prograam Reporting Item: Reportt the numberr of service‐orriented and outreach proggrams, ucation providded to visitorrs. Reporting will be annuaal. including interpretaation and edu
P15.
Prograam Reporting Item: Reportt the numberr of volunteerr hours for reccreation, edu
ucation, interpretation, and restoration activities. Repporting will bee annual. Speciial Products P16.
Prograam Reporting Item: Reportt the numberr of permits fo
or harvest and collection of special produccts. Reportingg will be annu
ual. Resea
arch P17.
Prograam Reporting Item: Provide a narrative update on sttatus, goals, and findings of research urces adminisstered by thee BLM. projeccts in support of the managgement of lannds and resou
P18.
Prograam Reporting Item: Reportt the total acrres treated with research and demonsttration herbicides. Reporting will be ann
nual. B‐11
West Eugene Wetla
ands Fen
nder’s blue bu
utterfly B‐1
12
on
Appendixx C ‐ Recreatio
Appe
endixC‐Recre
eationManagem
ment
This appendix provvides supplem
mental material for the reccreational secction of the West Eugene Wetlands RMP. Plannin
ngFrame
eworksfo
orSpecialRecreatio
onManag
gementAreas
This section presen
nts managem
ment guideline
es for special recreation management areas in BLM‐‐
admin
nistered landss within the West Eugene Wetlands.
Fern Ridge Path Prrimary Markeet Strategy: Destination Niche: Opp
portunities fo
or hard‐surfacce, non‐motoorized trail reccreation.
Management Objective
es: Provide pe
edestrian andd non‐motorizzed vehicle reecreation opp
portunities.
Ta
argeted Outccomes Activities: biking, walkin
ng, jogging, wildlife viewinng, touring, an
nd commutin
ng
Experience
es: Physical acctivity (bikingg, walking, joggging) in an area with view
ws of wildlife; tour
routing; co
ommuting.
Benefits: Green travel, physical exerrtion, appreci ation of natu
ural surroundiings, exercisee.
C‐1
West Eugene Wetla
ands Prescribed Setting Ch
haracter Physsical: Urban interface ‐ adjjacent to Amaazon Canal poortions, traveerses major and minor roads with
hin Eugene. Sociial: High levels of use, com
mmuters and casual recreattionists; no possibility for solitude. Trafffic noisse prevalent. Adm
ministrative: Regulations posted. Activity Planning Fram
mework Man
nagement: Co
ontinue to pro
ovide hard‐su
urface, non‐m
motorized riding opportuniities; use
information and interpretatio
on to provide for visitor saffety.
Marrketing: Workk with partnerrs to promote
e the trail.
Mon
nitoring: Mon
nitor for visito
or compliance
e and satisfacction.
Adm
ministrative: Provide visitor services and
d law enforceement presen
nce. Maintain OHV closuree on
trail.
Stewart Po
ond Primary Market Strattegy: Destination Nich
he: Disc golf, wildlife viewing, hiking. Man
nagement Ob
bjectives: Increase levels an
nd types of reecreation usees that contrib
bute to meeting recrreational dem
mand and quality visitor experiences. Targeted
d Outcomes Activities: disc go
olf, group eve
ents, hiking, co
ompetitive spport activitiess.
Expe
eriences: Phyysical activity (disc golf, hikking) in an areea with viewss of wildlife.
Benefits: Exercise
e, physical exxertion, appre
eciation of na tural surroun
ndings.
Prescribed Setting Ch
haracter Physsical: Urban interface – surrounded by industrial, re sidential, and
d commerciall buildings; wetland and ash woodland. Sociial: High levels of use, com
mmuters and casual recreattionists; no possibility for solitude. Trafffic noisse prevalent. C‐2
2
Appendixx C ‐ Recreatio
on
Administraative: Urban interface – De
evelop interppretive inform
mation of the local environment to incorporatte into the dissc golf course
e; provide visiitor services and law enforrcement pressence. Activity Planning Frameworrk Management: Increase recreational opportunitiees through deevelopment of a disc golf course;
continue to provide maanagement off trail networ k.
Marketingg: Work with partners to de
evelop and p romote the disc golf coursse and maintaain
recreational infrastructure.
Monitoringg: Monitor fo
or visitor compliance and s atisfaction.
Administraative: Provide
e visitor servicces and law e nforcement presence.
C‐3
West Eugene Wetla
ands urtle wesstern pond tu
C‐4
4
A ppendix D ‐ Best Manageement Practices
e
Appe
endixD‐BestManage
ement
Practtices
A Best Management Practice (B
BMP) is a pracctice, or combbination of prractices that have been deetermined to be the most effe
ective and practicable in preventing or reducing thee amount of pollution geneerated by diffusse sources to a level compaatible with water quality g oals (40 CFR 130.2 [m]). BMPs are a tyype of water est managem
ment practicess (i.e., method
ds and measu
ures) that polluttion control. This section defines the be
were developed fo
or the lands within the planning area too comply with
h the requirem
ments of the Clean Water Act. Those BMPs that are
e necessary fo
or typical situuations have been included. When applied, BMPs dards. are exxpected to prrevent water quality degraadation and too meet waterr quality stand
Best management practices are
e required by the amendedd federal Cleaan Water Act to reduce no
onpoint source pollution to
o the maximu
um extent praacticable. Nonnpoint sourcee pollution is detected in a conce
entrated wate
er source such
h as a stream
m, or lake thatt come from a wide range of land manaagement activitties. The BMP
Ps are conside
ered the prim
mary controls for achievingg Oregon’s waater quality sttandards. Orego
on’s narrative
e criteria, which include nu
umeric standaards, are desiigned to protect designateed beneficial dent fish and aquatic life, domestic wateer supplies, and water‐con
ntact recreatiion). The uses (such as resid
BMPss are methodss, measures, or practices selected on thhe basis of sitte‐specific con
nditions to en
nsure that waterr quality will be maintained at its highest practicablee level. The BMPs include, but are not limited to, avoidance, structural and nonsttructural treaatments, operrations, and maintenance procedures. Although normally preventative, BMPs caan be applied before, durinng, and after pollution‐pro
oducing activities to uction of pollu
utants into reeceiving waters (40 CFR 13
30.2, EPA Watter Quality reducce or eliminatte the introdu
Stand
dards Regulation). D‐1
West Eugene Wetla
ands Some BMPs that relate to
o instream acctivities may coincidently b e similar to applicable praactices speciffied in U.S. Armyy Corps of Enggineers, Depaartment of Staate Lands, an d Oregon Department of Fish and Wild
dlife mental Qualityy water qualitty permits an
nd 401 joint removaal/fill permitss, Department of Environm
certifications, or project design criteria contained in biological a ssessments. The BMPs in the followingg ot specific pe
ermit requirem
ments, but rather demonsstrate the pro
ocess by which nonpoint so
ource tables are no
om instream activities wou
uld be controlled. pollution fro
Selection of BMPs is mad
de by resource
e specialists during projecct‐level analysses. It is not in
ntended that all of the BMPs lissted would be
e selected forr any specific managementt action. Each
h activity is un
niquely based
d on site‐specific conditions, and the selecttion of an individual BMP o r a combinaation of BMPss and measurees would becom
me the BMP design. The BMPs would be applied in a mann
ner that would be consisteent with all RM
MP objectives. The overalll goal would not be to adhere strictly to a paarticular set of BMPs, but t o meet wateer quality objectives when
n implementin
ng manageme
ent actions. Describing non‐point pollu tion causal mechanisms would allow specialists to
o exercise disscretion as to what would work best in a particular situation. Alth
hough this appendix do
oes not provid
de an exhausttive list of BM
MPs, the inclu ded BMPs are believed to
o cover most ning area. Add
ditional nonpooint source control measu
ures may be project activvity situationss in the plann
identified du
uring the inte
erdisciplinary process when evaluating s ite‐specific management actions and ed during plan
nned actions. implemente
Where found to be ineffe
ective, BMPs may require modification to meet wateer quality objjectives. Specialists may consider baseline enviironmental co
onditions, typpe of activity, proximity to
o water, disturbance level, direct, indirect, and
d cumulative effects and ti ming. They may also evalu
uate new technology and relevant implementattion or effectiiveness monittoring data, published studies or otherr sources of in
nformation, in
n refining exissting BMPs or recommendding new BMPs. This proceess involves continued le
earning and applying moniitoring feedbaack. Review and update of thiis appendix, including BMP
P corrections or additions that are derivatives of exiisting BMPs, would be completted through plan maintenaance. In addition to the BMPs listed below, the standard operating prrocedures for herbicide ap
pplication relaated to Water Re
esources would constitute additional BM
MPs to meet w ater qualityy objectives fo
or the alternaatives bicide use (Appendix E). that would propose herb
Ha
abitatResstoration




D‐2
2
Reconto
our ditches to
o reroute wate
er for retention on site. Plant naative vegetatio
on to stabilize
e head cutting and piping at actively erroding sites. Encouraage streams to
o reconnect with floodplain when posssible using cheeck‐dams. Do not allow grazing animals with
hin 50 feet of any stream o r river chann
nel. A ppendix D ‐ Best Manageement Practices
e




Design soil‐disturbing resto
oration techniiques (where disruption off nitrogen rem
moval, sediment sttabilization, and phosphorrus retention might occur) to protect fu
unctionality of wetland and
d riparian sites. ed staging areeas, drainages, ditches, and stream edgges as Place protectivve barriers around specifie
needed to min
nimize sedime
entation. Rem
move protectiive barriers affter project completion. Construct sediment traps/retention pon
nds, as neededd, during projject implemeentation to inttercept ru
unoff from dissturbed areass. Locate sediiment traps/rretention pon
nds away from
m natural streeam hannels. The sediment traps/retention ponds shouldd be adequatte in size and number to provide for ch
sttorm events and predicted
d sediment acccumulation.
Use certified weed‐free nattive straw mu
ulch or geo‐teextiles to miniimize erosion
n from bare so
oils ad
djacent to strreams, ditche
es or drainage
e ways and prrevent the inttroduction of undesirable weeds. SpillPrrevention
nandAba
atement
 In
nspect and cle
ean heavy equipment as necessary prioor to moving on to the pro
oject site, in order to re
emove oil and
d grease, noxious/invasive
e weeds, and excessive soil.  In
nspect hydrau
ulic fluid and fuel lines on heavy‐mechaanized equipm
ment for prop
per working condition.  Where possible, maintain and refuel equ
uipment a mi nimum of 1000 feet away from streamss and other waterbodies.  All mixing of herbicides will occur at leasst 100 feet froom surface waters or well heads.  All hoses used to add dilutio
on water to spray containeers will be eq
quipped with a device to prevent back‐siphoningg.  Applicators will mix only those quantitie
es of herbicidees that can bee reasonably used in a dayy.  Eq
quipment use
ed for transpo
ortation, storrage, or appliccation of chemicals shall be maintained
d in a leak‐
proof condition.  In
n the event off a spill or rele
ease, all reaso
onable and saafe actions to
o contain the material will be taken. Sp
pecific actions are depend
dent on the naature of the m aterial spilleed.  Use spill contaainment boom
ms or as requiired by Deparrtment of Envvironmental Quality. Havee access to her absorbent containmen
nt materials.
booms and oth
 Im
mmediately re
emove waste
e or spilled haazardous mateerials (includiing but not lim
mited to herb
bicides, diesel, oil, hydraulic fluid) and contaminated soils neaar any stream
m or other waaterbody, and
d dispose of it//them in acco
ordance with the applicable regulatoryy standard. No
otify Oregon Emergency Response e material rep
portable quanntity, and anyy spill not totaally cleaned up after 24 Syystem of any spill over the
hours. ent containingg reportable quantities of toxic fluids o
outside of ripaarian areas.  Sttore equipme
 If more than 42 gallons of fuel or combin
ned quantity of petroleum
m product and
d chemical substances, as project materials, would be
e transported to a project site, the follo
owing precauttions will be im
mplemented. 1. Plan a saafe route and
d material transfer sites soo that all spilleed material will be contain
ned easily at that design
nated location. D‐3
West Eugene Wetla
ands 2. Plan an active dispatch systtem that can relay the infoormation to appropriate reesources. nsure a spill containment kit that can adsorb and coontain 55 gallo
ons of petroleeum product and 3. En
mical substan
nces is readilyy available. chem
4. Provide for immediate notiffication to No
otify Oregon E mergency R
Response Systtem in the eveent of a sp
pill. Have a rad
dio‐equipped vehicle lead the chemicall or fuel truckk to the project site. 5. Assemble a spill notification
n list that inclludes the disttrict hazardou
us materials coordinator, Dep
partment of Environmental Quality, and
d spill clean‐up contractorss. 6. Construct a do
ownstream water user con
ntact list with addresses an
nd phone num
mbers. ng within Sou
urce Water waatersheds, prre‐estimate water flow traavel times through 7. When operatin
the watershed to
o predict dow
wnstream arrivval times. 8. Be prepared to
o sample water and carry sample contaainers. 9. Be prepared to
o assist Orego
on Department of Fish andd Wildlife in assessing wild
dlife impacts of any material spillled. evention, Control, and Countermeasure
e Plan: All opeerators shall develop a mo
odified Spill  Spill Pre
Prevention, Control, and Counterm
measure Plan
n prior to initiiating projectt work if theree is a potentiaal risk of chem
mical or petroleum spills ne
ear water bod
dies. The Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeassure Plan will include the appropriate containers to be used and design of thee material traansfer locations. No interrim fuel depot or storage location other than a man ned transporrt vehicle.  Spill Con
ntainment Kitt: All operatorrs shall have a Spill Contai nment Kit as described in the Spill Prevention, Control, and Counterm
measure Plan
n on‐site durinng any operation with pottential for run
n‐off odies. The Spill Containmen
nt Kit will be a ppropriate iin size and typ
pe for the oil or to adjaccent water bo
hazardo
ous material carried by the
e operator.  Operato
ors shall be re
esponsible forr the clean‐up
p, removal, annd proper dissposal of conttaminated materials from the site.
D‐4
4
Apppendix E ‐ SO
OPs for Herbicide Applicatio
on
Appe
endixE‐StandardOpe
erating
g
Proce
eduresforHerrbicideApplica
ation
The fo
ollowing standard operatin
ng procedure
es have been identified to reduce adverrse effects to enviro
onmental and
d human reso
ources from vegetation treeatment activvities based on guidance in
n BLM manu
uals and handbooks, regulaations, and sttandard BLM and industry practices. Th
he list is not all mpassing, butt is designed to give an ove
erview of praactices that would be conssidered when designing encom
and im
mplementing a specific veggetation treatment projecct in the plann
ning area. Thee following sttandard operaating procedu
ures have bee
en adopted in part from th e BLM Vegetation Treatm
ments Using Herbicides on mental Impact Statement (B
BLM 2010). Minor edits haave been mad
de to some BLM Lands in Oreggon Environm
standard operatingg procedures for applicability to this RM
MP and to claarify intent. Additional stan
ndard ures have bee
en added relevvant to the sppecific resourrces present in the plannin
ng area. operaating procedu
Effectts described in the EIS are predicated on the assumpption that thee standard op
perating proceedures would
d be applied, or a site‐speccific determin
nation would be made that the applicattion of a speccific necessary to a chieve their intended purrpose or prottection. standard operatingg procedure would be unn
Like the BMPs in Appendix D, it is not intend
ded that all off the procedu
ures listed wo
ould be selected for any speciffic manageme
ent action. Th
he overall goaal would not b e to adhere strictly to a particular set of proce
edures, but to
o reduce adve
erse effects to
o environmenntal and humaan resources when applyin
ng ndix does not provide an e xhaustive listt of procedurres, the includ
ded herbiccides. Although this appen
proce
edures are believed to cove
er most herbicide applicattion situations in the plann
ning area. Additional edures may be
e identified during the inte
erdisciplinaryy process wheen evaluating site‐specific proce
management actio
ons and imple
emented during planned a ctions. Wherre found to bee ineffective, procedures may require modiffication to red
duce adverse effects to ennvironmental and human resources when applying e environmenntal condition
ns, type of application, pro
oximity to herbiccides. Speciallists may conssider baseline
E‐1
West Eugene Wetla
ands water, proxiimity to sensitive resource
es, disturbancce level, direcct, indirect, an
nd cumulativee effects and timing. Theyy may also evaluate new te
echnology and relevant im
mplementatio
on or effectiveeness monitoring hed studies or other sourcces of informaation, in refinning existing procedures orr recommend
ding data, publish
new procedures. Review and update of this append
dix, includingg procedure ccorrections orr additions that are derivativves of existingg procedures,, would be co
ompleted throough plan maaintenance. Guidance Do
ocuments BLM Handbo
ook H‐9011‐1
1 (Chemical Pest Control); and manualss 1112 (Safetyy), 9011 (Chem
mical Pest Control), and 9015 (Integgrated Weed Managementt). General  Prep
pare an operaational and sp
pill contingency plan in advvance of treaatment.
 Sele
ect the herbicide that is leaast damaging to the enviroonment whilee providing th
he desired ressults.
 Sele
ect herbicide products care
efully to minimize additionnal impacts frrom degradattes, adjuvantss,
othe
er ingredientss, and tank mixtures.  App
ply the least amount of herrbicide neede
ed to achieve the desired result.  Follo
ow herbicide product labe
el for use and storage.  Review, understaand, and confform to the “Environment al Hazards” section on thee herbicide duct label. Th
his section waarns of known
n herbicide rissks to the envvironment an
nd provides prod
pracctical ways to
o avoid harm to organisms or to the envvironment.
 Minimize the size
e of applicatio
on area, when feasible.
 Com
mply with herbicide‐free bu
uffer zones to
o ensure thatt drift will nott affect crops or nearby
resid
dents/ landow
wners.  Adhere to entry restrictions id
dentified on the herbicide product labeel for public and worker acccess.  Postt treated areaas and specifyy reentry or rest times.  Notify the public and adjacentt landownerss prior to treaatment, if app
propriate.  Keep records of each application, includingg the active inngredient, forrmulation, ap
pplication ratee, date
e, time, and lo
ocation.  Avoid accidental direct spray and spill cond
ditions to minnimize risks to
o resources.  Conduct pre‐treaatment surveyys for sensitivve habitat andd Special Stattus species w
within or adjaccent to proposed treaatment areas.  Consider site chaaracteristics, environmentaal conditions,, and applicattion equipmeent in order to
o e to non‐targget vegetation
n. minimize damage
 Refe
er to the herb
bicide product label when planning reveegetation to ensure that subsequent vege
etation would
d not be injurred following application o f the herbicid
de.  Cleaan off‐highwaay vehicles to remove plant material, sooil, mud and excess oil prio
or to enteringg BLM ds. land
ble oil based surfactants.  Use only vegetab
E‐2 Apppendix E ‐ SO
OPs for Herbicide Applicatio
on
Workker Protection
n Measures  Keep a cop
py of Material Safety Data Sheets at woork sites. Matterial Safety Data Sheets are available for review at http://ww
ww.cdms.net//. ed applicatorrs or State‐liceensed “traineees” apply heerbicides, or have BLM  Have licensed or certifie
employeess apply herbiccides under the direct sup ervision of a BLM‐certified
d applicator.
 Have all BLLM employee
es applying he
erbicides weaar appropriatee protective clothing. At a minimum, use the typ
pe and amount of protectiive clothing liisted on the herbicide labeel. pplications, prroviding a  Develop a Job Hazard Analysis for BLLM employeees involved in herbicide ap
detailed de
escription of the jobs and associated rissks involved with herbicid
de use and application. Identify requirements for personal safety equipm
ment, trainingg, and certificaation to perfo
orm specific tasks. e by BLM empployees in compliance with all aspects of EPA’s  Conduct herbicide applications done
Worker Protection Stan
ndard under the Federal Innsecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, uring applicatiions, restricteed entry interrvals, personaal protective equipment, including protection du
notification of workers,, decontamination suppliees, emergencyy assistance, herbicide safety training and safetyy posters, and
d access to lab
beling and sit e‐specific info
ormation. uality Air Qu
See Manual 7000 (Soil, Water, and Air Manaagement).  Consider the effects of wind, humidity, temperatture inversion
ns, and heavyy rainfall on heerbicide effectivene
ess and risks. bicides in favo
orable weather conditionss to minimize drift. For exaample, treat when winds  Apply herb
are between 2 and 10 miles per hou
ur. Do not appply herbicidess if rainfall is imminent, or if snow or he ground. ice is on th
 Use drift re
eduction agents, as appropriate, to redduce the drift hazard.  Select prop
per applicatio
on equipmentt (e.g., spray equipment th
hat produces 200‐ to 800‐micron diameter droplets [spraay droplets off 100 micronss and less aree most prone to drift]).  Select prop
per applicatio
on methods (e.g., set maxiimum spray heights, use appropriate buffer distances between spraay sites and non‐target ressources). Soil See Manual 7000 (Soil, Water, and Air Manaagement).  Minimize treatments in
n areas where
e herbicide ruunoff is likely, such as steep slopes wheen heavy rainfall is expected. Water Resources See Manual 7000 (Soil, Water, and Air Manaagement).  Conduct mixing and loaading operatio
ons in an areaa where an acccidental spill would not contaminate an aquaticc body. E‐3
West Eugene Wetla
ands  Do not rinse spraay tanks in or near water bodies.  Use appropriate herbicide‐fre
ee buffer zone
es for herbiciddes not labeleed for aquatic use based on risk assessment guidance, with minimum widths from w ater of 25 feeet for vehiclee (boom or broaadcast type sprayers), and 10 feet for hand spray appplications. Fish and Oth
her Aquatic Organisms See manualss 6500 (Wildlife and Fisherries Managem
ment) and 67880 (Habitat Management Plans). 

Use appropriate buffer zones based on lab
bel and risk asssessment guidance. Minimize treatments near fish
h‐bearing watter bodies duuring periods when fish aree in life stages mosst sensitive to
o the herbicide(s) used, and use spot ra ther than bro
oadcast treatments.  Use appropriate application equipment/method near w ater bodies if the potential for off‐sitee drift exists.  Estaablish appropriate herbicid
de‐specific bu
uffer zones fo r water bodiees, habitats, or fish or otheer aquatic species of interest, an
nd recommen
ndations in inddividual ecolo
ogical risk asssessment. ures  To protect Speciaal Status fish and other aquatic organis ms, implemeent all conservvation measu
for aquatic animaals presented
d in the Vegettation Treatm
ments on Bureeau of Land Management Lands in 17
7 Western States Program
mmatic Biological Assessmeent (see BLM 2010a, Appeendix 5). Wildlife See manualss 6500 (Wildlife and Fisherries Managem
ment) and 67880 (Habitat Management Plans).  Use herbicides off low toxicity to wildlife, where feasiblee.  Use spot applicattions or low‐b
boom broadcast operationns where posssible to limit the probability of conttaminating no
on‐target foo
od and water sources, espeecially non‐taarget vegetatiion over areas larger than the trreatment area. ng periods) to
o  Use timing restrictions (e.g., do not treat during critical wildlife breeeding or stagin
minimize impactss to wildlife.  To minimize riskss to terrestriaal wildlife, do not exceed t he typical application ratee for applications of glyphosate or triclopyr, where feasible.
 To protect Speciaal Status wildlife species, implement coonservation measures for terrestrial animals n Bureau of L and Management Lands in 17 Western
n pressented in the Vegetation Treatments on
Stattes Programm
matic Biologicaal Assessmen
nt (See BLM 2 010a, Appendix 5). Threatened and Endange
ered Species See manual 6840 (Special Status Species). bicide treatm
ments that are
e implemente
ed when listedd plants are growing and Fender's bluee  Herb
buttterfly are active (i.e., in the
e spring) will be done in a manner that minimizes efffects to listed
d speccies by using targeted application meth
hods (e.g., wicck application
n or spot spraay), distance bufffers and/or baaffling system
ms to minimize the risk of l isted speciess coming into contact with bicides. herb
E‐4
4
Apppendix E ‐ SO
OPs for Herbicide Applicatio
on
 Glyphosate
e (by broadcaast or spot‐sp
pray) and tricllopyr, clopyraalid, or amino
opyralid (by sp
pot‐spray or direct basaal application) could be ap
pplied any tim
me outside of patches of lissted plants ass long as application
n is within lab
bel.  Within pattches of listed
d plants, application of glyyphosate, tricllopyr, clopyraalid, or amino
opyralid would gen
nerally be don
ne in fall when
n listed plant s are dorman
nt. Occasional within‐patch
h treatments could occurr anytime, butt listed plantss would be prrotected by distance or baaffling systems.  Invasive woody speciess within Kincaid’s lupine paatches could be treated with triclopyr (spot‐spray or direct basal applicatiion) in the fall with no conntact with listed plant speccies. ns mounted on tractors orr all‐terrain  Fluazifop could be broaadcast using boom sprayerrs or handgun
vehicles, applied by wo
orkers on foott with backpa ck sprayers, or spot applieed to managee competitivve grasses. weeks after bu
urning) when target  Fluazifop could be applied in spring or fall (approoximately 3 w
wing within orr outside of p atches of listted plants. plants are actively grow
Cultural Resourcess and Paleonttological Resources 8120‐1 (Guidelines for Con
nducting Trib al Consultatio
on) and H‐ 82
270‐1 (Generaal See handbooks H‐8
edural Guidan
nce for Paleon
ntological Ressource Managgement), and
d manuals 810
00 (The Foundations for Proce
Manaaging Cultural Resources), 8120 (Tribal Consultation Under Culturral Resource Authorities), and 8270 (Paleo
ontological Re
esource Management). Se
ee also: Progr ammatic Agreement among the Bureau of Land Manaagement, the Advisory Cou
uncil on Historic Preservatiion, and the National Confference of Staate Historic ers Regardingg the Mannerr in Which BLM
M Will Meet Its Responsib
bilities Under the Preservation Office
National Historic Preservation Act. 



dures for com
mpliance with Section 106 of the Nation
nal Historic Prreservation Follow standard proced
Act as imp
plemented thrrough the Pro
ogrammatic A greement am
mong the Burreau of Land onal Conferen
nce of State Management, the Advissory Council on Historic Prreservation, and the Natio
Historic Prreservation Officers Regard
ding the Mannner in Which
h BLM Will Meeet Its Respon
nsibilities Under the National Histtoric Preservaation Act andd State protoccols or 36 Cod
de of Federal Regulations essary consulltations with State Historicc Preservation Officers and
d interested Part 800, including nece
tribes. Follow BLM
M Handbook H‐8270‐1 (Ge
eneral Proceddural Guidancce for Paleonttological Reso
ource ogical areas, or collect Management) to determine known Condition I annd Condition 2 paleontolo
informatio
on through invventory to esstablish Condiition 1 and Co
ondition 2 areeas, determin
ne resource types at rissk from the proposed treaatment, and d evelop appro
opriate measures to minim
mize or dverse impaccts. mitigate ad
Consult wiith tribes to lo
ocate any are
eas of vegetattion that are of significancce to the tribee and that might be affected by he
erbicide treattments; work with tribes to minimize im
mpacts to theese resources. Follow guidance under Human Healtth and Safetyy in BLM 20100a in areas that may be vissited by Native peo
oples after tre
eatments. E‐5
West Eugene Wetla
ands Visual Resou
urces See handbooks H‐8410‐1
1 (Visual Reso
ource Inventory) and H‐84331‐1 (Visual Resource Contrast Rating),, and 0 (Visual Reso
ource Management). manual 8400
 Minimize the use
e of broadcast foliar appliccations in sen sitive watersheds to avoid
d creating largge areaas of browned
d vegetation.
 Minimize off‐site
e drift and mo
obility of herb
bicides (e.g., d o not treat when winds exceed 10 mp
ph; minimize treatment in areas where herbiciide runoff is l ikely; establissh appropriatte buffer widtths ween treatme
ent areas and
d residences) to contain vissual changes to the intend
ded treatmen
nt betw
areaa.  Lesssen visual imp
pacts by desiggning projectss to blend in w ith topographic forms an
nd revegetating the site followingg treatment.  Whe
en restoring treated areas, design activvities to repeaat the form, liine, color, and texture of the natu
ural landscape character conditions to meet establisshed Visual Reesource Management obje
ectives. Recreation ook H‐1601‐1 (Land Use Plaanning Handb
book, Appenddix C). See Handbo
 Sche
edule treatme
ents to avoid peak recreattional use tim
mes, while takking into account the optim
mum man
nagement perriod for the taargeted speciies.  Mitiigation measu
ures that mayy apply to reccreational res ources are asssociated with
h human and
d ecollogical health
h (see mitigatiion measuress for Vegetati on, Fish and Other Aquatic Resources, dlife Resource
es, and Humaan Health and
d Safety). Wild
Social and Economic Values  Notify local emerrgency person
nnel of propo
osed treatme nts.  To the degree po
ossible within the law, hire
e local certifieed or licensed
d contractors and workers to assisst with herbiccide application projects and purchase materials and
d supplies forr herbicide es) through loocal supplierss. treaatment projeccts (including the herbicide
 Provvide public ed
ducational infformation on the need forr vegetation treatments an
nd the use of herb
bicides in an integrated ve
egetation man
nagement proogram for pro
ojects propossing local use of bicides. herb
Rights‐of‐wa
a y  Coordinate vegettation treatm
ment activitiess where joint or multiple use of a right‐of‐way existss.  Notify other public land users within or adjjacent to the right‐of‐way proposed for treatment.
 Use only herbicid
des that are approved for use in right‐oof‐way areas.
E‐6 Apppendix E ‐ SO
OPs for Herbicide Applicatio
on
Huma
an Health and
d Safety  Establish a buffer between treatmen
nt areas and h uman resideences based on guidance given in the human health risk assesssment, with a minimum b uffer of 100 feet for grou
und applicatio
ons, unless a ed. written waaiver is grante
 Provide pu
ublic notificattion in newspapers or otheer media wheere the potential exists forr public exposure.  Store herb
bicides in secu
ure, herbicide
e‐approved sttorage.  Notify locaal emergency personnel off proposed treeatments.  Contain an
nd clean up sp
pills and requ
uest help as n eeded.  Secure con
ntainers durin
ng transport.
 Dispose off unwanted herbicides pro
omptly and coorrectly.  Use the typical applicattion rate, whe
ere feasible, w hen applyin
ng triclopyr to
o reduce risk to workers and the pu
ublic. Table E‐1 describes potential ad
dverse effectss of herbicidee use and stan
ndard operating procedures that d minimize orr avoid the ad
dverse effect. This is not a complete listt of either thee potential ad
dverse would
effectts of herbicide
e use or relevvant standard
d operating prrocedures; th
his list highlights the most directly ed standard operating proccedures. Mosst of the poteential effects identified in Table 44 are not relate
reasonably foresee
eable. The ide
entified poten
ntial effects a re possible, but highly unlikely, as desccribed in Chaptter 4. The rele
evant standarrd operating procedures aact to even further reduce the likelihood of or ely avoid an effect that is already highlyy unlikely. entire
Table
e E‐1. Potentiaal effects of herbicide use and standardd operating procedures to minimize or avoid effectts. Pote
ential effect Standard Operating Procedures to m inimize or avvoid adverse effect • Comply with
w herbicide‐free buffer zzones to ensu
ure that drift w
will not affect crops or nearby residents/ landowners. • Consider the
t effects off wind, humiddity, temperature inversions, and heavyy rainfall on herbicide effectiven
ness and riskss. • Apply herrbicides in favvorable weathher conditions to minimizee drift. For example, treat when
n winds are between
b
ot apply herb
bicides if 2 an d 10 miles peer hour. Do no
Driftt of rainfall is imminent,
i
or if snow or icee is on the ground. herb
bicides duce the driftt hazard. • Use drift reduction
r
ents, as approopriate, to red
age
• Select pro
oper application equipmennt (e.g., sprayy equipment tthat producess 200‐ to 800‐micro
on diameter droplets
d
[spraay droplets off 100 micronss and less are most prone to drift]).
d
• Select pro
oper application methods (e.g., set maxximum spray heights, use appropriatte buffer distances betweeen spray sitess and non‐tarrget resources). E‐7
West Eugene Wetla
ands Potential effect Stand
dard Operating Procedure
es to minimizze or avoid ad
dverse effect • Min
nimize treatm
ments in areass where herb icide runoff iss likely, such as steep slop
pes whe
en heavy rainfall is expecte
ed. Runoff of • Do not rinse spray tanks in orr near water bbodies. herbicides to • Use
e appropriate
e herbicide‐fre
ee buffer zonnes for herbicides not labeled for aquattic water use based on riskk assessmentt guidance, w ith minimum widths from water of 25 feett for vehicle (boom or broaadcast type s prayers), and
d 10 feet for h
hand spray app
plications. • Pre
epare an operrational and spill
s contingenncy plan in ad
dvance of treaatment. • Con
nduct mixing and loading operations
o
ntal spill would in an area wheere an acciden
not contaminate
e an aquatic body.
b
• Do not rinse spray tanks in orr near water bbodies. Spill of • Use
e appropriate
e herbicide‐fre
ee buffer zonnes for herbicides not labeled for aquattic herbicides in use based on riskk assessmentt guidance, w ith minimum widths from water of 25 water d 10 feet for h
hand spray feett for vehicle (boom or broaadcast type s prayers), and
app
plications. • Store herbicidess in secure, he
erbicide‐apprroved storagee. • Seccure containers during tran
nsport. here to entry restrictions identified on the herbicidee product labeel for public • Adh
and
d worker access. • Posst treated are
eas and speciffy reentry or rrest times. • Nottify the publicc and adjacen
nt landownerss prior to treaatment, if app
propriate. • Sch
hedule treatm
ments to avoid
d peak recreaational use tim
mes, while takking into Exposure to acco
ount the optimum manage
ement periodd for the targeeted species. public • Estaablish a buffe
er between trreatment areaas and human
n residences based on dance given in
n the human health risk asssessment, w
with a minimum buffer of guid
100
0 feet for grou
und applicatio
ons, unless a w
written waiveer is granted.. • Pro
ovide public notification in newspapers or other med
dia where thee potential exissts for public exposure.
e
E‐8 Apppendix E ‐ SO
OPs for Herbicide Applicatio
on
Pote
ential effect Standard Operating Procedures to m inimize or avvoid adverse effect o entry restricctions identifiied on the heerbicide produ
uct label for p
public • Adhere to
and worke
er access. • Have licen
nsed or certified applicato rs or State‐liccensed “trainees” apply herbicidess, or have BLM
M employees apply herbiccides under th
he direct supeervision of a BLM‐ccertified applicator. • Have all BLM
B employee
es applying h erbicides wear appropriatte protective clothing. At a minim
mum, use the type and am
mount of proteective clothin
ng listed on th
he herbicide label. Expo
• Develop a Job Hazard Analysis
osure to A
BLM employees involved in
n herbicide for B
workkers applications, providing a detailed deescription of tthe jobs and associated rissks involved with
w herbicide
e use and appplication. Iden
ntify requirem
ments for personal safety equ
uipment, train
ning, and certtification to p
perform specific tasks. • Conduct herbicide
h
plications donne by BLM em
mployees in co
ompliance witth all app
aspects off EPA’s Worke
er Protection Standard und
der the Federral Insecticidee, Fungicide,, and Rodenticide Act, incl uding protecttion during applications, rrestricted entry intervals, personaal protective equipment, n
notification o
of workers, decontamination suppllies, emergenncy assistancee, herbicide safety trainingg and safety possters, and access to labelinng and site‐sp
pecific information. p
bitat and Speccial Status species • Conduct pre‐treatmen
t surveys for sensitive hab
osure to within or adjacent
a
to proposed trea tment areas. Expo
non‐‐target • Consider site
s characterristics, enviroonmental conditions, and aapplication vege
etation equipmen
nt in order to minimize dam
mage to non‐target vegetaation. • Apply the least amount of herbicidee needed to aachieve the desired result.. • Conduct pre‐treatmen
p
t surveys for sensitive hab
bitat and Speccial Status species within or adjacent
a
to proposed trea tment areas. or
Expo
osure to • Use spot applications
a
o low‐boom broadcast op
perations wheere possible tto limit terre
estrial the probability of contaaminating no n‐target food
d and water sources, especcially non‐targett vegetation over
anim
mals o areas larrger than thee treatment area. • Use timing restrictionss (e.g., do nott treat during critical wildlife breeding o
or eriods) to min
nimize impactts to wildlife.
staging pe
• Minimize treatments near
n fish‐bearring water bo
odies during p
periods when fish are in life stagges most senssitive to the hherbicide(s) ussed, and use spot rather than broadcast treatments.
Expo
• Use appro
osure to opriate appliccation equipm
ment/method
d near water b
bodies if the potential aquaatic animals for off‐site
e drift exists.
• Establish appropriate
a
h
ecific buffer zo
ones for wateer bodies, hab
bitats, or herbicide‐spe
fish or oth
her aquatic sp
pecies of interrest, and reco
ommendation
ns in individual ecological risk assessment. E‐9
West Eugene Wetla
ands Potential effect Stand
dard Operating Procedure
es to minimizze or avoid ad
dverse effect nduct pre‐treatment surve
eys for sensitiive habitat an
nd Special Staatus species • Con
hin or adjacen
nt to propose
ed treatment areas. with
• Herrbicide treatm
ments that are
e implementeed when listeed plants are growing and Fender's blue bu
utterfly are acctive (i.e., in t he spring) will be done in a manner thaat min
nimizes effects to listed spe
ecies by usingg targeted ap
pplication metthods (e.g., wickk application or spot sprayy), distance b uffers and/orr baffling systtems to nimize the riskk of listed spe
ecies coming into contact with herbicid
des. min
• Glyphosate (by broadcast or spot‐spray) a nd triclopyr, clopyralid, orr aminopyraliid (by spot‐spray orr direct basal application) could be app
plied any timee outside of patcches of listed plants as lon
ng as applicat ion is within label. Exposure to • Witthin patch of listed plants, application o f glyphosatee, triclopyr, clo
opyralid, or threatened
d or ould generallyy be done in f all when listeed plants are dormant. aminopyralid wo
endangered Occcasional within‐patch treattments could occur anytim
me, but listed plants would
d species be protected by distance or baffling system
ms. • Invaasive woody species within Kincaid’s luupine patchess could be treeated with tricllopyr (spot‐sp
pray or directt basal applicaation) in the fall with no co
ontact with ed plant speciies. liste
• Fluaazifop could be broadcast using boom s prayers or h
handguns mou
unted on tracctors or all‐terrain vehicless, applied by w orkers on fo
oot with backkpack sprayerrs, or spot applied to manage competitive graasses. • Fluaazifop could be applied in spring or fall (approximattely 3 weeks after burning)) whe
en target plan
nts are actively growing wiithin or outside of patchess of listed plan
nts. E‐10
Appenndix F – Valid Existing Righ
hts
Appe
endixF‐ValidExisting
gRights
t and
ContiinuingUses
Considering the se
egmented natture of the plaanning area, a n immense number of rigghts‐of‐way, leases, corrid
dors, and othe
er established
d legal rights have been grranted over th
he years in esstablishing an
n effective coope
erative managgement framework amongg a variety of owners. The following maap (Figure F‐1
1) and table e F‐1) displays these rightss. (Table
Table
e F‐1. Valid exxisting rights and continuin
ng uses in thee planning areea by site. Parccel Deed
D
Name Se
erial No. A cres Valid
d Existing Righ
hts *
No. siigned Eastern 1 1 6.85 City drainage ditches, public uttilities OR 48444 11/3/92 Gatewayy 2 Stewart Pond OR 48585 8//20/93 8 .848 Publiic rights on Baailey Hill Rd 3 Stewart Pond OR 48588 12/22/93 1 2.34 utilities (undeerground & overhead); City u
4 Stewart Pond OR 49375 9//9/93 6 .5 City 110‐foot slopee easement; C
City right‐
of‐waay & utilities 4 1.51 City utilities 5 Stewart Pond OR 49367 6//30/94 6 Stewart Pond OR 48446 4//1/94 1 0.18 7 Burley OR 50498 12/22/94 3 .054 8 Burley OR 52092 4//10/97 0 .57 City easement 9 Burley OR 52093 2//25/97 0 .448 C
0/15/93; Willow Creek
10
10
0 Amazzon canal chaannel easemeent OR 48463 3 .4 Confluen
nce 5//31/96 *
Parcel nu
umbers are in reference to paarcels shown in
n Figure F‐1. F‐1
West Eugene Wetla
ands Parcel Name No.* 11 Sp
peedway OR 5617
79 12 Sp
peedway OR 5402
27 Deed signed
2; 4/30/02
5/13/03
3 9/19/00
0 13 Sp
peedway OR 5433
38 1/2/02
46.12 OR 5485
54 6/26/00
0 4.69 OR 2359
98 9/21/79
9 12.36 OR 4846
62 12/19/9
94 12.27 Public accesss to Danebo Street, waterline eeasement, pip
peline easemeent Maintenancce for Amazo
on Canal, City sewer easement, City po
owerline easement, C
City bike path
h easement, C
City canal easem
ment, City utilities easemeent, private sew
werline easem
ment, EWEB undergroun
nd utilities easement, WEW
W channel enh
hancement eeasement, Lan
ne Memorial G
Gardens wateerline easemeent 14 15 16 F‐2 Willow
W
Creek Co
onfluence ed House Re
(D
Danebo) Serial No
o. Acres Valid Existing Rights 4.2 Storm drain
nage & sewerr easement 32.71 City easemeent & constru
uction permitt Conservatio
on easement,, City sewer easement aand constructtion permit, easement Public rightts on County road, City WEEW buffer 17 Baalboa OR 4844
41 5/12/94
4 69.97 18 Ro
osy OR 5442
24 4/7/99
2.7 19 Nolan OR 5338
88 9/5/97
1.03 20 Oxbow West OR 4844
43 4; 5/30/94
10/13/9
94 25.29 21 Oxbow West OR 5461
10 3/16/00
0 10.55 22 Viinci OR 4858
87 9/11/98
8 52.86 23 Oxbow West OR 4858
82 3/14/96
6 21.95 City utility eeasement, 3 ""no build" or WEW buffeer restrictionss BPA powerline easemen
nt, City powerline eeasement, Citty utility easement State of Oreegon for Amaazon Canal, Mountain SStates power easement, Ciity powerline eeasement, Co
one canal easement City easemeent, 3 reservaations for WEEW buffers and
d drainage maaintenance agreement
Mountain SState powerlin
ne easement,, public road and utility eaasements, Davidson In
ndustries railrroad spur easement, C
City powerlin
ne easement, water proteection and WEW buffer reservation
n Mountain State powerlin
ne easement
Appenndix F – Valid Existing Righ
hts
Parccel Name No.* Deed
D
siigned A cres 9//2/99 1134.3
3 8 .42 2//5/97 3 10.4 3//5/01 3//2/99 4//5/99 8//20/99 11/10/00 11/23/99 8//28/02 6 .08 9 .69 8 .77 1 9.52 6 .36 2 2.2 2 3.44 Oxbow East OR 49366 3//27/96 3 9.77 25
5 Summerr Oaks OR 48581 4//15/96 5 5.16 26
6 Spectra Physics OR 52335 9//17/97 4 6.76 27
7 Nielson OR 48589 2//10/93 5 8.83 28
8 Larson OR 50850 12/12/94 5 3.21 29
9 Turtle Sw
wale OR 49374 9//20/94 2 5.38 30
0 Turtle Sw
wale OR 48592 2//10/95 3 2.55 31
1 32
2 Turtle Sw
wale Fir Butte
e OR 52354 OR 52334 7//16/96 4//29/97 0 .325 1 8.2 33
3 Greenhill OR 48590 11/15/93 7 9.39 34
4 Oak Hill OR 52512 2//10/98; 7//17/06 9 .11 35
5 Isabelle OR 52332 4//11/97 5 .04 36
6 Oak Hill OR 51894 1//26/96 4 4.12 37
7 Hansen OR 51144 8//26/94 38
8 Hansen North an
nd South Taylor OR 54629 OR 8077P5 48
OR 51673 OR 54856 OR 54855 OR 54958 OR 55086 OR 55454 OR 57414 40C
C 41C
C 42C
C 43C
C 44C
C 45C
C 46C
C Valid
d Existing Righ
hts Mountain State powerline easeement, privaate utility easeement, EWEB
B utility easement, City eaasement for A
Amazon Chan
nnel and bike path, City utiility easement, City co
onstruction eaasement Statee of Oregon fo
or Amazon Caanal, Conee sewer easem
ment, City chaannel easement ment, Privaate well & watterline easem
WEW
W mitigation m
measures powerline eassement, Mountain States p
privaate well & watterline easem
ment d, private Publiic rights on Greenhill Road
road,, waterline & buried poweerline easements County road, A
Amazon Publiic rights for C
Wateer District chaannel easemeent City easement private EWEB powerline eeasements, p
phone & poweerline road,, waterline, p
easements BPA powerline easement, City poweerline easemeent, City utilitty easement W buffer Publiic utility easements, WEW
restrictions BPA powerline easements, EW
WEB poweerline easemeent d restrictions,, Farmers Hom
me Deed
Administration eaasement 24
4 39
9 Se
erial No. F‐3
ands West Eugene Wetla
West Eugene Wetlands
Resource Management Plan
c=J Valid Existing Rights Parcels
Figure F‐1. Paarcel identifie
ers for valid existing rights within the W est Eugene Wetlands RMP. F‐4 Appendix G – Travel Man
nagement Pla
an
Appe
endixG ‐Trave
elMana
agementtPlan
Trave
el and Transpo
ortation Management is an interdiscipl inary approach to travel and transportation esource uses and associateed access to public lands and waters, planning and manaagement thatt addresses re
includ
ding motorize
ed, non‐motorized, mechanical and anim
mal‐powered
d modes of traavel. It is a comp
prehensive approach to on‐the‐ground managementt and adminisstration of traavel networkss and portation systtems which in
nclude areas, roads, primittive roads, trails, and otheer managed routes. This transp
comp
prehensive approach is drivven by the ne
eed to providee access to, and across public lands, for a wide varietty of users (in
ncluding autho
orized, comm
mercial, recreaational, tradittional, and otther travel pu
urposes), ong‐term, susstainable, multi‐modal trannsportation system of opeen areas, road
ds, primitive while establish a lo
roadss, and trails th
hat addressess public and administrativee access need
ds to and acro
oss BLM‐manaaged lands and re
elated waterss. Trave
el Managemen
nt Plans are the primary decision docum
ments regard
ding the manaagement of public lands travell networks an
nd the BLM’s transportatio
on systems. T he decisions made in the document aree consid
dered implem
mentation levvel decisions and stem from
m those goalss, objectives and managem
ment actions hin the RMP. This Travel Management P lan documen
nts the design
nations applieed to the decided upon with
West Eugene Wetllands Travel Management Area designaated under th
he West Eugeene Wetlands RMP. ResourrceManag
gementPlanOHVAreaDesiignationss
Consistent with 43
3 CFR 8340.0‐5(a), all publiic lands are reequired to haave off‐highway vehicle (OHV) area design
nations. The OHV area dessignations are
e land use alloocations thatt must be determined in th
he RMP and classiffied as open, limited, or closed to moto
orized travel. The OHV areea designation
ns do not app
ply to non‐
on systems in the RMP motorized travel, though areas can be designated for nonn‐motorized transportatio
G‐1
West Eugene Wetla
ands process. The
e West Eugen
ne Wetlands RMP designatted the entiree planning areea as “limited
d to designateed roads”. All other portionss of the travel managemen
nt area wouldd be closed to
o motorized use. TrravelMan
nagementtRouteDe
esignation
nCriteria
a
The followin
ng route selecction criteria for travel and
d transportatiion designatio
ons have beeen used based
d on the protection of the reso
ources of the
e public lands,, the promotiion of the saffety of all the users of the nimization of conflicts amo
ong various usses of the public lands, consistent with 43 public lands, and the min
CFR 8342: ed to minimizze damage too soil, watersh
hed, vegetatio
on, air, or oth
her  Areaas and trails shall be locate
reso
ources of the public lands, and to preve
ent impairmennt of wilderness suitabilityy.  Areaas and trails shall be locate
ed to minimizze harassmennt of wildlife or significant disruption off wild
dlife habitats. Special atten
ntion will be given to proteect endangered or threateened species and their habitats.  Areaas and trails shall be locate
ed to minimizze conflicts beetween off‐ro
oad vehicle use and other osed recreatio
onal uses of the same or n eighboring public lands, and to ensure the existing or propo
com
mpatibility of such uses witth existing con
nditions in poopulated areaas, taking into
o account noise and other factorss. ed in natural areas only if t he authorizeed officer dettermines thatt off‐
 Areaas and trails shall be locate
road
d vehicle use in such locatiions will not adversely affeect their natu
ural, esthetic, scenic, or other valu
ues for which such areas arre established
d. Additionallyy, route selecttion criteria were identified for use in d esignating ro
outes in a manner consisteent blished in the West Eugene
e Wetlands R MP: with the objjectives estab
 Provvide public an
nd administraative access in
n a manner thhat attains resource objecttives and attaains the agency’s misssion. This may include the agency use o f motorized vehicles in orrder to transp
port perssonnel, supplies, and equip
pment. Existing Travvel Routes Within in the West Eugen
ne Wetlands Travel Managgement Area,, there are ap
pproximately 4.4 miles of el routes and 4.5 miles of known unofficial or user‐created travell routes (Map
p G‐1). Evaluation official trave
of these rou
utes against th
he designatio
on criteria (Table G‐1) deteermines whetther or not deesignation of these n in Table G‐1
1, and as desccribed in detaail following, use on some travel routes is appropriaate. As shown
existing travvel routes would cause advverse impactss to resourcess, wildlife, habitats, other recreational uses, and values established. G‐2
2
Appendix G – Travel Man
nagement Pla
an
Table
e G‐1. Evaluation of travel routes againsst designationn criteria. R
Restricted Damagge to Harasssment Conflict with Adveerse Affect
A
Access for Otther Soil or Other
O
to Wild
dlife & for Values RMP Resources Hab itat Recrreation Esttablished O
Objectives Stew
wart Pond parrking area M
M M M M Dane
ebo entrance
e & parking arrea M
M M M M Fern
n Ridge Path C
C C C C Balb
boa trail (Tsan
nchiifin Walk) P
P P P P Dane
ebo trails P
P P P P Stew
wart Pond trails P
P P P P P P P P Eastern Gateway trail P
Unauthorized Rou
ute: Hansen N
N N N N Unauthorized Rou
utes: Vinci N
N N N N Unauthorized Rou
utes: Speedw
way N
N N N N Unauthorized Rou
utes: North Taylor
N
N N N N Unauthorized Rou
utes: South Taylor
N
N N N N Unauthorized Rou
ute: Long Tom
m N
N N N N ed; P = pedesstrian; N = noone. * M = motorized; C = mechanize
Wha
at route desiggnation would not cause:
c
G‐3
West Eugene Wetla
ands West Eugene Wetlands
Resource Management Plan
Existing Travel Routes
- - - - Mechanized Trails
=
Pedestrian Trails
'""'" Unauthorized Routes
Figure G‐1. Existing trave
el routes within the West Eugene Wetlaands Travel Management Area. G‐4
4
Appendix G – Travel Man
nagement Pla
an
TravelRouteDe
esignation
n s
Moto
orized The designated roaads available for motorized vehicle usee are as follow
ws (Map G‐2):: 

d site off of SStewart Road,, and the parking area at the Stewart Pond
the paved entrance roaad and gravel parking lot a t the Danebo
o site off of So
outh Danebo Avenue. The le
ength of these
e motorized routes totals less than 0.1 mile and covvers a total off approximateely 0.7 acres (Table
e G‐2). Motorrized use on designated ro
outes does noot establish a threat to listeed species no
or adversely affectt listed prairie
e species becaause they are
e existing, pavved or graveleed structuress and currentlly do not de habitats needed. Howe
ever, any conttinued unauthhorized use would continu
ue to contribu
ute to provid
existin
ng management concerns. OHV use has been identiified as a threeat to the listeed species in the Recovvery Plan and as adverselyy affecting listted prairie speecies in the Conservation Plan. Designaation of orized uses th
hrough the West Eugene Wetlands RMPP and this Traavel Managem
ment Plan include the autho
development of im
mplementatio
on plans for signing, educattion, enforceement, and reehabilitation to reduce impaccts and threatts from unautthorized usess. Table
e G‐2. Designaated routes and permitted
d uses. Desiignation Ro
outes Perrmitted Uses
Stewart Pon
nd parking are
ea s treet‐legal vehiicles; bicycless; Mo
otorized Daanebo entran
nce & parkingg area ppedestrians bicycles; Mecchanized Fern Ridge Path ppedestrians Balboa trail (TTsanchiifin Walk) Dane
ebo trails Ped
destrian p edestrians Stewart Pond trails Eastern Gateway trail
total ‐
‐
Miles <0..1 Areea (acres) 0.1 <0..1 0.6 1.9
9 2.8 0.6
6 0.2
2 1.6
6 0.1
1 4.4
4 0.4 0.1 1.2 0.1 5.3 Motorized vehicle use on any other roads within the plannning area is prohibited. Motor vehicless being used by duly autho
orized emerge
ency responsse personnel, including pollice, ambulan
nce and fire su
uppression, ell as BLM or BLM‐authorizzed vehicles being used forr official dutiees, are exceptted. as we
Motorized routes are available for pedestriaan use, mechaanized use (su
uch as bicyclees), and moto
orized use by strreet legal vehicles. In addittion, city and county roadss provide acceess to the public lands in the planning nty roads do not actually cross BLM‐administered laands, but are nearby or bo
order many area. City and coun
BLM‐aadministered
d parcels in the planning arrea, includingg areas in which the property boundariees are not evident. This Trave
el Manageme
ent Plan does not limit or r estrict any usse of city or county roads.
G‐5
West Eugene Wetla
ands West Eugene Wetlands
Resource Management Plan
Travel & Transportation Routes
----- Mechanized Trails
=
Pedestrian Tra ils
I
11
est Eugene W etlands Traveel Managemeent Area.
Figure G‐2. Designated trravel routes within the We
G‐6
6
Appendix G – Travel Man
nagement Pla
an
Mech
hanized The mechanized ro
outes in the planning area are limited t o one trail, th
he Fern Ridgee Path, which is identified nal trail and commuting on Maap G‐2. The Fern Ridge Patth is a paved bicycle path t hat serves as a recreation
route for local residents. The paath was consttructed in thee late 1990s, and transectss the TMP areea primarily along the Amazon Canal. The Fe
ern Ridge Patth is limited too pedestrian and non‐mottorized vehiclle use: no motorized motorized use or equestrian use is allowed on the Fern R idge Path. Mechanized usse (i.e., non‐m
vehiclle use) is restricted to the designated ro
oads identifieed above for motorized usse and the Ferrn Ridge mental rules. T he length off the mechaniized routes to
otals Path, consistent with the 2005 final supplem
appro
oximately 1.9 miles and covers a total of approximattely 2.8 acres (Table G‐2). The trravel and tran
nsportation objective for the Fern Ridgee Path is to p
provide pedesstrian and non
n‐motorized vehiclle recreation opportunities. The Path trravels by and through critiical habitat deesignated forr Fender’s entation of th ese habitats results from both the Path
h and blue butterfly and Willamette daisy. Fragme
Amazon Canal. Con
ntinued use of the Path byy mechanizedd and pedestrrian traffic wo
ould not chan
nge the currently occurringg fragmentatiion or disrupttion to these habitats. How
wever, similar to motorizeed travel d this Travel M anagement Plan providee additional en
nforcement routes, the West Eugene Wetlands RMP and
opporrtunities and rehabilitation
n tools to red
duce impacts and threats from unautho
orized uses. Pedesstrian Route
es designated
d for pedestriaan use are ide
entified on M ap G‐2 and in
nclude the exxisting Tsanch
hiifin Walk at Ballboa and existting trails at Danebo, Stew
wart Pond, an d Eastern Gateway. Thesee trails are lim
mited to pedesstrian use onlly. No motorized or mechaanical use is a llowed on these trails. No
o equestrian use is nd covers a allowed on these trails. The length of these pedestrian rooutes totals approximatelyy 2.9 miles an
total of approximaately 1.8 acress (Table G‐2). The trravel and tran
nsportation objective for these trails is to provide acccess to publiic lands in thee planning area and provide pedestrian reccreation oppo
ortunities. Peedestrian use would contin
nue to cause disruption dividuals and habitats nearr the trail. However, the W est Eugene Wetlands RM
MP and this Travel to ind
Manaagement Plan provide addiitional enforccement opporrtunities and rehabilitation tools to red
duce impaccts and threatts from unautthorized usess. Signage andd educationall opportunitiees would also
o reduce ended damagge to resource
es through in
ncreasing awaareness. uninte
Transsportation Lin
near Featuress Transportation line
ear features not part of the travel netw
work or transp
portation systtem are considered transp
portation line
ear disturbancces. In the West Eugene W etlands Travvel Management Area, theese features consisst of unautho
orized routes or routes no longer needeed. bilitation of unauthorized trails in the planning area would includ
de the followiing measuress: Rehab


Removal of debris and trash;
Stabilizatio
on or decomp
paction of disturbed soil ass needed;
G‐7
West Eugene Wetla
ands 


Use of certified weed‐free nattive straw mu
ulch or geo‐teextiles to minimize erosion
n and preventt the oduction of undesirable weeds as need
ded; intro
Seed
ding or plantiing with nativve plant mate
erial; and Fenccing the area or providing other physical barriers as needed and likely to be effective to avvoid futu
ure unauthorized trails. TrravelMan
nagementtPlanMod
dification
nsandMa
aintenancce
Travel and Transportation Manageme
ent is a dynam
mic process. A s such, it is critical that Trravel and ment continue
e after an inittial Travel Maanagement Plan is completted and are Transportation Managem
continually updated as Trravel and Transportation Managementt related decissions are mad
de. Updates to the Travel Maanagement Plan are indep
pendent, but c ould also bee interrelated to updates of the RMP. Minorr modification
ns of the road
d and trail nettwork during RMP implem
mentation are allowed as RMP uld maintenance. Consistentt with 43 CFR 1610.5‐4, minor modificattions of the rroad and trail network wou
constitute minor changess in data. Such RMP mainttenance is lim
mited to furtheer refining orr documentingg a previously approved deciision incorporated in the plan. RMP maaintenance sh
hall not resultt in expansion
n in the scope off resource use
es or restrictions, or changge the terms, conditions, and decisionss of the appro
oved plan. Mainte
enance is not considered a RMP amend
dment and shhall not requirre the preparration of an ntal assessment or environ
nmental impact statement . In this conteext, minor mo
odifications would environmen
be realignments of less th
han one‐quarrter mile of a road or trail. Such minor modificationss would not include the construction of a new road
d or trail, unrrelated to onee of the roadss designated for motorized
d vehicle use or designated
d trails. G‐8
8
Indeex
Index
x
adaptive managementt ....................................................................................................................... 16, B‐2, B‐3, B‐4
air qualityy .................................................................................................................................10,
27, 29, 47, B‐6, E‐3
mary...............
.........................................................................................................................B‐2
annual program summ
best manaagement pracctices............
...............................................................................35,
44, 46, B‐5, D‐1, D‐2, E‐1
w’s lomatium .......................................................................................................................... 7, 9, 19, 28, 29
Bradshaw
............................................................................................................................................. D‐1
clean watter act...........
8, 9, 10, 13, 15
5, 19, 31, 34, 46, B‐4, G‐7
critical habitat ...........................................................................................7,
esources .................................................................................................................. 18, 36, 46, B‐7, B‐8, E‐5
cultural re
disc golf .................................................................................................................................................13,
38, C‐2, C‐3
8, 19, 46, 48
endangered species acct ........................................................................................................... 7, 8, 10, 18
Fender’s blue butterflyy ............................................................... 4, 7, 8, 9, 10,, 11, 14, 16, 19, 32, B‐7, E‐‐4, E‐10, G‐7
golden paaintbrush......
.......................................................................................................................... 8, 9, 19, 28, 29
Kincaid’s lupine ............................................................................................. 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 19, 28, 29, 32, E‐5, E‐10
Index‐1
West Eugene Wetla
ands land tenure zone
e .......................................................................................................................................................43
...................................................................... 2, 12, 13,, 15, 22, 24, 26, 27, 44, A‐1
1, G‐1
land use allocatiion................
min
nerals ......................................................................................................................
...12,
7, B‐9 24, 25, 27, 42, 45, 47
onitoring........
...................... 16, 17, 22, 45, A‐2, A‐3, B‐1, B‐2, B‐3, B ‐4, B‐5, B‐6,
B‐7, B‐8, B‐9
9, C‐2, C‐3, D‐2
2, E‐2 mo
Nattural Mainten
nance Area ........................................................................................
..... 10, 12, 14
4, 15, 24, B‐5,, B‐10 O&
&C Act ......................................................................................................................
................................................48
off‐‐highway vehicle ...................................................................................................
..................11
2, G‐1 1, 48, C‐2, E‐2
Praairie Restoratiion Area ............................................................................................
........... 12, 13
3, 15, 24, B‐5,, B‐10 righ
hts‐of‐way ..............................................................................................................
. 4, 12, 24, 43
3, A‐3, B‐9, E‐6, F‐1 Speecial Recreation Managem
ment Area ................................................................. 11
, 13, 16, 37, 38, 40, 49, B‐8
8, C‐1 speecial status sp
pecies ................................................................................................
..... 7, 25, 49, E‐2, E‐4, E‐9,, E‐10 streeaked horned
d lark .................................................................................................
.....................................9,
19, 32 Tayylor’s checkerrspot butterfly...................
................................................................
.................................8,
9, 11, 19 0, 11, 14, 15, 24, 25, 36, 37
trad
ditional use plants/resourcces ......................................................10
7, 46, 49, B‐5,, B‐10
50, A‐1, G‐1, G‐2, G‐4, G‐5, G‐6, G‐7
ment ................................................................................5,
7, G‐8
travvel managem
valiid existing rigghts...............
.....................................................................................
.............. 4, 24, 43, A‐3, F‐1, F‐4
visu
ual resources .........................................................................................................
................................ 14, B‐8
8, E‐6
1, D‐2
watter quality ..............................................................................................................
...................... 7, 35, 46, D‐1
9, G‐7
Willlamette daisyy ........................................................................................................
............ 7, 9, 10, 19, 28, 29
Index‐2 Willamette daisy
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management- Oregon & Washington
Eugene District
3106 Pierce Parkway, STE E
Springfield, OR 97477
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGEAND FEES PAID Bureau of Land Management Permit No. G-76 r­
N
Ol ~
+
ijj
uJ
<{
.....
~
ii
Q
co
...J
::2: